Unemployed could be forced to do compulsory manual labour

[Traduk]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

Whats your thoughts on that? granted no proof to back it, but do you think that figure is wrong?

You will be asked for proof

No the figure is not wrong but is fairly old. It is the figure released by DWP and presumably within the report are the numbers that caused such consternation within the coalition. For DLA, errors were 3X fraud but I guess people are easy to deal with whereas bureaucrats behind computer systems are almost impossible to address.

This URL links to a DWP Pdf file. Read down to the box on where the money goes and under incapacity benefit fraud you will find the 0.5 number. Like an accountant having a field day with an Excel spreadsheet there are enough statistics and guestimates to make the whole thing incomprehensible but on a quick read through it looks like if the payee and recipient were in the case of the former, incompetent and in the case of the latter given forms that were incomprehensible. An awful lot of money could have been saved with efficiency. Methinks the cross-hairs are trained on the wrong target as first choice.

http://campaigns.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd2...pr08_mar09.pdf

[Chrysalis]

That is true, much more money is lost to error then fraud.

Of course I never said if I think the 0.5% is accurate but rather asked if he thought was accurate and he has answered my question now.

[Traduk]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

That is true, much more money is lost to error then fraud.

Of course I never said if I think the 0.5% is accurate but rather asked if he thought was accurate and he has answered my question now.

I made a mistake. I have never claimed any benefits and misread the document. The number of different ones defies logic for someone who has never been in the system.

I quoted "disability living allowance" whereas your input quote refers to "incapacity benefit". The latter is quoted for 2008\9 as 1.0% fraud @ 70million.

If your request was an open invitation for comments then on that particular benefit the official figures for 2008\9 do not offer credibility to the author's claim. However there is a later document that claims the 05% fraud figure which supports the author's claim (Table 2.1 page 9) .... URL below. Begs the question of how the numbers changed so much in such a short time?.

http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd2/...ct08_sep09.pdf

[Chrysalis]

The author was from a 2008 article so figures would have been older.

I agree is odd how it can go from 0.5% to 1% in the space of 1-2 years. As thats doubling the figure.

As for the complexity and number of benefits, I understand the reason, as its precisely why I hate the idea of a universal credit. A single benefit assumes everyone has the same needs.

The Universal Credit will be made up of multiple components, so everyone will not get the same amount, but it will all be dealt with in one system, to ensure (as far as possible), "one view" of the benefits being given/received, rather than the disparate sources at present. BBC

What is the issue with the system at present?
Perhaps the biggest is how complicated it has become. There are more than 50 different benefits and other payments that people can claim.
Such complexity causes confusion, according to the White Paper. In 2009, 2.3 million contacts to the Department for Work and Pensions were driven by people contacting the wrong agency and 1.4 million by people contacting the wrong office, it said.

It estimates that £5.2bn a year is wrongly paid out as a result of fraud and error.

So simplification is also the aim of the game, by merging the existing 30 or more work-related benefits - including jobseeker's allowance, housing benefit, child tax credit, working tax credit, income support and employment support allowance - into a single universal payment.

However, this would be a basic payment with add-ons for different disability and age groups - so it would still require some in-depth paperwork.

At the moment, people get different amounts for housing benefit, child tax credit, income support, et al - this would continue, but from one source - "Universal" does not mean "standard", but standardised.

[Chrysalis]

Hugh I mean people off work due to illness will get the same as on the dole. That is very wrong. The amount should be the same as the pension as they off work due to an incapability to work.

The only variances on the universal credit will be due to children (surprise surprise), and topups for housing and council tax costs.

[MTJR]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

Hugh I mean people off work due to illness will get the same as on the dole. That is very wrong. The amount should be the same as the pension as they off work due to an incapability to work.

The only variances on the universal credit will be due to children (surprise surprise), and topups for housing and council tax costs.

Not strictly true. Any long term ill people who are in receipt of care will receive both a care component and a premium on to their ESA. Also, there is no six month cut off for contribution based ESA as there is for JSA.

So, in essence, it mirrors what happens in the work place anyway. People who are off sick from work don't receive a greater amount than if they were at their place of work.

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by MTJR

Not strictly true. Any long term ill people who are in receipt of care will receive both a care component and a premium on to their ESA. Also, there is no six month cut off for contribution based ESA as there is for JSA.

So, in essence, it mirrors what happens in the work place anyway. People who are off sick from work don't receive a greater amount than if they were at their place of work.

I got paid more when sick all week of work, because some of my pay was made up of normal sick pay which appeared to be not taxed and then topped up with sick pay from my company so my gross pay was the same but net pay was higher.

The sick pay you get in the workplace even without topups from the company is more than the dole. The majority of people in receipt of ESA/IB do not get the care component (DLA). Also I am talking about now the universal credit rather than ESA.

[MTJR]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

I got paid more when sick all week of work, because some of my pay was made up of normal sick pay which appeared to be not taxed and then topped up with sick pay from my company so my gross pay was the same but net pay was higher.

The sick pay you get in the workplace even without topups from the company is more than the dole. The majority of people in receipt of ESA/IB do not get the care component (DLA). Also I am talking about now the universal credit rather than ESA.

Not sure why your wages went up for being ill. Any jobs going there that you know of?

I know that a company salary is more than the dole, I was just making the point that being "ill" doesn't necessarily make you need or want any more money. If those people are not getting a care component then I'm confused why they would need more money than someone else.

As has been said before "Universal Credit" is just a name under which benefit elements would be delivered in much the same way as companies like BT and Virgin supply all your different services into one "universal" bill. The amount at the end is still the same, it's just presented in a different way.

Chrys, sick pay is taxed - someone at your work was doing something wrong.

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Chrys, sick pay is taxed - someone at your work was doing something wrong.

maybe someone messed up, but my net pay was higher, and a quick bit of maths in my head appeared to show the sick pay as untaxed, but the sick pay was made up of 2 components.

Statutory Sick Pay - this is what everyone gets regardless of company policy? this appeared to be untaxed and if I am not mistaken was the same as short term higher rate incapacity benefit.

Company sick pay - this topped up my pay to match my normal gross pay and appeared to be taxed as normal.

The employer claims the SSP back from the Government (by reducing the SSP amounts from the total payroll deductions the employer sends to HMRC), but it should still be taxed and subject to NI deductions - your payroll is borked..... (luckily in your favour)

SSP is paid by your employer, usually on the same day as you would normally get your wages or salary paid. SSP is a taxable income, and subject to National Insurance contributions.

(I used to write/implement payroll systems, and have to authorise the sick pay for the people in my department, so am fairly au fait with it...).

[Chrysalis]

Yep I read the same info when making my post, I agree they messed up.