Exactly! I have edited my original post, although I thought it was clear. Sorry. The NI, above higher threshold, is now 2%.
So you seem to be arguing in favour of more means-testing then, thus spending more money on administration costs, and ensuring the rich have no stake in the benefits system. Means-testing has been greatly expanded over the past 30 years actually, so are you saying it should still be expanded yet further?
In this day and age of computers will the admin costs really go up, the general consensus is there are not enough jobs to go round so if it creates jobs doesn't that help get some people of social security? The system as it stands pays out money to all and sundry, do they all deserve it ? Some have perfected the art of signing on and living of the state and doing very little else apart from drugs, boozing and whoring and producing more kids. Seems really fair that don't it? I have always worked since the day I left school and even before then part time weekends 6am till 3pm Saturday and Sunday from the age of 13 - 16 At 30 something I became seriously ill and was unable to work for 2 years I got £46 a week to live on while the spongers that had been on social since leaving school were on double or triple that. The system as it stands is shit and unfair.
The admin costs of paying a set regular sum (e.g. the old age pension) are very low - it's all done by computer, as you rightly say. But tasks like interviewing applicants about their means, checking what they say, monitoring their circumstances, increasing or reducing payment amounts, imposing sanctions, and handling their appeals are extremely labour-intensive. You seem to be saying that is OK with you. Employing an army of officials to carry out such work is a good thing because it invents extra jobs in the public service, jobs whose function is to reduce the amounts of money which would otherwise be paid out in benefits to claimants. Well, if that's your view fine - but I doubt many would agree.
So it seems the policy you want to see is increasing benefit payments to you, but reducing them to other people. You should try to get one of the political parties to adopt this in their manifesto. UKIP might be up for it, it sounds like one of theirs.
I bet that people's work history is already on a database so really do more interviews need to be carried out? Not really. No work history no benefit payment sorted.
Not just me it applies to all those that work for a living whether paye or self employed. They will all have a history. Those who are self employed but insist on dodging tax payments will also suffer tough but fair
That is outrageous. Red Ed, only just the other day, was suggesting cutting tax relief on pension contributions to the wealthy and giving it to students. Anyone would think there is an election coming up.
Well there is certainly a NI contribution record database, but the problem here is that most benefits are not linked to the claimant having any NI contribution record.... the only place it really bites is when you come to claim the state basic pension (and then if you don't have enough, there's always pension credit, housing benefit, etc.... the welfare state safety net is pretty comprehensive). Perhaps worth remembering too that many people, including claimants and mothers of younger children are credited with NI history without having to pay any money over.
Contributions requirements are not the same thing at all as means testing. The question of what contributions (or notional contributions) you are recorded as having made is entirely different from the question of whether your means are currently at a high enough level to disqualify you from benefit. Let's not confuse the two.
Not applicable to you or I Andy, but couples with 2 kids would need to be earning more than £90k per year to get a tax rebate. Everyone else beneath that is "leeching" as one forum member would describe it.
The economic system we have is really an anti-economy, to economise means to save ,not waste and squander resources, but our current system demands we keep spending and consuming, we are encouraged to take credit , money is created from the debt. The central bank prints currency for the country, but for a charge, and the more it prints the more inflation we have, people live life in debt only creating imaginary zero's on bankers computers, these imaginary zero's can even be traded to make more nothing, its hard to keep the payments up , people get paid off they may have credit they are going to have to default on, probably owe more for their home than it's real worth with that fixed, and it goes down the line you can't consume the same unless you get more credit and at the end of the day you cant buy your new bike ,demand is down some boys at ducati get laid off and the ball keeps rolling. Its like a pyramid scheme the wealth goes to the top and the arse falls out and its recession. Meanwhile distract the sheeple give them celebrities to aspire to, benefit scrounger's and other minorities to blame for the state of affairs, and throw in some terrorism to scare us into line, while behind the scenes the ones who pull the strings are ::Hilarious:destabilization of the middle east ,play war, mop up, sell arms and get that oil. And at home the governbent is taking your liberties away to protect them from us, under the guise of keeping us safe:Vomit:.
That's about the size of it Washhand. And the "solution" to the problem will be to apply more of the problem while those who have and who continue to complain loudest about the predictable mess and misery will be blamed for perpetuating the problem by being too stupid and too reactionary to understand and support the "solution".
An important distinction Paul, and right to highlight it. Cheats should be hammered - as tax cheats should be. It's often considered that full employment is when unemployment is at around 3%. In a free market economy, you don't want 0% unemployment as employees would be holding employers to ransom. We had that with unreasonable unions in the 70s. Then you consider 25% of the population will suffer mental illness at some point! and some be physically incapacitated! either from birth or through an accident, (bike or work say), therefore the logical conclusion is that there will always be a benefits system and a benefits bill. I am grateful there is. It could be me tomorrow. It could be argued that society has brought a lot of this on itself. The Establishment appears to have nurtured never mind tolerated child sex abuse, to the point that thousands of young girls are psychologically damaged for life. What chance do they have of getting their lives back together and being as fulfilled and rewarding as it otherwise might have been? Then there was decimation of manufacturing industry and whole communities left to decay. An education system that has failed far too many people, who then end up in jail or abusing substances. 75% of the prison population has either learning difficulties, substance abuse or mental health issues. That's a diagnosed figure from the prison service. 40% are care home leavers. According to the governments inspector for prisons, he concluded over 90% of women prisoners should not be in prison. If you think he is a soft lefty, he was a Colonel in the SAS and helped plan the raid on the Iranian embassy amongst other things. The true robbers are the super rich who are squeezing the rest us down and harvesting the worlds wealth for themselves. Blaming the poor is a diversionary tactic. It's divide and conquer.
