Brown to continue with radical welfare reform, privatisations

[poster342002]

How can 59 quid a week be 'too much'. It's been identified by the governement as the lowest income anyone can expect to subsist on.

And I use the word subsist not live.

The thinking seems to be that if someone has a penny in their wallett at the end of the week, they're clearly getting tuppence a week too much.

 

[_angel_]

The thinking seems to be that if someone has a penny in their wallett at the end of the week, that's clearly tuppence too much they're recieiving.

Or if anyone on DSS manages to scrimp and save for something new they've just been 'given' it.
I don't know how anyone with kids manages on the subsistance level benefits, we barely manage because of my carers allowance which puts it up a bit.

 

[poster342002]

Or if anyone on DSS manages to scrimp and save for something new they've just been 'given' it.

True - although I was referring to the attiude of the media/officialdom rather than anyone on these boards.

 

[_angel_]

i would like to see ppl who abuse their benefits have them cut. I know a woman who smokes 20 a day while on income support how on earth does she afford it the money isnt meant for that and it annoys me.

Their money their choice, would you like to be told what you are and aren't allowed to spend your money on.

They probably do with out in plenty of other areas that you can't see.

Should we stop them buying cakes for example? Or alcohol. Why not take their money away and let them live off bread and water and nothing else. That's clearly the attitude some people have.

 

[ViolentPanda]

why self righteous just cos i ask a question...

No, because of the general tenor of your posts.

do you smoke on benefits by any chance?

No. I have heart disease so it'd be a fucking stupid thing to do, wouldn't it?

You still havent answered question is the benefit rate to high then if ppl can afford to smoke (ordinary or roll ups) smoking isnt cheap nor is drinking thats a fact? do the kids go without something so parents can get their fix?

Not knowing everyone who is on benefits, I can't answer your question.

What I do know is that you're making assumptions.

 

[heartof gold]

not assumptions know for a fact its happening no lots of ppl who smoke on benefits have seen it, have worked at a benefits advice centre where ppl came in asking for help and advice with benefits but were sat outside in the waiting room smoking. They plead poverty but they smoke so they have the money for what they want yet say they are poor skint or whatever and cant afford things makes no sense. If the benefit rates are so low they cant be that bad to afford a pack of cigarettes every day week in and out.

 

[ViolentPanda]

not assumptions know for a fact its happening no lots of ppl who smoke on benefits have seen it, have worked at a benefits advice centre where ppl came in asking for help and advice with benefits but were sat outside in the waiting room smoking. They plead poverty but they smoke so they have the money for what they want yet say they are poor skint or whatever and cant afford things makes no sense. If the benefit rates are so low they cant be that bad to afford a pack of cigarettes every day week in and out.

Wow, what a totally insightful analysis. You've seen "lots" of people on benefits smoking, therefore they must have enough money, probably too much, in fact.
After all, it's ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE that someone (say a non-live in partner who works, for example), might buy them fags, or that the packet might last them 2-3 days, or anything like that. The only reasoning you appear willing to accept is reasoning that says "those scroungers, they're feckless".

Go catch a hold of yourself, with your sub-Richard Littlejohn arguments.

 

[Jonti]

How can 59 quid a week be 'too much'. It's been identified by the governement as the lowest income anyone can expect to subsist on.

And I use the word subsist not live.

Maybe so, but a jobless parent living away from their kids gets even less to live on, thanks to the CSA.

 

[samk]

i would like to see ppl who abuse their benefits have them cut. I know a woman who smokes 20 a day while on income support how on earth does she afford it the money isnt meant for that and it annoys me.

Just shows how addictive the cancer sticks are

Most of the cost (if they aren't knockoffs) goes back to the state in tax anyway...

 

[_angel_]

Maybe so, but a jobless parent living away from their kids gets even less to live on, thanks to the CSA.

My ex b/f is on benefits and I receive no maintenance.

 

[treelover]

Peter Hain is to be Welfare Secretary, lets see how this squares with him talking up poverty and inequality: how is cutting benefits and forcing people to leave their homes as will happen under the welfare reform act reducing poverty.

 

[heartof gold]

Wow, what a totally insightful analysis. You've seen "lots" of people on benefits smoking, therefore they must have enough money, probably too much, in fact.
After all, it's ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE that someone (say a non-live in partner who works, for example), might buy them fags, or that the packet might last them 2-3 days, or anything like that. The only reasoning you appear willing to accept is reasoning that says "those scroungers, they're feckless".

Go catch a hold of yourself, with your sub-Richard Littlejohn arguments.

even if the packet does last 2-3 days then its still alot of money on one thing. Tobacco isnt exactly cheap. obvioulsy question is not going to be answered then?

 

[glenquagmire]

Would you ban them from eating anything other than own brand supermarket food? What about going to football matches? Getting the bus instead of walking? Drinking alcohol? Going on holiday?

All of those things are also a waste of money if you want to look at it that way.

 

[Greebo]

thank you, heart of gold, for showing yourself as ignorant and prejudiced.

Before you whinge again about how benefit claimants allegedly spend their money, tell us what vices or indulgences you spend your money on.

On another (v recent) thread, you have complained about the amount of paperwork involved in applying for a job - have you taken a look at a benefit form recently?

 

[heartof gold]

yes i know what benefit forms are like.

Most paper work is a headache. You dont have to count up all your words on benefit forms tho do you?

 

[heartof gold]

nor do you have to sell yourself and write a piece on why you are suitable for benefit.

 

[tangentlama]

Maybe so, but a jobless parent living away from their kids gets even less to live on, thanks to the CSA.

since when did jobless (unemployed or full-time student) dads (parents) who live away from their kids pay maintenance via the CSA?

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

yes i know what benefit forms are like.

Most paper work is a headache. You dont have to count up all your words on benefit forms tho do you?

nor do you have to sell yourself and write a piece on why you are suitable for benefit.

Tried claiming disability living allowance lately then? it has ~40 pages to complete and is supposed to help with care and/or mobility.

Half of the refused applications that go to appeal are successful, which indicates how poorly administered the benefit is.

The latest wheeze by DWP now appears to be stopping DLA if you start work, even though you're supposed to be able to claim it whether working or not.

Why castigate people for the way they live their lives, when many of them are in very similar situations to you in terms of claiming benefits and applying for jobs and getting frustrated about it all?

 

[ViolentPanda]

nor do you have to sell yourself and write a piece on why you are suitable for benefit.

That depends entirely on which benefit you're claiming.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Tried claiming disability living allowance lately then? it has ~40 pages to complete and is supposed to help with care and/or mobility.

Back when I was first forced to claim it, the three sections came in at 54 pages.

Half of the refused applications that go to appeal are successful, which indicates how poorly administered the benefit is.

62% in 2005, IIRC, and that's bearing in mind that benefits advocates/advice workers are fetting so thin on the ground that only about 30% of all applicants use them.

The latest wheeze by DWP now appears to be stopping DLA if you start work, even though you're supposed to be able to claim it whether working or not.

On a related note, I had an IB form come through the letter box last week, the first in ten years after being "written off" by an IB examiner in '97 who long-facedly told me "I'm really sorry, but I can't see how you'll ever work again". I was told when the award was made that it was a "lifetime" one.
I'm aware this is a fairly standard practice, so am I being paranoid if I wonder to myself whether this could be part of the concerted push to assess (as they promised they wouldn't do) existing crips under the new criteria and knock them off their supposedly cushy IB perch?

Why castigate people for the way they live their lives, when many of them are in very similar situations to you in terms of claiming benefits and applying for jobs and getting frustrated about it all?

It's nice and easy to have a pop at people though, isn't it? Costs nothing, and after all, the papers reckon that benefits claimants are mostly feckless and fraudulent anyway.

 

[warren]

Big deal - you know 2 out of 2.7 million. Yes, that's MILLION. That is not any evidence to have policy upon.

What you say about depression simply isn't true. btw you are being stupid if you think you can eliminate so called 'fraudulent claims' (statistically irrelevant). Any system there is will have them - have you noticed that crime has gone up and up and the number of laws gone up and up! There is a correlation you know. The law does not prevent crime - the police do not stop crime. Simple as.

The problem is there are so many fraudulent claims. People with depression should work in my opinion. I would think part of the reason they are depressed is because they are stuck at home all day with no money. When I was talking about odd jobs I was not referring to just people with depression. People with some physical ailments can still work. I think it the problem is getting jobs. Todays job market is very difficult to get work. Other problem people born here refuse to do work that immigrants are prepared to do. It is also time to raise the minimum wage in London due to the high cost of living.

meanwhile inequality reaches crisis levels, oh where is the left when you need them?

Polly Toynbee in todays GCIF
'Almost daily, reports expose the way societies are being wrenched apart as a stratospheric elite stymies social mobility. The OECD, hardly a leftist outfit, notes that wage inequality is rising steeply in 18 of 20 developed nations it monitors. The very idea of "per capita GDP" has become meaningless when rewards are so dispersed. The UK is one of the most unequal, though in the past decade Labour has done better compared with most countries, so our gap widened by only a fraction. That's been done by the biggest yet redistribution to low-income families, though the richest 0.1% are vanishing off the graph. (At a recent seminar, a lecturer said that to represent top wealth faithfully, a bar chart would stretch out of the building.)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2111401,00.html

The problem with egalitarian society and to much state control of industry is you get the economic problems of the French. Top companies such as HSBC and the like do not want to invest there. If top firms do not invest there then the economy dies. The City (and the Wharf) drive the economy of the rest of Britain.

 

[audiotech]

The City (and the Wharf) drive the economy of the rest of Britain.

And produce jack shit.

 

[warren]

And produce jack shit.

What do you mean. It is the central cog that turns the rest of the country's economy.

 

[ViolentPanda]

The problem is there are so many fraudulent claims.

Quantify "so many".

People with depression should work in my opinion.

Quantify "depression".

I would think part of the reason they are depressed is because they are stuck at home all day with no money.

To receive Incapacity Benefit under a diagnosis of depression requires the depression to pre-date the need for benefits in all except the most serious cases.
So it looks like you didn't think, and certainly didn't research, at all, doesn't it?

 

[ViolentPanda]

What do you mean. It is the central cog that turns the rest of the country's economy.

Really? Why do you say that?

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

The problem is there are so many fraudulent claims. People with depression should work in my opinion. I would think part of the reason they are depressed is because they are stuck at home all day with no money. When I was talking about odd jobs I was not referring to just people with depression. People with some physical ailments can still work. I think it the problem is getting jobs. Todays job market is very difficult to get work. Other problem people born here refuse to do work that immigrants are prepared to do. It is also time to raise the minimum wage in London due to the high cost of living.

Can you verify your statement about the numbers of fraudulent claims? Because I think you'll actually find that there is more money lost to official errors and mistakes than there is through fraud. I think you'll also find that the estimates for tax avoidance, evasion and fraud, particularly from those mugs in suits at Canary Wharf, outstrips the level of benefit fraud by billions of pounds.

Lots of people with disabilities can work, want to work, will work - the fundamental barriers are usually the inflexibility of the benefits system when people move into work, the uncertainty about finances, the prejudices of employers and potential work colleagues, and the simple basic fact that many more jobs are short-term and low-paid, which inevitably means going back through the cycle of claiming benefits again.

I'm pleased that you finally got your head out of your arse long enough to talk about the minimum wage and i would agree that it should indeed be raised, but i see no reason not to make any rise country-wide. Weighting in favour of the capital would simply mean more people wanting to move here to follow higher wages.

 

[heartof gold]

Back when I was first forced to claim it, the three sections came in at 54 pages.

62% in 2005, IIRC, and that's bearing in mind that benefits advocates/advice workers are fetting so thin on the ground that only about 30% of all applicants use them.

On a related note, I had an IB form come through the letter box last week, the first in ten years after being "written off" by an IB examiner in '97 who long-facedly told me "I'm really sorry, but I can't see how you'll ever work again". I was told when the award was made that it was a "lifetime" one.
I'm aware this is a fairly standard practice, so am I being paranoid if I wonder to myself whether this could be part of the concerted push to assess (as they promised they wouldn't do) existing crips under the new criteria and knock them off their supposedly cushy IB perch?

It's nice and easy to have a pop at people though, isn't it? Costs nothing, and after all, the papers reckon that benefits claimants are mostly feckless and fraudulent anyway.

NOT POPPING, WOULDNT MATTER HOW YOU ASKED THE QUESTION ON HERE ALWAYS BE SOMEONE WHO WOULDNT LIKE IT.

you do hear this question asked alot only last week i heard someone say how come they have a bigger tv than me when they are on benefits. You cant deny ppl who work do wonder how ppl on benefits afford some things.

 

[_angel_]

NOT POPPING, WOULDNT MATTER HOW YOU ASKED THE QUESTION ON HERE ALWAYS BE SOMEONE WHO WOULDNT LIKE IT.

you do hear this question asked alot only last week i heard someone say how come they have a bigger tv than me when they are on benefits. You cant deny ppl who work do wonder how ppl on benefits afford some things.

Classic one that is. In fact it's a chesnut. Nobody wonders if the person has scrimped and saved to buy the tv or more likely gone down the loan shark route or 'brighthouse' or a 'vanquis' card that charges way over the odds interest rates for people unable to get credit any other way.

 

[Roadkill]

Lots of people with disabilities can work, want to work, will work - the fundamental barriers are usually the inflexibility of the benefits system when people move into work, the uncertainty about finances, the prejudices of employers and potential work colleagues, and the simple basic fact that many more jobs are short-term and low-paid, which inevitably means going back through the cycle of claiming benefits again.

That is very true. The benefits system is far too inflexible, and it's almost impossible for people to move between benefits and work as they need to. There are plenty of people out there who are capable of working some of the time, but who will have periods when they aren't and therefore need the benefits system. The problem is, to go back on IB after coming off it, you have to go through the whole tedious process of applying again - and being treated as a scrounger who's probably lying about his/her circumstances. It's no wonder people stay on benefits rather than trying to work, because to do anything else is to risk the safety net being removed permanently.

What's almost as stupid is that people on IB aren't allowed to do voluntary work. Which is ridiculous, because people who perhaps couldn't cope with a full-time job in many cases would get a lot out of doing some voluntary work, and would assist other people into the bargain.

IMO the benefits system does need reforming to iron out these problems, but I don't for one minute trust Brown to do it. Tbh, anyone who thinks that a Brown government will be much better than the Blair one is deluding themselves. Brown was the architect of many of Blair's social reforms (read: cuts), the PPP and the rest of it. He's not going to junk it all now he's in office, whatever deluded old-Labour types and the paranoid right might say.

 

[heartof gold]

That is very true. The benefits system is far too inflexible, and it's almost impossible for people to move between benefits and work as they need to. There are plenty of people out there who are capable of working some of the time, but who will have periods when they aren't and therefore need the benefits system. The problem is, to go back on IB after coming off it, you have to go through the whole tedious process of applying again - and being treated as a scrounger who's probably lying about his/her circumstances. It's no wonder people stay on benefits rather than trying to work, because to do anything else is to risk the safety net being removed permanently.

What's almost as stupid is that people on IB aren't allowed to do voluntary work. Which is ridiculous, because people who perhaps couldn't cope with a full-time job in many cases would get a lot out of doing some voluntary work, and would assist other people into the bargain.

IMO the benefits system does need reforming to iron out these problems, but I don't for one minute trust Brown to do it. Tbh, anyone who thinks that a Brown government will be much better than the Blair one is deluding themselves. Brown was the architect of many of Blair's social reforms (read: cuts), the PPP and the rest of it. He's not going to junk it all now he's in office, whatever deluded old-Labour types and the paranoid right might say.

totally true about the fear of removing the safety net altogether also once your in work they arent interested that you might need to go back onto benefits if the job dosent work out, once they have you off your books its hard to get back on i believe. Lots of quizzing as to why you left your job?