How Bloody Much?!

Generali

michaels wrote: »

Whilst I maty agree with the sentiments expressed this thread smacks too much of those by DecentLivingWage - presented in an emotive manner with no figures to back up the contentions or even a poll to gauge the opinion of the board and hence it has attracted replies from those who support the general theory but is not realy adding a lot to the debate I feel.

Just my two pence worth as normally Mr Gs posts are both informative and supported by data.

TBH it's meant to be a follow on to those how much income is too much threads.

If £70,000 a year is too much in benefits and £53 a year too little then how much would Goldilocks get? How much is just right?

I don't think there's an answer because for a million reasons including not being able to define needs and wants (as an ex-smoker I can confirm empirically that cigarettes can be a need for example).

This really isn't meant to be a bash the poor rant although I think my last paragraph was ill-judged and risks turning this into one. I was going to do a poll. I wish I had now.

socrates

The real fun and games will start when UC kicks in and tenants have to pay their Landlord - where it has previously gone directly due to arrears - add in the fact their benefits have been cut and they have a reduced amount of money

I can see the whole merry go round of - evictions - put into temporary accommodation (at double the price of HB) - and then Councils somehow having to pay the LL's directly again - its going to be a mess

kabayiri

michaels wrote: »

Whilst I maty agree with the sentiments expressed this thread smacks too much of those by DecentLivingWage - presented in an emotive manner with no figures to back up the contentions or even a poll to gauge the opinion of the board and hence it has attracted replies from those who support the general theory but is not realy adding a lot to the debate I feel.

...

I think the thread is valid.

If you turn it into numbers too early, it lacks direction. How can we collectively agree on a 'right amount for benefits' without some concensus on their role in society for example. It seems valid that we can afford a higher figure if you adopt the short term safety net model, but this may not be sustainable if benefits are a long term income source. Should the amount of benefits have an element of variability in them, or be at fixed and guaranteed levels? That's another question.

In other times, or in other parts of the world, Mick Philpotts would be one of the working poor or possibly even dead by this point. You can't use his case as any sort of normal reference point, but maybe it is a sanity check on how easily our benefits system can become distorted.

grizzly1911

Generali wrote: »

I don't think there's an answer because for a million reasons including not being able to define needs and wants (as an ex-smoker I can confirm empirically that cigarettes can be a need for example).

This really isn't meant to be a bash the poor rant although I think my last paragraph was ill-judged and risks turning this into one. I was going to do a poll. I wish I had now.

Whilst it may be possible to shoehorn certain basic categories for 60%?? of the transitory benefit claimants it is when you look at those with more disparate or long term issues from out of work beneifts to real care needs and I don't see UB being the panacea made out.

Of those on long term benefits more targeting of issue and circumstances are needed all of which costs money and has no guarantees attached.

We also have the situation of the London/SE weighting for accomodation costs.

To cut the bill needs some fundamental honesty (which no party will give) and some incisive cuts - we must also be prepared for the social impact which won't be pretty. Things aren't going to get better in the medium term.

Without alternative income, because not everyone is going to be employable, crime and civil unrest will increase even if it is contained again at a cost.

In wide rambling areas that may not be so much of an issue but inner cities and suberbs who knows.

It needs more than just shaking the tree and hoping some fall off the tree needs chopping down and planting a fresh. in doing so acknowleging that we no longer have juicy pears but sour lemons.

Rather than looking at good old blighty we perhaps need to look at South African townships or South American favelas.

Jennifer_Jane

Here's the South African version - rather what Generali was suggesting. It's not as generous as I would advocate, but certainly when I was retrenched (the South African term for being made redundant, or booted out...), I always went into a temporary job very quickly, and had interesting ones as it happened:

http://www.mywage.co.za/main/decent-work/unemployment

I won't quote from it as it's very simple and easy to read, just one page on unemployment.

I used to have a blue card (I still have it actually) which HR would sign when you left to say how long you'd worked, and the benefit lasted for 6 months. But I've never actually taken it up.

MS1950

Generali wrote: »

TBH it's meant to be a follow on to those how much income is too much threads.

If £70,000 a year is too much in benefits and £53 a year too little then how much would Goldilocks get? How much is just right?

I don't think there's an answer because for a million reasons including not being able to define needs and wants (as an ex-smoker I can confirm empirically that cigarettes can be a need for example).

This really isn't meant to be a bash the poor rant although I think my last paragraph was ill-judged and risks turning this into one. I was going to do a poll. I wish I had now.

If this is a serious discussion - rather than more 'benefit bashing' - I recommend the following Parliamentary Report as a starting point - ‘Welfare Benefits Uprating Bill - Research Paper 13/01 4 January 2013’:

http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/RP13-1 (see pages 4 - 9 of pdf linked on page)

Section 2 ‘How are benefit rates determined’ sets out the history of how benefit rates have been set from Beveridge onwards and Section 2.1 ‘Benefit levels and Minimum Income Standards’ compares current benefit rates with recent research on ‘Minimum Income Standards’ and concludes (see Table page 9):

“The…analysis suggests that most people reliant on out-of-work benefits do not reach their Minimum Income Standard. For single people, benefit income is well under half the MIS (net of rent and Council Tax). For families with children, out-of-work benefits cover around 60% of their requirements. For pensioners however, means-tested Pension Credits is sufficient to meet the MIS”.

The most recent research report on ‘Minimum Income Standards’ is here:

http://www.minimumincomestandard.org/downloads/2012_launch/mis_report_2012.pdf

princeofpounds

I'd suggest that everyone look at their council spending and question whether the money is well spent or not.

That would be interesting... what is this register typically called? I assume it's not a front page link for most councils...

The fact that nearly half of workers are getting some sort of benefit is clearly absurd. This proportion of people clearly do not need benefits!

I think that this was very much a Labour objective, to widen the benefits net dramatically. The idea was that more people would then have a 'stake' in the welfare state and support it.

Of course, it basically has the effect of creating political clientelism, which is exceptionally corrosive to a society.

Just to even things out, the Tories have had their own versions of this - right to buy was very much about getting people off the council teat and into the private mindset.

But I think when it comes to benefits it's particularly bad because of the dependecy culture it creates.

lemonjelly

Thing is, our perceptions of the welfare bill are way off reality.

Osborn & co say we shouldn't have the philpotts et al getting £100k a year in benefits. In total, that is 5 families in the UK. Only FIVE.

Almost 50% of the welfare bill in the UK goes to pensioners. These benefits are being protected, probably because these people are more likely to vote, & if we take away their winter fuel allowance then they'll vote for a change of government...

Almost a third of the welfare bill is paid to those in work, but in low paid jobs (or even zero hours contract jobs) to bring them up to subsistence levels. The almost £30 billion spent on tax credits pretty much dwarves the £4bn spent on JSA.

Only 3% of the welfare bill is spent on the actual unemployed. Not much in the grand scheme of things eh?

A recent survey showed that we believe that over 40% of benefits is paid to the unemployed, not the 3% that is reality. It also showed we assume fraud to be almost 30% (when in reality it is 1% of the welfare bill). However this doesn't serve the tory agenda, & instead we have osborn, the daily mail & others lambasting anyone who is a benefit claimant as being the scourge of the country.

In 2010 the total cost to the taxpayer of JSA was £5bn. The governments own figures show that only 10% of JSA claimants have been out of work for more than 4 years. Although 4 years is hardly a lifetime lets agree that all these people are idle scroungers content to live off the state for all eternity. If we were to kill all those claimants today the saving would be £500m or 0.33% of GDP. These people are not the ones bankrupting the nation.

wotsthat

princeofpounds wrote: »

That would be interesting... what is this register typically called? I assume it's not a front page link for most councils...

Just google [your council name] supplier spending over £500

Here's an example link to Birmingham http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/payment-data

The categories of spending are deliberately vague and a top tip for anyone looking to start a business that makes money by seeking taxpayer subsidies is to have a company name that doesn't give any clue as to the nature of your business.

princeofpounds

A recent survey showed that we believe that over 40% of benefits is paid to the unemployed, not the 3% that is reality.

'payments to the unemployed' probably means just JSA.

I think most people, when they really think hard about it, realise that it's not so much JSA that's the big cost. It's things like Housing Benefit/LHA, council tax benefit, income support and the various disability payments.

All of which are paid in large part TO the unemployed but not FOR unemployment. Which I suspect accounts for much of the difference between the 'official' figure and the popular perception.

Fair point on pensions though, you are right this is probably the biggest single item and totally untouched. But inflation is working on that too.