LOUNGE all new asksnapzu ideasforsnapzu newtribes interesting pics videos funny technology science technews gaming health history worldnews business web research entertainment food living internet socialmedia mobile space sports photography nature animals movies culture travel television finance music celebrities gadgets environment usa crime politics law money justice psychology security cars wtf art google books lifetips bigbrother women apple kids recipes whoa military privacy education facebook medicine computing wildlife design war drugs middleeast diet toplists economy fail violence humor africa microsoft parenting dogs canada neuroscience architecture religion advertising infographics sex journalism disaster software aviation relationships energy booze life japan ukraine newmovies nsa cannabis name Name of the tribe humanrights nasa cute weather gifs discoveries cops futurism football earth dataviz pets guns entrepreneurship fitness android extremeweather fashion insects india northamerica
+14 14 0
Published 1 year ago with 1 Comments

Join the Discussion

  • Auto Tier
  • All
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Post Comment
  • NinjaKlaus
    +3

    My favorite recurring topic, this one is more palatable to me as it would only apply to those out of work and looking for further employment. But... There are 32mm working age people in the UK, Poverty for a family of 4 is 20,000 pounds so let's for simplicity sake say the working age amount is now 18mm... 18x20,000 is 360bn... but the UK system would be for the unemployed, somewhere around 7% but let's add the people who just lost their jobs... let's go liberal with it and say 10%... 3mm so we are still looking at nearly 60bn. Let's assume that you keep the housing benefit but lose the Unemployment and Personal social services and other benefits which combined are 37bn... so you would need to cover the additional 22Bn with new taxes or some other way. Of course, if you also take away the housing and family benefits this system would cost less.

    I will admit in the UK this is way more feasible than in a country like the US with a lot more people. I still think it's not feasible in terms of how to tax it out... you can only squeeze the wealthy so much before they decide to be wealthy elsewhere...

    Poverty Level: Child Poverty Action Group

    Working Age in the UK: Office for National Statistics

    Welfare Spending: Office for National Statistics

    TL,DR: I'm just saying once again this is a great concept but one that is not feasible to a working budget, and that's just my opinion but the numbers look that way to me.

Here are some other snaps you may like...