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

Masomnia

abinanthanb wrote: »

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.

I think this is the crux of the problem no one (well, most people) don't object to giving benefits to those who genuinely need them. It's when you can live off them comfortably and there is no incentive to go to work that it becomes a problem. That's when you get the benefit cheats who screw the system and honest people who work to pay their own way and their taxes.

wageslave

abinanthanb wrote: »

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.

And that's the real problem, fraud.
I sincerely doubt any right thinking person on this board or anywhere else begrudges the widow her mite or the mother her child benefit. But it is galling, to say the least, to watch the sod next door jump into his nice new motability car with his golf clubs in the boot and see the supposedly single mother take delivery of her shiny washer/dryer paid for by social services because one of her children bed wets. It adds insult to injury to find out she also gets an additional allowance for laundering.

Graham_Devon

abinanthanb wrote: »

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.

Good post, and I like the way you see it from another countries perspective.

Trouble with our system, is it has turned into a political toy. This has created a system whereby if you meet certain criteria, you will get generously supported. However, don't meet that criteria, and you won't.

Each person has the same "need". A roof, warmth, food and to be able to intergrate with society. However, take a single person, be it male or female, with no children. Their need is the same, apart from they have no child. They will not get supported even half as well as a person of the same age as them, but with a child.

I find it bizzare, that a 21 year old parent will get full rate of income support etc, however, a 21 year old without a child won't even get enough to put a roof over their heads. When they reach 25, they will get higher rates of support.

That's not "support for all". It's tiered support, and it's all tiered depending on what the government want to achieve. I don't believe you can put one person up against another and put them into little groups.

The government has urged self employment over the years. You go self employed, only to realise you qualify for literally nothing if you come unstuck. Yet someone who loses their job, will get help quicker than you if you lose your work.

The self employed person is expected to have made their own arrangements to guarentee their income through insurance, yet the employed person has no such responsibility.

A system of help, paid for by all, should help all, regardless of their status. The problem is, our system doesn't, and every year, the dividing line between those who will get support and those who won't just increases.

So much so, you now have children next to each other in the same class at school, some who will be paid to be there and paid for good behaviour including bonuses, and some who will get absolutely nothing, based on their parents lifestyle choices.

The above, to me, is an absolute scandal. The only reason it can continue is because the use of "poverty" is now so overused as a way of bringing compassion into the argument, and stopping people disagreeing (as no one wants to be the one who disagrees with helping people in poverty).

All the above has created a lot of resent, and has bought back "class wars" between the population and has even paved the way to breed a whole new class in society.

This class, is what I personally refer to as the "entitled" class. People do not see our support system as help any longer. They see it as an "entitlement". A basic human right.

Pobby

Good post Graham.

kabayiri

I'm not sure any government can create a social infrastructure which is equitable and fair to all. There will always be winners and losers. There will always be 'players' of the system.

I'm sure the govt mean well when spending 150bn of our hard-earned. But does that make people happy? I sincerely doubt it.

Abin makes a really good point. The state has tried to fill a gap left by the demise of the extended family network, and it's a poor substitute.

If - in the process of spending 150bn, 160bn, and rising - we ruin the countries future prosperity for the next generation, no one is going to thank us.....even those living well off the state.

An open question....'cold turkey' works for individuals on Spendaholics (telly), so why can't 'cold turkey' work for a nation?

abinanthanb

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Good post, and I like the way you see it from another countries perspective.

Trouble with our system, is it has turned into a political toy. This has created a system whereby if you meet certain criteria, you will get generously supported. However, don't meet that criteria, and you won't.

Each person has the same "need". A roof, warmth, food and to be able to intergrate with society. However, take a single person, be it male or female, with no children. Their need is the same, apart from they have no child. They will not get supported even half as well as a person of the same age as them, but with a child.

I find it bizzare, that a 21 year old parent will get full rate of income support etc, however, a 21 year old without a child won't even get enough to put a roof over their heads. When they reach 25, they will get higher rates of support.

That's not "support for all". It's tiered support, and it's all tiered depending on what the government want to achieve. I don't believe you can put one person up against another and put them into little groups.

The government has urged self employment over the years. You go self employed, only to realise you qualify for literally nothing if you come unstuck. Yet someone who loses their job, will get help quicker than you if you lose your work.

The self employed person is expected to have made their own arrangements to guarentee their income through insurance, yet the employed person has no such responsibility.

A system of help, paid for by all, should help all, regardless of their status. The problem is, our system doesn't, and every year, the dividing line between those who will get support and those who won't just increases.

So much so, you now have children next to each other in the same class at school, some who will be paid to be there and paid for good behaviour including bonuses, and some who will get absolutely nothing, based on their parents lifestyle choices.

The above, to me, is an absolute scandal. The only reason it can continue is because the use of "poverty" is now so overused as a way of bringing compassion into the argument, and stopping people disagreeing (as no one wants to be the one who disagrees with helping people in poverty).

All the above has created a lot of resent, and has bought back "class wars" between the population and has even paved the way to breed a whole new class in society.

This class, is what I personally refer to as the "entitled" class. People do not see our support system as help any longer. They see it as an "entitlement". A basic human right.

I completely agree with you. Instead of easing the financial pressure on someone who couldn't earn the current system makes him to think of surviving on benefits for life. And from what I read in this thread, I can say that many are actually succeeding in that!

abinanthanb

kabayiri wrote: »

I'm not sure any government can create a social infrastructure which is equitable and fair to all. There will always be winners and losers. There will always be 'players' of the system.

I'm sure the govt mean well when spending 150bn of our hard-earned. But does that make people happy? I sincerely doubt it.

Abin makes a really good point. The state has tried to fill a gap left by the demise of the extended family network, and it's a poor substitute.

If - in the process of spending 150bn, 160bn, and rising - we ruin the countries future prosperity for the next generation, no one is going to thank us.....even those living well off the state.

Exactly! My idea of collecting tax by a Govt is to provide the infrastructure so that everyone can earn by themselves. benefits come in to play when the Govt cannot provide equal opportunity to everyone and it should be aimed to equip the individual to become competitive enough to get a job. The failure of the current benefit system followed by UK govt is in not making the benefit claimants to get out of it. When that happens we can see UK prosper.

On a side note, its atrocious to spend 9% of the GDP just on benefits and that doesn't even include the spending on health and education!!!

MissMoneypenny

Having read how easy it is to claim for child tax credits without offering proof, perhaps the time has come to ask for DNA proof that the child is theirs before claiments are awarded, as they do in the USA? Maybe even limit the number of children the state will pay for too and use the claiments DNA samples to uphold this?

My australian sister tells me that only single parents can claim this in Oz and they have to claim every week restrospectively, with proof. The money they are paid is set so low, that even someone who works full time as a cleaner, would earn more than receiving these benefits. They also get a reduced charge (not free) when they visit a GP and reduced charges for schools.

I recently spoken to someone who lives in Italy, they told me that council houses are not "for life" over there. Each year the state housing tenants have to provide proof of their previous years income and their rent is worked out on those figures. The rent can be set as high as private housing or they can be told to vacate the property. Pregant young girls do not get state help either, as they become the responsibility of both sets of parents.

Lifeisbutadream

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

Having read how easy it is to claim for child tax credits without offering proof, perhaps the time has come to ask for DNA proof that the child is theirs before claiments are awarded, as they do in the USA? Maybe even limit the number of children the state will pay for too and use the claiments DNA samples to uphold this?

My australian sister tells me that only single parents can claim this in Oz and they have to claim every week restrospectively, with proof. The money they are paid is set so low, that even someone who works full time as a cleaner, would earn more than receiving these benefits. They also get a reduced charge (not free) when they visit a GP and reduced charges for schools.

I recently spoken to someone who lives in Italy, they told me that council houses are not "for life" over there. Each year the state housing tenants have to provide proof of their previous years income and their rent is worked out on those figures. The rent can be set as high as private housing or they can be told to vacate the property. Pregant young girls do not get state help either, as they become the responsibility of both sets of parents.

Imagine the outcry if people in this country had to prove things!!! :eek:

Surely that would be a violation of their human rights :mad:

And a pregnany young girl being the responsibility of her parents??? no!!!

lostinrates

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

I recently spoken to someone who lives in Italy, they told me that council houses are not "for life" over there. Each year the state housing tenants have to provide proof of their previous years income and their rent is worked out on those figures. The rent can be set as high as private housing or they can be told to vacate the property. Pregant young girls do not get state help either, as they become the responsibility of both sets of parents.

I don't know how this works: but Italian systems are full of beaurocracies with a thousand ways round them. I have seen advertised sublets of council flats in Italy.

Incidently, even as an EU and entitled to live there bod I had the standard check up: your name must be in the doorbell for your front door (a thing that shocked me and most Brits would be in uproar over for orivacy and security fears) and they ring to check you live there. There are ways round that: but at least Italy tries to monitor. (at some cost I imagine)