Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

Gary not sure how old you are but in the 70's I lost my job 4 times and the government at the time was labour, in 79 I changed profession and kept the same job for over 20 years through Thatchers reign and various others.

You cannot assume that everyone is in the same boat as you describe above, I know more people who have been in a job for a long time than those who have not?

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

"Right to buy" in the news again.

"Council houses are being sold off on the cheap to people who immediately rent them back to housing benefit tenants, according to an Independent investigation that exposes a new “Right to Buy” scandal.

In echoes of Margaret Thatcher’s drive to force local authorities in the 1980s to sell their properties at a cut price, the Government’s new initiative to encourage councils to sell their houses is having a disastrous effect in allowing social housing to be exploited for personal profit."

Cardigan.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

Told you.
Dave's getting it all in before he gets evicted.

it's all going to end in tears.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

She came out with a tirade of abuse. I was stood next to her father, who told her that he was ashamed of her.

The DPS of the venue then ordered her to leave (apparently she had already had a warning for threatening another woman in the toilets).

Yup, being forced to sell off council houses at a discount is costing the taxpayer a fortune.

Many of these ex council houses are now being let out in the private rented sector, at a much higher cost to the Housing Benefit bill.

Also, when no social housing is available for those that the council has a legal duty to rehouse, they get put into bed & breakfast accomodation. This costs hundreds of pounds a week. Total madness due to political ideology.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

So the tenants of those council houses bought them at a discount, and are then later letting them out - so one assumes they have moved out of the ex-council house into private accommodation, and are letting there previous (ex-council) house, making it available (which it wasn't when they lived there).

So there are swings and roundabouts - those ex-council houses are available to be rented, which they weren't before....

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

Not really Hugh. The available pool of housing hasn't changed, the only difference is that the taxpayer has just subsidised a private landlord to the tune of 5-6 figures, and is now paying for a private sector rent rather than a social one.

Without right to buy there would've been a house present either taken by an owner-occupier, with a property or chain becoming available, or bought at market rate by an investor who would then be renting it. When those people made their own subsidised by us property available to rent with the rent they receive subsidised by us, adding to the supply, they took another house out of the supply unless they left the country.

This is nearly always a zero sum game. In this case we, the taxpayer, get to subsidise a part of that game.

Personally, call me insane, I would rather there were no right to buy and councils were allowed to build houses, alongside our rating land by its utility rather than designations which would do far more to reduce our burgeoning housing benefit bill and mean we actually have state-owned assets rather than simply funding private landlords' portfolios.

This seems an awful lot to me like far more of a state benefit issue than most - this costs the taxpayer tens of thousands up front then an ongoing charge. Landlord benefit being added to with council tenant benefit.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

If only those facts were relevant to the discussion.

Those figures appear to relate simply to numbers of large families in the UK over the given period whereas I'm referring specifically to the number of problem families in which there is no parental control and children are being 'brought up' in squalor by defective parents. In problem families which are large, the problems are made worse and by definition the number of children adversely affected is greater hence the problem is likely to increase over time as those children have no positive roll models. That's not the same as saying that in the UK the number of large families will go up, but unless defective parenting is tackled I believe the proportion of problem families (large or small) is likely to go up.

You may have missed it or chosen to ignore it but I specifically pointed out that NOT all large families are a problem (far from it) and neither does being on benefits mean bad parents so let's just make that clear to save any further misunderstanding.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

Really??? and your proof of this comes from where?
We brought our council house (as I no doubt a few members here did too) There are certain stipulations from the motgage provider & the council, and moving out and renting the property aint allowed, not for the first 5 years at least AFAIK.
They are not being forced to sell off housing stock, there are many criteria that needs to be met before the council will entertain the thought of right to buy.

Facts, if you dont have them (& not hearsay from red tops) you cant really comment.

FYI our house was valued at 71k, we got 9.5% off of the value as discount & still had to stump up 20% deposit.

Every property on our little bit of Mansfield is privately owned, we were the last ones to buy (out of the 16 properties) & not one is let out.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

Well if all 16 properties in your street are owner-occupied this must mean not a single one of the millions sold nationwide is now rented out for sure.

Facts - sure!

Housing benefit bill in fiscal year 1978-1979 - £3.007 billion.
Housing benefit bill in fiscal year 2011/2012 - £23.384 billion.

Both inflation adjusted.

There was actually more housing benefit being paid out to people in work in 2011/12, £5.328 billion, than the entire pre-right to buy bill, even adjusting for inflation and population growth.

There is a case to be made that for every £1 of taxpayer money spent on housing benefit 95p of it is going on housing benefit, only 5p on building.

So yes, right to buy and the associated conditions are costing the taxpayer a bomb. No affordable housing to replace them is firing up the housing benefit bill and their ending up in the private sector is in its own right firing up the housing benefit bill as more and more have ended up in private rental not social rental.

Easy enough to find the statistics for this.

Between 2008-9 and 2012-13 the people in social rented housing dropped by 158,000.

In the same period the people in owner-occupied accommodation dropped by 284,000.

The equivalent of these and more into the private rented sector where, inevitably, we the taxpayer will be paying the higher rents, an increase of 889,000.

Still so long as the 16 properties in your little corner of Mansfield, having been fortunate enough to obtain social housing in the first place, now have your owner-occupied properties it's all good so clearly there's nothing wrong with the policy.

I mean who cares about our taxes propping up private landlords due to gutting of our public housing stock in the name of a 'property owning democracy', which as a dream has come crashing down as owner-occupancy rates are back to 1980s levels?

The two most disastrous decisions as far as housing in this country go in the past 35 years were both Tory decisions - right to buy and buy to let mortgages. These are of course closely followed by Brown's pensions raid. The only other thing going back further that really stands out is the Town and Country Planning Act. A law which has more place in a communist diktat than a democracy.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

Stop with the facts already.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

But aren't these housing schemes driven by political ideology and not what is in the best long term best interest of the country?

The Tory mantra since Thatcher came to power was "privatise and then let the market decide" and so, in this case as you have clearly and succinctly pointed out, the market has decided that the tax payer must pay more for housing the needy. I guess it is sort of obvious in hindsight: if you sell your housing stock at a loss and do not replace it, you then will have to pay the market rate when you need to source social housing. The market has no morality so you pay the going rate.

If the country votes for a party that puts profit above social responsibility then you do get what you pay for I suppose. I do include the previous quasi-Tory Labour government here.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

Well this is nice.

As far as 'workfare' goes, the explanation for its existence is pretty simple.

Something to think about next time the government crow about how fabulous their 'recovery' is and discuss all the jobs they've created. Just don't look at what's happened to wages, the deficit due to low income tax receipts, or in-work welfare.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

From personal experience I can tell you that a lot of these "training agencies" are nothing of the sort. They get large sums of cash to set up and operate them, but there appears to be no definition of what they should do with the "trainees" sent to them from the DWP.

Lots of paperwork by permanent staff who are only interested in their own existence, no incentives to do anything at all, and "trainees" who are often quite happy to be told to "go home and we'll see you in a few weeks' time".

And many of them get charity status so tax is avoidable!

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

Adult training in he UK is and has been for a longtime a joke good for nothing but putting taxpayers money into the hands of lousy bosses who do little or nothing to deserve or earn it. What is worse is that they prey on the enthusiasm of people to retrain and get back into a job and completely dishearten them and stiffle that enthusiasm after all if he company you've been sent to is doing nothing but abusing the system why shouldn't you. I'm not saying that attitude is right or acceptable but during my time trying to retrain it was an attitude i heard more and more as time and the trainee's understanding of what they were at a company for went on.

There is no political will to actually have a good training system in place or even bother too much that the one in place is little more then easy money for those companys that get the contracts as whilst on training your not "unemployed". Such a shame because it creates an atomosphere of do as little as possible and take the system for all it's worth and the vast majority of people that sign up for training are looking for exactly that training for new skills which will shorten at least their time on benefit. Also i don't know about elsewhere but in leicestershire the same people seem to be getting the contracts despite the numerous companys they have run\been a part of in the past that ended badly. Seems to be the case that if they are caught for something shut that company down start a new one and the contract drops straight back into their lap.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

Yup - I can't help thinking that as with many such schemes which start out well intentioned, there's a general lack of oversight and adequate performance measurement when it comes to outcomes. All too often it seems, the less scrupulous operators can easily create themselves a money making machine without really providing anything tangible. I dare say a large pinch of commercial naivety and short term political expediency added to the mix doesn't help.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

You know, reading that and the first part of your signature you could easily be describing PFI with that statement. Incompetence in those matters appears to be something that applies to politicians generally rather than one party.

This scheme has the rather pleasing, for this government, effects of flattering them in terms of unemployment and keeping wages down by keeping the supply of labour higher at the low end.

It's a waste of taxpayer funds of course, but few politicians care about that when it comes to their own political interests.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

True and as I've stated several times, voting at the next election boils down to choosing the least worst option IMHO. :erm:

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

The best option for me is not to give any of them my vote.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

If you don't vote, they win that way too...

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

l will be voting for the least worse option and that way at least l know my vote counts.....

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

Not if enough people do the same, only problem is you might get extremist fringes getting more of a say but no one would have a mandate on a 10% turnout for instance, I think it's be a great way to stick it to 'em if we could some how guarantee the non participation

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

Unfortunately, in this country there is no lower limit for the mandate to be invalid - if we don't vote, we get what we deserve (so vote for Greens/local independent/whatever).

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

Problem is there are a lot of people like myself who cannot see a reason to vote I've always been a conservative voter but theres no way I can vote for this current lot and am still too tory to vote labour or lib dem so non voting is the best option. Our political system is now one of exclusion too many people believe none of the options will work in their best interests or the countries so the problem exists with no viable solution.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

That's true but realistically no party could be returned on such a low turnout, they'd be a laughing stock and nothing they proposed could be taken seriously, if there was a none of the above/spoiled ballot/don't vote campaign I'd support it I think.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

I will always vote even if it means just going through the process and winding up with 'None of the above'. The privilege has cost a great many lives over time.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

+1

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

I don't think it has and even if they did die so you could have the right to vote presumably they also died so you could have the right not to and if we say your point is right then surely its up to the politicians to have treated them with more respect and not to have disenfranchised large swathes of the population to such a degree that they feel so negatively towards politics.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

If there was the option of none of the above I'd be happy with that and I think voter turnout would be a lot higher but no political body wants that option because they don't want to deal with the repercussions of huge numbers of ballots in the number there would be. Yes people have died in the past but not so we can vote they fought and died for us to have freedoms voting being one but not the only one and the freedom to not vote is as high as the freedom to vote I'm sick of that guilt trip being used to make people feel they have to vote. Perhaps if politicians worked in the best interests of their constituents and the country this debate wouldn't exist the fact it does shows how our political system is and has been failing the people for a long time.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

Fitness-to-work assessment backlog could take 18 months to clear.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2...-services-atos

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

I think they are being a bit generous with that statement. That with the added new intake next October on top.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

US-based Maximus Health Services will replace the current firm Atos in March 2015 on a three-year £500m contract.

Initially, Maximus will use existing Atos staff, buildings and IT equipment.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29952335

Same old, same old, just new bosses to take the profits....

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

How many benefit cheats are there really?.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...port?CMP=fb_gu

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

Fuelled and created by the political spin to allow such treatment of the sick and disabled for the means of making any kind of cuts / changes to benefits to be justified.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

Anyone who has bothered to go deeper then the political bluster and garbage already knows fraud is not the huge issue a certain political party has made out. We've had a constant barrage of misinformation for as you say peanut to justify the treatment of the disabled and sick in this country. Trouble is the majority haven't looked deeper and won't in the future they will content themselves with trotting out the old line of "those who need it should get it" and then turning their heads when the genuine are hit. What's made me laugh a lot in the last four years is all the talk and hyping of fraud whilst implementing changes that don't hit fraudsters at all or even make it more difficult for people to abuse the system.

Still never mind the politicians will tell us how's it all working and people will be happy unless your one of the increasing number of people getting unfairly hit.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

Well said. No one objects when the Tories slash social services but there will hell to pay when someone with mental health issues, for example, who otherwise may have been monitored and helped, commits a serious crime ..

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

The Tories started this stupid idea of buy now pay later and Labour continued it with another name. It costs taxpayers a heck of a lot more in the long run, but in the short term, it allows the Govt. to build hospitals etc and not have to find the money to pay for them- thus creating a false illusion of low taxes and money for public services.

I guess if Labour had not continued, the tories would have accused them of putting up taxes and spending less on public services. It's a great deal for the older generation, but very poor for our children and grandchildren.

JSA claimants are now being routinely 'sanctioned' for the most trivial and spurious of reasons.

Some examples of this are a person who was sanctioned for not looking for work on Christmas day, another for not turning up for an appointment whilst in a coma and a young man with an exemplary work seeking record who was sanctioned for three months for being 10 mins late to an appointment when his bike suffered a puncture.

Whilst sanctioned, these people are taken out of the unemployment figures.

Benefit fraud must be tackled, but it is a lot less than the Govt. would have us believe. They never mention the vast amount not claimed by eligible people, nor the cost of tax evasion, which dwarfs benefit fraud.

Indeed.

I recently received a fat cheque from HMRC due to the tax cuts. I would much rather that the money was spent on the NHS, so it's there when I need it. I also feel uncomfortable that I have received this, whilst genuinely needy people are being evicted and reduced to using food banks.

Don't forget that even those with private health cover need the NHS Accident & Emergency service ;)

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

Why don't you donate it to a local food bank or a local Credit Union?

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

Not only did they continue it they massively increased its use, taking all the credit for the spending while pushing the actual paying for it far into the future so it was somebody else's problem

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

:tu:

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

I helped set up the local credit union many years ago; over the years they have expanded and are now self sufficient. I also make sporadic donations to various charitable causes (and let them keep the tax relief).

I am currently considering how excess food and/or donations can be made through my business interests and personally to foodbanks.

Even so, I would still have rather had increased funding for public services eg The NHS than a tax refund/cut that I could have lived without.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

It's such a bad mechanism that Osborne has continued the trend and increased the use of PFI since then.

His PFI approval figures (in excess of 60 projects and almost 7bn pounds) in the first fourteen months as Chancellor are frightening.

Don't think for a second that the Tories adopted PFI for the good of the general population, it was done to increase the wealth of a relatively select few.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

Do you think with the election approaching, the voters will pick up on this when they consider who will best protect the NHS?

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

Conservative benefit cut options leaked.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32084722

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

Disabled and their Carers under threat again :mad:

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

Yes it does look rather ominous.:(

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

but they will still get away with it meanwhile at the opposite end of the spectrum, the rich get richer.

Vote Tory and help the rich get richer and the poor get poorer ..

Vote Labour and get idiots who don't really know what they are or where they are going ..

Vote UKIP .. (don't want to even go there) ..

Vote Green and get some wacko policies and a useless leader ..

I despair!

BTW, the last is the best of the worst .. and I like the colour .. YOMV :)

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

I'm past caring to be honest I dread the Tories getting back in but as long as my benefit cuts can allow them to give a tax cut in three years be selfish for me to oppose it afterall we're so badly in it that a tax cut can be managed in three years so of course hammer the disabled and carers not like we can do sod all about it we are the epitome of sitting duck.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

This is what annoys me is that Tory lovers think this is a good idea. Its always the people that cannot defend themselves.

My wife is a carer for my son, she gets £60 per week to cover my sons 24 hour care. My brother in law is on a disability benefit, he cannot work due to industrial injury.

Why, why are they going to do this. Why don't ALL MPs, drop there expenses accounts, that would save a million quid.

I used to deliver to the Parliament kitchens and also the Conservative club in Pall Mall, they don't get nothing from Tesco's. All there stuff (wine, foods, champagne) it all comes from big name stores.

IF, the Tories get back in, they will increase spending oversea's and cut spending in this country to help it.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

Funnily enough, the Carlton Club (not the 'Conservative Club') took over the site of 'Arthur's Club' in the 1940s, after the original was bombed by the Luftwaffe.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

All that is being SUGGESTED by CIVIL SERVANTS is a sort of means testing. If you were receiving benefits, then carers allowance would continue. The suggestion about DLA & PIP is making them taxable as other benefits already are. If your income is below the tax threshold, there would be NO difference.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

The trick with "leaked" documents is to forewarn you on purpose.

you discuss it. and you get ready for it. and you accept it.

so when they do it you were actually expecting it. so it's not too bad now.


Another thing is.
Dave is coming back for more because you didn't scream loud enough the last time.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

Perhaps if the Tory's would be honest on where the additional cuts of 12 billion are coming from no one would get worked up about leaks but given they will give no details it is not surprising people take leaks more seriously more so at a time when more and more workers within the dwp feel enough cuts have been made. It just sums up what politicians have turned us the public into the mention of cutting 12 billion more from the welfare budget hitting the disabled and their carers barely gets a mention despite the relatively small numbers that will be affected but if they were to announce an increase in income tax of 12 billion the public would go nuts and it's that twisted attitude this bunch of Tory's prey and rely on.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

Before the 1970's there wasn't much extra support available to disabled people and their carers, then it was decided that help for a persons care and mobility needs would be made by introducing Attendance Allowance and Mobility Allowance (over the years these have become DLA/PIP for children and working age people). Mobility Allowance has all but been abolished and those over retirement age can claim Attendence Allowance if their disability arises after they reach retirement age.

In order to ensure that this Government help towards the extra costs associated with disability were met by the introduction of these new benefits, it was decided that they would be tax free and fully disregarded in the calculation of means tested benefits.

This meant that someone unable to work would receive the way extra help, without the extra money simply being knocked off their existing means tested benefits.

Someone able to work could still receive them and would not have the payments eroded by having to pay extra income tax.

It is worth noting that the help that many disabled people receive for their extra mobility needs actually enables them to work. This is obviously to everyones benefit and their are many disabled people who would have to give up work should this support be reduced or stopped. Besides the human cost of isolation, independence etc this action would actually cost the taxpayer more.

In short, ever since the introduction of these benefits, all Governments have ensured that this extra help is received in full to help meet the extra costs associated with disability by people through no fault of their own.

This is the first time ever that any suggestion that this should change has been made.

At the same time as disabled people were given extra help to meet some of their extra costs in the 1970's, a new benefit for their carers was introduced called Invalid Care Allowance.

This was meant to help towards the loss of earnings experienced by a carer and if they were able to work part time to boost their income, they had a disregard much higher than most other benefits.

Over time, to help reduce the negative perception that many people have of the disabled and to reflect the changing language of modern times, Invalid Care Allowance was renamed Carers Allowance (CA) The Blair administration significantly increased the amount that carers could earn before CA was reduced to help negate the loss of their potential earnings. The rate is roughly 16 x the hourly minimum wage for an adult.

This benefit is taxable and their hasn't been any mention thus far of any transitional protection for existing carers in receipt of Carers Allowance to continue to receive it should it be abolished.

In addition:

- Scrapping Carers Allowance could be counter productive. If carers (who already receive less income because they are unable to work full time) are expected to do it for nothing, they may cease being carers altogether. It would cost us much, much more as taxpayers if they ever did this.

- The current rate of Carers Allowance is £61.35 a week. This compares to Jobseekers Allowance which is currently £72.40.

- Carers Allowance is fully taken into account when calculating means tested benefits- penny for penny.

- Carers Allowance can only be paid for one person at a time to any given carer. If, for example, a parent looks after their disabled partner and child, only one payment is made.

- In order to receive Carers Allowance a carer must care for the disabled person for a MINIMUM of 35 hours per week. If we assume that a carer only ever does the minimum, this equates to a payment of £1.75 per hour, yet the National Minimum Wage is currently £6.50. If (like most) a carer does more than 35 hours per week; even this hourly rate is eroded as no further payment is ever made.

It's not such a good deal in reality is it? It takes a special kind of person to give up their career in return for what they get.

Carers save this country an absolute fortune, often at the expense of their own health and financial position. If the Government try to reduce or take away their current pittance, I predict (and hope for) a huge backlash.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

@Richard

I read you last post and I must be missing something. Why should benefits not be taxable?

Cheers

Grim

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

They certainly have ,didn't families used to club together to look after other family members that had disabilities or had fallen on hard times .The whole system of paying family members to look after other family members needs looking at ,in some cases it's just a way for freeloaders to avoid looking for work

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

And I bet that every single one of these people with, for example, disabled children would give up their benefits and swap places with you like a shot.

When Invalid Care Allowance was introduced, it was not possible to claim it for one's partner or after retirement age. Over the years, this was changed.

Have you ever considered the fact that if these people stopped caring for these people for £61.35 a week, that it would cost the taxpayer much, much more?

Local Authorities and the NHS would not be able to cope.

---------- Post added at 16:26 ---------- Previous post was at 16:24 ----------

Most benefits are taxable. The reasons why DLA/PIP have never been taxed since their introduction by successive Governments is explained in the post.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

I should imagine that everyone can think of someone they'd like to change places with.

The priority for every parent is to feed and raise their family and, secondarily, to help others.

That order of priority has become more acute in 5 years of financial constraint with a shift in emphasis toward the former by necessity.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

completely missed the point :rolleyes:

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

When I was claiming JSA one idiot thought I enjoyed claiming £67 a week, and couldn't seem to grasp I was earning more than that a day.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

I know why they're not taxed but I asked why they shouldn't be taxed?

Cheers

Grim

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

I was just giving a factual account of the history of disability benefits.

My own personal view of the situation is this:

The Government decided to give disabled people a given amount to help with the extra costs associated with disability and mobility needs. They did not want to have these modest payments eroded by the effects of the benefits and taxation system. As a result, regulations were introduced to ensure that Attendence Allowance and Mobility Allowance were both tax free and to ensure that the award of these new benefits were not negated by reducing other various means tested benefits.

Not protecting them from the effects of taxation would have reduced the amount that Parliament wanted to get into the hands of the disabled in order to help to improve their quality of life.

The general idea is that, whatever a persons income, society should help those who face extra costs through no fault of their own ie that their standard of living should not be lower than it otherwise would be if they were not disabled.

Whilst this is laudable, because of the need to make cuts or increase revenue, I think that there is a case for the consideration of removing this tax exempt status or DLA altogether from the more afluent. If someone is disabled and has made a success of their life to become very, very rich, do they really need or deserve society to recompense them for the extra expenses caused as a result of their disability?

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

Perhaps the idiot thought that when you earned £67 a day you might have put some to one side in case you might need it during, say, an unexpected period of job-seeking?

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

Erm......not all of us :dozey:

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

I know several disabled people who use their DLA to pay the extra costs involved with finding and staying in full employment.

Whilst their wages (AFAIK) have been frozen for years, their DLA has increased very slightly, but not enough to absorb all the extra costs involved with transport especially.

Taxation of DLA might make it financially impossible for them to stay in work.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

Carers don't only give up their time to those they care for full time, they often give up their chances of a decent job or any sort of career and therefore sacrifice their own security and ability to support themselves when they either lose their role for whatever reason.

A good friend of ours spent quite a few years looking after his profoundly disabled son 24/7 whilst living in a grotty HA flat on an appalling estate. Last year, having come to the end of his tether, he finally made the difficult decision to put his own life/sanity first, get a job and put his son into full time care. Whatever the state spent supporting him and his son over the years pales into insignificance compared to what it's now going to cost for the foreseeable future. There are no cheap or simple solutions to this problem.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

Citing a specific example to illustrate an opinion is of course not indicative of the overall state of the benefits system. We all know that for every genuine story of hardship there may be a corresponding number of questionable benefits claimants.

Your friend decided that his responsibility should pass to the state full time; the state supported him and his son for years not least no doubt to maintain the bond between father and son in a home of their own but apparently this wasn't enough.

The benefits system is under review to achieve a more efficient management of the available funds for the benefit of those who need it and to ensure the right resouces go to qualifying claimants.

I don't think anyone would term such a review as seeking cheap or simple solutions but it would be irresponsible not to manage every penny of taxpayers contributions effectively and of course within what the state can afford.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

Absolutely, I alluded to this earlier. Apart from the human costs associated with the disabled having to give up employment eg independence, loneliness, pride etc; it would cost the state much more in support if they had to give up work.

Don't forget that the Government has cut support for the Access To Work Scheme too. This provided sign language interpreters, for example, to enable the hearing impaired to go out to work.

Again, I absolutely agree. Anybody who thinks that being a carer is a form of "freeloading" is welcome to give up their job in return for £61.35 for 35+ hours a week. Caring often includes talking to mentally ill people to try and persuade them not to commit suicide (mentally exhausting), lifting hoists to get them into bed, pushing wheelchairs around (physically exhausting) as well as feeding, toileting etc.

Anybody who resents or is jealous of the limited support that disabled people and their carers receive is an idiot.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

What disability do you have Kursk?.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

A strangely defensive comment. Don't you think benefits should be managed responsibly by the Government? Incidentally, is a 'carer' a vocational career or could the term 'parent' be substituted?

What's that got to do with the price of bread?

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

If you have no disability then why would you bother to really find out how the intricate alterations have a disproportionate affect and if you don't have a disability your unlikely to really understand what it is like to live with it and the stress of the changes, quite important aspects I'd have thought when discussing disability benefits.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

Just to add that they are also considering scrapping Industrial Injuries Benefit.

In addition, people who have paid National Insurance Contributions may also lose their entitlement to Jobseekers Allowance and Employment Support Allowance.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

But there are two types of JSA. Contribution and Income based. If you have enough contribution you get put on that first for 6 months, then moved to the income based one. Its only income based that also entitles you to free dental care as well.

I find that daft. You are out of work but they think as you had a job recently you may have savings or other money so can still pay dental fees.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

So that I can make informed comment in the debate....

I disagree. Disability is only one of life's stressful aspects; we all have experience of difficulties and those presented by disability are extensively documented. Why should anything preclude anyone from discussion?

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

If your not living in the system Kursk you really don't understand how bad things have got and the constant worry of forthcoming changes let alone how these 12 billion in further cuts could affect.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

Except that is not what's happening. Blanket cuts are being made and most of them to the people who do need it the most.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

Because he or I, are not "living in the system" does not prevent him from having an opinion on how his taxes are spent by the government on welfare, or make his opinions any less valid than somebody " living in the system"

By that yard stick you would preclude anyone from having an opinion on anything that they haven't got direct experience of, which is nonsense.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

There is nothing wrong with people having a opinion as long as its a educated opinion and not one prejudiced by what certain politicians and certain sections of the media espouse to people.

l am supportive of welfare reform but there comes a time when enough is enough and that time is near as if we continue to go down this road for the next five years then those because of no fault of their own because of the disabilities and illnesses who need it the most are sadly going to be left with no help at all and no one can tell me that's right.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

Is that an educated opinion? Or is that an opinion prejudiced by certain politicians and sections of the media?

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

l look at the facts and info and the many experiences l have before me before l come out with a opinion unlike some who views and opinions are based only by what they read from certain prejudiced sections of the media or by listening to certain politicians.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

What facts have been put forward that suggest those with disabilities and illnesses will have no benefits whatsoever within five years?

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

The Conservatives have already made it clear that they intend to pare back the Welfare state to the bone if they get 5 more years and sadly those receiving benefits because they need help because of their disabilities and illnesses are likely to bear the brunt of the severe welfare cuts which are coming down the line after 2015.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

Or some could put it that those who need the help most will be supported, and those who don't, won't.

There's always two ways of looking at things.....

Nick Robinson put it well (imho) on his blog - "Election 2015 - It's all about you"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32106884

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

Yes indeed Nick Robinson has put it quite succinctly on his blog and l suspect many when it comes to casting their vote on polling day including me will be doing it with a heavy heart as neither leader is very convincing at the end of the day when it comes to doing what is best for this country as they both have too many vested interests in my humble opinion.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

Thanks Pierre; it saves me saying it.

If that is aimed at me, I take exception to it. I feel my opinion to be considered and educated. I'm sorry if it doesn't agree with yours but my view remains valid nonetheless.

In case it is not clear, I, not the politicians, commentators, media or Uncle Tom Cobbley and all, take the view that benefits should be targeted toward those that need them and at an appropriate level.

And a review of the system is correct and overdue to ensure needs are met not wishlists.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

No it was not aimed at you Kursk.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

My apologies in that case. Hard decisions have to be made about all areas of public expenditure so that resources are maximised and properly targeted. It's about receiving benefit commensurate with need.

I see no reason for this to concern genuine beneficiaries.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

I wish a fraction of the energy, effort and media coverage that goes into finding who of the current benefit claiments does not deserve their money, would go into identifying the tax dodgers and plugging the myriad schemes through which they operate.

I suspect that the sums that are "owed" in tax far out weigh the money that is being incorrectly paid out in benefits.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

Very probably, but it's easier to "attack" the "weak" than to infuriate or alienate Big Business who may be holding the purse strings at some level.

Reform is needed, but the way it is being done is doing more harm to those genuinely in need than to those scamming the system I reckon. And that includes those scamming the tax system.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

It's Contribution Based Jobseekers Allowance (JSAC) that they are considering scrapping.

Anybody on JSAC can make a claim for free or reduced dental charges and other health costs under the NHS Low Income scheme. Apply on form HC1:

http://www.nhsbsa.nhs.uk/HealthCosts/1128.aspx

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

Do you mean like this? And this? And since, in 2013/14, estimates were £3.4bn of benefit was overpaid due to claimant error, fraud or official error, and around £23 billion that year was collected from those who were evading/avoiding tax, the figures speak for themselves....

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

Government Statistics ... need I say more?

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

So you believe the government stats for underpayment, but not for tax collection?

Okaaayyyyyy then....

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

I never quoted any government stats on underpayment.

If anyone thinks this Tory government is serious about chasing the very people that back them, you are living in cloud cuckoo land.

You can quote as many Government statistics as you like. I can see the real world in front of me, not one spun from Westminister and I can see the richer minority in this society getting more advantaged as the years go by and I can see the poor getting less advantaged. The majority of the money to provide a better society, to fund a viable NHS, etc. is here and it does not belong to the poor and the disabled.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

So no matter what they do, you won't believe they've done it?

As I said before, Okaaaayyyyy then......

You've obviously made up your mind, and won't let inconvenient things like facts get in the way of your viewpoint - as is your privilege....

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

Government spin does not always equate to "facts" but that's fine. You believe them, your choice. Okaaaayyyyy? Others can make their own minds up on whether a Tory government is more interested in making cuts in the welfare budget than making sure the rich pay all the tax that is due.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

You're facts are not fully representative, a clearer picture would be to look at what percentage of the benefits bill the overpayment/fraud represents and what percentage of the money clawed back from evasion represents from the amount actually lost. You could also look at the penalties when aggressive tax avoiders are caught out and what someone gets if they mess up on benefits, seems pretty clear to me who is penalised more in real terms

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

If this is what you think benefits are for then it explains a lot of your hostility towards the benefit changes .Benefits ,and I mean all benefits should be there for what people need ,not what they want .

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

Agreed. Benefits, even sickness and disablement benefits, can and should only ever provide a basic standard of support in order to prevent poverty and penury.

It is impossible for the State to fund people up to the level of their expected standard of living absent any disability or other disadvantage.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

The explanation as to why DLA isn't taxable and is designed not to affect other benefits was an outline of Parliaments view from the date of the inception of these benefits up until the present day.

Unlike means tested benefits, we have all paid for contribution based benefits in case we fall on hard times through our National Insurance contributions.

It's akin to compulsorily being made to insure your house, it being burgled and the insurance company refusing to pay out because they've changed the goalposts. They then only offer to help you if you can prove that you're too poor to get things replaced!

Contribution based benefits cost the taxpayer nothing, they are paid for out of the National Insurance fund.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

Wrong. There is no "fund" or magic pot of money. Taxes and NI are gathred and then spread out again at the same time. No surplus and yes it IS the taxpayer who pays directly for benefits.