[dazza74]

Originally Posted by Jenn

People are working 40-45 hours weeks with hours in traffic to commute, paying high taxes so some people can go out and get money and not pay tax on it. Basically someone could be earning a good living cash in hand plus pocketing money taken from honest taxpayers??

These honest tax payers are normally creating the cash in hand work in the first place. Plenty of middle class families who like the idea of paying less than £6 an hour for a cleaner, ideal get somebody on benefits in who'll do it cash in hand for £4 an hour. It's not the big companies, they can't get away with it.

[Jenn]

Originally Posted by dazza74

These honest tax payers are normally creating the cash in hand work in the first place. Plenty of middle class families who like the idea of paying less than £6 an hour for a cleaner, ideal get somebody on benefits in who'll do it cash in hand for £4 an hour. It's not the big companies, they can't get away with it.

Right ok it's those nasty middle income earners with their slave cook, maid, buttler and gardener...

There aren't any companies employing cash in hand people, illegal immigrants are all employed legitimately too. And benefit cheats will never pose as self employed tradesmen to customers.

It must be the tories fault.
We should feel sorry for benefit cheats, not their fault after all.

[dazza74]

Originally Posted by Jenn

Right ok it's those nasty middle income earners with their slave cook, maid, buttler and gardener...

There aren't any companies employing cash in hand people, illegal immigrants are all employed legitimately too. And benefit cheats will never pose as self employed tradesmen to customers.

It must be the tories fault.
We should feel sorry for benefit cheats, not their fault after all.

True story this, I know of somebody who's a friend who took advantage of the fact that somebody he knew who was working, not on benefits but was in the Taxi game and the downturn had hit his business hard. I think he got him to fix his expensive german car for £20 rather than put it in a garage.

You sound a bit like most people I know who are self employed (and I know quite a few and remember I'm self employed myself before you poke the dirty stick at me). They use this stereotypical workshy scrouncher to justify their own fiddling. I've yet to meet anyone who when you put them in charge of paying their own taxes isn't bent (financially).

[Jenn]

Originally Posted by dazza74

True story this, I know of somebody who's a friend who took advantage of the fact that somebody he knew who was working, not on benefits but was in the Taxi game and the downturn had hit his business hard. I think he got him to fix his expensive german car for £20 rather than put it in a garage.

You sound a bit like most people I know who are self employed (and I know quite a few and remember I'm self employed myself before you poke the dirty stick at me). They use this stereotypical workshy scrouncher to justify their own fiddling. I've yet to meet anyone who when you put them in charge of paying their own taxes isn't bent (financially).

I hope you're not suggesting I'm fiddling anything! I'm not self employed, I am employed by a company I own and pay my taxes (plenty of them!) as due.
And that's why I resent people getting cash in hand jobs while I and others fund their benefits.

I don't see all unemployed people as scroungers and never even suggested it. However I know there are enough who are for something to be done.

Like uninsured drivers put the cost of insurance up for the rest of us, benefit cheats cost us more in tax. Why should I feel bad about resenting either?

[dazza74]

Originally Posted by Jenn

I hope you're not suggesting I'm fiddling anything! I'm not self employed, I am employed by a company I own and pay my taxes (plenty of them!) as due.
And that's why I resent people getting cash in hand jobs while I and others fund their benefits.

I class tax avoidance as fiddling as well, nuts to the legality, anything that means you feel you've a different pot to "PAYE" employess is fiddling in my book. As I say, somebody has to create the "cash in hand opportunity". Who's worse, the drug taker or the drug dealer.

I'm not directing anything at you personally. It's more based on my personal experience of what I've seen in the last 5 years and the different people I've met. I've gone from socialising with people who didn't frakly appreciate an above average salary and what that bought them (including myself), even without a good pay rise. To mixing with people who've frankly got nothing and very little to look forward to on a daily basis.

[Jenn]

Originally Posted by dazza74

I class tax avoidance as fiddling as well, nuts to the legality, anything that means you feel you've a different pot to "PAYE" employess is fiddling in my book. As I say, somebody has to create the "cash in hand opportunity". Who's worse, the drug taker or the drug dealer.

I'm not directing anything at you personally. It's more based on my personal experience of what I've seen in the last 5 years and the different people I've met. I've gone from socialising with people who didn't frakly appreciate an above average salary and what that bought them (including myself), even without a good pay rise. To mixing with people who've frankly got nothing and very little to look forward to on a daily basis.

Just for the record, all my income is through PAYE. So...

We are not discussing the right or wrong of offering cash in hand here. Offering and taking it is just as wrong but by taking cash in hand WHILE claiming benefit is double wrong: you do wrong not paying tax on your income + you're claiming benefits by declaring you are not getting any income!

I wasn't born with a silver spoon in my mouth or given any more opportunities than others. And I've lived on very little and enjoyed better times too. I have been employed by others and I've experienced what others go through employing people.
My views aren't based on any political party either, if Labour had come out with the plan I'd have said "well done" all the same.
We can't have a 100% efficient system and there will always be people getting through the net but not allowing to be that easy is not exactly unreasonable.

Or are there people out there who think people should be allowed to do what they please and live on other people's work?

[Kebabhead]

Originally Posted by dazza74

I class tax avoidance as fiddling as well, nuts to the legality,.

Much easier to pick on the unemployed rather than tackle tax evaders

[dazza74]

Originally Posted by Jenn

Just for the record, all my income is through PAYE. So...

What exactly. You perhaps pay yourself the minimum wage and all the goodies bought via dividends

(You'll have to do better than that)

[dovercat]

Originally Posted by dazza74

These honest tax payers are normally creating the cash in hand work in the first place. Plenty of middle class families who like the idea of paying less than £6 an hour for a cleaner, ideal get somebody on benefits in who'll do it cash in hand for £4 an hour. It's not the big companies, they can't get away with it.

I live near a big industrial park. In my opinion it is companies via employment agencies that are paying the equivalent of cash in hand. Those not eligible to work in the UK and those on benefits can easily find work in warehouses and factories cash in hand via agencies. As well as work in the building trade, or in shops, pubs and restaurants.

When companies get raided they only get caution after caution despite having scores of workers breaking the law. The law needs to be enforced employers should not be able to in effect launder employees via employment agencies, and they should be fined not get caution after caution. The law is simply not enforced.

[Jenn]

Originally Posted by dazza74

What exactly. You perhaps pay yourself the minimum wage and all the goodies bought via dividends

(You'll have to do better than that)

I think I was pretty clear: all my income is through PAYE.

Dividends have been paid in the past but when they were, they were basically seen as bonuses and certainly didn't form the majority of the income, far from that.

So now am I entitled to resent benefit cheats or do you need my P60 and bank statements for the last 5 years and company account for the last 3 years?

That said, being paid dividends isn't fiddling! Tax is being paid on that money including corporation tax. Unless the amount of income is large, the difference between PAYE and dividends isn't great.
And at the end of the day, the people getting the money worked for it and aren't doing anything illegal.

[la gran siete]

Originally Posted by Jenn

the point i was making was that there is a reason why employers wont take them and why ths initiative is a gimmick

I wasnt .They are already allowed to work 16 hours per week as long a they declare it. Expecting to them to live on £66 pw just isnt reasonable so i dont begrudge them one inch earning an extra 80 quid or so a week provided they dont attempt doing jobs that are beyond them/At least they are doing some work.Its a matter of degrees tho , i would want them to take the **** out of the system

[la gran siete]

Originally Posted by dazza74

What exactly. You perhaps pay yourself the minimum wage and all the goodies bought via dividends

(You'll have to do better than that)

geez, you are making some pretty outrageous suggestions about someone running their own business

[dazza74]

One of the things I don't understand is this when I read some of these posts on here. I can honestly say, when I had the money to go and spend a week in the Carrbean I didn't get myself all worked up about people on benefits, I just sat and enjoyed myself and thought "Aren't I fortunate" to be able to do this. It was good enough for me that I could make the distinction between the quality of my life going out to work and that of living on benefits, I don't recall I needed to see my "Pound of Flesh". I think LGS gets a bloody hard time on here for his views the more I think about it, it's easy when you've got money to slag off those that don't.

It's not rocket science why this government can lay of all these people in the public sector, they don't have to go and tell them to their face they are out of a job.

How many of us have actually sat on their own in a house and tried to keep warm, the lights on and feed ourselves on £65 a week. What exactly do we think people are going to do if they do lose their benefits for 3 month's, desperate people do desperate things. I've often thought if I was that skint, I'd buy a banana in Tesco's and get a carrier bag. I'd then walk into a local post office or bank and try to stick up the place. That would no doubt get me a good 5-10 years in a warm place at HMP where I'd be looked after, might even get a PS3 to play on

[gibbsy]

I can just imagine the meeting rooms at Tory controlled councils. How many road sweepers, gardeners and painters can they sack to save money. Then they can get the government to send the very same people back to them to do the jobs that they had been sacked from. It's a brilliant ploy.

I watched a documentary about the 1910 Tonypandy riots last night. Men were forced to go on strike because their wages had been cut and cut. So much so that their children were on the verge of starvation and had to be fed in soup kitchens.

The coal owner was in the south of France, for health reasons and would not return to negotiate. He wanted to starve the men back to work. No worries Winston Churchill send in the troops and Metropolitan Police to force them back.

Would we stand for that now, or have we learnt nothing from history. The Tories will do everything in their power to keep the working man down and with what I've read of some of the replies on here, so do a lot of you.

[Jenn]

Reading some people exagerated dramas you'd think that anyone losing their job will be sent to the workhouse the very next day and condemned to live as a slave the rest of their lives.

But no the early reports say:
- long term unemployed (years not hours)
- seen to sabotage their own chances of getting a job (i.e. Turning up late to interviews, refusing to do some work etc.)

[gibbsy]

Originally Posted by Jenn

Reading some people exagerated dramas you'd think that anyone losing their job will be sent to the workhouse the very next day and condemned to live as a slave the rest of their lives.

But no the early reports say:
- long term unemployed (years not hours)
- seen to sabotage their own chances of getting a job (i.e. Turning up late to interviews, refusing to do some work etc.)

That is a very real fear of a lot of people, especially the sick and disabled. In the short time that this government has been in power everything seems to be landing at the foot of the poor and unemployed. It's not the feckless bonus chasing idiots who have caused this problem. It must be the poor and unemployed. Well, just blame them anyway.

It is no good putting people onto scheme after scheme if there is no real chance of having a worthwhile job. Some areas of the UK have not recovered from the evil of Thatcher's government. You cannot base an economy on just one geographical area of a country, ie, the Home Counties. Thatcher was quite happy to see this area blossom at the expense of the rest of the UK.

Labour, sadly followed largely ignoring the areas of the 'donkey vote' and concentrated on keeping the middle classes happy. No one, in all honesty, could call a coal miner or steel worker lazy. These are the same people who, for the last 25 years, have been flitting from one poorly paid job to another. It must be soul destroying.

Unless well paid jobs are attracted to the deprived areas of the UK you will never get rid of pockets of high unemployment. Yet the cynic in me thinks that the Tories will still like the status quo to remain as unemployed scrongers can always be made scapegoats.

Get well paid jobs into the areas. Good honest hardworking folk will queue up for the work. It will soon filter down the chain when those still out of work will see their mates going out and getting better and nicer things and will want to earn and have the same. When there is no light at the end of the tunnel it's hard to find your way, especially when your being kicked in the ribs as you crawl along.

[neilios]

Originally Posted by dazza74

True story this, I know of somebody who's a friend who took advantage of the fact that somebody he knew who was working, not on benefits but was in the Taxi game and the downturn had hit his business hard. I think he got him to fix his expensive german car for £20 rather than put it in a garage.

You sound a bit like most people I know who are self employed (and I know quite a few and remember I'm self employed myself before you poke the dirty stick at me). They use this stereotypical workshy scrouncher to justify their own fiddling. I've yet to meet anyone who when you put them in charge of paying their own taxes isn't bent (financially).

What you seem to forget is that self employed people and businesses generate their own income and are completely self sufficient ,i find your opinions on tax lacking in understanding and to be frank a complete load of ******.

For the record i think this whole idea is an insult to normal human beings..

[travid]

Originally Posted by dazza74

I class tax avoidance as fiddling as well, nuts to the legality,

So we can pick and choose the laws we agree with. Tax avoidance is illegal. Following the guidlines set by HMRC is not. It really is that simple.

Originally Posted by Kebabhead

Much easier to pick on the unemployed rather than tackle tax evaders

4X HMRC inspectors on the road than benefits inspectors.

Lot of stereotyping by the ignorance of a lot of people on here,
We cannot have it both ways. On the one hand people go the Daily mail route and others rabbit on about the "persecution" of those on benefits. There is a little of truth in both opinions, but singling out the self employed and especially the steroetyping of these as "tax avoiders" is laughable

[Desmo]

Originally Posted by la gran siete

Perhaps we should force small companies to take a few on

***? You obviously don't run a small business

[travid]

Originally Posted by Desmo

***? You obviously don't run a small business

Is LGS that obvious

[la gran siete]

Originally Posted by Desmo

***? You obviously don't run a small business

your not quite understanding the point i made.The unemployable are unemployed because no one wants them so if thats the case this initiative can only be seen as a short term gimmick, unless the government intends to employ them in the public sector in the fiuture which is highly unlikely

[Jenn]

Originally Posted by la gran siete

your not quite understanding the point i made.The unemployable are unemployed because no one wants them so if thats the case this initiative can only be seen as a short term gimmick, unless the government intends to employ them in the public sector in the fiuture which is highly unlikely

This is not targetting the unemployable (who is unemployable anyway?), it is targetting the ones who don't want to be employed, the ones who are happy pocketing their benefit to stay at home and some who go out and earn a living cash in hand on the side.

The idea is to cause them to decide taking a month off their undeclared work is not worth the benefits so thei either come of it or stop getting it if they don't turn up.

If by unemployable you mean the ones with no qualifications or the ones with such an attitude that employers don't want them, I can bet a fair few of them won't act as unemployable should they face time without the safety of free cash.

[dovercat]

Originally Posted by Jenn

But no the early reports say:
- long term unemployed (years not hours)
- seen to sabotage their own chances of getting a job (i.e. Turning up late to interviews, refusing to do some work etc.)

Not years
Six months or more, anyone on non-contributions based jobseekers

Not those seen to sabotage their own chances of getting a job.
If there is any evidence of that the claimant can already have their benefits stopped.

It appears to me to not be for the benefit of the claimant but to satisfy the vindictive nature of those who think all long term unemployed are lazy scroungers.

Would the public rejoice if the police were given the power to spot fine or sentence to community service members of the public at whim, no need for evidence. They just suspect you are no good or just do not like the look of you. Why waste time by requiring evidence, they can be trusted to be fair and impartial and instinctively know who to punish.
It is the arbitrary and punitive nature of the scheme that are offensive.

If it was for all long term unemployed, be they University graduates, professionals, middle class, etc... Then I would have no objection. But it is being sold as an arbitrary punishment for the workshy and those working while claiming meted out at the whim of jobcenter staff. With no need for evidence that the claimant is working cash in hand or not actively seeking and available for work and doing everything that they are suppose to.

If the community work was sold as a positive thing enabling people to contribute to society. Then I would have no objection. But it is being sold as a punishment a kick up the backside for the lazy scoungers. I see no difference between it and community service non custodial sentences for convicted criminals.

It may also end up enabling private companies and councils to use a cheap pool of labour. With council cut backs I can see people being told to do work that was previously done by employed staff. I can also see companys abusing the system like they did with YTS.

[dovercat]

Originally Posted by travid

4X HMRC inspectors on the road than benefits inspectors.

Lot of stereotyping by the ignorance of a lot of people on here,
We cannot have it both ways. On the one hand people go the Daily mail route and others rabbit on about the "persecution" of those on benefits. There is a little of truth in both opinions, but singling out the self employed and especially the steroetyping of these as "tax avoiders" is laughable

Tax avoidance is legal. No problem with people obeying the law. Maybe as well as changing welfare legislation the government should change tax legislation. So they hit the poorest and richest in society.


You will be please to know that the number of DWP fraud investigators is being rapidly increased, it was less than 2,000. While the number of HMRC Revenue staff have already been cut by a third to 68,000 with more to go.

However the decision to cut back HMRC and increase the number of DWP investigators seems odd, when you consider.

On average a senior tax inspector on £50,000 brings in about £1.5m, while lower-level inspectors on £25,000 bring in £300,000 each. HMRC prefer to settle out of court bringing only 200 cases last year. HMRC inspectors are also an effective deterent. A recent crackdown on doctors, led to the word getting around and 10% of doctors coming forward and confessing to cheating. It is estimated that every £1 detected results in another £1 being declared that otherwise would have been lost to fraud.

By comparison DWP fraud chasers on average bring in 10 times less than HMRC tax inspectors, but DWP go to court far more often bringing 9,000 cases last year.

So there appears to be far more tax evasion than benefit fraud both in % of people committing fraud and in £ lost. But funnily less criminal prosecutions and the number of HMRC revenue staff is being cut back.

Gee 10% of doctors, not the same doctors the government is giving control of the NHS funding to!
Can we safely stereotype doctors as on average more dishonest than welfare recipients. Estimated level of fraud according to the government is 2.8% for Jobseeker allowance. Doctors are self employed working for the NHS. Maybe doctors are more dishonest as a group than other self employed people.

[bosque]

Originally Posted by dovercat

DWP fraud chasers on average bring in 10 times less than HMRC tax inspectors, but DWP go to court far more often bringing 9,000 cases last year.

So there appears to be far more tax evasion than benefit fraud both in % of people committing fraud and in £ lost. But funnily less criminal prosecutions and the number of HMRC revenue staff is being cut back.

The problem I have with this sort of argument is it attempts to equate people trying not to pay a huge of amount of tax on earned income with those who flat out cheat and lie in order to gain a benefit.

[dazza74]

Originally Posted by neilios

What you seem to forget is that self employed people and businesses generate their own income and are completely self sufficient

Given that I'm self employed, I grasped that pretty early on

[dazza74]

Nice program on Sweat Shops last night on C4. Maybe they'll be approved as work experience soon for the work shy. £2.50 an hour, hell they even pay better money than the government.

[dovercat]

Originally Posted by bosque

The problem I have with this sort of argument is it attempts to equate people trying not to pay a huge of amount of tax on earned income with those who flat out cheat and lie in order to gain a benefit.

I am equating tax evasion to benefit fraud. Not tax avoidance which is perfectly legal.
Tax evasion is flat out cheating and lying for personal gain.
Both Tax evasion and benefit fraud are illegal, cost the exchequer money and are punishable by up to 7 years in prison.

You see a moral difference between the rich man not paying his due tax and the poor man claiming more welfare than he is entitled to. That implies you think tax is morally wrong, the redistribution of wealth by the state legalized theft.

Tax evasion punishment
The money owed + interest + penalty fine of up to 100% of the money owed (penalty reduced to 20% for full confession and co-operation with the investigation, and sometimes waived all together.
Prison sentence of up to 7 years. But tax evaders very rarely taken to criminal court.

Benefit fraud punishment
If dealt with via administrative penalty, money owed + penalty fine 30% (penalty maybe reduced to 0% for full confession and co-operation with the investigation)
First offence lose all benefits for 4 weeks except Child benefit, DLA, Retirement pension, and Attendance Allowance
Second offence within 5 years lose all benefits except those noted above for 13 weeks
Criminal prosecution if refuse to accept administrative penalty or second offense, or serious fraud.
Prison sentence possible if £2,500+, very likely if £20,000+
Knowingly making false statement to obtain benefit or knowingly failing to report a change of circumstances: up to 3 months per offense, max 6 months in total, and/or up to £5000 fine
Dishonestly making a false statement to obtain benefit or dishonestly failing to report a change of circumstances : up to 7 years in prison and/or unlimited fine

[dovercat]

Originally Posted by dazza74

Nice program on Sweat Shops last night on C4. Maybe they'll be approved as work experience soon for the work shy. £2.50 an hour, hell they even pay better money than the government.

Last I read there was only 100 inspectors responsible for enforcing the minimum wage for the whole of the UK

The 30hr week £1 an hour on top of benefit proposed by the government scheme seems fair. It is more generous than +£30.05 carers premium for providing 35+hrs carer a week.

Claiming carers allowance or carers premium results in the disabled person being cared for losing entitlement to severe disability premium £53.65. So as a pair the carer+disabled person are -£23.60 a week worse off than if the carer lied and claimed JSA instead. I guess this is the type of fraud the measures will help tackle.

[Rasczak]

Originally Posted by Berties

reading this

Rowan Williams: Plans to force jobless into unpaid work are unfair | Politics | The Guardian

At last something good to come out of the coalition

Sorry but the days where people could elect a life at home on benefits payments is over. The benefits system has needed something like this for years - a real motivator to get off benefits. Previously people had a choice - stay at home, do what you want and receive very reasonable benefit payments - or goto work and (for many) earn low wages for long hours. Needless to say many people chose the former.

Now the choice will be less stark - work will pay more than benefits whilst the critically important safety net will still be there for those who can't cope. Those who don't agree need not turn up for work - nor their benefit payment.

I am prepared to bet a bit of fresh air and good hard work will do wonders for many who langish without hope or purpose on benefits. Indeed it was a few months ago that I pointed out that I paid enough tax last year to entirely subsidise a 'stay at home' family of 8 on a range of benefits and yet none of them need ever goto work. As I said then, as I pay for them why not give something back to taxpayers like myself - for instance they could do my gardening - I could easily provide 30 hours work for them per week in this respect.