Unemployed earning more than working households

They *don't* all need it, but we give it to all of them anyway, and then recover the cost by taxing their income. That's easy and efficient. Much more so than applying a means testing system, which requires needy and often semi-literate people to fill in lengthy forms, kow-tow to bossy little turds in peaked caps, and lose their benefit for weeks on end if one day they happen to declare an extra fiver's income for mowing someone's lawn.

It is precisely means-tested benefits that *create* the poverty trap that you rightly criticise. If means-testing were done away with, there would not *be* any incentives for people to reject ill-paid work, because every extra hour's work they did would add to their income without reducing their benefits.

So what? Since when is the patient necessarily the best judge on his medical condition.

Or that employers are far less willing to take on disabled people. Which they are.

I can give you another couple of anecdotes. My late brother in law had a heart attack and was forced to take early retirement. He built a conservatory. Rebuilt the kitchen. Added a bathroom and shower. Dug out a drive and laid the concrete. Thing is he did all this in his own time at his own pace. If he felt any weakness or pain coming on he left the work and rested. Sometimes it would be days befor he got back to doing more of the project. Something you cannot do if you are working for someone else. Whole lot took him over two years. He died about 3 years later

I have heart disease and am very fortunate in having an understanding employer (plus I work for lower pay than anyone else would :( ). Last year I stripped our hall and stairs of wallpaper. Cleaned off all the old plaster that was breaking off and renewed it. Stabilised the decent plaster. Repapered and painted the lot. It took me over 2 months because I stopped when the exertion became too much. Started January finished middle of March. Not something I could do if I was employed to do decorate. My current job is mostly hitting a keyboard but I still get days when I find it difficult to walk far so take the day off. As I said, an understanding employer.

I knocked down a brick wall a few years ago. Took me 3 days to do a job that previously would have taken a couple of hours. I can't work on my car because I can't put pressure on wrenches. I can't do much in the way of plumbing repairs for the same reason. All stuff I used to do myself.

Just because someone is on IB does not mean they are incapable. It just means that mostly they are not capable in an economic employable sense. Which gets back to my question.

Why will the press not ask employers why they will not employ those on IB who want to work?

Ret. posted

A living allowance, yes, though It wouldn't be tax free when combined with other income (just as benefits aren't now). And the actual amount is up for debate, and could be varied with non-means-tested factors such as age, location, etc.

It's called the "citizen's wage" system. If it sounds impractical, note it is funded by taxing everyone on their total income, *including* the citizen's wage. It is perfectly feasible when you do the sums.

No real reason, except that it would require such a gigantic disruption to the existing system that no government would dare.

That is reasonable.

If my wife were not continuing to work and just drew her pension I would be better off stopping work because government pension credits are more than I earn. It would be economic madness on my part to do otherwise.

That's an unacceptable answer. *You* are stating that people should be willing to work no matter *how* low the pay or bad the conditions. That's obviously not true. Would you be willing to work for 1p a day for seventy hours a week? No. So you have no right to tell other people that they should work rather than claim dole "if there is work and it's available."

Only if the job is full time, steady and well paid. There are nowhere near enough jobs to go round.

We don't have that. The police have powers and resources the citizenry are simply not permitted to have.

Anyway I am not going to get involved inanother legthy discussion on something already discussed. Save it for another thread

Yes a simple but highly relevant point. But beyond the capability of some of the t*ts on this thread to understand.

It's the point I always ask. It takes two to make a job. If we want to get unemployed people back into work then employers must also make compromises and be compelled by law to make them if they will not do so voluntarily.

Absolutely. Means testing also results in a transfer of wealth from middle income people to higher income people, since in general benefits are flat rate and taxation is proportional to income & spending. So if you make a benefit universal it'll cost the rich much more than they gain, but gain lower-mid income people more than the extra tax they'll pay. It also removes all the bureaucracy associated with means tested.

Which is why it's particularly clueless to whinge about, say, millionaires getting child benefit.

That's right - but nowhere near that much. About 5-6k per person, perhaps varying with location and any special needs (for instance a disability which results in a higher cost of living). That's approximately what current benefits pay.

Then everyone is free to earn what they want on top of this, taxed at a flat rate which would have to be about 40-50%. Sounds high - but remember this is offset by the allowance. So a single person on 20,000 would take home about

It's simply building the current income related benefit withdrawal into taxation. It removes the disincentives with the current benefits system - someone who gets off their arse and gets a job will always be considerably better off than someone who doesn't. Sporadic employment would be well worth it so we wouldn't need to rely on foreigners.

So you really reckon that 100% JSA/IB withdrawal, and 95.5% withdrawal after that when HB/CTB/tax credits withdrawal are combined with tax & NI don't create an incentive for people not to seek work?

Get a low paid job and the government will take nearly all the money you earn off you in reduced benefits, reduced tax credits and increased tax. With a family - get a job on a average wage and you'll only be very slightly better off than on the dole? Yeah - that really creates huge incentives to seek work, doesn't it.

Er, right on, now try addressing the point about incentives. Because if you really believe that the current benefits system hasn't "created huge incentives for many people not to seek work" then you really don't understand it.

It clearly isn't yours. He was critical of the benefits system and the incentives it creates, something which most people who actually understand the benefits systems would agree with. I don't agree with some of the other stuff he's written, but he's bang on about that. Any implication about "all benefit seekers being scroungers" from that paragraph is laughable. Maybe he's written something else which implies that, but not the above.

So? He's the patient. He doesn't know anything about it.

Bearing in mind that the Grauniad, every week, has dozens and dozens of public sector vacancies advertised - why *can't* they get jobs with the State? Too idle to go out and get the necessary qualifications do you think?

Ret.

They have to have arrested/reported someone before they can prepare a file for court. Is that so hard to understand?

Ret.

So you agree with me that the present welfare system creates a disincentive to work?

Ret.

In the UK we have a thing known as the 'Minimum Wage'. If the welfare system makes it uneconomic to work for the minimum wage rather than claim benefits - then the benefits are too high. That is where the disincentive to work comes in.

Right now there aren't - but 12 months ago there were because the Poles et al would not have been flooding into the country to fill them - and employers would not have been claiming that they have to employ East Europeans because they can't get Brits to do the work.

Ret.

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

WM