Working class

[Franco5]

We know that the working class gets sponged off from the top and the bottom. It’s well known that the likes of the royal leeches, politicians et al. take huge amounts from the system while giving very little and then there’s this which is the tip of the welfare iceberg.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/11/07/couple...

For anyone struggling to read it disable Javascipt so you’ll never have to pay for another Telegraph subscription

[CraigyMc]

Franco5 said:

We know that the working class gets sponged off from the top and the bottom. It’s well known that the likes of the royal leeches, politicians et al. take huge amounts from the system while giving very little and then there’s this which is the tip of the welfare iceberg.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/11/07/couple...

For anyone struggling to read it disable Javascript so you’ll never have to pay for another Telegraph subscription

That story is just there to make you angry. It ignores the tens of millions of people on benefits who are deserving of them. It's deliberately inflammatory.

Now, about income taxes and "the working class":
The top 1% of earners together, pay 29.1% of all income tax.
The top 10% of earners together pay 60.5% of all income tax.
The bottom 50% of earners together, pay 9.4% of all income tax.

data --> https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-brie...

Based on that, it's not the working classes that are getting humped in particular.

[cavey76]

The irony of someone talking about sponging suggesting a way to circumvent paying for journalism....

...am i doing this right?

[anonymous-user]

cavey76 said:

The irony of someone talking about sponging suggesting a way to circumvent paying for journalism....

...am i doing this right?

Its not journalism though, It’s the Telegraph. So fk them

[mike74]

CraigyMc said:

That story is just there to make you angry. It ignores the tens of millions of people on benefits who are deserving of them. It's deliberately inflammatory.

Now, about income taxes and "the working class":
The top 1% of earners together, pay 29.1% of all income tax.
The top 10% of earners together pay 60.5% of all income tax.
The bottom 50% of earners together, pay 9.4% of all income tax.

data --> https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-brie...

Based on that, it's not the working classes that are getting humped in particular.

I can assure you whilst there may well be tens of millions on benefits they certainly aren't all deserving of them.

And I'm not referring to the relatively small proportion of claimants who are committing out and out benefit fraud, more the many millions who are gaming the system and making benefits a lifestyle choice, mainly by deliberately limiting the number of hours they choose to work, even when permanent full time hours are available to them, in order to receive optimum "in work" benefits.

[Electro1980]

mike74 said:

mainly by deliberately limiting the number of hours they choose to work, even when permanent full time hours are available to them, in order to receive optimum "in work" benefits.

So, when the rich stretch the limits of the tax system to breaking point it’s all fine because it’s legal.
When the poor consider the impact it’s sponging.

Who you need to direct your anger at is the people that make in work benefits even a thing. Companies that make billions whilst their staff have to rely on state benefits in order to eat.

[CraigyMc]

mike74 said:

CraigyMc said:

That story is just there to make you angry. It ignores the tens of millions of people on benefits who are deserving of them. It's deliberately inflammatory.

Now, about income taxes and "the working class":
The top 1% of earners together, pay 29.1% of all income tax.
The top 10% of earners together pay 60.5% of all income tax.
The bottom 50% of earners together, pay 9.4% of all income tax.

data --> https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-brie...

Based on that, it's not the working classes that are getting humped in particular.

I can assure you whilst there may well be tens of millions on benefits they certainly aren't all deserving of them.

And I'm not referring to the relatively small proportion of claimants who are committing out and out benefit fraud, more the many millions who are gaming the system and making benefits a lifestyle choice, mainly by deliberately limiting the number of hours they choose to work, even when permanent full time hours are available to them, in order to receive optimum "in work" benefits.

I don't see where I said they were all deserving. You wrote that, just to point out how wrong I am.

Which says a lot.

[GranpaB]

Christ, it won't be long before NP&E actually implodes.

[ZedLeg]

Electro1980 said:

mike74 said:

mainly by deliberately limiting the number of hours they choose to work, even when permanent full time hours are available to them, in order to receive optimum "in work" benefits.

So, when the rich stretch the limits of the tax system to breaking point it’s all fine because it’s legal.
When the poor consider the impact it’s sponging.

Who you need to direct your anger at is the people that make in work benefits even a thing. Companies that make billions whilst their staff have to rely on state benefits in order to eat.

Aye, around 40% of UC claimants are working. Which means that the benefits aren’t supporting people so much as supporting companies who pay a poverty wage.

[mike74]

ZedLeg said:

Aye, around 40% of UC claimants are working. Which means that the benefits aren’t supporting people so much as supporting companies who pay a poverty wage.

In some cases yes but not all.

I know people who are earning over £13ph and have the opportunity for permanent full time contracts and guaranteed overtime at time and half... yet they still choose to only work part time hours and claim UC to "top up" their earnings.

[mike74]

CraigyMc said:

I don't see where I said they were all deserving. You wrote that, just to point out how wrong I am.

Which says a lot.

You said tens of millions are deserving of them.

I'm disputing that "tens of millions" are deserving of them.

[TheLurker]

ZedLeg said:

Electro1980 said:

mike74 said:

mainly by deliberately limiting the number of hours they choose to work, even when permanent full time hours are available to them, in order to receive optimum "in work" benefits.

So, when the rich stretch the limits of the tax system to breaking point it’s all fine because it’s legal.
When the poor consider the impact it’s sponging.

Who you need to direct your anger at is the people that make in work benefits even a thing. Companies that make billions whilst their staff have to rely on state benefits in order to eat.

Aye, around 40% of UC claimants are working. Which means that the benefits aren’t supporting people so much as supporting companies who pay a poverty wage.

It doesn't necessarily mean that at all. It may be the case in some instances, but doesn't mean that's always the case.

Happy to be proven that it is correct.

[GroundEffect]

CraigyMc said:

Franco5 said:

We know that the working class gets sponged off from the top and the bottom. It’s well known that the likes of the royal leeches, politicians et al. take huge amounts from the system while giving very little and then there’s this which is the tip of the welfare iceberg.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/11/07/couple...

For anyone struggling to read it disable Javascript so you’ll never have to pay for another Telegraph subscription

That story is just there to make you angry. It ignores the tens of millions of people on benefits who are deserving of them. It's deliberately inflammatory.

Now, about income taxes and "the working class":
The top 1% of earners together, pay 29.1% of all income tax.
The top 10% of earners together pay 60.5% of all income tax.
The bottom 50% of earners together, pay 9.4% of all income tax.

data --> https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-brie...

Based on that, it's not the working classes that are getting humped in particular.

The concept of the middle class isnt really all that helpful. I'm part of the top 10% but I still need to work for a living. How is that not working class?

[anonymous-user]

mike74 said:

ZedLeg said:

Aye, around 40% of UC claimants are working. Which means that the benefits aren’t supporting people so much as supporting companies who pay a poverty wage.

In some cases yes but not all.

I know people who are earning over £13ph and have the opportunity for permanent full time contracts and guaranteed overtime at time and half... yet they still choose to only work part time hours and claim UC to "top up" their earnings.

£13 p/h is a whopping £21,480 across a 35 hour working week (I'm sure I'm right to assume lunch isn't paid?).

So just a hair under £10,000 short of the median average salary for full-time workers in the uk which is £31,285.

And that's before deductions for things like N.I, PAYE, travel, lunch and childcare costs that are likely to be increased by working full time as opposed to part time for many.

So you've sort of lost me as to how this example was supposed to be a retort to the claim benefits are being used to supplement poverty wages?

[mike74]

WorldBoss said:

£13 p/h is a whopping £21,480 across a 35 hour working week (I'm sure I'm right to assume lunch isn't paid?).

So just a hair under £10,000 short of the median average salary for full-time workers in the uk which is £31,285.

And that's before deductions for things like N.I, PAYE, travel, lunch and childcare costs that are likely to be increased by working full time as opposed to part time for many.

So you've sort of lost me as to how this example was supposed to be a retort to the claim benefits are being used to supplement poverty wages?

Breaks are paid as is annual leave obviously, I think you'll find the figure is almost £24k.

I'm not sure why you think travel, lunch and childcare costs are relevant, its an example of people choosing to have kids they can’t afford and then choosing to work minimal part time hours and let the tax payer pick up the tab for their lifestyle choices.

[Electro1980]

mike74 said:

ZedLeg said:

Aye, around 40% of UC claimants are working. Which means that the benefits aren’t supporting people so much as supporting companies who pay a poverty wage.

In some cases yes but not all.

I know people who are earning over £13ph and have the opportunity for permanent full time contracts and guaranteed overtime at time and half... yet they still choose to only work part time hours and claim UC to "top up" their earnings.

I call BS on that. That’s just not how UC works. Universal credit is reduced as soon as you start working. For every 1 pound per month you take home UC is reduced by 55p. There is something more going on, or you are making that up.

[anonymous-user]

mike74 said:

Breaks are paid as is annual leave obviously, I think you'll find the figure is almost £24k.

Almost 24k AND statutory paid annual leave!? That would be a perfectly average salary... if it were 2007

mike74 said:

I'm not sure why you think travel, lunch and childcare costs are relevant, its an example of people choosing to have kids they can’t afford and then choosing to work minimal part time hours and let the tax payer pick up the tab for their lifestyle choices.

Of course its relevant, its simple economics, not many people are going to choose to work more if it means that they are going to be financially worse off by doing so.

As for people having kids - Given the skills shortage, declining birth rate & rapidly raising average age of UK residents and the lop sided pensions and healthcare costs required to maintain them at that age, its those kids that will become the future tax payers to pick up the tab for retirement lifestyle choices of the current and proceeding ruling generations that almost certainly won't have available to to these children come taxpayers themselves come their retirement...

This issue goes far deeper than looking at a few fringe cases and grumbling.

[ZedLeg]

mike74 said:

WorldBoss said:

£13 p/h is a whopping £21,480 across a 35 hour working week (I'm sure I'm right to assume lunch isn't paid?).

So just a hair under £10,000 short of the median average salary for full-time workers in the uk which is £31,285.

And that's before deductions for things like N.I, PAYE, travel, lunch and childcare costs that are likely to be increased by working full time as opposed to part time for many.

So you've sort of lost me as to how this example was supposed to be a retort to the claim benefits are being used to supplement poverty wages?

Breaks are paid as is annual leave obviously, I think you'll find the figure is almost £24k.

I'm not sure why you think travel, lunch and childcare costs are relevant, its an example of people choosing to have kids they can’t afford and then choosing to work minimal part time hours and let the tax payer pick up the tab for their lifestyle choices.

What is the job? I can count the number of places I’ve worked that have paid lunch break time on zero hands.

Kind of odd that you just dismiss the other costs involved with moving from pt to ft hours. Almost like you’ve decided on what’s happening based on your own views instead of what’s actually happening.

[anonymous-user]

Put up the national living wage by 25% over 2 years and withdraw some of universal credit. Make companies pay a decent wage

[mike74]

WorldBoss said:

Of course its relevant, its simple economics, not many people are going to choose to work more if it means that they are going to be financially worse off by doing so.

As for people having kids - Given the skills shortage, declining birth rate & rapidly raising average age of UK residents and the lop sided pensions and healthcare costs required to maintain them at that age, its those kids that will become the future tax payers to pick up the tab for retirement lifestyle choices of the current and proceeding ruling generations that almost certainly won't have available to to these children come taxpayers themselves come their retirement...

This issue goes far deeper than looking at a few fringe cases and grumbling.

So encouraging and rewarding a whole cohort of otherwise feckless, irresponsible workshy people to breed whilst choosing to work minimal hours is going to magically produce a whole generation of motivated, skilled, hard working, well paid, productive, economy rescuing tax payers in the form of their offspring... or it could produce just another generation of net receivers, who feel they're also entitled to a life of gaming the system by breeding then doing minimal work whilst claiming optimum benefits.

I'd say it's a flip of a coin (at best) which is the most likely outcome of those 2 scenarios but one sounds considerably more utopian and fantastical than the other to me.

I do agree with you that future generations won't have the unsustainable, overly generous pensions that the current retirees enjoy, but the need for supporting these current generous pension provisions will die out with the pensioners currently enjoying them, so that isn't an economic problem that's necessarily going to persist for multiple generations to come.