Benefit changes yay or nay?

[Top_gun]

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

Only in your mind!

[TheAnimus]

Only in your mind!

Well the facts back it up too.

The Guardian admitted publicly (not at first mind) that they structured in the way they did.

Basically thats a £800k rebate, instead of £60M of taxes.

Or am I somehow mistaken?

[sammyc]

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.

Well it is Mr MorePoorly I am talking about, so we may be at cross purposes. However Mr Poorly still needs the correct support to do some suitable work if applicable, not packing off the Job Centre as if 100% fit for fulltime employment.

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.

[my highlight] Not at all. Only those who have been fraudulently claiming. Leaving those who have failed their assessment through poor understanding of the process, those who have failed through incorrect ATOS judgments, those who have failed appeals, those who cannot face appealing and have taken the line of least resistance and given up, and those affected by Clause 99 - all of whom cannot in all logic turn up and fulfil the JSA criterion of declaring they are capable of work. The successful appeal rate demonstrates that to a large extent those who do appeal were right not to troop off & sign on - effectively declaring themselves fit, despite having been claiming disability benefits until immediately prior to their WCA, and by that token casting doubt on their own claim past & present. Again, why not simply cut ESA to JSA level (and I am not advocating this necessarily, but in theory -) presumably in the hope JSA claimants will have been turfed off that also, in the shortest possible time, one way or another.

[peterb]

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

Quite possibly, but that wasn't what you linked to, and neither does it have any bearing on taxation or the topic.

[Top_gun]

Well the facts back it up too.

The Guardian admitted publicly (not at first mind) that they structured in the way they did.

Basically thats a £800k rebate, instead of £60M of taxes.

Or am I somehow mistaken?

You haven't proven anything at all. Using an obscure website to back up your case is a sign of desperation. I wouldn't say mistaken, more deluded. As long as HMRC were aware of the facts provided by the Guardian then the Guardian has done nothing wrong. Nothing here to see, I'm afraid.

[TheAnimus]

Well it is Mr MorePoorly I am talking about, so we may be at cross purposes. However Mr Poorly still needs the correct support to do some suitable work if applicable, not packing off the Job Centre as if 100% fit for fulltime employment.

Having interviewed people who the job centre + have referred there are a sizeable number who turn up for the interview and even let it be known they don't want the job, this is before they even know anything about the opportunity, this has happened more often than not for childcare, those who actually want to work apply via training courses such as GNVQ/BTECs (un-qualified mind).

[my highlight] Not at all. Only those who have been fraudulently claiming. Leaving those who have failed their assessment through poor understanding of the process, those who have failed through incorrect ATOS judgments, those who have failed appeals, those who cannot face appealing and have taken the line of least resistance and given up, and those affected by Clause 99 - all of whom cannot in all logic turn up and fulfil the JSA criterion of declaring they are capable of work. The successful appeal rate demonstrates that to a large extent those who do appeal were right not to troop off & sign on - effectively declaring themselves fit, despite having been claiming disability benefits until immediately prior to their WCA, and by that token casting doubt on their own claim past & present. Again, why not simply cut ESA to JSA level (and I am not advocating this necessarily, but in theory -) presumably in the hope JSA claimants will have been turfed off that also, in the shortest possible time, one way or another.

The thing is, I'm not saying that ATOS is a good thing, in fact the high number of appeals winning demonstrates that its very inefficient. http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/379...ned-by-appeals It is cruel and unfair, like any government subsidy because the difference between the gets it and not get its are minimal.

I think the fact is that a lot of the disabilities should be more granular, this however can not happen quickly or easily, at least this way, in theory, the most serious cases can still get more benefit.

However this is all part of a wider reform, having a single benefit rather than many, many, different ones is in theory a great idea, it is the execution that worries me. Governments and large entities of most kind are not renowned for been able to make complex systems, quickly, cheaply or effectively.

I don't think we should have this attitude that benefits (or the NHS for that matter) are in some way sacrosanct, when they must be sustainable for any long term survival of them. In many large private organisations I've seen people kill projects, sub-companies and the like by supporting them, giving more and more money until it is so obviously un-sustainable the project gets killed in entirety. A great example of that would be, as mentioned above, coal mining or certain defined benefit pension schemes. That is the last thing that should happen to our welfare care system.

[Top_gun]

Quite possibly, but that wasn't what you linked to, and neither does it have any bearing on taxation or the topic.

I merely asked a question on whether Barclays provided fair shareholder returns. The link provided only showed shareholders revolting on pay alone. Sorry if you confused the two issues together.

[Top_gun]

).The thing is, I'm not saying that ATOS is a good thing, in fact the high number of appeals winning demonstrates that its very inefficient. http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/379...ned-by-appeals It is cruel and unfair, like any government subsidy because the difference between the gets it and not get its are minimal.
.

Even worse, Atos gets paid £500 for each person they found fit for work. This means Atos can abused the system by making wrong decisions in their favour and pick up £500 of taxpayers' money each time. Tribunals, appeals and JSA claims further adds costs to the welfare bill.

[TheAnimus]

You haven't proven anything at all. Using an obscure website to back up your case is a sign of desperation. I wouldn't say mistaken, more deluded. As long as HMRC were aware of the facts provided by the Guardian then the Guardian has done nothing wrong. Nothing here to see, I'm afraid.

Huh?

I am not saying they are doing anything illegal. They even admitted themselves that they avoided tax by this structuring, you even linked to it. http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/tax-...x-gap-guardian

The article in question originally did not mention any illegal action.

I've tried to make that clear with bold and underlined text.

[Top_gun]

Huh?

I am not saying they are doing anything illegal. They even admitted themselves that they avoided tax by this structuring, you even linked to it. http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/tax-...x-gap-guardian

The article in question originally did not mention any illegal action.

I've tried to make that clear with bold and underlined text.

I'm happy with the Guardian's explanation in that they've conducted their tax affairs in good order and have not hidden any information from HMRC.

[TheAnimus]

I'm happy with the Guardian's explanation in that they've conducted their tax affairs in good order and have not hidden any information from HMRC.

So, they didn't break the law.... Neither did Barclays.

What is the difference? Just one is a lot more profitable than the other. One HMRC clarified the rules retrospectively, meaning increased liability, which they paid.

This is the point Amazon's tax affairs are in 'good order' so are starbucks and google etc.

[Top_gun]

So, they didn't break the law.... Neither did Barclays.

What is the difference? Just one is a lot more profitable than the other. One HMRC clarified the rules retrospectively, meaning increased liability, which they paid.

This is the point Amazon's tax affairs are in 'good order' so are starbucks and google etc.

Oh I get it, you're trying to justify greediness by using desperate arguments and obscure websites. Dream on, TA.

[wasabi]

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?

You prefer they were allowed to go bust and people lose their homes?

The bailouts were largely to protect citizens, not the banks. 'Too big to fail' IS a problem, and the measures being brought in to protect private banking from wild stock market speculation are necessary. Silly punish-the-bankers thinking isn't going to cause banks to invest in the economy again. Brits have got used to slagging off the banks while living off their flexible friend.

[TheAnimus]

Oh I get it, you're trying to justify greediness by using desperate arguments and obscure websites. Dream on, TA.

No, I am asking is how is one, any more immoral than the other.

[Top_gun]

You prefer they were allowed to go bust and people lose their homes?

The bailouts were largely to protect citizens, not the banks. 'Too big to fail' IS a problem, and the measures being brought in to protect private banking from wild stock market speculation are necessary. Silly punish-the-bankers thinking isn't going to cause banks to invest in the economy again. Brits have got used to slagging off the banks while living off their flexible friend.

According to the free market thinking banks should be allowed to fail. Do you really think regulations will curtail banks behaviour? They will find ways around them like shadow banking. Can this country really afford another financial crash?

[peterb]

I merely asked a question on whether Barclays provided fair shareholder returns. The link provided only showed shareholders revolting on pay alone. Sorry if you confused the two issues together.

No need to apologise, it is you that seems to be confusing issues.