Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ckn

£12bn in welfare cuts

Recommended Posts

Here's an idea, why don't companies insure their workforce so that they can continue to pay them if their sick? Before someone shoots me down, this is exactly what the company I work for do. This allows them to pay full pay for the first 6 months of sickness and then 78% pay for the next four and a half years. 

And so does the company I work for, I can get 6 months full pay and 6 months half pay. But the only reason they can afford to do this is because they are highly profitable multi-billion dollar business (American owned). Most small &medium sized business certainly couldn't afford to do this.

Personally I dont see whats wrong with people making provisions for their future and for that of their families should things go wrong. Jeeze about 1 in 3 people will get cancer which almost certainly means they will be off sick so why not put a little into a plan each month so you can at least pay the bills if the worst does happen.

 

Its no different to pensions. The sooner we move to the Australian model where it is compulsory the better. I lived & worked in Aus and never saw 8% of my salary as the govenment automatically took it from my salary every month (though you do get to choose which Super scheme they put it in for you).

 

The onus should be for people to live within their means and plan for the future,  not just expect the state to automatically step in, and in many cases then also expect the state to maintain the lifestyles they had.

Edited by Saint Toppy

Lets Get Brexit Done !!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely reducing the society's dependancy on benefits is a good thing for the country as a whole.

 

Benefits should only ever be be for a short term need to help out those people who for whatever reason (redundancy, ill health etc.) can no longer look after themselves. Unfortunately we've become a society where people automatically expect benefits, regardless of whether they've ever contributed to the system or not.

 

Its right & proper that we protect those most in need who cant look after themselves but its fundamentally wrong to make benefits universal and with a system thats so open to abuse the Government agencies have lost all control (every political party has played its part in creating this over the last few decades).

 

I used to work with a young lady who at 18 earned a resonable wage (£16K for an 18 year old with next to no qualifications). She had her 1st child and returned to work 6 months later. After her 2nd child she gave up work all together and now 8 years later she has 5 kids, lives entirely on benefits and has no intention of returning to work. She claims every possible benefit she can, has a partner who works every now & again (when he can be bothered) and also claims every benefit he can. 

Now i'm sure there will be many of you reading this thinking, wow she must have it tough bringing up 5 kids and having to 'survive' on benefits.

Well she lives in a nice 4 bedroom semi, has a foreign holiday every year, every one of her kids has an i-pad (including the 1 year old) and boasted on facebook only a few weeks ago how she had just spent £300 on a Prada handbag to take away on holiday.

 

I bet there are millions of hard working people & families who would love a lifestyle like this but can only dream of it. I challenge anyone to claim the benefits system in this country isn't broken ! There is a fundamental need to redress the balance that rewards the workers and only helps those that really need it. 

 

While what you say is obviously not right, how representative of those on benefit is your story? 1 in 10, 1 in 100 or 1 in 10,000? While there is no doubt some are milking the system many, many others aren't and are genuinely struggling. A link I posted earlier states that fraud accounts for just 0.6 - 0.8% of the budget. As I've already said, should they be suffering even more just because some are taking the ######?

 

I've been out of work myself and relied on JSA and housing benefit and believe me it was no picnic. Maybe my standards are higher, but I'd call it surviving rather than living and a way of life that I could only tolerate for the absolute bare minimum of time. And I'm not just talking about financially; it was about the most morally crushing and depressing existence I've ever known. I pretty much spent all day every day trying to find work. I have to say in defense of the staff at the jobcentre I went to they were pretty good; they seemed to recognise that I was genuinely trying to find work so didn't hassle me on my fortnightly visits. And they did pay my travel and accommodation costs when I went for jobs away from home (not sure if they still offer this service).


"it is a well known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been out of work myself and relied on JSA and housing benefit and believe me it was no picnic. Maybe my standards are higher, but I'd call it surviving rather than living and a way of life that I could only tolerate for the absolute bare minimum of time. And I'm not just talking about financially; it was about the most morally crushing and depressing existence I've ever known. I pretty much spent all day every day trying to find work. I have to say in defense of the staff at the jobcentre I went to they were pretty good; they seemed to recognise that I was genuinely trying to find work so didn't hassle me on my fortnightly visits. And they did pay my travel and accommodation costs when I went for jobs away from home (not sure if they still offer this service).

And I fundamentally agree that the system should be there to help people exactly like you. People who are out of work, often through no fault of their own but who are desperate to get back into work and are willing to travel anywhere to get it.

I can sympathise 100% with your situation as my wife found herself in exactly the same position a few years ago. She applied for hundreds of jobs, many on salaries that she was earning when she was 16. It took her over a year to get another job but I saw first hand how depressed she got.

During that period we had to change our lifestyle. We had no holidays at all for that year, didn't waste money on any 'luxury' items and had to put on hold the building work we were having done at the time (meaning we were living in a right mess).


Lets Get Brexit Done !!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely reducing the society's dependancy on benefits is a good thing for the country as a whole.

 

Benefits should only ever be be for a short term need to help out those people who for whatever reason (redundancy, ill health etc.) can no longer look after themselves. Unfortunately we've become a society where people automatically expect benefits, regardless of whether they've ever contributed to the system or not.

 

Its right & proper that we protect those most in need who cant look after themselves but  (1) its fundamentally wrong to make benefits universal and with a system thats so open to abuse the Government agencies have lost all control (every political party has played its part in creating this over the last few decades).

 

(2) I used to work with a young lady who at 18 earned a resonable wage (£16K for an 18 year old with next to no qualifications). She had her 1st child and returned to work 6 months later. After her 2nd child she gave up work all together and now 8 years later she has 5 kids, lives entirely on benefits and has no intention of returning to work. She claims every possible benefit she can, has a partner who works every now & again (when he can be bothered) and also claims every benefit he can. 

Now i'm sure there will be many of you reading this thinking, wow she must have it tough bringing up 5 kids and having to 'survive' on benefits.

Well she lives in a nice 4 bedroom semi, has a foreign holiday every year, every one of her kids has an i-pad (including the 1 year old) and boasted on facebook only a few weeks ago how she had just spent £300 on a Prada handbag to take away on holiday.

 

(3) I bet there are millions of hard working people & families who would love a lifestyle like this but can only dream of it. (4) I challenge anyone to claim the benefits system in this country isn't broken ! There is a fundamental need to redress the balance that rewards the workers and only helps those that really need it. 

 

1) I believe it should be a fundamental part of any society that considers itself civilised that no one ever lacks for food, shelter and warmth. Whether people contribute or not, we are wealthy enough as a society to provide these things to everyone and the only thing stopping it is blind ideology that considers it preferable for a man to starve than to receive free bread.

 

2) This is an anecdote. No-one knows if it is true, and even if it were it has no relevance to debates about our social welfare system or society as a whole. It is a story about one person in a country of tens of millions. Utterly meaningless.

 

3) The lifestyle of the majority of (the tiny number of) people living on benefits is nothing to be envied. The imaginary world of living on benefits concocted by media and politicians may seem like a dream, but it doesn't actually exist. You do raise an interesting point though - you dream of a better life. I imagine most people do. The problem is you have been convinced that the cause of your unsatisfactory life is the people who have next to nothing, rather than the people who have everything and refuse to share.

 

4) The entire premise of your post is incorrect because only 0.7% of welfare and tax credit claims are fraudulant. It is emphatically not a problem in any meaningful sense. It is a distraction used by politicians and media to divide people and mask the real theft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is perception: British public wrong about nearly everything, survey shows

 

There is an extremely good comment in the comments section (rare I know :rolleyes:):

 

"The brilliant 'thinking, fast and slow' explains why our instinct for stats will generally be wrong because the process the brain goes through, not deliberately but by its fundamental nature. It will substitute a question 'how often/how many...' with 'how easy is it to recall instances of...'. The answer to that is affected by many other factors than fact - recent events, sensational easy to remember examples from the news, whether it has happened to you etc.

We are much better at remembering examples than guessing at the stats. Lesson is we need to learn that we are bad instinctive staticians and that we need to know the real figures before judging."


"it is a well known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4) The entire premise of your post is incorrect because only 0.7% of welfare and tax credit claims are fraudulant. It is emphatically not a problem in any meaningful sense. It is a distraction used by politicians and media to divide people and mask the real theft.

Where did i mention fraudulent claimants in my post ?

I didn't as i'm well aware that they represent only a small part of the problem (all be it they should be the first ones targetted)

 

Having a society reliant on benefits harms the countries economy as a whole. Changing the system to a point where it only helps the most vulnerable & needy and then helps them get back into work and off benefits is where we should be aiming to be.

 

The current system is broken, and while we can debate the rights & wrongs of the individual policies & decisions I dont think anyone can justifiably argue against change.

 

The fact is cuts have to be made as we only have to look at Greece to see what happens when you dont manage your economy sensibly. The only way to build a stronger economy is to get people off benefits, into work and to start producing higher tax returns


Lets Get Brexit Done !!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My own personal view is that we should have a multi-tier benefits system in place. I really think there is a genuine need to put people into different classifications of claimant.

 

I'd classify them as :-

 

1. Unemployed

2. Incapacitated/Disabled

3. Unemployable

4. Career Claimants

 

Unemployed - in this context I'd classify the unemployed as those people who have worked, want to work and for reasons not of their own making don't currently have a job to go to. People who would take a suitable job tomorrow given the opportunity. These people should receive a far higher benefits entitlement to that which they currently receive, based on a % of their average earnings over the last 3 years as an example.

 

Incapacitated/Disabled - based on medical evidence, if these people are deemed to be genuinely unfit to work, then they should receive a benefits package that affords them a decent standard of living to at least the same level as a full-time NMW worker.

 

Unemployable - those without any skills, qualifications or desire to work. These people should receive much lower benefits than the genuinely unemployed. Those in this category who wish to receive enhanced benefits could progress by doing some vocational training or adult education courses to make them more employable. Opportunities should be there for them, if they take them then they receive more money, if not then they don't.

 

Career Claimants - those who have never worked, have no desire to ever work and are content to let the state provide for them. These people should be on the bare minimum of benefits.

 

I've never quite understood why people in the "unemployed" category should be treated the same as those in the "career claimant" category. If people want to complain about the unfairness of the benefits system then how about starting with the inherent unfairness that exists within it, where a genuine jobseeker can be treated worse than a claimant who has no intention of working. A tiered system gives people choice and opportunity as to how they are treated by the system. You want to progress - great, we'll help you. You want to sit on your backside watching Jeremy Kyle - fine, but accept the consequences. Personal choices.


I’m not prejudiced, I hate everybody equally

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Career Claimants - those who have never worked, have no desire to ever work and are content to let the state provide for them. These people should be on the bare minimum of benefits.

 

Sadly this group is often the one where they have spawned multiple offspring and you can bet it won't be the claimant who suffers first following any cuts but the kids will.

 

No I don't know what the answer is..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My own personal view is that we should have a multi-tier benefits system in place. I really think there is a genuine need to put people into different classifications of claimant.

 

I'd classify them as :-

 

1. Unemployed

2. Incapacitated/Disabled

3. Unemployable

4. Career Claimants

 

Unemployed - in this context I'd classify the unemployed as those people who have worked, want to work and for reasons not of their own making don't currently have a job to go to. People who would take a suitable job tomorrow given the opportunity. These people should receive a far higher benefits entitlement to that which they currently receive, based on a % of their average earnings over the last 3 years as an example.

 

Incapacitated/Disabled - based on medical evidence, if these people are deemed to be genuinely unfit to work, then they should receive a benefits package that affords them a decent standard of living to at least the same level as a full-time NMW worker.

 

Unemployable - those without any skills, qualifications or desire to work. These people should receive much lower benefits than the genuinely unemployed. Those in this category who wish to receive enhanced benefits could progress by doing some vocational training or adult education courses to make them more employable. Opportunities should be there for them, if they take them then they receive more money, if not then they don't.

 

Career Claimants - those who have never worked, have no desire to ever work and are content to let the state provide for them. These people should be on the bare minimum of benefits.

 

I've never quite understood why people in the "unemployed" category should be treated the same as those in the "career claimant" category. If people want to complain about the unfairness of the benefits system then how about starting with the inherent unfairness that exists within it, where a genuine jobseeker can be treated worse than a claimant who has no intention of working. A tiered system gives people choice and opportunity as to how they are treated by the system. You want to progress - great, we'll help you. You want to sit on your backside watching Jeremy Kyle - fine, but accept the consequences. Personal choices.

 

I agree with most of that in principle. It actually returns to the spirit of the welfare state as it was originally envisaged. There may be some practicality issues about how you define the groups of Unemployed, Unemployable and Career Claimants, but I'm sure it could be made to work if the will was there.


"it is a well known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Germany they have a system whereby if you've worked a certain amount of time you get I think it's 70% of salary for a fixed time period. People who've run out of contributions or never worked on the other hand get the bare minimum and have to take the first job they're offered by the government employment agency or else they're left with nothing. Means noone is long term unemployed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

another aspect is housing costs. There are plenty of areas of the country where you can spend almost half a reasonable salary to live in conditions.

If you are on benefits and have kids, living in decent conditions is not unreasonable. But if it is something working people cannot afford there is a problem.


"You clearly have never met Bob8 then, he's like a veritable Bryan Ferry of RL." - Johnoco 19 Jul 2014

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mhairi Black: her first speech to the House of Commons

 


"it is a well known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mhairi Black: her first speech to the House of Commons

 

She makes very good points in there about the welfare state.  She also makes good points about the Labour appeasers of the Tory policies.


“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime" - Mark Twain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She makes very good points in there about the welfare state. She also makes good points about the Labour appeasers of the Tory policies.

It would seem not everyone agrees. (not safe for work)

Edited by Griff9of13

"it is a well known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

From Full Fact Org: Is benefit fraud at a “record high”?

 

"While this has seen a concurrent growth in fraud in cash terms, the level of fraud as a proportion of the size of the benefits bill has actually remained fairly constant between 0.6% and 0.8% in the past five years, and actually fell in the most recent year."

Thats the amount they catch,not the amount that do it. Fraudsters are hardly going to hold their hand up and admit to it are they.

Nobody knows how much is being frauduently claimed or ever will

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to announce my candidency for Prime Minister of Benefits Britain.

 

Instead of wasting Hard Working TaxpayersTM money on the Office for National Statistics, I will be basing all of my policy decisions on anecdotes provided to me by my Minister for Curtain Twitching - "back to the future".

Nice one finally a bit of humour from the lefty doom and gloom merchants

Yeah i accept your  nomination

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats the amount they catch,not the amount that do it. Fraudsters are hardly going to hold their hand up and admit to it are they.

Nobody knows how much is being frauduently claimed or ever will

Admit it, you haven't read it have you? :rolleyes:


"it is a well known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is perception: British public wrong about nearly everything, survey shows

 

There is an extremely good comment in the comments section (rare I know :rolleyes:):

 

"The brilliant 'thinking, fast and slow' explains why our instinct for stats will generally be wrong because the process the brain goes through, not deliberately but by its fundamental nature. It will substitute a question 'how often/how many...' with 'how easy is it to recall instances of...'. The answer to that is affected by many other factors than fact - recent events, sensational easy to remember examples from the news, whether it has happened to you etc.

We are much better at remembering examples than guessing at the stats. Lesson is we need to learn that we are bad instinctive staticians and that we need to know the real figures before judging."

The research, carried out by Ipsos Mori from a phone survey of 1,015 people aged 16 to 75, lists ten misconceptions held by the British public. Among the biggest misconceptions are:

- Benefit fraud: the public think that £24 of every £100 of benefits is fraudulently claimed. Official estimates are that just 70 pence in every £100 is fraudulent - so the public conception is out by a factor of 34.

 

Wow thats a huge poll and a phone survey,who the hell are going to admit they are cheating the state?

Cant imagine many pensioners fiddling the state.

It says Official "Estimates",well i dont think any government would like to admit to the real figure

These people dont live in the real world

And given the errors the pollsters made at the last election,which idiots are going to believe this tosh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Admit it, you haven't read it have you? :rolleyes:

What for its bull

Benefit fraud is rife in my town and while you may not believe it there are Benefits Streets/Estates all over the Northwest.We work within the Social Housing sector as Contractors based all over the NW,my teams see it daily

People working on the side whilst claiming

Single mothers claiming housing benefit while boyfriend(who work) live with them

But if you want to believe some article thats your choice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeez its Tony Benn,Ken Livingstone or Arthur Scargill in a Skirt

Thankfully the scots have got her

That made me laugh.  The idea of Arthur Scargill in a skirt is hilarious! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That made me laugh.  The idea of Arthur Scargill in a skirt is hilarious! 

Me too

He was a true socialist,well thats what he liked to be known as ,communist was more apt.

The NUM call him differently now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

He was a true socialist,well thats what he liked to be known as ,

 

Scargill Socialism:

Spend the day on the 'front line' to show solidarity with the working man

Travel back to London (on a ticket paid for by the miners union subscriptions)

Settle down to his nice 3 course meal (subsidised by the miners unions subscriptions) in his million pound London apartment (entirely paid for by the miners subscriptions) to then do a bit of shopping using his big fat salary (paid for entirely by the miners subscriptions) 

 

Oh what a life socialism affords people !


Lets Get Brexit Done !!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeez its Tony Benn,Ken Livingstone or Arthur Scargill in a Skirt

Thankfully the scots have got her

 

This young lady has achieved more in her 20 years here than you will ever do in a lifetime and all you can do is sneer at her because she points out that the poor having to rely on foodbanks in the 21st century in what is one of the richest countries in the world is a bad thing. 


"it is a well known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...