Meaningful debate

[CHJ]

Unfortunately I still see more rhetoric than factual debate from some quarters in this well intentioned thread.

I personally believe that a large percentage of the population that receive benefits or social subsidies of one form or another could well get themselves out of the situation if they had the ambition to do so.
Most is a matter of setting personal or family priorities.

For my family it was.
Work all hours that were available for the both of us in whatever job or spare time work available in houses, fields, local show grounds etc. including so called holiday time for nearly two years to get a deposit for a house as social or company housing was not available.

Go without most house contents like carpets, televisions, telephones, going out on the town socialising in the evenings, etc, for 5 years + so that we could pay the bills without credit, still taking every opportunity to work whatever hours and 2nd & 3rd. casual jobs where available regardless of hourly pay.
Limit the number of children until we had enough combined income to support them.
Forgo any Family holidays for thirty + years, other than the low end of rural UK camping with the cheapest of tenting.
Allocate all non essential bill paying cash to further the children's education and life experiences.

Only after children cleared university did personal income get diverted to holidays outside UK, the first not associated with staying with a family member based in Europe was for our 40th wedding anniversary celebration.

So from my perspective it's a case of setting personal targets and priorities, if in a hole develop a way to get out of it, not keep digging ever deeper waiting for someone else to earn enough to pay taxes to provide unending support or wave a magic wand, because that just isn't going to happen any time soon and is only providing a very bad example to the next generation.

And yes there are folks in the wider family group who live on benefits by choice.
One deliberately got pregnant, father undeclared, and manipulated homelessness to get social housing.
A widowed mother who is bringing up unwanted deserted grandchildren with the support of great grandparents.
Another who we helped buy their first house rather than them pay exorbitant rentals, rewired it and re-plumbed it for free and who in the intervening years has just continued to let the place fall to pieces and live off various charities or the state rather than keep it in good order and move up the housing market.

The only positive result that has come from the last mentioned group is that Our family group has a solid example of how not to conduct your life.

 

[Mark A]

It is all about priorities.

Unfortuantely some people seem to believe they are automatically entitled to everything they want, with no thoughts as to whether they can afford it or not. A family friend who works for the local council remarked recently that a lot of benefit claiments she deals with magically can afford such luxuries as cigarettes, alcohol, scratch cards and iPhones... yet some of their children don't have any shoes to wear.

There was an interesting debate on Radio 2 a while ago about family allowance and should it still apply to more than two kids. Naturally some said yes (it's my right etc.) though a refeshing number believed people should think long and hard before commiting themselves.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Can someone give me one - just one will do - good reason why I should pay taxes to subsidise lifelong "social" housing for someone who earns two, three, four times what I do? All this housing should be called "subsidised housing", not "social housing" and be means tested. People who had to pay the market rent would probably move, and leave the property to someone who needed it more.
I know one person who's lived in a council house all his life who smokes for England, drinks every night (to what most would call excess), changes his car every three years and goes abroad every year. His pension is nearly twice what I've ever earned. Who's the fool?

 

[Baldhead]

I know of at least a dozen people that over the last 25 years have made living on benefits a lifestyle choice.
At least five of them carry out work (cash in hand) by delivering fast food all week ,I know of others that claim disability and also work as taxi driver's for a local company.
I also know of a family that have been abroad every year for the last 6 years and all claim benefits

So yes for some benefits is a way of life

There is nothing wrong with disabled people working, this is not illegal.

Stew

It is when they do not declare it

I assume you mean that they don't declare their taxi job and therefore don't pay tax, you are allowed to claim disability benefit and work, that is definitely not illegal.

Stew

 

[Baldhead]

Phil I don't think it's fair to claim benefits because you don't want to work, the benefit system should be a temporary safety net, not a lifestyle choice, however reading your posts you seem have a stereotypical view of benefit claiments, comments such as, living in a council house, having 10 kids, changing their car every 3 years.
My question was about sanctions.
It is strange that the vast majority of posters on this thread know someone who is on benefits and in their eyes they shouldn't be, or shouldn't have the lifestyle they have.
I know of one person who is on benefits and deserves more than they get! If I told you about their lifestyle you wouldn't believe it, there are some people out there who are in desperate need, but like a lot of people in our society, we see only the bad things, why? because we choose to close our eyes to problematic issues.
Phil I don't understand how on one hand you can agree to sanctions, yet not complain at what your doctor friend is doing, I can't see how honesty (or dishonesty) can be classed as a one man crusade to change the system.

Stew

 

[finneyb]

Can someone give me one - just one will do - good reason why I should pay taxes to subsidise lifelong "social" housing for someone who earns two, three, four times what I do? All this housing should be called "subsidised housing", not "social housing" and be means tested. People who had to pay the market rent would probably move, and leave the property to someone who needed it more.
I know one person who's lived in a council house all his life who smokes for England, drinks every night (to what most would call excess), changes his car every three years and goes abroad every year. His pension is nearly twice what I've ever earned. Who's the fool?

So that the late Bob Crow of RMT on £100k+ pa could live there and satisfy his political agenda.

Brian

 

[RobinBHM]

There is no doubt that the benefit system needs to be reformed.

Benefit sanctions are being driven by the objective of saving money. The government is trying to balance the books and benefit sanctions are part of the wider cost reduction plan.

There are obviously some people on benefit for whom it is a way of life and have no intention if working. I imagine there are people who would prefer to work but would lose so much in benefits that they may not be able survive financially under the current benefits system. There are also people that are in genuine need of benefits due to illness or circumstances and really are unable to survive without financial help.

My issue with the current benefits sanctions is that there seems to be significant 'collateral damage', ie there is a percentage of vulnerable people, who need support that are losing it and a significant quality of life. There seems to be a lack of sensitivity in the sanction procedures for this group of people.

So what about those people for which benefits is a permanent way of life? My belief is that there will always be a a number of people that have not had any work ethic instilled into them and will always be unemployable. Will benefit sanctions get this group of people into work? I dont think so. Yes benefits could be taken away, but It isnt possible to force somebody to work and I wouldnt want to employ them, who would? No doubt they would still end up being funded by the public purse somehow, perhaps through the prison system. Its easy to feel angry about such a group of people, but can be done?

 

[Phil Pascoe]

"It is strange that the vast majority of posters on this thread know someone who is on benefits and in their eyes they shouldn't be, or shouldn't have the lifestyle they have." - Stew
It's hardly strange - it's quite common. The unfortunate thing is that others have to jump through hoops to get what they are genuinely entitled to. Someone in The Times a while ago made a good comment - if we are genetically programmed to do the best we can for our families (which seems likely) and someone is better off on social security than working, is it hardly surprising that it's a popular choice.

 

[StevieB]

You are genetically programmed to find food, fight disease, avoid predators and live to reproductive age and then produce offspring. Ensuring they survive childhood is also genetically influenced, but certainly not to the extent that humans take the family unit. Man is just an ape that can walk upright in genetic terms!

Steve (geneticist!)

 

[Logger]

Disabilty living allowance or personal independence payment as it is now called is not means tested, so you can have your taxi job and claim it. However, my experience is that most who claim that then also claim incapacity benefit. A guy i know claims both, getting the higher rate of the mobility part of it so uses that to get a motability car. This requires you not to be able to walk unaided. He claims he is disabled after getting bitten on the hand by a non poisonous British spider and has never used any aids. Presumably, our local doctor has signed to say he can't walk.

I on the other hand get DLA but despite taking morphine to manage my pain and uses crutches permanently set up my own business to allow for all the time i need off for hospital appointments, and earn less than him. When i then had surgery last April and had my leg in plaster for 5 months, i could not claim as my business has made too much in the last 6months. So i had to keep trying to frame whilst i was supposed to be keeping my leg up. I then thought i would try to claim something submitting my 6 months where i was not doing as much due to my surgery. They said that now i was back at work, i would be earning what i did before my surgery.

When i recently heard this guy complaining that incapacity was a joke and no where near enough i came very close making his disability claims legitimate!

 

[Jacob]

....
And yes there are folks in the wider family group who live on benefits by choice.
One deliberately got pregnant, father undeclared, and manipulated homelessness to get social housing.......

I just don't believe stuff like this. You'd have to be completely insane to go through childbirth and years of childcare to get housed. What a price to pay! And in the process severely limiting your ability to work and other forms of personal development with your life dominated by child care.
There are easier ways - almost every other way is easier.
If anybody does actually do this they should be cared for by the state anyway as they are obviously deranged.

So no I don't believe it.

In any case the thread has gone downhill with a lot of people just churning out the same uninteresting tired old prejudices. Waste of time.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

"And in the process severely limiting your ability to work..."
Part of the plan.

 

[CHJ]

....
And yes there are folks in the wider family group who live on benefits by choice.
One deliberately got pregnant, father undeclared, and manipulated homelessness to get social housing.......

I just don't believe stuff like this. You'd have to be completely insane to go through childbirth and years of childcare to get housed. What a price to pay! And in the process severely limiting your ability to work and other forms of personal development with your life dominated by child care.
There are easier ways - almost every other way is easier.
If anybody does actually do this they should be cared for by the state anyway as they are obviously deranged.

So no I don't believe it.

In any case the thread has gone downhill with a lot of people just churning out the same uninteresting tired old prejudices. Waste of time.

Jacob I do not appreciate being in effect called a liar, If you would wish to continue such statements I would request your solicitor, who I would hope had the integrity to keep things confidential to contact me and I will provide name, childs name and address location, and supporting explanation.

Your public retraction of the above might go some way to calming me down but at the moment I am considering my options and further reaction to the above.

 

[Logger]

A woman who i worked with in the late 1990's had a friend who used to pop in. Just after i started, she came in pregnant with her 3rd child. She was completely open saying as her 2nd child was soon to reach school age, she would lose benefits and would be able to get a job. She had got pregnant, claiming she didn't know who the father was to give her another 5years easy benefits.

My wife was at school with someone who had her 6th child at the age of 28 the last 4 by the same partner who had never worked and her partner had certainly not worked since being with her.

 

[CHJ]

The trouble is that those that manipulate the system not only drain the system of monetary resources but the manpower that should be allocated to finding those struggling to make ends meet due to personal pride and a perception of shame and don't ask for help.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

No father on the birth certificate = no benefits. If the woman genuinely doesn't know his name she should be stopped from further breeding, not encouraged.

 

[Logger]

I assume that if they can name the father, he might be asked to pay child support thus reducing their benefits. I seriously doubt that many of these fathers would be doing anything but claiming benefits themselves. Perhaps i am being unfair.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Just copied from today's Times :-
"An unemployed man has been labelled “Britain’s most feckless father” for having 15 children before the age of 30, leaving the taxpayer with a potential £2 million bill.
Keith MacDonald, from Sunderland, claims to have made at least ten women pregnant over 14 years after chatting them up on the bus. He is one of four fathers appearing in a Channel 5 documentary called 40 Kids By 20 Women.
Collectively, the men have fathered more than 70 children with more than 40 women.
Mr MacDonald, who relies on benefits, has had four children in the past two years and is expecting his sixteenth."

Rather difficult to say it doesn't happen.

 

[RogerBoyle]

Stew[/quote]
It is when they do not declare it[/quote]
I assume you mean that they don't declare their taxi job and therefore don't pay tax, you are allowed to claim disability benefit and work, that is definitely not illegal.

Stew[/quote]
Sorry I should have made it clearer
It was Incapacity benefit that was being claimed for and as it turns out he was earning in excess of £400 a week on the taxi which was not declared to either the Benefits office or the Tax Man

 

[rafezetter]

"those at the bottom of the heap, who in reality are the principle victims of economic downturns" Not always.
Many if not most of them in this area are there because it pays them and suits them.

Doubtful. It doesn't make sense. Nobody chooses benefits if there is an option of work - in fact a large chunk of the benefits bill goes to people actually in work but underpaid, insecure and renting at inflated prices. Landlords and low pay employers get the benefit (literally) - our taxes subsidise low pay and high rents.

I have to agree with this. Although the sanctions were supposed to dissuade those from other countries just turning up and claiming a council house and benefits - the reality is the far bigger share of money used in the benefit system is to prop up low income families and there is a far higher percentage of those than unemployed and immigrants.

Child benefit for example £20 for first or only child; an additional £13 for every child after that - and you get it almost regardless of income... why?

Essentially with the changes to low income tax rates almost everyone earning less than £16,000 per year is on benefits with every child also receiving benefits.

Edit..oh my ... I've just read this (paraphrased) "familes with four children can earn up to £45,000 per annum and STILL BE ELIGIBLE FOR GOVT SUBSIDISED HELP. (WHAT THE FU>>>>> !!!!)

Free TV licence and bus pass even if you are a millionaire.... why? There was a very public attempt by Sir Alan Sugar to give his back and the state "REFUSED!!"

Landlords charge high rents because people pay it - if the Govt removed benefits from all the working people and they had to leave to find cheaper accommodation, soon there would be a mass of empty rooms driving the prices down; So the Govt is inadvertently also supporting wealthy landlords too.

In Germany rents are state capped (with a bunch of other sensible laws regarding private renting) - which is why they have a significantly higher proportion of renters to home owners and their housing market is much more stable. While you might wonder what one has to do with the other it's because wealthy landlords were one of the few groups who truly profited from the housing market collapse 9 years ago, they got richer, bought more properties and forced more people to seek income based support. It's a circle the Govt COULD STOP, but won't.


^^ that's the problem. The mindset of those in power who refuse to do what has to be done, or they simply lack the intelligence to join the dots.

State sanctions against newly arrived immigrants (which I agree with) is but the tip of a dark dirty entire glacial shelf (as opposed to iceberg.)