I.d.s.

[whiskeryron]

I see the Tories hit man has been let out again
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2720940/Iain-Duncan-Smith-new-welfare-war-Plans-lower-benefit-cap-restrict-child-handouts.html
( open link & scroll down)
why have the Tories got an absolute downer on their lower classes ( the bulk of the people in the UK) ?. It is a fact that our beloved leader & his cronies are mostly from privileged backgrounds & have very little time for the working class population. I personally know quite a few people who are out of work & trying very hard to find employment, they are not all the work-shy scroungers they are constantly being pointed out to be. The truth of the matter is there are not the jobs out there this government would have us believe, so come on fair play.

[naomi24]

Jim, this has nothing to do with the minimum wage. The amount being suggested to equal to a wage of £26,000 after tax - the 'average' wage - not the minimum wage.

[Old_Geezer]

For law it is always the issue that you can go go simple to understand and implement or for fair, complex, prone to misinterpretation. Perm and one from two. But even so one should be able to set basic guidelines, such as if everyone else contributing to society can only get "rewarded" by this income, you who does not should not get more unless you can show special needs outside of your control. I don't think authorities tend to the balance right; they pass what they think solve their problems and keeps them their job, but the bigger picture becomes a mish mash of patches and fails to do the best it surely must be capable of if sorted well.

I agree the minimum wage should be higher, at the level of the agreed living wage as otherwise folk are simply being used, but I think that is mainly a different discussion. Having a starting point of benefits not exceeding what one could earn, is no bad thing.

[jim360]

It has quite a lot to do with the minimum wage, though. One way to look at CHild Benefit in particular, and Working Tax Credit, is that it's the government subsidising wages that are just too low to maintain a decent standard of living. In turn, wages that are too low pull the national average down, of course, and create resentment against those who are on benefits that look rather too high (although a lot of the higher benefits earners don't see that money in their hand anyway because it will disappear on high rents). Thus in my assessment a lot of the problems associated with the benefits system are at least somewhat because wages, and in particular the Minimum Wage, are too low. A better answer to the imbalance that exists between some benefits earners and some people in work is surely to give more money to the lower earners, rather than less to those on benefits. Surely it's better to aim for equality where everyone is as well off as each other, rather than as badly off? And in the long run, although this might be optimistic, higher wages would reduce some pressure on the Benefits system because for a start we could stop paying Working Tax Credits, etc, and perhaps further reductions in the benefits bill could even translate into lower taxes. This is a long-term plan and possibly totally unrealistic although to be fair the amount of thought that has gone into this last paragraph is exactly equal to the time it took to write it.

Everything else, though, I have thought about. It doesn't make any sense to me to answer the benefits imbalance by making more people worse off. Surely the approach should be from the other end.

[naomi24]

Yes, other things do need to be addressed, that’s not disputed, but it’s certainly a positive start to attempt to ensure that a working man earning an average wage is not worse off than someone who isn’t working.

[Old_Geezer]

One needs to beware. there are spirals to consider. Raise wages, prices go up to compensate, folk are no better off but inflation has risen and folks' savings have effectively been robbed. The trick is to fairly share society's wealth rather than trigger a vicious rather than a virtuous spiral. That's what taxes are for (among other things).

[tigerlelly]

I agree with everything Naomi has said. There is no way someone who is out of work should have a higher income than someone in work. I have a friend who works in the Benefits office and what makes her blood boil is when someone actually gets more for not working than they ever did when in employment simply because they have oodles of children. Ditto someone who gets benefits and has never worked.

[tamborine]

£26k tax free is worth £35.5k+ taxable income. Benefit system does need boundaries. WR, If jobs are unavailable to most, who is paying tax?

[Quizmonster]

Naomi, you say, "I could feed myself on that"...ie £53.00 per week. Yeah, so could I. The thing is, I used the phrase, "live on" not just "eat on".
The problem for you is that, as Murraymints - the very next person to post a response here - pointed out, there's more, much more, to be paid for than food. So, just who's the one giving a false impression?

[naomi24]

Quizmonster, you were. You're right - you did say "live on", but that wasn't the amount he had to 'live on'. That was the amount he had left after his rent and bills were paid. I've not given a false impression - I've corrected your omission.

[mikey4444]

I agree that the welfare bill needed to be looked at but I still think IDS is ghastly. And to think we nearly had him as PM at one time ! He is smarmy as well.

[Quizmonster]

Not so, Naomi, unless you contend that his bus-fares to get into town to visit the Job Centre were reimbursed. You don't GET a bill for using the bus! What if he didn't have a decent shirt to attend a job-interview? Would one be provided or paid for? Would his phone-costs for contacting potential employers be covered and, if so, how? What of paper, envelopes and stamps for job-applications? I could go on, but I'm sure you know as well as I do that none of these and much else is covered outwith the £53.00.
You're the one that did the "omitting".

[naomi24]

Quizmonster, //I could go on//

And I've no doubt you will, but you're preaching to the choir because as a matter of fact I do know what it's like to live on very little money - to choose between buying a newspaper or a stamp - not that I ever claimed benefits. I made no omissions - his bills were paid.

[Quizmonster]

For pity's sake, I'm not disputing that his bills - for things such as gas, electricity etc - were paid, but these are not the only 'bills' one faces in life, are they?
If you were the person under discussion, I imagine you would have stopped washing yourself, cleaning your hair and brushing your teeth. Why? Because soap, shampoo and toothpaste cost money. I imagine you'd hope to buy the occasional new pair of knickers and other feminine things most women consider essential. Do you have to take the receipt from Boots to the Job Centre and, if so, do they give you a refund?
Clothes and shoes need occasional repair or replacement and - unless you want to look like Bob Trewilliger in the Simpsons - I suppose you'd need to visit a hairdresser sometimes.
I mention here only 'lady' things, but what of the things I mentioned in my earlier post about paper, envelopes and stamps for job-applications plus travel to interviews?
It's as plain as a pikestaff to any rational person that the idea the £53.00 is "just for food", as you seem to imagine, is a nonsense. So, if all the things I've mentioned in this thread are NOT to be paid for from that sum, where ARE they to be paid from?

[Svejk]

'feed yourself' is a turn of phrase. You can eat for less than £20 a week. I find it hard to believe anyone would spend £53 on food in a week. Life, for a single person, on JSA isn't easy but then it shouldn't be, imo.
I know people around here who are on the second generation who have never worked and spend every day (all day) in the pub. None of them sign for JSA. You need to know your way around the sickness benefit system to get the big bucks.

[naomi24]

Quizmonster, // I'm not disputing that his bills… were paid//

Good - at least we have that bit straight. Very clearly I’m not disputing that things other than food need to be bought from the remaining funds available – see my reference to newspapers and stamps. People living on little money have to prioritise, but to suggest they have to stop washing is just silly. Spare me the added drama.

[Quizmonster]

"Let’s not give a false impression. The £53 mentioned was after rent and bills were paid. If I had to, I could feed myself on that." (Quote from you at 0853 yesterday)

YOU were the first to suggest that the £53.00 was feeding-money! You didn't even remotely suggest that there was a multitude of other things it had to cover. Now, I'm happy to see you do admit that. Thank you.

[naomi24]

Quizmonster, //Now, I'm happy….//

Golly, that’s a first! I don’t think I’ve ever met you when you’re happy – although if I’m honest, you don’t sound all that happy. Right, I alluded to living costs yesterday at 09:19 when I asked Minty //So if the average wage after tax is enough for working people to manage on but not enough for people on benefits to manage on, what would you suggest?//, and I mentioned living costs again at 18:46 yesterday. Unless you’re determined to continue to make a silly argument for the sake of it, do keep up. This discussion is going nowhere if you don't.

[TWR]

I do have a lot to say regards this Government, but this clown takes the ticket, he does not have a clue to say the least, a gifted person the way he was brought up but not a clue how life works, that includes his crownie's, if the public vote for this shower in 2015, the deserve all they get, this or any UK Gov want to get their act together and tell the so-called clowns in Brussels, we have had enough of your stupid policy's, the remainder of the EU the other members needs to do the same.

[naomi24]

TWR, I'll ask you the same question I asked Minty.

If the average wage after tax is enough for working people to manage on but not enough for people on benefits to manage on, what would you suggest?

What exactly do you want?

[Quizmonster]

What about your phrase, "If I HAD to..."? (My italics)
That surely suggests that you felt you might have had a struggle even just to feed yourself on £53.00 per week. Perhaps you don't care what words actually mean, but just use them haphazardly?
Never mind, though, we have (both) now firmly established for anyone else who may be reading this that the £53.00 has to be spent on much much more than food. It is, therefore, easy to see how the inveterate liar, IDS, couldn't face the challenge of living up to his own claim.