While my mum, who has emphysema and osteoarthritis, her and my dad who has to care for her throughout the day get £135 a week between them.
To all those pee'd off about benefit fraud. Fine, it's true there are people who do it and we should try to stop them. However, it only amounts to about £1.5 billion. Unfortunately, that absolutely pales in comparison to the amount we lose from the real theives of Britain, and that's, yep you named it, private companies. This is what the tax gap looks like according to the PCS: Are we not more annoyed at that than the pocket change we lose to benefit fraud?
I know she's your sister.. but please punch her into next week. Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
You know its good manners to try and source from fairly unbiased sources? Somone elses version of the same topic http://citywire.co.uk/money/tax-evasion-costs-treasury-15-times-more-than-benefit-fraud/a378274
I know the feeling, I try not to think about it to much, or else I would go off the rails at her... Oh, did I mention about the free holidays she also gets...
Vodafones £6-£7 billion tax bill written off: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-1704527/Taxman-let-Vodafone-off-6bn-bill.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2011/dec/06/hmrc-tax-deal-vodafone Yep... £1.5 billion in fraud is bad, and the true cost of benefits and those who play it I would imagine to be much higher, but big companies do much worse with much less. They skimp on tax yet use the healthcare, roads, policing and fire fighting facilities of this country. I agree that having babies for tax reasons is hideous, and you are a terrible person if you do it, but you cant take the benefits away because then its the child suffering.
Tax evasion cost more than benefit fraud yes, however apart from the guy on the trampoline none of this is benefit fraud - it's all legal. Personally it annoys me too, but hopefully if all goes to plan should get a good career and be earn enough to afford a house, car and little holiday every now and then, those who aren't as fortunate and have to work full time for minimum wage are the ones who are the most unfair though.
Would you prefer a staycation or 2 weeks in Mauritius included in your remuneration? When oh when were "a house, car, holiday" measures of appropriate remuneration? Many of our parent or parents' parents never took holidays, many couldn't afford to buy and run a car, own the house they'd like to, or possess every gadget that comes on the market. Those things are not a right, they're something that if you are fortunate enough you earn, yes earn, over time after hard work. Quite frankly, too many young people these days think they're entitled to anything they think they want for little or no effort. Well they're not And regarding your other post, why on earth would entrepreneurs or any SME starter bother to set up business in this country if you "the workers united" are going to dictate what they can attain. And at what level would you set the Worker's earnings, based on the cost of living in the South East, which is substantially more than other parts of the country? To live in inner London would easily cost £1200 in accommodation alone, before utilities, food, travel costs, the obligatory "car, holiday", tax and NI on income earned so on that basis you'd have to set a minimum of wage of at least £25,000 pa. and probably closer to £30k. That wouldn't just apply to private business, that would also apply to all public sector workers, who as a nation we can't afford to pay for even now. Benefit fraud is wrong, tax fraud is wrong, living off benefits when you don't have to is wrong, tax evasion shouldn't be permitted legally to the extent it is, if for no other reason than the honest hard working among us have to pay for it or make up the shortfall. All should be tackled, not one argued as worse than another because they're as bad as each other.
It's also good manners to know what you're talking about before posting, which unfortunately you don't (else you wouldn't have said HMRC is a reliable source on this issue). HMRC is not a reliable source. And I'll tell you exactly why. It's because of the way they determined what tax has been avoided. They even admitted their failings in that £35 billion estimate in 2009, when they conceded that: Basically, they take for granted that what they receive is correct and that it's only avoidance if they pursue a particular claim of avoidance from the tax returns they receive. However, much of tax avoidance is simply concealed, and their estimate doesn't take this into account (it simply looks at what they receive). If you really wanted to find out the tax gap, you have to look at the books of the major companies in the UK, and estimate how much tax they should have paid on their income. This is exactly what Tax Justice Network did (the PCS figure) and hence they got £125 billion, and that's a conservative estimate in all fairness. So let's take an example, taken from Richard Murphy's blog who was the lead researcher behind the TJN's study:
I was just illustrating how you can have two widely divergent answers to the same question. Chance are the real value lies somewhere in the middle but with a large proportion of it coming from legal loopholes rather than real fraud. Its certainly no less unreliable than a unions estimate though. and yes, +1 Carrie
They didn't look at the same data because they didn't use the same method of determining what is taxable income and what isn't, so didn't answer the same question. As I pointed out, they even openly admit that they didn't use the same method, and that's why their research is grossly under-representative of the real tax deficit. They should have looked at the profits of companies and deduced what they should have paid, not the way they did it by looking at what tax returns they received.
The question both asked is, how much is lost by tax fraud. By using different methodology they both arrive at different conclusion too suit there needs. The Unions increase the figure too make it a magic source of public sector money. Revenue shrinks the figure so there not an object of ridicule and hatred.
They're what we now would call fair remuneration for a full time worker. Sorry if that bothers you. So what would you prefer, people are paid less than what they can 'live' on and have to get benefits from the state? We're not talking about a living wage that lets you live like the Sultan of Brunei; we're talking about meeting basic standards of living that we accept are fair and just. We're talking about having enough money to have some savings, to afford energy and fuel costs, to afford a house, to spend time with kids and not have to work all hours god sends, to afford healthy food, to afford internet access, a computer, go out with friends to social events, a mobile phone, etc. That's what modern life includes, and people should not be prevented from enjoying these things because of the social and economic policies of a state which allows the 1% to enrich themselves at the cost of everyone else. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation in 2010 said that, at minimum, a wage of £14,400 a year would have to be earned in order to have a decent living in the UK (and that's two years ago so inflation means it will be a little more). The wage earned by approx 30% of British people is below this though - the minimum wage is about £11K per year (before tax). Now then, their research, as the article points out, doesn't even include costs of a car, which isn't considered essential and thus not included in what they would consider provides a 'decent' living. I would disagree highly though that access to a car is absolutely essential seeing as public transport is so poor in the UK, and costs too much. Now if you want people to live on the edge of poverty, because that's what wer're talking about here in relative terms, even after they've worked a full 42 hour week, then fine. Let's keep people constantly on the edge, always plagued by money woes and not being able to participate in the things most people in the UK should be able to.
The minimum wage is a great thing, and whilst yes, its not enough for some as they live in London or have dependants, it is actually enough for one person to live off. You cant have very fancy things and youll never be able to afford a mortgage, but that's the housing markets fault as opposed to the minimum wages. Im not saying it shouldn't be higher, all im saying is that its perfectly viable to live off edit: *for me at least this was fine.
Modern life does not need to include these things, most of the items on that list are luxuries that people can and do live happily without. I would love for everyone to get what they want but you haven't suggested a solution that is even remotely possible.
@Bogomip: Do you live with parents? Do you have children? Do you pay for your own accommodation? Do you have a car? Do you go on holiday once a year or once every 5? How much assistance do you get from your parents/inheritance etc? Do you have a partner who earns well? I don't want you to answer all those, but my point is that I bet one of those things are true. It's not possible to live a decent life on the min wage, at least not by the indicators above, and without assistance from other people.
Do you live with parents?No Do you have children? No Do you pay for your own accommodation? Yes Do you have a car? No but I drive my girlfriends Do you go on holiday once a year or once every 5?At least once a year How much assistance do you get from your parents/inheritance etc?None Do you have a partner who earns well? Yes I don't understand what point you are trying to make?
Well I am going to anyway - I was living in Edinburgh at the time and will answer based upon the time: My point was that you can live on minimum wage- not that you can live on it with luxuries. Whatever post it was you linked might find luxuries a necessity but I certainly dont - since I have had a full time proper paying job I haven't had a real holiday. I havent bought a new computer in 5 years. My car is worth £800 (just had to get a new one from my old £700 car). The most expensive thing I have bought recently is a pair of Oakley sunglasses, which ill admit, I would be disappointed not to have been able to afford. Point is, once you are used to luxury you expect it. When I lived on a shoestring I was perfectly happy with my lot because I knew little else. I dont consider luxury a necessity, it a nicity
