Housing Benefit Families Pocket £26,000-Plus As Excessive Claims Continue To Rise

[The Floating World]

I almost forgot to say take a look at the 1997 budget and compare with the 2010 budget. Welfare spending as a percentage of the budget was 20% in 1997, in 2010 it is 16%. As a proportion of the annual budget it has actually fallen.

[Si1]

I almost forgot to say take a look at the 1997 budget and compare with the 2010 budget. Welfare spending as a percentage of the budget was 20% in 1997, in 2010 it is 16%. As a proportion of the annual budget it has actually fallen.

yes but the total currency value of the budget is hugely larger, all this is saying is that you can use the % key on your keyboard, but that's not much use without understanding percentages

[Si1]

It's nonsense to argue generalities with reference to a small minority and with no reference to the actual evidence.

Take a look at the latest stats regarding household size.

http://www.statistic...get.asp?id=2325

Only 6% of households in the uk have more than five members. Very few households are therefore eligible for the maximum rate of LHA, the five bedroom rate. Which is most often headlined when the benefit system gets reported at all.

Only 12% of people live in single parent families.

25% of people live in couple households with no dependant children.

36% of people live in couple housholds with dependant children.

The UK has budgeted a welfare spend of £105.10 billion for the current financial year. Of which £8.1 billion is for unemployment benefits(JSA), £21.7 billion is for families and children (Tax Credits, Child Benefit), £22.6 billion is for social exclusion (ESA, Incapacity Benefit, DLA), £3.4 billion is for housing (housing benefit for Council Housing tenants), £49.3 billion on social protection ( social services and I believe housing benefit and council tax benefit come under this category)

The total UK budget is £655 billion for the current year. GDP is forecast to be £1457 billion for the current year.

Check it out here-

http://www.ukpublics...x.php?year=2010

are you none other than Gordon Brown?

He used to do nothing but spew statistics at people that wouldn't hold up to scrutiny and then say look at all those big numbers therefore the economy is strong

[crash2006]

The UK has budgeted a welfare spend of £105.10 billion for the current financial year. Of which £8.1 billion is for unemployment benefits(JSA), £21.7 billion is for families and children (Tax Credits, Child Benefit), £22.6 billion is for social exclusion (ESA, Incapacity Benefit, DLA), £3.4 billion is for housing (housing benefit for Council Housing tenants), £49.3 billion on social protection ( social services and I believe housing benefit and council tax benefit come under this category)

The total UK budget is £655 billion for the current year. GDP is forecast to be £1457 billion for the current year.

Check it out here-

http://www.ukpublics...x.php?year=2010

Well 2010 would be higher on unemployed spending, pre bust it was only 4 billion its almost doubled,

then you need to take into account otehr factors like wealth generated and the amount spend as some one else says welfare spending has gone down compared to the amount the government gets via taxes.

i read somewhere that a large part of unemployed spending doesnt go directly to the unemployed but to public and private companies.

plus almost 5 billion is given in aid to foreign countries.

Edited June 2, 2010 by crash2006

[The Floating World]

yes but the total currency value of the budget is hugely larger, all this is saying is that you can use the % key on your keyboard, but that's not much use without understanding percentages

There's not much point just stating the actual figures spent between the years, it's obviously more now just because of inflation, that's why it's more useful to look at it as a percentage of the total government spend.

For your benefit the figure for welfare spending in 1997 was £64 billion. According to the official inflation figures that would be equivalent to £90 billion today, so overall spending has increased ahead of inflation but slower than overall government spending in other departments.

Government spending was £318 billion and GDP was £830 billion back in 1997 so welfare spending as a percentage of GDP was 7.71% as opposed to 7.21% today just after a recession.

You can't avoid the fact that welfare spending is not out of control no matter how you badly you want it to be to justify slashing it.

[The Floating World]

are you none other than Gordon Brown?

He used to do nothing but spew statistics at people that wouldn't hold up to scrutiny and then say look at all those big numbers therefore the economy is strong

Would you rather argue on the basis of hearsay and insult, which it seems are the only weapons you have at your disposal.

[Si1]

There's not much point just stating the actual figures spent between the years, it's obviously more now just because of inflation, that's why it's more useful to look at it as a percentage of the total government spend.

this is childish patronising and bl;atantly obvious

For your benefit the figure for welfare spending in 1997 was £64 billion. According to the official inflation figures that would be equivalent to £90 billion today, so overall spending has increased ahead of inflation but slower than overall government spending in other departments.

this too. you have already said that.

Government spending was £318 billion and GDP was £830 billion back in 1997 so welfare spending as a percentage of GDP was 7.71% as opposed to 7.21% today just after a recession.

You can't avoid the fact that welfare spending is not out of control no matter how you badly you want it to be to justify slashing it.

I implied it was wrong and unfairly penalised the productive. I think somethign similar was recognised in 1997 actually so the fact it has increased in real terms, qualified by that, makes a bad situation worse. You have twisted my and others' words.

[Si1]

Would you rather argue on the basis of hearsay and insult, which it seems are the only weapons you have at your disposal.

no, I , and others, tried argument, but since you have none and instead apply a litany of logical fallacies and straw men then I would suggest you started it

[The Floating World]

no, I , and others, tried argument, but since you have none and instead apply a litany of logical fallacies and straw men then I would suggest you started it

My argument is that the case of those that would make the benefit system more punitive do so on the basis that they do not usually have an idea of the budgets involved, the populations concerned, or the actual way the current system functions. It's all very well coming up with an anecdote about single parent with four children playing the system or a Somalian with eight children living in luxury in London, but they do not represent the vast majority of benefits recipients.

To legislate for the majority on the basis of marginal abuse by a minority will not create a fairer society.

[Si1]

My argument is that the case of those that would make the benefit system more punitive do so on the basis that they do not usually have an idea of the budgets involved, the populations concerned, or the actual way the current system functions. It's all very well coming up with an anecdote about single parent with four children playing the system or a Somalian with eight children living in luxury in London, but they do not represent the vast majority of benefits recipients.

however, my experience shows that the principle IS representative

who, apart from you, said anything about making it punitive? targetted, appopriate, a safety net are appropriate. punitive implies that there are levels of deservingness that can be included depending on how much you are prepared to spend. However, the crux of peoples' concerns are that benefits are simply misallocated.

so your 2nd concluding point is a logical fallacy

[Normal]

I haven't read the rest of the thread, so apologies if this has already been discussed...

Most families don't have childern until they can afford to bring them up and house them.

*Share of persons aged 0-17 who are living in households where no-one works.

UK has 16.4%, which is the highest of the countries (surveyed) in Europe.

Tell me again that our benefits system isn't too generous.

*The indicator "Children aged 0-17 years living in jobless households" is calculated as the share of children aged 0-17 who are living in households where no one is working, in the total population of the same age group. The indicator is based on the EU Labour Force Survey.

[The Floating World]

however, my experience shows that the principle IS representative

who, apart from you, said anything about making it punitive? targetted, appopriate, a safety net are appropriate. punitive implies that there are levels of deservingness that can be included depending on how much you are prepared to spend. However, the crux of peoples' concerns are that benefits are simply misallocated.

so your 2nd concluding point is a logical fallacy

You may feel that your experience is sufficent to form the basis of widespread generalisation about the current system but I would prefer to rely upon a more objective source of information than just my experience or yours.

I would like to hear what your proposal for the reform of the benefit system would be?

[Si1]

You may feel that your experience is sufficent to form the basis of widespread generalisation about the current system but I would prefer to rely upon a more objective source of information than just my experience or yours.

but you have not used the info object9ivcely, you have an unqualified and presumptive context. I use my experience as a context and state as such. You just take your jaundiced presumtpions as fact and try to avoid the issue.

I would like to hear what your proposal for the reform of the benefit system would be?

My proposal is that Frank Field and IDS should be in charge of reforming benefits

[thecrashingisles]

My proposal is that Frank Field and IDS should be in charge of reforming benefits

More detail on that proposal here:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Y1aqsJ2auL4C&lpg=PP1&dq=frank%20field%20Making%20welfare%20work&hl=en&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false

Edited June 2, 2010 by thecrashingisles

[Si1]

More detail on that proposal here:

http://books.google....epage&q&f=false

if the surrounding text being in Russian has some importance it is lost on me...

however, interesting that FF is critical of the previous tory administration for building up the current system, and sounds justified too

[thecrashingisles]

if the surrounding text being in Russian has some importance it is lost on me..

Sorry that wasn't intentional. I have a Russian language PC so Google automatically uses Russian.

[The Floating World]

but you have not used the info object9ivcely, you have an unqualified and presumptive context. I use my experience as a context and state as such. You just take your jaundiced presumtpions as fact and try to avoid the issue.

My proposal is that Frank Field and IDS should be in charge of reforming benefits

In what way does my presenting the actual figures for benefit expenditure and the current breakdown of households reveal an 'jaundiced presumption'. We all have an axe to grind and have a viewpoint or we wouldn't be sat here arguing the toss about it. Arguing from statistical evidence or personal experience can both be valid but harder to justify personal experience as it is relatively narrow and harder to infer from.

Is my 'jaundiced presumption' based on the fact that I happen to have a different viewpoint from you which you wish to denigrate, by references to faulty logic, etc.

IDS is a tinkerer and I wish him well, he himself admitted that his plans if properly implemented would increase the cost of benefits in the short to medium term.

[cartimandua51]

ScaredEitherWay, on 01 June 2010 - 09:11 PM, said:

That living room is better than I have ever seen/been in in real life ... I doubt I'll ever have one like it.

Oh come on, are you being sarcastic. It looks tacky as hell.

Bashir Aden, husband of Nasra Warsame, is shown sitting in his wife's rented home, where she lives with seven of their children

I've just read the article again, and what strikes me is that there isn't a WORD quoted from the bloke. This is the Daily Mail; the furniture in that living room would have cost, what? £1000 / £1500 max? I wouldn't be at all surprised if the DM had offered, purely out of the goodness of their corporate heart, of course, to remove whatever tacky ex-Salvation Army furniture was there in exchange for his consent to sit there on his nice free furniture looking happy. Result - a blood pressure rise of the sort so beloved by DM readers, and happy circulation figures continue. Cheap at the price.

[Si1]

In what way does my presenting the actual figures for benefit expenditure and the current breakdown of households reveal an 'jaundiced presumption'. We all have an axe to grind and have a viewpoint or we wouldn't be sat here arguing the toss about it. Arguing from statistical evidence or personal experience can both be valid but harder to justify personal experience as it is relatively narrow and harder to infer from.

Is my 'jaundiced presumption' based on the fact that I happen to have a different viewpoint from you which you wish to denigrate, by references to faulty logic, etc.

no

my problem with you is you make no real effort

IDS is a tinkerer and I wish him well, he himself admitted that his plans if properly implemented would increase the cost of benefits in the short to medium term.

but this sounds fair enough

[Guest Mrs Bradley]

Both Mrs Bradley and raplphmalph do not follow the implications of what they are suggesting.

I would expect spending to actually increase if any of the schemes suggested were introduced as you would have to increase the power of the state to compel unwilling people into national service or into hostels for unmarried mothers.

The state would also have to be massively more intrusive into the private lives of all subjects in order to verify that the system was being adhered to.

In order to solve a minority problem you would have to make the lives of the majority substantially less free and insecure.

Don't forget that the people denied benefits due to bad behavour are also likely to be unemployable by anyone, by removing benefits you would be encouraging criminality in its place.

The state already supports more than is desirable or necessary, from cradle to grave, how much more intrusive can you get than that?

Added to which, younger taxpayers are being robbed of their freedom to choose where and how to live, by having private, often unscrupulous, landlords imposed on them and the door to social housing slammed in their face. After all, that is saved for the benefits plunderers: those - whom you have already admitted - are being humoured into not running riot and embarking on crime sprees against the law-abiding cits.

I think that basing policies on high-flown, idealistic Marxist ideology and spurning the sterling work done on learning theories/ moral development over that last 50 years is - to say the least - bluddy stupid and a recipe for disaster.

A disaster which has already arrived, thanks to the bleeding heart approach of people like you, FW. who won seats in power and proceeded to implement these half-baked notions, without a thought for how it might all turn out.

Edited June 2, 2010 by Mrs Bradley

[okaycuckoo]

My argument is that the case of those that would make the benefit system more punitive do so on the basis that they do not usually have an idea of the budgets involved, the populations concerned, or the actual way the current system functions. It's all very well coming up with an anecdote about single parent with four children playing the system or a Somalian with eight children living in luxury in London, but they do not represent the vast majority of benefits recipients.

To legislate for the majority on the basis of marginal abuse by a minority will not create a fairer society.

It's not in dispute that most people on benefits are scraping by.

What many on this thread find objectionable is families on benefits having considerably higher net incomes than people who contribute to, rather than take from, the benefits system. That is plainly unjust, and becomes even more unjust when in consequence the contributors are outbid by the takers for the accomodation they feel they need to start their own families.

You have the figures at your fingertips yet fail to address that objection. I assume your notion of social justice depends on the assertion that no distinction should be drawn between the deserving and undeserving. To me, that is unjust.

Why not address the examples posted earlier from court cases and say how you react to those facts?

[The Floating World]

It's not in dispute that most people on benefits are scraping by.

What many on this thread find objectionable is families on benefits having considerably higher net incomes than people who contribute to, rather than take from, the benefits system. That is plainly unjust, and becomes even more unjust when in consequence the contributors are outbid by the takers for the accomodation they feel they need to start their own families.

You have the figures at your fingertips yet fail to address that objection. I assume your notion of social justice depends on the assertion that no distinction should be drawn between the deserving and undeserving. To me, that is unjust.

Why not address the examples posted earlier from court cases and say how you react to those facts?

Finally had a chance to read those examples from the other blog. That solicitor is certainly suffering from compassion fatigue. All those cases seem to have played the system to varying degrees of success, although considering they were all going through debtors court would suggest none too successfully.

I have never stated that the benefits system currently is a perfect system, all I originally started out saying was that outright abuse was marginal and it was not worth cracking down across the board as it would adversely affect the majority who were not playing the system.

Mrs Bradley seems to think i'm a bleeding heart pinko liberal/ marxist on account of me not wanting a return to national service and compulsory hostels for unmarried mothers.

[okaycuckoo]

Finally had a chance to read those examples from the other blog. That solicitor is certainly suffering from compassion fatigue. All those cases seem to have played the system to varying degrees of success, although considering they were all going through debtors court would suggest none too successfully.

I have never stated that the benefits system currently is a perfect system, all I originally started out saying was that outright abuse was marginal and it was not worth cracking down across the board as it would adversely affect the majority who were not playing the system.

Mrs Bradley seems to think i'm a bleeding heart pinko liberal/ marxist on account of me not wanting a return to national service and compulsory hostels for unmarried mothers.

You didn't address the injustice!

"Compassion fatigue/marginal abuse/nobody's perfect/don't call me names" do not add up to an argument.

Do you have experience of the system, or do you just study? Work with debt charities, or just exchange views with fellow academics?

Irritating to see you post eloquently about the system, when you pass off the actual workings as irrelevant. Same old NuLab vacuity.

[MongerOfDoom]

I have never stated that the benefits system currently is a perfect system, all I originally started out saying was that outright abuse was marginal and it was not worth cracking down across the board as it would adversely affect the majority who were not playing the system.

Do you know for certain how much "outright" abuse there is? I am not sure anyone does. However, there is clear evidence consistent with it being non-trivial. I know correlation is not causation, but exactly what other explanation is there for the population becoming more "disabled" while billions in additional money were given to the NHS? There also seems to be evidence there are substantially more "disabled" people in unemployment hotspots. The number of disabled under 25s is rising as the number of job opportunities open to them decreases. There are over 2.5 million claimants, about four times as many as in the 70s. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7173453.stm

You might say that if a large proportion of IB claimants abuse the system, they must have got some encouragement from the government. I don't think you would be wrong, but that does not make it any more justifiable than a fraudulent self-cert mortgage.

At 12+ billion a year it is certainly worth cracking down on, IMHO.

Edited June 2, 2010 by MongerOfDoom

[Guest Mrs Bradley]

Finally had a chance to read those examples from the other blog. That solicitor is certainly suffering from compassion fatigue. All those cases seem to have played the system to varying degrees of success, although considering they were all going through debtors court would suggest none too successfully.

I have never stated that the benefits system currently is a perfect system, all I originally started out saying was that outright abuse was marginal and it was not worth cracking down across the board as it would adversely affect the majority who were not playing the system.

Mrs Bradley seems to think i'm a bleeding heart pinko liberal/ marxist on account of me not wanting a return to national service and compulsory hostels for unmarried mothers.

You ignore the valid points I raised about learning theories and all it taught us about human motivation/ behaviour, and focus on the category to which I assigned you, based on your responses on here.

Until dysfunctional and/or antisocial behaviour ceases to be rewarded, and productive behaviour ceases to be ignored or punished, this society will continue on its downward moral and economic trend.

I don't claim originality for my insights, just that I have learned at the feet of masters, whilst having to observe rules/policies being implemented by guilt-ridden bunglers, or self-serving manipulators.

Maybe you are/aren't a Marxist/ pinko whatever.It makes no odds. Anyone who isn't part of the solution is part of the problem, and supporting limp-wristed policies - which have no basis in the psychology of the human species - merely serves to delay a return to sanity and an adaptive, productive society.

Edited June 3, 2010 by Mrs Bradley