[Gllug] VACANCY: Junior Systems Support

[Lesley]

On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 10:52:37AM +0100, Hari Sekhon wrote:
> Chris Bell wrote:
> > On Wed 09 Sep, Hari Sekhon wrote:
> >   
> >
> >   
> >> Except that people want to earn money and have recession proof (or at 
> >> least resistant) jobs and steady incomes, if you build it and market it 
> >> properly they will come and you will reduce shortages in those positions.
> >>
> >> -h
> >>
> >>     
> >
> >    Unfortunately there is a poverty trap which can mean that people do
> > better by not working harder, or even at all. Any additional earnings
> > require some effort, and result in equivalent loss of benefits or additional
> > taxes
> The solution being? Remove benefits and make it an even playing field to 
> encourage people to work hard and compete. This would also allow people 
> who have worked hard to actually be financially better off rather than 
> some getting free property and others struggling their whole life to get 
> one by paying for it, which would be much fairer on the decent folks.
I think you are confusing 'decent' with 'employed' here. Just because somebody
is employed doesn't mean they are (a) decent or (b) not living in socially provided 
accommodation.  
Equally just because someone is unemployed doesn't mean they are not
(a) decent or (b) living in their own property.
> 
> There's also this trap in the upper tax band, it's so hard to earn 
> anything more because half of what you earn goes in tax anyway... so any 
> improvement is so marginal as to not justify the effort, so tax should 
> also really be a flat rate percentage as it is a percentage after all... 
> you earn more you pay tax more anyway but at least the gradient doesn't 
> become even harder.
I think most employers take into account the tax situation as best they were able to
when grading salaries.  Even when salaries are merely increased in line with inflation
someone earning £60K gets triple over someone earning £20K and the tax is only taken off
that over the upper limit for base rate.  So if inflation is at 1% one gets £600 the other 
£200.  At 20%/40% tax rates one actually receives £160, the other £360 or an increase in 
take home pay that is about two and a quarter times the lower paid colleague.

> 
> So the current system removes incentive from poor people and removes 
> incentive from hard working people and people who have good jobs, and 
> the UK government think they are financially clever how exactly? Oh 
> wait, they are clever, they fleece people more than any other 
> government... more money for them! Now that is clever...
The current benefit system is complex.  Having benefits is almost not the problem.  Yes
it makes it easier for the workshy but there'll always be an element of that in society.
It can be difficult to get off benefits when any money you earn reduces your benefits to the
point where there is a shortfall - i.e. going to work actually causes a loss of income.
On a small budget with dependants and/or health requirements that loss cannot necessarily be
contemplated no matter how much one might one to get out of that rut.

Regards

Lesley
-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug