City Bonus - Why does the UK media hate it?

[badass]

So thats less than £800 a month after tax. Would that even pay the bills in london? I doubt it. Even in Zone 4 with a very low morgtage my 1bed is over £500 a month, renting it would be £650.

And someone on minimum wage will be entitled to income support, more if they have kids.
Plus, is peopel cannot afford to live in london on the minimum wage, move somewhere cheaper and get minimum wage there!

You said it.

One thing everyone is capable is moving into the catchment area of a decent school. Maybe not the decent school they want, but a decent school, somewhere.

Improving public schooling.

Taxing the rich more wont do that. If politicians didn;t keep moving the goalposts with teachers and wasting hundreds of billions on silly mismanaged projects and managed the country properly, that would be vastly more beneficial than taxing the rich to the point where it causes a brain drian like labour did the last time they were in power.

because the pay/effort increases out of proportion once you start working with money, and the actual improvment you get from higher salary are not good compared to having a better society/public services. Example is having a good public health service vs private. In countries with a very good public health service it is typically cheaper for everyone than private in countries with poor public health system.

If that argument applies to increasing taxes on richer people, it applies to everyone! If someone on £20K is taxed an extra £500pa it has the same benefit to the country as someone who is taxed £40k paying an extra £500pa
In fact based on that argument you could say that all money people earn that isn't needed for necessities will benefit the country more.
If you want to use the pay/effort ratio argument, then you must agtee that civil servants should get taxed more as their pay/effort is certainly on average better than the private sector for all but the highest grades. I know, I have worked in a couplf of jobs there.

To generally improve the living standards of the country you live in so that when someone serves you dinner they aren't thinking how they'll pay for their own food. Generally improving the living standards in a country can only be good - lowering poverty lowers crime rate, etc. I don't want to see this country with true slums (I'v seen lots of council housing, they are NOT slums yet).

As I said in my earlier post, the poorest are getting richer and have been for the past 50 years.

is that a joke? If not I suppose it says it all...

Can you explain to me what someone who doesn't think about money when planning their career is supposed to do then. If someone doesn't have to think about money, they can choose whatever they like to do. That will cause certain jobs to be oversubscribed whilst some of the less pleasant but essential jobs will be left. Everyone that works has to think about money anyone that doesn't consider/care about the money is either lucky enough to have the skills and desire to do a job that pays plenty well regardles of where you work or is being naive and very short termist.
If you dont have the skills/desire to do a job that attracts lots of pay, you are an idiot if you dont consider the money aspect of whatever job/career you do.
And dont bring carers into this or other professions like that. You will find that since they are in a low paid, some would say underpaid job, they will consider the pay they get before accepting any job amongst the other things the job has to offer them/they have to offer the job. If they dont, they are still foolish.

It seems that you believe amongst other things that simply getting paid more is reason to pay even more tax then people do now. May I remind you that percentage wise, those that earn more pay even more tax as a percentage of their wage. In fact those on over £39k ish pa pay nearly double the percentage those on less do for all earnings over that figure.
TBH I think that is unworkable and unfair on those that go out and do work they dont enjoy, work on their personal development in order to enjoy an easier, better paid job in the future.
You also seem to think that those on much higher salaries should fund not just the necessities and a very small amount of luxury for those that are at the bottom of the ladder, but should pay a lot for their luxuries aswell.
This I think is absurd. No one should be taxed extra to pay for luxuries for those worse off when those worse off have the opportunity to work harder or smarter or even a combination of both in order to afford those luxuries themselves.

[badass]

I'd be interested on your thoughts on this rack:

If I ran this country, those that dont work would only have a right to the bare necessities. Nothing more unless it is through an illness that prevents them from doing any kind of work. That would mean no paying of interest on peoples mortgages for the unemployed. They would get a flat rate which would be enough to pay rent/bills/food for a house/flat with 1 bedroom for a couple/single adult, and 1/3 room for every child under 5 and 1/2 room for every child over 5. Obviously that would be based on the price of a house with just adequate sizes of other rooms to support a family of that size. If that forces people to sell their houses, tough. Get a job. The state would supply properly trained nannies for single parents for free for the number of hours the parent works plus travel to and from work plus 15% The extra 15% would be savable for up to a month so they can have some time off. For every pound earned in the job, 50p would be taken off the benefits untill there are no benefits. After that the state nanny entitlement would be reduced on a sliding scale between the "no benefits" point and the "no benefits point" plus £15k
For 2 parent families, the nenny entitlement would work in the same way, except the entitlement is only ever 15% of the combined hours worked and has the same sliding scale up to "no benefits plus £15k" point
Transport costs for public transport would be payable in full up to the no benefits pount on th same sliding scale as the nanny entitlement.
That way, those that want to work can afford to work, and have the support needed to work. Those that dont, have to tell their kids why they cant afford any luxuries.
State pension would work on a 40 years of work rule. If anyone has worked for 40 years or more, they get a higher rate that allows them to afford a few modest luxuries - in current values, necessities plus £40 per week. The lower rate is for those that have never worked in their lives - the rate will be necessities - nothing more. The scale will increase linealry with the years worked up to a maximum of 40
Anyone who is sick with a genuine medical complaint that prevents them from working has the sick time count as working time.
Etc.
That to me seems fair. There may be individual circumstances where that isn't fair, but I suspect they are few and far between.
Using that, those that work will always be better off that those that dont. Everyone gets necessities and we have no old people that cant afford heating, and no parents/single parents in the benefits trap.
Combine this with sorting out various gov't departments and I think it could be paid for without costing the taxpayer any more.