Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

HighPressure

Benefits and IDS

Recommended Posts

I thought there was already a topic on benefits but I could not find it.

 

i just wondered what people on here thought about the following.

 

A family I know well consists of 4 children under the age of 6 and 2 parents. Neither work, with the father being on ESA, due to a bad back, and having not worked in 5 years now. Any form or work is discouraged as this may impact on the famalies benefit. The day for the father consists of bed and tv.

 

They live in a 3 bedroom council house but are on the list for a 4 bed one due to the number of children. One child qualifies for DLA which means that the benefits cap does not apply to the household. 

 

The total family income is £44k a year and is set to rise with further claims in the pipeline. The women of the house does have a job, finding and applying for benefits. I quote what was said to me "We have so much money coming in we don't know what do with it".

 

The £44k includes rent, equiv to £3670 per month after tax, I am not sure but that is probably a salary of @60k PA if taxable.

 

This is a genuine true story, and my figures are correct. i would be interested in others thoughts, and as much as I dislike IDS wonder if he does actually have a handle on this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a family in our village, very similar, five kids, despite the mum having been hospitalised due to back injury during third pregnancy. Two of the kids have (fairly minor) ailments, for which each parent has been able to be separately registered as carers, so they can claim additional benefits on top of out of work benefits. Neither parent officially works, but the father is often seen whizzing around in his van, doing many jobs, especially busy since moving to a larger council house to accommodate growing family. Last conversation he had with me involved him explaining they were going to buy a horse and were looking for a plot of land to buy for grazing.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Against that I know are both terminally ill. Struggling to get benefits they are entitled too as everything is done by phone. No face to face contact so of course by the time they to the department they need to talk too they run out of credit. They are not really bothered about benefits all they want is rehousing as they live on a top of hill. Can they get it no. Since they are a married couple they are told they have to have a single bedroom despite the medical notes saying they need a two bedroom. So not everyone is a scrounger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So many people round here claim ESA, and nothing wrong with them, they are not made to do anything, just do what they want, drink beer, pub etc, on a 7 day weekend

 

they should be made to do full time activity, or have their benefits removed, or be transferred to JSA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My former neighbour was mentally ill; came and went. When he was better, he worked as much as he could. He was actually a very clever man (PhD in Ecology), but obviously his career was harmed by his ongoing illness. 

 

His benefits were meagre; I'm not sure of exact figures as of course such things are impossible to know as you just don't ask such things. However, it certainly wasn't much; no TV never mind a 'flatscreen' one...no holidays...didn't smoke nor drink... he'd jump at the chance to cut our hedge for £20.

 

During a particularly bad period of illness his benefits were stopped while he was in hospital. On coming out, he ran out of food as as result. Took him a while, but he eventually came and asked if we could help, which we did.

 

A work colleague's aunt had terminal cancer but was deemed fit to work and had benefits stopped. She died two weeks later. Her treatment by the DWP destroyed her faith in the conservatives, having previously been a lifelong supporter.

 

That's my direct experience of IDS.

 

The stories above highlight IDS's failings certainly. Tories have been in the job since 2010 after all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was something in the recent  budget which stated  benefits were to be  capped to £20,000 a year per household outside London . There is soething wrong with the system when people can earn more by staying at home than going to work .

 

I think people of working age who are  receiving benefits should be made to do some kind of community work or lose their benefits . The bad back excuse is one of the oldest in the book .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was something in the recent  budget which stated  benefits were to be  capped to £20,000 a year per household outside London . There is soething wrong with the system when people can earn more by staying at home than going to work .

 

I think people of working age who are  receiving benefits should be made to do some kind of community work or lose their benefits . The bad back excuse is one of the oldest in the book .

Good Morning Lawson.

I agree in principal what you suggest, but I do have a certain unease in so far as by these people doing work for the community for a relative pittance this would result on less work for the low paid. There is only so much work to go round and with the population expanding rapidly this is an issue to take into account.

Kind Regards

Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good Morning Lawson.

I agree in principal what you suggest, but I do have a certain unease in so far as by these people doing work for the community for a relative pittance this would result on less work for the low paid. There is only so much work to go round and with the population expanding rapidly this is an issue to take into account.

Kind Regards

Dave

Fair point , Dave

I was thinking more about litter picking and weeding overgrown areas which are a blight in every city , town and even villages . Also there is the issue of mud , leafs and other debris which blocks drains to prevent surface water flowing away during times of heavy rain . There seems to be a lack of people doing these duties all over the country . I am not suggesting these people replace anyone already being employed to do these jobs .

They could always be made to dig holes and fill them up again , if there was no  weeds , litter or blocked drains in their area .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair point , Dave

I was thinking more about litter picking and weeding overgrown areas which are a blight in every city , town and even villages . Also there is the issue of mud , leafs and other debris which blocks drains to prevent surface water flowing away during times of heavy rain . There seems to be a lack of people doing these duties all over the country . I am not suggesting these people replace anyone already being employed to do these jobs .

They could always be made to dig holes and fill them up again , if there was no  weeds , litter or blocked drains in their area .

 In Fife and I think most of Scotland, these 'services' are provided by the 'naughty' boys and girls on Community Service.

 

As for digging holes and filling them up again, we have the admirable lads and lassies of BT, Scottish Gas, Scottish Power etc. doing this highly respectable work which keeps garages and motor mechanics in gainful employment. If that doesn't work we have speed bumps!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm all in favour of making sure those who really need financial support get it, and those who don't, being made to pull their finger out and earn it themselves, but the ritual humiliation of digging holes to fill them back up again or similar schemes? How can that possibly help? Getting folk into gainful employment is what's needed, not retribution.

 

If folk have been found to be abusing the system, once they're working I'd be all in favour of an enforced levy on their earnings - little by little paying back the money they've stolen from the benefits system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Workfare is little better than slave labour, simply allowing firms to "employ" people for virtually nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So many people round here claim ESA, and nothing wrong with them, they are not made to do anything, just do what they want, drink beer, pub etc, on a 7 day weekend

 

they should be made to do full time activity, or have their benefits removed, or be transferred to JSA

One question: Are you a doctor?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the benefit system in Canada...there is no housing benefit...not sure about disability benefit...if you lose your job you get employment benefit for 6 months then you are on your own...which you pay for each month out of your wages its called EI employment insurance..you don't see long term unemployed or families living on benefits they have to work and pay there own way none of this rent free scenario and hand outs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are sufficient measures in place to tackle benefit fraud. We do not need IDS monstering the mentally ill and disabled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think for the most part, the people who need to receive benefits are and the people who are getting screwed over are in the minority, but like with anything, you only tend to hear about it when something's gone wrong.

 

I also believe there are more people playing the system than many would think. Unfortunately the amount of benefit fraud we see in a small NHS department isn't very promising, but the genuine needy should not have to pay for those Great Bustards by being punished with cuts.

 

There has to be a better way of assessing this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the benefit system in Canada...there is no housing benefit...not sure about disability benefit...if you lose your job you get employment benefit for 6 months then you are on your own..

 

What happens after that if you are say a woman with small children or a vulnerable person, e.g. with mental illness?

 

 

 

 

 

---

 

You don't need to answer. I've been to Canada and seen what happens. Was glad to come back to Scotland and civilisation!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There would be one way to end the vast majority of benefit fraud and at the same time end the tragic cases of people in desperate need being left with nothing by wrongly applied sanctions. Turn Universal Credit into a universal citizens income  incorporating all benefits - graduated by age so it rises at state pension age and again at an older age. Yes there would require to be some sort of top up system for those with very specific medical / support needs, but the vast majority of opportunity for benefit fraud or on the other side of the coin people falling through the net would be removed.

 

it would be the ultimate universalism greatly reducing administrative burdens and costs, it would guarantee that work would always pay more as you never lose your citizens income - so no benefits trap where taking on any work might leave you worse off. 

 

It could also spark a new wave of entrepreneurship as people with business ideas currently reluctant to take the gamble of going it alone, can do so knowing they'll always have a basic income to cover the necessities.  For similar reasons it could also unleash a wave of new community ventures and/or volunteering that could enhance communities and ultimately could deliver further financial savings for government by increasing the 'third sector'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought there was already a topic on benefits but I could not find it.

 

i just wondered what people on here thought about the following.

 

A family I know well consists of 4 children under the age of 6 and 2 parents. Neither work, with the father being on ESA, due to a bad back, and having not worked in 5 years now. Any form or work is discouraged as this may impact on the famalies benefit. The day for the father consists of bed and tv.

 

They live in a 3 bedroom council house but are on the list for a 4 bed one due to the number of children. One child qualifies for DLA which means that the benefits cap does not apply to the household. 

 

The total family income is £44k a year and is set to rise with further claims in the pipeline. The women of the house does have a job, finding and applying for benefits. I quote what was said to me "We have so much money coming in we don't know what do with it".

 

The £44k includes rent, equiv to £3670 per month after tax, I am not sure but that is probably a salary of @60k PA if taxable.

 

This is a genuine true story, and my figures are correct. i would be interested in others thoughts, and as much as I dislike IDS wonder if he does actually have a handle on this?

 

I'd like to see a fully worked list of what benefits they receive for what before giving this serious consideration. It's all very well quoting "total family income is £44k a year", but I'm always sceptical of these things unless you can give a line by line working of what's what. What's their actual disposable income? Perhaps their kids (despite their parents' possible shortcomings) deserve a reasonable upbringing? Or should the kids suffer for their parents' alleged laziness? Perhaps the fella really does have a chronic back condition? That would leave the woman with five dependents to look after. Isn't that going to be a lot of hard work? Maybe they are the world's laziest, least deserving people. Even if they are then shouldn't the rest of us be doing something to change the world we live in rather than standing on the sidelines, tutting, shaking our heads and feeling hacked off?

 

I'd also be wary of anyone using language along the lines of "One child qualifies for DLA", that's firmly in Daily Mail territory and is no way to talk of anyone that may have life impacting disabilities. Do you think any family would be happy if their child "qualified" for DLA, can you get greetings cards to congratulate them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There would be one way to end the vast majority of benefit fraud and at the same time end the tragic cases of people in desperate need being left with nothing by wrongly applied sanctions. Turn Universal Credit into a universal citizens income  incorporating all benefits - graduated by age so it rises at state pension age and again at an older age. Yes there would require to be some sort of top up system for those with very specific medical / support needs, but the vast majority of opportunity for benefit fraud or on the other side of the coin people falling through the net would be removed.

 

it would be the ultimate universalism greatly reducing administrative burdens and costs, it would guarantee that work would always pay more as you never lose your citizens income - so no benefits trap where taking on any work might leave you worse off. 

 

It could also spark a new wave of entrepreneurship as people with business ideas currently reluctant to take the gamble of going it alone, can do so knowing they'll always have a basic income to cover the necessities.  For similar reasons it could also unleash a wave of new community ventures and/or volunteering that could enhance communities and ultimately could deliver further financial savings for government by increasing the 'third sector'.

 

If they are going to have a basic income, they have to majorly raise minimum working wage, otherwise the problem we're trying to stamp out (earning more in benefits than you can by working) remains a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they are going to have a basic income, they have to majorly raise minimum working wage, otherwise the problem we're trying to stamp out (earning more in benefits than you can by working) remains a problem.

I've never been against a cap on benefits, in principle; my own benefits are certainly nowhere near the last wages I received; which is, IMO, as it should be. But IDS's constant pillorying of those of us unfortunate (the Daily Mail, for the sake of its less-intelligent 'readers', might say 'fortunate') enough to have congenital or acquired mental/physical health problems is nowt short of despicable...Why are we always being beseeched to trample-down those even less fortunate than ourselves? Especially, by the mega-wealthy toads like IDS and Cameron, who have no qualms whatsoever about milking their own so-called 'Christianity'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never been against a cap on benefits, in principle; my own benefits are certainly nowhere near the last wages I received; which is, IMO, as it should be. But IDS's constant pillorying of those of us unfortunate (the Daily Mail, for the sake of its less-intelligent 'readers', might say 'fortunate') enough to have congenital or acquired mental/physical health problems is nowt short of despicable...Why are we always being beseeched to trample-down those even less fortunate than ourselves? Especially, by the mega-wealthy toads like IDS and Cameron, who have no qualms whatsoever about milking their own so-called 'Christianity'?

 

Because it is easy to trample on those whose shoes you have not walked in. Goes for most things really, not OK, but it is the reality of life.

 

I'd much rather see a system where people who have difficulties, be they physical or mental, are able to work in a supportive environment if at all possible with subsidies from the government to employers to be able to allow their unwell employees more leeway or support. That I think would cost a hell of a lot less money than paying out incapacity benefits etc. The problem is (perhaps understandably) employees do not want to hire people who are unreliable, even if that is through no fault of their own because it costs them money. What we do know is that for many who are unwell, working and having a focus is massively beneficial as long as it's within their means. To me it makes sense to get these people working, earning money and paying tax with subsidised support which not only benefits their health and well-being, but it puts more money back into the pot to pay for mental and physical healthcare within the NHS so these people have more support and a better chance or recovery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The attitude of IDS and those around him is a scorched earth policy and one in which a growing number of the public seem to be buying into. Basically punish all those in receipt of benefits to punish a minority who play the system. IDS is a loathsome creature who is both soulless and lacks any shred of humanity and common decency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to see something along the lines of what Lauren suggests. But, alas, we'll never even approach that while IDS is at the helm...His remit starts with 'I wan't to save some of your MONEY', and ends with 'Look at me, amn't I the hero; I have saved you some MONEY'!

 

The guy's a supercilious cretin!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the reasons why I wanted the Lib Dems to have more power is because of their long record of fighting, and in cases where they could, implementing the sort of thing I said, understanding that the economy needs to be strong whilst not punishing those who are in need. Implementing clever policies to have the best of both worlds. It never ceases to amaze me just how much ire people had towards them for forming a coalition and actually reigning the Tories in quite a bit. I hope people realise what they've lost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the reasons why I wanted the Lib Dems to have more power is because of their long record of fighting, and in cases where they could, implementing the sort of thing I said, understanding that the economy needs to be strong whilst not punishing those who are in need. Implementing clever policies to have the best of both worlds. It never ceases to amaze me just how much ire people had towards them for forming a coalition and actually reigning the Tories in quite a bit. I hope people realise what they've lost.

 

Yes, but there's a problem. They didn't need to prop up the Tories at all. They enabled a Tory PM etc. They could have simply done confidence and supply to get stuff through at most.

 

That was where they went wrong...Being deputy PM, getting ministerial positions with salary perks and a damlier.. all too tempting.

 

It's why they got gubbed.

 

Charles Kennedy knew fine well what would happen to them in Scotland; it's why he opposed the coalition. That and is own principles.

 

Anyway, water under the bridge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...