RANT - Fed up with life here in the UK

[Sdrawkcab]

IT IS OUR MONEY! Don't be ridiculous. I pay tax. It goes into the pot, and that gets given out to others - something I entirely agree with.

.

 

Once it goes into the pot it's not yours any more though, is it? That being said, it's not wrong to get angry about how it's being spent. In this situation, though, your anger is misguided. Benefits are the smallest of our problems, but they're made out to be the biggest because it makes a gripping news story that effectively sells papers. If you want to get angry about mis-appropriation of the tax system, get angry about things like the Vodafone tax bill (or lack of it).

[salc]

I know what you mean about feeling poor - I am very grateful that my children are adults now and I only have two more years of education costs to help with and then I am done.

 

Except that you are never done, you are always a parent and you always want to be able to help them if you can. I have to agree with the above comments about feeling the pinch.

[pcstru]

From Hansard, 2010 :

Katy Clark: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much HM Revenue and Customs has spent on advertising for the purposes of preventing tax evasion in each of the last three years. [3776]

 

Mr Gauke: HM Revenue and Customs spent £633,284 (excluding VAT) on advertising for the purposes of preventing tax evasion last year. There was no expenditure in the previous two years.

 

Katy Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much his Department budgeted for advertising tackling benefit fraud in each of the last three financial years. [1035]

 

Chris Grayling: The information is in the table:

 

Budgeted expenditure for advertising tackling benefit fraud

 

2007-08 £6.5 million

2008-09 £6.0 million

2009-10 £5.0 million

"

 

Estimates of the tax gap (the gap between what we might expect tax revenues to be and what they actually are) are of amounts from £30billion up to £120 billion. Estimates of benefit fraud in the same period were around £3 billion.

 

None of which is to say that Benefit Fraud should be tolerated, but think how often you hear the Daily Mail type ranting "something must be done" about each. Given the amounts involved Tax evasion should have a high priority but it seems all the energy AND funding goes on benefit fraud. Why is that?

 

From Welfare fraud is a drop in the ocean compared to tax avoidance | James Ball | Comment is free | theguardian.com

 

"

Joanne Gibbons was sentenced to community service for claiming income support while holding down two paid jobs. Through accumulated payments of £66-a-week, the court heard, she collected £3,140 to which she wasn't entitled.

 

Predictably, the Daily Mail is outraged. But here's the strange twist: had Gibbons claimed the benefits to which she was actually entitled, she could have collected £130 a week through family tax credits and child benefit. In total, Gibbons' fraudulent claims cost the taxpayer around £3,100 less than claiming what she was actually entitled to.

"

And prosecuting that cost the taxpayer even more money!

 

 

(It is actually good to see attitudes are starting to change - thanks largely to organisations like UK Uncut. Today there is evidence that people are starting to consider tax evasion as socially unacceptable, 10 years ago it hardly rated a mention. It's just a shame that at the highest political levels, so much emphasis is put on cracking down on benefits while so little is done to combat tax evasion. Politicians like the easy targets and we seem happy to let them get away with it).

[peterp]

Things are getting harder, and our pay is effectivly cut with years of freezes. However, I have a modest overdraft, a car, TV, a roof over my head, a computer and the internet. I can afford to go to the cinema once a month or so, eat well etc.

Most of us 'in the middle' are doing quite alright, we have no worries about where our next meal is coming from, or winding up living in a cardboard box.

[localzuk]

Once it goes into the pot it's not yours any more though, is it? That being said, it's not wrong to get angry about how it's being spent. In this situation, though, your anger is misguided. Benefits are the smallest of our problems, but they're made out to be the biggest because it makes a gripping news story that effectively sells papers. If you want to get angry about mis-appropriation of the tax system, get angry about things like the Vodafone tax bill (or lack of it).

 

Financial wrongdoing should be stopped wherever it is, be it benefit cheats/laziness or corporate tax avoidance (I'm a fan of taxing revenue in country of purchase origin rather than profit).

[APMerry]

It really isn't a minority and it is frustrating. Certainly in the area I live, I see these people with 3/4 kids living in a council house that would cost upwards of £300k and they're renting it for the price of a studio flat. The kids have a blackberry/iphone/expensive clothes and there's a massive 60inch flat screen in the living room with sky. Me and my Mrs cant even get a mortgage for anything with more than 1 bedroom, the thought of having a house and family seems completely unachievable. I don't know anyone my age with a house that hasn't had help from their parents, something that I'm not going to get.

 

I can only see it getting worse and more people ending up living off benefits and living above their means.

[sted]

Financial wrongdoing should be stopped wherever it is, be it benefit cheats/laziness or corporate tax avoidance (I'm a fan of taxing revenue in country of purchase origin rather than profit).

 

to argue devils advocate about amazon/vodaphone etc's tax bill. If the system allows them to pay very little why shouldnt they? its not their problem thats the govenments fault for having a system that allows them legally to pay naff all. As im sure we all want to pay the minimum tax we can so do companies. Now there is an argument that their lobyists get the tax system altered in their favour but thats a separate issue imo

[witch]

It really isn't a minority and it is frustrating. .

It really is, you know, even if they all live near you.

Trust me, with three children who have little hope of affording anywhere to live in the near future, I do understand where you are coming from. I am in favour of a benefit system done by vouchers for food etc where you have to prove who you are (so they cant be sold on) as some countries have.

[witch]

to argue devils advocate about amazon/vodaphone etc's tax bill. If the system allows them to pay very little why shouldnt they? its not their problem thats the govenments fault for having a system that allows them legally to pay naff all. As im sure we all want to pay the minimum tax we can so do companies. Now there is an argument that their lobyists get the tax system altered in their favour but thats a separate issue imo

Absolutely - I can't stand all this moralising carp handed out to people like Jimmy Carr. Most of us would pay less tax if we could - this is why governments are always trumpeting tax cuts whilst increasing hidden taxes - so sneering at people who find legal loopholes is silly.

It is up to the government to STOP this from happening

[sted]

It really is, you know, even if they all live near you.

Trust me, with three children who have little hope of affording anywhere to live in the near future, I do understand where you are coming from. I am in favour of a benefit system done by vouchers for food etc where you have to prove who you are (so they cant be sold on) as some countries have.

 

or even with online deleveries send them the food direct they go to http://www.govfood.com (or similar) and fill their basket up to £x thats it they never see anything like money and can only buy food/anything else deemed appropriate

[pcstru]

As im sure we all want to pay the minimum tax we can so do companies.

Do we? I want to pay the *right* amount of tax, a *fair* amount of tax, an amount that is proportional to the benefits I expect 'society' to deliver. I'm not a company who's sole purpose is to maximise revenue, so I very much hope my motivations are (and should be) different.

 

You could equally argue that these so called benefits scroungers are just maximising their entitlements. If they didn't lack the motivation and capability they might grow up to become the carrion scroungers of society, otherwise known as wealthy tax evaders.

[tmcd35]

It really isn't a minority and it is frustrating. Certainly in the area I live, I see these people with 3/4 kids living in a council house that would cost upwards of £300k and they're renting it for the price of a studio flat. The kids have a blackberry/iphone/expensive clothes and there's a massive 60inch flat screen in the living room with sky. Me and my Mrs cant even get a mortgage for anything with more than 1 bedroom, the thought of having a house and family seems completely unachievable. I don't know anyone my age with a house that hasn't had help from their parents, something that I'm not going to get.

 

I can only see it getting worse and more people ending up living off benefits and living above their means.

 

You've just (almost) described my sister! 3 bed council house. 4 Kids of school age. Each have iPhones, TV's, games consoles, etc. It's terrible! I can bearly afford to pay the mortgage on my 2bed flat 'course living like that they must be living off benefits, scrounging off society.

 

Does it change your opinion if I told you he (her Husband) is a nurse and she is a degree educated Radographer?

 

Outward apparences of these council dwellers with multiple offspring are not always what they seem!

 

So they were once in a position to qualify for a council property - good for them. I wish I was too, much prefer that to private rent or mortgage. Your problem isn't them, the house they live in or the phones their kids have. Your problem is the fact that successive govenements have refused to properly invest in social housing since Thatcher brought in the right to buy 30 years ago. This has driven house prices and private rent prices to the point of stupidity they are at now.

[DPrince]

Your problem isn't them, the house they live in or the phones their kids have. Your problem is the fact that successive govenements have refused to properly invest in social housing since Thatcher brought in the right to buy 30 years ago. This has driven house prices and private rent prices to the point of stupidity they are at now.

 

I agree with you, but my problem is with them - part of the problem with the lack of social (and other) housing is because we have reasonably well-paid professionals living in social housing, which was never really intended for them. I don't particularly blame them (as you say: Good for them), but the system across the board is f'ed up.

 

The reality is that there is fault at both ends of the spectrum. The rich seem to get ever richer in a world of dwindling resources and opportunities. Corporations crowd out the smaller operatives, and never mind small businesses getting a foot on the ladder; usually the ladder has been removed. The benefits system is no longer the safety net that it used to be - it is now designed to support a relatively comfortable way of life pretty much indefinitely. I'm not saying that benefit claimants have it particularly easy, but they certainly don't have it particularly hard.

I actually used to work for a housing benefits department, and have many interesting memories. One that comes to mind is interviewing a woman who was about to be evicted for not paying her housing association rent (she had collected the benefit, but not paid it to the housing association). When asked why she hadn't paid it, she said "I bought my kids a tv for their bedroom". When I pointed out that her priorities were probably not correct, she replied "You wouldn't let your kids go without a tv, would you? Why should mine?".

Pretty much sums it up.

[andyturpie]

Absolutely - I can't stand all this moralising carp handed out to people like Jimmy Carr. Most of us would pay less tax if we could - this is why governments are always trumpeting tax cuts whilst increasing hidden taxes - so sneering at people who find legal loopholes is silly.

It is up to the government to STOP this from happening

 

Are you implying then that the majority of society today are morally corrupt?

 

Then yes, would agree with you. I wouldn't dream of looking to pay less than my fair share of tax because I understand what the money in the treasury is used for. I understand that health and education rely heavily on this, so why should I look to deny them funds. Which is why every company then I know which avoids corporation tax in the UK never gets my custom. I also support the High Street. I do not care if some gadget costs £50 extra in a High Street store. I am not suckered into the "must have it and have it now" mentality. Human race needs to learn not to attach a monetary label to everything and everyone.

[X-13]

a *fair* amount of tax

 

That's a subjective amount.

 

To me "fair" is the exact amount I have to pay. No more, no less.

 

If I can legally pay less, then I will. And no amount of the Government whining "that's not faaaiiiir" will change it.

 

You don't like the rules, change them.

 

 

I do not care if some gadget costs £50 extra in a High Street store.

 

...

 

I don't earn anywhere near enough to throw money doing that.

 

Though, I wouldn't want to. Why would you pay extra when you don't have to? WHY? This is why high street shops are doing badly, because they're MORE EXPENSIVE.

 

I am not suckered into the "must have it and have it now" mentality.

 

Surely, paying extra to get it from a shop straight away means you are.

 

I spend less online and get free delivery, but I have to wait a bit longer. [usually 3 - 5 days.]

Edited October 24, 2013 by X-13

[broc]

Corporations have no morals like people do. Corporations (mostly) operate within the law and take advantage of any means of maximising revenue & shareholder profit. You can and should expect them to behave in an honest, legal way but don't expect decency or fairness unless it is good for business!

[Sdrawkcab]

It really isn't a minority and it is frustrating. Certainly in the area I live, I see these people with 3/4 kids living in a council house that would cost upwards of £300k and they're renting it for the price of a studio flat. The kids have a blackberry/iphone/expensive clothes and there's a massive 60inch flat screen in the living room with sky. Me and my Mrs cant even get a mortgage for anything with more than 1 bedroom, the thought of having a house and family seems completely unachievable. I don't know anyone my age with a house that hasn't had help from their parents, something that I'm not going to get.

 

Once again this is anecdotal evidence. You are literally making a snap judgement based on how these people look. This is classism at its absolute worst, and you don't even seem to know you're doing it.

[cpjitservices]

Nephilim, I know what you mean, i'm classed as a middle earner and I also can only claim tax credits and child benefit. We struggle, but we do without for the kids benefit which is what I see most people doing these days. I have family members who rub it in my face that they arnt working, claim every benefit going and get more than me a month, they earn more than me a month in more ways than one as they are eligible for more than me because I have a job and pay my taxes. Which January is coming, I'm going to have a high tax bill. Which I definitely cannot afford. I dont have a car neither does my wife, neither of us have a full driving license. This is simply because we dont see a point in passing our driving test as we couldn't afford a car anyway. I get penalized when applying for jobs because they require a 'Full UK Driving License'. I dont even bother applying for other jobs if I see that in the job description, which these days is at least 75% of jobs.

We are moving house, we are moving furniture and that is mainly it. We can afford to pay anymore for anything else to be picked up as removal companies charge by the hour. As it is, I'm worrying that we are going to go over the allotted 2 hours and will get charged extra as I cannot afford it. Leaving quite alot of stuff behind means A) Less deposit back because the landlord is going to have to get someone to clear the property and B) IM going to have to buy things again. Friends / Family can't really help because I cant afford to give them the fuel money and would be unfair to expect someone to help us for free. So why Am I moving if I cant afford it, the property we are moving into belongs to a friend, so it's cheaper rent and a much bigger property, it has a nice brand new boiler which will reduce on the bills. We need more space for the kids.

Its unfair that we get treat like this and have to make drastic changes to our lives, but needs must I guess.

 

 

 

In full time work, it isn't a problem, hell earning anything over £700 a month for me, means we can live without worry, and pay all bills. We can't afford a new/2nd hand car, so we are making do with the mrs car. She works from home now so thats a bonus, our internet is paid for by her company, and we're not shelling out in fuel anywhere near as much. I have a disabled bus pass which is a godsend as if we need to go to tesco/asda/morrisons for milk or washing powder, its more economical for me to go 45 mins on the bus than the mrs 15 mins in the car.

 

With the £700 I want to earn a month, this would pay for heating so we have it on more than an hour a day, stock up our fridge and pantry so that we have both fresh and long life food readily available and that the mrs and I can afford to eat more than once a day. We'd pay back people that have loaned us money. And we save enough to buy a decent car which has better fuel economy and lower tax bracket than our current one.

[andyturpie]

That's a subjective amount.

 

To me "fair" is the exact amount I have to pay. No more, no less.

 

If I can legally pay less, then I will. And no amount of the Government whining "that's not faaaiiiir" will change it.

 

You don't like the rules, change them.

 

 

 

 

...

 

I don't earn anywhere near enough to throw money doing that.

 

Though, I wouldn't want to. Why would you pay extra when you don't have to? WHY? This is why high street shops are doing badly, because they're MORE EXPENSIVE.

 

 

 

Surely, paying extra to get it from a shop straight away means you are.

 

I spend less online and get free delivery, but I have to wait a bit longer. [usually 3 - 5 days.]

 

 

What I meant it to sound was I am not a browser or impulsive shopper. I could say save for 2 months and buy say a NAS box off Amazon for say £200 but if I know a local High Street store was selling them at £230 and I had to wait until next months payday to put the extra £30 to get it from the High Street, knowing that the money was going to a company that pays its dues morally, employs its staff on decent T's and C's then that can help make society richer more than ways than just fiscally.

[cpjitservices]

And guess what..... Your next renewal will also be £1500 quid less as they go on how much you earned the year before. Or thats what happened to me anyway.

 

 

 

Feeling the pinch here; three kids and feel my income just doesn't stretch as far as it did. Each month seems to be a major bill, insurance, etc that just gobbles up the chance to save or treat yourself with.

 

My wife does Floristry work privately, registered with the Tax man and does Tax Return each year. Last year she made about £1500 in profit and of course this was declared to the Child Tax Credit and what happens? Child Tax Credit gets reduce by £1500 ! So, where's the incentive to actually get of your butt and do something for yourself?

 

Pete

[CHR1S]

@Sdrawkcab you have yet to acknowledge any legitimate instances where this is proven and not snap judgements as you put it.

 

I would be more than happy to tell you many incidents that I have witnessed first had that more than backs up at least my own claims.

 

@andyturpie In my experience its not just the cost of the product thats increased. There is your travel costs, parking costs, time, so in reality that item that is £50 more on the highstreet is now £60+ more expensive than buying online. Then there is the other factor with highstreet shopping.... other people .....grrrrr

Edited October 24, 2013 by CHR1S

[X-13]

employs its staff on decent T's and C's then that can help make society richer more than ways than just fiscally.

 

Unless you've worked there, or know people that do, you don't know they do treat staff fairly.

 

My sister worked somewhere that literally locked staff in the store to try and force them to work extra.

[ButterflyMoon]

@Galway each party is as bad as the next.

[broc]

Even if you want to use the high street to shop these days, the choices are dwindling, especially for white goods & electricals. If you are lucky, a store may have something of interest on display, but they don't carry the stock.

[andyturpie]

@Sdrawkcab you have yet to acknowledge any legitimate instances where this is proven and not snap judgements as you put it.

 

I would be more than happy to tell you many incidents that I have witnessed first had that more than backs up at least my own claims.

@andyturpie In my experience its not just the cost of the product thats increased. There is your travel costs, parking costs, time, so in reality that item that is £50 more on the highstreet is now £60+ more expensive than buying online. Then there is the other factor with highstreet shopping.... other people .....grrrrr

@CHR1S - Personally I don't drive so I have no extra outlay there. I'm under a 10 minute walk from our town centre.

@X-13 Your exactly right - I have a huge range of contacts that either run their own businesses or I am not shy in asking the pertinent questions in a store before making a purchase. I do what ever I can to support local independents before even considering the large corporates. I feel doing this is part of my social duty.