Cable Forum
Page 15 of 27 « First 511121314 15 1617181925 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)
-   Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)
-   -   The state benefits system mega-thread. (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33692770)

RichardCoulter 31-03-2015 12:24
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35768548)
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.
Disability benefits DO only provide basic support and it is this basic level of support that is further under threat.

For example, someone needing 24 hour care should be entitled to the highest rate of care support from DLA or PIP. This amount is currently £81.30 a week. If they employed a carer, even on the minimum wage of £6.50 an hour, this equates to under 13 hours a week.

That's less than 2 hours a day for someone to help a person get out of bed, dress, cook, feed, toilet, shave, do the shopping, bath/shower (which inevitably takes longer) and get ready for bed again. There is simply no slack to pay for time for luxury activities, in fact, due to a combination of cuts to support, many disabled people now regularly have to choose to eat or take care of their personal hygiene.

Chris 31-03-2015 12:24
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35768585)
Contribution based benefits cost the taxpayer nothing, they are paid for out of the National Insurance fund.
You are totally wide of the mark here. NI is not ring-fenced. When it is collected, it is nominally held separately from other Treasury income but in practice that's just a paper exercise. The proceeds of NI are, and have always been, allocated across government spending according to the will of the government of the day, and benefits, even contributions-based ones, are paid out of current tax receipts regardless of whether enough NI is being collected to pay for it all.

RichardCoulter 31-03-2015 12:59
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 35768587)
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35768589)
You are totally wide of the mark here. NI is not ring-fenced. When it is collected, it is nominally held separately from other Treasury income but in practice that's just a paper exercise. The proceeds of NI are, and have always been, allocated across government spending according to the will of the government of the day, and benefits, even contributions-based ones, are paid out of current tax receipts regardless of whether enough NI is being collected to pay for it all.
Not correct, although the surplus from the NI fund is often borrowed by Governments.

Chris 31-03-2015 13:25
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35768596)
Not correct, although the surplus from the NI fund is often borrowed by Governments.
Stop digging yourself into a hole, Richard.

The separate statement of NI as a distinct figure within treasury accounts is entirely a paper exercise. In reality, all claims of contribution-based benefit are a liability to the taxpayer because it is a liability that has to be met, whether the NI "fund" has sufficient in it to cover the claim or not.

Stating that it is "often borrowed by governments" makes no sense. It is the government that collects it and spends it, and it is the government that manages the accounts that shows where the money comes from and where it goes.

Hugh 31-03-2015 14:13
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
1 Attachment(s)
And here are those accounts....

https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...accessible.pdf

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/at...fund201314.jpg

TheDaddy 31-03-2015 16:50
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35768589)
You are totally wide of the mark here. NI is not ring-fenced. When it is collected, it is nominally held separately from other Treasury income but in practice that's just a paper exercise. The proceeds of NI are, and have always been, allocated across government spending according to the will of the government of the day, and benefits, even contributions-based ones, are paid out of current tax receipts regardless of whether enough NI is being collected to pay for it all.
Has it always been, since day one?

Chris 31-03-2015 16:53
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
I believe that to be the case. Whatever the stated aims and aspirations of the government of the day, I do not believe there has ever been a ring-fenced tax in the UK. (Income tax, for example, was introduced to pay for the Napoleonic wars, but even then, I don't believe the money raised was reserved exclusively for that purpose).

martyh 31-03-2015 18:23
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35768585)
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.
I didn't argue that point ,I argued the point you made about benefits providing a standard of level equal to a person not being disabled

---------- Post added at 17:23 ---------- Previous post was at 17:13 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35768585)
Contribution based benefits cost the taxpayer nothing, they are paid for out of the National Insurance fund.
nonsense ,that cannot possibly be the case given the demands on NI contributions (on paper) such as the NHS ,pensions, redundancy and other benefits

I think the NHS would swallow the entirety of NI contributions collected on it's own as would pensions .

Gary L 01-04-2015 17:57
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35768409)
Government Statistics ... need I say more?
I know.

the existing Government statistics say that the unemployment figures are going down dramatically.
they say that people are finding jobs in their thousands.

the real truth is that those people are being sanctioned.
those people are the victims of lies.
and these people are having to use the ever growing poverty food banks that this government of Great Britain has created from their brainwashing of the "Hard Working People"

nomadking 01-04-2015 18:11
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary L (Post 35768963)
I know.

the existing Government statistics say that the unemployment figures are going down dramatically.
they say that people are finding jobs in their thousands.

the real truth is that those people are being sanctioned.
those people are the victims of lies.
and these people are having to use the ever growing poverty food banks that this government of Great Britain has created from their brainwashing of the "Hard Working People"
Stop telling fibs.
Quote:
The number of unemployed people in the UK is measured by the Labour Force Survey (LFS) and includes people who meet the international definition of unemployment specified by the International Labour Organisation (ILO). This ILO definition defines unemployed people as being:
  • without a job, have been actively seeking work in the past four weeks and are available to start work in the next two weeks, or
  • out of work, have found a job and are waiting to start it in the next two weeks
This definition is used by most other countries, by the Statistical Office of the European Union (Eurostat), and by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Those sanctioned would be INCLUDED.:rolleyes:

Gary L 01-04-2015 18:17
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 35768971)
Stop telling fibs.
Those sanctioned would be INCLUDED.:rolleyes:
Why would they be included as being "Unemployed"?
they're not included in the part you've quoted.

when they're sanctioned (punished by either having a reduction or having no money paid) then they are not included in the "unemployment" figures.
they have no publicly recognised category.

so naturally when you have say 1,000 and you take away say 999 you're left with 1.

so naturally you assume the 999 have found a job.
because they're not on the list anymore.

happy days.

nomadking 01-04-2015 18:44
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
They are STILL "without a job, have been actively seeking work". Simply being in receipt of benefits is NOT the criteria.

Link
Quote:
Unemployment is different from the claimant count, which measures only those people who are claiming unemployment-related benefits (Jobseeker's Allowance since 1996). The claimant count is normally the lower measure because some unemployed people are not entitled to claim unemployment-related benefits, or choose not to do so.

Gary L 01-04-2015 19:03
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
You are correct. they are STILL "without a job".

what do you think happens to the figures when people are no longer signing on when they have been sanctioned?
these people have to officially 'reclaim' when their disallowance period has expired.

martyh 01-04-2015 19:11
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary L (Post 35768973)
Why would they be included as being "Unemployed"?
they're not included in the part you've quoted.

when they're sanctioned (punished by either having a reduction or having no money paid) then they are not included in the "unemployment" figures.
they have no publicly recognised category.

so naturally when you have say 1,000 and you take away say 999 you're left with 1.

so naturally you assume the 999 have found a job.
because they're not on the list anymore.

happy days.
That is simply wrong .Both sets of unemployment figures show a fall in unemployment ,also those that are sanctioned would still be classed as unemployed under the LFS figures so your claim that those being sanctioned are being removed from the unemployment figures is simply rubbish .The only truth is that more people are being sanctioned more under a conservative government than a Labour one

---------- Post added at 18:11 ---------- Previous post was at 18:08 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary L (Post 35768984)
You are correct. they are STILL "without a job".

what do you think happens to the figures when people are no longer signing on when they have been sanctioned?
these people have to officially 'reclaim' when their disallowance period has expired.
have a read

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/...ood-news/12810

nomadking 01-04-2015 19:34
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary L (Post 35768984)
You are correct. they are STILL "without a job".

what do you think happens to the figures when people are no longer signing on when they have been sanctioned?
these people have to officially 'reclaim' when their disallowance period has expired.
They are STILL included in the unemployment figures. They are NOT mysteriously removed from the unemployment figures.

TheDaddy 03-04-2015 06:08
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35768986)
That is simply wrong .Both sets of unemployment figures show a fall in unemployment ,also those that are sanctioned would still be classed as unemployed under the LFS figures so your claim that those being sanctioned are being removed from the unemployment figures is simply rubbish .The only truth is that more people are being sanctioned more under a conservative government than a Labour one

---------- Post added at 18:11 ---------- Previous post was at 18:08 ----------



have a read

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/...ood-news/12810
You can hardly blame anyone for believing governments massage the statistics, your own link says they don't include people on government training schemes and previous governments of all persuasions have tried to fool us as also detailed in your link.

martyh 03-04-2015 10:48
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35769311)
You can hardly blame anyone for believing governments massage the statistics, your own link says they don't include people on government training schemes and previous governments of all persuasions have tried to fool us as also detailed in your link.
I have no doubt they do massage the figures but the myths should be corrected .The reason why those on training schemes aren't counted in the unemployment figures is because they aren't unemployed in the sense that they are available to look for work .

TheDaddy 03-04-2015 16:23
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35769329)
I have no doubt they do massage the figures but the myths should be corrected .The reason why those on training schemes aren't counted in the unemployment figures is because they aren't unemployed in the sense that they are available to look for work .
You ever been on one of these courses they consist mainly of job searching! I pity any one signing on, the hoops you have to jump through for pittance

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24829866

martyh 03-04-2015 16:39
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35769400)
You ever been on one of these courses they consist mainly of job searching! I pity any one signing on, the hoops you have to jump through for pittance

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24829866
As it should be ,when it's too easy people take advantage .Part of why people are against benefit changes is because they now have to show much more effort in getting a job

TheDaddy 03-04-2015 16:48
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35769403)
As it should be ,when it's too easy people take advantage .Part of why people are against benefit changes is because they now have to show much more effort in getting a job
The regime is self defeating and poorly administered, is that as it should be to and they're not my words but the chief of the cab whose organisation has to deal with consequences of the hoop exercise

martyh 03-04-2015 17:35
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35769406)
The regime is self defeating and poorly administered, is that as it should be to and they're not my words but the chief of the cab whose organisation has to deal with consequences of the hoop exercise
So because the chief of the citizens advice bureau doesn't agree with the changes that makes it wrong ? , not the most unbiased source really is she

Gary L 03-04-2015 20:31
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35769432)
So because the chief of the citizens advice bureau doesn't agree with the changes that makes it wrong ? , not the most unbiased source really is she
She's the chief of the CAB. she bases her opinion on the workload and cases that come through the door. feedback from her staff up amd down the country.

martyh 03-04-2015 22:01
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary L (Post 35769490)
She's the chief of the CAB. she bases her opinion on the workload and cases that come through the door. feedback from her staff up amd down the country.
She's also on £100 grand a year and without the people who the CAB, quite a lot of the time tell that there is not a lot can be done because that's the rules she would be out of a job.She just shares the same opinion as you and Daddy

Gary L 03-04-2015 22:14
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35769522)
She's also on £100 grand a year and without the people who the CAB, quite a lot of the time tell that there is not a lot can be done because that's the rules she would be out of a job.She just shares the same opinion as you and Daddy
Rollox.

Arthurgray50@blu 03-04-2015 23:23
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Well some 6 years ago the Conservative Club is still in Pall Mall. And l should know, l used to deliver really posh wines there

TheDaddy 04-04-2015 00:50
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35769432)
So because the chief of the citizens advice bureau doesn't agree with the changes that makes it wrong ? , not the most unbiased source really is she
No not because of her opinion but because of her experience which is greater than either of ours

martyh 04-04-2015 11:18
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35769555)
No not because of her opinion but because of her experience which is greater than either of ours
Her experience is limited to those who have problems and to issue such a statement as " The regime is self defeating and poorly administered " is quite obviously rubbish and probably politically motivated because she is completely ignoring the fact that for the vast majority the system simply works as it should

Chris 04-04-2015 11:40
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35769555)
No not because of her opinion but because of her experience which is greater than either of ours
We used to have to deal with a volunteer youth worker whose day job was in A&E. It was a complete nightmare organising any kind of outdoor activity, because this person would constantly quote all the horrendous injuries they had seen, incurred as a result of all the various activities we wanted to put on.

People who deal with the consequences when things go wrong are rarely the best people to go to for a balanced view of whether there is a systemic problem. They are too closely acquainted with one small but highly traumatic part of the issue and their perspective is inevitably skewed.

TheDaddy 04-04-2015 15:30
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35769591)
Her experience is limited to those who have problems and to issue such a statement as " The regime is self defeating and poorly administered " is quite obviously rubbish and probably politically motivated because she is completely ignoring the fact that for the vast majority the system simply works as it should
400 000 people sanctioned a 64% increase these are not small minority numbers

RichardCoulter 04-04-2015 15:38
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
http://touchstoneblog.org.uk/2015/04...qWU3_M.twitter

An interesting article about the Government considering the taxation of DLA and PIP.

martyh 04-04-2015 16:00
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35769646)
400 000 people sanctioned a 64% increase these are not small minority numbers
Simply churning that figure out means nothing at all ,what is the context ? what type of sanction? what did the claimant do to get sanctioned?

Here are some actual figures ,I'm sure there are more upto date ones if you look these are simply ones I came across with a quick google
Quote:
Today’s publication details the number of sanctions imposed from when the new regime was introduced in October 2012 up until September 2013.
They show that:
  • there has been a rise in the number of sanctions compared with last year – between November 2012 (the first full month of the new sanctions) and September 2013 there were 789,000 sanctions. This compares to 705,000 between November 2011 – September 2012
  • the number of the most severe sanctions (refusing employment, leaving employment voluntarily or losing employment through misconduct) has reduced – there were a third less high level sanctions in the 3 months July to September 2013, compared to the same period in 2012
  • the most common reason for a JSA sanction (36%) was a failure on the part of the jobseeker to actively look for work
  • 30% were sanctioned because they failed to participate in employment programmes (including the Work Programme) designed to help people back to work
  • 19% were sanctioned because they didn’t have a good reason for missing a meeting at the Jobcentre
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/b...ing-culture--2

nomadking 04-04-2015 16:04
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35769651)
http://touchstoneblog.org.uk/2015/04...qWU3_M.twitter

An interesting article about the Government considering the taxation of DLA and PIP.
It is merely a suggestion as an option to be considered. The list of options was created by civil servants. It is NOT a statement of intent.

RichardCoulter 04-04-2015 16:08
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 35769665)
It is merely a suggestion as an option to be considered. The list of options was created by civil servants. It is NOT a statement of intent.
And was never presented as anything else.

As the Government refuse to say where the 12 billion pounds of further cuts to the welfare budget will come from, it's only natural that people will speculate.

Why don't they just come clean and let the electorate decide if their cuts are acceptable or not?

TheDaddy 04-04-2015 17:10
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35769662)
Simply churning that figure out means nothing at all ,what is the context ? what type of sanction? what did the claimant do to get sanctioned?

Here are some actual figures ,I'm sure there are more upto date ones if you look these are simply ones I came across with a quick google
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/b...ing-culture--2
Got any info on how many got their money reinstated on appeal, that'd be the best indication of frivolous sanctioning

Kabaal 04-04-2015 19:11
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35769668)
And was never presented as anything else.

As the Government refuse to say where the 12 billion pounds of further cuts to the welfare budget will come from, it's only natural that people will speculate.

Why don't they just come clean and let the electorate decide if their cuts are acceptable or not?
Ahead of a general election? No chance.

Chris 04-04-2015 19:46
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35769668)
And was never presented as anything else.

As the Government refuse to say where the 12 billion pounds of further cuts to the welfare budget will come from, it's only natural that people will speculate.

Why don't they just come clean and let the electorate decide if their cuts are acceptable or not?
Because a party should be elected on a manifesto, I.e. a broad programme for government underpinned by a particular ideology or outlook. Presenting the minutiae of one specific policy (assuming they even have it finalised in that level of detail, it is actually possible that they haven't) turns the entire election debate into a referendum on £12 billion, when it ought to be about electing a government that will be responsible for annual planned expenditure of around 60 times that figure.

In any case, it's a red herring. I think you either agree in principle that £12 billion of cuts in welfare spending is desirable and achievable, or else you don't. I think it highly unlikely that anyone is going to jump from one side of the argument to the other, based on the precise detail of where the cuts would be made.

Ignitionnet 04-04-2015 20:25
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35769718)
I think it highly unlikely that anyone is going to jump from one side of the argument to the other, based on the precise detail of where the cuts would be made.
I suspect if it were announced that pensioners were going to feel said cuts given the predictable Conservative preoccupation with keeping them, their core vote, happy, they'd rather rapidly jump.

Chris 04-04-2015 21:48
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35769724)
I suspect if it were announced that pensioners were going to feel said cuts given the predictable Conservative preoccupation with keeping them, their core vote, happy, they'd rather rapidly jump.
That would depend on the exact nature of the cuts, I suspect.

Either way, love it or hate it, it's democracy in action. Pensioners vote, so politicians develop policies to attract those votes. Meanwhile the social media generation listens to idiots like Russell Brand, telling them that not voting is a great way of changing anything.

Jimmy-J 04-04-2015 22:09
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35769738)
That would depend on the exact nature of the cuts, I suspect.

Either way, love it or hate it, it's democracy in action. Pensioners vote, so politicians develop policies to attract those votes. Meanwhile the social media generation listens to idiots like Russell Brand, telling them that not voting is a great way of changing anything.
I'd rather spoil my vote, than give it to any of the current shower of ****.

Chris 04-04-2015 22:11
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy-J (Post 35769739)
I'd rather spoil my vote, than give it to any of the current shower of ****.
Then put up a deposit, put down your name and hit the streets. :shrug:

Jimmy-J 04-04-2015 22:15
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35769740)
Then put up a deposit, put down your name and hit the streets. :shrug:
No chance of that happening, maybe 20 or 30 years ago when I had it in me.

RichardCoulter 05-04-2015 22:08
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35769681)
Got any info on how many got their money reinstated on appeal, that'd be the best indication of frivolous sanctioning
There is a high success rate, but many of the people being sanctioned are sick and disabled people with a variety of physical and mental health problems.

Evidence has also been collated to show that Jobcentre staff are under pressure to meet targets for sanctioning people. Those affected are not being told of their appeal rights nor are they being advised about the Hardship Payment scheme (one report here says that this failure to give advice on obtaining alternative funds is as low as 23%).

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2...fare-sanctions

Yes, even people who fought for our country don't get any compassion:

http://m.lincolnshireecho.co.uk/Ex-R...ail/story.html

A diabetic ex soldier died after having all his money cut off (I believe that diabetics need food in order to take their insulin).

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...oldier-3923771

Ex forces charities are said to have been overwhelmed by requests for assistance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35769718)
Because a party should be elected on a manifesto, I.e. a broad programme for government underpinned by a particular ideology or outlook. Presenting the minutiae of one specific policy (assuming they even have it finalised in that level of detail, it is actually possible that they haven't) turns the entire election debate into a referendum on £12 billion, when it ought to be about electing a government that will be responsible for annual planned expenditure of around 60 times that figure.

In any case, it's a red herring. I think you either agree in principle that £12 billion of cuts in welfare spending is desirable and achievable, or else you don't. I think it highly unlikely that anyone is going to jump from one side of the argument to the other, based on the precise detail of where the cuts would be made.
Where they intend to make the next tranche of cuts is extremely important and certainly could change a persons view. This is all the more important as they now move onto 'middle class' benefits.

If they end up scrapping Carers Allowance this will affect many older people who tend to vote Tory and could cost them votes

Likewise, if they said that asylum seekers were to be given less money, it would probably boost their popularity.

These policies actually benefit me personally, i'm not on Social Security and have received a fat cheque and a tax cut- but I don't want to live in such a callous and selfish society. If that means paying more tax, i'm happy with that.

Chris 05-04-2015 22:17
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35769902)
Where they intend to make the next tranche of cuts is extremely important and certainly could change a persons view. This is all the more important as they now move onto 'middle class' benefits.

If they end up scrapping Carers Allowance this will affect many older people who tend to vote Tory and could cost them votes

Likewise, if they said that asylum seekers were to be given less money, it would probably boost their popularity.
As I said, we are talking about one sixtieth of annual planned expenditure. Further, I think it vanishingly unlikely that they will achieve that cut by axing any one thing. More likely it will be some here, some there.

They aren't going to allow the opposition to turn the election into a referendum on one very small part of their planned programme for the next five years. Those details will not be forthcoming, no matter how many times they are asked.

Arthurgray50@blu 06-04-2015 19:16
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Don't people realise that, the Tories are going to hit the vulnerable rather than the rich. The rich pay into Tory coffers.

Members may think l am whinging, but its true.

Lets see what the Chancellor can hit, if he gets in to save money.

Winter Fuel allowance, which l get. The free travel for OAP's. Disability Allowance - again. Jobseekers allowance - he can reduce, plus, if they don't find a job after say 12 months. People can lose Benefits

They could increase Bedroom Tax

There is much more they can do. This is why they are so evil.

papa smurf 06-04-2015 20:17
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu (Post 35770017)
Don't people realise that, the Tories are going to hit the vulnerable rather than the rich. The rich pay into Tory coffers.

Members may think l am whinging, but its true.

Lets see what the Chancellor can hit, if he gets in to save money.

Winter Fuel allowance, which l get. The free travel for OAP's. Disability Allowance - again. Jobseekers allowance - he can reduce, plus, if they don't find a job after say 12 months. People can lose Benefits

They could increase Bedroom Tax

There is much more they can do. This is why they are so evil.
i thought you had to be an OAP to get winter fuel allowance

denphone 06-04-2015 20:19
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35770024)
i thought you had to be an OAP to get winter fuel allowance
You do.

papa smurf 06-04-2015 20:25
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35770025)
You do.
so how does a working man get it ?

denphone 06-04-2015 20:48
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35770027)
so how does a working man get it ?
He does not as it applies to people who get a state pension.

TheDaddy 06-04-2015 21:52
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35770030)
He does not as it applies to people who get a state pension.
You not allowed to work anymore if you get the state pension or something?

---------- Post added at 20:52 ---------- Previous post was at 20:51 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu (Post 35770017)
Don't people realise that, the Tories are going to hit the vulnerable rather than the rich. The rich pay into Tory coffers.

Members may think l am whinging, but its true.

Lets see what the Chancellor can hit, if he gets in to save money.

Winter Fuel allowance, which l get. The free travel for OAP's. Disability Allowance - again. Jobseekers allowance - he can reduce, plus, if they don't find a job after say 12 months. People can lose Benefits

They could increase Bedroom Tax

There is much more they can do. This is why they are so evil.
You may have a point after all


https://uk.news.yahoo.com/tories-pla...--finance.html

papa smurf 06-04-2015 22:32
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
[QUOTE=TheDaddy;35770034]You not allowed to work anymore if you get the state pension or something?[COLOR="Silver"]

i had no idea you could work and claim your pension and it seems get some benefits :shocked:

TheDaddy 06-04-2015 23:15
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35770038)
i had no idea you could work and claim your pension and it seems get some benefits :shocked:
Well I don't know for sure but if you're only doing a few hours a week who knows

Arthurgray50@blu 06-04-2015 23:43
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Let me solve those question's.
I am 63 years old, and have had the winter fuel allowance since l was sixty.
You can work - only part time though. I was told that by a mate of mine, who gets his pension BUT, if you work over certain hours - he loses parts of his pension

I work full time, and get a full wage. BUT have been told that l cannot retire until 66 years old. BUT, my contract is up at 65. BUT can continue due to the Age and Equality Act

I would rather continue working. I have been unemployed four times in my life, and its hard. And you are just a number.

My scarist thing is when l retire is how do l support my wife, you cannot survive on the state pension, and the small pension l get now is £60 per month BUT that has tax of £15 pds taken out

All my bills have gone up - but nothing else. I am not lazy, but now bone are starting to creak. And the point will come is when l cannot get out of bed.

Am l angry, yes. OAP's are treated very badly in this country. And l don't know why - maybe because they are vulnerable and cannot answer back. And Osborne will make sure they will suffer.

RizzyKing 07-04-2015 00:08
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
They are not going to detail the cuts they will make because they dont want to risk losing voters and if they are in power after the election they can make whatever cuts they do as having been agreed by the electorate. It's all smoke and mirrors and at the end of the day they couldn't care less about 90% of the people in this country. I've heard more people say they will not be voting in the coming election then ever before if it turns out that is a broader view amongst a far larger number of people then before how low a turnout is acceptable ?.

Ignitionnet 07-04-2015 00:22
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu (Post 35770060)
Am l angry, yes. OAP's are treated very badly in this country. And l don't know why - maybe because they are vulnerable and cannot answer back. And Osborne will make sure they will suffer.
Quote:
Between 1977 and 2010-11, the incomes of pensioners rose by two and a half times in real terms, outstripping the growth in the economy. Over the same period working people saw their income grow just two times.
https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/...2015/04/59.jpg
Those with heads not in contact with colons nursing severe persecution complexes consider the Tories to be, if anything, pandering to retirees as they tend to vote Tory and vote in large numbers.

http://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/opin...019235.article

Quote:
Why on earth would the Conservatives risk the wrath of pensioners it has spent the past five years desperately trying to woo?

The hugely expensive state pension triple-lock, retaining universal perks for retirees and, of course, the Budget pension freedoms are just a few examples of a party transparently targeting the section of society it expects to vote in its droves on 7 May.
Current and soon to be pensioners are likely to have it about as good as it'll get. My generation will have to work for longer to pay for retirement and are likely to have far less state support.

Sadly these things have to be paid for, and paid for, for the most part, by those who are of working age.

papa smurf 07-04-2015 08:25
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu (Post 35770060)
Let me solve those question's.
I am 63 years old, and have had the winter fuel allowance since l was sixty.
You can work - only part time though. I was told that by a mate of mine, who gets his pension BUT, if you work over certain hours - he loses parts of his pension

I work full time, and get a full wage. BUT have been told that l cannot retire until 66 years old. BUT, my contract is up at 65. BUT can continue due to the Age and Equality Act

I would rather continue working. I have been unemployed four times in my life, and its hard. And you are just a number.

My scarist thing is when l retire is how do l support my wife, you cannot survive on the state pension, and the small pension l get now is £60 per month BUT that has tax of £15 pds taken out

All my bills have gone up - but nothing else. I am not lazy, but now bone are starting to creak. And the point will come is when l cannot get out of bed.

Am l angry, yes. OAP's are treated very badly in this country. And l don't know why - maybe because they are vulnerable and cannot answer back. And Osborne will make sure they will suffer.
ahh its all clear now
your not on your own worrying what your going to live on in retirement ,you go from a good wage down to a pittance of an income and the cost of every day living is so expensive .

Hugh 07-04-2015 10:02
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Actually, Arthur, you will be eligible to claim all of the tax back on your pension.

State Pension will be £148 per week (x 52) = £7696 per year, plus your pension of £720 per year, is less than the £10,600 annual tax allowance.

Ignitionnet 07-04-2015 12:12
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35770085)
ahh its all clear now
your not on your own worrying what your going to live on in retirement ,you go from a good wage down to a pittance of an income and the cost of every day living is so expensive .
I believe Arthur has never been on a good wage going by earlier posts.

Obviously if on a 'good wage' going down to a pittance of an income shouldn't be a problem as ideally you'd have saved some of that good wage to ensure your income isn't a pittance.

RichardCoulter 07-04-2015 15:14
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35769905)
As I said, we are talking about one sixtieth of annual planned expenditure. Further, I think it vanishingly unlikely that they will achieve that cut by axing any one thing. More likely it will be some here, some there.

They aren't going to allow the opposition to turn the election into a referendum on one very small part of their planned programme for the next five years. Those details will not be forthcoming, no matter how many times they are asked.
I agree, they won't be divulging this information until after the General Election and then only if they win.

I think that for the majority of the electorate, the bigger picture means little to them. Political ideology takes second place to the important things that affect people personally.

New local councillors soon find that the electorate are far more concerned about their bins not being emptied than some declaration of support for a far away country fighting an oppressive regime.

This is why I think it's unwise of them to now start chipping away at "middle class" benefits as the middle classes are now suffering too and they are a very important part of the population vote wise:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...e-2309902.html

I'm please to see this as it was a concern of mine:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...e-2309902.html

Chris 07-04-2015 15:26
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35770066)
Those with heads not in contact with colons nursing severe persecution complexes consider the Tories to be, if anything, pandering to retirees as they tend to vote Tory and vote in large numbers.

Current and soon to be pensioners are likely to have it about as good as it'll get. My generation will have to work for longer to pay for retirement and are likely to have far less state support.

Sadly these things have to be paid for, and paid for, for the most part, by those who are of working age.
Things which simply prove that statements like "my vote makes no difference / they're all the same / they're all as bad as each other" are also uttered by people with chronic cranial blockage of the lower colon.

The policies of at least one of this country's major political parties are being shaped by the views of those who have a vote and plan to use it. That's called democracy. The solution, for the social meedja generation who are on the receiving end of this, is to stop listening to idiots like Russell Brand, and start using their right to vote.

Ignitionnet 07-04-2015 16:41
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35770172)
The policies of at least one of this country's major political parties are being shaped by the views of those who have a vote and plan to use it. That's called democracy. The solution, for the social meedja generation who are on the receiving end of this, is to stop listening to idiots like Russell Brand, and start using their right to vote.
I agree with Chris. Pay per view event.

Chris 07-04-2015 17:15
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Lie down in a darkened room for an hour ... it'll pass. ;)

Arthurgray50@blu 07-04-2015 18:19
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Well, if Cameron stopped overseas aid. Which he is so proud of. Can you imagine how many GPs, Drs, Nurses, Teachers he could supply for this country.

I read the other day, that if he gets back in, he plans to DOUBLE aid, to countries that need it.

Most of this aid will go onto the black market, and useless projects that this country wont benefit from.

Pensioners in this country, are treated so poorly. That is a disgrace

denphone 07-04-2015 18:22
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Pensioners as a rule Arthur have never had it so good.

papa smurf 07-04-2015 18:28
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35770123)
I believe Arthur has never been on a good wage going by earlier posts.

Obviously if on a 'good wage' going down to a pittance of an income shouldn't be a problem as ideally you'd have saved some of that good wage to ensure your income isn't a pittance.
i have 3 company pension plans and a state pension to look forward to but it still wont compare to what i get now .

Jimmy-J 07-04-2015 18:34
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35770205)
i have 3 company pension plans and a state pension to look forward to but it still wont compare to what i get now .
Shhhh... people will think you're on benefits! lol :D

Arthurgray50@blu 07-04-2015 18:35
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Lets put it this way. I take home approx. 1200 Per month, l measly pension of 60 quid. When l retire l will have one works pension of about 40 quid per month - compared to now. I might as well find another job after 65.

It just doesn't work out. And l would rather starve then go to a food bank

Russ 07-04-2015 18:36
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
This kind of thing really gets my goat.

She says she can't work because she has sleep apnoea (which I believe as you can't fake it and not to put too fine a point on it, people of her size are very susceptible to the condition) which makes her fall asleep during the day. NEWSFLASH - I have had sleep apnoea since my early 20s yet still work. I just deal with it and with 4 kids to contribute towards I don't have the luxury of getting benefits. Apnoea means without my treatment I stop breathing 58 times an hour on average whilst asleep. I hate to comment on someone's weight as there could be any number of reasons behind it but she needs to get off her fat arse and either get a job or think up a better excuse as to why she doesn't have one.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...-stone-5472136

papa smurf 07-04-2015 18:49
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russ (Post 35770214)
This kind of thing really gets my goat.

She says she can't work because she has sleep apnoea (which I believe as you can't fake it and not to put too fine a point on it, people of her size are very susceptible to the condition) which makes her fall asleep during the day. NEWSFLASH - I have had sleep apnoea since my early 20s yet still work. I just deal with it and with 4 kids to contribute towards I don't have the luxury of getting benefits. Apnoea means without my treatment I stop breathing 58 times an hour on average whilst asleep. I hate to comment on someone's weight as there could be any number of reasons behind it but she needs to get off her fat arse and either get a job or think up a better excuse as to why she doesn't have one.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...-stone-5472136
i bet she votes labour

Escapee 07-04-2015 18:50
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russ (Post 35770214)
This kind of thing really gets my goat.

She says she can't work because she has sleep apnoea (which I believe as you can't fake it and not to put too fine a point on it, people of her size are very susceptible to the condition) which makes her fall asleep during the day. NEWSFLASH - I have had sleep apnoea since my early 20s yet still work. I just deal with it and with 4 kids to contribute towards I don't have the luxury of getting benefits. Apnoea means without my treatment I stop breathing 58 times an hour on average whilst asleep. I hate to comment on someone's weight as there could be any number of reasons behind it but she needs to get off her fat arse and either get a job or think up a better excuse as to why she doesn't have one.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...-stone-5472136
She has simply made the decision not to work and sit around getting fatter, the only consolation is that she is shortening the burden on the taxpayer. Whilst having sleep apnoea can be very dangerous there are many people suffering who lead a fairly normal life. I have had a few work colleagues suffering, one was telling me only last week that he is a sufferer and needs to wear a mask. Apart from carrying a bit of extra weight and admitting that it contributes to the problem his life is fairly normal and it doesn't mean he is confined to the settee watching Jeremy Kyle.

RichardCoulter 07-04-2015 19:28
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
[QUOTE=papa smurf;35770038]
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35770034)
You not allowed to work anymore if you get the state pension or something?[COLOR="Silver"]

i had no idea you could work and claim your pension and it seems get some benefits :shocked:
Up to press, the State Retirement Pension is not means tested. It is not affected by capital or any other money coming in (including wages) apart from income tax (as it is a taxable benefit).

People may be getting confused because, many years ago, for the first five years after their official retirement age, if a pensioner earned above a given amount money was taken away from their pension until such a point that the pension was completely extinguished.

The most convenient figures that I have to hand are for 1977:

The first £40 of wages was disregarded, then 5p for every 10p earned was taken from the pension until earnings reached £44. After £44, 10p for every 10p of earnings was subtracted from pension entitlement.

The Government of the day abolished these rules as it was deemed unfair to partially means test something that people had paid into during their working life and to encourage more people to work longer in order to help the economy. IIRC, this measure was also something to do with anti age discrimination law.

There is also a scheme that the last Government introduced whereas a pensioner can defer taking their State Retirement Pension in return for receiving more pension when they do decide to take it.

Anybody thinking of doing this should bear in mind that the current Government has made this option less attractive for men born after 6/4/51 and women born after 6/4/53.

https://www.gov.uk/deferring-state-p...at-you-may-get

There are different rules for the means tested top up scheme called Pension Credit.

The Winter Fuel Allowance is based mainly on age alone* and isn't means tested or taxable either. The age at which one becomes eligible for it varies as the increased retirement ages are phased in.

* From this winter, pensioners who live abroad in countries considered to be 'warm' are now excluded from receiving any more Winter Fuel Payments.

This has proved controversial as some say that they don't need it, so shouldn't get it. Others argue that if they have paid into the system whilst working in the UK, they should receive it in line with pensioners who choose to take their retirement in the UK.

Ignitionnet 07-04-2015 21:56
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu (Post 35770200)
Well, if Cameron stopped overseas aid. Which he is so proud of. Can you imagine how many GPs, Drs, Nurses, Teachers he could supply for this country.

I read the other day, that if he gets back in, he plans to DOUBLE aid, to countries that need it.

Most of this aid will go onto the black market, and useless projects that this country wont benefit from.

Pensioners in this country, are treated so poorly. That is a disgrace
You strike me as being far better suited to UKIP than Labour based on this post.

MalteseFalcon 07-04-2015 22:19
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
I agree with Arthur (shock horror) about the need to end or even reduce the amount we pay to foreign countries. India are building a space program so don't need the money we give them. And you all know my thoughts about giving money to foreign countries who have disasters. Help is needed here in the UK first and foremost, not in the foreign countries.

Ignitionnet 07-04-2015 23:38
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkC1984 (Post 35770273)
I agree with Arthur (shock horror) about the need to end or even reduce the amount we pay to foreign countries. India are building a space program so don't need the money we give them. And you all know my thoughts about giving money to foreign countries who have disasters. Help is needed here in the UK first and foremost, not in the foreign countries.
As do I but it's about the only thing I agree with the man on.

tweetiepooh 08-04-2015 13:43
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Maybe some of these countries wouldn't need so much help if they weren't servicing debts to us in the 1st world. What's more we lend so they can buy from us stuff they often don't need. And yes I am aware that it's the "elite" in some countries who benefit and are corrupt. But the poor are really poor and need our help. We should help the poor and suffering and I don't qualify where they are.

The benefits/donations do need to be focussed better though, both home and abroad.

Russ 08-04-2015 14:17
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russ (Post 35770214)
This kind of thing really gets my goat.

She says she can't work because she has sleep apnoea (which I believe as you can't fake it and not to put too fine a point on it, people of her size are very susceptible to the condition) which makes her fall asleep during the day. NEWSFLASH - I have had sleep apnoea since my early 20s yet still work. I just deal with it and with 4 kids to contribute towards I don't have the luxury of getting benefits. Apnoea means without my treatment I stop breathing 58 times an hour on average whilst asleep. I hate to comment on someone's weight as there could be any number of reasons behind it but she needs to get off her fat arse and either get a job or think up a better excuse as to why she doesn't have one.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...-stone-5472136
Where there's a will there's a way...

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/real-li...-month-5478042

richard s 08-04-2015 15:28
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tweetiepooh (Post 35770347)
Maybe some of these countries wouldn't need so much help if they weren't servicing debts to us in the 1st world. What's more we lend so they can buy from us stuff they often don't need. And yes I am aware that it's the "elite" in some countries who benefit and are corrupt. But the poor are really poor and need our help. We should help the poor and suffering and I don't qualify where they are.

The benefits/donations do need to be focussed better though, both home and abroad.

I thought we were in the crap with debt!

papa smurf 08-04-2015 17:44
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russ (Post 35770351)
Where there's a will there's a way...

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/real-li...-month-5478042
who the hell would pay for that

RichardCoulter 08-04-2015 18:46
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russ (Post 35770351)
Where there's a will there's a way...

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/real-li...-month-5478042
I find both Fat Shaming and the link to be disgusting.

News just in says that the Tories intend to cut Housing Benefit by 10% in order to meet their 12 billion pound cuts as well as further cuts to Council Tax Support.

This is in addition to the freeze on all benefits, the taxation of DLA, PIP and Attendance Allowance, the cessation of the Work Related Activity Group, scrapping Contribution Based JSA and ESA.

Looks like they are now abusing the 'deprivation of capital rule'. This terminally ill woman was told she couldn't pay for her own funeral or she could be committing an "offence".

When pressed which " offence" she would actually be committing, the DWP "declined to comment".

http://www.disabilitynewsservice.com...r-own-funeral/

This is getting ridiculous.

Stuart 08-04-2015 19:37
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
The link is actually one example of a woman who has embraced her size and is taking advantage of it. While I don't find that kind of thing attractive, surely for her, that's a good thing, is it not?

Regarding the fat shaming, I think you may be being a little oversensitive.

Regarding the benefit, the girl on benefits may have genuine problems that cause her to be overweight. I don't know her so it would be unfair of me to judge her. The article implies her weight gain may be due to packets of crisps and junk food.

I recently lost a lot of weight (I am unsure how much because I didn't weigh myself when I started, but I went from a 42 inch waist to a 38 inch waist, and am nearer a 36 inch waist now). I didn't follow any special diet. All I did was cut 95% of the crap from my diet and replaced it with healthier alternatives, and increased my exercise a little. A bonus side effect is that the healthier, fresh food I am now eating costs, in a lot of cases, a lot less than the takeaways and junk food it replaced. I managed that while in my 40s. She is in her 20s, so assuming she is not suffering a condition that causes problems with weight, she *should* be able to lose weight a lot more easily that I did.

Also one thing to remember, if she is claiming benefits she doesn't need: That 18,000 pounds she is getting could be going to someone who genuinely needs it.

Russ 08-04-2015 20:18
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35770429)
I find both Fat Shaming and the link to be disgusting.
Way to completely miss the point.

One woman blames her size for claiming benefits, another woman using her size to make money. The only shaming is that of the scrounger.

v0id 08-04-2015 20:43
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35770429)
Something's not quite right here.
You don't even have to inform the DWP if you have savings under £6000 :confused:

nomadking 08-04-2015 21:04
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by v0id (Post 35770451)
Something's not quite right here.
You don't even have to inform the DWP if you have savings under £6000 :confused:
She was asking them the question, "what if". It sounds like her saving were nowhere near £6,000 as the claimed potential deduction(£!5) is exactly the amount as if she currently had £6,000 and this was to go on top of that, ie savings changing from £6,000 to £9,750(£15 = £1 for each £250 over £6,000). The DWP have said that there would be no deduction. So as happens way too often, especially in this thread, the story is a LOAD OF NONSENSE. It was money she had easy access to and therefore is classed as capital, otherwise people would stash excess money using that method and would always be eligible for income based benefits.

TheDaddy 08-04-2015 23:12
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkC1984 (Post 35770273)
I agree with Arthur (shock horror) about the need to end or even reduce the amount we pay to foreign countries. India are building a space program so don't need the money we give them. And you all know my thoughts about giving money to foreign countries who have disasters. Help is needed here in the UK first and foremost, not in the foreign countries.
India isn't building a space programme it has had one for decades thing is it was only used for putting satellites up until the last few years and if you need any reason to wonder why we have an aid programme this link might help

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...a-9591247.html

RichardCoulter 09-04-2015 16:45
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuart (Post 35770435)
The link is actually one example of a woman who has embraced her size and is taking advantage of it. While I don't find that kind of thing attractive, surely for her, that's a good thing, is it not?

Regarding the fat shaming, I think you may be being a little oversensitive.

Regarding the benefit, the girl on benefits may have genuine problems that cause her to be overweight. I don't know her so it would be unfair of me to judge her. The article implies her weight gain may be due to packets of crisps and junk food.

I recently lost a lot of weight (I am unsure how much because I didn't weigh myself when I started, but I went from a 42 inch waist to a 38 inch waist, and am nearer a 36 inch waist now). I didn't follow any special diet. All I did was cut 95% of the crap from my diet and replaced it with healthier alternatives, and increased my exercise a little. A bonus side effect is that the healthier, fresh food I am now eating costs, in a lot of cases, a lot less than the takeaways and junk food it replaced. I managed that while in my 40s. She is in her 20s, so assuming she is not suffering a condition that causes problems with weight, she *should* be able to lose weight a lot more easily that I did.

Also one thing to remember, if she is claiming benefits she doesn't need: That 18,000 pounds she is getting could be going to someone who genuinely needs it.
Well done in losing so much weight.

Interesting to see that obese people now have protection under disability discrimination legislation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by v0id (Post 35770451)
Something's not quite right here.
You don't even have to inform the DWP if you have savings under £6000 :confused:
Legally all capital/property/savings etc (even cash in the house) must be declared when making a claim for means tested benefits.

Even the value of personal possessions can be taken into account in certain circumstances.

RichardCoulter 10-04-2015 00:28
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu (Post 35770060)
Let me solve those question's.
I am 63 years old, and have had the winter fuel allowance since l was sixty.
You can work - only part time though. I was told that by a mate of mine, who gets his pension BUT, if you work over certain hours - he loses parts of his pension

I work full time, and get a full wage. BUT have been told that l cannot retire until 66 years old. BUT, my contract is up at 65. BUT can continue due to the Age and Equality Act

I would rather continue working. I have been unemployed four times in my life, and its hard. And you are just a number.

My scarist thing is when l retire is how do l support my wife, you cannot survive on the state pension, and the small pension l get now is £60 per month BUT that has tax of £15 pds taken out

All my bills have gone up - but nothing else. I am not lazy, but now bone are starting to creak. And the point will come is when l cannot get out of bed.

Am l angry, yes. OAP's are treated very badly in this country. And l don't know why - maybe because they are vulnerable and cannot answer back. And Osborne will make sure they will suffer.
This link might help Arthur:

http://www.saga.co.uk/money/work-and...spx?smonnl=700

denphone 03-06-2015 19:20
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
David Cameron refuses to rule out disability benefit cuts

https://www.politicshome.com/economy....RqeIJ3rR.dpuf

RizzyKing 03-06-2015 21:08
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Everyone knows that the most vulnerable will be hit hardest by the coming cuts and the majority don't care so doesn't really matter anymore to be honest, we'll hear the usual rubbish about "those most in need will be protected" and it will be completely forgotten five seconds after it's said.

denphone 03-06-2015 21:42
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
As we know politicians talk with forked tongue.

denphone 04-06-2015 17:07
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RizzyKing (Post 35781269)
Everyone knows that the most vulnerable will be hit hardest by the coming cuts and the majority don't care so doesn't really matter anymore to be honest, we'll hear the usual rubbish about "those most in need will be protected" and it will be completely forgotten five seconds after it's said.
Sadly the new company doing the assessments are just as bad as the old one Rizzy.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...rebar_facebook

nomadking 04-06-2015 17:28
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35781416)
Sadly the new company doing the assessments are just as bad as the old one Rizzy.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...rebar_facebook
NHS guidance for Parkinson's
Quote:
It's important to do what you can to stay physically and mentally healthy if you have Parkinson's disease.
...
Regular exercise is particularly important in helping relieve muscle stiffness, improving your mood and relieving stress. There are many good activities you can do to help keep yourself fit, ranging from more active sports like tennis and cycling, to less strenuous activities such as walking, gardening and yoga.
...
Being diagnosed with Parkinson's doesn't mean you have to stop working. Many people with the condition keep working for years after their diagnosis.

denphone 04-06-2015 17:41
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
The question is about whether she is fit for work and the answer is no...

nomadking 04-06-2015 18:02
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35781425)
The question is about whether she is fit for work and the answer is no...
And the evidence is.....?
The previous ESA award seems unrelated to any Parkinson's.
Quote:
Miss Leek was diagnosed in June 2012 after treatment for a back and neck injury as a result of an accident two years earlier.
“I had X-rays and an MRI scan but I had to keep going back to my doctor because I knew something was not right,” she said.
Miss Leek had to give up her job as assistant manager of the Spar shop on Farndon Road, Newark, because her condition was affecting her work. She had a supermarket job for two months but was released on the grounds of ill-health.
Quote:
In August 2012 Julia was told she was eligible for ESA, and underwent her first medical four months later.
You can apply, but it doesn't make you fully eligible at the time. You have to wait for the assessment, which in her case was 4/5 months Later

Michael J Fox was able to continue working.

denphone 04-06-2015 18:14
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
The thing is her health has worsened considerably and thus how she can be deemed to be fit for work now is beyond me especially given the first two medicals deemed her unfit for work.

RizzyKing 04-06-2015 18:22
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
I've recently been ruled fit for work despite three consultant's, two gp's and two special nurses strongly disagreeing and all have stated they will attend the appeal and give evidence or whatever it is you do in an appeal. My date for the appeal has not been finalised and last I heard the backlog was nearing the two year mark so god knows how long but I'm not criticising it on the net well and truly learnt my lesson there.

nomadking 04-06-2015 18:40
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35781435)
The thing is her health has worsened considerably and thus how she can be deemed to be fit for work now is beyond me especially given the first two medicals deemed her unfit for work.
The other medicals were related to the neck and back injuries. Those things have probably eased off by now. That will be the reason for the changed decision. She wasn't placed in the support group so it was obvious that she might IMPROVE. There is no mention of current MEDICAL evidence of continuing neck and back problems.
Quote:
In August 2012 she was told she was eligible for Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) of £218 a fortnight and attended an interview at Newark Job Centre.
That won't happen if you're in the support group.

MarsBar 04-06-2015 22:27
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35781252)
David Cameron refuses to rule out disability benefit cuts

https://www.politicshome.com/economy....RqeIJ3rR.dpuf
Ah well,at least that will keep the Daily Fail readers happy.

Osem 04-06-2015 23:01
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Why, don't they receive any benefits or services that might be cut?

Arthurgray50@blu 04-06-2015 23:24
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Well, this problem will hit me pretty hard.

My wife had a nasty accident some two months ago. She fell down the stairs and has founf out she has a fracture of one of the vertbrea in her spine.
She has been told that she cannot moved, so has to stay on a hard surface and cannot move about.

She has been told that she is fit to work. Her GP and the hospital has said that she cannot do anything. As one major move will cripple her.

She cannot work any longer - but l am certain that those son of a bitch will say she is fit enough after all the stories that l have heard.

Is the main reason why Cameron wasn't going to tell you what cuts he was going to make. Otherwise he would not have got back in

He makes me sick. There are no need for anymore cuts.

MarsBar 04-06-2015 23:42
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osem (Post 35781494)
Why, don't they receive any benefits or services that might be cut?
I'm pretty sure you know exactly what I mean.

---------- Post added at 22:42 ---------- Previous post was at 22:38 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu (Post 35781500)
Well, this problem will hit me pretty hard.

My wife had a nasty accident some two months ago. She fell down the stairs and has founf out she has a fracture of one of the vertbrea in her spine.
She has been told that she cannot moved, so has to stay on a hard surface and cannot move about.

She has been told that she is fit to work. Her GP and the hospital has said that she cannot do anything. As one major move will cripple her.

She cannot work any longer - but l am certain that those son of a bitch will say she is fit enough after all the stories that l have heard.

Is the main reason why Cameron wasn't going to tell you what cuts he was going to make. Otherwise he would not have got back in

He makes me sick. There are no need for anymore cuts.
Indeed there is,but from greedy bankers but somehow I don't ever see that happening any day soon.
We ALL knew it was coming,this is just the beginning of the end.

Gary L 05-06-2015 00:04
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
I'd be really interested to know whether anyone 'moaning' about the cuts actually voted Dave back in.
(not neccessarily people on here)

same with those who are affected or are worried that cuts in aything will affect them financially or whateverly.

are those people really surprised?
were they really expecting not to be affected?
was it all supposed to be just the non working people you thought were going to be hit?


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 22:06.
Page 15 of 27 « First 511121314 15 1617181925 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
All Posts and Content are © Cable Forum