Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dj1015)
    evidence?
    the majority of benefits paid out are paid to working people?


    its so painfully obvious you have no idea what you are talking about
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Mad Dog)
    I hate your anti-Northern sentiment here. You're implying that nobody in the north is determined to find work, you can't just write off millions and millions of people off like that. And maybe if employers didn't discriminate against fat people they'd be more likely to work.

    Yeah, because no benefit scrounging thieves live in the south. Also this might be worth your time:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/b...f-Britain.html
    For your information. I live in the North. And I absolutely ****ing hate it. I know there are problems elsewhere in the country with people, chav's etc, but in the North it's so much more prominent.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dj1015)
    evidence?
    http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/6539
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by uktotalgamer)
    For your information. I live in the North. And I absolutely ****ing hate it. I know there are problems elsewhere in the country with people, chav's etc, but in the North it's so much more prominent.
    I live in the north as well but I'm not stupid enough to draw that inclusion. Britain has a major issue of what you would term "chavs etc" and it is certainly not confined to the north east.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Some 30m people, almost half the population, receive one or more benefit. The bill for all this is more than £200 billion a year, “£3,324 for every man, woman and child in the country”, and the equivalent of 13.5% of GDP and 29% of spending
    I'm no Tory but I have to say those figures are staggering. I would have guessed at around 10% of people receiving benefits, not almost 50%.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by py0alb)
    I'm no Tory but I have to say those figures are staggering. I would have guessed at around 10% of people receiving benefits, not almost 50%.
    Careful how this is presented, though - that will include things like child benefit (which all parents are entitled to - well, until yesterday), disability benefit and various other things.

    It's not just unemployed people can legitimately get benefits - plenty of hard working people do, too.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    Careful how this is presented, though - that will include things like child benefit (which all parents are entitled to - well, until yesterday), disability benefit and various other things.

    It's not just unemployed people can legitimately get benefits - plenty of hard working people do, too.
    Still, 50% of the population is a huge amount.

    Its rather needless bureaucracy to take tax off people only to then give them it back as benefits, no?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by py0alb)
    Still, 50% of the population is a huge amount.

    Its rather needless bureaucracy to take tax off people only to then give them it back as benefits, no?
    I'm all for investigating if more is being lost in administrative bureaucracy than is being gained by recipients, but I wouldn't want to guess how much that constitutes.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dj1015)
    how is making a disabled person prove they can not work unfair?
    Because more often than not they are being interviewed by people unqualified to make a proper assement on whether or not they can work there are people who could work for a few hours in the day but how is that enough to support them or a family? Also will an employer put up with constant absences for doctor and hospital appointments that a lot of disabled and people too sick to work have to go to?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    They should probably stop the MP benefit scroungers first rather than take it off people who genuinley need it without any consideration of how many children and people will be end up homeless or hungry or cold, it's disgusting the MP's have 2 houses and travel expenses and any other expense they can think of paid for by the public and people who have lost their jobs have to go to a food bank for 3 days worth of food that they will have to make last for 7 days.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    I'm all for investigating if more is being lost in administrative bureaucracy than is being gained by recipients, but I wouldn't want to guess how much that constitutes.
    Just replace the numerous benefit schemes with a negative income tax.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by py0alb)
    Just replace the numerous benefit schemes with a negative income tax.
    Before tax credits were introduced, we had tax allowances. You were given what is now tax credits if you worked and were on a low income and didn't earn enough to pay tax.

    Don't understand why we can't go back to that. especially given the amount of fraud which happens.

    Because more often than not they are being interviewed by people unqualified to make a proper assement on whether or not they can work there are people who could work for a few hours in the day but how is that enough to support them or a family?
    Exactly. I don't understand why the DWP take the word of someone who has seen this person once for not very long, over the word of their GP who has probably seen them for years. The person who makes the decision isn't medically trained either.

    I've had this issue - I and my GP claim that I have problems with my balance, which causes me to fall over, walk into stuff, etc. DWP claim I have no such issue. It's really common with the diagnosis I have too.

    Some people have had their claim stopped on the basis that they said something like "I have a pet". Apparently, that proves you can work.:rolleyes: I was asked today (not for a benefit assessment) if I had any pets. I said yes and explained that due to my disabilities and how unpredictable my parents dogs are, I can't take them for walks.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Its time to burn all who do not benefit the country.
    Purge the land of deadweights.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by py0alb)
    I'm no Tory but I have to say those figures are staggering. I would have guessed at around 10% of people receiving benefits, not almost 50%.
    Not really that staggering when you think of how many people have children or are pensioners.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Llamageddon)
    Not really that staggering when you think of how many people have children or are pensioners.
    Why should the state pay for peoples children?

    If you can afford them, dont have them.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dj1015)
    Why should the state pay for peoples children?

    If you can afford them, dont have them.
    I don't care much for moral arguments on this issue but on the pragmatic side it's a pretty solid investment. Those children will be supporting us in our old age whether they want to or not and not being able to afford children is a very real problem for the young professionals of today.

    If they don't have them then we will have serious issues in the future in funding our ageing population.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OU Student)
    Exactly. I don't understand why the DWP take the word of someone who has seen this person once for not very long, over the word of their GP who has probably seen them for years. The person who makes the decision isn't medically trained either.
    This happens quite a lot. Often, the medical evidence from GPs available to the decision maker isn't great - sometimes through lack of effort on behalf of the practitioner but, more often than not, because the reports they provide are not clear enough - many doctors will not understand the lack of discretion in the benefits system.

    All this means that it is quite easy for the decision maker to prefer the report made during the assessment (if there is one). You also have the "get as many people off benefits" attitude playing its part too.

    All the above is just my observations having seen a number of cases. I have had quite a bit of luck getting medical evidence from GPs in the form of questionnaire type letters which ensure that doctors provide good detail/ consider the issue of causation etc. The answers from these as well as some persuasive written/oral submissions usually save the day.

    Of course cases shouldn't go that far anyway - if a GP who knows that his/her patient cannot work, then that should be the end of it. Alas...
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Llamageddon)
    I don't care much for moral arguments on this issue but on the pragmatic side it's a pretty solid investment. Those children will be supporting us in our old age whether they want to or not and not being able to afford children is a very real problem for the young professionals of today.

    If they don't have them then we will have serious issues in the future in funding our ageing population.

    However...

    If the welfare system was cut back to not include payments for having children, then people should also get a tax cut as well.

    So no one loses out and the state is reduced in size to everyone benefit.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dj1015)
    However...

    If the welfare system was cut back to not include payments for having children, then people should also get a tax cut as well.

    So no one loses out and the state is reduced in size to everyone benefit.
    But then the children will suffer. Is that right? Some will end up in care, which is more expensive (and unfair on the child) than giving the parent(s) £80 a week (child benefit and child tax credit) to bring them up.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dj1015)
    However...

    If the welfare system was cut back to not include payments for having children, then people should also get a tax cut as well.

    So no one loses out and the state is reduced in size to everyone benefit.
    just because your idealogy says small state is good does not make it fact that "people will be better off" by a smaller state, everyone is worse off
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.