£25,000 a year?

  Cymro. 12:38 13 Jun 2011

link text"David Cameron has repeated his determination to impose the cap in a bid to tackle the 'dependency culture"

So could you live on £25,000 tax free per year? No doubt many of you live on a great deal less than that. Apparently the figure of 25K has been chosen as it is the average wage in the UK.

My argument has always been that it is not high social security benefits that are the problem but people working in jobs that do not pay anything like the national average.

  Quickbeam 12:51 13 Jun 2011

There are plenty of people earning less than that, that still manage to afford to pay their own way with kids, car & house etc.

The incentive to coming off of benefits can only be a limit of £10,000. Cruel but true.

There is also the strategy of increasing the tax free threshold to around £12,000. This gives two major benefits: 1. The excuse against getting a job after a benefit lifestyle existence is removed. 2. It's fair to say that people (the vast majority) earning less than £20,000 aren't going to deprive the exchequer of funds by stuffing their mattresses with the dosh. It'll go straight back into the economy by being spent on things that will have a 20% VAT tax take applied, with the added bonus that more jobs will be created in the retail sector, which in turn will generate more VAT and corporate tax.

  Quickbeam 12:52 13 Jun 2011

...to compensate.

  Quickbeam 14:42 13 Jun 2011

It's proof that the politicos don't live on the same planet as the rest of us!

  Crosstrainer2 14:43 13 Jun 2011

Yes, I think I could manage that. But as quick beam points out... It's not really that simple. Ii worked my backside off all my life. And hate my present situation, but there are those in society who we exclude or help?

I go for help!

  Quickbeam 14:53 13 Jun 2011

With the tax threshold solution, more would be willing to take on work rather accepting longterm life on benefits, baby breeding or the plain bone idle option of believing you're entitled to everything on a plate with no input.

I've always believed that benefit payments should never be more than 80% of the minimum wage at 40 hours. Using an unrealistic national average is, well, unrealistic!

  Crosstrainer2 15:13 13 Jun 2011


True,I think the coalition is attempting to weed these people out. Hmmmm. It's been tried before!

  oresome 15:24 13 Jun 2011

Money has a differing value depending on where you live.

A city like London needs plenty of cheap labour for it to function. But where can the low paid afford to live? They won't be able to afford market rents within the city without subsidy or afford expensive travel costs.

We could move all the low paid to other areas of the country with more affordable housing, but the employment opportunities will be less and London still needs an army of low paid workers.

(I'm not sure vat at 20% applies to housing costs. It doesn't apply to basic foodstuffs and heating attracts the 5% rate. This is where the majority of the low paids income surely goes).

  peter99co 15:39 13 Jun 2011
  Crosstrainer2 15:40 13 Jun 2011

Oh how cynical we have become!

  Joseph Kerr 15:59 13 Jun 2011

Quickbeam, woudld they stil pay council tax, which could also be used as a reason not to pursue work?

I'm for helping too, but also for trying to get those who can realistically work to do so. There are a few people with "bad backs", I'm sure, but many with bad backs (no inverted commas), and related conditions such as depression.

There are many other people and organizations depriving the country of billions, which th egovernment are unable or unwilling to do anythign about, but mayeb asking a few people if they can open a screw top jar probably isnt the answer.

Just my disordered, semi informed thoughts.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

iMac Pro review

See iconic duo Smith and Foulkes' epic animation for the BBC's Winter Olympics coverage

iMac Pro review

Idées cadeaux pour geeks et tech addicts