How should poverty be defined given that it drives the benefits culture

lemonjelly

inspector_monkfish wrote: »

call me what you like. My Butler will sort you out

OK;)

You're a £$%^ %^&&% **&%^$%$ ^^&**( and a %&*(%

(Runs away & hides!)

Really2

lemonjelly wrote: »

Does this mean we all generally support means testing in the welfare state?

I do, but not the system if that make sense

lemonjelly

Really2 wrote: »

I do, but not the system if that make sense

sorry, it doesn't!;)

You support means testing, but not how it exists in its current form?

inspector_monkfish

lemonjelly wrote: »

ok;)

you're a £$%^ %^&&% **&%^$%$ ^^&**( and a %&*(%

(runs away & hides!)

get orf my laaaand !!

Really2

lemonjelly wrote: »

sorry, it doesn't!;)

You support means testing, but not how it exists in its current form?

I support means testing.

But the system is to easily abused, and is basicly based on how you know to get around it to get the most money, not on your need.

lemonjelly

Really2 wrote: »

I support means testing.

But the system is to easily abused, and is basicly based on how you know to get around it to get the most money, not on your need.

Now I understand!

FWIW I agree. The system generally is OK IMO, but what I would do is significanlty upgrade the fraud investigations, & make fraud much harder to acheive & get away with.

I think one way to drastically cut spending would be to really properly crack down on benefit fraud in a proper manner.

Really2

To add and this is my controversial view

I would form an opt out insurance policy for the better off (or just all workers).

You then pay xx% national insurance to support the poorer but also have the option to pay in to a wage protection policy.

I suppose I am a bit for reducing state funding of unenployment and shifting to work based insurance.

Really2

lemonjelly wrote: »

I think one way to drastically cut spending would be to really properly crack down on benefit fraud in a proper manner.

You mean the not "pay it back 2p per month" approach.

I would do jail, sale of assets, and any outstanding balance to be paid off.

Then the loss of the right to receive any state aid other than NHS.

What happened to abuse it and lose it?

lemonjelly

Really2 wrote: »

To add and this is my controversial view

I would form an opt out insurance policy for the better off (or just all workers).

You then pay xx% national insurance to support the poorer but also have the option to pay in to a wage protection policy.

I suppose I am a bit for reducing state funding of unenployment and shifting to work based insurance.

Interesting idea!

I'm going to ponder this over the weekend. I can see benefits to this. Of course, you'd need to regulate (ie are you still covered if dismissed for misconduct etc?).

What I would say again though, is that the levels of fraud are probably much higher than most imagine.

lemonjelly

Really2 wrote: »

You mean the not "pay it back 2p per month" approach.

I would do jail, sale of assets, and any outstanding balance to be paid off.

Then the loss of the right to receive any state aid other than NHS.

What happened to abuse it and lose it?

Here's a funny one for you.

I've seen several clients who have recieved benefit & weren't entitled due to their savings.

They're repaying at £3 a week.

THEY'VE GOT THE BLOODY SAVINGS. PAY IT BLOODY BACK!:mad:

Jail is still an option, just rarely taken.

In theory, all overpayments are recovered. I'd recover them much more harshly than currently, as the fraudsters have enjoyed the good times with more then they should've got.

I think the bit in bold could be counter productive.

I'd introduce mandatory voluntary work of 6 months for every £100 of benefit overclaimed.