Liz Truss Resigns [Who'll be the next Prime Minister?]

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Why shouldn't everyone have to make a degree of contribution to services that they use ?

Why should there be exceptions? People who have a relatively small degree of savings are getting hit more and more and are having to make cutbacks, and not just to luxuries such as netflix.

So you agree there is a housing component and rent doesn't necessarily come out of 'other living expenses'

You've massaged the 5% figure. the actual stats are

In real terms (adjusted for inflation), growth in total and regular pay fell on the year in April to June 2022 at 2.5% for total pay and 3.0% for regular pay; this was a record fall for regular pay. Average total pay growth for the private sector was 5.9% in April to June 2022, and 1.8% for the public sector.16 Aug 2022

I'm not arguing that some of the methods involved have had catastrophic impact to individuals, however, the examples you give are of edge cases . This of course by no means lessens the impact felt.

I also via SWMBO see people who are sanctioned, why? because they refuse to travel outside of a three mile area for work, because they refuse to work shifts (not that they have compelling reasons such as childcare, simply because they don't want to work shifts) people who refuse to work because they don't want to work weekends . For every example you give of those who really do need our support, there are an equivalent number of people who are quite simply abusing the system because they can't be bothered. there are those also who are desperate to work including people in 'Group 1'

People who cannot work should get every single piece of help available, but still make a contribution to the services if they consume, even if it's 50p


TLR the whole system is screwed, it's needs rebuilding from the ground up

Thankfully, in the main, we don't have a system where need is related to ability to pay.

The payments needed to make up any shortfall in rent comes out of money earmarked by Parliament for day to day living expenses, such as food, toiletries, bathing etc.

Indeed, unreasonable demands as to how far people are prepared to travel to work etc are met with negative sanctions.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Thankfully, in the main, we don't have a system where need is related to ability to pay.

The payments needed to make up any shortfall in rent comes out of money earmarked by Parliament for day to day living expenses, such as food, toiletries, bathing etc.

Indeed, unreasonable demands as to how far people are prepared to travel to work etc are met with negative sanctions.

Isn't this is a part of what being a society is? everyone contributing ? regardless, of how small that contribution may be ?

To add, it's OK to expect some people to pay nothing, whilst increasing the costs on others ?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Isn't this is a part of what being a society is? everyone contributing ? regardless, of how small that contribution may be ?

To add, it's OK to expect some people to pay nothing, whilst increasing the costs on others ?

I’ve paid in all my days. If by some unfortunate scenario I found myself claiming unemployment or sickness benefits I’ve most definitely made a contribution.

To insist I further contributed to fund public services simply means you’d have to raise benefits to account for the bare minimum in living costs they are designed to accommodate. The net benefit to the exchequer would be zero.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

The vast amount of the welfare budget is spent on retirement pensions. The rest is spent on the sick, disabled, carers etc

The smallest amount was spent on Jobseekers Allowance.

Sure, you've worked and paid in, but so have most of the others as that's how the scheme works. When you can afford to, you pay in, when you need help, you take it out.

It sounds like you have the all too common attitude of "Benefits should be cut, but not those that I claim as i'm genuinely entitled and have paid into the system". Well, so have most of the others.

I don't believe in supporting cradle to grave scroungers who will not work but are fit to do so

[jfman]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

I don't believe in supporting cradle to grave scroungers who will not work but are fit to do so

So everyone who ever claims benefits, regardless of how short a period, should be penalised by not raising them with the cost of living?

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by jfman

So everyone who ever claims benefits, regardless of how short a period, should be penalised by not raising them with the cost of living?

That shit will not work on me

[jfman]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

That shit will not work on me

Logic?

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by jfman

Logic?

Sorry, but you're overreaching again, at no point did Papa say that, but it's true that there's a degree who have had and will continue to have no intent on working and instead relying on the benefits system.

IF we could fix that, then theoretically there's more money for people who genuinely need to rely on the benefits system for their life.

Surely that's not a bad thing ?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Sorry, but you're overreaching again, at no point did Papa say that, but it's true that there's a degree who have had and will continue to have no intent on working and instead relying on the benefits system.

IF we could fix that, then theoretically there's more money for people who genuinely need to rely on the benefits system for their life.

Surely that's not a bad thing ?

I wouldn’t link raising benefits by the cost of living (inflation) with the inability/ability of the DWP, HMRC or law enforcement to successfully prosecute criminal activity by other actors, no. Neither would I link it to their success at getting long term claimants off benefits. Again it’s an entirely separate issue, and not one the poorest in society should pay for in the manner suggested by others in the thread today.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by jfman

I wouldn’t link raising benefits by the cost of living (inflation) with the inability/ability of the DWP, HMRC or law enforcement to successfully prosecute criminal activity by other actors, no. Neither would I link it to their success at getting long term claimants off benefits. Again it’s an entirely separate issue, and not one the poorest in society should pay for in the manner suggested by others in the thread today.

So, it's OK for those who have worked their socks off to improve their lives to keep having to pay more and more because you don't want to target those who are fully capable of working yet choose to abuse the system?

Taking your use of the word 'poorest' There's a major difference between those who are poor through no fault of their own and should be given every piece of help available to live as full as life as possible. Compared to those who you would class as poor but are so due to the fact that despite them being 100% able to work and contribute to society, they instead decide they can't be bothered and instead abuse an already pressurised system.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

So, it's OK for those who have worked their socks off to improve their lives to keep having to pay more and more because you don't want to target those who are fully capable of working yet choose to abuse the system?

Taking your use of the word 'poorest' There's a major difference between those who are poor through no fault of their own and should be given every piece of help available to live as full as life as possible. Compared to those who you would class as poor but are so due to the fact that despite them being 100% able to work and contribute to society, they instead decide they can't be bothered and instead abuse an already pressurised system.

I didn’t say I thought it was “okay” I merely said I wouldn’t link the uprating of benefits with the ability of Government departments or agencies to identify and root out these people.

I agree, there’s a massive difference between those who need and those who exploit the system. However as I said above it’s extremely small beer against all Government expenditure on benefits, the tax gap, or even just the monthly interest payments on our £3 trillion of debt.

If you want to attack poor people (including the working poor on Universal Credit) this is the best way to do it. If you want to target and root out people who exploit the system this isn’t. They’ll continue to exploit it regardless.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by jfman

I didn’t say I thought it was “okay” I merely said I wouldn’t link the uprating of benefits with the ability of Government departments or agencies to identify and root out these people.

I agree, there’s a massive difference between those who need and those who exploit the system. However as I said above it’s extremely small beer against all Government expenditure on benefits, the tax gap, or even just the monthly interest payments on our £3 trillion of debt.

If you want to attack poor people (including the working poor on Universal Credit) this is the best way to do it. If you want to target and root out people who exploit the system this isn’t. They’ll continue to exploit it regardless.

That extremely small beer as you so put it, could however improve the lives of those that genuinely need it.....

What's your solution to stopping people exploiting the system?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

That extremely small beer as you so put it, could however improve the lives of those that genuinely need it.....

So could many Government policies or initiatives, yet there’s little clamour from the right wing press for many of those.

The Department for Work and Pensions pays out around £327bn a year in benefits and pensions. By my measure they could therefore give less than an extra 2 pence in every pound to claimants if they reduced fraud and error to zero (an absolutely unachievable aim).

With the best will in the world, it’s not going to pay the gas bill.

What's your solution to stopping people exploiting the system?

I’m not here to put one forward, but every benefit claimant facing a real terms cut is not the answer. Doing literally nothing equal to or better than your proposal both functionally and morally.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

So could many Government policies or initiatives, yet there’s little clamour from the right wing press for many of those.

The Department for Work and Pensions pays out around £327bn a year in benefits and pensions. By my measure they could therefore give less than an extra 2 pence in every pound to claimants if they reduced fraud and error to zero (an absolutely unachievable aim).

With the best will in the world, it’s not going to pay the gas bill.



I’m not here to put one forward, but every benefit claimant facing a real terms cut is not the answer. Doing literally nothing equal to or better than your proposal both functionally and morally.

I do find it very frustrating that I do tend to find myself agreeing with you on several things recently.

I think benefits should be increased, by how much is open for discussion. I got a 3% pay rise this year and will get 2% next year.

As long as the premise that no one on benefits can earn more than anyone that works, then fine.

In regards to people that game the system, yes they exist but agree they are a small %. It is in most human DNA to want to have more and better yourself.

I have been fortunate to have been in full time employment every day since September 1990, and I have quite a few years ahead. I feel no ill will to anyone on benefits ( I may get a little irked from time to time, at some of the small % of career benefit claimants)

Everybody is getting a real terms cut, but I wouldn’t agree with cutting the most deprived, that just isn’t right. Defining or identifying the most deprived is the thing.

[jfman]

I can't even remember the last time we disagreed.