For all the benefit frothers out there

moggylover

lemonjelly wrote: »

And therein lies the dichotomy which we face...

edit, i typed a very long post about this, & internet connection dropped for a few seconds. I'm sorry, I can't remember it all or be @rsed to type it all again!

Oh LOL LJ, been there so many times and it really is frustrating:D

I'm not one to judge other people harshly unless I know their life story pretty well and usually find then that I find myself asking whether I would actually do any better if I had worn their shoes:o

I think that takes a degree of honesty about our own good, bad and indifferent characteristics that I see a lot of posters being way less than willing to admit:D

StevieJ

carolt wrote: »

Rubbish - my point was that I have been there! but I was working!!!

I have compassion for the needy - but none for the lazy.

I have no patience with the rich who rip us off either; read my back posts and you'll see that my anger is directed at all those who rip us off, whether they be bankers or benefit fraudsters.

I may have missed your explanation somewhere along the line but why were you so poor if you were both working, presumably in decent jobs?

carolt

lemonjelly wrote: »

However, there is another issue raised here. What do we mean by disposable income? Are we saying that a person on benefits should be denied sufficient income to take part in some forms of leisure activities? I'm not sure that is something I'd be happy with...

I would really like to see a system where benefits reduced over time so that someone who'd been paying in for years but had just lost their job received a far greater amount to keep them going whilst they looked (temporarily) for work; but that after that time (a year, maybe, or 2?), that amount was drastically reduced.

Because there has to be some incentive to work. For all of us on this forum, we have an incentive to work that is not purely financial, as SingleSue has said many times, very eloquently, it's about self-respect, too; also about using your brain, setting an example for your kids, etc.

BUT the fact remains that there are "1.4 million people in the UK have been on unemployment benefit for nine or more of the last 10 years."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/26/coalition-welfare-reforms-duncan-smith

We need to remove incentives to just not bother - if long-term, you have enough to cover all your leisure activities, on top of your essentials, with a secure home paid for by LHA, what incentive is there to work?

Whether or not you think this is a moral question, it is clear that the economy at the moment cannot sustain supporting these people.

I'm very much a can-do sort of person; I don't really believe that there is anyone who can't contribute back to society in some way. Even most people who are disabled can give something back; many can work in some way and would like to. On this forum, Pobby has written eloquently about his working despite being 'technically' disabled. I think we should be encouraging everyone to have that frame of mind.

I have been unemployed briefly, when younger; I do know that getting up the confidence to get jobs or even apply for them gets harder the longer you're on the dole. But necessity is the mother of invention.

If the alternative was pretty unpalatable, I suspect many of those who 'can't find a job' now would try that bit harder and might even surprise themselves!

Moreover, as a country, we simply can't afford to keep mollycoddling them.

I'd like to see much more entrpreneurial education in schools - instead of this passive 'gissa job' approach, I'd like to see people in areas without work start off their own businesses. I did it, and I'm far from a 'natural' entrepreneur; but needs musted (?), so I did.

Employment opportunities aren't static. Together, we can increase both our own incomes and make Britain a world leader again.

Ooh, I'm beginning to sound like a Tory politician. :eek:

carolt

StevieJ wrote: »

I may have missed your explanation somewhere along the line but why were you so poor if you were both working, presumably in decent jobs?

We weren't working in decent jobs; I was doing exactly what I do now, but teaching is not a brilliantly paid job, and I could only work part-time, when I could get help from family with childcare (we couldn't have afforded childcare and there were no child tax credits or childcare tax credits in those days to help out). OH was much lower in his career, with no opportunity for overtime.

Plus we lived in London, for both our jobs, and had the resultant housing/travel costs.

We were always literally a few pounds above the cut-off points for qualifying for housing benefit etc - but there was no taper - you either qualified or you didn't.

moggylover

carolt wrote: »

I would really like to see a system where benefits reduced over time so that someone who'd been paying in for years but had just lost their job received a far greater amount to keep them going whilst they looked (temporarily) for work; but that after that time (a year, maybe, or 2?), that amount was drastically reduced.

Because there has to be some incentive to work. For all of us on this forum, we have an incentive to work that is not purely financial, as SingleSue has said many times, very eloquently, it's about self-respect, too; also about using your brain, setting an example for your kids, etc.

BUT the fact remains that there are "1.4 million people in the UK have been on unemployment benefit for nine or more of the last 10 years."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/26/coalition-welfare-reforms-duncan-smith

We need to remove incentives to just not bother - if long-term, you have enough to cover all your leisure activities, on top of your essentials, with a secure home paid for by LHA, what incentive is there to work?

Whether or not you think this is a moral question, it is clear that the economy at the moment cannot sustain supporting these people.

I'm very much a can-do sort of person; I don't really believe that there is anyone who can't contribute back to society in some way. Even most people who are disabled can give something back; many can work in some way and would like to. On this forum, Pobby has written eloquently about his working despite being 'technically' disabled. I think we should be encouraging everyone to have that frame of mind.

I have been unemployed briefly, when younger; I do know that getting up the confidence to get jobs or even apply for them gets harder the longer you're on the dole. But necessity is the mother of invention.

If the alternative was pretty unpalatable, I suspect many of those who 'can't find a job' now would try that bit harder and might even surprise themselves!

Moreover, as a country, we simply can't afford to keep mollycoddling them.

I'd like to see much more entrpreneurial education in schools - instead of this passive 'gissa job' approach, I'd like to see people in areas without work start off their own businesses. I did it, and I'm far from a 'natural' entrepreneur; but needs musted (?), so I did.

Employment opportunities aren't static. Together, we can increase both our own incomes and make Britain a world leader again.

Ooh, I'm beginning to sound like a Tory politician. :eek:

I don't actually disagree with any of that, but I suspect we might disagree on where to start:) As I said, I would like all the figures to be given in an undressed, totally honest, post-code linked individual way, i.e. this number on Incap (or whatever it is called now) costing so and so, and this many of those on DLA costing so and so, and this many on pensions, and this many of those on pension credit and this many on family tax credits costing so and so, etc.

I can't even get to see those figures broken down that clearly when I am being asked to forecast "potential social effects" of a particular economic strategy;) How we gonna solve it if we don't admit exactly HOW it is broken.

I actually suspect that the problem would be much simpler to address when broken down like that, but I also think that it would mean admitting that there is a fundamental lack of interest in addressing these problems from those who are rich enough to never feel the affects (at any level) which is a very large part of the ongoing problem.

As regards entrepreneurial attempts, there are only so many things that can be done in this way. The ones that the Country REALLY needs is some fairly expensive and hefty investment in a larger manufacturing base which gives much more solid jobs and prospects. Not many who come from under-priviledged areas are going to be able to get the kind of funding this sort of thing needs in order to start up, and those that have the wherewithall often want far too large a personal wealth return to be interested.

lostinrates

moggylover wrote: »

As regards entrepreneurial attempts, there are only so many things that can be done in this way. The ones that the Country REALLY needs is some fairly expensive and hefty investment in a larger manufacturing base which gives much more solid jobs and prospects. Not many who come from under-priviledged areas are going to be able to get the kind of funding this sort of thing needs in order to start up, and those that have the wherewithall often want far too large a personal wealth return to be interested.

I think we need both. Loads of 9-6/year round jobs don't always help, for example, parents, wanting to work but have lots of face time with their children. working from home could be a solution for some (I think its possibly good for children to actually see and appreciate work, ) but also a more adatable approach to work generally.

mbga9pgf

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.

Bar people on the street, I am yet to find a single person "in poverty" In the UK. it doesnt exist. Stealing money off people who have done alright for themselves to give to lazy @rseholes that should have worked harder at school instead of dossing around is not right.

ninky_2

ILW wrote: »

As before, Fags, Beer, Sky Sports, £100 trainers for the kids.

absolute rubbish. if this happens it is funded by credit cards. and therefore no more 'affordable' to them than to others.

ninky_2

carolt wrote: »

We weren't working in decent jobs; I was doing exactly what I do now, but teaching is not a brilliantly paid job, and I could only work part-time, when I could get help from family with childcare (we couldn't have afforded childcare and there were no child tax credits or childcare tax credits in those days to help out). OH was much lower in his career, with no opportunity for overtime.

Plus we lived in London, for both our jobs, and had the resultant housing/travel costs.

We were always literally a few pounds above the cut-off points for qualifying for housing benefit etc - but there was no taper - you either qualified or you didn't.

yes but carolt apart from the actual income your situation brought you prospects - which have a cash value in themselves. therefore your situation was far less 'poor' than those on benefits.

carolt

Where's your proof for this ninky? You object to others posting this, but you have no more proof of your assertion than s/he does.

The fact is we've all seen plenty of people on benefits who smoke/drink/have Sky/wear brands.

How do you know this is all on credit?