Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

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

interestrateripoff

Mick Philpott's Benefits 'lifestyle' Should Be Questioned, Says Osborne

Recommended Posts

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/apr/04/mick-philpott-benefits-lifestyle-questioned

The chancellor, George Osborne, has taken the calculated risk of wading into the debate over the child killer Mick Philpott by asking whether the welfare state may have contributed to his lifestyle by being too generous.

When asked on a visit to Derby whether the Philpotts were a product of Britain's benefit system, Osborne said: "It's right we ask questions as a government, a society and as taxpayers, why we are subsidising lifestyles like these. It does need to be handled."

He said Philpott "was responsible for horrendous crimes, crimes which have shocked the nation".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22025035

Asked about such claims, Mr Osborne said a debate was needed about whether the state should "subsidise lifestyles like that".

Labour MP Andy McDonald accused the chancellor of trying to make political capital out of an "appalling" crime and for "demonising" people seeking work by linking them to a convicted killer.

Philpott was convicted of manslaughter along with his wife Mairead and friend Paul Mosley over an arson revenge plot that went wrong.

Clearly there has to be a debate the problem is the Tories will see everyone as shrikers and not wanting to work, whilst Labour won't acknowledge there are number of people who's career is getting as much money as they can out of the benefit system.

I doubt we are going to have an intelligent debate about the welfare traps created, fixing it would also dent GDP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly there has to be a debate the problem is the Tories will see everyone as shrikers and not wanting to work, whilst Labour won't acknowledge there are number of people who's career is getting as much money as they can out of the benefit system.

I doubt we are going to have an intelligent debate about the welfare traps created, fixing it would also dent GDP.

Fixing it in a way that encouraged work (LVT + Citizen's income, etc) would probably boost GDP.

Although I can see the Philpotts of the world abusing a CI as well, especially if it applies to kids in some form. Which it would have to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally think he should keep quiet right now.

The Philpott thing has fallen into their laps at the perfect time, but there's no need to try to make political points about it. It's all there. Everyone can see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally think he should keep quiet right now.

The Philpott thing has fallen into their laps at the perfect time, but there's no need to try to make political points about it. It's all there. Everyone can see it.

Thinking it through logically, if Mick Philpott is a "product of the benefits system", does that mean every murderer or criminal with a job is a "product of the full-time employment"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Mick Philpott's of the UK are a tiny minority, so designing a system to address them specifically is highly illogical, not to mention expensive and complex:

http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=184612&view=findpost&p=909296763

Any welfare system needs to retain the support of the middle classes, who ultimately are the ones who pay for it.

Therefore it is important to try and be seen to make life very difficult for the Mick Philpotts of this world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally think he should keep quiet right now.

The Philpott thing has fallen into their laps at the perfect time, but there's no need to try to make political points about it. It's all there. Everyone can see it.

Good point, well made.

There is another point to be made, but it's sure to be lost in the political bickering. Although Philpott is clearly an extreme case, the bigger issue is a tax-and-benefits system that not merely enables but encourages that lifestyle. And indeed lesser versions of it: you only need one child to get priority for housing and a package of lesser benefits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any welfare system needs to retain the support of the middle classes, who ultimately are the ones who pay for it.

Therefore it is important to try and be seen to make life very difficult for the Mick Philpotts of this world.

Unfortunately, it's the middle class who have been benefiting from/depending on it, which is part of the problem!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thinking it through logically, if Mick Philpott is a "product of the benefits system", does that mean every murderer or criminal with a job is a "product of the full-time employment"?

What crime do you think you or I could commit that would stand to gain us £1000/month if we got away with it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point, well made.

There is another point to be made, but it's sure to be lost in the political bickering. Although Philpott is clearly an extreme case, the bigger issue is a tax-and-benefits system that not merely enables but encourages that lifestyle. And indeed lesser versions of it: you only need one child to get priority for housing and a package of lesser benefits.

Exactly.

And it's a well known policy problem. It's technical name is "Perverse Incentive": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Mick Philpott's of the UK are a tiny minority, so designing a system to address them specifically is highly illogical, not to mention expensive and complex:

http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=184612&view=findpost&p=909296763

The system is being used to breed for benefits in a lot of cases, the philpot case is not the first, besides this many of these large families do not not think twice about the cost implications of a large families as they know they will get supported by the tax payer.The system does need a overhaul to stop this abuse of tax payers money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thinking it through logically, if Mick Philpott is a "product of the benefits system", does that mean every murderer or criminal with a job is a "product of the full-time employment"?

I don't think that is a very logical conclusion. I also think the point is that benefits are subsidising a particular lifestyle, and that is what is up for debate, not that they turned him into a child murderer. I would probably agree that he is an extreme case, but these are what draws attention to the problem. I think most people would agree there has to be some kind of reform though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a huge amount of anti-social behaviour these days and I'd say it's probably the biggest problem facing the UK at the moment. I'd wager the benefit system plays a large part in the rise of the underclass. It certainly isn't a natural state of affairs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The system is being used to breed for benefits in a lot of cases.

Let me stop you right there.

Any stats about how many people with above the average number of children there are on benefits vs those not on benefits?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also think the point is that benefits are subsidising a particular lifestyle, and that is what is up for debate, not that they turned him into a child murderer.

How many people are there with 17 kids, 3 lovers and a council house? Do you really think that is typical? Really? :blink:

It's the worst case of misdirection I've yet seen and once more the HPCers are lapping it up!

To have a sensible debate, you need to have data. Not just soundbites from a Chancellor clinging to the ropes...

This place gets more like the Mail letters page every day, could be time to move on I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What crime do you think you or I could commit that would stand to gain us £1000/month if we got away with it?

Children have sometimes murdered their own parents in order to inherit their wealth- Does this mean that there is something wrong with the idea that children can inherit their parents wealth? According to Osbourne's logic there must be- given those violent outcomes.

I think it's true that Philpott was in part motivated by the benefits he could gain access too by gaining custody of his kids- but that being true does not mean that the benefit system killed those kids- or even that the system is over generous to most people who it supports.

Taking extreme cases and extrapolating general conclusions is the oldest game in the book- if I were to sit down and make a list of all the people who ever risked burning their own children to death in an attempt to increase their benefits I don't think that list would be very long.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me stop you right there.

Any stats about how many people with above the average number of children there are on benefits vs those not on benefits?

Aren't virtually all people with children on benefits?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Taking extreme cases and extrapolating general conclusions is the oldest game in the book- if I were to sit down and make a list of all the people who ever risked burning their own children to death in an attempt to increase their benefits I don't think that list would be very long.

And the list of people who've had children to access benefits? It's very long indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you stop to think about it, at one time it would have made sense for society to financially help ou those who were too poor to breed. In peace time you needed lots of unskilled labour to produce goods. In time of war you needed lots of cannon fodder.

These days we automate the unskilled work and we don't have major wars between major powers due to the Manhatten project rather than the European project. Our politicians of course have nor realised this, being like generals who arm to fight the last war.

What matters today for society is not how many people you have but how well off the people that you have are, income per capita.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not jumping to any assumptions as to how common this is but I personally know at least six women who have four plus children some from three plus fathers, and four that suddenly have a new baby as soon as the eldest hits 16/17.

Oddly enough these are not highly successful business people.

If I were to go through my facebook friends list for those I went to school with, there would probably be quite a few more.

I know people I went to school with that were grandparents at 36/37.

Professionally, I know that no one in the office has more than three children with the majority having two or less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, it's the middle class who have been benefiting from/depending on it, which is part of the problem!

About 1 in 5 working age households are in receipt of tax credits.

a.png

About 1 in 5 of all households receive housing benefit. Link

Probably these two groups are largely overlapping, so maybe a quarter of the working age population relies on the welfare state for sustenance. I don't think these people can really be considered 'middle class'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think these people can really be considered 'middle class'.

What makes you say that?

Child benefit is available for earners with a salary of up to £50K. Is a household with two people both earning £48K not middle class? :blink:

EDIT: And how the feck did we get from a man with no job and 17 kids to people who are employed with one or two children. Are you guys seriously getting them mixed up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to reports Philpott saw procreation as a meal ticket: the more children he had the more benefits he could claim and this partly explained why he had a number of partners on the go at the same time. Apparently he had fathered a total of seventeen children.

There is a simple remedy to this: The state should limit the support it gives to, say, the first two children of a family, and no more and any children that a couple choose to have thereafter becomes a matter for their own private financial responsibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 239 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.