The state benefits system mega-thread.

[peanut]

So at the moment it's okay for the likes of the Philpotts to breed like rabbits and be left untouched to empty to pot, but if you're sick or disabled it's okay to have your money stopped and then have to be supported by a partner who could be on minimum wage? Which in turn forces the partner to give up work because it wouldn't be a viable option to live on.

That is one reason why I and others have moaned in this thread, the reform isn't thought out and they won't listen to anyone either.

Originally Posted by Osem

Is it really any surprise that children, being the gateway to many benefits and other forms of support, are seen by some as no more than a means to an end whether that be cash in their hands or larger homes.

Well apart from a very small minority this isn't the case for most child benefit claimants. The cost of raising a child is more than the benefit brings in so apart from parents who must be neglecting their child to a standard that borders on abuse it isn't a ways to bring in money.

My feeling on benefits is that they're needed and we need to make sure it's affordable for the state. I have never claimed these kinds of benefits although I have used other aspects of the state, education, healthcare, police, roads and so on. Incidentally this is why I think tax avoiders are immoral, we all take from the state.

The thing is the difference between me paying tax or claiming benefit is partly luck. There are some people who could work and not claim benefit as they prefer an 'easy' life. However there are a greater number of claimants who need it. I am (currently) in good health and I had a comfortable upbringing that allowed me to get a relatively good education. These are significant advantages. I could just have easily been born with, or developed, or go on to develop disabilities that stop me working. I could also just have easily been born into an environment where it would have been harder to get a good education or go to University.

So it's best not to make sweeping statements about people in recipient of welfare and it's worthwhile remembering that you don't know the situation of each of them. It could just have easily been you, or could be yet, who needs this help.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Damien

Well apart from a very small minority this isn't the case for most child benefit claimants. The cost of raising a child is more than the benefit brings in so apart from parents who must be neglecting their child to a standard that borders on abuse it isn't a ways to bring in money.

My feeling on benefits is that they're needed and we need to make sure it's affordable for the state. I have never claimed these kinds of benefits although I have used other aspects of the state, education, healthcare, police, roads and so on. Incidentally this is why I think tax avoiders are immoral, we all take from the state.

The thing is the difference between me paying tax or claiming benefit is partly luck. There are some people who could work and not claim benefit as they prefer an 'easy' life. However there are a greater number of claimants who need it. I am (currently) in good health and I had a comfortable upbringing that allowed me to get a relatively good education. These are significant advantages. I could just have easily been born with, or developed, or go on to develop disabilities that stop me working. I could also just have easily been born into an environment where it would have been harder to get a good education or go to University.

So it's best not to make sweeping statements about people in recipient of welfare and it's worthwhile remembering that you don't know the situation of each of them. It could just have easily been you, or could be yet, who needs this help.

Summed up perfectly.

[mertle]

Originally Posted by Will21st

Ok,unchecked isn't the right term,maybe rather living outside of social norms,aided by the benefit system.


No,it really isn't... this story should be even more incentive to make sure we as a society don't support such lifestyle choices.

Very strange comment to make so someone who loses there job has 4 kids should do what go murder them or send out in foster homes. Very few people take this lifestyle choice dont believe the propaganda peddled.

You really think people deliberately got themselves disabled, unemployed or in minimum wage. There maybe is small section who use the system to get jsa and supliment it from illegal activities like drug selling. Tiny majority the stats from even DWP say disabilty only 0.5% fraud rate. However you cant generalise like you doing.

Neither should government.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by peanut

So at the moment it's okay for the likes of the Philpotts to breed like rabbits and be left untouched to empty to pot, but if you're sick or disabled it's okay to have your money stopped and then have to be supported by a partner who could be on minimum wage? Which in turn forces the partner to give up work because it wouldn't be a viable option to live on.

That is one reason why I and others have moaned in this thread, the reform isn't thought out and they won't listen to anyone either.

It's not OK and HMG doesn't think it is but the reality is that cracking down on the likes of the Philpotts is virtually impossible because of the children involved, who've done nothing wrong. If HMG did decide to crack down on them and children were seen to suffer as a result they'd be roundly condemned for doing so. They're still being condemned about school milk FGS. Children have become the ultimate bargaining chip and without a radical rethink of what people like to see as their 'freedoms' that will not change. I dare say any government would just love to find a way to ensure that parenthood is universally treated with the respect and forethought that it deserves.

Originally Posted by peanut

So at the moment it's okay for the likes of the Philpotts to breed like rabbits and be left untouched to empty to pot, but if you're sick or disabled it's okay to have your money stopped and then have to be supported by a partner who could be on minimum wage? Which in turn forces the partner to give up work because it wouldn't be a viable option to live on.

That is one reason why I and others have moaned in this thread, the reform isn't thought out and they won't listen to anyone either.

Some interesting thoughts on the issue from Dan Hannan in the Telegraph:

Let's start with an obvious, though rarely admitted, truth. Under any welfare system as large as ours, there will be hard cases, unintended consequences, anomalies at both ends of the scale. There will be deserving people who lose out; there will be undeserving people who benefit. It could hardly be otherwise in our imperfect, sublunary world.

It's worth reading the whole thing.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/da...ng-people-win/

[peanut]

Originally Posted by Osem

It's not OK and HMG doesn't think it is but the reality is that cracking down on the likes of the Philpotts is virtually impossible because of the children involved, who've done nothing wrong. If HMG did decide to crack down on them and children were seen to suffer as a result they'd be roundly condemned for doing so. They're still being condemned about school milk FGS. Children have become the ultimate bargaining chip and without a radical rethink of what people like to see as their 'freedoms' that will not change. I dare say any government would just love to find a way to ensure that parenthood is universally treated with the respect and forethought that it deserves.

I see the only way to change it is to make a law change from now, existing families will have to be exempt. Not ideal but then the choice is there.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Damien

Well apart from a very small minority this isn't the case for most child benefit claimants. The cost of raising a child is more than the benefit brings in so apart from parents who must be neglecting their child to a standard that borders on abuse it isn't a ways to bring in money.

My feeling on benefits is that they're needed and we need to make sure it's affordable for the state. I have never claimed these kinds of benefits although I have used other aspects of the state, education, healthcare, police, roads and so on. Incidentally this is why I think tax avoiders are immoral, we all take from the state.

The thing is the difference between me paying tax or claiming benefit is partly luck. There are some people who could work and not claim benefit as they prefer an 'easy' life. However there are a greater number of claimants who need it. I am (currently) in good health and I had a comfortable upbringing that allowed me to get a relatively good education. These are significant advantages. I could just have easily been born with, or developed, or go on to develop disabilities that stop me working. I could also just have easily been born into an environment where it would have been harder to get a good education or go to University.

So it's best not to make sweeping statements about people in recipient of welfare and it's worthwhile remembering that you don't know the situation of each of them. It could just have easily been you, or could be yet, who needs this help.

I think you need to work out what CB, child tax credits* and all the child associated benefits (e.g housing) and services add up to and then consider that people, like the Philpotts aren't spending all that money etc. on their children.

I haven't made any sweeping generalisations. I've referred to the likes of Philpott and his ilk specifically because they're the ones who abuse the situation. That isn't the same thing as saying and isn't even implying that everyone who receives child related benefits does so. As a father of two I'd hardly do that would I.

* These can vary massively where household income is low and more so if there is a disability amongst any of the children at which point DLA for example can also be a major factor in unlocking numerous other child related benefits.

Originally Posted by Osem

I think you need to work out what CB, child tax credits* and all the child associated benefits (e.g housing) and services add up to and then consider that people, like the Philpotts aren't spending all that money etc. on their children.

I haven't made any sweeping generalisations. I've referred to the likes of Philpott and his ilk specifically because they're the ones who abuse the situation. That isn't the same thing as saying and isn't even implying that everyone who receives child related benefits does so. As a father of two I'd hardly do that would I.

* These can vary massively where household income is low and more so if there is a disability amongst any of the children at which point DLA for example can also be a major factor in unlocking numerous other child related benefits.

That last part wasn't directed at you, only the first paragraph. You might be right that this guy was raking in the income but from the reports I've read, I've been in France with limited access to the net until today, paint a picture of a very disturbed man. I think cases like this are very rare.

Originally Posted by Damien

I meant it makes the point that £53 isn't enough to live on

It's not ,well it would be possible buying food only but it would be a crap existence and you wouldn't starve, so it's a good job the government doesn't expect people to live on that .

Originally Posted by peanut

He wasn't 'unchecked' as he's been on Jeremy Kyle and interveiwed by Ann Widdicome and seems to be well known in his area. But he gets away with because of the kids.

Though I do agree with the rest, but from what I also see that is childless couples (through choice or not) will be penalised by that.

He most certainly was unchecked .He was allowed to stael the childrens money and his wife and girlfriends wages from the cleaning jobs they had ,every penny that was coming into that house went into his bank account .He was allowed to move his girlfriend and their kids into a house where he lived with his wife and their kids simply to increase the benefit income to the house .How on earth that wasn't against DWP rules i don't know

Originally Posted by peanut

So at the moment it's okay for the likes of the Philpotts to breed like rabbits and be left untouched to empty to pot, but if you're sick or disabled it's okay to have your money stopped and then have to be supported by a partner who could be on minimum wage? Which in turn forces the partner to give up work because it wouldn't be a viable option to live on.

That is one reason why I and others have moaned in this thread, the reform isn't thought out and they won't listen to anyone either.

No ,that's why the universal credit complete with benefit cap is being introduced .

Originally Posted by martyh

It's not ,well it would be possible buying food only but it would be a crap existence and you wouldn't starve, so it's a good job the government doesn't expect people to live on that .

I presumed it also had to cover bills and such?

Originally Posted by Damien

I presumed it also had to cover bills and such?

it does

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Damien

That last part wasn't directed at you, only the first paragraph. You might be right that this guy was raking in the income but from the reports I've read, I've been in France with limited access to the net until today, paint a picture of a very disturbed man. I think cases like this are very rare.

Cases of this scale are rare but, sadly, cases of silly, naive and/or selfish people issuing children as if they're items of convenience aren't so rare. To prevent the extremes like Philpott, we first need to tackle the way in which having children is perceived, valued, rewarded and even restricted but that's a massive undertaking and could involve the loss of freedoms most of us value.

Originally Posted by Damien

I presumed it also had to cover bills and such?

Apparently not ,his bills and other expenses where covered by his wage from his market stall, rent ,council tax was payed or mostly paid and he was in receipt of working tax credit ,basically he said he had
£53 per week to buy food which has turned out to be a load of fictitious tosh

David Bennett said he earned around £2,700 last year - around £50 a week - and has had to borrow money after his housing benefit was cut to £57 a week.
It later emerged that Mr Bennett also gets tax credits, which can be worth between £37 and £50 from the Government. However, he is left with just £53 a week after paying rent and bills

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...-per-week.html

---------- Post added at 16:51 ---------- Previous post was at 16:51 ----------

Originally Posted by tizmeinnit

it does

It does not

Originally Posted by martyh

Apparently not ,his bills and other expenses where covered by his wage from his market stall, rent ,council tax was payed or mostly paid and he was in receipt of working tax credit ,basically he said he had
£53 per week to buy food which has turned out to be a load of fictitious tosh

Not this guy, after all the policy hadn't come into effect. I mean generally, the idea is that this is the normal benefit aside from housing benefit and any additional disability allowance or child benefits. Which would mean the £56 is for bills, travel, food, drink and any other expense apart from housing.