Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Jan 30, 2013, 11:45 PM   #26
Huntn
macrumors 604
 
Huntn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: The Misty Mountains
Quote:
Originally Posted by zioxide View Post
Examine the system and figure out why you can make more money not working and receiving government benefits than you can working an honest job and earning minimum wage.


Until you fix the system to where people can work a minimum wage job and actually make a living wage instead of working for such a low wage that it's borderline slave labor this kind of thing will keep on happening.
I agree. The GOP answer is to eradicate all social programs, not modify them, which needs to happen badly (the latter, not the former).
__________________
The modern business ethos: "I'm worth it, you're not, and I'm a glutton!"
MBP, 2.2 GHz intel i7, Radeon HD 6750M, Bootcamp: W7.
PC: i5 4670k, 8GB RAM, Asus GTX670 (2GB VRAM), W7.
Huntn is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 31, 2013, 04:35 AM   #27
Peterkro
macrumors 68020
 
Peterkro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Communard de Londres
It's as well to remember that the vast majority of the £17k will be going to some private landlord who essentially is being made rich by government money.I don't have the exact figures to hand but the most the couple and their child would receive to live on would not top £200 a week.
Peterkro is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 31, 2013, 04:44 AM   #28
Mord
macrumors G4
 
Mord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Old York
All this shows is our benefit system needs to be such that going to work never makes you worse off, benefits need to be liveable and they need to match inflation, minimum wage must do the same.

The story is pretty much just geared to evoke outrage and jealousy to hoodwink the working class into voting tory, they've been trying it for years and I have very little doubt that the family was paid well to agree to being publicised like this portraying them as 'entitled'.
Mord is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 31, 2013, 04:45 AM   #29
costabunny
macrumors 68000
 
costabunny's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: ~/
Send a message via Skype™ to costabunny
This is where our system is broken. No incentive to work (even if its a crappy job, at least you have the self respect of earning your keep). All too easy to claim benefits

A system that seems to fit between low jobs and middle ones is ultimately doomed. The safety net needs to be below the crappiest jobs as this pushes people who are ale to work, into doing so as they would be better off.

I see people everyday who do not work and have a better lifestyle than i do, yet i work my arse off.
__________________
Bunny has an iPhone 5C, a PC, and a MacBook Pro retina

“There is no greater agony than bearing an untold story inside you.”
costabunny is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 31, 2013, 05:06 AM   #30
Peterkro
macrumors 68020
 
Peterkro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Communard de Londres
Here's a little graph of some misconceptions:
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	397713_452513614811885_1887478927_n.png
Views:	60
Size:	144.8 KB
ID:	393751  
Peterkro is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 31, 2013, 09:24 AM   #31
Hawkeye16
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Iowa
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eraserhead View Post
It's 96% "effectively" because it includes the reduction of benefits once you get a job.

And this isn't a figure made up by the socialist worker - it's something I've seen in the Economist.

I really don't see how it is acceptable to tax the poor at 96% and then see the media and the rich complain bitterly at being taxed at 50%.
Technically the benefits are a negative tax so as their tax may increase 96% they are most definitely not taxed at 96%. That is a very very biased way to say it. Very convoluted.
__________________
Despite the high cost of living, it remains very popular.
Hawkeye16 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 31, 2013, 10:00 AM   #32
Eraserhead
macrumors G4
 
Eraserhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkeye16 View Post
Technically the benefits are a negative tax so as their tax may increase 96% they are most definitely not taxed at 96%. That is a very very biased way to say it. Very convoluted.
Why the **** is it bias? All I care about is my take home pay.

If for every pound I earn I only keep four pence then I'm hardly going to be encouraged to work am I?

Especially as there are a whole bunch of costs of working that don't apply to the unemployed it can easily make you better off on benefits. And that is a huge problem.

EDIT: If you want to use another word other than tax, e.g saying you only keep 4% of your take home pay I'm OK with that.

Last edited by Eraserhead; Jan 31, 2013 at 10:17 AM.
Eraserhead is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 31, 2013, 11:20 AM   #33
jnpy!$4g3cwk
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Those interested (for real) in this subject might be interested in looking up the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the Democratic Senator from New York (1977-2000).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Patrick_Moynihan

Fixing the welfare system so that it actually helped, and did not become a trap, was a long-time concern of his.
jnpy!$4g3cwk is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 31, 2013, 02:39 PM   #34
Hawkeye16
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Iowa
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eraserhead View Post
Why the **** is it bias? All I care about is my take home pay.

If for every pound I earn I only keep four pence then I'm hardly going to be encouraged to work am I?

Especially as there are a whole bunch of costs of working that don't apply to the unemployed it can easily make you better off on benefits. And that is a huge problem.

EDIT: If you want to use another word other than tax, e.g saying you only keep 4% of your take home pay I'm OK with that.
Maybe using numbers would be better. So you are saying that coming off of benefits you only get 4 pence for every pound you make? I thought you were saying you only took home 4% more money than you got from not working with benefits, which is very different.
__________________
Despite the high cost of living, it remains very popular.
Hawkeye16 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 1, 2013, 01:21 AM   #35
Eraserhead
macrumors G4
 
Eraserhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkeye16 View Post
Maybe using numbers would be better. So you are saying that coming off of benefits you only get 4 pence for every pound you make? I thought you were saying you only took home 4% more money than you got from not working with benefits, which is very different.
They are both identical...

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by jnpy!$4g3cwk View Post
Those interested (for real) in this subject might be interested in looking up the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the Democratic Senator from New York (1977-2000).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Patrick_Moynihan

Fixing the welfare system so that it actually helped, and did not become a trap, was a long-time concern of his.
I'm pretty sure single parents do a better job than unhappy parents .
Eraserhead is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 1, 2013, 01:29 AM   #36
Happybunny
macrumors 65816
 
Happybunny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 's-Hertogenbosch Netherlands
If I've got this right, affordable housing in the major cities of western Europe, would go a long way to solving the problems.

Margaret Thatcher's idea to sell of social housing in the 1980's set a trend which is still being felt around Europe today.
__________________
'You cannot undo history, but you can learn from it'
Happybunny is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 1, 2013, 02:37 AM   #37
niuniu
Thread Starter
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: A man of the people. The right sort of people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happybunny View Post
If I've got this right, affordable housing in the major cities of western Europe, would go a long way to solving the problems.

Margaret Thatcher's idea to sell of social housing in the 1980's set a trend which is still being felt around Europe today.
Yes, I would say housing is probably our biggest problem. New homes just aren't being built. If people were building equity instead of offloading all their cash to landlords there'd be a lot more social mobility and security.
niuniu is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 1, 2013, 02:56 AM   #38
jeremy h
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happybunny View Post
Margaret Thatcher's idea to sell of social housing in the 1980's set a trend which is still being felt around Europe today.
I agree that housing is one of our biggest issues here.

In my opinion the problem with the sale of council houses wasn't the fact they were sold but that they were sold too cheaply, too quickly (I know some 'professional' people who made very big unearned windfalls) and that others weren't built to replace the stock with the money. The actual results of the sales on the big council estates was often very good.
jeremy h is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 1, 2013, 01:10 PM   #39
Hawkeye16
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Iowa
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eraserhead View Post
They are both identical...[COLOR="#808080"]
They are actually very far from identical. Like I said - Benefits are like a negative tax. If you go from not working and getting say $90 from benefits to working and getting making $100 before tax and $92 after tax you are being taxed at 8%, not 98%.

Saying the loss of benefits (other people's tax money mind you) is part of your effective tax is just plain stupid.

For this logic and reason there should be a time limit on benefits. Then the move from drain on society to actually contributing something won't SEEM like such a small income increase and people will be able to understand their tax rate better. Moving from 90 to 0 then to 92 (100 before tax) would help you understand better what your tax rate is right?
__________________
Despite the high cost of living, it remains very popular.
Hawkeye16 is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 2, 2013, 05:37 PM   #40
jnpy!$4g3cwk
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eraserhead View Post

I'm pretty sure single parents do a better job than unhappy parents .
Likewise, I'm pretty sure that it is better if the government doesn't give families a big financial incentive to break up, and, doesn't structure welfare so that it is a trap with a big marginal disincentive for getting off welfare.
jnpy!$4g3cwk is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 3, 2013, 12:10 AM   #41
Eraserhead
macrumors G4
 
Eraserhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkeye16 View Post
They are actually very far from identical. Like I said - Benefits are like a negative tax. If you go from not working and getting say $90 from benefits to working and getting making $100 before tax and $92 after tax you are being taxed at 8%, not 98%.

Saying the loss of benefits (other people's tax money mind you) is part of your effective tax is just plain stupid.

For this logic and reason there should be a time limit on benefits. Then the move from drain on society to actually contributing something won't SEEM like such a small income increase and people will be able to understand their tax rate better. Moving from 90 to 0 then to 92 (100 before tax) would help you understand better what your tax rate is right?
So lets describe it as take-home pay only increasing by 4 cents in the dollar - frankly that is what everyone cares about.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeremy h View Post
I agree that housing is one of our biggest issues here.

In my opinion the problem with the sale of council houses wasn't the fact they were sold but that they were sold too cheaply, too quickly (I know some 'professional' people who made very big unearned windfalls) and that others weren't built to replace the stock with the money. The actual results of the sales on the big council estates was often very good.
I can't think of a bigger problem than housing.

If anything is going to destroy the stability of the country it'll be housing.
Eraserhead is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 4, 2013, 03:13 PM   #42
Hawkeye16
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Iowa
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eraserhead View Post
So lets describe it as take-home pay only increasing by 4 cents in the dollar - frankly that is what everyone cares about.
Yes - that is all that selfish people care about. They do not care about actually trying to support the very system that they take advantage of. I guess that is why it is failing, people that think like you.
__________________
Despite the high cost of living, it remains very popular.
Hawkeye16 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 4, 2013, 03:18 PM   #43
Eraserhead
macrumors G4
 
Eraserhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkeye16 View Post
Yes - that is all that selfish people care about. They do not care about actually trying to support the very system that they take advantage of. I guess that is why it is failing, people that think like you.
All the rich people who spend their time avoiding tax don't care about supporting the system either.

We should be happy that most poor people prefer to work - even when the financial incentives aren't in place to do so.
__________________
If they have to tell you every day they are fair you can bet they arent, if they tell you they are balanced then you should know they are not - Don't Hurt me
Eraserhead is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 4, 2013, 03:39 PM   #44
elistan
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Denver/Boulder, CO
My proposal:

Everybody over 18 gets $12k in "dole" benefits.
This is right at the poverty line for a single person.
It's a suck-ass existence. No luxuries. No savings. But it allows for the prevention of starvation.
Want more? No problem - get a job.
But for every dollar in wage income (before taxes) the dole amount goes down by fifty cents.
Land a job making $8/hr, for 20 hours per week, 50 weeks per year? Congrats, that's $8000 per year. Total income becomes 8 + 12 - 4 = $16k. Good incentive to get a job.
Once you land a job making $24k per year, which isn't much, you're off the dole entirely.
Make $100k per year and you have no cause to whine about the people getting their dole. Their life sucks compared to yours. Get over it.

(Numbers can be adjusted. Maybe $8k for the dole? Maybe the dole goes down 75 cents per dollar in wages?)

One issue I can see is abuse through cash payments - make $12k in unreported income and you'll still get your $12k of dole. But that's the case today anyway.
elistan is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 4, 2013, 04:12 PM   #45
Eraserhead
macrumors G4
 
Eraserhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by elistan View Post
My proposal:

Everybody over 18 gets $12k in "dole" benefits.
This is right at the poverty line for a single person.
It's a suck-ass existence. No luxuries. No savings. But it allows for the prevention of starvation.
Want more? No problem - get a job.
But for every dollar in wage income (before taxes) the dole amount goes down by fifty cents.
Land a job making $8/hr, for 20 hours per week, 50 weeks per year? Congrats, that's $8000 per year. Total income becomes 8 + 12 - 4 = $16k. Good incentive to get a job.
Once you land a job making $24k per year, which isn't much, you're off the dole entirely.
Make $100k per year and you have no cause to whine about the people getting their dole. Their life sucks compared to yours. Get over it.

(Numbers can be adjusted. Maybe $8k for the dole? Maybe the dole goes down 75 cents per dollar in wages?)

One issue I can see is abuse through cash payments - make $12k in unreported income and you'll still get your $12k of dole. But that's the case today anyway.
Certainly as a start that sounds like a vast improvement over the current policies.
__________________
If they have to tell you every day they are fair you can bet they arent, if they tell you they are balanced then you should know they are not - Don't Hurt me
Eraserhead is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 5, 2013, 03:11 AM   #46
RSL
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by niuniu View Post
Gormless young couple get lured onto the TV to defend their lifestyle. They take in over £17k a year (27,000 dollars) in benefits and say they don't want to work because they'd have a smaller income.
Just goes to show how ridiculously low salaries are in your country.
RSL is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 5, 2013, 04:36 AM   #47
Eraserhead
macrumors G4
 
Eraserhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by RSL View Post
Just goes to show how ridiculously low salaries are in your country.
The median UK salary is about £21k/year or so. What's the median salary where you live?
Eraserhead is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 5, 2013, 09:28 AM   #48
iGav
macrumors G3
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eraserhead View Post
I can't think of a bigger problem than housing.
I can. Whilst I agree that housing is a big problem, it is far, far, far from being the biggest.

The inherent wastefulness and inefficiency of the public sector in general is a far, far, far greater problem, and one that only got greater under Labour, remember a massive & bloated public sector, affects GDP.

Look at the procurement practices of the Government (and the general public sector), Education, NHS, Social Security, and the military alone. As Jon Snow said on Channel 4 News: "When it comes to military procurement, Israel spends £9 billion a year and administers its purchases with 400 people. Britain spends £10 billion annually on procurement and has a staff of 23,700 to do it."

23,700… Even if those figures are greatly exaggerated, it'd still be completely and utterly absurd. Both my brother and sister-in-law work in local government, and what they tell me is frightening, if the private sector was run like the public sector… then there wouldn't be a private sector. Simple.

The worrying thing is, is that doesn't even scratch the surface.

And people complain about cutting the 50% tax rate.

Building more houses is going to do very little if many of those new houses are either housing association, or purchased by individuals or companies as either second/third homes or as investment properties. Until the Government closes tax loopholes… and reforms everything from capital gains to council tax on these type of people/properties, then building more homes is going to do little to address the bigger problems we as a country face.

It also does nothing to address the issue of empty housing, in 2011 there was estimated between 700k+ and 1 million empty homes, that's a lot of houses stood empty doing nothing already. I suspect (though I am not sure) that that figure doesn't include holiday homes for example, those (particularly in coastal and rural communities) that are left vacant for 50 weeks of the year... not to mention the devastating impact these empty homes have on local economies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eraserhead View Post
All the rich people who spend their time avoiding tax don't care about supporting the system either.
So, pretty much like the subjects of this thread then. Maybe the divide between rich and poor isn't so great after all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eraserhead View Post
The median UK salary is about £21k/year or so. What's the median salary where you live?
With an average of £26,500.

P.S. Eraser, could you post a link the article on the Economist about the 96% effective tax rate, I've not been able to find it, and whilst I'm not a fan of the Economist, I would love to read it to see their rationale for that figure.
__________________
Me.
iGav is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 5, 2013, 12:02 PM   #49
Eraserhead
macrumors G4
 
Eraserhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by iGav View Post
I can. Whilst I agree that housing is a big problem, it is far, far, far from being the biggest.

The inherent wastefulness and inefficiency of the public sector in general is a far, far, far greater problem, and one that only got greater under Labour, remember a massive & bloated public sector, affects GDP.

Look at the procurement practices of the Government (and the general public sector), Education, NHS, Social Security, and the military alone. As Jon Snow said on Channel 4 News: "When it comes to military procurement, Israel spends £9 billion a year and administers its purchases with 400 people. Britain spends £10 billion annually on procurement and has a staff of 23,700 to do it."

23,700… Even if those figures are greatly exaggerated, it'd still be completely and utterly absurd. Both my brother and sister-in-law work in local government, and what they tell me is frightening, if the private sector was run like the public sector… then there wouldn't be a private sector. Simple.

The worrying thing is, is that doesn't even scratch the surface.
The counter to that is that people like teachers, nurses etc. who make up a substantial proportion of the government budget usually work very hard.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iGav View Post
It also does nothing to address the issue of empty housing, in 2011 there was estimated between 700k+ and 1 million empty homes, that's a lot of houses stood empty doing nothing already.
But a lot/most of those empty homes will be in places where there aren't jobs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iGav View Post
P.S. Eraser, could you post a link the article on the Economist about the 96% effective tax rate, I've not been able to find it, and whilst I'm not a fan of the Economist, I would love to read it to see their rationale for that figure.
Sure.

Quote:
But while these typically provide quite strong incentives to work a set number of hours (for example 16 hours for parents), they have been latched on to the existing system, which creates complexity and disincentives to work as extra earnings are largely offset by withdrawal of benefits and tax incurred. These deduction rates can reach as high as 96% in some instances.
Quote:
Even when the universal credit is introduced, claimants earning enough to pay the basic rate of tax will face a marginal deduction rate of 76%. That's still pretty onerous, which helps to explain why sanctions are needed, too.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/bligh...welfare_reform
__________________
If they have to tell you every day they are fair you can bet they arent, if they tell you they are balanced then you should know they are not - Don't Hurt me
Eraserhead is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 5, 2013, 12:11 PM   #50
PracticalMac
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by niuniu View Post
No that's the thing, we don't have a cut-off here. You can apply for everything and if you get it all, then you get it all as long as you meet the requirements.

I don't know how you get that much, but I'm guessing Housing Benefit, Child Benefit, Jobseeker's Allowance and whatever else is going around.
I wonder if benefits are 99% food only, how long before they get job?
__________________
FireWire 1394 Intelligent network guaranteed data transfer, 1500mA power, Ethernet compatible
Read: 160 files, 650MB total, FW400 70% faster then USB2
Write: 160 files, 650MB total, FW400 48% faster
PracticalMac is offline   0 Reply With Quote


Reply
MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Couple of keys stopped working after wine spill fatboysam MacBook Pro 4 Oct 13, 2012 04:08 PM
How do I cancel iCloud I don't want to pay $20 a year? Myiphone7 iPhone 12 Oct 3, 2012 05:22 PM
2012 year of the upgrades for me. couple questions... youngmac MacBook Air 4 Sep 21, 2012 10:08 AM
My iphone is not working! don't know what happened to it maryt89 iPhone Tips, Help and Troubleshooting 3 Sep 8, 2012 11:42 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:56 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC