Britain's Benefits system is 'not fit for pur...

The post that was quoted here has been removed

No, no, we can't be spending money on the poor!

Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter
All right, I will get the ball rolling: How does it benefit the government to dissuade people from bettering themselves by looking for work? It seems to me that it would be far better for citizens, as well as the purse of the exchequer, if they were self-supporting and in the job market rather receiving “benefits.”

You need benefits that don't dissuade people from working. In other words, a "negative income tax":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax

Everybody pays a flat tax on income (say, 25😵, but also gets a fixed amount (say $10,000/year) from the government. So if you earn nothing, you still get $10,000. Otherwise, you net more the more you earn:

Earn $1000 and your total is $10,750 on the year
Earn $2000 and you get $11,500 on the year
Earn $10,000 and you get $17,500 on the year
Earn $25,000 and you get $28,750 on the year
Earn $40,000 and you get $40,000 on the year

Above $40,000/year, you start to pay actual tax because the $10,000 from the government isn't enough to cover your tax burden. The more you make, the closer you approach to paying exactly 25% tax.

Milton Friedman again!

Originally posted by Jee
Critics such as Ralph Nader have suggested that because of the private nature of the funding of think tanks their results are biased to a varying degree. Some argue members will be inclined to promote or publish only those results that ensure the continued flow of funds from private donors. This risk of distortion similarly threatens the reputation and integrity ...[text shortened]... sign into public debate, even though most biologists do not accept the theory as scientific.

ok, this don't look like Jee talkin here.

Originally posted by darvlay
This post is plagiarised. If you're going to copy and paste, please cite the source or else you might damage your own reputation and integrity - just like those crooked think-tanks.

Eh eh I love it when people care about my reputation and integrity!

Why dont you check on your own who fund them and what they have said about other things and who they have supported and how.

There's enough hint in my post to get you starting.

If you want information, just look for it dont wait for people to post links!

Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter
What happens when all the productive people flee to the United States, South Africa or the Caribbean? Will they raid the Royal Treasury or will Sir Elton John host a benefit to pay for the benefits?

Then Blair's clients currently living on 'benefits' will either have to work or starve.

Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter
What happens when all the productive people flee to the United States, South Africa or the Caribbean? Will they raid the Royal Treasury or will Sir Elton John host a benefit to pay for the benefits?

What happens when badgers take over the world, round all the productive people up, and shoot them?

But then, that's not going to happen either.

Originally posted by mtthw
What happens when badgers take over the world, round all the productive people up, and shoot them?

But then, that's not going to happen either.

You laugh, but it's already starting to happen in California. Businesses are relocating to less burdensome states like Nevada, Texas and Idaho.

http://www.freemarketfoundation.com/ShowArticle.asp?ArticleType=Issue&ArticleId=1696

http://www.the-signal.com/?module=displaystory&story_id=33382&format=html


Related issues:

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states/california/northern_california/15602379.htm

http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/cacounts/CC_506DRCC.pdf

Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter
All right, I will get the ball rolling: How does it benefit the government to dissuade people from bettering themselves by looking for work? It seems to me that it would be far better for citizens, as well as the purse of the exchequer, if they were self-supporting and in the job market rather receiving “benefits.”

Actually a lot of benefit is paid to those who work.

The Child tax credit, tops up low wages thus encouraging people to work rather than do nothing.

One of the biggest expenses on the state is the State Pension but living on the basic state pension is almost impossible anyway.

Govt raises a lot of money through VAT which is paid by everyone whatever their wealth, therefore a high percentage of benefit returns to the govt. Not to mention the duty of fuel, ciggies and booze.

So what the govt gives it gets back.

I would rather the govt do this than create unnesscessary (expense) posts for civil servants and think tanks to come up with better ways of doing it.

Originally posted by invigorate
Actually a lot of benefit is paid to those who work.

The Child tax credit, tops up low wages thus encouraging people to work rather than do nothing.

One of the biggest expenses on the state is the State Pension but living on the basic state pension is almost impossible anyway.

Govt raises a lot of money through VAT which is paid by everyone whate ...[text shortened]... sary (expense) posts for civil servants and think tanks to come up with better ways of doing it.

We have the same thing on this side of the pond: the lottery and so-called "sin taxes." Since the poor are the biggest recipients of government "aid" and they also tend to be the biggest consumers of lottery tickets, cigarettes and hooch, some of the money is reclaimed by the government to be doled out again to some other "lucky" recipient.

Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter
The Government is spending more on welfare than on education or law and order, but the vast sums are doing little to relieve poverty, according to the think-tank Reform:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2473368,00.html

Just think how bad the poverty would be if they didn't spend the money.

Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter
All right, I will get the ball rolling: How does it benefit the government to dissuade people from bettering themselves by looking for work? It seems to me that it would be far better for citizens, as well as the purse of the exchequer, if they were self-supporting and in the job market rather receiving “benefits.”

If you're on benefits in Britain (single male) you receive 57 pounds a week for food and if between 0 pounds and 60 pounds for housing benefit.
Now, unless you really, really, really enjoy fish-fingers and chips everynight, this isn't a lot of money to live off.

Besides this, when you are on benefits there is intensive counselling to get you back to work and a job-application "must" of 3 applications a week.

If capitalism didn't force employers to do a maximum amount of work with a minimum of work force, then a lot more people would be employed, wouldn't they?

Originally posted by uzless
Just think how bad the poverty would be if they didn't spend the money.

That's the whole point of the article you quarterwit: despite spending massive sums of money, the government has not alleviated poverty.

Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter
That's the whole point of the article you quarterwit: despite spending massive sums of money, the government has not alleviated poverty.

No, but they have made the average uneducated Brit have to fight for the only low paid jobs around with a university graduate from eastern europe, who has the chance to earn more in a week than he'd earn in a month in his own country for the same job. The poor and stupid of the UK are out of the loop now.

Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter
That's the whole point of the article you quarterwit: despite spending massive sums of money, the government has not alleviated poverty.

The thing is that the unemployed wouldn't suddenly start getting jobs if there were no benefits - they'd become greater burdens on their families, starve to death, or turn to crime. So you might save some money from one budget, but the insurance companies aren't going to be happy, and the economy would contract to the tune of £100,000,000 a week. The people who aren't paying as much tax will be spending it on shares and so on, not commodities, they aren't useful spenders. What they should do is double benefits, then the economy would grow.

Of course the correct conclusion is that the entire system is failing and it should be replaced with one not based soley on capital accumulation for a few but something like: "From each according to their ability to each according to their need."

Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter
That's the whole point of the article you quarterwit: despite spending massive sums of money, the government has not alleviated poverty.

yo, Tee-wit. From the dawn of man, there has always been poverty. It's only when one group is able to dominate and exploit another group's resources does that first group remove itself from poverty. In order to ensure the first group does not fall back into poverty, it must continue dominating and exploiting the 2nd group, or find other groups to dominate and exploit.

Examples? Ok. The colonial system was set up to exploit the resources of its colonial occupants to improve the wealth of England. Currently we use China, India, Mexico to manufacture our goods with their cheap labour so we can buy more stuff cheaper than what it would cost if we produced it ourself..Big ups to Walmart, the outsourcing Gods!!

You think you can solve poverty just by cutting off welfare? It's not that simple...although it's nice to think it is.

In order to get GOOD paying jobs, people need to be qualified and find an employer willing to hire them. Not everyone is created equal...there aren't too many 140 IQ's out there on welfare. And if you think you can live on minimum wage, try doing it with a couple of kids as a single parent.

This whole debate just boils down to "It's my money and I don't want anyone else to have it" Why not just admit it?