The state benefits system mega-thread.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Hugh

So no matter what they do, you won't believe they've done it?

As I said before, Okaaaayyyyy then......

You've obviously made up your mind, and won't let inconvenient things like facts get in the way of your viewpoint - as is your privilege....

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

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

The general idea is that, whatever a persons income, society should help those who face extra costs through no fault of their own ie that their standard of living should not be lower than it otherwise would be if they were not disabled.

?

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 .

Originally Posted by martyh

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 .

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.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by martyh

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 .

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.

[heero_yuy]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Contribution based benefits cost the taxpayer nothing, they are paid for out of the National Insurance fund.

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.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Chris

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.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

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]

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

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.

Originally Posted by Chris

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.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

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.

And here are those accounts....

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

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Chris

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?

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).

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

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 ----------

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

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]

Originally Posted by ianch99

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]

Originally Posted by Gary L

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.

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.