The state benefits system mega-thread.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Osem

Removing incentives usually has a deterrent effect and vice versa.

It will be interesting to see how society reacts to the '3rd' child.

"tough. it will just have to starve then won't it. you were told"
or
"isn't she beautiful!"

the Big Social Experiment is. the working woman and the benefits woman.
both expecting their 3rd child.
Who Goes? You Decide!

[Jimmy-J]

Originally Posted by Osem

Removing incentives usually has a deterrent effect and vice versa.

I can't see that having any significant effect.

[Osem]

Well we'll have to disagree on that.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Osem

Well we'll have to disagree on that.

I think we all know that babies are made by way of sexual intercourse.

you mention 'incentives'

you think not being paid will stop her from having the baby?
you think that all these babies only happen because she gets paid for them?

you must think that they'll be thinking logically from now on. and saying just the 2 and that's my lot.

[Jimmy-J]

Originally Posted by Osem

Well we'll have to disagree on that.

There would probably be a rise in the list of abortions.

As for members who think they know that benefit fraud is being committed, why don't you tell the DWP?, I'm sure they'll be very interested.

[denphone]

My Mum and Step mum both had large families and worked hard all their lives so l would certainly be unhappy if the were labelled as anything other then hard working mothers even though they both got child benefit.

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

I haven't heard one sensible person oppose the idea of those who can work should and that receipt of benefits should come with responsibility as there are those who feel they have a right to money no matter how irresponsibly they act. That doesn't mean the Tories program is achieving any of that beyond sound bites and too many with genuine medical problems both diagnosed and confirmed by medical professionals are getting hit whilst the worst abusers are managing to skate by yet again.

if you talking about workfare my issue is two things really.

1 - people are working for less than the legal min wage.
2 - they been put into work in private companies who profit from the work.

Really they should be sent to charities and council's and then only work a set amount of hours where the min wage meets their weekly job seekers allowance, so if e.g. the min wage is £7 then they do 10 hours for the week.

That I would be fine with.

What I am not fine with is someone on £72 a week JSA been made to work 30 hours a week at tesco for it. Now tesco are also having the cheek to claim they cannot afford £25 home delivery with current prices when they using job seekers paid for by the gov to fill the baskets. In my mind if the gov sends them off to do 30 hours a week work then the gov should be prepared to pay them circa £200 a week.

Anyone who backs workfare is double standards, I bet you wouldnt do a full time job for £70 a week.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Jimmy-J

And if they are claiming benefits that they shouldn't be entitled to, then do something about it.

I did, I voted Tory.

---------- Post added at 21:41 ---------- Previous post was at 21:39 ----------

Originally Posted by Jimmy-J

Do you think that removing benefits will stop them having kids?

Might make them think twice.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Jimmy-J

Do you think that removing benefits will stop them having kids?

Then there's no real reason not to find out by stopping their benefits.

IMO completely cutting off benefits is too harsh. Tapering off where the more kids they have, the less money they get for the "extra" ones. Just as happens with Child Benefit. There also needs to be a look at how he benefits cap is applied. By all means exclude disability benefits from being considered as income, but don't exclude ALL benefits and tax credits received on the basis of one person receiving DLA/PIP.

[heero_yuy]

Originally Posted by Jimmy-J

Do you think that removing benefits will stop them having kids?

No. But what I'd have removed would.

[thenry]

What is the actual stance on brown envelopes, benefit fraud and such that is? Some clarity would be much appreciated.

HMRC say about £10 billion is lost each year in taxes due to the off-the-books work, and an organisation called Tax Research estimated it at £85 billion a year.

[Chrysalis]

Not got the figures to hand but I read multiple times the amount DWP save in unclaimed benefits (due to people not claiming for stigma etc.) is more then the amount lost to fraud.

Also as hugh has posted the amount lost to unpaid taxes is way way bigger.

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

Not got the figures to hand but I read multiple times the amount DWP save in unclaimed benefits (due to people not claiming for stigma etc.) is more then the amount lost to fraud.

Also as hugh has posted the amount lost to unpaid taxes is way way bigger.

Two wrongs don't make a right and unclaimed benefit does not mitigate fraud.

[Chrysalis]

Correct but resources should be targeted at the areas which will save more money. The amount of things done by recent governments to try and stop benefit fraud is excessive. They have probably spent more money than they saved.