The budget

[Dave *]

Why shouldn't a government force people to take jobs?

Is, say, 4 hours a week a job? I think that a job should guarantee at least 16 hours a week (a part time job) or 30+ hours (a full time job).

Less than 10 hours a week seems more like a hobby.

 

[boyfalldown]

Sure, but that is the choice someone has got. If they don't want to work for whatever reason then one should take the consequences.

Besides it is much easier to get a job when you are in a job. It is what most of us deal with, plenty of times I don't like certain aspects. I'm an adult and will have to deal with it. And sometimes that is just a case of shut up and get on with it.

An alternative open to everyone is to setup up their business and do it that way.

It is not really a choice though...take a job even though the terms are awful, or lose benefits. It kind of makes this a bit tricky.

f all wouldn't accept those terms than employers would have to improve those offer

I agree its much easier to find a job when already working. And negotiate properly to accept it. You always have the fallback position of being able to say no.

 

[JennyGW]

Did you fail Maths at school? In what reality isn't 1.4 million out of 2 million a majority?

Do you understand the concept of minorities and majorities?

Looking at your recent posts, are you on some sort of Scrivens/ST4 trolling windup?

https://fullfact.org/factcheck/economy/zero_hour_contracts_facts-41165

 

[JennyGW]

You continually make assumptions about my own political affiliations, and you keep getting them wrong. I am not a Labour party supporter or voter and I've never been a member of a trade union.

I was merely making the point that - at a time when we are repeatedly told the country is broke (due to Labour, obviously) and must cut spending, they've somehow found at least £1bn to reduce tax on the richest families. Not only that, but they've done it in such a way as to further drive up house prices, thus making it even harder for those not lucky enough to inherit a home, to be able to buy one.

I never said you were in the Labour party or a member of a union. I said what happened when these policies were last tried, and failed.

 

[onomatopoeia]

I was merely making the point that - at a time when we are repeatedly told the country is broke (due to Labour, obviously) and must cut spending, they've somehow found at least £1bn to reduce tax on the richest families. Not only that, but they've done it in such a way as to further drive up house prices, thus making it even harder for those not lucky enough to inherit a home, to be able to buy one.

IHT makes no difference in most cases, as people generally want to buy a house of their own while their parents are still alive and living in theirs.

e.g. it makes no difference to me, I live alone in my own home (mortgaged) and have inherited nothing, what with my parents still being alive and still needing their house to live in. I keep telling them to enjoy their money before the local authority comes and takes it all in care home fees, I'm not basing my future on an inheritance. Not that it's relevant, but their "estate" (house) would be under the old IHT threshold for a married couple, never mind the new one.

I don't see it as affecting house prices, since generally following the death of the last surviving member of a couple the house will be sold, irrespective of how much is taken in tax afterward. I suppose the beneficiaries might inherit as much as £140,000 more, meaning some extra liquidity near the top end of the housing market (London excepted), but for many, indeed most, the family home was worth less £650,000 anyway so they are unaffected.

 

[boyfalldown]

Sure, but that is the choice someone has got. If they don't want to work for whatever reason then one should take the consequences.

Besides it is much easier to get a job when you are in a job. It is what most of us deal with, plenty of times I don't like certain aspects. I'm an adult and will have to deal with it. And sometimes that is just a case of shut up and get on with it.

An alternative open to everyone is to setup up their business and do it that way.

It is not really a choice though...take a job even though the terms are awful, or lose benefits. It kind of makes this a bit tricky.

f all wouldn't accept those terms than employers would have to improve those offer

I agree its much easier to find a job when already working. And negotiate properly to accept it. You always have the fallback position of being able to say no.

I know I earn nothing like I used to (partly cause I wanted/needed something less stressful)

 

[dejongj]

So how does a jobseeker make that choice? They take a zero hour contract which gives them a few hours work a week or get sanctioned, how does someone live on £20-£30 a week?

Get two or three of such contacts then or whatever you need to do. Have you never worked more than one job to make ends meet? Or be really good and get more hours.

Choices, choices.

 

[dejongj]

It is not really a choice though...take a job even though the terms are awful, or lose benefits. It kind of makes this a bit tricky.

Terms may not be in your favour, but hey it's a job. Surely that is better than handouts? Isn't it? I think providing for yourself is much better.

 

[BillN_33]

availability of jobs and house values over £500k to £1m - depends where you live

One bed Terrace in Wandsworth now costs £550k ....... compare that to Sheffield

 

[Llamaman]

Get two or three of such contacts then or whatever you need to do. Have you never worked more than one job to make ends meet? Or be really good and get more hours.
Choices, choices.

Many of these jobs require you to be available when the employer decides. If you've got 2 or 3 jobs you're not in a position to do that.

 

[boyfalldown]

Terms may not be in your favour, but hey it's a job. Surely that is better than handouts? Isn't it? I think providing for yourself is much better.

I certainly agree about providing for yourself being better. Just it 'a job' isn't necessarily enough though. Its a job that provides enough security, stability and hours for you is maybe enough.

 

[Llamaman]

I never said you were in the Labour party or a member of a union.

You said I wanted to "bash the rich". I'm not advocating a tax rise, but questioning the validity of tax cut for the richest during a time of austerity - especially as the way the cut has been implemented will distort the housing market in a way that harms those on lower incomes.

 

[Llamaman]

IHT makes no difference in most cases, as people generally want to buy a house of their own while their parents are still alive and living in theirs.

Economists disagree.

The change in IHT in this budget encourages people to stay in larger homes for longer than they otherwise might (and their descendants to keep the house as an asset rather than sell it) thus reducing supply to the market and increasing prices. The parliamentary report I linked earlier refers to this explicitly;
"John Muelbauer, professor of economics at Nuffield College, Oxford, suggested a new higher threshold would choke off the supply of new properties: "In the majority of estates, housing is the most important asset. Many families currently liquidate that asset to pay the IHT, which means that homes come onto the market. If people can hang onto family homes for longer, this will cut supply and prices will rise."" (my emphasis)

 

[dejongj]

Many of these jobs require you to be available when the employer decides. If you've got 2 or 3 jobs you're not in a position to do that.

Than wouldn't be right and legal. Zero hours obligation works both ways. An employer is no allowed to hold an employee ransom to a single role. Sure in reality if you decline several times I would put you down my "call list" as I would argue that you have other priorities. But hey if you are busy doing another job and you have choice of two or three, isn't just a good thing?

I certainly agree about providing for yourself being better. Just it 'a job' isn't necessarily enough though. Its a job that provides enough security, stability and hours for you is maybe enough.

Sure I appreciate that many would like that, but if that isn't on offer than something has got to give hasn't it? Let's be real and blunt about it, if you "have" a job where the labour is a commodity as in everyone can do it. Then what is the bargaining position? If that employer is happy to work like that, the company can generate what it needs to, then what is the problem?

Now if another company prefer more stability, experienced resources then they'll offer a package that will attract that. They exist to make money, not merely to employ people on good terms.

 

[boyfalldown]

Sure I appreciate that many would like that, but if that isn't on offer than something has got to give hasn't it? Let's be real and blunt about it, if you "have" a job where the labour is a commodity as in everyone can do it. Then what is the bargaining position? If that employer is happy to work like that, the company can generate what it needs to, then what is the problem?

Now if another company prefer more stability, experienced resources then they'll offer a package that will attract that. They exist to make money, not merely to employ people on good terms.

In which case you'd still remain with people relying on handouts.

 

[BillN_33]

In which case you'd still remain with people relying on handouts.

do you disagree with "zero hours" contracts even if people want them?

France had quite a few problems a few years ago because the socialist government "imposed" a maximum 35 hour week - i.e. in general terms that's all the hours you could work, so quite simply if you worked "overtime" you could end up working a 4 day week or had to take longer holidays .......and additional staff were needed just for cover and because the conditions of French employment law it was almost impossible to take on "part time" staff............... contracts of a "limited period" were then brought in, by employers and employers were more and more reluctant to employ permanent staff ....... and now look at the unemployment rate in France - it is double the UK ........ that said French GDP is higher than the UK, (but stats are stats)

At the end of the day "the market" will decide .... in one way or another ....... and like it or not that's what happens in practice

 

[boyfalldown]

do you disagree with "zero hours" contracts even if people want them?

I have no issue with zero hours contract if people want them, and they're reasonable both ways. i.e. no obligation either way. Indeed I used to employee a number of people on them, they worked well because they suited both parties. I have an issue with contracts as happens no that offer no promise of work but require you to be available to do it anyway. But whats that got to do with what I said?

 

[Llamaman]

Still waiting for @JennyGW 's alternative impact analysis of the IHT changes...

 

[BillN_33]

I have no issue with zero hours contract if people want them, and they're reasonable both ways. i.e. no obligation either way. Indeed I used to employee a number of people on them, they worked well because they suited both parties. I have an issue with contracts as happens no that offer no promise of work but require you to be available to do it anyway. But whats that got to do with what I said?

(my view) In France because of the Socialist governments interference with "free market" labour, if you like ....... they have caused employers to be more and more productive with less employees ........ generally - with similar populations, (65millions), France has a higher GDP with an unemployment rate of 10.5% versus the UK at 5.5%

So imposing tight employment laws with the intention of creating more jobs ....... IMHO the reverse has occurred ...... which is not what they intended ........ but I believe in western society the market will prevail

On the ground ...... if you talk to any small business, they just do not want to expand because of French employment laws first and social charges second ...... again, in my experience talking to a number .......

 

[boyfalldown]

(my view) In France because of the Socialist governments interference with "free market" labour, if you like ....... they have caused employers to be more and more productive with less employees ........ generally - with similar populations, (65millions), France has a higher GDP with an unemployment rate of 10.5% versus the UK at 5.5%

So imposing tight employment laws with the intention of creating more jobs ....... IMHO the reverse has occurred

I've never suggested any restrictions though...simply that anyone should be free to negotiate the terms of their employment. Which they're not in the UK at present

 

[BillN_33]

I've never suggested any restrictions though...simply that anyone should be free to negotiate the terms of their employment. Which they're not in the UK at present

I agree with that ... maybe I have got the wrong end of the stick ........ isn't everyone free to do what he wants in the UK?

 

[boyfalldown]

I agree with that ... maybe I have got the wrong end of the stick ........ isn't everyone free to do what he wants in the UK?

If you walk away from a job offer for whatever reason in the UK and you're in receipt of benefits those benefits will be stoppped (or sanctioned rather). Technically you're free to do so, but in reality thats going to stop most people

 

[JennyGW]

You said I wanted to "bash the rich". I'm not advocating a tax rise, but questioning the validity of tax cut for the richest during a time of austerity - especially as the way the cut has been implemented will distort the housing market in a way that harms those on lower incomes.

Because reducing tax on those who run business creates jobs and increases investment.

 

[JennyGW]

I agree with that ... maybe I have got the wrong end of the stick ........ isn't everyone free to do what he wants in the UK?

Yes, unless a forum moderator says otherwise, lol

 

[JennyGW]

Still waiting for @JennyGW 's alternative impact analysis of the IHT changes...

I honestly don't feel that 1. you would understand and 2. you have an open mind.

 

[cambsno]

I have no issue with zero hours contract if people want them, and they're reasonable both ways. i.e. no obligation either way. Indeed I used to employee a number of people on them, they worked well because they suited both parties. I have an issue with contracts as happens no that offer no promise of work but require you to be available to do it anyway. But whats that got to do with what I said?

I don't like them. I would say that there should be strict limits on them, maybe keep them available to small companies?

 

[boyfalldown]

I don't like them. I would say that there should be strict limits on them, maybe keep them available to small companies?

I liked they way they worked when I used them. I have had something to offer work wise then all good, if not I was under no obligation to offer. Equally if the other party was unable to accept work offered they didn't have to. So a real two way thing.

 

[JennyGW]

Economists disagree.

The change in IHT in this budget encourages people to stay in larger homes for longer than they otherwise might (and their descendants to keep the house as an asset rather than sell it) thus reducing supply to the market and increasing prices. The parliamentary report I linked earlier refers to this explicitly;
"John Muelbauer, professor of economics at Nuffield College, Oxford, suggested a new higher threshold would choke off the supply of new properties: "In the majority of estates, housing is the most important asset. Many families currently liquidate that asset to pay the IHT, which means that homes come onto the market. If people can hang onto family homes for longer, this will cut supply and prices will rise."" (my emphasis)

Yep, the change in IHT on £1 million properties is really going to have a major impact on first time buyers.

 

[Llamaman]

Because reducing tax on those who run business creates jobs and increases investment.

I made no mention of business taxes in my post. I was referring to IHT on private residences. You keep arguing with statements I haven't made because (despite denying it) you make assumptions about my beliefs. You've been wrong every time, but at least you're consistent..

EDIT: Sorry, I misread your post. I thought you were referring to business taxes themselves, not taxes for 'those who run business (sic)'.
The comment you actually made makes even less sense, because the IHT change makes no reference to whether the property is owned by someone who runs a business, or is an employee, or obtained their wealth through investment or inheritance.

 

[Llamaman]

I honestly don't feel that 1. you would understand and 2. you have an open mind.

Try me. You don't have an open mind but I obliged you anyway for the benefit of the debate. You demanded my sources so let's see yours. How much will the IHT change cost?

 

[viv1969]

Pedant alert...

If the IHT being discussed is inheritance tax, why is it IHT and not IT (as it should be)?

If it's not inheritance tax, then as you were......

 

[BillN_33]

IHT, ("IT") - the "nil rate band" of £325k was set years ago at a level that was thought appropriate at the time - if taxes are to remain relevant they need review and therefore it is good, (that if IT is to continue), that it is reviewed and brought in line with today.

I think that it accounts for 1% of Government income and raises about £3 billion - increasing the exemption will, IMHO, not reduce that significantly as Estates are getting £arger each year giving an £increasing annual take

Whether it is a fair an equitable tax is another matter .........

I cannot see how it will influence the housing market for most people in the important areas and anyway most people do not live there lives to save tax on such and many people, who pay IT, are not concerned that they have to pay it because they feel that their kids should get it all, IMHO anyway ....... theory is theory and practice is practice

There are also many tax avoidance scheme already in place that reduce IT significantly for those regarded as "rich" - so no change there

 

[Llamaman]

Yep, the change in IHT on £1 million properties is really going to have a major impact on first time buyers.

Wow. You now think you know better than an economics professors at one of the world's top 5 universities? Perhaps you'd like to share with us your reasoning? There's probably a Nobel prize in it for you.

There - a real incentive to actually present a reasoned opinion (as you demand of others) rather than an unsubstantiated one (like your own). Give it a try.

 

[Llamaman]

Pedant alert...

If the IHT being discussed is inheritance tax, why is it IHT and not IT (as it should be)?

If it's not inheritance tax, then as you were......

Because IT would be confused with Income Tax. IHT is the generally accepted shorthand used by the treasury, HMRC, lawyers, tax professionals and accountants, and tax handbooks.

 

[BillN_33]

Pedant alert...

If the IHT being discussed is inheritance tax, why is it IHT and not IT (as it should be)?

If it's not inheritance tax, then as you were......

Inheritance Tax as far as I am aware has always be referred to as IHT ....... but I changed my posting to suit your wishes as I know how sensitive we all can be

 

[cambsno]

I liked they way they worked when I used them. I have had something to offer work wise then all good, if not I was under no obligation to offer. Equally if the other party was unable to accept work offered they didn't have to. So a real two way thing.

But you get the likes of sports direct abusing them. Maybe a quota like only 15% of jobs in s company can be 0 hours.

 

[Llamaman]

I don't like them. I would say that there should be strict limits on them, maybe keep them available to small companies?

I don't think creating a two-tier system of employers is a good solution. Especially as it could create a step-effect where a small employer cannot grow because it would suddenly break their business model re: staffing levels.

Zero hour contracts - by themselves - are not the problem. The problem is how they interact with other areas, such as welfare. In particular, the varying hours of such contracts cause real hardship as the welfare system does not respond as quickly as people's circumstances change and those at the bottom end of the income spectra don't have savings to fall back on like better-paid contractors (like myself) do. HMRC/DWP need to be much more responsive.

 

[Llamaman]

But you get the likes of sports direct abusing them. Maybe a quota like only 15% of jobs in s company can be 0 hours.

That could work. I'm not normally in favour of imposing artificial quotas, but that one might prevent abuses without being too onerous on those who genuinely need/want to use ZHC.

Edit: having thought about it, one problem might be that the effect on the ZHC workers would be more severe, E.g. - a 15% downturn in hours would not be felt equally across all staff, but entirely by the minority ZHC workers.

 

[BillN_33]

But you get the likes of sports direct abusing them. Maybe a quota like only 15% of jobs in s company can be 0 hours.

I can only say what I have seen ........... I have lived in France for quite a time ..... worked here and run French companies from the UK.

I live in the centre of the vineyards .....25 even 15 years ago the workers were French ....... there are now many many more Portuguese cars around the place and in the past few years Eastern Europeans ....... I would think that they are paid the French minimum wage, which is good, but they will all be on contracts of the minimum limited period and leave at the end of September........ if these were French workers they would be able to demand full time contracts after a short period of time......... then spending 4 to 6 months of the year having little to do ..... employment costs if the (left wing/socialist) Government policies are followed can destroy jobs and close businesses ... which does no one any good

All I am illustrating is that if government intervene in the wrong way, the market will find it's answer and the consequences will not be what they intended

To my mind the UK is in a "good place" right now - OK it's relative depending on your view, and it needs to continue like that

 

[viv1969]

Inheritance Tax as far as I am aware has always be referred to as IHT ....... but I changed my posting to suit your wishes as I know how sensitive we all can be

Simple genuine question Billy, asked in a light hearted manner.
No need to be all "Bill" about it