Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien
I read before that the figure of abuse is something like 3%. This is quite a small problem elevated into a big problem by some in government and in the press because they don't want to talk about the areas which do need reform. Pensions and Health Care are massive expenses....
|
Good point Damien. Also, in my view, disabled people are currently being demonised. By the Governments own admission, the fraud/error rate for Disability Living Allowance is 0.005%, yet cuts are to be made by redefining the definition of disability. Another measure is to use the same tactic to push disabled people onto the lower rate JSA, with the Government knowing full well that there aren't enough jobs to go round and that it is likely that employers will prefer to take on non disabled people first.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taf
Here in Cardiff they have mentioned AT LEAST 10% of the annual bill for unemployed, disabled or those on ESA. One group may not have to pay though, war pensioners.
They even had to recall the Welsh assembly (spit) from their Xmas break to get it voted in. If they had not voted it in, EVERYONE would have been liable to 100% of the bill.
|
The Government said that any council that did not create a local scheme, with a 10% cut in funding, would have a central Govt. default scheme imposed on them.
It is important to note that the money now available for council tax reduction schemes will be fixed. If, for example, an area is subject to flooding or mass redundancies resulting in a increase in people applying for help, people will probably received revised bills with less relief and more to pay!
Quote:
Originally Posted by tizmeinnit
If you mean rise in line with inflation rather than faster yes there is. The government say that such and such an amount is the minimum to live on. Inflation rises 3% and the minimum does not grow the same then they are actually on less than they need to live on.
You workers on a decent wage ( I think the minimum wage is to low) or a living wage will be able to soak up a few quid a week a lot easier than someone with less money.
If you were to lose your job and struggle your views will most likely change[COLOR="Silver"]
|
I totally agree. Means tested benefits are worked out to provide for the bare minimum essentials in life. For example, an allowance is only made for one bath/shower a week. Not increasing means tested benefits will push people below the poverty line. This is even before cuts to Housing Benefit/Council Tax Benefit etc are taken into account.
I also know quite a few people who held those on benefits with contempt. When their businesses failed or they were made redundant, their attitude suddenly changed!
My defense of the benefits system is not wholly selfless, any one of us can have our life changed in the blink of an eyelid.
All it can take is a relationship breakdown, diagnosis of a terminal illness, the loss of an order in a factory etc.
---------- Post added at 18:53 ---------- Previous post was at 18:41 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by martyh
...i think the last time we had 100% employment was during the war and even then we had lazy scroungers .I cannot ever see a time when we will have enough jobs for everyone
|
There will always be lazy "scroungers", but successive Governments of all persuasions have put in place policies to prevent this. It's no longer enough to turn up once a fortnight and sign to say that you were available for work in the last fortnight (and rightly so).
When I was young, some people were referred to as "work shy" (This was used in a derogatory fashion), because they couldn't face work or simply couldn't fit in and/or their face didn't fit. This was assumed to be their own fault and probably done to get the sack and go back on benefits.
With hindsight, I wonder how many were actually suffering from social phobia, autism, aspergers syndrome, OCD, ADHD etc?
These conditions weren't known about and/or appreciated then, even children with dyslexia were assumed to be lazy or stupid in those days!
Quote:
Originally Posted by martyh
No they didn't ,they filled out an anonymous online yougov poll on behalf of the expenses watchdog ,to find out what mp's thought the job was worth ,probably in comparison to head teachers and other high paid civil servants .
|
I took my information from the BBC link that I quoted.
Join CF
You are here: 
