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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

Not correct, although the surplus from the NI fund is often borrowed by Governments.

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

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.

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

And here are those accounts....

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

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

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

Has it always been, since day one?

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).

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

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 ----------

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 .

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

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"

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

Stop telling fibs.
Those sanctioned would be INCLUDED.:rolleyes: