Benefit system – Slimming Pills Review http://slimmingpillsreview.com/ Tue, 01 Nov 2022 21:49:59 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.9.3 https://slimmingpillsreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/icon-120x120.png Benefit system – Slimming Pills Review http://slimmingpillsreview.com/ 32 32 ‘Fairer and more dignified’ benefit system rolled out across Scotland after pilot schemes https://slimmingpillsreview.com/fairer-and-more-dignified-benefit-system-rolled-out-across-scotland-after-pilot-schemes/ Mon, 29 Aug 2022 05:30:44 +0000 https://slimmingpillsreview.com/fairer-and-more-dignified-benefit-system-rolled-out-across-scotland-after-pilot-schemes/ A new benefits system to provide financial support for people who are disabled, have a long-term health condition or are terminally ill has been rolled out across Scotland for the first time. The Adult Disability Payment replaces the Personal Independence Payment (PIP) to mark the full surrender of payment for new claimants from the Department […]]]>

A new benefits system to provide financial support for people who are disabled, have a long-term health condition or are terminally ill has been rolled out across Scotland for the first time.

The Adult Disability Payment replaces the Personal Independence Payment (PIP) to mark the full surrender of payment for new claimants from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP).

Social Security Scotland will now support the system, which has been launched for new applications after pilot projects in 13 municipalities.

The transfer process for more than 300,000 existing PIP applicants from the (DWP) began in mid-June and is expected to be completed by summer 2024.

Those already receiving PIP do not need to apply for the new benefit and will not see any delays or delays while the change is in progress.

Ben Macpherson, Holyrood Social Security Minister, said the launch was an “important step” in introducing a system designed to “treat everyone with dignity, fairness and respect”.

He added that “degrading functional examinations” carried out by private health companies were “a thing of the past”.

Macpherson said: “People will only be invited to a consultation when we need more information to be able to make a decision.

“It will be a conversation with a health and social care professional to understand how a person’s disability or health condition affects them.”

The benefit is worth between £24.45 and £157.90 per week for claimants and offers the same eligibility and payment rates as the current PIP structure.

Moira Tasker, chief executive of Inclusion Scotland, described the benefit as a “leap forward”.

“It has the potential to empower people with disabilities and Scots with long-term health conditions to participate in their communities and wider Scottish society,” she said.

“Whether through work, education, family life, or simply a life lived without fear of phone calls or letters demanding repeated assessments and punishments.”

]]>
Japanese tax and benefit system for working parents: marginal tax rates https://slimmingpillsreview.com/japanese-tax-and-benefit-system-for-working-parents-marginal-tax-rates/ Tue, 16 Aug 2022 20:54:54 +0000 https://slimmingpillsreview.com/japanese-tax-and-benefit-system-for-working-parents-marginal-tax-rates/ Imagine a government giving subsidies to single parents that actually raise tax rates on overtime work. This is the case of a Japanese single parent who earns the approximate equivalent of US$39,981 and faces a marginal tax rate of 57%. With just a small raise of $599, she would face a marginal tax rate of […]]]>

Imagine a government giving subsidies to single parents that actually raise tax rates on overtime work. This is the case of a Japanese single parent who earns the approximate equivalent of US$39,981 and faces a marginal tax rate of 57%. With just a small raise of $599, she would face a marginal tax rate of 359%. A Japanese parent who benefits from a government program worth $5,123 could lose 100% of that benefit if they earn above the income threshold.

This is why the marginal tax wedge is relevant to understanding how workers might benefit (or not) from a wage increase once taxes kick in.

While the tax and benefit system may be successful in keeping low-income working households out of poverty and encouraging labor market participation, high marginal tax rates like the one seen in this Japanese working parent act as barriers to upward mobility, discouraging parents from advancing in their careers. Very often, these high rates are hidden in complex tax structures. However, a recently published study by the Archbridge Institute and the Tax Foundation highlights the underlying policies that drive the spikes in marginal tax rates that workers face in a number of countries.

When moving up the income ladder, a Japanese worker with children can face tax spikes of over 250% at two different levels due to child-raising allowance and child-raising allowance.

Japanese single parent with two children faces marginal tax rates (MTR) of over 250%
Japanese single parent with two children Average labor cost: 5,937,440 JPY (59,899 USD)
Total labor cost ¥4,571,829 ¥10,170,746
Net profit before increase ¥3,562,284 ¥6,778,705
Increase amount ¥59,374 ¥54,665
Amount of tax reduction/additional benefits due to the increase ¥213,227 ¥140,751
% of increase gobbled up by MTR 359.12% 257.48%
Net profit after increase ¥3,408,432 ¥6,692,619
Source: OECD, “Taxing Wages – Tax Wedge Decomposition”, https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=TXWDECOMP; OECD, “Taxing Wages – Comparative Tables”, https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=AWCOMP; and Tax Foundation calculations.

In 2021, the first peak in the marginal tax rate occurred at 77% of the average wage and around 88% of the median wage. If the employer of this Japanese worker increased his compensation by only 59,374 JPY, the worker suffered a net loss and saw his earnings reduced by 153,853 JPY. This Japanese relative faced a marginal tax wedge of 359% for a 1% increase in gross earnings on top of gross annual salary of JPY 3,963,097. Indeed, the parental education allowance, which is a benefit available to single parents, disappears from the income ceiling.

Moving up the earnings ladder, this worker faced a marginal tax wedge of 257% for a 1% increase in his gross earnings on top of the gross annual salary of JPY 8,904,101. This Japanese single parent faced a net loss and saw his income reduced by 86,086 JPY. This is due to child allowances being halved from 240,000 JPY to 120,000 JPY when the ceiling of 6,980,000 JPY is reached.

Child-raising allowance and child allowance generate marginal tax rate peaks of more than 250% when they reach the income ceiling. A gradual disappearance of these advantages would eliminate these tax peaks.

Additionally, a single-earner Japanese couple with two children faced marginal tax rates of over 100% at five different points due to child allowance, but also due to the local fixed standard tax. and spouse’s allowance.

As they move up the income scale, a single-earner Japanese couple with two children faces five MTR spikes of more than 100%
Single-income Japanese married couple with two children Average labor cost: 5,937,440 JPY (59,899 USD)
Total labor cost ¥3,087,469 ¥10,170,746 ¥12,302,681 ¥12,849,331 ¥13,395,981
Net profit before increase ¥2,496,730 ¥6,889,301 ¥8,091,945 ¥8,381,282 ¥8,663,965
Increase amount ¥59,374 ¥54,665 ¥54,665 ¥54,665 ¥54,665
Amount of tax reduction/additional benefits due to the increase ¥79,334 ¥140,751 ¥57,116 ¥63,772 ¥63,772
% of increase consumed by MTR 133.62% 257.48% 104.48% 116.66% 116.66%
Net profit after increase ¥2,476,770 ¥6,803,215 ¥8,089,493 ¥8,372,176 ¥8,654,858
Source: OECD, “Taxing Wages – Tax Wedge Decomposition”, https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=TXWDECOMP; OECD, “Taxing Wages – Comparative Tables”, https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=AWCOMP; and Tax Foundation calculations.

For this couple, the first peak in the marginal tax rate occurred at 52% of the average wage and around 60% of the median wage. If the employer of this Japanese worker increased his compensation by only 59,374 JPY, the worker suffered a net loss and saw his earnings reduced by 19,960 JPY. This Japanese couple faced a marginal tax wedge of 134% for a 1% increase in gross income on top of gross annual salary of JPY 2,676,377. Indeed, at this level of income, in addition to the local fixed standard tax of 5,000 JPY, a local income tax of 10% is due.

The second spike in marginal tax rates this Japanese couple faced was due to caps on child allowances, such as a single parent with two children.

Moving up the earnings ladder, this worker faced a marginal tax wedge of 104% for a 1% increase in his gross earnings on top of the gross annual salary of JPY 10,911,384. This Japanese couple with two children faced a net loss and saw their income reduced by 2,451 JPY.

This Japanese couple with two children faced two additional marginal tax wedges of 117% for a 1% increase in their gross income on top of gross annual salary of JPY 11,426,072 and JPY 11,940,760. These last three increases in the marginal tax wedge generated by the increase in income taxes are due to the gradual loss of the spouse’s allowance from one third of its initial amount until it is completely abolished. Therefore, a gradual reduction in the spouse’s allowance would significantly reduce these three peaks in marginal tax rates.

The tax and benefit system in Japan is extremely complex with many thresholds. In addition, the existence of different tax advantages and thresholds for single parents and single-earner couples generates a series of marginal tax rates that could keep some workers in Australia just below the income threshold that triggers the tax rate spikes. Removing these barriers through a more consistent tax and benefit system will allow workers to access higher wages without facing these barriers.

In addition, the different levels of income tax and the design of local income tax create a poverty trap for single-earner couples. In order to eliminate this poverty trap, the fixed standard local tax must be eliminated and regional and local income tax rates and thresholds must be aligned.

Two lessons from Finland

Japan could follow Finland’s example where central and local income taxes work together. In Finland, local income tax and central income tax are adjusted and well coordinated and do not generate peaks in marginal tax rates as described in Japan. Finland also offers a fixed family allowance independent of taxable income which prevents the formation of peaks in marginal tax rates such as those observed in Japan. Nevertheless, marginal tax rates above 50%, as seen in Finland, could discourage employment and labor supply. Even if marginal rates do not rise in a way that traps people in poverty, high marginal rates still have a direct impact on workers.

Finland. Marginal tax wedge for single parent with two children as percentage of labor cost by labor cost level in EUR

The loss of benefits that single parents and single-earner couples, especially in Japan, face when they accept overtime work may deter them from advancing in their careers, showing that the system of tax and benefit system is ineffective in promoting upward parental mobility. Japan’s tax and benefit system comes with trade-offs that policymakers should keep in mind when considering tax policy reform. In Japan, even parents close to the poverty line are affected by peaks in marginal tax rates. Therefore, redesigning some of these policies to generate a smoother variation in marginal tax rates across different income levels and household types would likely increase labor supply and encourage upward parental mobility. Japanese.

To note: This is part of a five-part blog series that sheds light on the findings of a recently published study by Archbridge Institute and Tax Foundation and explores the underlying policies that drive the spikes in marginal tax rates at which workers are submitted in a number of countries.

]]>
Japanese tax and benefit system for working parents: marginal tax rates https://slimmingpillsreview.com/japanese-tax-and-benefit-system-for-working-parents-marginal-tax-rates-2/ Tue, 16 Aug 2022 07:00:00 +0000 https://slimmingpillsreview.com/japanese-tax-and-benefit-system-for-working-parents-marginal-tax-rates-2/ Imagine a government giving subsidies to single parents that actually raise tax rates on overtime work. This is the case of a Japanese single parent who earns the approximate equivalent of US$39,981 and faces a marginal tax rate of 57%. With just a small raise of $599, she would face a marginal tax rate of […]]]>

Imagine a government giving subsidies to single parents that actually raise tax rates on overtime work. This is the case of a Japanese single parent who earns the approximate equivalent of US$39,981 and faces a marginal tax rate of 57%. With just a small raise of $599, she would face a marginal tax rate of 359%. A Japanese parent who benefits from a government program worth $5,123 could lose 100% of that benefit if they earn above the income threshold.

This is why the marginal tax wedge is relevant to understanding how workers might benefit (or not) from a wage increase once taxes kick in.

While the tax and benefit system may be successful in keeping low-income working households out of poverty and encouraging labor market participation, high marginal tax rates such as the one observed in the case of this Japanese working parent act as barriers to upward mobility, discouraging parents from advancing in their careers. Very often, these high rates are hidden in complex tax structures. However, a recently published study by the Archbridge Institute and the Tax Foundation highlights the underlying policies that drive the spikes in marginal tax rates that workers face in a number of countries.

When moving up the income ladder, a Japanese worker with children may face tax spikes of over 250% at two different levels due to child-raising allowance and child allowance.

Japanese single parent with two children faces marginal tax rates (MTR) of over 250%
Japanese single parent with two children Average labor cost: 5,937,440 JPY (59,899 USD)
Total labor cost ¥4,571,829 ¥10,170,746
Net profit before increase ¥3,562,284 ¥6,778,705
Increase amount 59,374 yen ¥54,665
Amount of tax reduction/additional benefits due to the increase ¥213,227 ¥140,751
% of increase gobbled up by MTR 359.12% 257.48%
Net profit after increase ¥3,408,432 ¥6,692,619
Source: OECD, “Taxing Wages – Tax Wedge Decomposition”, https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=TXWDECOMP; OECD, “Taxing Wages – Comparative Tables”, https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=AWCOMP; and Tax Foundation calculations.

In 2021, the first peak in the marginal tax rate occurred at 77% of the average wage and around 88% of the median wage. If the employer of this Japanese worker increased his compensation by only 59,374 JPY, the worker suffered a net loss and saw his earnings reduced by 153,853 JPY. This Japanese relative faced a marginal tax wedge of 359% for a 1% increase in gross earnings on top of gross annual salary of JPY 3,963,097. Indeed, the parental education allowance, which is a benefit available to single parents, disappears from the income ceiling.

Moving up the earnings ladder, this worker faced a marginal tax wedge of 257% for a 1% increase in his gross earnings on top of the gross annual salary of JPY 8,904,101. This Japanese single parent faced a net loss and saw his income reduced by 86,086 JPY. This is due to child allowances being halved from 240,000 JPY to 120,000 JPY when the ceiling of 6,980,000 JPY is reached.

Child-raising allowance and child allowance generate marginal tax rate peaks of more than 250% when they reach the income ceiling. A gradual disappearance of these advantages would eliminate these tax peaks.

Additionally, a single-earner Japanese couple with two children faced marginal tax rates of over 100% at five different levels due to child allowance, but also due to the local fixed standard tax. and spouse’s allowance.

As they move up the income scale, a single-earner Japanese couple with two children faces five MTR spikes of more than 100%
Single-income Japanese married couple with two children Average labor cost: 5,937,440 JPY (59,899 USD)
Total labor cost ¥3,087,469 ¥10,170,746 ¥12,302,681 ¥12,849,331 ¥13,395,981
Net profit before increase ¥2,496,730 ¥6,889,301 ¥8,091,945 ¥8,381,282 ¥8,663,965
Increase amount 59,374 yen ¥54,665 ¥54,665 ¥54,665 ¥54,665
Amount of tax reduction/additional benefits due to the increase ¥79,334 ¥140,751 ¥57,116 ¥63,772 ¥63,772
% of increase consumed by MTR 133.62% 257.48% 104.48% 116.66% 116.66%
Net profit after increase ¥2,476,770 ¥6,803,215 ¥8,089,493 ¥8,372,176 ¥8,654,858
Source: OECD, “Taxing Wages – Tax Wedge Decomposition”, https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=TXWDECOMP; OECD, “Taxing Wages – Comparative Tables”, https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=AWCOMP; and Tax Foundation calculations.

For this couple, the first peak in the marginal tax rate occurred at 52% of the average wage and around 60% of the median wage. If the employer of this Japanese worker increased his compensation by only 59,374 JPY, the worker suffered a net loss and saw his earnings reduced by 19,960 JPY. This Japanese couple faced a marginal tax wedge of 134% for a 1% increase in gross income on top of gross annual salary of JPY 2,676,377. Indeed, at this level of income, in addition to the local fixed standard tax of 5,000 JPY, a local income tax of 10% is due.

The second spike in marginal tax rates this Japanese couple faced was due to caps on child allowances, such as a single parent with two children.

Moving up the earnings ladder, this worker faced a marginal tax wedge of 104% for a 1% increase in his gross earnings on top of the gross annual salary of JPY 10,911,384. This Japanese couple with two children faced a net loss and saw their income reduced by 2,451 JPY.

This Japanese couple with two children faced two additional marginal tax wedges of 117% for a 1% increase in their gross earnings on top of gross annual salary of JPY 11,426,072 and JPY 11,940,760. These last three increases in the marginal tax wedge generated by the increase in income taxes are due to the gradual loss of the spouse’s allowance from one third of its initial amount until it is completely abolished. Therefore, a gradual reduction in the spouse’s allowance would significantly reduce these three peaks in marginal tax rates.

The tax and benefit system in Japan is extremely complex with many thresholds. In addition, the existence of different tax advantages and thresholds for single parents and single-earner couples generates a series of marginal tax rates that could keep some workers in Australia just below the income threshold that triggers the tax rate spikes. Removing these barriers through a more consistent tax and benefit system will allow workers to access higher wages without facing these barriers.

In addition, the different levels of income tax and the design of local income tax create a poverty trap for single-earner couples. In order to eliminate this poverty trap, the fixed standard local tax must be eliminated and regional and local income tax rates and thresholds must be aligned.

Two lessons from Finland

Japan could follow Finland’s example where central and local income taxes work together. In Finland, local income tax and central income tax are adjusted and well coordinated and do not generate peaks in marginal tax rates as described in Japan. Finland also offers a fixed family allowance independent of taxable income which prevents the formation of peaks in marginal tax rates such as those observed in Japan. Nevertheless, marginal tax rates above 50%, as seen in Finland, could discourage employment and labor supply. Even if marginal rates do not rise in a way that traps people in poverty, high marginal rates still have a direct impact on workers.

Finland. Marginal tax wedge for a single parent with two children as a percentage of labor cost by labor cost level in EUR

The loss of benefits that single parents and single-earner couples, especially in Japan, face when they accept overtime work may deter them from advancing in their careers, showing that the system of tax and benefit system is ineffective in promoting upward parental mobility. Japan’s tax and benefit system comes with trade-offs that policymakers should keep in mind when considering tax policy reform. In Japan, even parents close to the poverty line are affected by peaks in marginal tax rates. Therefore, redesigning some of these policies to generate a smoother variation in marginal tax rates across different income levels and household types would likely increase labor supply and encourage upward parental mobility. Japanese.

To note: This is part of a five-part blog series that sheds light on the findings of a recently published study by Archbridge Institute and Tax Foundation and explores the underlying policies that drive the spikes in marginal tax rates at which workers are submitted in a number of countries.

]]>
Australian tax and social security benefit system https://slimmingpillsreview.com/australian-tax-and-social-security-benefit-system/ Wed, 03 Aug 2022 10:52:52 +0000 https://slimmingpillsreview.com/australian-tax-and-social-security-benefit-system/ Imagine a government giving subsidies to single parents that actually raise tax rates on overtime work. This is the case of an Australian single parent who earns less than the average wage. With a pay rise of just AUD 983 more, he would face a marginal tax rate of 652%. Therefore, despite the salary increase, […]]]>

Imagine a government giving subsidies to single parents that actually raise tax rates on overtime work. This is the case of an Australian single parent who earns less than the average wage. With a pay rise of just AUD 983 more, he would face a marginal tax rate of 652%. Therefore, despite the salary increase, this worker will face a net loss and will see their income reduced by AUD 5,428. An Australian parent who benefits from a government program worth AUD 21,000 could lose 100% of that benefit if they earn above the income threshold.

This is why the marginal tax wedge is relevant to understanding how workers might benefit (or not) from a wage increase once taxes kick in.

While Australia’s tax and benefit system may be successful in keeping low-income working households out of poverty and encouraging labor market participation, high marginal tax rates, such as that seen in the of this Australian working parent, act as barriers to upward mobility, discouraging parents from advancing in their careers. Very often, these high rates are hidden in complex tax structures. However, a recently published study by the Archbridge Institute and the Tax Foundation highlights the underlying policies that drive the spikes in marginal tax rates that workers face in a number of countries.

Moving up the income ladder, an Australian worker with children can face a tax rate hike of over 100% at four different points
Australian single worker with two children Average labor cost: 98,269 AUD (65,689 USD)
Total labor cost A$60,927 A$83,528 A$105,147 A$114,974
Net profit before increase A$71,249 A$74,071 A$83,323 AU$82,990
Increase amount AUD 983 AUD 983 AUD 983 AUD 983
Amount of tax reduction/additional benefits due to the increase A$6,410 AU$2,120 A$4,045 A$1,842
% of increase gobbled up by MTR 652.31% 215.77% 411.60% 187.40%
Net profit after increase A$65,821 A$72,934 A$80,261 A$82,131
Source: OECD, “Taxing Wages – Tax Wedge Decomposition”, https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=TXWDECOMP; OECD, “Taxing Wages – Comparative Tables”, https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=AWCOMP; and Tax Foundation calculations.

As they move up the income ladder, an Australian worker with children can face tax rate spikes of over 100% at four different levels due to the Family Tax Benefit and Single Parent Payment.

In 2021, the first peak in the marginal tax rate occurred at 62% of the average wage and around 73% of the median wage. If this Australian worker’s employer increased his pay by just AUD 983, the worker suffered a net loss and saw his earnings reduced by AUD 5,428. This Australian parent faced a marginal tax wedge of 652% for a 1% increase in gross earnings on top of gross annual salary of AUD 57,854. This is due to the clawback of Parenting Payment income support to which single parents in Australia are entitled. For a single parent with two children, the income ceiling to access Parenting Payment is reached at this income level.

Moving up the earnings ladder, this worker faced a marginal tax wedge of 216% for a 1% increase in gross earnings on top of gross annual earnings of AUD 79,316. This Australian single parent faced a net loss and saw his income reduced by AUD 1,138. This is due to the Family Tax Benefit Part A as for the year 2020-21 an end of year supplement of AUD 781.1 per child has been made available to parents with taxable income below 80 AUD 000.

Moving up the earnings ladder, this Australian worker faced a marginal tax wedge of 412% for a 1% increase in gross earnings on top of gross annual salary of AUD 99,845. Therefore, despite the salary increase of AUD 983, this Australian worker faced a net loss and saw his earnings reduced by AUD 3,062. This is due to Family Tax Benefit Part B (AUD$3,314.2 and a one-time supplement of AU$379.6), which ends when taxable income reaches AU$100,000.

Moving up the income scale, this Australian single parent faced a marginal tax wedge of 187% for a 1% increase in gross earnings on top of gross annual salary of AUD 109,176. This is due to Part A of the Family Tax Benefit disappearing completely at this level of taxable income.

Previous research analyzing marginal tax rates in Australia has shown that the design of income support payments generates effective marginal tax rates of over 69% for an unemployed couple with two children if the one of the couple gets a full-time job with low pay. Even though the system has been reformed since the publication of this research, confiscatory marginal tax rates of more than 100%, also known as “income traps”, can still be observed.

The tax and benefit system in Australia is extremely complex with many thresholds and different types of benefits depending on the taxable income of workers and the age of children. Moreover, the existence of different tax advantages for single parents and single and dual earner couples generates a series of marginal tax rates that could keep some workers in Australia just below the income threshold that triggers the peaks of tax rate. Removing these barriers through a more consistent tax and benefit system will allow workers to access higher wages without facing these barriers.

Learn from Finland

Australia could follow Finland’s example, where a single parent with two children faces a progressive marginal tax wedge profile, ranging from 49% to 65.7%, and no peak marginal tax rate cannot be observed. The increase in the marginal tax wedge in Finland is due to a progressive central income tax, while social security contributions have a flat rate. Finland also offers a fixed family allowance independent of taxable income which prevents the formation of peaks in marginal tax rates such as those observed in Australia. Nevertheless, marginal tax rates above 50%, such as those seen in Australia and Finland, especially for workers earning less than the average wage, could discourage employment and labor supply. Even if marginal rates do not rise in a way that traps people in poverty, high marginal rates still have a direct impact on workers.

The loss of benefits that particularly poor Australian single parents face when they accept overtime work may deter them from advancing in their careers, showing that the tax and benefit system, while successful to keep low-income working households out of poverty, is ineffective in promoting the upward mobility of lone parents. Australia’s tax and benefit system comes with trade-offs that policymakers should keep in mind when considering tax policy reform. In Australia, two of the peaks in the marginal tax rate have a direct impact on single parents who earn less than the average wage. Therefore, redesigning some of these policies to generate a smoother variation in marginal tax rates across different income levels would likely increase labor supply and encourage upward mobility of low-income Australian single parents. .

To note: This is part of a five-part blog series that sheds light on the findings of a recently published study by Archbridge Institute and Tax Foundation and explores the underlying policies that drive the spikes in marginal tax rates at which workers are submitted in a number of countries.

]]>
Australian tax and social security benefit system https://slimmingpillsreview.com/australian-tax-and-social-security-benefit-system-2/ Wed, 03 Aug 2022 07:00:00 +0000 https://slimmingpillsreview.com/australian-tax-and-social-security-benefit-system-2/ Imagine a government giving subsidies to single parents that actually raise tax rates on overtime work. This is the case of an Australian single parent who earns less than the average wage. With a pay rise of just AUD 983 more, he would face a marginal tax rate of 652%. Therefore, despite the salary increase, […]]]>

Imagine a government giving subsidies to single parents that actually raise tax rates on overtime work. This is the case of an Australian single parent who earns less than the average wage. With a pay rise of just AUD 983 more, he would face a marginal tax rate of 652%. Therefore, despite the salary increase, this worker will face a net loss and see his income reduced by AUD 5,428. An Australian parent who benefits from a government program worth AUD 21,000 could lose 100% of that benefit if they earn above the income threshold.

This is why the marginal tax wedge is relevant to understanding how workers might benefit (or not) from a wage increase once taxes kick in.

While Australia’s tax and benefit system may be successful in keeping low-income working households out of poverty and encouraging labor market participation, high marginal tax rates such as that seen in the case of this Australian working parent are obstacles to upward mobility, discouraging parents from advancing in their careers. Very often, these high rates are hidden in complex tax structures. However, a recently published study by the Archbridge Institute and the Tax Foundation highlights the underlying policies that drive the spikes in marginal tax rates that workers face in a number of countries.

Moving up the income ladder, an Australian worker with children can face a tax rate hike of over 100% at four different points
Australian single worker with two children Average labor cost: 98,269 AUD (65,689 USD)
Total labor cost A$60,927 A$83,528 A$105,147 A$114,974
Net profit before increase A$71,249 A$74,071 A$83,323 AU$82,990
Increase amount AUD 983 AUD 983 AUD 983 AUD 983
Amount of tax reduction/additional benefits due to the increase A$6,410 AU$2,120 A$4,045 A$1,842
% of increase gobbled up by MTR 652.31% 215.77% 411.60% 187.40%
Net profit after increase A$65,821 A$72,934 A$80,261 A$82,131
Source: OECD, “Taxing Wages – Tax Wedge Decomposition”, https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=TXWDECOMP; OECD, “Taxing Wages – Comparative Tables”, https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=AWCOMP; and Tax Foundation calculations.

As they move up the income ladder, an Australian worker with children can face tax rate spikes of over 100% at four different levels due to the Family Tax Benefit and Single Parent Payment.

In 2021, the first peak in the marginal tax rate occurred at 62% of the average wage and around 73% of the median wage. If this Australian worker’s employer increased his pay by just AUD 983, the worker suffered a net loss and saw his earnings reduced by AUD 5,428. This Australian parent faced a marginal tax wedge of 652% for a 1% increase in gross earnings on top of gross annual salary of AUD 57,854. This is due to the clawback of Parenting Payment income support to which single parents in Australia are entitled. For a single parent with two children, the income ceiling to access Parenting Payment is reached at this income level.

Moving up the earnings ladder, this worker faced a marginal tax wedge of 216% for a 1% increase in gross earnings on top of gross annual earnings of AUD 79,316. This Australian single parent faced a net loss and saw his income reduced by AUD 1,138. This is due to the Family Tax Benefit Part A as for the year 2020-21 an end of year supplement of AUD 781.1 per child has been made available to parents with taxable income below 80 AUD 000.

Moving up the earnings ladder, this Australian worker faced a marginal tax wedge of 412% for a 1% increase in gross earnings on top of gross annual salary of AUD 99,845. Therefore, despite the salary increase of AUD 983, this Australian worker faced a net loss and saw his earnings reduced by AUD 3,062. This is due to Family Tax Benefit Part B (AUD$3,314.2 and a one-time supplement of AU$379.6), which ends when taxable income reaches AU$100,000.

Moving up the income scale, this Australian single parent faced a marginal tax wedge of 187% for a 1% increase in gross earnings on top of gross annual salary of AUD 109,176. This is due to Part A of the Family Tax Benefit disappearing completely at this level of taxable income.

Previous research analyzing marginal tax rates in Australia has shown that the design of income support payments generates effective marginal tax rates of over 69% for an unemployed couple with two children if the one of the couple gets a full-time job with low pay. Even though the system has been reformed since the publication of this research, confiscatory marginal tax rates of more than 100%, also known as “income traps”, can still be observed.

The tax and benefit system in Australia is extremely complex with many thresholds and different types of benefits depending on the taxable income of workers and the age of children. In addition, the existence of different tax advantages for single parents and single and dual earner couples generates a series of marginal tax rates that could keep some workers in Australia just below the income threshold that triggers the peaks of tax rate. Removing these barriers through a more consistent tax and benefit system will allow workers to access higher wages without facing these barriers.

Learn from Finland

Australia could follow the example of Finland, where a single parent with two children faces a progressive marginal tax wedge profile, ranging from 49% to 65.7%, and no peak marginal tax rate cannot be observed. The increase in the marginal tax wedge in Finland is due to a progressive central income tax, while social security contributions have a flat rate. Finland also offers a fixed family allowance independent of taxable income which prevents the formation of peaks in marginal tax rates such as those observed in Australia. Nevertheless, marginal tax rates above 50%, such as those seen in Australia and Finland, especially for workers earning less than the average wage, could discourage employment and labor supply. Even if marginal rates do not rise in a way that traps people in poverty, high marginal rates still have a direct impact on workers.

The loss of benefits that particularly poor Australian single parents face when they accept overtime work may deter them from advancing in their careers, showing that the tax and benefit system, although it succeeds in keeping low-income working households out of poverty, is ineffective in promoting the upward mobility of lone parents. Australia’s tax and benefit system comes with trade-offs that policymakers should keep in mind when considering tax policy reform. In Australia, two of the peaks in the marginal tax rate have a direct impact on single parents who earn less than the average wage. Therefore, redesigning some of these policies to generate a smoother variation in marginal tax rates across different income levels would likely increase labor supply and encourage upward mobility of low-income Australian single parents. .

To note: This is part of a five-part blog series that sheds light on the findings of a recently published study by Archbridge Institute and Tax Foundation and explores the underlying policies that drive the spikes in marginal tax rates at which workers are submitted in a number of countries.

]]>
Providers have to play the game of the benefit system without knowing the rules https://slimmingpillsreview.com/providers-have-to-play-the-game-of-the-benefit-system-without-knowing-the-rules/ Thu, 26 May 2022 11:04:52 +0000 https://slimmingpillsreview.com/providers-have-to-play-the-game-of-the-benefit-system-without-knowing-the-rules/ On Tuesday, Shona Craven pointed to unclaimed benefits running into the billions, while the focus is on ‘benefits fraud’ (Conservatives seem content that benefits go unclaimed, May 24). I wonder if many readers are aware that many local authorities employ benefit maximization teams to help vulnerable people access the benefits to which they are entitled. […]]]>

On Tuesday, Shona Craven pointed to unclaimed benefits running into the billions, while the focus is on ‘benefits fraud’ (Conservatives seem content that benefits go unclaimed, May 24). I wonder if many readers are aware that many local authorities employ benefit maximization teams to help vulnerable people access the benefits to which they are entitled.

In my experience, the DWP seems to be a benefit minimization organization. In trying to help vulnerable young adults claim the benefits owed to them, I have encountered outright hostility towards those who ask questions. A young man was forcibly removed from the benefits office for losing his temper when he was pushed away – he suffered from ADHD, was profoundly deaf and diabetic.

READ MORE: Buckingham Palace announce ‘less than minimum wage’ paying job ahead of Jubilee

We, the famous taxpayer, pay two sets of civil servants to manage the benefit system. One team tries to prevent people from getting benefits and the other tries to maximize access. We should ask ourselves why this is so. We also have universal credit paid to those who work. This is a direct subsidy to employers who game the system to cut costs by offering short hours and low hourly rates. This is another burden on the taxpayer that indicates what the government’s agenda is for “business”.

No one wishes poverty on any person or family, but the way we structure our benefits system makes it a shameful game for recipients to play without knowing the rules. This requires considerable reform.

David Neilson
Dumfries

Can anyone help me understand why, because I retired before 2016, I am entitled to the old state basic pension? This will equate to £7922 per year. That’s £2418 LESS per year than those who retired after that date.

READ MORE: Iain Duncan Smith wants us all to continue working until the age of 75

I have worked all my life since leaving school at 15, only taking time off from work to look after my children for eight years in the 1970s, followed by periods of teacher training and nursing education. I am now 75 years old and feel that my contribution to my society over the years counts for very little.

I can find the deadline, but not the REASON for this deadline. Do we older people deserve to be so ignored?

Anne-Campbell
Edinburgh

WHY no matter the price of fuel, it’s always a pound something over nine or seven at best. It’s never point one, three or five! Could it be that our own gas stations are also profiting at our expense?

Steve Cunningham
Aberdeen

IT is pleasing to note that African-born slave Joseph Knight will feature on one of the specially commissioned banners that will hang from Perth Town Hall when it reopens in May 2024.

Transported to Jamaica as a child of Guinea, Knight was sold to John Wedderburn of Ballindean, who brought him to Scotland in 1769 to work as a servant. While in Scotland, Knight was baptized and married Ann Thompson, a family servant, with whom he had at least one child. However, Wedderburn refused him permission to live with his wife and family.

READ MORE: Police officer tells inquest he fears Sheku Bayoh killed another officer

Faced with this refusal, Knight then left his service but Wedderburn had him arrested. In 1774 Knight complained to the Justices of the Perth Court of the Peace and when they found in favor of Wedderburn Knight appealed to the Sheriff of Perth. The latter noted that the state of slavery was not recognized by “the laws of the kingdom”.

In 1777 Wedderburn appealed to the Court of Session in Edinburgh, Scotland’s supreme civil court, arguing that Knight still owed him perpetual service and that he could be taken and forcibly returned to Jamaica. The court upheld the sheriff’s decision, finding that in fact slavery was not recognized under Scottish law. Fugitive slaves could therefore be protected by the courts if they wished to leave domestic service or if they resisted attempts to bring them back into slavery in the colonies.

It is fantastic that this lesser known but very significant episode in Scottish history should be recognized in this way.

Alex Orr
Edinburgh

In view of all the recent muddles about forming councils made up of seemingly toxic groups, one wonders how these are possible. The answer, I believe, is not pleasant for our democracy. The main actor of the minor parties seeking to take control of the council makes an agreement to share positions of power and influence on the boards of committees and independent organizations which comes with an additional payment.

They are effectively led to coalesce; maybe bribed might be a more apt description. This is the fundamental flaw in the voting system, which makes it almost impossible for a single party to obtain a majority. Until a change is made so that the elected majority party must exercise joint control, this affront to democracy will continue where the will of the majority is not carried out but subverted by this type of behavior.

A Jaap
by email

]]>
Fraud and Error in the Benefits System: Estimates from Fiscal Year 2021 to 2022 https://slimmingpillsreview.com/fraud-and-error-in-the-benefits-system-estimates-from-fiscal-year-2021-to-2022/ Thu, 26 May 2022 07:00:00 +0000 https://slimmingpillsreview.com/fraud-and-error-in-the-benefits-system-estimates-from-fiscal-year-2021-to-2022/ Fraud and Error in the Benefits System Financial Year End (FYE) 2022 Ref: ISBN 978-1-78659-422-8 HTML Tables: Fraud and error in the benefit system, estimates 2021 to 2022 (XLS) MS Excel spreadsheet, 421 KB This file may not be suitable for assistive technology users. Ask for an accessible format. If you use assistive technology (such […]]]>

Fraud and Error in the Benefits System Financial Year End (FYE) 2022

Ref: ISBN 978-1-78659-422-8

HTML

Tables: Fraud and error in the benefit system, estimates 2021 to 2022 (XLS)

This file may not be suitable for assistive technology users.

Ask for an accessible format.

If you use assistive technology (such as a screen reader) and require a version of this document in a more accessible format, please email accessible.formats@dwp.gov.uk . Please let us know which format you need. It will help us if you say what assistive technology you use.

Tables: Fraud and error in the benefit system, estimates 2021 to 2022 (ODS)

This file is in OpenDocument format

This file may not be suitable for assistive technology users.

Ask for an accessible format.

If you use assistive technology (such as a screen reader) and require a version of this document in a more accessible format, please email accessible.formats@dwp.gov.uk . Please let us know which format you need. It will help us if you say what assistive technology you use.

Background Information: Fraud and Error in Benefit System Statistics, 2021 to 2022 Estimates

Ref: ISBN 978-1-78659-423-5

HTML

]]>
Statistical note: evolution of fraud and errors in the compensation system: estimates for the financial year 2021 to 2022 https://slimmingpillsreview.com/statistical-note-evolution-of-fraud-and-errors-in-the-compensation-system-estimates-for-the-financial-year-2021-to-2022/ Fri, 13 May 2022 11:03:45 +0000 https://slimmingpillsreview.com/statistical-note-evolution-of-fraud-and-errors-in-the-compensation-system-estimates-for-the-financial-year-2021-to-2022/ Introduction This statistical notice is intended to inform in advance of a revision of fraud and error in the publication of the benefit system. We are carrying out a review related to housing benefit (HB) as quality assurance of our statistics has resulted in the identification of an error in the figures for housing assistance […]]]>

Introduction

This statistical notice is intended to inform in advance of a revision of fraud and error in the publication of the benefit system.

We are carrying out a review related to housing benefit (HB) as quality assurance of our statistics has resulted in the identification of an error in the figures for housing assistance expenditure, whereby Universal Credit (CPU) was wrongly treated as a benefit without a passport for HB. This error has become apparent as there are now more applicants receiving HB due to receipt of CPU.

This review will be carried out during the financial year ended (FYE) Publication 2022, to be published on May 26, 2022.

Revised figures for FYE 2020 and FYE 2021 using the revised methodology will also be published in the “Fraud and Error in the Benefits System: FYE 2022 estimates. This will allow a like-for-like comparison with the recently published figures for FYE 2022.

Due to the amount of resources required to apply methodology changes to all historical data, we are unable to provide an updated retroseries before FYE 2020.

Further details of this change will be set out in the Background Information and Methodology Note that will accompany Fraud and Error in the Benefits System: FYE 2022 estimates.

If you have any questions about these changes, please send them to: caxtonhouse.femaenquiries@dwp.gov.uk

Background

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) uses a complex methodology to measure levels of fraud and error in the benefits system. Read more information on the methodology used.

In order to calculate the monetary value of fraud and error and the proportion of expenses overpaid, we use DWP expenditure figures. Within these numbers CPU was not considered a passport benefit for HB. We have now made adjustments to expenses to properly categorize CPU as a passport benefit.

This change affects the HB total and also working age HB The figures. retirement age HB figures are not affected due to CPU being a working age benefit.

Effect

Adopt the change of HB spending leads to small changes in overpayments and underpayments at the aggregate (global) level. For HB there is a slightly bigger change.

Due to the deployment of CPU and the jump in CPU claims due to COVID-19, the impact of this change has increased over time. This change reduces both the HB total overpayments and underpayments for FYE 2020 and further reduces these two figures by FYE 2021. This means that the trend of the past two years is now down instead of flat. Prior to FYE 2020, we estimate the impact on the HB the total numbers would have been negligible and would not have affected the trend.

Other Changes

We are making a number of other minor changes as part of our regular review of our methodology for consistency and accuracy. These are the following.

  • change to use the monetary difference between an applicant’s Housing Benefit award prior to the benefits review and the applicant’s award after the review; to capture the effect of multiple errors more accurately
  • change to remove additional grossing factors on Housing Benefit, Pension Credit and Employment and Support Allowance
  • changing the way we attribute the amount overpaid or underpaid to reasons of error on Housing Benefit, Employment Support Allowance and Pension Credit, to align with the universal credit and state pension

These other changes all have a negligible impact on overpayments and underpayments at the aggregate (global) level and a small impact at the benefit level.

Revised figures for FYE 2020 and FYE 2021 in fraud and error in the compensation system: FYE The 2022 estimates (to be released on May 26, 2022) will also include these changes. This will allow a like-for-like comparison with the figures recently published for FYE 2022.

Further information is available in the general and methodological information document (for 2021 to 2022) when it is published (along with the statistics) on May 26, 2022.

Issued by

Fraud and error measurement and analysis team, DWP

Press office: 0115 965 8781

Statistician: John Bilverstone

Fraud and Error Measurement and Analysis Team

Department of Work and Pensions

View of Benton Park

Benton Park Road

Newcastle-upon-Tyne

NE98 1YX

Email: caxtonhouse.femaenquiries@dwp.gov.uk

]]>
Statistical note: evolution of fraud and errors in the compensation system: estimates for the financial year 2021 to 2022 https://slimmingpillsreview.com/statistical-note-evolution-of-fraud-and-errors-in-the-compensation-system-estimates-for-the-financial-year-2021-to-2022-2/ Fri, 13 May 2022 07:00:00 +0000 https://slimmingpillsreview.com/statistical-note-evolution-of-fraud-and-errors-in-the-compensation-system-estimates-for-the-financial-year-2021-to-2022-2/ Introduction This statistical notice is intended to inform in advance of a revision of fraud and error in the publication of the benefit system. We are carrying out a review related to housing benefit (HB) as quality assurance of our statistics has resulted in the identification of an error in the housing assistance expenditure figures, […]]]>

Introduction

This statistical notice is intended to inform in advance of a revision of fraud and error in the publication of the benefit system.

We are carrying out a review related to housing benefit (HB) as quality assurance of our statistics has resulted in the identification of an error in the housing assistance expenditure figures, whereby Universal Credit (CPU) was wrongly treated as a benefit without a passport for HB. This error has become apparent because there are now more applicants receiving HB due to receipt of CPU.

This review will be carried out during the financial year ended (FYE) Publication 2022, to be published on May 26, 2022.

Revised figures for FYE 2020 and FYE 2021 using the revised methodology will also be published in the “Fraud and Error in the Benefits System: FYE 2022 estimates. This will allow a like-for-like comparison with the recently published figures for FYE 2022.

Due to the amount of resources required to apply methodology changes to all historical data, we are unable to provide an updated retroseries before FYE 2020.

Further details of this change will be presented in the background information and methodological note that will accompany Fraud and Error in the Benefits System: FYE 2022 estimates.

If you have any questions about these changes, please send them to: caxtonhouse.femaenquiries@dwp.gov.uk

Background

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) uses a complex methodology to measure levels of fraud and error in the benefits system. Read more information on the methodology used.

In order to calculate the monetary value of fraud and error and the proportion of expenses overpaid, we use DWP expenditure figures. Within these numbers CPU was not considered a passport benefit for HB. We have now made adjustments to expenses to properly categorize CPU as a passport benefit.

This change affects the HB total and also working age HB The figures. retirement age HB figures are not affected due to CPU being a working age benefit.

Effect

Adopt the change of HB spending leads to small changes in overpayments and underpayments at the aggregate (global) level. For HB there is a slightly bigger change.

Due to the deployment of CPU and the jump in CPU claims due to COVID-19, the impact of this change has increased over time. This change reduces both the HB total overpayments and underpayments for FYE 2020 and further reduces these two figures by FYE 2021. This means that the trend of the past two years is now down instead of stable. Prior to FYE 2020, we estimate the impact on the HB the total numbers would have been negligible and would not have affected the trend.

Other Changes

We are making a number of other minor changes as part of our regular review of our methodology for consistency and accuracy. These are the following.

  • change to use the monetary difference between an applicant’s Housing Benefit award prior to the benefits review and the applicant’s award after the review; to capture the effect of multiple errors more accurately
  • change to remove additional grossing factors on Housing Benefit, Pension Credit and Employment and Support Allowance
  • changing the way we attribute the amount overpaid or underpaid to reasons for error on Housing Benefit, Employment Support Allowance and Pension Credit, to align with the universal credit and state pension

These other changes all have a negligible impact on overpayments and underpayments at the aggregate (global) level and a small impact at the benefit level.

Revised figures for FYE 2020 and FYE 2021 in fraud and error in the compensation system: FYE The 2022 estimates (to be released on May 26, 2022) will also include these changes. This will allow a like-for-like comparison with the figures recently published for FYE 2022.

Further information is available in the general and methodological information document (for 2021 to 2022) when it is published (along with the statistics) on May 26, 2022.

Issued by

Fraud and error measurement and analysis team, DWP

Press office: 0115 965 8781

Statistician: John Bilverstone

Fraud and Error Measurement and Analysis Team

Department of Work and Pensions

View of Benton Park

Benton Park Road

Newcastle-upon-Tyne

NE98 1YX

Email: caxtonhouse.femaenquiries@dwp.gov.uk

]]>
The housing assistance system does not reflect the reality of the level of rents https://slimmingpillsreview.com/the-housing-assistance-system-does-not-reflect-the-reality-of-the-level-of-rents/ Tue, 19 Apr 2022 11:06:00 +0000 https://slimmingpillsreview.com/the-housing-assistance-system-does-not-reflect-the-reality-of-the-level-of-rents/ Stock photo drink Silver bottle. Save money Official data shows that in Yorkshire and the Humber, 64% of tenants who receive housing benefit have a gap. Government figures show that across the region the average shortfall between the support these tenants receive and the rent they pay is nearly £87 a month. Locally this ranges […]]]>
Stock photo drink Silver bottle. Save money

Official data shows that in Yorkshire and the Humber, 64% of tenants who receive housing benefit have a gap.

Government figures show that across the region the average shortfall between the support these tenants receive and the rent they pay is nearly £87 a month.

Locally this ranges from £70 in North East Lincolnshire to £125 in Craven and York. The proportion of tenants affected ranges from nearly 82% in Craven to around 36% in Selby.

Register to our daily newsletter Harrogate Advertiser Today

Local Housing Benefit is used to calculate the amount tenants can receive to cover housing costs as part of a Universal Credit payment. In response to the pandemic, the government increased the allowance in April 2020 to cover the bottom 30% of private rents in a given area. In April last year, the rate was frozen in cash terms and remains frozen in 2022/23.

As a result of the freeze, the link between the level of local rents and the amount of housing assistance received has been broken. This means that the number of properties that private tenants on Universal Credit can afford is likely to steadily decline.

This despite the fact that rents in Yorkshire and the Humber have risen less than inflation.

By highlighting these figures, the National Residential Landlords Association (NRLA) calls on the government to release the Local Housing Allowance and thus re-establish the link between the allowance and the cost of local rents.

Ruth Millington, Yorkshire and the Humber spokesperson for the NRLA, said: “The benefit system is failing to provide tenants and homeowners in Yorkshire and the Humber with the security they need.

“It is unacceptable that housing assistance does not reflect the reality of current rent levels.

“The freeze only exacerbates the already severe cost of living crisis for renters in the area.

“The Chancellor must listen and address the concerns of tenants and landlords by urgently releasing housing benefit.”

]]>