" Dat`s another fine mees ya got me in "

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

What does need to happen, no matter the age of the child, is the parent needs an incentive to work.

At the moment, you go to work, you lose a lot of the benefits, ending up a tenner or so a week better off, and there a max cap of 16 hours.

So you are left with a decision of A) Do I want to go to work....maybe a break from the kids, or a "normal" life outside the child, and will going to work be worth it at all.

something else to think about is the cost to the state of this person on benefits isn't just that £23k.

the taxes they would have paid if they were working is also technically "lost"

Harry_Powell

wageslave wrote: »

I think it's 19 but only if they go to college, strangely university isn't classed as full time education

Probably because they're legally adults when they reach 18 and so are expected to shift for themselves.

wageslave

Harry_Powell wrote: »

Are you're saying that they're not both disabled and are not entitled to ICB or are you saying that they are disabled but that their disability is such that one person is able in ways the other is not and so they can take care of each other. For instance, if one person was blind and the other person could not walk, but between them they can manage.

If you're saying the latter, then surely it's cheaper for the state to pay for them to care for each other than to have to employ full-time care professionals?

I have absolutely no objection to the genuine clamants, it's the b**gers with bad backs I object too.

Graham_Devon

wageslave wrote: »

I think it's 19 but only if they go to college, strangely university isn't classed as full time education

Was this recently replaced with ESA? Where the "young adult" gets paid to go to school depending on the parents finances?

Another gripe....teaching them as soon as they leave school that the state will support you and teaching other kids you get nothing for working.

I could go on and on and on...

Harry_Powell

wageslave wrote: »

I have absolutely no objection to the genuine clamants, it's the b**gers with bad backs I object too.

Agreed (if you mean 'bad backs' as a euthamism for 'lead swingers' rather than people who really do have a dibilitating back condition). But haven't the government made recent changes to scrap incapacity benefit and bring something else in that has much more stringent testing criteria?

Graham_Devon

I don't see how they are going to implement it personally.

You cannot medically diagnose a bad back. So you have to take what is said at face value.

Theres a programme on More4, or channel 4, or maybe E4, one of the fours, 9pm Thursday exploring this. Should be interesting. Many programmes about benefits have followed people with "bad backs" which are only bad when they need money, and have been caught out.....but very rarely punished. I remember the last one, benefit busters or something on the BBC. The man caught out with evidence had his incapacity benefit stopped and an order to repay them. But, as he was then on other benefits, he didn't have to repay the fraud. So he just carried on, getting a little less money each week!

Bit like imposing 6 points on someones licence, for not having a licence. Pointless.

loueyn

Wow. I mean really, wow.

I know people who play the system but I also know people who genunely need that money to survive. Just "cut the benefits by half"? Yes, and then we can reopen poorhouses and have the destitute roaming the streets. Just because someone I knew once got x amount playing the system doesn't mean the whole system should instantly be changed.

And so what if a single mother doesn't work and instead chooses to stay at home and raise their child? Good. It's much better that a child be raised properly by a parent than left to roam the streets, althoguh I don't think the people on here are speaking about that parent. Instead it's the one irresponsible one who's breeding with 12 different men so she can stay home and drink Stella.

No-one seems to understand the concept of social responsibility anymore. In my opinion we should be more like Sweden and Norway and start seeing good parenting as something that should be rewarded. This country would be in much less of a mess.

I have no kids and claim no benefits but would gladly pay more tax to have a better, more supportive benefits system.

...and relax... *takes deep breath*

As to where the money for the original post will come from I'm not sure, they'll probably just print a load more.

wageslave

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Was this recently replaced with ESA? Where the "young adult" gets paid to go to school depending on the parents finances?

Another gripe....teaching them as soon as they leave school that the state will support you and teaching other kids you get nothing for working.

I could go on and on and on...

EMA does not affect any benefits paid to the parents. It is paid directly to the child and is theirs. I think the maximum entitlement is £45 per week.

Masomnia

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Was this recently replaced with ESA? Where the "young adult" gets paid to go to school depending on the parents finances?

Another gripe....teaching them as soon as they leave school that the state will support you and teaching other kids you get nothing for working.

I could go on and on and on...

EMA, yes. In my day it was £30pw if your household income was lower than £20k, £20 if between £20k - £25, and £10pw if it was between £25k and £30k. It was dependent on full attendance though, good behaviour and the like, to be fair.

Also there were bonuses of £100 if you got your target exam results, and satisfied all the other conditions.

It was a very unfair system. It wasn't as if the parents of the kids who earned £30k + gave them £30 per week to spend on whatever they liked.

abinanthanb

Social security is a necessity for an individual. I was amazed to see the social security provided by the UK govt to its citizens through different schemes of social benefits. In India, my home country, the govt provides almost nothing.The only security available to an Indian is his family. Considering that fact, I felt that UK govt is almost acting like a family to those citizens who are not earning. :beer:

After reading this thread I just feel bad to know that there are many who abuse the system which is providing lifeline. It would be unfair on those who contribute with IT & NI without claiming any benefits. My feeling is that the govt is not strong enough in dealing with social benefit crimes compared to how it deals with IT fraud.