[Bornblue]

(Original post by Mbob)
I'm not sure what category of 'people' you think I fall into.

You were the one who brought up the subject of the Queen which is totally irrelevant both to benefits and to tax avoidance.

I didn't say anything about whether or not it was right that we should have a monarchy, and clearly said that there was a debate to be had.

What I said was that it was ridiculous for you to say that the Queen 'sits on her arse all day and contributes nothing to society', when she is clearly very hard working. I think you would struggle to find many people in their eighties who do more than her.

I'm also willing to stick my neck out and say she probably does a lot more than you every day.

Get a sense of humor you miserable sod. It was a tongue in cheek gesture.

[ANARCHY__]

(Original post by emkayheych)
I do love a good debate about the benefit system in the UK.
Personally, I think it's utterly ridiculous, and is so lenient about who recieves benefits that it allows lazy people to live comfortably whilst giving nothing back to the society they're milking.
Any opinions?

Let me translate that for you:

I do love to get people angry about something and will fan the flames with a generalised statement about the benefit system in the UK.
Personally, I think all people on benefits are scroungers and everybody on them are lazy but I will choose my words carefully so if you pick up on my sentiment, I can engage in a semantic debate about how that's not what I said.
Anybody disagree with my blanket statement so I can bump up my post count?

[zippyRN]

(Original post by Origami Bullets)
And how much is that going to cost the taxpayer?!

what is the actual cost of Halls or Junior Ranks accomodation on military bases vs the cost of income support, child benefit, housing benefit, council tax benefit etc that is paid to single mothers ...

aside from the way in which being a single mother is one of the ultimate 'get out of jail free ' cards for education , training or looking for a job ...

[Iron Lady]

(Original post by emkayheych)
I do love a good debate about the benefit system in the UK.
Personally, I think it's utterly ridiculous, and is so lenient about who recieves benefits that it allows lazy people to live comfortably whilst giving nothing back to the society they're milking.
Any opinions?

A valid point.

[theonefrombrum]

The problem is that it's near enough impossible without a proper investigation to determine who is actually looking for a job and who just sits around on their arses all day playing the xbox and drinking stella. You can't exactly make a snap judgement like 'he turns up to the JC, wears a tracksuit, doesn't seem interested in jobs we're recommending, he must be a scrounger, let's freeze his benefits'. It's just the way it has to work, most people who claim benefits will more than likely need them and be looking for a job; who is going to be content on £50 a week when there's hundreds to be made and a lot of stuff to buy?

Very few and so like that person in 'changes' sung, 'thats just the wayyyy it is'.

[Tedaus]

(Original post by ANARCHY__)
Let me translate that for you:

I do love to get people angry about something and will fan the flames with a generalised statement about the benefit system in the UK.
Personally, I think all people on benefits are scroungers and everybody on them are lazy but I will choose my words carefully so if you pick up on my sentiment, I can engage in a semantic debate about how that's not what I said.
Anybody disagree with my blanket statement so I can bump up my post count?

I find your statement ridiculous almost as much as to make me laugh, although I know that was the point. Are you actually against benefits as much as you say or was your statement ironic?

If you meant it, I say this: how can you say people on benefits are scroungers when there is the highest unemployment figures ever, the worst recession since the 1930s and 22 people going for every job in the UK? Are people meant to starve and go homeless, so as not to milk the system?

If you didn't, I look stupid.

[ANARCHY__]

(Original post by Tedaus)
I find your statement ridiculous almost as much as to make me laugh, although I know that was the point. Are you actually against benefits as much as you say or was your statement ironic?

If you meant it, I say this: how can you say people on benefits are scroungers when there is the highest unemployment figures ever, the worst recession since the 1930s and 22 people going for every job in the UK? Are people meant to starve and go homeless, so as not to milk the system?

If you didn't, I look stupid.

Sorry man. I don't like to make people look stupid but I was just being ironic. That said, a few reforms wouldn't go amiss. Probably not the sort of lacerating cuts you're seeing now though.

[Tedaus]

(Original post by ANARCHY__)
Sorry man. I don't like to make people look stupid but I was just being ironic. That said, a few reforms wouldn't go amiss. Probably not the sort of lacerating cuts you're seeing now though.

Oh duhhh

I agree it needs reforming.

[ANARCHY__]

(Original post by Tedaus)
Oh duhhh

I agree it needs reforming.

In what sort of way?

[Tedaus]

(Original post by ANARCHY__)
In what sort of way?

I'm not sure. I think benefit fraud is a right wing dream since it allows people to apply these stories to everyone on benefits and cuts can be harsher, with populist opinion on their side.

However, it clearly is a problem that costs a lot of money. It also needs to actually try to get people to apply for jobs; my friend is on it and he said he just writes a load of stuff on some paper about jobs that haven't got back to him, and they accept it without even reading it. Maybe contact with employers should be easier for job centres in some way, although I'm not sure on what that would cost, if it's practical and even if it is already in place.

Purely cutting to get a pittance just for politics as this government is doing, though, is repugnant.

[ANARCHY__]

(Original post by Tedaus)
I'm not sure. I think benefit fraud is a right wing dream since it allows people to apply these stories to everyone on benefits and cuts can be harsher, with populist opinion on their side.

However, it clearly is a problem that costs a lot of money. It also needs to actually try to get people to apply for jobs; my friend is on it and he said he just writes a load of stuff on some paper about jobs that haven't got back to him, and they accept it without even reading it. Maybe contact with employers should be easier for job centres in some way, although I'm not sure on what that would cost, if it's practical and even if it is already in place.

Purely cutting to get a pittance just for politics as this government is doing, though, is repugnant.

I don't think benefit fraud is a right wing dream but I do believe it's not as wide spread as the populists like to make out.

Benefits and the benefits scheme manifests in many forms from jobseeker's to disability to, until recently, EMA. I believe that the entire scheme, in all its forms should be scrapped completely and replaced with a more streamlined institution. The pay should vary, according to constituency (i.e. a higher starting wage would, perhaps, mean a lower benefit payout or lower maximum threshold than another part of the country) so that it is localised and does not allow for repeat offenders as well as a fair and balanced payout according to the average standard of living.

On top of that, I think anyone who would like to eligible for benefits should apply for a single, flat base rate which may or may not depend on the constituency. Then, that person can be assessed as an individual to see what other packages they could and should apply for on top (many elderly do not recieve the benefits they should, apparently, for example) so that these people recieve their pay packet from the benefits system as one single cheque which is regulated and monitored by a single, more efficient body.

I don't believe cutting benefits is a bad thing. There is, as in all bureaucratic institutions over time, wasteage and I don't believe we should be afraid in admitting that. However, I can see what you mean about it not contributing much in terms of decreasing the defecit. I suspect that the Tories are perhaps doing this as some sort of political populist gesture but there is nothing wrong, necessarily, with trying to enforce a culture of cutting and 'austerity'. Some may argue and say Keynesian ecnomics work better but that's not to say they are right. We shall see.

[OU Student]

(Original post by ANARCHY__)
Personally, I think all people on benefits are scroungers and everybody on them are lazy.

Including the carers who care for their disabled relative 24/7, who never get a break and get paid around £56 a week? They save the country billions each year. 24/7 care costs at least £3k per week.

[ANARCHY__]

(Original post by OU Student)
Including the carers who care for their disabled relative 24/7, who never get a break and get paid around £56 a week? They save the country billions each year. 24/7 care costs at least £3k per week.

... Look, like I said, I don't like making people look stupid but I was being pretty sarcastic in that post. I would've thought you could detect that instead of trying to rebuff me with statistics and giving me a neg. Well done and +1.

EDIT: Actually, did you even read my post or just jump on something you saw which you didn't like? I quite clearly quoted the OP and parodied her post. lol wtf

[ms607]

It's much more complicated than it needs to be

[Carter78]

(Original post by ANARCHY__)
I don't think benefit fraud is a right wing dream but I do believe it's not as wide spread as the populists like to make out.

Benefits and the benefits scheme manifests in many forms from jobseeker's to disability to, until recently, EMA.

Firstly, the EMA is perhaps the most abused benefit scheme I have ever known. During my A Level time all of my friends who received EMA spent it on cheap cider and fags. The idea of the EMA is so that students can afford to buy books or afford transport costs in order to attend class.

Well A, you do not need to buy books for A Levels, it is only at University that the need to reference everything becomes paramount and B, using £30 of EMA to buy petrol every week (as my classmates did) is not a human right. I did not receive EMA but opted for a bus pass which came to a little over £300 per school year. The EMA recipients would've received a cut-price bus pass, but instead chose to spend the £30 on petrol, which over the course of the year calculated to a much higher cost than the bus pass.

(childhood story over)

Secondly, I think that certain types of benefits are open to more accounts of fraud than others. Benefit schemes such as the EMA are very difficult to defraud because it is calculated on your parent's/guardian's income. The income level is a very solid line in the sand and you are either legible for EMA or you're not.

The chances for people to defraud disability benefit however cannot be overstated. Correct me if I'm wrong but that last time I was in the UK I remember watching a story claiming that somewhere close to over 1 million people were claiming disability benefits?

In my view there are those who have severe cases of cerebal palsy and are blind and paraplegic from birth. Whilst there also disability claimants who have a "sore back". Surely the former scenario is more deserving than the latter? Someone with a bad back still has the capacity to work....there are no two ways about this.

However where does disability begin and ability begin? Because the line is grey and each case is unique, I'm sure that there is much more opportunity for fraud.

[OU Student]

(Original post by Carter78)
The chances for people to defraud disability benefit however cannot be overstated. Correct me if I'm wrong but that last time I was in the UK I remember watching a story claiming that somewhere close to over 1 million people were claiming disability benefits?

14% of the population are disabled. 6% of them claim disability benefits of some sort.

In my view there are those who have severe cases of cerebal palsy and are blind and paraplegic from birth. Whilst there also disability claimants who have a "sore back". Surely the former scenario is more deserving than the latter? Someone with a bad back still has the capacity to work....there are no two ways about this.

I know people with "sore backs". What they have is prolapsed discs. My dad hsd a sore back because where he'd been doing nothing for 3 weeks due to appendix surgery, his back basically seized up or something. It's not as minor as you make it out to be. I have a neck injury, which also affects the top part of my back. Some days, I am in so much pain that I can pull muscles getting dressed.

How do you know these people with sore backs can work? Are you medically trained? Have you seen their medical records?
Don't be so judgemental.

[Carter78]

(Original post by OU Student)
14% of the population are disabled. 6% of them claim disability benefits of some sort.

Thanks for the data, seems a little high though, do you have a link to official statistics?

(Original post by OU Student)
I know people with "sore backs". What they have is prolapsed discs. My dad hsd a sore back because where he'd been doing nothing for 3 weeks due to appendix surgery, his back basically seized up or something. It's not as minor as you make it out to be. I have a neck injury, which also affects the top part of my back. Some days, I am in so much pain that I can pull muscles getting dressed.

How do you know these people with sore backs can work? Are you medically trained? Have you seen their medical records?
Don't be so judgemental.

As I stated in my original post (and you've ignored), each case is unique and therefore must be judged on its own merits. However please do not try to claim that a prolapsed disk or neck injury is as severe as Cerebal Palsy.

I won't presume to know the ins and outs of your life, but you can type and (as you said) dress yourself. This is a damn sight more than severely disabled people can do. David Blunkett is blind yet he became Home Secretary. Thus disability is not a get out of jail free card that implies you automatically need not work.


I also know people who had appendix surgery and were back at work the next day. Do you see how unique cases can therefore not be used to justify a broad policy such as automatic qualification for benefits due to an innjury-disability?

[OU Student]

(Original post by Carter78)
Thanks for the data, seems a little high though, do you have a link to official statistics?

How is it "high"?

As I stated in my original post (and you've ignored), each case is unique and therefore must be judged on its own merits. However please do not try to claim that a prolapsed disk or neck injury is as severe as Cerebal Palsy.

CP can be so minor that the person has virtually no difficulty in walking. And yes, I have met a few people with CP of that nature. A neck injury can be severe. I was actually offered botox injections for mine, which aren't given out willy nilly.

Thus disability is not a get out of jail free card that implies you automatically need not work.

Where has anyone said that? You have to be assessed and need medical evidence. it's not just a case of "I'm deaf" and then you get given benefits. Most people on disability benefits have long term disabilities. Many of which (including all mine bar 4) were present at birth.

I also know people who had appendix surgery and were back at work the next day. Do you see how unique cases can therefore not be used to justify a broad policy such as automatic qualification for benefits due to an innjury-disability?

Excluding the terminally ill, you're not automatically entitled to benefits. You have to prove that your disability is either severe enough that you can't work or means you have care and /or mobility needs.

[ANARCHY__]

(Original post by Carter78)
Firstly, the EMA is perhaps the most abused benefit scheme I have ever known. During my A Level time all of my friends who received EMA spent it on cheap cider and fags. The idea of the EMA is so that students can afford to buy books or afford transport costs in order to attend class.

Well A, you do not need to buy books for A Levels, it is only at University that the need to reference everything becomes paramount and B, using £30 of EMA to buy petrol every week (as my classmates did) is not a human right. I did not receive EMA but opted for a bus pass which came to a little over £300 per school year. The EMA recipients would've received a cut-price bus pass, but instead chose to spend the £30 on petrol, which over the course of the year calculated to a much higher cost than the bus pass.

(childhood story over)

Secondly, I think that certain types of benefits are open to more accounts of fraud than others. Benefit schemes such as the EMA are very difficult to defraud because it is calculated on your parent's/guardian's income. The income level is a very solid line in the sand and you are either legible for EMA or you're not.

The chances for people to defraud disability benefit however cannot be overstated. Correct me if I'm wrong but that last time I was in the UK I remember watching a story claiming that somewhere close to over 1 million people were claiming disability benefits?

In my view there are those who have severe cases of cerebal palsy and are blind and paraplegic from birth. Whilst there also disability claimants who have a "sore back". Surely the former scenario is more deserving than the latter? Someone with a bad back still has the capacity to work....there are no two ways about this.

However where does disability begin and ability begin? Because the line is grey and each case is unique, I'm sure that there is much more opportunity for fraud.

I don't understand how anecdotal evidence really constitutes the removal or replacement of legislation but I was neither for or against EMA so I'm unsure why you picked up on that.

I don't think, with how the framework of EMA was formed, we should be telling people how to spend the money. If, for example, the benefit scheme had a set directive (as does jobseeker's allowance), then it may be reasonable to be more prescriptive. Of course, if the scheme is being taken advantage of, then this needs to be addressed. But just because you spend your EMA on a bus pass and another reciepient on petrol makes no difference; all it indicates is poor financial management.

Your point, again, about diasbility allowance is highly anecdotal and merely conjecture. How can you possible expect to engage in a proper debate about the benefits system if all you mention are 'things you've seen' and 'people you've met'? Your statistic use, if you meant what was typed, is also neglible. What difference does it make if there are a 100 million or 1 million on disability allowance?

Again, I'm sure there are people who have and continue to defraud the benefits system. I'm still a little puzzled as to why you quoted me. I am calling for a complete overhaul of the benefits system to make it more streamlined. There will always be people looking to cheat the system. The issue is how to minimise this as quickly and effectively as possible.

[OU Student]

(Original post by ANARCHY__)
Again, I'm sure there are people who have and continue to defraud the benefits system. I'm still a little puzzled as to why you quoted me. I am calling for a complete overhaul of the benefits system to make it more streamlined. There will always be people looking to cheat the system. The issue is how to minimise this as quickly and effectively as possible.

They are planning on doing this. It means that if you claim 4 or 5 different benefits, (which isn't unusual) you only have to inform the one department and not many. It's only benefits that are for those on a low income / out of work. So, disability living allowance (DLA) won't be in that system; but tax credits will be.