Thursday, May 27, 2010
"Work or lose your benefits"
Daily Mail: Work or lose your benefits: Iain Duncan Smith heralds biggest shake-up of welfare state since the war
A little off topic, but may be of interest. "Those who refused to look for work, take jobs that were offered to them or do voluntary work would have their handouts stopped, he said. Mr Duncan Smith said it was simply not ‘sustainable’ for Britain to carry on spending almost 14 per cent of its national income on welfare. ‘About 43 per cent of those who are economically inactive are stuck on some sort of sickness benefit. That has risen from about 15 per cent in 1981,’ he said".... wonder if they'll need to start employing security guards down the local job centre?
Posted by cat and canary @ 01:06 PM (3021 views) Add Comment
35 Comments
- If you do not have an admin password leave the password field blank.
- If you would like to request a password allowing you to add comments and blog news articles without needing each one approved manually, send an e-mail to the webmaster.
- Your email address is required so we can verify that the comment is genuine. It will not be posted anywhere on the site, will be stored confidentially by us and never given out to any third party.
- Please note that any viewpoints published here as comments are user's views and not the views of HousePriceCrash.co.uk.
- Please adhere to the Guidelines
1. tudorian said...
I have no problem with benefits being earned, especially for the long term unemployed and the under 25's. The proviso is that the work is of benefit to society / community and does not give employers an opportunity to lay off paid staff
I also hope to see the Con Dem coalition take a good look at the millions (billions) spent annually by local authorities paying housing benefits to amateur and BTL landlords.
2. Little Professor said...
It was the Tory government under Margaret Thatcher that started the trend for people being on long-term sick. The were desperate to get the sky-high unemployment rates of the early 80s down, so they tried to move people onto incapacity benefit rather than the dole, as IC claimaints are not counted in unemployment statistics
3. gone-to-colombia said...
We have lost one leg of the social contract within Britain.
To those who are in need and cannot provide for themselves, from those who can work and provide for themselves.
It has now become a one way process - to those no matter if they can work or not.
This is the brake upon the economy.
4. the number cruncher said...
Yarda yarda yarda
Heard it all before... change the record.
tudorian I like what you say but the problem is it is more expensive to get people like this into productive employment than to pay them benefits; I know, I run a few schemes like this (but these are for people with a lot of needs). Also you would need to administer the system at DWP which would increase costs.
If you want to get people into work; remove all taxes and NI on those earning less than 20k a year and increase the minimum wage - give them a real incentive to work.
Bring in LVT to accomplish this. We need to get rid of the poverty trap by increasing the incentives to work. As long as we tax the low paid and private rents are so high for social housing then we have made a poverty trap that can never be broken.
5. mark wadsworth said...
What TNC says. IDS figure of 15% of GDP is a big fat lie - that includes Child Benefit and state pensions which do not contribute to poverty trap (it's child tax credits and pension credits that do the damage). If you give 5 million adults £60 a week each in dole money that works out at 1% of GDP, which seems like a very fair price to pay for a bit of social cohesion.
GTC, the Underclass are not really a brake on the economy any more than rich landowners - they both get money from the productive economy for doing nothing - only I prefer giving somebody a few thousand quid a year for doing nothing than giving them millions.
Re Housing Benefit - see what Tudorian says, building more council housing would be a fraction of the cost.
6. tudorian said...
@ number cruncher
I don't care if the people involved in these schemes are set up in productive employment or not...I want them to EARN their money. I hate the fact that people can spend a lifetime on the sofa and still thing that their are entitled to free everything
If its more expensive to get the unemployed 'working' for their benefit than sitting on their a*ses, then this surely says something about the quality of the management and management structures in the public sector.
I'm personally sick of funding the legions of obese workshy dolts.
7. mken said...
Looking at those "working" in Banking or elsewhere in the "real" economy; will the Government remove Hidden Unemployment schemes there too?
8. peter said...
Sadly we have heard all this kind of thing many times before - remember Frank Field?
We all know that as soon as even the most modest reforms are mooted, all sorts of interest groups cry blue murder and the politicians run for cover. It is much easier for them to just kick the can down the road...
What is really needed is an end to all these benefits and the minimum wage.
9. Exiges said...
@MW- "the Underclass are not really a brake on the economy any more than rich landowners - they both get money from the productive economy for doing nothing"
By that rationale savers shouldn't earn interest on their savings then.. because that's "money for doing nothing". They're not even providing a service (unlike landlords).
10. i remember the 90`s said...
Leave it out this is just the easy option ,the real big problem is those getting housing benefits, free council tax massive tax credits with there offsprings by different fathers they should be first target imo.
11. inbreda said...
tudorian - what do you do? and would you be happy if you lost your job because someone who could do it half as well was forced into doing it for a fraction of the price? And presumably if it was "to earn benefits" then there would be no saving - they'd still get their benefits. The only winner is the employer who presumably then doesnt have any staff costs. And you would be unemployed despite being willing to work.
All sounds bldy stupid to me. As peter says - we've heard it all before - its empty political rhetoric. The fact that it gets the support of anyone awake person at all says much about the imperfections of evolution as it does about workshy dole scroungers
12. the number cruncher said...
Come on chaps - a little humanity
I took my little boy to spend last weekend with a friend's family. The kids, who for complex reasons, where brought up for about 10 years on benefits. For about the last 5 years they have been off benefits and paying all taxes etc.
If you could look into their eyes and tell me that they should have lived in abject poverty to satisfy your selfishness then I pity you; whatever the idleness of their parents.
I had a fantastic time with my 5 year old on a canoeing adventure on the Dart, glorious (apart from the fact that I am sitting at home with him as he got an infected foot)
13. letthemfall said...
I sometimes think people come from a place called Tabloidland, where they speak a language with a small vocabulary - "scroungers", "layabouts", and so on.
For every genuine scrounger who is prepared to live off the small sums welfare provides in return for twiddling their thumbs all day, I wouldn't mind betting there are as many if not more of the oppositer scrounger - the person who is grossly overpaid for what they do.
People live in this state rarely through choice but through background, poor unbringing, rotten education, etc. It'd cost a lot of money to turn that around. Ah, but that would mean public spending, anathema to the Tabloiders.
14. phdinbubbles said...
Have the P.C. Brigade Turned House Prices Gay?
15. charlie brooker said...
@the number cruncher,
I think what's being suggested here is not so much the taking away of benefits, but that those in receipt of them should make some contribution back to society where they can.
Much to my disgust I know of several families (no relation) in the South Wales area who are effectively career benefits claimants:
They have realised, they can claim the full spectrum of benenfits FOR LIFE without just desert, merely by feigning sickness, pain or injury ONCE to an assessor.
They are provided free lifelong accomodation and regularly pressurise the local council to have it upgraded with grant they can grab. They are exempted from council tax, their utility bills are subsidised, they receive free dental and opthalmic care and receive substantial financial payouts each week. God knows what else they claim for. They know the system inside out and exploit it for all its worth.
All these families lead active social lives that centre around pubs (yes, somehow these benefits claimants have enough money to indulge themselves)
The father of one of the families spends his whole day either at the boozer or placing bets at the bookies nextdoor. His wife swans around town in the brand new saloon car provided free from the state for the arthritis she fakes, running the little business she hides from both the council and the taxman.
He is able to claim a whole raft of benefits having injured himself at work: He fell from the back of a council truck - WHILE DRUNK ON DUTY. In other words, he went to work drunk, injured himself and you and I now pay for the privilige of him and his wife living like Lord and Lady Muck. The couple also enjoy three (yes, three) Mediterranean holidays every year. Not bad for a couple whose existence is entirely funded by the state. Reliable sources me this bloke was out in the garden mowing his lawn a few days ago - a picture of complete health for a man of his age.
@the number cruncher, what you need to appreciate is that there is a whole section of British society who spend their entire lives evading work and milking the system. It really is true, its not simply Tory prejudice.
People like the couple I've just outlined are prime candidates to be made to contribute to society for the benefits they receive.
If he can mow his own lawn without difficulty while claiming Invalidity Benefit he can mow the grass on the local village green which, thanks to council cut backs, is growing rather unkempt.
16. letthemfall said...
charlie b
That sounds an awful lot of benefit money. But is this tale more apocryphal than genuine? 3 foreign holidays a year! Sounds questionable at least.
It's certainly true that there are benefit cheats, and councils do clamp down on these when they can. Looked at another way, if jobs paid a reasonable wage, cheating the system would not be worthwhile. There will always be crooks, but a society with the inequalities of ours will always encourage some to get out of it what they can. Not so different to the bankers really.
17. the number cruncher said...
Charlie - when you are not so angry and self righteous - examine your heart, your jealousy and let it go.
if they are fiddling the system then grass them up (I hate benefit cheats just as much as an rapid Daily Mail Reader).
What annoys me is how you think quoting a few hearsay examples justifies a view that you can take away the minimum level of benefits and let children go without the very basics needed to live.
18. charlie brooker said...
@letthemfall,
Yep, all true. Seen it for myself.
Two wrongs don't make a right. If you're happy paying for the cheats I've mentioned feel free to pay for the burden.
@thenumbercruncher
Sanctimonious drivel.
At no point did I suggest there weren't genuine deserving cases that needed support; next time try attacking what I actually said rather than what you prefered I said.
You're obviously suffering some sort of guilt complex over those unfortunate kiddies, but don't be so uncharitable as to project your guilt on others to make yourself feel better.
19. clockslinger said...
Tudorian @ 5...like me you are clearly a radical anti-monarchist of the most extreme hue, then. But I reckon several thousands of well deserving poor people could be assisted into creative and fulfilling lives if every royal arsesitter gave up their massive publicly derived and utterly undeserved income. If they are as indespensible and hard working as we are encouraged to believe they'll bob up floating to the top of the meritocracy in no time... joining the exhorted ranks of hard working folk like you n me, no doubt.
20. alan_540 said...
About bloody time.
What's wrong with foodstamps and £10 "pocket money" per week for these scroungers? Why should they be given FREE cars? What's wrong with a bus pass?
The increase in numbers on invalidity benefit show the lie - it suited Labour to shift these people from the headline unemployment numbers, now that we've got a more sensible government let's hope this army of SCROUNGERS will be reduced to GENUINELY ILL people who, of course, deserve to be treated with compassion and respect.
Thank you, and goodnight.
21. clockslinger said...
..and personally, Ian, I'd like to live in a society where a lot more than 14% of "national income" (whatever that means when unpacked) is spent on "welfare" and those rich entrepreneurs like supermarket owners, bankers and property tycoons foot the bill. 'Course, I accept that such a country would become one of those economic disaster zones like err, Norway or...no, errr ...Sweden or somewhere and bear no resemblance to our swinging dick of an economy!
22. alan_540 said...
If you want to discuss personal aspirations clockslinger, I'd like to live in a society where my taxes are lower so that I can spend more money on my family and not have it stolen from me to pay for incapacity benefit for people who can't be bothered to work themselves because it is more profitable than working in the first place. With regard to the Nordic countries they have higher levels of taxation to fund a better welfare system, that is indisputable, if we were to adopt the same model that could indeed be a positive move. However, my concern is not the relative cost of any particular model, merely that whatever system is in place should be fair and equitable and targeted at those who need help and not at those who choose not to work. Answer me this : what is different about Britain that means we have a higher percentage of incapacity claimants than in other EU countries?
23. tenant super said...
Though I fall ideologically to the right, I agree with MW that I'd rather give a few grand a year to someone who doesn't work for whatever reason, than 50K to pointless council diversity officers and so on. And the 'scoungers' who do the real damage are the recipients of RBS's £1.3 billion bonus pot.
Also, whatever IDS says, you cannot eradicate the benefit trap easily. My friend E lives on a small council estate down the road from me on the border of East Dulwich and Village. Because her estate of small 2-3 bedroom council terrace houses is in the catchment for the desirable village schools, they sell for around £300 - £350k. She went back to work when Kid II was 7 and now earns £15K working 3 days a week. She is topped up with £7.5 K of tax credit and child benefit, housing/ tax allowance plus she gets 80% of after school childcare paid. She would need a salary of about £80 k to be able to afford that and have the same kind of disposable income. Also, Kid I is sitting scholarship exam for independent school (E does not spend money on Sky TV or fags but on private tutoring!) and if she passes will get 90% fee remission from the means-tested bursary. If Kid II who is even brighter does same, the fee remission for them both will be 100% (worth £12k each). So on top of the £80 K for mortgage and living to buy that she'd need an extra £24k net salary, that's £48k gross!
So starting out from scratch, a person would need to earn £128k to have the lifestyle she enjoys now. Okay, her council tenancy is secure but even considering that, once she goes over the £40k household income at which almost all the benefits are withdrawn (by going full-time, taking a promotion or cohabiting) she would need to earn about £78K before her 'income' level is restored to where it is now.
I do accept that most social housing is not in nice areas and most children from single parent families are not going to win independent school bursaries. E is a bit like JK Rowling was when she was 'destitute' - middle class, well-educated, bohemian, nouveau-poor and not typical of most single mothers. But I think her situation starkly illustrates why the 'couple penalty' and benefit trap (or at least benefit drag) will always exist as long as certain benefits are means-tested against household income.
24. clockslinger said...
Alan @ 20...Surely it is that their health is sod awful as a result of the numerous underage pregnancies, endless smoking and all the tins of special brew you think they drink in their "state subsidised housing" isn't it?
Then again, perhaps claiming ordinary JSA is so hedged with caveats and the rate so low that they do what the Tories expect the good citizen to do ....act in their own self interest to look after their families and themselves and to hell with everyone else. In this case that involves trying to get a benefit that pays a bit more than income based JSA. I assume that people in Sweden don't have to resort to such snakery to get anything approaching a decent level of benefit... so I suspect that might account for the difference in figures there.
I would invite you to also consider what is stolen from you to engage in illegal wars, wealthy people still claiming child benefit they don't need (because they can), unnecessary acts of pagentry fit only for a population stuck in the sixteenth centuary and the massive daily ridicule we face with the idle rich, sorry, wealth creators, doing their usual tax dodging.Your average DLA claimant looks like a pretty deserving cause in comparison to me at any rate.
25. clockslinger said...
Tenant Super @ 21...you'd best tell us posters on here which independent school Kid I might go to so we don't let our children mix with the scroungers!
26. the number cruncher said...
Charlie that is what this thread is about -"Work or lose your benefits"
I am very sorry if I used a 'straw man' augment on you, my apologies
But I am pretty sick of right wingers using the augment of benefit cheats as a smoke screen to justify their believe in cutting the social safety net
27. alan_540 said...
Clockslinger, can you give me some money to pay for a pack of fags and a bottle of wine? Some scrounger's have nicked all my money and I'm a bit skint.
Your arguments really are bleeding heart left wing tripe.
28. the number cruncher said...
alan_540 @ 19 & Charlie @ 13
FREE CAR! - motability is a lot more complex than being given a free car
I see the spirit of Alf Garnet is alive and well... Is that the pyhtonesque sound of the secret policeman's ball I hear?
I had this mate swaor war blind that some dole scrounga got a free house, car and booze from the social - Straight up mate, honest gov..... And here's me working 28 hours a day doown pit, eating coal. Sheer bloody luxury...
29. alan_540 said...
Motability is not complicated.
Pretend you can't walk to your GP.
Get a FREE CAR!
Simples.
30. tenant super said...
cockslinger @ 21
lol... Kid I is stitting the exams at City Girls school and JAGS (independent) and Newstead Grammar (State).
Actually all private schools have moved or are moving from academic scholarships (except £50 token ones) to means-tested bursaries to satisfy the charities commission of their public benefit. This has led to middle class, lower income professional bursary chasers, keeping themselves poor. So the attempt to make the schools 'socially inclusive' hasn't really worked.
31. Major Des Aster. said...
@3 Number Cruncher
If you want to get people into work; remove all taxes and NI on those earning less than 20k a year and increase the minimum wage - give them a real incentive to work.
Unfortunately, the people who are already in work earning sub 20K would be miffed if they did not get the tax break as well. Great idea though, just not workable. I assumed you meant tax break for those already out of work and claiming? I don't subscribe to LVT idea, I am more a Low Flat Tax kind of guy. Some of the best places in the world to live in are Tax heavens!
32. alan_540 said...
Oh, and by the way clockslinger, Child Benefit is a universal benefit - for you to say "...wealthy people still claiming child benefit they don't need (because they can)..." shows a fundamental lack of understanding on your part. Child Benefit is funded by direct taxation of all working people and was never means tested - it was simply intended as a way of ensuring that at least some of the husband's wages ended up in the wife's purse - in other words to stop hubby from pissing it up the wall.
And if it's OK in your world for people to fraudulently claim benefits, which is what you are saying, your moral compass needs replacing.
33. tenant super said...
There is often confusion over Disability Living Allowance. This is also a non-means tested benefit. It is in two components and you can be entitled to the care rate at higher or lower (depending on how much help you need due to the disability) and one of three rates for mobility impairment. You can be entitled to either or both. The lowest pay-out would be £18.95 per week (for the lower rate of either care or mobility) and the highest would be £121.25 for the higher level of both. This is on top of any other benefit or income and disregards income and savings. This is to off set the higher costs associated with living with disability and works pretty well. For example, the qualifying test for the lower rate of care is not being able to prepare a cooked main meal (conditions like ME or severe mental illness or effects of stroke might cause this) and £18.95 would pay for 1 'microwave meal' or council meals on wheels per day.
I am opposed to means testing as it disincentivises self-advancement so Child Benefit ( and come on, it's only £20 per week for Kid I and £13 for any more) and DLA should be left alone. IDS argued that tax relief is better than universal benefits to assist middle income (I hate it when they say 'middle class' which is a term that has decoupled from income) people but I disagree since the parlous state of the public finances mean any extension of tax relief will be clawed back via fiscal drag and all the other sneaky tools.
The real bone of contention is Incapacity Benefit newly renamed employment assistance allowance which is not at all like Disability Living Allowance (DLA) This is the means-tested core income rather than JSA when a person is too ill or disabled to work. It can be topped up with income support, tax credits, Housing allowance and Council tax benefit etc.
34. tudorian said...
@ inbreda #11
Hi, sorry the reply is a bit late
I run my own business (actually 2 of them and looking to sell one soon). I have spent a total of 12 months unemployed in my 25 years of working life. During my spell of unemployment I worked voluntarily for a local not for profit company. The work I was undertaking was completely unrelated to my previous working history. There was a steady stream of people like me joining the company on a voluntary basis. They would usually work around 20 hours a week and last about 3 months.
I worked hard, and enjoyed the challenge of learning a new skill. Within 6 months I had fashioned a permanent job for myself. 12 Months later, I owned the company, turning it from a not for profit enterprise to a successful limited company.
I have 2 unemployed volunteers working for me at the moment, and 2 ex unemployed volunteers are on the payroll. Keeping the volunteers often costs me more money initially in training that any return I get. Most of the volunteers have little interest in working, but some do, the ones that do I try to find employment for.
The volunteers gain through living their lives during normal working hours, the gain news skill within the company, the gain through meeting work colleagues. The government pay me nothing for this service. The volunteers get an extra £10 a week and free bus travel. After 3 months of work here, the Government move the volunteers along. The minimum they gain is a work experience, friendships made and a reference.
In my case I would honesty say there was a mutual benefit for both volunteer and company. I am a product of this system and am happy to welcome all willing unemployed people referred to me
35. the number cruncher said...
Major Des Aster @ 31.
No I meant for everyone not just unemployed. you would need to taper Income tax up after that to maintain some incentive to work harder.
LVT is a no brainer, go read some books and do some investigation - the only people who do not like LVT either do not understand economics or like the idea of idol overlords running the country.