Well if Labour keep this up I think I’ll be voting for them at the next GE!

I agree with Chocolatelovinggran and David49 about the individuals who ‘cruise through life sponging on society and doing nothing remotely positive to support yourself and your family’.
The government has pledged to reduce the numbers of people claiming disability benefits. Inevitably, this has led to outrage but I’d be pleased to see people claiming eg bad back/depression given support into work. I could write the book about the bad back who for example. runs a dance group, drives a minibus, earns on the black market and lives a busy, enjoyable life on higher benefits than others who lost their job through no fault of their own
I’m not hard hearted Hannah, of course we must have a safety net and I’m aware of the devasting impact of rheumatoid arthritis, depression etc but we do need to reduce the numbers claiming the higher sickness benefit with no intention of ever being in formal paid employment

Yes, David, I think many of us know a person like that. To link it to the topic of the thread, I don't know what any government can do about this.
Such people are very unreliable employees, if they go as far as taking up a position, or they claim difficult to disprove disabilities, rendering them unfit for work. We can't let them or their families starve so we are stuck.
I can only imagine how infuriating this must be to folk with genuine disabilities , or those who are struggling to recover from events which have thrown them into unexpected difficulties.

Churchview

It's perfectly possible to lead a productive life without working.

Meaningful activity doesn't need to be paid or voluntary work in order to provide mental health and esteem benefits

It is also possible to cruise through life sponging on society and doing nothing remotely gainful to support yourself and family.

My niece is one of those.

I read the full BBC News feed and thought he's done as well as possibly could be expected, made his points on Gaza and a Ukraine Backstop and hopefully reassured vis a vis tariffs - we don't know how much Trump will "hear" but a cautious well done.

nanna8

I never thought I would think this after Starmer’s start but I actually think he is improving. Especially in his dealings with Trump. Thank the Lord.

He isn’t improving. He’s always been good. It’s just that some people couldn’t see it….

I never thought I would think this after Starmer’s start but I actually think he is improving. Especially in his dealings with Trump. Thank the Lord.

Churchview

It's perfectly possible to lead a productive life without working.

Meaningful activity doesn't need to be paid or voluntary work in order to provide mental health and esteem benefits

Perfectly true, but what about when you need the benefits that paid work would entitle you to get?

It's perfectly possible to lead a productive life without working.

Meaningful activity doesn't need to be paid or voluntary work in order to provide mental health and esteem benefits

“There are a myriad of other taxes we all pay, earning or not. Basically everything we buy which we are all paying tax on every time we buy a product or service. There is hardly anything non taxable.”

Actually we’re not.
Our major costs, Rent, Rates, Mortgage, Food, Childrens clothes and others, heating fuel, gas, electric is low rate tax.

Sorry your thread has gone off-topic, FGT.

No apology needed Doodledog but kind of you to offer one. I’ve enjoyed just now catching up on this thread (some of which has gone above my head!).

It’s good that threads meander. Makes for an interesting discussion!

Doodledog

Thank you, Barleyfields.

If a friend gives me the money to buy an item for her while I'm shopping, who has paid the tax on it?

Both of you if the Government has anything to do with it!

Thank you, Barleyfields.

If a friend gives me the money to buy an item for her while I'm shopping, who has paid the tax on it?

That’s absolutely true, but Doodledog has made the point that taxes on expenditure are paid by the working spouse because they are the one who earned the money being spent.

Doodledog

BevSec

Doodledog

BevSec

Iam64

Growstuff makes a valid point about the partner, usually the woman, who never works outside the home, even when any children are no longer dependent. I suspect that confirms one of the points made by Doodledog

I suppose they are fully entitled to do so if it can be afforded.

Everyone is fully entitled to do as they please, but IMO not entitled to expect others to pay for it.

I dont understand, why are others paying for someone to not work who can afford not to?

Others are paying for things like health, education, roads, defence, law and order etc - all the things that go with living in a civic society. They also pay for the credited NI contributions that are a form of deferred pension, currently worth up to £11500 or so a year. If children are spaced out in age, these payments can go on for years, and add up to a large sum. Those who pay tax and NI also contribute to benefits such as pension credit which go to those who have not contributed enough via their own contributions to get a full pension.

Being able to afford not to work takes none of that into account - it is a view limited to whether two people (and their children) can manage on one salary because only one of them pays income tax.

That is basically income tax you are specifying here in relation to someone who is not working. There are a myriad of other taxes we all pay, earning or not. Basically everything we buy which we are all paying tax on every time we buy a product or service. There is hardly anything non taxable.

Iam64

BevSec

Doodledog

Iam64

Growstuff makes a valid point about the partner, usually the woman, who never works outside the home, even when any children are no longer dependent. I suspect that confirms one of the points made by Doodledog

It does, thanks. Staying at home with babies and toddlers is very different from never working when they are at school and beyond.

This gets rehashed so often on here that I forget what I've said when .

Sorry your thread has gone off-topic, FGT.

I dont understand why you think that women should work if they can afford not to, regardless of having children or not.

I believe men and women should work. If they’re so wealthy they don’t need to do paid work, there are endless charities in need of volunteers.
The evidence on better mental health in people with productive lives is clear.
Why should growstuff’s partner lose half his pension towards his former wife who never worked for 40 years, including the 25 years after their children reached independence

I didnt know that had happened to Growstuff, its a harsh situation to cope with, and she has my sympathies.

BevSec

Doodledog

BevSec

Iam64

Growstuff makes a valid point about the partner, usually the woman, who never works outside the home, even when any children are no longer dependent. I suspect that confirms one of the points made by Doodledog

I suppose they are fully entitled to do so if it can be afforded.

Everyone is fully entitled to do as they please, but IMO not entitled to expect others to pay for it.

I dont understand, why are others paying for someone to not work who can afford not to?

Others are paying for things like health, education, roads, defence, law and order etc - all the things that go with living in a civic society. They also pay for the credited NI contributions that are a form of deferred pension, currently worth up to £11500 or so a year. If children are spaced out in age, these payments can go on for years, and add up to a large sum. Those who pay tax and NI also contribute to benefits such as pension credit which go to those who have not contributed enough via their own contributions to get a full pension.

Being able to afford not to work takes none of that into account - it is a view limited to whether two people (and their children) can manage on one salary because only one of them pays income tax.

Yes I know Barleyfields 😞

Because unfortunately that’s the way assets are divided up on divorce nowadays. Don’t get me started on that.

BevSec

Doodledog

Iam64

Growstuff makes a valid point about the partner, usually the woman, who never works outside the home, even when any children are no longer dependent. I suspect that confirms one of the points made by Doodledog

It does, thanks. Staying at home with babies and toddlers is very different from never working when they are at school and beyond.

This gets rehashed so often on here that I forget what I've said when .

Sorry your thread has gone off-topic, FGT.

I dont understand why you think that women should work if they can afford not to, regardless of having children or not.

I believe men and women should work. If they’re so wealthy they don’t need to do paid work, there are endless charities in need of volunteers.
The evidence on better mental health in people with productive lives is clear.
Why should growstuff’s partner lose half his pension towards his former wife who never worked for 40 years, including the 25 years after their children reached independence

Fuel tax? Do you mean winter fuel allowance? Fuel tax is what you pay when buying petrol.

I'm pretty pleased with what Labour have done recently, I like the new knife crime laws that make it harder for people to buy those awful fighting knives, I like the law that means CEO's of water companies don't get a bonus if they make rivers dirty. Personally, I don't mind loosing fuel tax but I would have stopped it at higher income tax payers. I've got quicker drs appt.s since they've been in charge, I'll be voting Labour next time

Personally, I think builders are very special, where would we be without them!

If you have a very wealthy spouse they should be paying a lot of tax. However few if any of us have spouses so wealthy that their taxes and NICs could be said to also cover what we might have paid on our own account. The stay at home mothers I met ‘at the school gates’ most definitely were not in that bracket and clearly had no intention of working even when their children were well into their teens. Staying at home became a way of life. As I said above, they were typical ‘ladies who lunch’ and their husbands’ jobs were nothing special. The most immaculately turned out, who professed she couldn’t cook and bought all the food from M&S, was married to a jobbing builder,

MayBee70

If people like Trump Farage Bannon et al hadn’t spent the last few years empowering Putin we wouldn’t have to now be increasing defence spending. Or if the last few Conservative governments hadn’t reduced it. It’s a short term fix for a long term problem. Overseas aid isn’t all about basket weaving. Amongst other things it’s soft power. Countries like China will probably fill the gap.

Exactly. Well said MayBee70

Barleyfields

BevSec one aspect is that all UK citizens are entitled to free healthcare from the NHS whether they have paid NICs or not.

Another is that the fewer people paying tax, the more everyone else needs to pay to fill the pot.

I wonder how many of us would feel they should work though, because of your points, if they for example, married someone wealthy? Probably not a 9-5 in some drudgy office somewhere or a long shift on a ward, I know I wouldnt!