How Can A Government That Spends Billions On Mass Testing Quibble Over Helping The Low Paid?

Anyway, I'm going now.

PippaZ

If you would like a discussion on UBI Growstuff we could start another thread.

You obviously hold strong views on the current situation and I can see why.

No, I'm not really that bothered about UBI, because I don't really think it's a great idea. My main interest is UB and, connected to that, the lack of support for the self-employed. Of course I hold strong views on the current situation. I wonder how many other GNers have been affected and have to live on a pittance.

There are usually people complaining that the raising of the state pension age has caused them to be destitute, so I'm surprised there aren't more people interested in it.

I think the point in the OP was that £20 really isn't much compared with the billions which have been handed out to all sorts of other people, including cronies for dodgy contracts. To me, that £20 really has made a difference.

BTW It's not true of JSA and not really true of UB either, certainly not for self-employed, who are usually expected to hit a minimum income floor. That's something to look out for, if the £20 uplift is scrapped. I wouldn't be eligible for anything with the minimum income floor. Only very few people in work are eligible for UB, unless they are single, have two children and pay rent.

If you would like a discussion on UBI Growstuff we could start another thread.

You obviously hold strong views on the current situation and I can see why.

How much do you think people need? The calculations I've seen haven't been very much - about the same as JSA.

JSA would be nice as a top up, if I had a job, but I can't live on it.

I really don't see the advantage. the poorest would be no better off. The only ones who would benefit would be those not claiming JSA/UC now.

growstuff

UBI assumes that people can choose to live on the basic income or find work to top up their income. The trouble at the moment is that there really is no work available, especially in the industries where jobs have been lost. It's highly unlikely that retail jobs will reappear, even after the pandemic is over. They were teetering on the brink anyway.

This is also true of JSA and UC, though. At least UBI would (or in theory at least) ensure that people could live on the basic income, and remove the stigma attached to claiming, as opposed to just getting, the money.

I can't see it ever happening, though. The idea that people should get only what they 'need' is too ingrained in too many people for it to be popular, and there are too many voters who want to see income differentials maintained.

I also worry that it would just cause prices to rise, so nobody would actually be better off. So much spending relies on the idea of items being 'luxury' or 'aspirational', and if everyone could afford them those attributes would be lost, and prices would go up to push the items back into the 'exclusive' category.

I only receive any Universal Credit because it's been increased by £20. Otherwise, I would get nothing. I'll actually cease to be eligible at the beginning of April anyway because I'll finally be 66 and a state pensioner. I'm very grateful for the £20 because it pays my food bill.

Every two weeks, I have my "jobseeker's interview" by phone, which is a farce. My advisor is actually quite sweet and no longer follows his script. He told me that there are few jobs around and after accepting that I wasn't really in the market for retraining we now just have a chat. He told me that they've never been busier and have had to take on new staff. He's one of the new recruits and told me that he's recently graduated and is only doing the job on a temporary basis, but he said there really weren't any other jobs.

UBI assumes that people can choose to live on the basic income or find work to top up their income. The trouble at the moment is that there really is no work available, especially in the industries where jobs have been lost. It's highly unlikely that retail jobs will reappear, even after the pandemic is over. They were teetering on the brink anyway.

I don't think UBI would be appropriate in the current circumstances and would cause a great deal of resentment.

Pippa It says it by omission.

Apart from the number of people dying, we're discussing two issues here:

1 The £20 uplift to Universal Credit.
2 The (approx) 3 million self-employed who have had no support. Some of them, of course, have been eligible for Universal Credit, but not all.

The article is about the latter. The fact is that the government has been aware of the issues and Sunak has at least once that I can remember stated that he's not changing his stance. To blame HMRC for its systems is disingenuous. The article does not even mention that pleas for help have been ignored.

As far as Universal Credit is concerned, the government "leak machine" was going on about scrapping the uplift and bribing people with a one-off £500 payment, which would only compensate people if they can find another job or increase their earnings within 25 weeks, which is probably unrealistic.

PippaZ

^I would support the idea of a UBI, but I am not in favour of it being taxed back from those who 'do not need it'.^

I am sorry Doodledog that was very poorly put. Obviously, you would not tax to get the UBI back or it wouldn't be a UBI The whole point is that it is unconditional and cannot be withdrawn under any conditions.

What I probably should have said is that taxation is a separate matter and should be simple and progressive but I do think progressive is very important.

Agreed. Sorry for the sermon on the evils of means testing . It is a pet hate of mine, and I am easily triggered when I see it.

And we are one of the smallest countries, too

And we are an island! If ever there were an advantage when it comes to stopping the spread of incoming virus, that has to be it. Our figures should be way lower than any on mainland Europe.

I would support the idea of a UBI, but I am not in favour of it being taxed back from those who 'do not need it'.

I am sorry Doodledog that was very poorly put. Obviously, you would not tax to get the UBI back or it wouldn't be a UBI The whole point is that it is unconditional and cannot be withdrawn under any conditions.

What I probably should have said is that taxation is a separate matter and should be simple and progressive but I do think progressive is very important.

Alegrias1

Hetty58

Apologies all - I really should have said 'the worst death rates in the World' shouldn't I?

www.independent.co.uk/news/health/uk-covid-death-rate-coronavirus-b1788817.html

Ah, OK - more people are dying per day in the UK just now that in any other country - just now.

Overall more people have died per head of population in several other countries.

I do apologise if that sounds crass, I don't mean it to.

And we're one of the smallest countries too---Shameful !

growstuff

PippaZ

growstuff

I don't think this has anything to do with systems. It's to do with a government which doesn't have a clue how precarious some people's existences are. Losing a few thousand might seem like pocket money to them, but to the low paid it's a fortune.

It is quite possible that it is both, surely?

Maybe, but the article doesn't mention that the government doesn't actually want to do anything about the situation and lays all the blame on HMRC systems.

It certainly lays blame on the HMRC but "all the blame", does it actually say that or is it rather, an article about the contribution the failings of the HMRC are making to people slipping through the systems?

I do wish they would look at a simple universal income for all, taxing it back (plus, where appropriate) from those who do not need it.

I would support the idea of a UBI, but I am not in favour of it being taxed back from those who 'do not need it'. I loathe means testing, as it keeps people just above destitution 'in their place'. The better off can afford to save, to plan for the future, to have dreams to aim for, but those who know that every pound they earn above an arbitrary threshold will be taken back may as well just spend it as they get it.

I get tired of hearing that 'Mr X doesn't 'need' a free TV licence', or that 'My neighbour drives a Ferrari, so can't 'need' her state pension at 60', or whatever it is - basically moral judgements on other people's 'needs'. These do not take into account that people have different priorities (and to be fair, the best of us judge others on the basis of how we would spend our money).

The hypothetical neighbour may be eating potato peelings to afford her Ferrari. Mr X may be supporting 4 great grandchildren, or spending his money on providing wells to drought-stricken villages somewhere. Or he may have an expensive 30 year old girlfriend who makes his life worth living. If they have worked for his money and paid taxes, it is not for us to judge what others 'need' or why they might need it.

The poor are badly provided for, but their situation doesn't change with means testing until they get out of poverty, when they realise that they are trapped. The situation of the rich doesn't change with means testing either - they will always be ok, as nobody interferes with their spending.

It is the people just above the threshold who suffer every time, and it's not just about the ££, it is about the lost dreams, the lack of incentive, the sheer petty-minded meanness of deciding what other people 'need'.

The budget is 3 March. There is speculation that the increase will continue but be gradually tailed off to coincide with cessation by the end of lockdown when people can once again, go out job hunting.

People need to be able to plan now, not in April. £20 is a 27% increase in Jobseeker's Allowance, so it's a significant amount.

Where did the £ sign come from?

The Opposition has every right - and indeed a duty - to remind the government that people need the extra £20. The Office of Budget Responsibility is forecasting £7.5 million unemployed in early summer before a possible recovery.

lemongrove

Alegrias1

OK, really sorry but I'm going to defend myself here. If people say we're the top of the table for infections or anything else, and we're not, then it is misrepresenting the way we are dealing with this pandemic and I will continue to call it out. I am very angry with the way that this whole thing has been handled by the government but I am not going to let exaggeration stand unchallenged.

I don’t think you should have to defend yourself for telling the truth!

On the continuation of the £20 top up for the duration of Covid, perhaps by April things will have changed for jobs and the economy and won’t be quite as needed, or perhaps Sunak will be unveiling something else at the Spring Budget.

Totally agree lemongrove. Sensible post.

Tge Whitehall bean counters are still putting together the measures that Rishi Sunak will announce on Budget Day, in March and the Government is loath to be forced into an early policy announcement by an Opposition Day motion.

That’s why Boris Johnson ordered MPs to abstain.

PippaZ

growstuff

I don't think this has anything to do with systems. It's to do with a government which doesn't have a clue how precarious some people's existences are. Losing a few thousand might seem like pocket money to them, but to the low paid it's a fortune.

It is quite possible that it is both, surely?

Maybe, but the article doesn't mention that the government doesn't actually want to do anything about the situation and lays all the blame on HMRC systems.

growstuff

I don't think this has anything to do with systems. It's to do with a government which doesn't have a clue how precarious some people's existences are. Losing a few thousand might seem like pocket money to them, but to the low paid it's a fortune.

It is quite possible that it is both, surely?

Many aspects of HMRC's systems are working too efficiently. Since October they have sent tens of thousands of letters relating to 2018/19 tax returns advising tax payers that their tax returns are being checked.

One of my clients received such a letter. It asked for details of any properties let by my client. I telephoned the office in question and explained that he didn't have any such properties. The answer was that their checking systems had shown that this client had two mortgages overlapping. This wasn't the case but he had ported his mortgage on the first property to the second property, the first house being sold before the second was purchased.

The systems aren't working quite well enough.

However, it is the govt that sets the policies as regards the covid handouts and they could have amended their instructions to HMRC at any time.

It would be interesting to know whether the cronies who have benefited from govt handouts have registered their companies off shore.

"loadsa dosh"