[Archived] Government Benefits

[T.J.Newton]

What a load of arse. Always someone else's fault isn't it ?

Grow up.

And thats the responce most self centred people in this country would give and why nothing will change, me "grow up", no pal you get you're head out of you're spoilt arse and wake up.

[Baz]

Paul, I think your post is a very good example of where most people would be willing to pay a little more tax in order to help funding.

I do think though, whilst we have a situation where millions in tax revenue is being evaded by the top earners (and being highlighted by the media) the "why should I" culture will be maintained.

I think the under-reporting by the media of the Anti-ATOS protest last week is a sad reflection of the truth of the 'Big Society'.

[Bazzanotsogreat]

Oh really ?

Figures provided by a member of your beloved government.

http://liberalconspi...-benefit-fraud/

Who mentioned fraud? take a look at the definition "loophole"

A small example, single female approches a LA for a house, she is aged 19. She is currently recieving JSA of around £60 per week. The same person walks back 2 years later with two children. This time she is on CTAX, CBEN, 2 bed rate HB, Full CTAX rebate and some ESA or Income support. Her "earnings" have increased 10 fold in two years to around £1500-1800 pcm Please explain how this is justifible? or even suistainable

[jim mk2]

A small example, single female approches a LA for a house, she is aged 19. She is currently recieving JSA of around £60 per week. The same person walks back 2 years later with two children. This time she is on CTAX, CBEN, 2 bed rate HB, Full CTAX rebate and some ESA or Income support. Her "earnings" have increased 10 fold in two years to around £1500-1800 pcm Please explain how this is justifible? or even suistainable

Classic right-wing mantra.

It seems you will be getting your wish because 4m people, including a million single parents in work and single mothers, will lose out when the government streamlines the benefits system from October next year by abolishing the current benefits and replacing them with a new universal benefit according to Gingerbread, which campaigns for lone-parent families.

Now instead of targetting those on low incomes and benefits, explain why in these straitened times when everyone on middle incomes downwards is suffering it is justifiable and sustainable for corporations and wealthy individuals to continue (legally) to evade taxes, why fatcats and boardrooms continue to award themselves huge pay rises and bonuses and why this ideological, weak and ineffective government does nothing about it.

[Bazzanotsogreat]

Classic right-wing mantra.

It seems you will be getting your wish because 4m people, including a million single parents in work and single mothers, will lose out when the government streamlines the benefits system from October next year by abolishing the current benefits and replacing them with a new universal benefit according to Gingerbread, which campaigns for lone-parent families.

Now instead of targetting those on low incomes and benefits, explain why in these straitened times when everyone on middle incomes downwards is suffering it is justifiable and sustainable for corporations and wealthy individuals to continue (legally) to evade taxes, why fatcats and boardrooms continue to award themselves huge pay rises and bonuses and why this ideological, weak and ineffective government does nothing about it.

Right wing mantra wtf are you talking about? Im talking about actual front-line service experience.of dealing with these people on a daily basis. In terms of loosing out , my sympathy as always is with those that choose to work and can't make ends meet. Not the vast swathes of society that decide to ravage the benefits system.

In terms of the benefits cap, why should those on low paid jobs continue to fund stay at home famileas, it is neither ethical or fair. Until you come away from this dreamland & step into reality, it is pointless you Continuing to post.

[thenodrog]

So basically we have a Paul v Bazzanotsogreat situation. Both more experience than the rest of us by far but with opposing viewpoints. I suspect bazza's opinion being at the sharp end is more reliable is it just possible that the money the really needy require is being swallowed up the the 'legalised' fraudsters?

[thenodrog]

The harsh reality is Lancashire, an authority which 10-15 years ago was regarded as one of the best in the country in regard to caring for the less advantaged, now reclaims from the individual 85% (yes £85 in every £100) of their disposable income (provided through unemployment benefit, incapacity benefit) to pay for their "own care" when these individuals have no possibility to care for themselves.

Classic right-wing mantra.

How so Jim? Paul reliably informed us that 15 years ago when Lancashire provided top quality care was exactly the time when Blair led New Labour to a period of 13 years in power after 18 years of Tory government.

[jim mk2]

Right wing mantra wtf are you talking about? Im talking about actual front-line service experience.of dealing with these people on a daily basis. In terms of loosing out , my sympathy as always is with those that choose to work and can't make ends meet. Not the vast swathes of society that decide to ravage the benefits system.

Denies any use of right-wing manatra and then comes out with a line straight from the Rothermere press "vast swathes of society ravaging the benefits system" ! It would be laughable if it weren't so depressing.

[Jeru tha Damaja]

The level of fraud isn't the same as the number of people who claim benefits that they don't really deserve. Fraud means they weren't entitled to it, but there are lots of legal claims that I wouldn't agree with personally.

For example, in 2009 there were over 4200 people in Greater Manchester (per government statistics) claiming incapacity benefit or severe disablement allowance through alcoholism. That means that in this one area of the country there are 4200 people claiming a minimum of £70 a week because they can't put down the bottle. Now, it would take a lot of minimum wage workers paying their taxes to cover that bill (at least £294,000 a week). Are we supposed to pay our taxes so that these alcoholics can get their benefits without even making an effort to stop them from spending the money on more booze? We're just sustaining a problem, which is where the card system would be advantageous, it doesn't reduce the amount of money they get, but it does direct their spending in a more productive manner.

Then there's people who have never had a job but insist on having 7 kids. Granted, these cases are nowhere near as numerous as certain media outlets would have people believe, but it's hardly right that the rest of us should pay for that.

People who claim JSE are perfectly entitled to it, but they don't always need it. I've known dozens of people who could have got a job, but they choose not to. Every time their appointment with an adviser rolls around they scribble three things down in the little booklet that they're supposed to fill out, go lie to an uninterested civil servant and pick up their £50 a week. That's not really the point of the system, it puts an unfair burden on the rest of us, but it isn't proper fraud so it doesn't go in the statistics. If you're unemployed and you go to the pub in the middle of a weekday then your benefits should stop, imo, because looking for a job shouldn't leave time for you to throw money over the bar, which again is a strong point of the card system.

(P.S. Just so theno can sleep easy, I still have a business that pays taxes in the UK.)

[thenodrog]

Quite timely food for thought...........

http://money.aol.co....nk3&pLid=124981

[Paul]

How so Jim? Paul reliably informed us that 15 years ago when Lancashire provided top quality care was exactly the time when Blair led New Labour to a period of 13 years in power after 18 years of Tory government.

OK this is what I said but, through no fault of yours your point does not stand examination, as I didn't make myself sufficiently clear. My statement actually compared two different services. Sorry about that, let me explain.

It's clear I'm sure I'm using direct family experience to make my arguement. 15 years ago, when Lancashire was so well regarded and I believe still (relatively) is, our experience related to children's services. Lancashire was Labour controlled from 1985 to 2009. We were fortunate to live in an area included in the "Chorley Project" under which many new ideas and initiatives were developed by the cooperation between Lancasire and Barnados. Basically Barnados did such a good job, in certain areas of expertise, Lancashire outsourced provision to them, for a fee! There was a vision of inclusiveness which the "county" could be proud of. One only had to meet families from adjoining areas, BoD for one, to appreciate the gulf in service provision.

This topic, quite clearly, is in regard to adult benefits. At least I believe it is as all the discussion has focused on the area so far. My lad is now adult and has been classed as such for benefits purposes for four years. In his teens, around 2003/4 we began to take interest in what the adult future held as plans needed to be made. While I can't give figures I do know the provision of adult care in Lancahire, under Labour centrally and locally, left us feeling "safe" and confident in the future. The major difference being disposable income was, then, adequate via the benefits I mentioned earlier - it was not great but it was adequate.

Since 2009, under local Conservative administration and 2010 onwards central government, there has been a continuing and increasingly savage cut in funding to adult care and an equally tough stance on the individual paying the cost of care.

It is a Conservative administration which has moved Lancashire from a position in the mid 00s where adults enjoyed an adequate level of income which left our family feeling "safe" with regard to our son's future to a position today when his disposable income is such it does not cover basic needs, leaving me once again worrying how best to address a worsening financial position as I get older.

Apologies for not being clear originally but be under no illusions in Lancashire under a Conservative administration deep cuts have been and continue to be made in services to those least able to, in fact probably incapable of, defending themselves. I can introduce you to adults who live in conditions such as you would not wish to enter the house.

I was literally stunned to leave a meeting with LCC at which I discovered 85% of my son's disposable income would be reclaimed by LCC to contribute to care costs No one had even hinted at this.

To avoid any confusion I'm talking LCC and not Blackburn with Darwen, where you live, which is a unitary authority and works, I think, differently. Certainly children's provision was poor.

In response to the Paul v Bazza remark. I would not see it in that light or as a choice. I know his view will gain your favour. I freely acknowledged a problem exists in relation to the area Bazza discussed. My only comment would be his occasional postings indicate a Conservative leaning and his front line role appears to be one of assessment. From his remarks I doubt he actually sees, in the community, the reality of life on benefits for many people. It is too simple to look at the headline areas.

Do not be in any doubt of the impact Conservative administration is having on the poorest in our society. Be happy with that if you wish, I believe it shameful and an indictment of our country.

Mainly I'm simply writing to help those who don't comment and perhaps only pick up the headlines understand the reality is different.

[Paul]

Quite timely food for thought...........

http://money.aol.co....nk3&pLid=124981

It would be relatively easy to argue the opposite view based on that article. We are discussing state benefits, which I know a pension is, in the context commonly thought of in relation to those if working age not retired.

[Paul]

Jeru just to bring you up to date SDA hasn't existed since 2001. Granted some people could still have received it in 2009 but unlikely.

[Jeru tha Damaja]

Jeru just to bring you up to date SDA hasn't existed since 2001. Granted some people could still have received it in 2009 but unlikely.

The figure was taken from a local government report, so SDA claimants must make up some part of the total. The rest will be claiming incapacity benefit, which ranges from £74.80 to £99.15 a week. Since the beginning of 2011, I am given to understand that a new claimant would actually be on employment and support allowance, which means a weekly handout of between £56.25 and £105.05. Then there's income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit.

Then there's the JSA which is abused by plenty of people, meaning a payout of £56.25 to £71 a week, and again housing benefit and council tax relief follow.

No problem with people getting that if they really need it, but the number of legal claims that end up with taxpayers supporting people who have made lifestyle choices is, frankly, unacceptable.

[Pedro]

Here's one for you....

In Australia, the Federal Government is widening the use of restricting benefits (so to speak, I can't think of the name they use, ahh Income management, that's it).

What it means is that your government benefit is put on a card (renewable each week/fortnight/month) and is restricted to certain uses, and certain stores.

What you can't do is get cash, buy tobacco, alcohol etc. You are basically restricted to buying food, paying rent, school fees and the like.

You can save up in this account for things like holidays etc.

It allows you to feed the kids, provide them with a home, rather than the benefit being p'd up against a wall, or gambled away.

It's a bit contentious here, what are your thoughts?

They should have been doing that here for years. I think that people should be given vouchers for food etc instead of cash because it pisses me right off seing lazy chavs not going without their fags and booze and stuffing their kids faces with fast food.

I also think that whilst their aren't enough jobs to go around, the able should do voluntary work in the community like litter picking or cutting the overgrown grass etc. that councils don't tend to do due to their cutbacks - maybe they could in turn be paid cash seeing as they get off their backsides.

I think it sounds reasonable, but maybe only for some benefits. Those with disability benefits probably don't have the same level of benefit abuse as others for example.

I see an issue in the administration of the scheme to make sure the money is spent on the right things though. The majority of people shop in supermarkets, that sell everything under the sun, from basic foods through to alcohol, DVDs, games, furniture, ciggies etc. how are you going to make sure people only get benefits for the right items?

Good point but the barcode reader can automatically tell what has been purchased and won't discount for certain items without a manual override.

[thenodrog]

No problem with people getting that if they really need it, but the number of legal claims that end up with taxpayers supporting people who have made lifestyle choices is, frankly, unacceptable.

Lifestyle choices = denying necessary funding to more needy claimants.

Thank you for your detailed explanation Paul. Does seem that as much as you claim bazza has conservative leanings that your political bias is significantly to the left of centre in comparison. But I knew that anyway.

[Paul]

Does seem that as much as you claim bazza has conservative leanings that your political bias is significantly to the left of centre in comparison. But I knew that anyway.

Moi?

[colin]

Thanks for that post Paul. Clear & consise & factual. It certainly opened my eyes.

Hopefully it will open the eyes of everyone else who like to give opinions with little experiance of the benefir system.

Thanks

[colin]

Just to add a little light entertainment - a joke

Why did 80,000 people boo Chancellor George Osbourne when he appeared at the Olympic stadium to present medals?

Because the capacity of the stadium is 80,000.

Thank you

[PAFELL]

The level of fraud isn't the same as the number of people who claim benefits that they don't really deserve. Fraud means they weren't entitled to it, but there are lots of legal claims that I wouldn't agree with personally.

For example, in 2009 there were over 4200 people in Greater Manchester (per government statistics) claiming incapacity benefit or severe disablement allowance through alcoholism. That means that in this one area of the country there are 4200 people claiming a minimum of £70 a week because they can't put down the bottle. Now, it would take a lot of minimum wage workers paying their taxes to cover that bill (at least £294,000 a week). Are we supposed to pay our taxes so that these alcoholics can get their benefits without even making an effort to stop them from spending the money on more booze? We're just sustaining a problem, which is where the card system would be advantageous, it doesn't reduce the amount of money they get, but it does direct their spending in a more productive manner.

Then there's people who have never had a job but insist on having 7 kids. Granted, these cases are nowhere near as numerous as certain media outlets would have people believe, but it's hardly right that the rest of us should pay for that.

People who claim JSE are perfectly entitled to it, but they don't always need it. I've known dozens of people who could have got a job, but they choose not to. Every time their appointment with an adviser rolls around they scribble three things down in the little booklet that they're supposed to fill out, go lie to an uninterested civil servant and pick up their £50 a week. That's not really the point of the system, it puts an unfair burden on the rest of us, but it isn't proper fraud so it doesn't go in the statistics. If you're unemployed and you go to the pub in the middle of a weekday then your benefits should stop, imo, because looking for a job shouldn't leave time for you to throw money over the bar, which again is a strong point of the card system.

(P.S. Just so theno can sleep easy, I still have a business that pays taxes in the UK.)

Ironically a pub can be the best place to find a job if your looking for one. Especially if it is your local pub. Folk hear your looking for work, know what you can do. Have already got to know you, a lot better than they would on a job interview. Let others know your looking for work etc etc.

[PAFELL]

maximum benefit should be minimum wage. End Of. Don't matter how many sprogs you have ( keep it in yer pants and yer legs closed ). Housing Benefit WTF????

Not everybody has family and friends to help them. Young folk coming out of the care system, kids homes etc. Come out with nothing. Nowhere to live etc - often unemployed due to a number of reasons, no work in the area or skills. don't have the money for training courses etc. Housing benefit is essential for some folk. But I do believe landlords should be told to reduce the rent they charge. Often that is why housing benefit is so high.

To be fair if I was a person on benefits for genuine reasons and was morally responsible in what I spent it on then this is something that doesn't need fixing from my own point of view.

How much does it cost to put this type of thing into place? Does the cost of doing it outweigh the benefits money that might be wasted? Do benefits cards make genuinely needy people feel like spongers? Is there a completely different alternative to monetary benefits?

Create jobs would be a start. These days businesses look at ways to cut staff, not employ them.

[PAFELL]

Surely the biggest issue here is that it would further alienate a section of society that already feel like they are cut adrift?

I think the only thing it would serve to do is appease the feelings of working people who question how their tax money is spent. In reality I doubt it would save enough money to be worth while, and the social impact would be disastrous.

I have no idea what the answer is, but it has to involve making these people feel like they want to contribute to society, and not just push them further away.

One way is getting people to earn their benefits. For example cleaning graffiti off walls etc, picking rubbish up, helping the rubbish collectors.

I have no objection to folk who need it getting benefits. especially in the current climate of not much work about. But with councils being stretched by government cuts - I would get the able bodied unemployed doing the jobs the councils cannot afford to pay for.

For the sake of debate, call it 'community jobs' The benefits would be their pay. It would first get those folk into the habit of going to work. Give them the self worth with in themselves. They would be contributing to society.

I do object to letting folk claim benefits and stay at home watching tv all day and doing nothing at all. Get these folk off their arse and into the community cleaning our towns and cities up. Then in turn, we will pay them their benefits.

[thenodrog]

Create jobs would be a start. These days businesses look at ways to cut staff, not employ them.

More jobs won't work.... It would just attract more Eastern European migrant workers. A quick google reveals that there are just over 2.6 million unemployed in this country and over 2m migrant workers! Surely a ludicrous situation by any standards?

Without any specialist knowledge I think it's safe to assume that the benefits system in E Europe must not as generous or available as ours.

[thenodrog]

One way is getting people to earn their benefits. For example cleaning graffiti off walls etc, picking rubbish up, helping the rubbish collectors.

I have no objection to folk who need it getting benefits. especially in the current climate of not much work about. But with councils being stretched by government cuts - I would get the able bodied unemployed doing the jobs the councils cannot afford to pay for.

For the sake of debate, call it 'community jobs' The benefits would be their pay. It would first get those folk into the habit of going to work. Give them the self worth with in themselves. They would be contributing to society.

I do object to letting folk claim benefits and stay at home watching tv all day and doing nothing at all. Get these folk off their arse and into the community cleaning our towns and cities up. Then in turn, we will pay them their benefits.

Exactly ! That represents good housekeeping and sound common sense. The state of both rural and urban areas in this country is crying out for some good old fashioned manual TLC. Unfortunately it would mean sales of imported Stella, TV meals and SKY TV packages would plummet.

I'd vote for you as PM Pafell.... unfortunately UNITE and the wishy washy liberals wouldn't see it that way. They'd just see you taking public sector jobs that we can't afford to cover anyway and there'd be national strikes for weeks on end until you gave in and let the country and it's population spiral into ever worse degredation .

[jim mk2]

The Olympic games showed what can be achieved with public planning and public investment. The private sector is interested only in profit and cutting staff and wages and the growing gap between rich and poor over the past 30 years proves the market does not deliver.

The only way to get this economy growing and get people back into work is for public money to be invested in green industries, transport infrastructure, schools and training.

This could all be paid for by the creation of a state investment bank and regional banks and the imposition of a financial transactions tax on the masters of the universe in the City who have so much damage to this country since the 1980s Big Bang.