Benefit fraud

sangie595

dktreesea wrote: »

I never actually said workers were precious, but rather was referring to people who didn't work because they were being precious about what they were prepared to do, rather than just taking on whatever they could get so they were bringing a wage into the house rather than languishing on benefits.


I don't think as a nation we can afford higher benefits. I would like to see housing benefit, for example, restricted to 80% of the actual rent or the LHA whichever was lower. If people aren't paying anything towards their housing what is their incentive to move out and get a cheaper place that they can afford?

And actually, I wasn't quoting you! If you check I was mis- "quoting" someone else who suggested that "precious non workers" were sick and disabled people who "can't". I was disagreeing that that was an accurate statement! If you read what I said I pointed out that I am severely disabled and can work. And that there are people on sickness benefits who will never work even if they can.

And as a nation we can easily afford higher benefits if the only people claiming those benefits are the ones who genuinely need them. I am totally opposed, for example, to the concept of the work programme where people work for benefits for profit making businesses who should employ the people they need. But there are plenty of socially necessary jobs that nobody is doing. I'm all in favor of these being compulsory minimum wage jobs, and doing away with JSA altogether, except, say, for the first 10 weeks of unemployment, to give people a chance to get back to the sort of work they have lost. Full employment. Why pay for armies of people to do next to nothing, or to make money for businesses? It wouldn't cost us more as a society because people would still be eligible for tax credits etc if they needed them. But it would be a working population, and if they don't like their jobs they do as the rest of us do- work on getting a better one! And since unemployed people are unhealthier, it would begin to reduce some of the strain on the NHS.

Supported employment, either in companies or in specialised workshop, is actually something this government has reduced or removed. Get back to creating real employment opportunities for people with disabilities, according to their needs. There are plenty of examples of social enterprises that do exactly this - and the government can't?

It really isn't as hard as it looks. Yes, it involves tough actions that some people won't like. That wouldn't bother me. There isn't a perfect solution that suits everyone. But this solution is better than the one we have now, and it enables to undertake social and environmental employment that has disappeared. There's plenty to do. Why not spend the same money on ensuring everyone had a better quality of life? Then you can afford better benefits for the few that really need them.

dekaspace

Lanzarote1938 wrote: »

I think something like this will happen. I am a firm believer that people do not value what they don't pay for.

Six of one, that will just mean even less properties available for people on benefits, more landlords not getting paid etc.

Many properties are not good value as they are and LL's want to maximise profits

And the inconsistency too, Person A has cheap rent and reasonable conidtion property and landlord, person B has higher rent and is pretty much in a dive.

Person A will think next time they rent they are not getting value for money as they are used to better accomodation, person B already thinks that.

As it is, its hard to find accomodation around the country for the LHA rate unless you pick the worst areas, unfurnished and even then its not perfect.

There is some spots you can though but even within those many would be close to slums.

I remember the last time I had a bedsit, the carpet was old but high quality, same for the furniture, was a bit of a dark property and friends said it was a big run down (I didn't see it as that way due to the quality of the furniture with them it was more the age and the decoration)

Rent was dirt cheap

So I found it a bargain

Bedsits now in that same town are around the £70 mark if you can even find them, LHA is £58 so thats a £12 top up and sometimes that doesn't even include utility bills.

A big overhaul is need of renting in general, I can see LL's and such wanting profit so they don't struggle but we need more short term bedsit like accomodation which is affordable (I don't mean council homes) as right now its expected to do houseshares which mean you can be chucked out at any time (As its down to lead tenant) if the 2nd tenant doesn't pay 1st tenant gets into debt, many flats won't have a lock on bedroom door etc.

micky2phones

dktreesea wrote: »

But sure that applies to all benefit recipients? How many people choose to work part time and claim benefits when they could work full time? How many self employed people choose to work for less profit than the full time NMW, enabled by having a generous benefits system that will top up their incomes instead? How many people choose to rent rather than scrimp and save up to buy a place, because all or part of their rent is paid for by housing benefit? Or choose to have more children so they don't have to go back to work and can stay on income support?

Hi, thats a good point. I was working 40 hours a week and anywhere from 10 or 20 hours overtime, which paid for trips away, xmas etc.

I then met a lady with two sons, who showed me the Tax Credits web page, i was then shown that we could have money by working less hours and no overtime !

I was shocked, i was brought up to work hard for things you want, it didnt last very long as the more time i had away from work all i did was baby sit while she went out. We split and i went back to working as i did before. I still think for a few months i was doing wrong.

IMO the benefits are there for people who need them, i felt we didnt as i had the work to earn money we needed.

In my later years i now need and claim benefits.

dktreesea

sangie595 wrote: »

And actually, I wasn't quoting you! If you check I was mis- "quoting" someone else who suggested that "precious non workers" were sick and disabled people who "can't". I was disagreeing that that was an accurate statement! If you read what I said I pointed out that I am severely disabled and can work. And that there are people on sickness benefits who will never work even if they can.

And as a nation we can easily afford higher benefits if the only people claiming those benefits are the ones who genuinely need them. I am totally opposed, for example, to the concept of the work programme where people work for benefits for profit making businesses who should employ the people they need. But there are plenty of socially necessary jobs that nobody is doing. I'm all in favor of these being compulsory minimum wage jobs, and doing away with JSA altogether, except, say, for the first 10 weeks of unemployment, to give people a chance to get back to the sort of work they have lost. Full employment. Why pay for armies of people to do next to nothing, or to make money for businesses? It wouldn't cost us more as a society because people would still be eligible for tax credits etc if they needed them. But it would be a working population, and if they don't like their jobs they do as the rest of us do- work on getting a better one! And since unemployed people are unhealthier, it would begin to reduce some of the strain on the NHS.

Supported employment, either in companies or in specialised workshop, is actually something this government has reduced or removed. Get back to creating real employment opportunities for people with disabilities, according to their needs. There are plenty of examples of social enterprises that do exactly this - and the government can't?

It really isn't as hard as it looks. Yes, it involves tough actions that some people won't like. That wouldn't bother me. There isn't a perfect solution that suits everyone. But this solution is better than the one we have now, and it enables to undertake social and environmental employment that has disappeared. There's plenty to do. Why not spend the same money on ensuring everyone had a better quality of life? Then you can afford better benefits for the few that really need them.

I was referring to my original post (#222), asking why non workers were so precious about what they would take on for work, and another poster replied, turning the phrase into "precious non-workers".


I suppose with the sick and/or disabled we want them to have the choice whether they choose to be part of the workforce or not.

hign10pines

robotrobo wrote: »

its easy to find out if you are driving around in a disabled entitled car, just enter the reg number in the dvla web site.
Pain or discomfort does not or should not entitle you to have a mobility car, theres thousands or millons got pain & discomfort.
In my community ,i see the bb holders find b/badge spaces & then walk miles to their destinations or shops.
If you are geniune , then you wont mind it being shown in the town hall for everyone to see, it will filter out the fiddlers.
Where i live very close to the golf club, the disabled are not to disabled to go & play a round of golf, but when you see them in town they seem to be struggling, its probably the pain & discomfort your talking about.

My mum has a blue badge, uses a walker and can't walk far or go out alone. She goes on multiple holidays a year with my dad, should she just sit and home the rest of her life.

sangie595

dktreesea wrote: »

I suppose with the sick and/or disabled we want them to have the choice whether they choose to be part of the workforce or not.

Why? If they are capable of working, why should they have different conditions set? Equality is about having the same conditions and the same expectations. Some people cannot work and may never be able to work. But that doesn't apply to everyone. If you live in a society then you should expect responsibilities as well as rights, and you should exercise those responsibilities that you can. Contributing to society by working is a responsibility. Disability might be a reason someone cannot work at all, but it should not be an excuse.

teddysmum

hign10pines wrote: »

My mum has a blue badge, uses a walker and can't walk far or go out alone. She goes on multiple holidays a year with my dad, should she just sit and home the rest of her life.

Perhaps, Robotrobo is referring to the many over 65s who have equal or worse pain and discomfort, but will never be 'entitled' to help with mobility,as they became ill after 65 (Though they could, of course , have a blue badge, which doesn't really help with the expense of limited mobility)

fredandwilma

teddysmum wrote: »

Perhaps, Robotrobo is referring to the many over 65s who have equal or worse pain and discomfort, but will never be 'entitled' to help with mobility,as they became ill after 65 (Though they could, of course , have a blue badge, which doesn't really help with the expense of limited mobility)

There is some help available for over 65's not already in receipt of the mobility component of PIP (pre age 65,) they may still be able to claim Attendance Allowance if they become ill after they are 65. Although it's not specifically for mobility, the result is the same, i.e. help with care as a result of limited mobility etc.


http://www.ageuk.org.uk/money-matters/claiming-benefits/attendance-allowance/eligibility/

http://www.ageuk.org.uk/money-matters/claiming-benefits/attendance-allowance/what-is-attendance-allowance/

https://www.gov.uk/attendance-allowance/overview

Who can claim Attendance Allowance?

You could be eligible for Attendance Allowance if you:

are 65 or over (if you’re under 65, you may be eligible for Personal Independence Payment instead)
could benefit from help with personal care, such as getting washed or dressed, or supervision to keep you safe during the day or night
have any type of disability or illness, including sight or hearing impairments, or mental health issues such as dementia
have needed help for at least 6 months. (If you’re terminally ill you can make a claim straight away.)

Attendance Allowance isn’t means-tested, so your income and savings aren’t taken into account. You don’t actually have to receive help from a carer, as Attendance Allowance is based on the help you need, not the help you actually get.

And you don’t have to spend your Attendance Allowance on care – it’s up to you how you use it. Attendance Allowance can help you to stay independent in your own home. So don’t delay in making a claim if you think you could be eligible.

Jim_Cooke

dktreesea wrote: »

I would like to see housing benefit, for example, restricted to 80% of the actual rent or the LHA whichever was lower. If people aren't paying anything towards their housing what is their incentive to move out and get a cheaper place that they can afford?

Problem is they don't have the money to pay towards the rent, or a cheaper place to move to.
The solution to the housing crisis is very simple. Build more houses - even if it involves slaying a few sacred cows like part of the Green Belt.
But how can we expect the Government to solve the housing crisis when they are making so much money out of it.

ev8

Jim_Cooke wrote: »

Problem is they don't have the money to pay towards the rent, or a cheaper place to move to.
The solution to the housing crisis is very simple. Build more houses - even if it involves slaying a few sacred cows like part of the Green Belt.
But how can we expect the Government to solve the housing crisis when they are making so much money out of it.

Or tackle those abandoned houses, we have a lovely large house here over the road, council house, 3 bed, been boarded up for years now, all overgrown.

There was a lot recently as we drove past one area, we counted over fifty just driving past all boarded up and in disrepair.