The Big Benefits Row

[localzuk]

Interesting statistic - for every £100 of benefits claimed, only 70p is fraud...

[tmcd35]

Interesting statistic - for every £100 of benefits claimed, only 70p is fraud...

 

or £1.1 million out of £159 billion (if my maths is correct).

 

Very interesting statistic.

 

So the problem is more the method and ratios of allocating funds - not who the funds are allocated to.

[Garacesh]

Interesting statistic - for every £100 of benefits claimed, only 70p is fraud...

Fraudulently claimed != misappropriated.

They may be entitled to it, but my issue is with them spending it on things that it's not intended to be spent on.

Which I guess brings us back to @tmcd35's question about what is eligible? Is the flat rate sometimes giving too much to those that are deemed eligible?

Edited February 5, 2014 by Garacesh

[localzuk]

Fraudulently claimed != misappropriated.

They may be entitled to it, but my issue is with them spending it on things that it's not intended to be spent on.

Which I guess brings us back to @tmcd35's question about what is eligible? Is the flat rate sometimes giving too much to those that are deemed eligible?

 

Who are you to determine what someone spends their money on? Is it because its taxpayers money going to them? How about you extend that to other people who receive taxpayers money? Us.

 

Morally, to me, you simply don't have that right to determine how someone else lives their life.

 

It is intended to allow someone to live a life without being out on the street. That's about as far as it goes in my view.

 

or £1.1 million out of £159 billion (if my maths is correct).

 

Very interesting statistic.

 

So the problem is more the method and ratios of allocating funds - not who the funds are allocated to.

 

£1.13 billion out of £159 billion.

Edited February 5, 2014 by localzuk

[Earthling]

Nope, I don't like any of those things either. You seem to think I only dislike people misappropriating their benefit money. I don't. I dislike all misappropriations. Like I've said to you previously, I'm keeping in context with this thread, which is about benefits. Please stop dredging this up.

 

That's the impression your posts give.

 

Why shouldn't these things be mentioned in the same context?

[tmcd35]

This is an interesting, if slightly outdated (2010) Beeb article on the subject...

 

BBC News - Guide to most costly UK benefits

 

Biggest Welfare spend goes to Tax Credits - propping up crap wages

Followed by Housing Benefit - money paid directly to Land lords

Then Child Benefit - available to all, even the super rich

 

Finally we get down to disability, income support, and incapacity benefits - the big three this thread is targeting appear quiet low down in the total UK Welfare budget...

 

 

EDIT: child benefit was stopped last year if one parent earns more than £60,000 (tappered after £50,000). But I think they still get it if both earn less and the total is more (eg. Both earn £49,999 per year - £99,998 + full child benefit) - go figure!

Edited February 5, 2014 by tmcd35

[tmcd35]

£1.13 billion out of £159 billion.

 

Bloody crap iPhone - doesn't support numbers bigger than 999,999,999 - obviously missed off 3x0's when I did the sums

[featured_spectre]

I have reported people for fraudulent tax credit and housing benefits claims, you want to know what happened? Nothing. After a year, nothing happened too them. They were having a lodger in their house, not declaring and thus getting an extra £16 a week from the council for the duration he has been there, and they claim separately for tax credits and use separate addresses for the tax credits, gaining around £25 a week each from the central government.

 

By my estimate they have been overpaid for nearly 3 years, and nothing has happened. I even phoned up a second and third time to ensure they got the report that they were fraudulently claiming as well.

[teejay]

Interesting statistic - for every £100 of benefits claimed, only 70p is fraud...

 

So, that works out roughly as the Income Tax and NIC of 1 million people on the national average wage, another interesting statistic.

[localzuk]

So, that works out roughly as the Income Tax and NIC of 1 million people on the national average wage, another interesting statistic.

 

Don't think so. National average wage is £26.5k. More like 200,000 taxpayers on national average wage.

[teejay]

Don't think so. National average wage is £26.5k. More like 200,000 taxpayers on national average wage.

 

Lesson to self, never do back of fag packet calculations while dealing with a support call. Yes its 200,000 or so.

[Garacesh]

Who are you to determine what someone spends their money on? Is it because its taxpayers money going to them? How about you extend that to other people who receive taxpayers money? Us.

 

Morally, to me, you simply don't have that right to determine how someone else lives their life.

 

It is intended to allow someone to live a life without being out on the street. That's about as far as it goes in my view.

Who am I? Nobody, in the eyes of the government. But we're not talking about what I do or don't have the right to do. Isn't this thread for voicing our opinions on what we, Avg. Joe Bloggs, think should be going on? So in the eyes of this thread, I have every right to say how I think the money should be used. Just as you have the right to say how you think the money should be used. Which is the point of a debate, is it not? Please, attack my proposition, not my character. Besides, I'm not dictating 'how they live their life', you're being rather melodramatic. I'm saying that the government should be allowed to dictate explicitly how the money they are being given is spent, because that money is being given for an explicit purpose, and providing my opinion on an infrastructure that would allow that to be possible. Luxuries are not essential to living and finding work, therefore JSA/Housing/Etc should not be used to fund these by logical definition. Please tell me what's wrong with that?

 

That's the impression your posts give.

Why shouldn't these things be mentioned in the same context?

My posts give the impression that I don't care about MP's misappropriating money because I'm sticking within the context of this thread and not derailing it onto a separate (albeit linked, but still separate) topic? If this thread was "Benefit cheats and MP's expense fiddling" I'd gladly discuss them both, but it isn't. Divulging into MP's expenses will only throw this discussion off into two different tangents, making it non-chronological to read (by that I mean you'll end up with 3 benefit posts, 2 expenses, 3 benefits, 5 expenses, 1 benefit, 1 expenses, a page of benefits, 6 expenses posts.. etc, I'd rather keep the debate to the one topic and keep it streamlined)

[localzuk]

Who am I? Nobody, in the eyes of the government. But we're not talking about what I do or don't have the right to do. Isn't this thread for voicing our opinions on what we, Avg. Joe Bloggs, think should be going on? So in the eyes of this thread, I have every right to say how I think the money should be used. Just as you have the right to say how you think the money should be used. Which is the point of a debate, is it not? Please, attack my proposition, not my character. Besides, I'm not dictating 'how they live their life', you're being rather melodramatic. I'm saying that the government should be allowed to dictate explicitly how the money they are being given is spent, because that money is being given for an explicit purpose, and providing my opinion on an infrastructure that would allow that to be possible. Luxuries are not essential to living and finding work, therefore JSA/Housing/Etc should not be used to fund these by logical definition. Please tell me what's wrong with that?

 

I'm not attacking you as an individual, I'm attacking the idea that an individual such as yourself can say that someone else can't spend money they're given to live their life as they see fit. The government does not specify an explicit purpose for benefits.

 

And regarding luxuries - what do you define as a luxury? Is entertainment a luxury? IIRC the EU doesn't think it is... How about broadband internet? Finland has put that down as a human right in their country.

 

People are not intended to only live and find work, even when they don't have a job. We aren't just slaves to work.

[mthomas08]

Last I spoke to my sister she was getting £400 a week and her place paid for.

 

If I remember rightly this was Housing benefit, Child benefit, income support and Council tax benefit.

[Theblacksheep]

Government should be allowed to dictate explicitly how the money they are being given is spent, because that money is being given for an explicit purpose, and providing my opinion on an infrastructure that would allow that to be possible. Luxuries are not essential to living and finding work, therefore JSA/Housing/Etc should not be used to fund these by logical definition. Please tell me what's wrong with that?

 

Basic human decency and common sense.

 

 

JSA is £50 a week.

 

Having a room where you don't freeze to death helps you find a job. Having electricity and a computer (that you need for government websites) helps you find a job. Having just enough food to get through the week helps you get a job. Having some suitable clothes for an interview, some shampoo and soap helps you get a job. Everyone circumstances are different, so they are given a tiny amount of monetary freedom to do this....

 

If you have benefits for each aspect of heating, clothing, toothbrushes, soap, food, water or transport the government would spend more on the bureaucratic system of control than it would cost to simply provide a bank transfer for the small sums we are talking about. MPs can claim more expenses on a single lunch than the government provides for a single person to live in a week.

 

As someone who has been out for work for 18 months (could not claim housing benefit as mortgage) and didnt claim anything (wasn't worth it) you don't get luxuries: its embarrassing, utterly depressing (to the point of worthlessness) and totally dehumanizing even without communistic foodstamps or whatever stupid idea people throw at a distraction. Even worse when deluded right wing press readers tell you that you're sponging off them and how you should be forced into even more dehumanising process.

 

These threads are great for working out who to ignore.

[SpuffMonkey]

Food stamps and vouchers would be a waste of time and effort. If someone wants some fags or booze and can't buy them directly - what'll they do? Buy whatever they can and then barter (probably at a disadvantageous rate) for what they actually want. As we know from working with kids each day - humans are very crafty animals.

[tmcd35]

Last I spoke to my sister she was getting £400 a week and her place paid for.

 

If I remember rightly this was Housing benefit, Child benefit, income support and Council tax benefit.

 

Depending on exact circumstances, that may not be entirely unreasonable - number of adults? number of children? etc.

 

The problem isn't so much the benefits per se but, as my dear Mum found out, making work pay. Ideally tax credits should be bringing the wages of low paid workers upto the same general standard as above. But the rules for applying for them often means people are ineligiable and suddenly it becomes better to stay unemployed than to take up a part time job.

 

In my mind the problem isn't whose getting the handouts, or necerssarilly how much they are getting, the problem is the rules that decide who is eligable for what are just plan barking.

[Garacesh]

I'm not attacking you as an individual, I'm attacking the idea that an individual such as yourself can say that someone else can't spend money they're given to live their life as they see fit. The government does not specify an explicit purpose for benefits.

 

And regarding luxuries - what do you define as a luxury? Is entertainment a luxury? IIRC the EU doesn't think it is... How about broadband internet? Finland has put that down as a human right in their country.

 

People are not intended to only live and find work, even when they don't have a job. We aren't just slaves to work.

Then I apologise for misinterpreting - Your 'who are you to decide..' felt like an attack on character rather than argument.

Thing is, benefits are not given to a person to 'live their life as they see fit', and that's the mistake you're making. They are given for a specific purpose. Housing Benefit is given for you to pay your rent. Child Benefit is given to help you provide for your child. Income support is to help you have enough living money when your income doesn't cover it (entirely different argument about NMW here, but anyway..)

I'm not saying people should be 'slaves to work', what I'm saying is that the benefit money you are issued ought to be used for that specific purpose.

 

Basic human decency and common sense.

 

 

JSA is £50 a week.

 

Having a room where you don't freeze to death helps you find a job. Having electricity and a computer (that you need for government websites) helps you find a job. Having just enough food to get through the week helps you get a job. Having some suitable clothes for an interview, some shampoo and soap helps you get a job. Everyone circumstances are different, so they are given a tiny amount of monetary freedom to do this....

 

If you have benefits for each aspect of heating, clothing, toothbrushes, soap, food, water or transport the government would spend more on the bureaucratic system of control than it would cost to simply provide a bank transfer for the small sums we are talking about. MPs can claim more expenses on a single lunch than the government provides for a single person to live in a week.

 

As someone who has been out for work for 18 months (could not claim housing benefit as mortgage) and didnt claim anything (wasn't worth it) you don't get luxuries: its embarrassing, utterly depressing (to the point of worthlessness) and totally dehumanizing even without communistic foodstamps or whatever stupid idea people throw at a distraction. Even worse when deluded right wing press readers tell you that you're sponging off them and how you should be forced into even more dehumanising process.

 

These threads are great for working out who to ignore.

Nowhere did I suggest splitting the funds down to that level - 'toothbrush fund'? Really? - and I've already freely admitted that a kind of card-based 'stamps' system would be impossible to implement in this day and age because of the complete system overhaul that would be required for it (most likely any new system at all, come to think of it) but I don't feel that 'legitimate' claimants (again I'll freely admit that's a very difficult term to pin down and subjectively varies from person to person) would be too bothered about this, but again that's a subjective observation. I certainly wouldn't have been fussed by it. I'd have happily let my money go direct to all my bills if I could have, just as my housing benefit did, but that wasn't an option. Giving it to me, for me to give it to them, just seemed to add an extra step that if there were a way to remove it, I might as well have done, because I was never going to spend it on anything else.

 

Realistically it's quite sad that we even have to discuss changes to the system (either to benefits or government expenses), because of the few that are abusing it (or less than few, when you consider MP's..). And unfortunately no system we envision will ever be 100% foolproof at all, there will be ways to get round any system short of having to requisition every item individually from the government - and I'm by no means in favour of that - merely a categorisation of items that restricts certain purchases to ensure that bills aren't going unpaid and dependants aren't going without necessities they need. Perhaps a little draconian-fly-with-a-bazooka, but our system has very little control at current and it is open to abuse. Yes, the problem is rooted with the people and not the system - but until we've got mind control (and the moment we do, I'm hiding in a hole for the rest of my life) we can't control them, we can at least try and control the money.

[localzuk]

Then I apologise for misinterpreting - Your 'who are you to decide..' felt like an attack on character rather than argument.

Thing is, benefits are not given to a person to 'live their life as they see fit', and that's the mistake you're making. They are given for a specific purpose. Housing Benefit is given for you to pay your rent. Child Benefit is given to help you provide for your child. Income support is to help you have enough living money when your income doesn't cover it (entirely different argument about NMW here, but anyway..)

I'm not saying people should be 'slaves to work', what I'm saying is that the benefit money you are issued ought to be used for that specific purpose.

 

Again, you're saying the government specifies how many should be spent. As far as I can tell, they don't. Sure, the purpose of the funds is to do those things, but once it leaves the hands of the agency giving it out, that's the end of the government's influence. If they have further influence then they are interfering in someone's private life - which is universally seen as an infringement of human rights.

 

Sure, those individual funds have a purpose, but what about JSA? What about Bereavement Allowance? ESA? In Work Credit?

 

You mention Income Support, saying it is for a purpose but then say that purpose is "to help you have enough money when your income doesn't cover it". What's "it"? Living their lives...

 

We can all pick and choose individual benefits and say one way or the other, but the end of the process is still the same - money is given to a person. If they wish to spend their food allowance on a TV, that's their choice.

[Garacesh]

You're completely right, it is their choice. I'm not disagreeing with you on that one.

 

I personally wouldn't give someone money for something I didn't feel was a good choice of investment. If I gave somebody money for one thing and they spent it on something else, I would take issue with that. Why should any benefit money be different?

[tmcd35]

I personally wouldn't give someone money for something I didn't feel was a good choice of investment.

 

Is social responsibilty not a good choice of investment?

What would you like to happen to you if you ended up on hard times through no fault of your own?

Do yo believe in charity?

If you give to charity do you have the right to dictate how and where the charity spend your donation?

[Garacesh]

Is social responsibilty not a good choice of investment?

What would you like to happen to you if you ended up on hard times through no fault of your own?

Do yo believe in charity?

If you give to charity do you have the right to dictate how and where the charity spend your donation?

How can we invest in 'social responsibility'? I don't mean that rhetorically, I genuinely mean it.

What would I like to happen to me? I'd like to receive a benefit, just like everybody else, if I couldn't find more work (or, in situations where I was unable to work) - however if the government reviewed my finances and said "this is how your money is allocated" I wouldn't care so long as I could pay my bills and feed myself.

Yes I believe in charity. I used to volunteer for a charity shop. Charity however, is different to benefits. Charity is not given under an agreed-upon contract.

No. You do not. Because you are able to question the charity and find out what they spend on before donating. If you disagree with where it goes, don't donate.

[mthomas08]

If you disagree with where it goes, don't donate.

 

If only I could control what my Taxes went on.

[Garacesh]

If only I could control what my Taxes went on.

 

In theory you can do, with votes, petitions, protests and elections.

Unfortunately it never works out in practice

[LosOjos]

In theory you can do, with votes, petitions, protests and elections.

Unfortunately it never works out in practice

 

Yeah that's a real can of worms; 40% "majority", coalition parties, unelected EU officials... our vote isn't worth much!

Edited February 6, 2014 by LosOjos