Not the government it would appear. Non take-up of means-tested benefits is a perennial problem in the social security system. Annual statistics, published by the Department for Work and Pensions, track trends in the estimated amounts unclaimed of the six main means-tested benefits and the numbers not claiming. The latest figures show an estimated £7.52bn to £12.31bn went unclaimed in 2009-10, with a third or more of those eligible not claiming some benefits.
Means-tested benefits can only achieve their purpose of reducing poverty, if they are claimed. Indeed the Child Poverty Unit has suggested that in 2009 there were 400,000 children living in income poverty because their families were not receiving all the benefits and tax credits to which they were entitled.
By chance I discovered that the DWP proposes to cease producing these statistics. A consultation was launched on 12 July yet, according to Professor Adrian Sinfield, as of 23 July the consultation was not on the DWP and Office of National Statistics lists of consultations. It makes one wonder how serious the consultation is.
I raised my concern about this proposal during deliberation of the Local Government Finance Bill. I was moving an amendment concerning take-up of the new localised council tax reduction schemes, which will replace the national council tax benefit . Because the new schemes will be cash limited, local authorities could be discouraged from encouraging take-up. As the Liberal Democrat peer Lord Shipley warned, this ‘gives rise to a conflict of interest…that cannot be right’.
It’s remarkable that the government is not interested in the impact on take-up of the localisation of council tax benefit. It’s even more remarkable that it’s not interested in the take-up of its flagship universal credit scheme, not least as an anticipated substantial increase in take-up is, according to ministers, one of it’s main virtues.
In the interests of accountability and effective social policy, I hope the government will think again.
More debt, more debt, ….
Roll up, Roll up, get your free cash whilst it lasts. …
@LB:
And here is who stole it, how they did it and why it was deliberate.
Do you see any of them in the dock, or, having their funds confiscated? No, now I wonder why that is?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNbxK__1Crc
Rather than you telling us we are living on borrowed money and telling us how ‘we’ must suffer in perpetuity, akin to the countries you see in this clip, why don’t you suggest we get the greed merchants money by seizing it as they do with drug dealers and the rest.
Tell me why you feel they should go free to enjoy what they took from our public purse.
They were and are muggers and need to be locked up. All of them, including those in office who colluded with them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNbxK__1Crc
Does this sound like the UK and how we are now being told by your ilk that we must go on paying them. The government must increase spending and flood the country with borrowed money. See how the place picks up then.
And how is it you don’t realise the major banks who hold our lives in their hands, love debt, it is a constant source of massive income for them and they create the need for it. Debt is their stock in trade.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4LCCttM2nk
Did you take stock of the profits of that bastian of goodness, British Gas? The increases to the public is obscene. Yet, it was privatised because the government of the day ran it down, to make the excuse to sell it off cheaply. Without reason, other than, making another killing off the state.. Why was that I wonder… Re-nationalise is the answer, then all that profit finds it way back into thte public purse.
Maude, the bankers who screwed up are less than 1% of the problem.
British gases profits are even smaller. Tiddly compared to the real issue.
Rather than you telling us we are living on borrowed money and telling us how ‘we’ must suffer in perpetuity, akin to the countries you see in this clip, why don’t you suggest we get the greed merchants money by seizing it as they do with drug dealers and the rest.
The problem is the state. They have taken everyone’s pensions contributions and spent them. Given them to other people. They have out Maxwell’ed Robert Maxwell.
Hence the need for you to tell us the size of the debts that the government has run up. The banks aren’t behind the decision to take pension contributions, not invest them, and spend them. That is politicians.
Does this sound like the UK and how we are now being told by your ilk that we must go on paying them. The government must increase spending and flood the country with borrowed money. See how the place picks up then.
It won’t work. The UK is bust. That means anyone who trusted politicians is going to be screwed. Top of the list is public sector workers and their pensions. They stand to lose millions in lots of cases, hundreds of thousands in the others. Then comes the state pensioners and those who used the state second pension.
Note that none of the state pensions mess involves the banks. None.
Re-nationalise is the answer, then all that profit finds it way back into thte public purse.
Probably going to happen. Not that you will see any of it, unless you’re a fat cat public sector pensioner. They will take it all to pay themselves.
Now you don’t believe that, LB, you know I am not talking about the little high street guy.
Yes, you are right that the politicians were and are in there with them, and holding the baton as they conduct from the wings. But, the movers and shakers of the real money pool, world wide, knew exactly what they were doing and had planned the strategy long before it all hit the fan.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ay97agPEn3o
And, Sharon, if you liked the earlier one, you will like this one. Good to know you found it enlightening.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYFw3O–2R0&feature=related
1. Capitalism is in crisis.
Really? Bank bailouts are not capitalism. Capitalism is letting them go bust.
However they were bailout out by the numpty Brown thinking he could get control over the major banks and force them to implement his socialist policies.
End result, 70 bn losses in guarantees and share trading. [Remember the sum insured isn’t the same as a loss]
Do you disagree with that figure?
2. Now for the problem of state debt. Nothing to do with the banks, bar the fact that the state forces them to lend their capital to them.
7,000 bn in total. Pensions included. You are owed your state pension and I presume you want it paid?
So 1% banking, (assuming all of Brown’s losses were down to the banks) Not really the case, since it was Brown’s decision.
99% government.
There is no problem with banking and private debt. Private people and companies are paying off their debt and not borrowing. They can repay.
The state on the other hand is bust.
That’s the problem.
Dear Baronness Lister Of Burtestet,
The best way to remedy the social security system is to currently ask for its subdivision under the supervision of several Ministries.
1. The Ministry of welfare and social security (dealing only with the health care system)of all people found on the British territory regarding their medical care )
2. The Ministry for the child development and family welfare which can deal also with the allowance fee given to parents to raise their children.
3.The Ministry for employment: dealing with the financing of unemployed people .
.
The Ministy of labour which deals with the social security of both employees and employers.
Each of these ministries should have a current budget to meet the various needs of their social security systemrespectively . These financial expenses scheme must be decided by the government.
It is not up to the lords to bear the burdens of expenses which should have been included in the budget.
God save the Queen and the Lords. God bless the United Kingdom.
Nazma FOURRE
More civil servants. Always the solution.
Far simpler. Lower taxes. Abolish the lot.
This is an English-Civilisation-threatening disaster
this insidiously mindless self-centred greed and head-under-bedclothes ‘security’ conduct on the part of the Government, Judiciary and Civil-Service, Local-Government and Controlling Social middle-classes
all of whom are insanely intent upon increasing their already unfair, unreally-huge number, of human-livings that they are both being given and are greedily taking from the Common Purse.
—————
Blagger is calling All True British People to
“Roll up. Roll up, get your free cash …”
not from his pecunious wealth-hoard
but from lower-incomed disadvantaged and struggling British taxpayers increasingly unfair and life-undermining ‘Morton’s Fork’ types of governmental rip-off !
Blagger, you must be off your rocker if you truly can not comprehend the Issue of lifesupportiveness, middle-class over-profiteering, and the fact that poverty amongst the british Disadvantaged is not a Win-Lose loaded-dice ‘winner-takes-all’, FPTP, ‘let-the-weak-go-to-the-wall’ matter,
nor of any “benefit” to these Disadvantageds.
—————-
It’s because the system is too complicated. The whole system of taking our money away from us in taxes and then giving (some of) it back again needs to be ripped up and done properly, in a simple manner.
I gave up trying to understand how tax credits worked long ago, I just told them my income each year and took what they gave me. If there was an error in the process then I’m not the one who’s qualified to spot it.
As for VAT, that seems to unfairly penalise those on low incomes because unlike the income tax system, there’s no rebate for those on low incomes. The system is fundamentally wrong if benefits given by the government are supposed to help overcome the fact that the government took too much money away in the first place.
It appears that the government takes our money, slices a cut off of it and gives the rest back as benefits, when it would be much cheaper all round if they just didn’t take that much in the first place.
And creates lots of expensive bureaucracy in the process!
As you say, they could just take less of our money in the first place. If HMG thinks that (say) £20k isn’t enough to live off, then why is it taxed in the first place?!
We know why.
1. They want their cut.
2. They want control over your money.
“our” money ?
wherein £140 per week
< £7.5k
is judged and 'awarded' by HMG as being a sufficient living for one-human-being to maintain their-self healkthy. citizenlike, and environmentally-supportive AND to pay taxes out of
so £20k is sufficient to maintain more than two human-beings AND to take much more % tax out of than out of the £7.28 "sufficient-living" recipient.
The whole system of taking our money away from us in taxes and then giving (some of) it back again needs to be ripped up and done properly, in a simple manner.
Except for one thing that it is the accepted and received system for negative taxation/Benefits throughout the developed countries of the world; standard practice. It works and with the devlopment of computer systems in recent years it works down to the last penny.
Thanks to everyone who has posted a comment.
Dave H: I agree that one of the main reasons that benefits aren’t claimed is because the system is too complicated [although there are other factors such as stigma which can still be a factor especially for older people]. Means-tested benefits are inherently complicated and although the government argue universal credit will simplify the system, I think people will still find it pretty complicated. What I can’t agree with is the idea that the government should take less through tax in the first place. Taxes help to redistribute from those who have more to those who have less. I would prefer to rely less on means-testing but then use the tax system to tax benefits back from those with higher incomes.
@Nazma Fourre. Thanks for the suggestion but I don’t think this kind of administrative reorganisation is the answer to the problem of non take-up of benefits.
What I can’t agree with is the idea that the government should take less through tax in the first place. Taxes help to redistribute from those who have more to those who have less.
==============
Nothing stopping you giving up your expenses is there?
Or taking the expenses, going down the local job center and redistributing the money.
You’re imposing charity on people with threats of violence, and in the process raking off a large cut for yourself.
Since the real cost of employing you is 2,700 quid a day, why should people on minimum wage work for a whole year so their taxes end up being redistributed into keeping you going?
We’ll have to disagree on one point – government should be taking less taxes. If it was performing more efficiently and was stripped to its core functions (although we could have a long discussion about what are the core functions of government), we’d all have a lot more money to spend and so not need to have wealth forcibly redistributed.
Benefits should primarily be a safety net, not too comfortable, and easy to climb out of. What we have now is more like a comfortable trap, where people lose out of they start work, giving them more incentive to stay comfortable (for which I can’t blame them). The whole thing is broken, although I acknowledge that it’s taken many years to construct and should be dismantled a lot slower and with more care than is currently happening.
1. People should be forced to save.
2. When unemployed etc, then their savings go first.
3. Only when those savings are exhausted, should others be forced to help.
The reasons are quite simple. People are most careful when spending their money on themselves. Delaying helping to the last possible moment means the cost to others in minimised.
The big reason, is that if they save for themselves, they get compound interest. It also provides funds for investment, and that greatly benefits the economy.
If you do the numbers for the state pension as an example, a median worker on 26K would have had a pension of 19K a year, RPI, joint life, if they had been allowed to save their NI for themselves. Instead the state gives then just over 5K.
That’s effectively massive tax on people who aren’t rich. That in my opinion is not on immoral, its evil.
I sometimes wonder whether council tax will become a thing of the past on account of the vast profits that local authorities make on car parking charges, people apparently happy to pay them. A local tax on cars rather than a local tax on housing.
I have not compared the two “takes/takings” so it may merely be a pipe dream.
The most serious problem vis a vis the relationship between central government and local authority provisions did at one time see to be the payment of vast sums to “single mothers” from central govt coffers to support local govt employees’ partners, their not in reality being “single at all.
That meant local govt needed to pay their staff less while Central govt paid their single “partners” a jolly sight more, all for the sake of their not being interested in contractual marital bliss.
Housing benefit can be a sizeable sum per week per female headed family. £6000-£8000
per year per family.
But then they would be out of a job. Plus it would be impossible to keep the fraud going in the short term.
Just watched Dispatches and then Panorama afterwards. Looks like the media is finally realising what the current welfare reforms are all about, at last. It’s a pity they hadn’t sussed it out sooner and then genuine claimants might have got the help they needed before the needless suffering. The question is now, when is the government going to stop denying that there is obviously targets in place to get most people off benefits, even though they can’t work? They’re not fooling anyone telling us all that it is for our own good.
Maude: I watched your video links. I’m so grateful you have brought this to our attention. It’s shocking but suddenly makes perfect sense.
Typical biased BBC output.
ie. They set out with a preconcieved notion that it is all about disabled being denied benefits.
They should have set out to determine if the tests separated those able to work from those unable to work.
In other words it had an agenda and tried to distort things.
That’s not journalism, its purely political.
In the case of the BBC, that is illegal. They have a statutory duty to be impartial.
What they and channel 4 said about the tests is sadly the truth. How do I know? I’ve been through it twice now. I have experienced it first hand. That “notion” you say they have is also the same notion that millions of people who have been let down by the system and actually been through it, have experienced. It’s about time the media caught on.
Even the doctors have voted that the WCA is not fit for purpose. The only biased viewpoint is one of your own where you think that a larger proportion of people are faking it, than there actually is. Why? because you listen to the same propaganda fed to the media in the first place.
@Sharon:
Here are the two programmes you cite. Some people who visit this blog do not see these at the time of airing. So, after watching them I decided it was a necessity to put them here.
I had heard of this most cynical and torturous situation but had no idea it was as sinister as it is.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01lldrc/Panorama_Disabled_or_Faking_It/
Now the dispatches.
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/4od
This kind of harrassment of the sick has to be illegal under the Human Rights Act. Which is why they want rid of it of course. Hence the propaganda of get out of Europe now.
And once again, this is simply the UK following their American masters in the disgusting practice of beat the disabled, poor and elderly. And I do not say this lightly, they have been practicing this in the States since Clinton was President and the man of change in the White House today felt the spending was better doen on wars to ‘help’ the Iraqi’s and Afghans, and so on. And pulled us in with them.
Why this has to be illegal is, the public have paid into a system that assured them they would be cared for when this kind of dreadful life event affected them. The majority paid taxes and national insurance which they have been consistantly assured, to this day, that they would be covered by our welfare policy until death should this happen to them.
Part of the reason British people have found they are being treated abominably this way, and cast aside as second class citizens, is as a result of mass immigration.
Under New Labour millions of people from all over the world, sick, elderly and deperately poor, in the extreme, were allowed into this country and given citizenship enabling them to apply for benefit, medical attention and every other policy the British people had paid into their coffers to cover. The result of such a massive increase in our population did not enter their alarm system at all. They simply did not care.
Therefore, those in office then and now, knowing the dire staits we are in as a result of their irresponsible policies, should be forced in a court of law, to forfeit their personal funds, assets and prospective working lives to repay the public fund they effectively stole from.
On top of this lunatic action they took with their eyes wide open, they decided to use this same public fund to bail out bankers to the tune of trilions. And so the entire system collapses. And they stand back comfortable in knowing our citizens will starve this way, to keep them in office.
There has to be some heavy lawyers out there who can stop this abuse of power, now.
So, as this was set up under under the previous government, we are back to the knowledge of realising this is a one party system they assure us is a democracy. Because this government is following the last absolutely.
That aside, I put another eye opening video above on my response to Blagger. You may find it interesting.
55% do not qualify as unfit for some sort of work. That’s been going on for ages.
ie. Disabled benefits have been paid to vast numbers of people who were fit for work.
That’s a major fraud. It has diverted large sum s of money from those that need it, and taken large sums of money from people who’ve had to slave to earn it.
You’ve addressed neither of these points.
Your view is that we should be paying disabled benefits to those fit for work, isnt’ it?
Thank you again Maude. I have a feeling it won’t be long now before it all comes crashing down on those who in my opinion are unfit for office let alone deciding who is fit for work and who is not.
Lord Blagger, you have a way of twisting everything around to suit your own agenda but i’m not sure what that agenda is. Clearly no one’s view is one that we should be paying disabled benefits to those who are fit for work but the methods that decide who is fit for work and who is not is severely flawed and are basically based on targets despite what you or those in government are saying as the TV programme shows. We, the people who have been through this process, know this to be true.
You, Mr Blagger, seem to think that only the fit and able pay tax and therefore deserve more than the rest of us who are unable to work. Take your blinkers off. We all pay tax in some form or other and should you fall sick then you are going to be put on the same conveyer belt as those of us who are unfortunate through no fault of our own, to fall into this system. This conveyer belt consists of brown envelope being filled in, being failed, appealing and winning appeal only to be sent another brown envelope a month later to start the process all over again.
Don’t kid yourself that you will be paying less tax if they suddenly stopped paying all us so called ‘scroungers’. Instead your precious tax money will be going towards making more private companies and the top 1% rich people richer. Do you honestly believe that you won’t have to slave any less if we’re not around?
Congratulations on admitting that lots of current claimants are fit for work. That’s what I’ve said all along. You won’t get an dramatic increase in disability when so much money has been pumped into the NHS. What has gone on goes by the jargon ‘disguised unemployment’. Governments manipulating the unemployment figures. That needs to be undone.
On the assessment process. You have to have a test. Pure and simple. That test needs to be separate from your GP. Your GP’s job is your medical care, not deciding on benefits. What we have seen from the assesment process is that lots of GPs have signed off people when they are fit for work. Pretty obvious why in lots of cases, it makes for a quite life.
Don’t kid yourself that you will be paying less tax if they suddenly stopped paying all us so called ‘scroungers’.
I’ve no delusions there. Most of it is going on government debts and civil servants. They have run up pension debts of 1,400 bn and rising. So what will happen is more taxes, less services, more debt and borrowing. It’s going to go all Pete Tong. We haven’t had any cuts in overall spending. So ask yourself where the cash is going. It’s going on the 7,000 bn of government debts. They can’t afford to pay that, so the state will go bankrupt because it already is.
Now think about what that means for your genuine disabled person? They are going to be the ones really screwed. Totally.
@LB:
You are full of it.
You have your finger on one button and can’t remove it whilst the grating squeal it produces nauseates..
What you need to do, seriously, is delve into the politics behind this sudden desire to leave the poor and vulnerable to starve and suffer. Similar to the whip round for Quasi Modo on a sunday afternoon. Keep the public eye on those we choose to blame, whilst those who created the s— we are in go scot free ringing laughter.
This FORAY film may help to enlighten you and give you some true understanding of the reason we have decided, through government, to carry out these public hangings.
It is titled, Blarr’s War and Freedom For Sale. A guy called, John Kampfner, wrote the book and discusses the policies here. It is for the thinking man, so, whether you are ready to receive it is another matter. But, it does discuss what is truly going on.
Give yourself a leg up and listen to it carefully. Without that bias of fear you carry so well on your daily rounds. And yes, it is a bias of fear. Fear that the truth is not within your grasp.
http://fora.tv/2010/03/18/Freedom_for_Sale_Trading_Democracy_for_Security
The disabled they are putting into the ready for work boxes are scapegoats. And I wish the days of public stocks on street commons and corners still existed. Then IDS and his pawns, which is what you are, could receive my rotten fruit and veg full mouth.
I shall put this eye opening up elsewhere on here as it is important to know what they are refusing to reveal. Secrecy is the name of this game.
There you go again Lord Blagger. I’ve admitted no such thing. Are you sure you’re not reading what you want to read? I almost feel like you’re trolling to get a reaction…
These tests arn’t even tests. They’re based on wording (descriptors) doctors reports and a lottery on the percentage the examiner has before she or he can start denying benefits, which was shown in the TV program in the past week. It’s all about luck and then the decision maker rubber stamps what the examiner says. This in my opinion is not needed. Going between a real doctor who treats a patient straight through to the decision maker would save a lot of money, time, stress and suicides. But hey, if you and the government want to throw money away on a system that clearly isn’t working….
“Plus it would be impossible to keep the fraud going in the short term”
It is at least guesstimate-able
that even the HMG minimum guaranteed and sufficient human-living of £7,280 per annum
is over-biting into the Earth’s ability to support human Life*
so Lord Blagger’s “fraud” is actually only the (admittedly far-too-heavy**) fraction of the total Human-Race Fraud, being destructively exacted upon the Earth itself by our ‘elders and betters’ ***
[Olympians, take this torch and run with it, eh ?]
———–
* see TV documentary “How Many People Can Live On Planet Earth” by David Attenborough et al.
** one-way destroying not only non-renewable lifesupportive-resources, but renewable ones also.
*** ‘Money’ represents and is tied to material lifesupports ‘belonging’ to The Earth and all its other lifeforms
so “Our money” = “our lifesupports-package”; and the pay-packet of our ‘elders-and-betters’ + ‘their lifesupport-package’;
which it is not****
**** Lords-Spiritual, why dumbstruck ? where are you ? –
– in “Unlocking The Bible” your David Pawson relays to us Public that
(“) God through Jesus-Christ saves you, and every other Godly-person, as a human-being but NOT for your own good, RATHER in order that you may DO good, on and for HIS created Earth(“)*****
[ ***** I can see why Mahatma Ghandi advised, under interrogation by a British Evangelist Colonialist, that “Christianity would be a good idea” ].
If you want to wear a hair shirt, go ahead.
However, you want to make your way in the world out of the labour of others, without doing anything. That is your aim. Get other people’s money for your own good.
Then you want to cap what people earn.
All dressed up in mumbo jumbo.
They have a statutory duty to be impartial.
One of John’s regular wise remarks. Yuck!
Nearly always propaganda, especially programmes like Panorama, however many panellists and audience there may be.
On the question of “Fraud”, the same difference applies to the mis-statement of positive taxable income. Benefit fraud and tax fraud are in the same category/class of
misdeed.
The Inland revenue and the Benefits offices are now 100% computerised and interactive; they do not make mistakes in their sharing of information.
On the question of “Fraud”, the same difference applies to the mis-statement of positive taxable income. Benefit fraud and tax fraud are in the same category/class of
misdeed.
On a scale of 1 to 1000, they come in at 2. Compared to the big fraud a 1000.
Notice that I keep asking the Peers (and MPs at other places), how much does the government owe for the state pension. Just one of the debts they have run up.
1. It’s not on the books.
2. None of them have a clue as to what is really owed.
3. Even the treasury isn’t admitting to having any figures.
ie. Their biggest debt, for which they have been taking money in vast some sums from you, is never going to be paid in full. They know it. They are hiding it. That is the action of fraudsters.
people on minimum wage work for a whole year so their taxes end up being redistributed into keeping you going
There has certainly always been conflict between the lowest paid and the highest negative taxation/benefit pay.
A 40 hour week and only £1000 more than somebody who merely claims, does not seem fair, except that you have got a job and they… have not.
The black economy is of those who claim and
also earn a cash income, which gives them a disposable income greater than those who do a 40 hour week, for only a few hours work.
That certainly does not apply to the disabled, but they frequently get good payments from “charities” (which should be taxed like any other business) dedicated to their particular disability. Whether those disabled people do pay tax on their charitable receipts I can not say.
I would be surprised if “Help for Heroes”
recipients would be very pleased to pay tax on their “Help”, and yet in fairness they should.
I would be surprised if “Help for Heroes”
recipients would be very pleased to pay tax on their “Help”, and yet in fairness they should.
=========
Really? Are you going to volunteer to pay 50% tax on all your charitable giving, on top of the tax you’ve paid to earn the money?
If so please tell us how much extra tax you volunteered last year.
If you gave to charities, why did you do so? You could have paid extra tax and let politicians decide (after their cut) what to do with your money.
Really? Are you going to volunteer to pay 50% tax on all your charitable giving, on top of the tax you’ve paid to earn the money? It amazes me what people are prepared to do with their cash.
If so please tell us how much extra tax you volunteered last year.
Lord Blagger that seems like a very querulous question but with VAT to pay every day, with a consumerist society yapping at our heels it is actually throughly puerile!
EVERY TIME I buy, as a consumerist, I am volunteering an extra 20%, and when I see a shop full of greetings cards and teddy bears I know precisely, how much is being volunteered, and how much of a consumerist product all the products in that shop are.
Go down the high street and ask yourself how many outlets are NOT involved in crass consumerism of that sort. NOT MANY!
The answer, as always, is to reclassify charitable enterprises according to their management costs. Management costs high? NOT a charity. Low? Charity.
Example RNLI Huge management costs, not a Bona fide charity. Oxfam very low management costs? Charity.
If government could do some of the work of reclassifying,according to those management costs, it would be very helpful indeed.
I am volunteering an extra 20%
================
Why not volunteer an extra 20% on your food?
Hell why not make it 50%.
Now my personal view, the government should get out of charity completely bar a basic safety net, and introduce compulsoary saving.
However, with 7,000 bn of debts (your share 230,000), its not going to do anything.
It’s going to carry on forcing people to pay tax, deny and cut services, and it still will go bust.
A 40 hour week and only £1000 more than somebody who merely claims, does not seem fair, except that you have got a job and they… have not.
========
It’s worse. It’s the other way round.
Min wage – 3K a year in tax. End result circa 10K in take home pay.
However there are many receiving lots more than this in benefits.
1. Free council tax
2. Free housing
3. Payments.
4. Income support
5. Payments for children.
…
Until recently, there were people on 170K a year of tax free benefits.
@LB:
Put up a link to those stories telling us people are collecting £170K per annum on beneifts. I would like to peruse that.
No need for a link, do the calculation yourself.
In Westminster the cap on housing benefit was set at 2,000 pounds a week for a family of 5.
That’s 104,000 a year tax free.
Now add on the extras.
Income support
Free health care (they aren’t paying) 8 * 1.8K a year
Free schooling (they aren’t paying) 5 * 5.5K a year
Free pension (they aren’t paying) 2 * 4K a year
Free council tax (1.3K a year)
…
One error in my reply, but here are the details of what was paid out.
HB 1 104000 104000
Health 7 1800 12600
Schooling 5 5500 27500
Pension 2 4000 8000
Council Tax 1 1300 1300
Benefits 1 23700 23700
You can check the benefits out at “entitled to”. Nothing special – no disability benefits claimed etc.
That gives you the benefits figure.
Council tax in Westminster – just search
http://listentotaxman.com/index.php for the NI figure. Almost all of NI goes on pension entitlements. I’ve used median wage of 26K a year to get the numbers. Just the parents get entitled to the state pension whilst registered unemployed.
Average schooling cost in the UK of 5.5K a year per child
Average spend for the NHS per head is 1800 a year
Then there was the housing benefit at 2K a week. You needed 5 children to qualify, hence the 5 children in the calculation.
Total 177,100 tax free. After they aren’t paying, someone else is.
The example of the “Royal” British Legion is an interesting one in that the presidents of individual branches are on the make as businessmen in the long term, whereas some of the poppy fund raising may have charitable and possibly not even very high management costs.
There is no doubt that the clubs are hard headed business enterprises, with specualtive property development profit ambitions in the long term.
It is lost on most people that accountants (BL presidents) are prepared to wait 50 years for their policies to “mature” in the form of very profitable planning approvals.
Meanwhile they employ AMATEUR staff who do not understand that the business is run a highly professional basis to which they are unwittingly contributing in the form of unpaid work…. and those people are persuaded that they are working for….. CHARITY!
Very sad indeed.
Don’t make me laugh Blagger!
The Blagger philosophy:
It is wrong to pay 20% extra on 80% of nothing!!!The real arithmetic of consumerism!!
Go get it! Go boy! Go boy!
Ha! Ha! Ha!
Buy yourself at least one paperback copy of
“How To Win Every Argument: the use and abuse of logic”
by Professor Madsen Pirie;
82 fallacious uses of words, that both Peer-posters and People-commenters
both consciously-and-mischievously
and unconsciously-and-accidentally
insert into their writing
trick you the reader/listener into liking, accepting, agreeing with, even voting-for, what they are putting-across.
Have these easy-print 182 pages of facts-of-good communication and of honest-argumentation open at your elbow,
right beside this Lords of the Blog ‘democratic-interplay’;
this is a good place to begin spotting falsehoods, deliberate concealments, deceptions, ‘smokescreens’, ‘red-herrings’;
the 12 Formal-Fallacies
and the four categories of the remaining
70 Informal Fallacies.
———-
((( GH too,
even ‘Lord’ Blagger,
invited if you please:
“Good British Bulldog !
Sink your teeth in here, now;
Good fellah!
Hold on tight
Let your jaws clench upon that Fallacy
and Hold On
until the rest of any awake democratic-searchlights-team can focus-in,
And our citizens effect an appropriate “arrest”
or “exposure”
of such communication-polluting and honesty-destroying miscreants!” )))
Well this takes the biscuit. Not content with the 100 million contract they have, Atos now have another 400 million contract. You have to wonder what on earth the UK is coming to when a company is certainly not doing a proper job of the contract they already have and gets another one. Seriously is this government insane?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/aug/02/atos-disability-benefit-tests
So many interesting issues raised but I just want to go back to the comments posted by Dave H (31/7) and Lord Blagger (1/8) because these concern fundamental questions about the purpose of our social security system. I could write a whole essay on this but will spare you with just a few points!
1. Yes the benefits system can trap people but it’s not a comfortable trap. Research shows that benefit levels for people of working age are well below what members of the public consider to be an acceptable minimum income standard. And there is clear evidence of material disadvantage and hardship among those reliant on benefits.
2. Social security isn’t just a safety net but is there to provide economic security in the face of risks and contingencies. As maude elwes (32/7) points out we pay in through tax and national insurance and draw out when we’re unable to work for whatever reason. It not only performs a robin hood function but a piggy bank function and does so more efficiently than private insurance. One problem is that because of a series of cuts in recent decades people feel they’re not getting much back for what they’ve paid in and this is something Labour is hoping to address in its review of its social security policy.
3. Remember that my original post about take up of meanstested benefits covered a number of benefits paid to people in paid work and not just people out of work.
4. While it is sensible to save when you can, many people simply don’t have enough money to save even while in paid work. It’s a shame the last government’s savings gateway plans have been scrapped as they would have helped low income people save. But even when people have saved I don’t think it’s fair to expect them to use up all their savings if they lose work. If they are eligible for contributory benefits then savings should not affect that as they’ve paid the necessary contribions and noone is being ‘forced to help’. If they have to claim income-related benefits then they are expected to use savings over a certain limit but it’s recognised that savings provide an important cushion for everyday living.
OK I’ll leave it that.
You missed off the major reason for the social security system. Raising taxes for the government.
Take a median wage earner. 26K a year. If you go back in time you can work out what median wage was over the last 40 years. Now take NI rates, and work out what they were paying 40 years ago, 39 years ago, …
Take those contributions, and invest them in the FTSE. At the end of the 40 years, buy an annuity. The most expensive one going. RPI linked, joint life, age 65. End result is an annuity of 19K a year. Even after the bad performance of the FTSE in recent times.
So what does the state give? 5.4K a year. CPI not RPI. Not fully joint life.
So your ‘safety net’ has take nearly 14K a year off someone on 26K a year who can hardly be called rich.
On top of that with the recent rise in retirement age, they have lost 2 * 19K in income, plus they are force to pay another 9K in NI before they can claim. 47 pounds taken off them.
That’s the extent of government theft.
maude
I’m just pointing out the consequences of running up massive debts and hiding them. Part of that running of debts has come about by paying 700,000 people (based on 1.5 million on disability, but 55% not being eligible because they are fit to work). Those debts have consequences.
Now for those fit for work, I’ve no problems. They need to get a job.
For those that are disabled the real problem is going to come. The state is bust. What little help they do get is going to be canned. The state, Peers included want their money, and bugger the disabled.
Now you disbelieved me about the figure for those claiming welfare in Westminster. I’ve posted you all the figures. 177K a year of benefits tax free. Year in year out.
That’s another major reason why the disabled are going to be hit.
Not to do with me. Just the consequences of the biggest fraud in the UK. Government taking money, spending it, and hidings its debt. A massive Ponzi.
What you need to do, seriously, is delve into the politics behind this sudden desire to leave the poor and vulnerable to starve and suffer.
Yep, its the Ponzi coming home to roost. It’s a direct consequence of 7,000 bn of debts.
If you don’t believe me just answer one question.
How much does the government owe to people who have paid NI, and are due a state pension?
You won’t find the figure. It’s hidden. It’s a fraud.
So now, in order to keep things going, they are going to take from everyone and offer nowt in return. Disabled included. Included are those fit to work. They are currently the prime target.
Sharon
So what’s your test that ATOS should be applying to separate out those fit to work, and those not fit to work?
Take ATOS out of the equation and save some money. We don’t need a middle man. We don’t need a test. We just need someone with access to our medical records and knowledge of our condition to make a decision on whether we are fit or unfit for work and then set realistic targets for next assessment dates. We need it open and we need it transparent and if someone is decided fit for work after a long time of being unfit, we need a transition period between unfit to work and ESA to being fit to work and job seekers allowance. It’s to much of a shock to the system to have your benefits suddenly stopped with no other income and can not be good for one’s health and well being, especially if you are still feeling the ill in yourself.
There will always be thieves, liars, cheats and murderers in the world but stop making the same mistakes as putting them in the same group as innocents. It’s a very pessimistic view and is to easy to start accusing anyone of anything. After all, we don’t look at someone doing their shopping and immediately think shoplifter. Why should disabled people be treated any different?
You haven’t said what the test should be for being fit to work.
There is a need that the test is the same across the UK. There should be no post code lottery (or GP lottery).
f someone is decided fit for work after a long time of being unfit,
That’s the problem. Your assumption is that they are unfit. They aren’t. They were fit. They were labelled unfit. The tests show they are fit.
For the next assessment dates, I agree. For some people it is obvious that they don’t need to be tested that often. Say every 5 years. For others more frequent testing is required.
Why should disabled people be treated any different?
You still don’t get it, do you? 55% are fit for work. Disabled people – I’ve no problem. People fit for work – yep, I have a problem.
That the government for political convenience labled so many people as disabled, when they were not, that’s a major issue.
So back to the question.
What’s the test?
Who applies it?
Now we have had an independent test separate from the GPs and we find GPs have signed off significant numbers who are fit to work. That shows that GPs are not the correct people to make the assessment. It’s clear why, there is a major conflict of interest. Treatment of conditions is not the same as assessment as fit for work.
You are completely wrong, Blagger, it is inhumane and here is the boss and an expert who has been thrown out of his job for saying so.
He is pleading for more humanity. Imagine that? And you are attacking Sharon so badly you sound just like the apes in that House who feel this is never going to happen to them. Well, I hope they breathe easy, because it does happen to this kind all the time. Just not frequently enough for them to really believe it.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2181365/Out–Boss-incapacity-benefit-crackdown-called-humanity.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
And here it tells it palinly that this terrible plight facing the disabled, poor and elderly, was set off by the last New Labour government. Their policy. With the Tories following suit. Does this once again confirm a feeling we have a one party State.
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/politics/2012/08/benefit-bashing-next-osborne-gamble-go-wrong
I suspect that part of the problem is that while some people *are* fit for work, the sort of work they are capable of doing is not available, or that they’re not capable of working at the speed an employer would expect (making the end product more expensive and less likely to sell). That’s where the system breaks, I’m sure a lot of those who’ve been receiving disability benefits would like to be able to do something, but they can’t find an employer offering the sort of work they’re able to do.
I’ve no doubt that is also the case.
However, paying them disability when they are fit for work isn’t the solution.
What that does is drive up taxation. That makes it more expensive to employ people, and that means those people have to be more productive in order to be employed.
In addition you get a benefit trap.
Then for those who are labelled disabled, you get a corresponding drop in health.
Your not answering the questions I’ve posed. Deliberately evasive since I’ve asked them multiple times.
1. What’s a good test? How does that test distinquish between fit for work, and those unfit for work.
I’ll add another.
In my view there are disabled people who are fit for work. The reason I’ve come to that conclusion is quite a few friends are working and are disabled. Equally, I know people who are disabled and unfit for work.
As for the ‘plight’ issue. Yes, I agree. They are going to be shafted. Not only those who are fit for work, to whom you want to pay lots of money, but those who need and deserve other people’s help.
The reason come back to the central fraud in government. They have run up massive debts, and have fraudulently hidden them off the books.
I’ll keep raising it, because its the largest issue going that drives all other decisions.
So far out of the Peers, just one has come back with a comment. Peston of the BBC told her the debt was a trillion. So much for inteligence and expertise in the Lords. They can’t admit to the mess, because by and large they have caused it. The trillion by the way is the borrowing.
True debts, 7,000 bn, and that includes no payments for the disabled.
So they even the 45% legitimate claimants will be thrown overboard so Peers can carry on claiming expenses.
That’s the state for you.
“Disabled benefits have been paid to vast numbers of people who were fit for work”
Kindly provide proof of this statement IDS…sorry, Lord Blagger. Unless you can because as always you are talking out of your backside
Absolutely clear.
1. The number of claimants went from 1 million to over 1.5 million. That was because they were ‘hidden unemployed’. The government massaging the unemployed onto disabled benefit for political reasons.
2. The numbers failing to meet the ‘unfit/fit for work tests’. Before you start spinning let me point out one of the spins.
40% win on appeals. The problem here is that you are no doubt assuming that the population taking the test are all appealing. It isn’t. It’s just the marginal cases. I for one would be worried if 40% didn’t win on appeals. If there was a low number of marginal cases winning on appeal, it means the test hasn’t been applied properly, and vice versa if the number of appeals won was high.
However you can read some of the research here
http://northamptonshireobservatory.co.uk/docs/doc_Hidden%20Unemployment%20in%20the%20East%20Midlands_085025160205.pdf
And there are links in the papers too to others.
So Are you talking out of your backside, as you put it?