For all the benefit frothers out there

lemonjelly

I read quite a lot of comments on here about benefits stuff. Obviously I have reasons for my interest. Unfortunately I'd say that the vast majority of the comments are made without any real understanding of the benefits system, how it operates, & what its purpose is. Unfortunately too many people appear to get their information from the daily mail. (I am reminded of a child I was talking with the other day who said "if it is in the paper it must be true";))

Anyhow, I thought perhaps a little information from alternative sources might be helpful for people to discuss how the benefits system will undoubtedly change in coming years.

So, first off, here is the Cabinet office report into poverty & welfare in the UK. Some interesting highlights for you:

• almost one in ten people live in persistent poverty, and there are 800,000 more working age adults in poverty than in 1998/99
• 1.4 million people in the UK have been on an out-of-work benefit for nine or more of the last 10 years
• an estimated 670,000 households in the UK are eligible for benefits and tax credits of over £15,600 per year
• health inequalities are higher now than they were in the 1970s
• there remains a large gap in educational achievement between children from rich and poor backgrounds, with a 39 percentage point gap in gaining 5+ A*-C GCSEs between those living in the most and in the least deprived areas
• 5.3 million people suffer from multiple disadvantages in the UK
• people living in the poorest neighbourhoods will, on average, die seven years earlier than people living in the richest neighbourhoods

The full report http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/publications/state-of-nation-report.aspx

Iain Duncan Smith will be the person who will attempt to reform the system. Here is the transcript of a speech he made yesterday as part of putting forward his vision. http://www.dwp.gov.uk/newsroom/ministers-speeches/2010/27-05-10.shtml

For more details on the existence of fraud & error in the benefits system, here is the regularly updated page detailing this http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd2/fraud_error.asp In my experience, it is phenomenally rare for fraud to exceed errors in the system (although that only covers uncovered frauds. There are estimates as to how much undetected fraud is ongoing too).

I share this in the hope that a constructive & practical debate can be had, in an informed manner, without the rantings of the daily mail "they're all theives & lazy" variety. Knowledge is power. better understanding of the situation will help us all (including the government) address the problems which continue in the system.

ILW

What is your definition of poverty that 1-10 people live in?

ninky_2

haven't had a chance to fully digest the whole speech but i found this section a bit dubious....


"We wanted to understand the root causes of poverty.
From this starting point, the team refined the work into five pathways to poverty – family breakdown, educational failure, addiction, debt, and the fifth, worklessness and economic dependency.
This, it was agreed, was what drives poverty."

how can you say these factors drive poverty? this puts the causes of poverty entirely onto the personal circumstances of the poor rather than wider social causes. it's also very 'chicken and egg' - family breakdown might increase poverty but surely poverty itself causes family breakdown? equally addiction does not necessarily cause poverty. some very wealthy people have addictions but as they have enough wealth to cover them they don't become poor. also many wealthy families divorce but don't become poor as a result. further trustafarians might be idle and 'workless' but they aren't poor.

carolt

lemonjelly wrote: »

I read quite a lot of comments on here about benefits stuff. Obviously I have reasons for my interest. Unfortunately I'd say that the vast majority of the comments are made without any real understanding of the benefits system, how it operates, & what its purpose is. Unfortunately too many people appear to get their information from the daily mail. (I am reminded of a child I was talking with the other day who said "if it is in the paper it must be true";))

Anyhow, I thought perhaps a little information from alternative sources might be helpful for people to discuss how the benefits system will undoubtedly change in coming years.

So, first off, here is the Cabinet office report into poverty & welfare in the UK. Some interesting highlights for you:



The full report http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/publications/state-of-nation-report.aspx

Iain Duncan Smith will be the person who will attempt to reform the system. Here is the transcript of a speech he made yesterday as part of putting forward his vision. http://www.dwp.gov.uk/newsroom/ministers-speeches/2010/27-05-10.shtml

For more details on the existence of fraud & error in the benefits system, here is the regularly updated page detailing this http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd2/fraud_error.asp In my experience, it is phenomenally rare for fraud to exceed errors in the system (although that only covers uncovered frauds. There are estimates as to how much undetected fraud is ongoing too).

I share this in the hope that a constructive & practical debate can be had, in an informed manner, without the rantings of the daily mail "they're all theives & lazy" variety. Knowledge is power. better understanding of the situation will help us all (including the government) address the problems which continue in the system.

Not sure who you count as benefit 'frothers'. There is nothing in your article I didn't know, and hadn't read (in sources other than the Daily Mail).

I think ILW's point is the crucial one - how do you define 'poverty'?

My children have definitely lived in poverty sometimes, but we'd never have featured on those statistics - because we both worked. We were in poverty because we had £0 disposable income when our kids were little; despite us both working. Yet because our income took us to over the nominal cut-off point for benefits we got nothing - we were invisible to the statistics. Our rental and travel to work costs plus things like council tax ate up virtually our entire income; once we'd paid for basic essentials, like food and essential bills, we literally had nothing left.

Yet officially, we weren't in 'poverty', as our housing costs and paying for our dependents were invisible in the system. Whereas had we earned nothing, and been given our housing/CT, and benefits to cover bills, we would actually have had more disposable income!

No self-respect, mind.

I think the poverty statistics are pants - that's my problem with the whole system.

I think/hope that Duncan-Smith's moves will go some way towards addressing that issue.

Current definitions of poverty are not fit for purpose.

Kohoutek

lemonjelly wrote: »

So, first off, here is the Cabinet office report into poverty & welfare in the UK. Some interesting highlights for you:

It's a shame it's full of weasel words and undefined terms: "poverty", "health inequality", "rich and poor backgrounds", "most and least deprived areas", "multiple disadvantages"...

lemonjelly

carolt wrote: »

Not sure who you count as benefit 'frothers'. There is nothing in your article I didn't know, and hadn't read (in sources other than the Daily Mail).

I think ILW's point is the crucial one - how do you define 'poverty'?

My children have definitely lived in poverty sometimes, but we'd never have featured on those statistics - because we both worked. We were in poverty because we had £0 disposable income when our kids were little; despite us both working. Yet because our income took us to over the nominal cut-off point for benefits we got nothing - we were invisible to the statistics. Our rental and travel to work costs plus things like council tax ate up virtually our entire income; once we'd paid for basic essentials, like food and essential bills, we literally had nothing left.

Yet officially, we weren't in 'poverty', as our housing costs and paying for our dependents were invisible in the system. Whereas had we earned nothing, and been given our housing/CT, and benefits to cover bills, we would actually have had more disposable income!

No self-respect, mind.

I think the poverty statistics are pants - that's my problem with the whole system.

I think/hope that Duncan-Smith's moves will go some way towards addressing that issue.

Current definitions of poverty are not fit for purpose.

ILW wrote: »

What is your definition of poverty that 1-10 people live in?

I'm not sure my definition of poverty is relevant to this, & if we got into a debate on definitions of poverty we'd be moving away from what I intended anyway. Part of that debate would revolve around how you measure wealth, & then we'd get into comparisons with families in shantytowns etc & it'd all disintegrate.

The benefits frothers comment is not aimed at anyone in particular. However I do see a lot of generalisations and knee jerk responses to stories about benefits on this board, & I do feel that people don't understand the full implications of how the benefits system works & operates. There is no doubt it needs reforming. I hope to debate how it can be reformed effectively.

I would not feel inclined to agree that the situation you describe constitutes poverty. After all, you state that you could afford to pay for all the essentials you needed - housing, council tax, utilities, food etc. From what you state, the essentials were covered. You were able to afford transport etc. You didn't have to go without. You may not have been able to afford the luxuries you'd like, but that is something different.

That said, this is supposed to be a general debate, not one about personal circumstances.

Interestingly Labour had intended on bringing in forms of conditionality to the welfare system. Iain Duncan Smith is saying very sinmilar things, but wanting to do it faster.

Working within the system I am well aware of people who are claiming things when in reality they have no real need, or (in my opinion) don't properly qualify. I suspect that benefit fraud occurs more than most estimates suspect.

Conversely I see people in genuine need who are too scared to claim benefits, or who are worried about how it'll impact on their family, or who are put off by the length of the forms, or who (again in my opinion) should qualify but face a 2 year battle through a series of delays & appeals to get the benefit to which they are entitled.

Further, £3 billion a year in errors? Is that acceptable for a system? I don't think it is...

lemonjelly

Kohoutek wrote: »

It's a shame it's full of weasel words and undefined terms: "poverty", "health inequality", "rich and poor backgrounds", "most and least deprived areas", "multiple disadvantages"...

Are you not capable of reading past that?

Or would you deny they exist?

jamespir

whats a frother ?

cogito

ILW wrote: »

What is your definition of poverty that 1-10 people live in?

Anyone who doesn't have a 50" plasma TV hanging on the wall?

moggylover

cogito wrote: »

Anyone who doesn't have a 50" plasma TV hanging on the wall?

What about anyone who wouldn't have a tacky 50" plasma TV hanging on her wall even if you paid her?;):D

wymondham

cogito wrote: »

Anyone who doesn't have a 50" plasma TV hanging on the wall?

count me in then

where do i claim?