Philip Hammond says there are 'no unemployed people'

[simon12]

Given that the 2016 budget for unemployment benefits was ��£44 billion out of a total Social Security spend of ��£254 billion (34% of all government spending), the new Duke of Westminster must have inherited a nice little pile.

Strange that you don't quote figures or sources.
Here's mine:
https://visual.ons.gov.uk/welfare-spending/

That link says unemployment benefit is £2 billion (not 44) which is 1% of welfare spending which itself is 34% of all government spending.

 

[Ken L]

So it does.
That's the beauty of quoting sources, it allows for an informed and open discussion.
Doesn't change my point though does it?

 

[Ajhutch]

And the Sunday Times Rich List estimated the young duke's inheritance to be £9bn. At 40% headline rate of inheritance tax I'd say Thumper's comment checks out with some room to spare.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ajhutch]

The link also shows that pensions are by far the biggest chunk of the overall welfare spending. They are universal and paid equally regardless of need, some people like this and some don't. I'm in the latter camp.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ajhutch]

So it does.
That's the beauty of quoting sources, it allows for an informed and open discussion.
Doesn't change my point though does it?

I think it does show that even a total wipeout of the unemployment benefit budget wouldn't move the needle very far in terms of the debt or the annual deficit and that perhaps political attention would be better focused elsewhere, like property which you raised a couple of days ago.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ken L]

I think it does show that even a total wipeout of the unemployment benefit budget wouldn't move the needle very far in terms of the debt or the annual deficit and that perhaps political attention would be better focused elsewhere, like property which you raised a couple of days ago.

And like addressing the dodgy disability claims that go towards the £44 billion incapacity disability and injury benefits budgets - which have risen by almost £10 billion in 5 years.
But yes, I agree that there are huge social gains to be had from addressing the housing benefit situation.

As to universal pensions, they are universal not just in terms of need but in terms of contribution. To be honest, I don't know enough about pensions to make properly informed comment but my suspicion is that while there are savings to be made, it's a nightmare in terms of making value judgements based on current family dynamics and applying them to people who lived in an earlier age - it seems wrong to punish a non-working 1950's housewife for not having worked when that was the cultural norm at the time.

 

[Ajhutch]

And like addressing the dodgy disability claims that go towards the �£44 billion incapacity disability and injury benefits budgets - which have risen by almost �£10 billion in 5 years.
But yes, I agree that there are huge social gains to be had from addressing the housing benefit situation.

As to universal pensions, they are universal not just in terms of need but in terms of contribution. To be honest, I don't know enough about pensions to make properly informed comment but my suspicion is that while there are savings to be made, it's a nightmare in terms of making value judgements based on current family dynamics and applying them to people who lived in an earlier age - it seems wrong to punish a non-working 1950's housewife for not having worked when that was the cultural norm at the time.

Yes you’re right, changing the system when people don’t have time to adapt to it would be unfair. And means testing is expensive and difficult to do. I just despair at the complexity of tax and benefits mainly to be honest, if we could start now with a blank piece of paper we’d never design what we have now.

 

[Ken L]

True enough.
We have Income Tax and NI - When combining them would reduce bureaucracy and increase transparency.

We have PIP and ESA - Two benefits for the disabled with two very expensive sets of medicals. Combining them and paying at differing rates depending on employment makes much more sense.
Associated with these benefits, we have carers allowance when in fact we should be paying the disabled person and expecting them to pay their carers.

We have child benefits and tax credits when paying people to have kids (a hangover from post war repopulation efforts) is insane on a small island with close to 80 million people.

Then we have the mad hodgepodge of IS, JSA and UC with so many rates and additions that nobody can really understand them.

 

[Thumper]

Given that the 2016 budget for unemployment benefits was �£44 billion out of a total Social Security spend of �£254 billion (34% of all government spending), the new Duke of Westminster must have inherited a nice little pile.

Strange that you don't quote figures or sources.
Here's mine:
https://visual.ons.gov.uk/welfare-spending/

Apologies, I got two completely different facts mixed up and came out with complete twaddle.

The inheritance tax avoided by the duke of Westminster was worth more than half of the entire amount spent on jobseekers allowance over 2016.

He avoided 40% tax on a £9 billion estate, which according to my maths amounts to £3.6 billion.

In 2016/17 expenditure on jobseekers allowance was 2.2% of total welfare expenditure, which was £218.3 billion. Again according to my maths, that amounts to £4.8 billion.

https://secondreading.uk/social-policy/welfare-spending-whats-in-218-3-billion/


His inheritance tax would have paid for 75% of the entire amount spent on jobseekers allowance on its own. I maintain that the fact he avoided it is disgusting. And while I acknowledge that thats an unusually high amount, I maintain that the people on jobseekers are hardly our biggest problem.

 

[Ken L]

Apologies, I got two completely different facts mixed up and came out with complete twaddle.

No worries. I did the same and quoted figures from the main page without hitting the reveal button.

Thing is, tax avoidance isn't illegal (tax evasion is) so while ways of closing these loopholes need to be looked at (preferably without causing capital flight), the fact is that those committing benefit fraud are doing so illegally.

 

[Bernie]

Didn't home brewing take off because it avoided tax on alcohol?

 

[Ken L]

Didn't home brewing take off because it avoided tax on alcohol?

Home brewing = Tax avoidance.
Home distilling = Tax evasion.

 

[Irishwizard]

No worries. I did the same and quoted figures from the main page without hitting the reveal button.

Thing is, tax avoidance isn't illegal (tax evasion is) so while ways of closing these loopholes need to be looked at (preferably without causing capital flight), the fact is that those committing benefit fraud are doing so illegally.

You are right, absolutely right, but i think you are running into 'Moral Maze' territory here, and naturally, the more you have the more you can loose

 

[Thumper]

No worries. I did the same and quoted figures from the main page without hitting the reveal button.

Thing is, tax avoidance isn't illegal (tax evasion is) so while ways of closing these loopholes need to be looked at (preferably without causing capital flight), the fact is that those committing benefit fraud are doing so illegally.

Agreed, but as far as I'm concerned the legality is less important than the morality, and the immorality of an act surely has to be measured in the damage it does and the intent behind it.

The intent in both cases is the same- to make money for yourself and do no work in the process, despite knowing your method deprives our society of money that could usefully be employed elsewhere.

Benefits fraudsters are undoubtedly immoral. But viewed logically, depriving the state of a few thousand pounds it could usefully have employed elsewhere pales into comparison next to depriving the state of almost 4 billion pounds.

The fact the state has arbitrarily declared one act to be legal and another to be illegal is irrelevant.

 

[Ken L]

Don't we as a society define our collective morality through law?
That being the case, it seems to follow that what suits us collectively doesn't necessarily suit all individuals.
The toff's avoidance of inheritance tax may not sit well with you personally but fortunately, we have structures in place that allow collective disquiet at such things to shift collective morality through the political process and changes to law.
Write to your MP, consider voting differently at the next election.
It's slow but it works.

 

[simon12]

1 other big difference between benefit cheats and tax avoiders is that tax avoiders don't pay tax on money they earned benefit cheats take/steal money from those who did work to pay tax. Tax avoidance is also a vague term as many legitimate normal and moral things like claiming back legitimate expenses avoids tax. When you have various assets generating money in a variety of countries there a various ways of declaring whats from where and you shouldn't be paying tax multiple times on the same income so you will always try to pay it in the country you are allowed to pay the lowest, sometimes this could be immoral or just the most obvious way to settle your tax. How ever you pay it in a complicated multi country way your never going to try and pay as much as possible (I don't think anyone would expect you to) its in many respects hard to draw a line on whats moral. There are obviously examples where someone deliberately moves income that was made in 1 country to pay tax in another but if its legal its more a problem with tax law, though I accept this practice is immoral.

 

[Thumper]

@KenL No, I don't agree that law necessarily reflects morality. There are plenty of laws which are immoral in either spirit or execution, and plenty of immoral things are perfectly legal.

I've always voted for what I feel to be the best party for the country, and morality always affects my decision.

@simon12 I fail to see what Hugh Grosvenor did to earn the 9 billion quid his daddy left him, but otherwise I agree with you.

 

[Ken L]

There are plenty of laws which are immoral in either spirit or execution, and plenty of immoral things are perfectly legal.

Such as.....?

 

[Dutto]

Didn't home brewing take off because it avoided tax on alcohol?

Not for me! :thumb:

I brew my own because 95% of the stuff served in pubs and sold in supermarkets is crap; and the remaining 5% is priced so high (even without the tax) as to make it a "luxury item"!

 

[Dutto]

... No, I don't agree that law necessarily reflects morality. There are plenty of laws which are immoral in either spirit or execution, and plenty of immoral things are perfectly legal.

.....

Almost everything I enjoy doing is either immoral, illegal or fattening. :lol: :lol: