The state benefits system mega-thread.

[denphone]

The Conservatives have already made it clear that they intend to pare back the Welfare state to the bone if they get 5 more years and sadly those receiving benefits because they need help because of their disabilities and illnesses are likely to bear the brunt of the severe welfare cuts which are coming down the line after 2015.

Originally Posted by denphone

There is nothing wrong with people having a opinion as long as its a educated opinion and not one prejudiced by what certain politicians and certain sections of the media espouse to people.

l am supportive of welfare reform but there comes a time when enough is enough and that time is near as if we continue to go down this road for the next five years then those because of no fault of their own because of the disabilities and illnesses who need it the most are sadly going to be left with no help at all and no one can tell me that's right.

Or some could put it that those who need the help most will be supported, and those who don't, won't.

There's always two ways of looking at things.....

Nick Robinson put it well (imho) on his blog - "Election 2015 - It's all about you"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32106884

Aha, I hear you say, but what on earth has any of this got to do with me? Consider the following questions and you'll have your answer.

• Do you care whether Britain stays in or gets out of the EU?

• Do you mind if the UK breaks up, with Scotland becoming an independent nation?

• Do you have a view about whether we send British forces abroad to fight? Or spend billions renewing our nuclear deterrent?

• Have spending cuts gone too far or are more needed to balance the nation's books? Do you think welfare's too generous or that benefit cuts are hurting the vulnerable?

• Do you think the country is full or do you fear that politicians might stop the immigration the country needs?

The make-up of the next government will make a profound difference to the answer it gives to these questions.

Whatever your view on them, there's probably someone running for election where you live, with views close to your own.

If you live in a seat where the outcome's in doubt, you could make the difference between who wins and loses. Even if you live somewhere where the same party always wins, your vote could send a signal about the national mood.

Finally, take another look at David Cameron and Ed Miliband.

Ask yourself whose values are closer to your own, who you'd prefer to see representing your country abroad and who you think has the skills needed to lead.

To many, David Cameron and Ed Miliband seem very similar - middle-aged white men from well-off families in the south of England who have spent most of their adult lives as professional politicians.

On the other hand, they have profoundly different values and profoundly different ideas about what being prime minister involves.

Cameron sees himself as a man capable of taking decisions, who is not weighed down by ideology. His critics say that, all too often, that means that he takes decisions that suit the sort of people he grew up with, and he has no real idea where he's taking the country.

Miliband, on the other hand, privately sees himself as a man with a mission to bring about lasting change in his country and to re-write the rules. Another Clement Attlee or Margaret Thatcher in other words. His critics argue that he too is the prisoner of the views he grew up with, and that he does not have the leadership skills needed to run the country.

Now, if having read all of this you think none of this really matters to me, or if you prefer to agree with your friends that all politicians are the same or nothing ever changes or they're all in it for themselves then you would be right to insist this election is not really all about you at all.

That, though, will be your choice and no-one else's.

[denphone]

Yes indeed Nick Robinson has put it quite succinctly on his blog and l suspect many when it comes to casting their vote on polling day including me will be doing it with a heavy heart as neither leader is very convincing at the end of the day when it comes to doing what is best for this country as they both have too many vested interests in my humble opinion.

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Because he or I, are not "living in the system" does not prevent him from having an opinion on how his taxes are spent by the government on welfare, or make his opinions any less valid than somebody " living in the system"

By that yard stick you would preclude anyone from having an opinion on anything that they haven't got direct experience of, which is nonsense.

Thanks Pierre; it saves me saying it.

Originally Posted by denphone

There is nothing wrong with people having a opinion as long as its a educated opinion and not one prejudiced by what certain politicians and certain sections of the media espouse to people.

If that is aimed at me, I take exception to it. I feel my opinion to be considered and educated. I'm sorry if it doesn't agree with yours but my view remains valid nonetheless.

In case it is not clear, I, not the politicians, commentators, media or Uncle Tom Cobbley and all, take the view that benefits should be targeted toward those that need them and at an appropriate level.

And a review of the system is correct and overdue to ensure needs are met not wishlists.

[denphone]

No it was not aimed at you Kursk.

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by denphone

No it was not aimed at you Kursk.

My apologies in that case. Hard decisions have to be made about all areas of public expenditure so that resources are maximised and properly targeted. It's about receiving benefit commensurate with need.

I see no reason for this to concern genuine beneficiaries.

[ianch99]

I wish a fraction of the energy, effort and media coverage that goes into finding who of the current benefit claiments does not deserve their money, would go into identifying the tax dodgers and plugging the myriad schemes through which they operate.

I suspect that the sums that are "owed" in tax far out weigh the money that is being incorrectly paid out in benefits.

[Taf]

Originally Posted by ianch99

I wish a fraction of the energy, effort and media coverage that goes into finding who of the current benefit claimants does not deserve their money, would go into identifying the tax dodgers and plugging the myriad schemes through which they operate.

I suspect that the sums that are "owed" in tax far out weigh the money that is being incorrectly paid out in benefits.

Very probably, but it's easier to "attack" the "weak" than to infuriate or alienate Big Business who may be holding the purse strings at some level.

Reform is needed, but the way it is being done is doing more harm to those genuinely in need than to those scamming the system I reckon. And that includes those scamming the tax system.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Stephen

But there are two types of JSA. Contribution and Income based. If you have enough contribution you get put on that first for 6 months, then moved to the income based one. Its only income based that also entitles you to free dental care as well.

I find that daft. You are out of work but they think as you had a job recently you may have savings or other money so can still pay dental fees.

It's Contribution Based Jobseekers Allowance (JSAC) that they are considering scrapping.

Anybody on JSAC can make a claim for free or reduced dental charges and other health costs under the NHS Low Income scheme. Apply on form HC1:

http://www.nhsbsa.nhs.uk/HealthCosts/1128.aspx

Originally Posted by ianch99

I wish a fraction of the energy, effort and media coverage that goes into finding who of the current benefit claiments does not deserve their money, would go into identifying the tax dodgers and plugging the myriad schemes through which they operate.

I suspect that the sums that are "owed" in tax far out weigh the money that is being incorrectly paid out in benefits.

Do you mean like this?

What the government has done

2.1

This government has taken effective action against those who break the rules. It is determined to chase down the tax that is owed and make sure that those who avoid or evade change their behaviour.

2.2

The government has invested in HMRC - more than £1 billion in HMRC’s compliance activities since 2010 to tackle non-compliance including evasion and avoidance.

2.3

The amount brought in is increasing every year – from £17 billion in 2010 to an expected £26 billion in 2014-15. During this Parliament, HMRC will have secured £100 billion in additional compliance revenue as a result of actions taken to tackle evasion, avoidance and noncompliance.

2.4

This includes more than £31 billion as a result of interventions with big businesses since 2010. And the High Net Worth Unit has collected £1.2 billion in extra compliance yield from the UK’s 6,000 richest people, who each have a net worth of £20 million or more.

And for other wealthy individuals, the Affluent Unit formed in 2011 and later expanded has collected around £250 million in additional compliance revenues to 2013-14.

2.5

Criminal investigations have protected £4.1 billion since 2011 with a fivefold increase in criminal prosecutions for mass market or “volume crime” (investigations across trade sectors intended to produce deterrent prosecutions). Since 2010 HMRC has secured more than 2,650 criminal prosecutions and 2,718 years of prison sentences for tax offences.

2.6

To make it easier to find offshore evasion in the future, the government has led the agreement of an unprecedented step change in international tax transparency. Over 90 countries are committed to share information on bank and other financial accounts, starting in 2017. Over £2 billion has been collected from offshore evasion, mainly through the UK Swiss Agreement - where UK residents either paid a withholding tax on funds held in Switzerland or disclosed to HMRC - and from the Liechtenstein Disclosure Facility (LDF), through which people can make disclosures to HMRC about offshore accounts and clear up their past wrongdoings.

2.7

The government has taken ground-breaking action against avoidance – ensuring HMRC has the powers they need and changing the economics of avoidance with measures such as Accelerated Payments, which gives HMRC the power to collect disputed tax bills up front, and introduced the UK's first General Anti-Abuse rule, which tackles the worst tax avoidance arrangements. The measures this government has taken to tackle avoidance are forecast to raise more than £12 billion over the lifetime of this Parliament.

And this?

'If people help a burglar, they are accomplices too. Now it will be the same for those that help tax evaders’, explains the Chief Secretary.

Tax evaders and the professionals who enable tax evasion will face tough new sanctions, including two new criminal offences and higher penalties, under a new regime to crack down on offshore evaders the Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander announced today (Thursday 19 March).
Building on yesterday’s Budget announcement that the government is introducing a new and tough last chance disclosure facility ahead of the worldwide automatic exchange of financial information coming into effect which the UK championed, the Chief Secretary is today unveiling plans to:

• introduce a new strict liability criminal offence for offshore evasion – so in the worst cases it’s no longer possible to plead ignorance in an attempt to avoid criminal prosecution
• make it a criminal offence for corporates to fail to prevent tax evasion or the facilitation of tax evasion on their watch
• increase the financial penalties faced by evaders – including, for the first time, linking the penalty to value of the asset kept in an offshore bank account
• introduce new civil penalties on those who enable evasion so they will face the same penalty as the tax evader
• publicly name and shame both evaders and those who enable evasion.....

....Over the course of this Parliament, as a result of actions taken to tackle evasion, avoidance and non-compliance, HMRC will have secured £100 billion in additional revenue. This includes more than £31 billion from big businesses, and an extra £1.2 billion from the UK’s 6,000 richest people, who each have a net worth of £20 million or more.

And since, in 2013/14, estimates were £3.4bn of benefit was overpaid due to claimant error, fraud or official error, and around £23 billion that year was collected from those who were evading/avoiding tax, the figures speak for themselves....

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Do you mean like this? And this?

Government Statistics ... need I say more?

So you believe the government stats for underpayment, but not for tax collection?

Okaaayyyyyy then....

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Hugh

So you believe the government stats for underpayment, but not for tax collection?

Okaaayyyyyy then....

I never quoted any government stats on underpayment.

If anyone thinks this Tory government is serious about chasing the very people that back them, you are living in cloud cuckoo land.

You can quote as many Government statistics as you like. I can see the real world in front of me, not one spun from Westminister and I can see the richer minority in this society getting more advantaged as the years go by and I can see the poor getting less advantaged. The majority of the money to provide a better society, to fund a viable NHS, etc. is here and it does not belong to the poor and the disabled.

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....

[ianch99]

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....

Government spin does not always equate to "facts" but that's fine. You believe them, your choice. Okaaaayyyyy? Others can make their own minds up on whether a Tory government is more interested in making cuts in the welfare budget than making sure the rich pay all the tax that is due.