Intereresting article on JSA claimants - massive fraud going on?

HappyMJ

deary65 wrote: »

Any person with a valid NI number is entitled to claim any legal entitlement, it is part of the consideration paid into the NI fund. That is what insurance means.

Contribution based JSA only lasts 6 months. No one is made to work on these programs on CB JSA. Only the claimants on Income based JSA the ones who do not have to have paid a penny in National insurance contributions or the ones who have exhausted their contributions based JSA are the ones asked to work for a bit.

chewmylegoff

deary65 wrote: »

Any person with a valid NI number is entitled to claim any legal entitlement, it is part of the consideration paid into the NI fund. That is what insurance means.

"national insurance" is just a name for an income tax. a person with an NI number is only legally entitled to whatever the government decides they are legally entitled to at any given time (if you want to use the insurance analogy, which is in my view inappropriate, in the same way that an insurance company issues terms and conditions as to what the policy covers).

anyway, the point is that government could just change the rules and that's that, you could try to take them to court on the basis that you had paid NI but i don't like your chances

furthermore, job-seekers allowance is not a benefit only paid to people who have "paid in" to the system through NI, it is also paid to people on a means tested basis whether or not they have paid NI contributions in the past or not.

the slavery analogy is silly, keep plugging away with it if you like, you'll just look like a child.

drwho2011

deary65 wrote: »

Any person with a valid NI number is entitled to claim any legal entitlement, it is part of the consideration paid into the NI fund. That is what insurance means.

Ok so £90bn paid in....£190bn comes out.....

So lets change the law and cut benefits by about 60%, after all its an insurance based scheme.

Whats the structural deficit again? Wasn't it circa 150bn? We could reduce that by 100bn in one fell swoop.

deary65

I think you are becoming confused between a contract with the state ( welfare state) and a contract between private persons. The judge decided the somersett case on freedom to contract i.e it is not the function of the state to decide what private persons bargains should be, if it were, it would be tantamount to slavery.

P.S national insurance is not a tax- anyone with a valid NI number has a legal right to claim benefits.

Graham_Devon

deary65 wrote: »

I think you are becoming confused between a contract with the state ( welfare state) and a contract between private persons. The judge decided the somersett case on freedom to contract i.e it is not the function of the state to decide what private persons bargains should be, if it were, it would be tantamount to slavery.

P.S national insurance is not a tax- anyone with a valid NI number has a legal right to claim benefits.

It is not slavery. You need to put this one to bed.

It's a downright insult to those who endured slavery to suggest doing a bit of community work in return for long term jobless benefits (paid for by the community) is anything like slavery or should even be linked.

heathcote123

deary65 wrote: »

The judge decided the somersett case on freedom to contract i.e it is not the function of the state to decide what private persons bargains should be, if it were, it would be tantamount to slavery.

P.S national insurance is not a tax- anyone with a valid NI number has a legal right to claim benefits.

Erm, wouldn't that make the state insisting on a minimum wage between two parties illegal then?..

Please can you explain in a bit more detail why you don't percieve national insurance to be a tax? Not sure I understand...

Graham_Devon

National Insurance is a tax...

National insurance, or NI as it is often called, is a form of tax which everyone in work must pay in order to qualify for benefits, including the old age pension. By paying Class 1 contributions (which applies to people who are employed) you are entitled to incapacity benefit, jobseeker's allowance, maternity allowance, retirement pension and widows pension (if you meet the right qualifying conditions). For most people, NI is their contribution towards their state pension. NI is calculated on your gross pay (ie before income tax is deducted).

Not to mention the fact the Chancellor has suggested merging the two taxes (NI and Income) to make one simplified tax.

Work to bring the two taxes together would take many years and start with widespread consultation, Mr Osborne said in his Budget speech.

chewmylegoff

deary65 wrote: »

I think you are becoming confused between a contract with the state ( welfare state) and a contract between private persons. The judge decided the somersett case on freedom to contract i.e it is not the function of the state to decide what private persons bargains should be, if it were, it would be tantamount to slavery.

your point is far from clear. you appeared to be saying that requiring people to work for benefits was tantamount to slavery and therefore illegal. if that is not what you are saying then would you mind setting out what point you think this ancient case makes which is relevant to this thread?

P.S national insurance is not a tax- anyone with a valid NI number has a legal right to claim benefits.

it is absolutely a tax, and if there is any such legal entitlement, it can easily be changed. in any case it is irrelevant, as has already been pointed out by another poster, this scheme is targeted at JSA claimants who are receiving benefits as a result of means-testing rather than previous payment of NI.

deary65

Because an employer does not have to pay it, they can pay more if they so wish and an employee does not have to accept it. Known as freedom to contract. Can you explain to me why you think it is a tax and not an insurance i.e calculated differently for different and classes for different people.

chewmylegoff

deary65 wrote: »

Because an employer does not have to pay it, they can pay more if they so wish and an employee does not have to accept it. Known as freedom to contract. Can you explain to me why you think it is a tax and not an insurance i.e calculated differently for different and classes for different people.

because it is a % amount which is levied on the salary of all working people and all employers (subject to certain minimum and maximum criteria). NI receipts are not ring-fenced against the benefits that it supposedly "insures". it is not optional like insurance - you have to pay it, like a tax. the last government significantly raised NI contributions without raising the supposedly linked benefits. the supposedly linked benefits are subject to change at any time and there is no contractual agreement. you could pay £1 of NI a year and still be entitled to the same benefits as someone who pays the maximum NI payable. the amount raised in NI does not cover the things it supposedly funds, and the shortfall is made up out of general taxation. need i go on. it is a tax.

i am now genuinely mystified as to the point you're trying to make about that court case. how is the freedom to contract relevant to whether or not the government can make (non-contributory) JSA claimants do relatively short stints of community work in order to remain eligible to continue to claim state handouts?

surely if anything it supports the view that the govt can say "you can have JSA of £65 a week if you do 4 weeks community service a year" and the claimant can say "yes" and accept the 'contract', or "no" and sign-off and receive no more JSA? that is freedom to contract in action. as previously stated, this does not apply in any way to people receiving JSA as a result of making NI contributions.