Benefits Need To Change In This Country

[xian]

yup... I don't doubt there are many such injustices. But those cases are the ones we hear about, because they make good stories. I bet those cases are in the minority and constitute an extreme.

If such people do trash their own houses, I feel sorry for them, since it can only be symptomatic of their own lack of self-esteem. Their lack of self-esteem can only be some combination of unfortunate genetics, and unfortunate environment. Both of which many of us have been lucky enough to avoid.

While lots is undoubtedly spent from public coffers to right this in a superficial way, much much more is withheld from public coffers by the rich avoiding their public duty. Both are bad, but who is worse?

If all people actually paid the right amount of tax, perhaps we would move towards a society which avoided this kind of behaviour before it started.

I don't believe for a second that all people on benefits would rather be in that position than in gainful and meaningful employment... sure some don't but the majority would rather have a better life, but are constrained by many factors.

Also, another view is that perhaps providing new cheap kitchens and bathrooms is meant to be a vote-winner with that section of the public, by a cynical govt? I doubt it though, since they generally don't vote.

[DTMark]

On one specific point mentioned:

The long term unemployed.

I've always thought I was quite right wing, although that political test posted recently put me as a Left Wing Libertarian.

What I don't fathom is how, when unemployment has (apparently) been so very low for so long, we can have any long term unemployed people.

Clearly in some cases, e.g. ill health, stress, some extreme personal circumstances - there will always be exceptions.

However when does someone become "long term" unemployed, and for how long do we then continue to pay benefits? 6 months? 12 months? 5 years?

I agree with some posters in that I would hate to see us become more like the US (in terms of many things, the Welfare State being a particular case)

But there has to be some cut-off point - if benefits (surely a wholly inappropriate term to describe what they actually are as it infers some kind of entitlement) ceased to be paid to the long term unemployed (say, after 12 months), then surely, we wouldn't have any long term unemployed people (apart from some exceptions above), they would either get jobs, or perhaps keep going to the jobs they already have and the nation would be better off as we wouldn't be paying them a second wage.

In areas where a large employer has shut turfing hundreds or thousands of people into unemployment through no fault of their own (e.g. MG Rover) again there may need to be exceptions or extensions for those people. I'd stress the word "exceptions".

Is this controversial and right wing, or common sense?

[xian]

On one specific point mentioned:

The long term unemployed.

I've always thought I was quite right wing, although that political test posted recently put me as a Left Wing Libertarian.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

oooh... where is this political test? I'll go try...

[Marina]

The test of a civilized society is how it treats its poor and disadvantaged.

In this country the answer is BADLY.

Because there are millions of people sponging - receiving benefits that should go to people that need them.

They should just change the law - get caught fiddling - have all your assets confiscated and nip off to a very cold Scottish island for a bit of rock-breaking.

I have known dozens of sponging builders etc over the years. I worked on a site once where the whole labour gang came in late on a certain morning because they all had to sign on. I have never reported anyone - something holds me back. But the government already employ one person in five - they should have enough people to track these people down.

[DTMark]

oooh... where is this political test? I'll go try...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I did a search but couldn't track it down, perhaps someone can post it...

[MRMX9]

We should of course have sympathy for the long term unemployed in parts of the country where there is no work available.

Unfortunately there are a lot of long term unemployed people in London where there are supposedly hundreds of thousands of job vacancies. In areas like Dagenham (only 20 minutes from the City by tube) more than a quarter of young people aged 16-24 are not in education, employment or training. In Newham around half of adults aged 18-64 are economically inactive according to the ONS. In Westminster alone the Council is required to pay out £150m (yes £150m!) a year in housing benefit to subsidise people to live in the most expensive area in the country.

If these people took low paid jobs they would lose their housing benefit and potentially be forced to move somewhere cheaper. So what is the incentive for them to get off benefit. I would love to live rent free in St Johns Wood or Pimlico but unless I go on the dole I will never be able to afford to do so.

It is an absolute scandal!

[Dancing Bear]

If such people do trash their own houses, I feel sorry for them, since it can only be symptomatic of their own lack of self-esteem. Their lack of self-esteem can only be some combination of unfortunate genetics, and unfortunate environment. Both of which many of us have been lucky enough to avoid.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Have to say that is crap. There are too many people feeling sorry for these 'unfortunates'. These 'unfortunates' laugh and boast about what they can get while doing nothing for it. Don't you realise that they are clever enough to trash their own kitchen as they know they will get a new one because people feel sorry for them?

While lots is undoubtedly spent from public coffers to right this in a superficial way, much much more is withheld from public coffers by the rich avoiding their public duty. Both are bad, but who is worse?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Are you saying that someone gaining money by deceipt is on the same level as those who lawfully do not pay more tax? It would be interesting if someone posted the percentages of tax paid by the percentages of society. I'm sure that the rich pay a highly disproportionate amount.

If all people actually paid the right amount of tax, perhaps we would move towards a society which avoided this kind of behaviour before it started.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If the spongers got off their @rses then we wouldn't need more tax, would we?

I don't believe for a second that all people on benefits would rather be in that position than in gainful and meaningful employment... sure some don't but the majority would rather have a better life, but are constrained by many factors.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Go and talk to these people down the pub, in a matey "i'm-in-the-same-boat-as-you" manner (not a "i'm-from-a-gov-dept-please-fill-out-this-questionnaire" manner), and i think you'll find that your beliefs are shattered.

Also, another view is that perhaps providing new cheap kitchens and bathrooms is meant to be a vote-winner with that section of the public, by a cynical govt? I doubt it though, since they generally don't vote.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nope, it's the law - they have to.

[DTMark]

Unfortunately there are a lot of long term unemployed people in London where there are supposedly hundreds of thousands of job vacancies. In areas like Dagenham (only 20 minutes from the City by tube) more than a quarter of young people aged 16-24 are not in education, employment or training. In Newham around half of adults aged 18-64 are economically inactive according to the ONS. In Westminster alone the Council is required to pay out £150m (yes £150m!) a year in housing benefit to subsidise people to live in the most expensive area in the country.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why is it required? (I'm not arguing with you or asking you to justify the Government's policy, it's more a rhetorical question)

If someone has been long term unemployed, I don't see why there should be any entitlement to continue living in an expensive area, even if it is a dump.

If there were some upper limit imposed on the amount that is paid out, and it meant that individual could not carry on living in that area and had to move to a cheaper area, I don't see the problem in that. Ultimately, there has to be some sanction for your own inaction.

Correspondingly there are people who would like to live in London, e.g. to live near their parents, but can't, because it's horrifyingly expensive even though they have a well paying job.

I don't see why someone with no job and who has not had one for "a long time" (whatever that means, say, 9 months) can stay in an area where someone with a job cannot.

[xian]

Have to say that is crap. There are too many people feeling sorry for these 'unfortunates'. These 'unfortunates' laugh and boast about what they can get while doing nothing for it. Don't you realise that they are clever enough to trash their own kitchen as they know they will get a new one because people feel sorry for them?

Are you saying that someone gaining money by deceipt is on the same level as those who lawfully do not pay more tax? It would be interesting if someone posted the percentages of tax paid by the percentages of society. I'm sure that the rich pay a highly disproportionate amount.

If the spongers got off their @rses then we wouldn't need more tax, would we?

Go and talk to these people down the pub, in a matey "i'm-in-the-same-boat-as-you" manner (not a "i'm-from-a-gov-dept-please-fill-out-this-questionnaire" manner), and i think you'll find that your beliefs are shattered.

Nope, it's the law - they have to.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

yes - I know they trash their houses because it means they get new ones. But my point is that people who have self esteem, therefore value themselves and their immediate environment, don't do this. Do you, for example? I know I don't, and no-one I know does. It's only people with little in their life, and little to lose that do this.

Yes, gaining money by deceipt I regard as as bad as lawfully avoiding tax. Tax avoidance is only possible if you are either rich enough to employ a good accountant, have enough money to have several residences across the globe (for large scale), or are financially savvy and can do it yourself, in which case you'll undoubtedly be at least reasonably wealthy anyway. And if you're very rich, why should you reap the rewards of accumulating riches without putting anything into your own society from which you reap those rewards, when it has issues?

Re: percentages of tax, I think you'll find that while the poor to average pay 0% on the first apprx 4k, then 22% on the rest (obviously, since they rarely have mechanisms to avoid tax), I bet the super-rich don't pay anything like 40% on everything they earn over 31k-ish. And the rich don't just avoid tax, they frequently also evade tax, because they have access to the knowledge and mechanisms to do so.

If you simply mean that the richest percentiles pay more than the poorest percentiles, then of course... that's simple maths.

Re: going down the pub... lost your point on that one. I can see that you hoped it would be a good closing sound-bite though.

[Guest Bart of Darkness]

Political Test:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

I'm a bit dubious about this as a mate of mine (who counts Attila the Hun as one of his heroes ), was described as a left-winger by this test.

It surprised him as well!

[Guest Bart of Darkness]

Yes, gaining money by deceipt I regard as as bad as lawfully avoiding tax

Morally rather than legally?

[xian]

Political Test:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

I'm a bit dubious about this as a mate of mine (who counts Attila the Hun as one of his heroes  ), was described as a left-winger by this test.

It surprised him as well!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

thanks... i googled earlier and found the same one. Interesting isn't it?

[xian]

Morally rather than legally?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

yes, absolutely. Thanks for the clarification.

[Smell the Fear]

On one specific point mentioned:

The long term unemployed.

I've always thought I was quite right wing, although that political test posted recently put me as a Left Wing Libertarian.

What I don't fathom is how, when unemployment has (apparently) been so very low for so long, we can have any long term unemployed people.

Clearly in some cases, e.g. ill health, stress, some extreme personal circumstances - there will always be exceptions.

However when does someone become "long term" unemployed, and for how long do we then continue to pay benefits? 6 months? 12 months? 5 years?

I agree with some posters in that I would hate to see us become more like the US (in terms of many things, the Welfare State being a particular case)

But there has to be some cut-off point - if benefits (surely a wholly inappropriate term to describe what they actually are as it infers some kind of entitlement) ceased to be paid to the long term unemployed (say, after 12 months), then surely, we wouldn't have any long term unemployed people (apart from some exceptions above), they would either get jobs, or perhaps keep going to the jobs they already have and the nation would be better off as we wouldn't be paying them a second wage.

In areas where a large employer has shut turfing hundreds or thousands of people into unemployment through no fault of their own (e.g. MG Rover) again there may need to be exceptions or extensions for those people. I'd stress the word "exceptions".

Is this controversial and right wing, or common sense?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Mark - in terms of natural justice your argument has some weight. In practical terms, it probably isn't worth spending the money to implement it. None of the following is directed at you, Mark.

Let me lay out the argument for delboy and his sabre-rattling cronies.

As of June 05, the claimant count (number of people claiming unemployment benefit in the UK) was 866,000.

Of this number, 42,800 have been claiming for over 2 years. I'm sure we can all agree that they are the "long term unemployed" for the purposes of this argument.

Let's assume that each of them costs £30k per annum in benefits. This is probably much more than the actual cost, but let's be generous.

The total cost of the long term unemployed to society is 42,800 x £30k (delboy - hopefully your "education" allows you to follow the maths).

This gives a total of £1.284 billion per year.

As a cost to Delboypass (and every other employed person in the country), this is

£44 (yes, forty-four pounds) per year.

Is this really worth instituting the disgusting suggestions you have made for?

Is £44 quid so valuable to you that you would see children begging on the streets of your town?

If so, I think we need to introduce citizenship tests for people like you, to ensure that you are up to speed with a few basic facts regarding how most people in this country see fit to treat others.

[xian]

Mark - in terms of natural justice your argument has some weight. In practical terms, it probably isn't worth spending the money to implement it. None of the following is directed at you, Mark.

Let me lay out the argument for delboy and his sabre-rattling cronies.

As of June 05, the claimant count (number of people claiming unemployment benefit in the UK) was 866,000.

Of this number, 42,800 have been claiming for over 2 years. I'm sure we can all agree that they are the "long term unemployed" for the purposes of this argument.

Let's assume that each of them costs £30k per annum in benefits. This is probably much more than the actual cost, but let's be generous.

The total cost of the long term unemployed to society is 42,800 x £30k (delboy - hopefully your "education" allows you to follow the maths).

This gives a total of £1.284 billion per year.

As a cost to Delboypass (and every other employed person in the country), this is

£44 (yes, forty-four pounds) per year.

Is this really worth instituting the disgusting suggestions you have made for?

Is £44 quid so valuable to you that you would see children begging on the streets of your town?

If so, I think we need to introduce citizenship tests for people like you, to ensure that you are up to speed with a few basic facts regarding how most people in this country see fit to treat others.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

excellent post!

[Dancing Bear]

it would have been excellent if it wasn't using official gov (read fiddled) figures.

while 866,000 are claiming JSA, there are countless more who are actually long term unemployed who have been moved onto other benefits to mask the figures.

this also doesn't take into account those who miss a signing-on, then have to re-apply. they may have been on the dole for the last 6 years but have now become a new claimant.

[xian]

it would have been excellent if it wasn't using official gov (read fiddled) figures.

while 866,000 are claiming JSA, there are countless more who are actually long term unemployed who have been moved onto other benefits to mask the figures.

this also doesn't take into account those who miss a signing-on, then have to re-apply. they may have been on the dole for the last 6 years but have now become a new claimant.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

ok, so factor in a few more quid to an already generous estimate... hell, even double it to approx £80. The point is the same.

[DTMark]

Mark - in terms of natural justice your argument has some weight. In practical terms, it probably isn't worth spending the money to implement it. None of the following is directed at you, Mark.

Let me lay out the argument for delboy and his sabre-rattling cronies.

As of June 05, the claimant count (number of people claiming unemployment benefit in the UK) was 866,000.

Of this number, 42,800 have been claiming for over 2 years. I'm sure we can all agree that they are the "long term unemployed" for the purposes of this argument.

Let's assume that each of them costs £30k per annum in benefits. This is probably much more than the actual cost, but let's be generous.

The total cost of the long term unemployed to society is 42,800 x £30k (delboy - hopefully your "education" allows you to follow the maths).

This gives a total of £1.284 billion per year.

As a cost to Delboypass (and every other employed person in the country), this is

£44 (yes, forty-four pounds) per year.

Is this really worth instituting the disgusting suggestions you have made for?

Is £44 quid so valuable to you that you would see children begging on the streets of your town?

If so, I think we need to introduce citizenship tests for people like you, to ensure that you are up to speed with a few basic facts regarding how most people in this country see fit to treat others.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm not sure this is the reply you might have expected, but, yes, I do think it's worth stopping "benefit" for those people and I do begrudge paying £44 a year irrespective of how much I earn to have the situation continue.

I should put this into some context: recently I saw a programme about research into young people who are identified to be *likely* to commit crime in their later years, and talk of possible pre-emptive action to take those children into care.

This is an absolutely monstrous proposition and I'm amazed that anyone would suggest it.

The reason those children might be more likely to commit crime is due to their upbringing. That doesn't automatically mean their parents are useless parents (which is the inference), rather, they tend to live in impoverished areas. Poor parents are by no means necessarily bad parents.

The natural extension of this argument is therefore that the children of "poor people" should be taken away for their own safety and that of others. This is laughable, or would be, if it were not so sinister.

The point to that context is that if someone with children has been unemployed for two years with no other mitigating factors, it's time for them to take some responsibility.

Subject to the exceptions I've listed and probably some others, ultimately, there has to be some sanction for laziness and the benefit has to stop eventually.

I'm not talking about people who were made unemployed a month ago and looking for a job: I'm talking about the extreme cases you mention (would anyone argue that being unemployed for 2 years is through anything other than choice), and I repeat subject to the exceptions I've suggested. I don't doubt there are others.

If that sanction is to suspend payments and ultimately have the children taken into care, then I think that's the right answer. Being a parent carries responsibility, and even if that action then costs me more as a taxpayer.

It gives the children the best chance: they are not the ones being irresponsible and failing to meet their obligations, and if left unchecked, are more likely to turn to crime/benefit cheating later on since this is the example being set for them.

There has to be *some* sanction for this irresponsibility/laziness otherwise it leads to the understandable "Daily Mail" attitude that a massive section of our society are spongers and saps people of their willingness to participate in "society" if the rules of that society do not sanction those who take advantage.

I picked out "long term unemployed" specifically because I suspect it's an easier one to debate. The wider issues about the Welfare State are a huge topic

[Dancing Bear]

yes - I know they trash their houses because it means they get new ones. But my point is that people who have self esteem, therefore value themselves and their immediate environment, don't do this. Do you, for example? I know I don't, and no-one I know does. It's only people with little in their life, and little to lose that do this.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The self-esteem of these people comes far far down the list of why it is and is not done. Top of the list is who's paying for it. They're not, so they can afford to trash it and get a new one cos they know the council has to fix it. You or i have worked hard to buy a kitchen that we feel will compliment our living spaceso we won't trash it cos we'll have to buy the new one ourselves.

Re: percentages of tax, I think you'll find that while the poor to average pay 0% on the first apprx 4k, then 22% on the rest (obviously, since they rarely have mechanisms to avoid tax), I bet the super-rich don't pay anything like 40% on everything they earn over 31k-ish. And the rich don't just avoid tax, they frequently also evade tax, because they have access to the knowledge and mechanisms to do so.

If you simply mean that the richest percentiles pay more than the poorest percentiles, then of course... that's simple maths.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm talking about the fact that the top 1% of taxpayers pay around 25% of the overall tax burden. So who has the right to complain when those paying most of the tax don't use the majority of the services it funds. I have given the ballpark as i don't have the specific figures that's why i mentioned it might be good for someone to post them.

You telling me that if you were paying c£20k in tax a year and had the means to save yourself a bit then you wouldn't?

Re: going down the pub... lost your point on that one. I can see that you hoped it would be a good closing sound-bite though.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No soundbites here i'm afraid. No beliefs expressed either. Too many years being brought up on a council estate and with close relatives still living in them plenty of opportunities to be freshly reminded. It is regarded as the best way to live on one of these estates to claim all that's going while having no intention of doing anything for it. If you are an official representative of HM Gov however you just get a sob story.

Obviously some areas are worse than others on this.

Doesn't help that if yopu ask any of our governmnet ministers how many years they lived like this for and how recently it was then pretty much none of them would have a positive answer. And yet they know what's best.

[Dancing Bear]

ok, so factor in a few more quid to an already generous estimate... hell, even double it to approx £80. The point is the same.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What point is that?

Is it the point that i've actually gone out and earned that £80 so some lazy git can have it off me?

Tell you what. Why don't we have a 'Jobseeker Buddy' idea where everyone has to give their £80 quid to a specific person over the year?

Why wouldn't that work? Because people would get well p1ssed at having to hand over their own crisp £10 notes to someone who consciously hasn't made an effort to work in the last 2 years.

There are 42,000 long term jobless out there yet we are having to import labour - tell me how that works?

Before you start screaming about low-paid workers on the black economy a good example is First National employing 2k Polish workers to drive their busses. That's not below minimum wage or on the black economy is it?

[okonu]

Anecdotal - my cousin's husband hasn't worked since he was 21 (he is now mid 40's) She is in and out of casual employment. I wouldn't say they live a life of luxury, but they do more than OK - they are experts at working the system, and do odd jobs for cash (breeding dogs etc)

He's "disabled" - (well, he cut his hand badly when 21, with some loss of mobility of left hand) so doesn't count as unemployed,

They have 4 kids, and number of grandchildren already, and the skills they have learnt have been passed on.

[Montauk]

you are using terminology to suit your own argument. They are a "couple" insofar as they are currently f*ck-buddies co-habiting. This may, or may not continue. If it does continue, and they choose to buy together, it is highly unlikely the benefits would continue.

Have you never co-habited in a rental place with someone who had debt, or was unemployed, when you weren't?

Wether you have, or have not, would you have felt it was fair if your financial circumstances were factored into their benefits entitlements?

How is Govt meant to distinguish between those who are merely flat-mates, those who are "temporary" couples, and those who are planning a long-term future togeter.... put cams all over the house and employ relationship psychologists to analyse?

That's why the government shouldn't get involved with this at all. But since it is, can I come to England and become a chav? Hell, the aforementioned couple on the swap show make almost twice what I do as a professional in New York. Sounds very tempting! What are the residency/citizenship requirements for aspiring chavs?

Edited September 8, 2005 by Montauk

[Montauk]

So I hear they're giving out free money in the UK. I'd like to get some of it. After all, who likes to work? Especially when you can make more, including dental and health insurance, than by working? Besides, I can work off the books for pocket money. If I get caught, well, they ain't putting people in jail for it anyway.

All sarcasm aside, or at least a bit, as I'm halfway serious, remember this: If you want more of something, have the government throw money at it.

If you want higher house prices, subsidize housing by removing capital gains taxes..

If you want more illegitimate children, subsidize them.

If you want higher college tuition, have the state subsidize higher education.

By contast, if you want less petrol usage, tax it!

If you want less crime, increase the penalties.

If you want less (fill in the blank) make it more expensive!

[delboypass]

well said Monk.

And this is precisely what is happening in the UK.

It is being encouraged because the UK government has turned their back on the cause and is pumping money at it instead.

Time to tackle the reasons why and the solutions to.

I got it wrong - tax free £37,000 is equivalent to a salary of £61,000

[delboypass]

I should leave this alone but i cant....especially with this housing crisis going on.

Something really has to give!!

15 kids = £49,000 tax free

After you read this, no-one can say the benefits system is actually working.

These fathers should have to pay every penny.

Surely a simple rule is that the government will only support 1 or 2 children - why should the government support your children??