Benefit changes yay or nay?

[sammyc]

.....They either are a bare minimum, in which case it should apply more universally, worked for 3 years and made redundant, your JSA starts today, for 3 months, without any means testing, because you know, you've paid for it and more!

As it stands people who contribute nothing get the most benefit, we've seen a massive growth which isn't sustainable and we need to be honest about what we are not just able, but willing to spend. As it stands we are not able to spend what we do, I for one, don't want to see a reduction in education and consider health more important than Sky.

Fair point (with the usual proviso that some are genuinely unable to contribute, & would do so if able) - I am of course no more in favour of exploitation of the system than the next person. I feel we can take it as pretty much a majority view that we don't expect to pay for people to have Sky & holiday in the Bahamas (whatever your take on how widespread this is), and therefore we could reasonably leave this point as read for the purposes of debating where it is fairest to make cuts -

I honestly think one of the biggest mistakes we have made is the idea that people who are state sponsored single parents, those who have never independently funded their own home, are given one completely self-contained one. Other countries often go for the idea of shared/sheltered accommodation in that circumstance, communal kitchens are a great way for people to come together, learn and save money.

this for example, if properly administered, as it gives a fair incentive to get yourself out & into your own home if possible.

[Top_gun]

Just FYI, the source you linked are a complete bunch of hypocrits on this matter.
(first hit on google on the matter, not read it yet, but seems to cover the point: http://autonomousmind.wordpress.com/...tax-avoidance/ )When you see a company in the A&E of your local hospital you might be on to something.

Trust TA to find an obscure blog to support his ill-informed rhetoric!

Anyway, here's the Guardian's explanation of their tax affairs. Seems reasonable and law abiding to me.

[TheAnimus]

Trust TA to find an obscure blog to support his ill-informed rhetoric!

Anyway, here's the Guardian's explanation of their tax affairs. Seems reasonable and law abiding to me.

Huh!?

What exactly have Barclays done that is illegal with regards their accounting as complained at by the story linked? NOTHING

From your link

A key feature of the Guardian's tax investigation has been the difficulty in understanding the tax affairs of transnational corporations. Few companies come clean on their tax planning.

Guardian Media Group's arrangements for its acquisition of certain businesses from publisher Emap, in partnership with private equity firm Apax was, by contrast, publicly explained. A fairly full account of the transaction and GMG's view on it was published in May last year.

GMG's corporation tax affairs were analysed by Richard Murphy of Tax Research last year. He concluded that there was "nothing abnormal".

Nothing Abnormal......

Is Barclay's setup abnormal, NO.

If you are going to say something is immoral, it is no defence, when you are found out to be doing it to say "well its legal!", your still a hypocrite.

[Top_gun]

Huh!?

What exactly have Barclays done that is illegal with regards their accounting as complained at by the story linked? NOTHING

From your link Nothing Abnormal......

Is Barclay's setup abnormal, NO.

If you are going to say something is immoral, it is no defence, when you are found out to be doing it to say "well its legal!", your still a hypocrite.

Behind the curve as per usual, hey TA.

Barclays £500m tax loophole closed by Treasury in rare retrospective action

Barclays even tried gagging the Guardian

Please reply with more of your knee jerk reactions, TA.

[TheAnimus]

Behind the curve as per usual, hey TA.

....

Please reply with more of your knee jerk reactions, TA.

So, 2011, 2012 or is it the 2013 article?

Did Barclays not pay, when the government clarified the rules? If I have any ambiguity on any monetary matter, I pay the minimum I'm legally obliged too, whilst resolving the matter. From one perspective, that is what Barclays were doing.

Again, they broke no laws, violated no rules, until the government changed them.

Are you suggesting there is a difference between the two tax dodges? Was one legal whilst the other illegal. No.

Both have the effect of greatly reducing tax.

You can label it a "knee jerk" reaction. But your ignoring my point. The Guardian dodged tax by structuring the deal in a tax haven. Barclays dodged tax in many more ways. However Barclays has many profitable devisions, the Guardian, erm, doesn't.

I would also suggest learning about the Scott Trust, given the remit it had, it made the actions of the Guardian appear in a worse light, than that of barclays which were for-filling their legal obligation.

[wasabi]

Behind the curve as per usual, hey TA.

Barclays £500m tax loophole closed by Treasury in rare retrospective action

Barclays even tried gagging the Guardian

Please reply with more of your knee jerk reactions, TA.

Sigh. Did you bother to read TA's post before engaging knee-jerk?

To quote.
'What exactly have Barclays done that is illegal with regards their accounting as complained at by the story linked?' (my emphasis)

Taxing companies is stupid and counterproductive but governments, especially socialist ones, love it as stupid proles don't understand the consequences. It hides taxes from the idiot proles who don't understand corporation tax, but it still destroys the nation's competitiveness and chances of attracting investment.

I disagree with TA about VAT though. I'd personally put it ALL on income tax and poll tax.

[Top_gun]

Sigh. Did you bother to read TA's post before engaging knee-jerk?

To quote.
'What exactly have Barclays done that is illegal with regards their accounting as complained at by the story linked?' (my emphasis)

Taxing companies is stupid and counterproductive but governments, especially socialist ones, love it as stupid proles don't understand the consequences. It hides taxes from the idiot proles who don't understand corporation tax, but it still destroys the nation's competitiveness and chances of attracting investment.

I disagree with TA about VAT though. I'd personally put it ALL on income tax and poll tax.

TA's posts are poorly written.

Secondly, if the UK is to become competitive in the world then they would have to invest in infrastructure and upskilling of the labour force. Taxing companies is the right way to do this. There is no evidence to suggest by pandering to the greedy will make the UK more competitive. Ireland's corporation rate is 12% and yet their economy has crashed and burned.

[TheAnimus]

Attitude is not an indicator of whether someone has suffered hardship.

It very often is, I remember reading a study from the 80s which looked to find out how much it was, what the reward mechanism for it was, how conditioning changes people in this respect. Sadly the only notes I can find are to a Smith in 1987 and behind a paywall But that is a rant for another time about Athins IDs and government funded things being paywalled! However I think the proposition that people who generally disregard extreme poverty are those who have never witnessed or suffered it from a position of helplessness? (I actually spent about 20 mins searching my old uni notes (thanks OneNote!) for my notes on this, hence my delay in reply!). The manner in which he disregards anyone suffering but his own I find distasteful and a little xenophobic.

Those are the appropriate benefits for someone who is disabled to claim...

But we're not talking about that, those who are should still be able to claim. The problem is that it isn't a boolean state, its not a case of "fine" and "disabled", but very gray. Our system does not support that, and it would be hard to apply one that would. So we have little choice but a universal migration of all but the worst to the lower cost option of JSA. It is merely a case of better distribution of the pot, I'd rather have a situation which still offered for those who are most in need. However the context of the comment was that someone who fails their ATOS assessments will not be starving. I've always said ATOS is flawed, and often too expensive in this thread, but to suggest we shouldn't be trying to assign it more based on need, to avoid cutting those who are need help the very most I think is fair.

I'm not denying that it is a good thing, for a second. Your personal observations don't make for much of a statistical example however.

Very true, it is not a random sample, but it does back up the suggestion that it is possible for some people, to sustain a lifestyle which is rather unfair when it is based on forcefully taken money. Having a system which has more re-assessment is likely to help this, whilst reducing the bill.

That's still pretty unspecific as regards Mr Poorly. Reduce his benefit by a £%? Reduce the number of claimants?

Well its the problem of a budget like this, its hard to know. Roughly speaking the NHS and Social Care (including all sorts of care) accounts for 60% of government spending. (see source I posted earlier).

Defining Mr Poorly is a problem, because we don't know anything about him. We don't know how many of him we will have, how often they will occur at the same time, requiring emergency care etc. All we know is that it's a finite set of resources for helping him. If we assume that no more people will arrive this year requiring care, we can project what the amount available will be only from assumptions based on GDP, afterall most tax is delivered over a year behind. Ultimately we are spending 7% of all tax on Social Care for the Sick and Needy, this is more than we spend on education, about 4 times what we spend on the un-employed. The question comes what does Mr Poorly need to survive. This is going to be a case by case basis.

Mr Poorly may be upset about it, but Mr MorePoorly is going to be the one who gets the extra care money, Mr Poorly might have to do with just JSA.

I don't regard referring to those in severe ill health by such terms to be 'dressing it up'. It's a fairly down-to-earth straightforward statement, not exactly overly euphemistic is it? The objection to the parasitic metaphor is that it implies not only something that is non-contributory, but something that it would be desirable to be get rid of. Besides, it is unnecessary - the concept of 'those who need to take but cannot contribute' is easy enough to grasp without metaphor. By the non-contributory yardstick, that covers my neighbours wife, kids, pets and elderly father, but I've never felt the need to put 'Happy Xmas you parasitic old codger!' in his Christmas card.

Its about simple concise accurate definition, wikipedia leads with Parasitism is a non-mutual relationship between organisms of different species where one organism, the parasite, benefits at the expense of the other, the host.

That sums up anyone one social care, its non-mutual. There might be some externalities which aren't captured by simple economic analysis at the macro level, but the term allows for that.

A disabled claimant who had had benefits withdrawn would not be able to claim JSA, for the reasons previously stated. Aside of which, why not simply reduce disability benefits to the level of JSA?

Because its about the attitude, your disabled, you can't do any work. That has to change as we have a larger and more costly section of society that qualifies as disabled. Those who fail ATOS assessment are by definition going to be eligible to start JSA.

However a lot of this is side issue. The point that needs addressing in relation to those genuinely incapacitated is that it is one thing to tell 100 claimants that we're sorry, we acknowledge your bona fides but benefits must be cut. It's quite another to unjustly find them fit for work.

I really dislike the difference between someone being fit for work and not fit for work, as if its a boolean function. It isn't.

In fact from a purely monetary stance it can be worse to have someone sick working themselves hard, they simply increase the cost to the NHS of their treatment.

Again I am not saying ATOS is a good system, just that the idea of reforming benefits in this way is a good idea. I also dislike the fact the NHS despite having such costs (almost a quarter of all tax!) has its budget protected. Anyone who's ever spent time in a hospital has seen there is terrible waste, some incredibly expensive management which often does nothing and plenty of red tape which could be cut. However politically people fear a return to the early 90s NHS, so any changes to it would spark political death.

[Top_gun]

Ultimately we are spending 7% of all tax on Social Care for the Sick and Needy, this is more than we spend on education, about 4 times what we spend on the un-employed. The question comes what does Mr Poorly need to survive. This is going to be a case by case basis.

Please remind me how much money were paid to the banks to prevent them from going bust and their gratitude to the British people by paying their share of taxes?

[TheAnimus]

TA's posts are poorly written.

He understood it.

You could disprove the point, rather than just link to another article (from the same, discredited source on this matter, as they were undeniably tax dodging).

Secondly, if the UK is to become competitive in the world then they would have to invest in infrastructure and upskilling of the labour force. Taxing companies is the right way to do this. There is no evidence to suggest by pandering to the greedy will make the UK more competitive. Ireland's corporation rate is 12% and yet their economy has crashed and burned.

1) "Taxing companies is the right way to do this" - Citation Needed. I would also suggest considering an answer to my hypothetical coffee company problem.
2) "There is no evidence to suggest by pandering to the greedy will make the UK more competitive" - What is ment by this? Is cutting corperation tax benefiting the greedy?! They are not paying it as is. Just google "Incorporate in Hong Kong" or "Loan Back Scheme", its easy to avoid, impratical to stop. Simply saying "we should make rules which the companies can't evade" is a bit like saying "we should make the sun stay in the sky more during winter time to cut fuel bills"...
3) "Ireland's corporation rate is 12% and yet their economy has crashed and burned." - Because it was the only factor at play here obviously!

[TheAnimus]

Please remind me how much money were paid to the banks to prevent them from going bust and their gratitude to the British people by paying their share of taxes?

Barclays? Why £0.

Again you say their share. They are paying the minimum they are legally obliged too. Which is actually what they are legally obliged to do in their contract with their shareholders.

I'm going out on a limb here, you've never even filled so much as an SA... right?

[Top_gun]

Barclays? Why £0.

Again you say their share. They are paying the minimum they are legally obliged too.

Sorry, they are obliged to pay their full tax liabilities rather than playing a game of hide and seek with HMRC. One way to stop these games is to change the burden of proof by making sure companies are doing all they can to pay their tax liabilities. That will put an end to tax havens.

[Top_gun]

Which is actually what they are legally obliged to do in their contract with their shareholders.

You seem to forget about Barclays shareholder revolt last year. Just exactly how did Barclays gave good returns to the shareholders?

[TheAnimus]

Sorry, they are obliged to pay their full tax liabilities rather than playing a game of hide and seek with HMRC. One way to stop these games is to change the burden of proof by making sure companies are doing all they can to pay their tax liabilities. That will put an end to tax havens.

They have paid their liabilities. The problem is the rules are too complex. How can you shift the burden of proof any further than it is? Have you ever filled company accounts, you have to prove everything. The issue was that it was legal at the time.

Just like the Guardian.

You seem to forget about Barclays shareholder revolt last year. Just exactly how did Barclays gave good returns to the shareholders?

What the hell is wrong with you. I am in no way saying Barclays or Barcap for that matter, is a bastion of upright honesty and to be encouraged.

Not at all.

Just that they didn't break the law. They didn't. They dodged some tax that they might have had to pay otherwise. So did the Guardian.

You can try and drag it out in a zmofg, the banks are evil thing, but your missing the point. When it comes to tax, they are just as honest and upright as the Guardian, arguably more so because they are not hypocritical about it.

Again you make it sound like this is a simple matter, which can be unequivocally be resolved by something. But you don't even understand that the burden of proof for tax liability already lies in the companies when filling accounts.....

So to recap. Guardian are Hypocrites. Barclays didn't break the law. You have many serious miss conceptions about tax.

[peterb]

You seem to forget about Barclays shareholder revolt last year. Just exactly how did Barclays gave good returns to the shareholders?

The shareholders weren't complaining about their return on investment. They were (correctly, as the owners of the business) holding the Directirs to account over remuneration. Nothing to do with taxation, subsidies or any other misdirection.

[Top_gun]

The shareholders weren't complaining about their return on investment. They were (correctly, as the owners of the business) holding the Directirs to account over remuneration. Nothing to do with taxation, subsidies or any other misdirection.

I have watched quite a few Barclays shareholders and news items about poor returns over the last five years.