Unemployed earning more than working households

Not just those who are elderly, I can assure you (and we do not receive such additionals).

WM

You (and others) fail to grasp the point of the present situation. CC (and others) have described it quite clearly.

The jobs do not exist.

Even where they do, employer's expectations have become unreasonably high and/or wages unreasonably low, in real terms.

You expect people to kill themselves, to satiate the obscene greed of bankers etc etc etc, with no complaint or issue. Sorry to say, the boat already set sail when Thatcher pulled up the anchor.

If what you suggest, was done, we would have food riots, martial law and all that follows.

All predicted, by some of us, many years ago.

WM

I understand it and live it.

It is the Man's way of keeping the angry, dispossessed and disfranchised sweet, as cheaply as is possible.

Too cheaply and the consequences are obvious (and that is where we nearly are, in the UK).

WM

No, the minimum wage is too low.

WM

When quotas are down, arrest on suss... keeerrrccchingggg.

WM

Your post isn't indenting...

It is the Man's way of keeping the angry, dispossessed and disfranchised sweet, as cheaply as is possible.

Too cheaply and the consequences are obvious (and that is where we nearly are, in the UK).

WTF are you on about? The point was about incentives, and my proposed solution (preferably no means testing, or if not lower benefit withdrawal rates) would make it more "expensive". Although everyone would benefit instead of just a few.

Indent where?

My comment is quite clear. OTOH, I have little idea of what your financial jiggery-pokery is supposed to achieve. You may clarify, if you wish, it is not my area of expertise.

WM

You (and others) fail to grasp the point of the present situation. CC (and others) have described it quite clearly.

The jobs do not exist.

Even where they do, employer's expectations have become unreasonably high and/or wages unreasonably low, in real terms.

You expect people to kill themselves, to satiate the obscene greed of bankers etc etc etc, with no complaint or issue. Sorry to say, the boat already set sail when Thatcher pulled up the anchor.

If what you suggest, was done, we would have food riots, martial law and all that follows.

All predicted, by some of us, many years ago.

WTF are you on? Can you really not understand English? You really seem to be stupid enough to think I'm one of the "cut all benefits" crowd. My issue with the benefits system is the lack of incentives it creates, and my preferred solution is, as I've written many times in this thread, to reduce benefit withdrawal rates, ideally to zero through a "citizen's wage" type scheme.

Now explain how that will lead to "food riots" etc. Come on...

Indent where?

My comment is quite clear. OTOH, I have little idea of what your financial jiggery-pokery is supposed to achieve. You may clarify, if you wish, it is not my area of expertise.

Here's a clue. If you say to someone: "here's 20,000 benefits for sitting on your arse all day, but if you get a job paying 20,000 or less we'll take what you earn off your benefits", that presents a lack of incentive.

If you say "here's 20,000 benefits, if you get a job you can still keep all/most of your benefits, although we'll tax you on your earnings at about 45%" that presents a much stronger incentive to get off their arse and get a job.

It also shifts the incentives away from the second earner in a household to get a job (caused by independant taxation) and towards households with nobody in work, so even where "jobs don't exist (except for Poles)" a fairer spread of the existing jobs across households occurs.

No need to be rude - ever.

No Andy ... I am not stupid and I do not believe that of you ... I respond to you so that other readers will read my comments, too - I can see your distinctions, although they are sometimes a little lost.

Yes, I understand your second point. I recall in the 80s, when I was signing on and working on-and-off, I declared what I had earned on those days and it was removed from my benefit.

Nowadays, however, that is all too liberal, towards the claimant and not easily policed. It is cheaper, easier and more prudent, overall, to have the systems we now have.

Incentives are irrelevant in a system that has few, real jobs. The issues are PR, control and policing for JSA benefits (different issues for 'IB' etc).

It is also the fact, that, benefits are much more joined up e.g. HB, so again, it would be more trouble than it is worth, for the Man man, to change it.

You are arguing from a false premise of what the Man really needs to happen, which is why you (and others) fail to grasp the point of the present situation IMHO.

WM

Why don't you start addressing the point that 'benefits culture' are a symptom not a cause.

Nice idea (within limits), but it is not what the Man needs and is far too complicated for his designs. It also presumes the existence of such jobs.

Of course, '£20000 benefits' is a mythical beast, in any case, for most of those on real benefits.

WM

What is the difference between what you suggest and WTC?

WM

It is, in fact, a necessity and certainty, in a free market economy (even a quasi version).

WM

What, you mean like writing "You expect people to kill themselves...", "If what you suggest, was done, we would have food riots..." etc.

Not sure what you're saying - do you mean easily cheated? Why not just let everyone "cheat" then, instead of just the dishonest?

What's a "real" job? Without means testing even crap jobs would be worth doing instead of bringing in foreigners.

Besides as I've just written in another post it would shift the incentive away from second earners in a household towards unemployed households. The UK has the sharpest divide in the EU between households with nobody in work and households with 2 earners. This is caused by the combination of the independant taxation and the structure of the benefits system.

If a second earner in a household gets a low paid job, they'd typically get to keep about 80-90% of their earnings. If one of an unemployed household gets a job, they'd be lucky to keep 5-10%. Who do you think will most likely take the job? No need to answer - the statistics prove it.

Last I heard HB was being replaced by LHA (local housing allowance).

WTF are you on about??

Duh - of course it's a symptom. That's been my point throughout.

But your rant which I was replying to didn't address Ret.'s point about incentives.

Yes they do

That's another matter, but in many cases this is not the fault of the 'employer'. If his customer demands a certain price then that's the price he has to work to or lose the business. We live in a global economy where some people will work for 2 buttons an hour. We can't (as an economy) go on pretending that people don't have to do minimum wage jobs and pay them from state funds to decide not to.

tim

WTF is this "Man" you keep wittering about?

See above.

Sigh... in this thread I've already itemised *exactly* how someone with an average family can get 20,000 in benefits. That's what the original article referred to.

WTC is withdrawn at 39% as income increases, when combined with tax & NI it becomes 70%, when combined with HB & CTB withdrawal becomes 95.5%.