The “What does the government spend our money on?” quiz results/discussion

beer_tins

Just to follow up, an asylum seeker over 25 gets £42.16 a week (less than half what a pensioner gets as I mentioned). An asylum seeker aged 18 or over, but under 25 gets £33.39.

I wouldn't like to try to live on that...

Unity

beinerts wrote: »

I don't know any up to date figures, but asylum seekers get around £40 a week, less than half of what a pensioner gets. This puts them well below the poverty line.

They also live in squalid conditions, often in housing that council tenants have turned down (council tenants have a right to refuse, asylum seekers do not).

They get less financial support here than in most other European countries. The idea that Britain is a 'soft touch' on asylum seekers is a myth.

Sorry to bang on, but I don't believe anyone who has visited the home of an asylum seeker (as I have) would still claim that they have it easy in any way.

BTW no asylum seeker is 'illegal' by definition. Illegal immigrants that enter without going through the proper channels are another thing.

I don't think you are banging on at all :beer:, everyone is entitled to their opinion and sensible debate is never a bad thing.

I am at a loss as to why you think it's wrong that an asylum seeker should get less than a pensioner. Haven't they paid into the system for countless years and yet we still treat them worse than most of Europe and certainly Scandinavia. If a lot of our older pensioners had run off seeking asylum in WW2, rather than fighting for their country, we probably wouldn't be able to have this conversation and would instead be seeking asylum elsewhere.

If as you suggest these people are financially better off in the rest of Europe - why are they going to such great lengths to get here?

I know people who have been living in overcrowded conditions for years and have yet to be offered council housing so they've never had the chance to turn it down!

I am quite willing to accept that you have visited an asylum seeker's squalid conditions, but I would reiterate that a British national who has worked hard all his life and ends up on £50 per week Carer's Allowance looking after a doubly incontinent demented spouse for twenty four hours a day might think he was being short changed - or wouldn't you agree?

beer_tins

Unity wrote: »

I don't think you are banging on at all :beer:, everyone is entitled to their opinion and sensible debate is never a bad thing.

I am at a loss as to why you think it's wrong that an asylum seeker should get less than a pensioner. Haven't they paid into the system for countless years and yet we still treat them worse than most of Europe and certainly Scandinavia. If a lot of our older pensioners had run off seeking asylum in WW2, rather than fighting for their country, we probably wouldn't be able to have this conversation and would instead be seeking asylum elsewhere.

If as you suggest these people are financially better of in the rest of Europe - why are they going to such great lengths to get here?

I know people who have been living in overcrowded conditions for years and have yet to be offered council housing so they've never had the chance to turn it down!

I am quite willing to accept that you have visited an asylum seeker's squalid conditions, but I would reiterate that a British national who has worked hard all his life and ends up on £50 per week Carer's Allowance looking after a doubly incontinent demented spouse for twenty four hours a day might think he was being short changed - or wouldn't you agree?

I didn't claim to think it wrong that an asylum seeker should get less than a pensioner. I think it's completely right that a pensioner gets more. I'm just challenging the popular myth that asylum seekers get it on a silver plate.

As to them going to great lengths to get here, well other countries take more asylum seekers per head of population than the UK (Austria takes more than twice the proportion for example). Do you think they go to great lengths to get here? I think that's a matter of opinion and can neither be proven or disproven. Asylum application numbers certainly don't support the notion that they prefer the UK. My own opinion is that an asylum seeker would stow aboard a ship going to any of the 147 countries that accept his application. If given a choice, he might prefer a country where he speaks the language to some degree I suppose? It's supposition at any rate.

You may know people waiting for council housing that haven't been offered any yet and I'm not disputing that. I was mainly pointing out that people waiting for council housing aren't competing with asylum seekers for the same housing. I don't believe a British family would be housed in some of the places I've seen.

Finally RE: the carer, I agree that that's appalling. However, aren't they also entitled to other benefits and allowances due to their individual situation?

Unity

beinerts wrote: »

I don't believe a British family would be housed in some of the places I've seen.

Rest assured, I think you would be surprised - not pleasantly though :eek:. My OH worked in LA housing management for more years than he'd like to remember. Perhaps that is the crux of the matter - if you are born here it is quite possible to slip through the net.

[/quote] Finally RE: the carer, I agree that that's appalling. However, aren't they also entitled to other benefits and allowances due to their individual situation?[/quote]

If you are talking about an individual claiming, as I think we were, then unfortunately in the case I'm thinking of - no. Whilst their partner may be entitled to DLA, Attendance Allowance etc. the Carer isn't, although he or she can earn up to (I think) around £70 per week. How they are supposed to fit in working, around full-time caring is something I've yet to discover however, unless Stephen Hawking discovers a way to gain employment in an parallel dimension, at the same time as caring for a loved one in this .

Unity

beinerts wrote: »

Just to follow up, an asylum seeker over 25 gets £42.16 a week (less than half what a pensioner gets as I mentioned). An asylum seeker aged 18 or over, but under 25 gets £33.39.

I wouldn't like to try to live on that...

Okay - Contributions based JSA for an 18-24 year old is £46.85, and £35.65 for under that age - not vastly different would you agree? Given that the claimant would have to be 'actively seeking work' with all the extra associated costs that involves - everything from stamps, envelopes etc. to interview clothes and travelling to interviews - I wouldn't like to live on that :rolleyes:.

beer_tins

Unity wrote: »

Okay - Contributions based JSA for an 18-24 year old is £46.85, and £35.65 for under that age - not vastly different would you agree? Given that the claimant would have to be 'actively seeking work' with all the extra associated costs that involves - everything from stamps, envelopes etc. to interview clothes and travelling to interviews - I wouldn't like to live on that :rolleyes:.

I wouldn't either. Not that I could anyway, as I have savings for a rainy day and as such would not qualify!

The job seekers do get extra money for travelling to interviews etc., don't they? They are also entitled to apply for other benefits.

I agree that it's not vastly different, though. I was just making the point that they get less than any pensioner or anyone on benefits. Just felt I needed to fight their corner as they certainly don't have internet access (or TVs for that matter) to do it themselves.

In all, what we spend on asylum seekers is a small fraction of what we spend on "mainstream" benefits, let alone pensions.

We take less than 2% of the world's asylum applicants, despite being the worlds 4th richest country.

I'm not saying we should double their allowances or anything like that, I just wanted to put it in perspective. They lead a pretty !!!! existence (though better than the risk of torture and death back home of course). I just wanted to counter the claims in the more rabid sections of the media that asylum seekers are flooding the country and bleeding it dry, when in fact they account for a tiny proportion of our expenditure.

As for illegal immigrants and bogus asylum applications, I do agree more needs to be done to tackle it and I'm certainly don't think the government should just open the floodgates. I just think as a rich and civilised nation it's right that we at least take the small proportion of GENUINE asylum seekers that we do.

Unity

beinerts wrote: »

I wouldn't either. Not that I could anyway, as I have savings for a rainy day and as such would not qualify!

The job seekers do get extra money for travelling to interviews etc., don't they? They are also entitled to apply for other benefits.

I agree that it's not vastly different, though. I was just making the point that they get less than any pensioner or anyone on benefits. Just felt I needed to fight their corner as they certainly don't have internet access (or TVs for that matter) to do it themselves.

In all, what we spend on asylum seekers is a small fraction of what we spend on "mainstream" benefits, let alone pensions.

We take less than 2% of the world's asylum applicants, despite being the worlds 4th richest country.

I'm not saying we should double their allowances or anything like that, I just wanted to put it in perspective. They lead a pretty !!!! existence (though better than the risk of torture and death back home of course). I just wanted to counter the claims in the more rabid sections of the media that asylum seekers are flooding the country and bleeding it dry, when in fact they account for a tiny proportion of our expenditure.

As for illegal immigrants and bogus asylum applications, I do agree more needs to be done to tackle it and I'm certainly don't think the government should just open the floodgates. I just think as a rich and civilised nation it's right that we at least take the small proportion of GENUINE asylum seekers that we do.

That's fair enough, I totally agree with you as I think I already said regarding GENUINE asylum seekers and thanks for your input.

We are, I think both arguing from the same standpoint - just championing different sub-groups who are treated desperately by the government. Believe me we haven't even touched on how badly treated the disabled are - now they are truly persecuted when it comes to justifying needs for DLA etc.

If the government tacked the real problem of tax avoidance/evasion by conglomerates instead of spending a fortune to recoup the minor amount fiddled in benefit fraud, we might be able to better utilise the time of civil servants in paying out the unclaimed benefits to those who are uninformed or unaware.

beer_tins

Unity wrote: »

That's fair enough, I totally agree with you as I think I already said regarding GENUINE asylum seekers and thanks for your input.

We are, I think both arguing from the same standpoint - just championing different sub-groups who are treated desperately by the government. Believe me we haven't even touched on how badly treated the disabled are - now they are truly persecuted when it comes to justifying needs for DLA etc.

If the government tacked the real problem of tax avoidance/evasion by conglomerates instead of spending a fortune to recoup the minor amount fiddled in benefit fraud, we might be able to better utilise the time of civil servants in paying out the unclaimed benefits to those who are uninformed or unaware.

Yes, I think we are you know! I do think that individuals (be they asylum seekers, pensioners etc. etc.) don't get very much when compared to other countries. However this is largely due to the amount lost in benefit/asylum application/tax fraud plus waste through red tape. Like I said before, we are a rich country and there would be plenty for everyone if there was a clamp down on fraud and corporate greed.

Anyway, I think I've said what I wanted to say on this, thanks for the debate!

guss_2

i was surprised by this. i knew our wonderful labour government was good at squandering tax receipts but not on this scale £169billion on social spending not to mention debt interest payments. is it any wonder we are in the trouble we are in !! rob peter to pay paul. Oh well i suppose they know it will be someone elses problem in a year or so