MSE News: Government shrugs off Lords benefits defeat

MissMoneypenny

LookingForNipsy wrote: »

Between foreign born population and the immigrant population - you said I used the latter when the study was in regards to the former but I'm unaware of the difference.

I hope you understand now? I have already answered that (look at my quote that you quoted).

LookingForNipsy

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

I hope you understand now? I have already answered that (look at my quote that you quoted).

No sorry, maybe its glaringly obvious but I can't see where you've explained it. And apart from the issue of children of immigrants born here who wouldn't technically be foreign born I'm not sure what the difference between the two groups would be. Is it a legal difference? I'm a little simple at times :cool:

brutus1983

26k benifits and peple moaning that this isnt enough makes me sick!!

i have kids that i hardly see in the week even tho i sleep under the same roof as them becuase of work to support them

if you cant afford the huge rents then move simple as that dont expect the tax payer pick up he tab and stop making a living from breeding

being a perant is not a career its a life style choice

shedboy94

LookingForNipsy wrote: »

I don't think you're having a go, I'm pleased you're engaging with my points although we don't want to get into mammoth back and forth posts so I'll try to keep it brief.

1. CTC is still paid to employed people, up to quite a high income too I believe (40k?). Whether employed or unemployed it seems children pay well. The best cure for child poverty is secure, living wage employment and when that is absent we generally do have to trust parents receiving benefits to look after their children - anything else would be a literal nanny state.

2. On the whole, people want to work. You only have to look at the applicants per post for most jobs to see that. Its not simply a matter of people being too lazy or uppity to work - there just aren't enough jobs! Even if all the lazy/uppity people took any job that came their way a lot of people would still be unemployed so its not enough to say stop being so lazy and stuck up - there need to be more jobs!

3. Agreed, the system needs improvement and simplification. A well thought out Universal Credit System plus a Cap might prove to be very beneficial but the devil will be in the details.

4. Where is this 90% from? Even if its true, nationwide, non-UK nationals tend to be less likely to claim - it might be high in your area though but even the 30% you state isn't the "vast majority" and 2 years is hardly "straight away" either which is what your first post claimed.

5. Again, where is proof of claiming for children abroad - I don't disbelieve you but I'd like to see the details surrounding that. Also, asylum seekers and refugees don't come here to work (although we should certainly encourage them too when appropriate), they come to escape unimaginably awful conditions.

Fraud exists, I'm not denying that but this popular habit of obsessing over generous benefits, tarring those claiming anything with the same brush and treating all claimants as second class, child popping, work shy scroungers is damaging, innaccurate and distracts from other more important issues. People are furious at what they perceive to be high benefits but silent over the fact that full time work on the NMW leaves many in poverty - where is the anger at that??? It certainly makes me :mad:

So much for brief:p

90% may be an internal figure, not sure if it's published, but that is the % of claims found to be corrupted by a 3rd party who isn't a uk national.

When I originally said instant benefits I was relating to EU members who claim instantly.....asylum seekers take a bit longer.

In regards to claiming for children living abroad, it is in the tax credit rules and regulations which is available online.


I do agree that the Nmw is not high enough and if it was it would encourage more people to seek employment and reduce the benefit bill.

rotoguys

shedboy94 wrote: »

90% may be an internal figure, not sure if it's published, but that is the % of claims found to be corrupted by a 3rd party who isn't a uk national.

When I originally said instant benefits I was relating to EU members who claim instantly.....asylum seekers take a bit longer.

In regards to claiming for children living abroad, it is in the tax credit rules and regulations which is available online.


I do agree that the Nmw is not high enough and if it was it would encourage more people to seek employment and reduce the benefit bill.[/QUOTE]

Oh yes, force employers to pay more out in wages! Many employers at the moment are struggling to survive as it is. Heap more costs on them and they will go to the wall. Then there will be NO job!!

Much better to have some wages than none at all.

LookingForNipsy

rotoguys wrote: »

Oh yes, force employers to pay more out in wages! Many employers at the moment are struggling to survive as it is. Heap more costs on them and they will go to the wall. Then there will be NO job!!

Much better to have some wages than none at all.

Well its either a) Force employers to pay more b) Let the government continue to fork out billions to cover the living expenses that the NMW cannot c) Force landlords to charge less rent (significantly less in some areas) or d) Have a race to the bottom that sees the millions more families living in poverty. I can't think of anything outside those options.

We need to transition to a system where if a business cannot pay a wage that at the very least allows a person to put a roof over their heads, feed and clothe their family as well as put a little aside for rainy days and old age - then it is should not be a viable business.

There's plenty of proof that shows this is beneficial for businesses in the long run. It reduces staff turnover and workers earning a decent wage are healthier and more productive - many successful businesses pay a Living Wage.

MissMoneypenny

LookingForNipsy wrote: »

No sorry, maybe its glaringly obvious but I can't see where you've explained it.

Just keep clicking the quotes and it will take you back to all the relevant posts.

LookingForNipsy wrote: »

And apart from the issue of children of immigrants born here who wouldn't technically be foreign born

Now you get it; that is what the report you linked, was talking about. The report did not include the numbers of children of immigrants who are born in the UK who claim out of work welfare payments; it was about the numbers of "foreign born" people (those who weren't born in the UK).

You linked that report to this thread and claimed it showed how little "the immigrant population" (your words) claimed benefits; when in fact the article you linked was about the sample of high numbers of foreign born people of working age, who claimed out of work benefits when they had originally come to the UK to work, study and visit. In the article, the government minister went on to talk about stopping benefit tourism: I guess, as a prelude to their new immigration rules that are about to come out.

If you go across and read forums like uk-yankee.com you will see how upset some "foreign born" people are about these new immigration rules that the UK government want to bring in, to halt the high numbers of low skilled non-EEA immigrants, that want to live in the UK. Those who are highly skilled or do jobs on our shortages list, will not be affected.

MissMoneypenny

LookingForNipsy wrote: »

Well its either a) Force employers to pay more b) Let the government continue to fork out billions to cover the living expenses that the NMW cannot c) Force landlords to charge less rent (significantly less in some areas) or d) Have a race to the bottom that sees the millions more families living in poverty. I can't think of anything outside those options.

e) Teach children to work at hardrer at school so that they can earn a lot higher than the minimum wage. Perhaps let them know that the glory days that their parents had of, living on welfare and welfare top-ups, are over and that their parents' glory days on benefits, now have to be paid for.

When my daughter first got in with the wrong group at school and stopped handing in her homework on time, I took her to the local tomato greenhouses where people spent all day packing tomatoes. I just said that if she didn't get a good education, she would end up like these people and that having money would give her choices.

It's a bit harder for my neigbours with their daughter, as the daughter is already aware that nowdays, if she gets pregnant, she will get a house and lots of benefit money.

drwho2011

rotoguys wrote: »

Oh yes, force employers to pay more out in wages! Many employers at the moment are struggling to survive as it is. Heap more costs on them and they will go to the wall. Then there will be NO job!!

Much better to have some wages than none at all.

Why should the state subsidize employers ad infinitum.

In a free market profitable companies survive, unprofitable ones fail. The act of subsidizing employers who pay poorly via the tax credit system has the effect of propping up uncompetitive companies which can have a downward effect on competitive companies who operate within the same industry/sector.

drwho2011

LookingForNipsy wrote: »

Well its either a) Force employers to pay more b) Let the government continue to fork out billions to cover the living expenses that the NMW cannot c) Force landlords to charge less rent (significantly less in some areas) or d) Have a race to the bottom that sees the millions more families living in poverty. I can't think of anything outside those options.

We need to transition to a system where if a business cannot pay a wage that at the very least allows a person to put a roof over their heads, feed and clothe their family as well as put a little aside for rainy days and old age - then it is should not be a viable business.

There's plenty of proof that shows this is beneficial for businesses in the long run. It reduces staff turnover and workers earning a decent wage are healthier and more productive - many successful businesses pay a Living Wage.

A) That would be to increase NMW and to do so would mean it would need to go up to approx £8.55 ph.

Doesn't solve the structural problem of £202bn in welfare, £90bn in NI receipts.

C) Would not work in a capitalist state.

D) Status Quo.