Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

Well said Boris

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

daviewat
daviewat  104104 forum posts Scotland
19 Sep 2012 - 12:52 PM

From a Boris speech to a debate on benefits !!!!!!!!!!!!! Anyway from what I have read here and elsewhere the ones that do most of the complaining about benefits etc are those who never seem to ,legitimately I have to say, have ever been in a situation where they have had to claim !!!!!! There are those out there that have paid into the system for many years through work and now find themselves unable to work for many legitimate reason but NOBODY ever speaks up there !!!!!!!!!!!!

Last Modified By daviewat at 19 Sep 2012 - 12:54 PM
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
19 Sep 2012 - 12:52 PM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

collywobles
19 Sep 2012 - 1:50 PM


Quote: Anyway from what I have read here and elsewhere the ones that do most of the complaining about benefits etc are those who never seem to ,legitimately I have to say, have ever been in a situation where they have had to claim !!!!!!

Your dead right mate, my entire life has been to get on in life, support my family, have enough kids ( with one woman) that I can support comfortably, go to work every day and work my butt off to get promotion so me and my families life slowly got better. I, (as was my wife) was brought up on a council estate and I vowed that I would not allow my children to be brought up on one, so I got educated and got on with what I had to do. I have sat in hotels on company business all over the world and have missed parts of my families life, but it was the right thing to do and I have no regrets. All my 4 boys got to Uni and graduated and its all because of how hard I and my wife worked so they could achieve this.

My complaining (your words not mine) is not about people on the dole, its all about people who will not get off their fat arse and get responsible about their lives. I never complain about anyone who is unfortunate to be (genuinly) sick or ill or unemployed and are unable to find work and I will support them as long as it takes. But! if you will not go to work or even seriously look for work then I dont see why you should be given benefits without some way of returning the favour.

mikehit
mikehit  46165 forum posts United Kingdom9 Constructive Critique Points
19 Sep 2012 - 2:09 PM


Quote: From a Boris speech to a debate on benefits !!!!!!!!!!!!! Anyway from what I have read here and elsewhere the ones that do most of the complaining about benefits etc are those who never seem to ,legitimately I have to say, have ever been in a situation where they have had to claim !!!!!! There are those out there that have paid into the system for many years through work and now find themselves unable to work for many legitimate reason but NOBODY ever speaks up there !!!!!!!!!!!!

quite right
Social security is a safety net and I bet many of those complaining about it were among those who whinged about removing universal child support (or whatever it was called).

Any system will have loopholes and grey areas and there are a number oif people who abuse it and the question is what level of abuse is acceptable.
Gordon Brown created a truly Byzantine benefits system that was aimed at not giving poeple benefits who did not need it. This added levels of complexity to the IT systems and a corresponding increase in staff to administer it (plus resource, buildings with heating or them to work in etc). I read one article that did a crude calculation that we could simplify the benefits system and increase payments by some 20% all paid for by cutting all that bureaucratic infrastructure. The payback would be that the simplified benefits criteria would mean payments would go to some people who did not need it. But that is politcally unacceptable due to the media mock-outrage that would ensue.
In other words: increased benefit payments with the disadvantage of some people getting undeserved payments, or reducing payments with a greater assurance that the right people are getting it.
Given that this is the realworld I prefer the former.

monstersnowman
19 Sep 2012 - 4:23 PM

The negative part of giving benefits to people who dont need it is that in receiving benefits it makes people on the cusp feel that extra work or small increases in earnings are not worth any extra effort because they lose benefit to a similar amount. This creates a benefit trap. If that level of money paid out rises, including to those who may not really need it you are needlessly encompassing more people into this trap and fostering a reliance on benefit. They also are not paying tax on the benefit thus not contributing to the system whereas if they were encouraged to earn that little bit extra because it doesnt cost them in lost benefit as they are out of the benefit system then they are also contributing tax to the system from the earnings for those who really need it. I understand the logic behind reducing the complexity and ergo reducing costs so more can be paid out but it doesnt necessarily pay to place people in a system of benefit if they dont need it, even if the actual cost in overall benefit payment terms doesnt go up - there are other costs involved - lost taxation, benefit trap, self esteem, etc

Focus_Man
Focus_Man  4481 forum posts United Kingdom631 Constructive Critique Points
19 Sep 2012 - 4:39 PM


Quote: Those on the benefit system can receive what is said to be the minimum wage 26.000 pa Untangling this confusion , it appears the average household income is just under 26,000, so a cap has been placed on benefits paid to working age families of 26,000 - although I have the impression there is provision to pay more in some circumstances, so it isn't really a maximum ammount.

Apologies, I meant the average wage.

But the difference between the working guy on 26,000 and the benefit guy on 26,000 is significant in as much as the guy on benefit does not pay, Income ,tax NInsurance, Council tax, prescription charges, costs of tarvelling to work, cost of clothes require for work etc etc. So it is patently unfair to the working guy.

Like I said earlier, I have no problem with paying those in need as a safety net or forever for disabled who cannot work (Look at the Para olympics and you will see that a lot could work!) but those who work the system have no place in our civilised society.

Last Modified By Focus_Man at 19 Sep 2012 - 4:44 PM
mikehit
mikehit  46165 forum posts United Kingdom9 Constructive Critique Points
19 Sep 2012 - 4:45 PM

What percentage of the population is in a job but in the 'benefit trap' you describe? And that is the point that gets lost in these discussions: if it is one tenth of one percent for example then it should not be a barrier to a sensible policy. If it is 20 percent then yes, it is something that needs to be a addressed.
But if people do not want to better themselves because in the short term they will 'lose out' then that is a personal decision - not one I understand but it is their decision: early in my career I (like many) took decisions that inconvenienced me both financially (not greatly, but it did) and socially but I knew there was a long term payoff in recognition for promotion.
We can always dream up scenarios where a proposed policy will not work, but rare events or theoretical situations should not lead to distorted national policies. Unfortunately the press headlines have just this effect.

Paul Morgan
Paul Morgan e2 Member 1314915 forum postsPaul Morgan vcard England6 Constructive Critique Points
19 Sep 2012 - 4:49 PM


Quote: But the difference between the working guy on 26,000 and the benefit guy on 26,000

Where did you get that figure from for the benefit guy Smile

Focus_Man
Focus_Man  4481 forum posts United Kingdom631 Constructive Critique Points
19 Sep 2012 - 5:05 PM


Quote: Where did you get that figure from for the benefit guy Smile

Sorry I stand corrected, many of course are on much more than that.

Paul Morgan
Paul Morgan e2 Member 1314915 forum postsPaul Morgan vcard England6 Constructive Critique Points
19 Sep 2012 - 5:08 PM


Quote: Sorry I stand corrected, many of course are on much more than that

Who ?

monstersnowman
19 Sep 2012 - 6:04 PM


Quote: What percentage of the population is in a job but in the 'benefit trap' you describe? And that is the point that gets lost in these discussions: if it is one tenth of one percent for example then it should not be a barrier to a sensible policy. If it is 20 percent then yes, it is something that needs to be a addressed.
But if people do not want to better themselves because in the short term they will 'lose out' then that is a personal decision - not one I understand but it is their decision: early in my career I (like many) took decisions that inconvenienced me both financially (not greatly, but it did) and socially but I knew there was a long term payoff in recognition for promotion.
We can always dream up scenarios where a proposed policy will not work, but rare events or theoretical situations should not lead to distorted national policies. Unfortunately the press headlines have just this effect.

Well it isn't a 'dreamed up scenario' and one I have heard discussed on tv, newspaper etc many times by politicians and political commentators. If you havent then you must have had your head in the sand. I don't know how many fall into it but I have heard COUNTLESS people saying it is not worth getting a job as they are no better off or they can't do a few extra hours because they lose their benefit or receive so little increase in actual money in their pocket that it isnt worth doing. My family also fall into this as do MANY people on benefit who claim quite reasonably that they get more on benefit than in low paid jobs. Also I have just looked at a Parliamentary site that shows a person/family on benefit, claiming housing, Council tax and tax credit benefits will receive from each 1 of extra gross earnings, between 5p and 10p in actual cash in their pocket. This will be the case for almost all benefit claiming people/families in low paid jobs and NOT just a tiny fraction as they all are assessed in the system where earnings are means tested and benefits reduced for every earned.

mikehit
mikehit  46165 forum posts United Kingdom9 Constructive Critique Points
19 Sep 2012 - 6:44 PM

I explained myself badly - I was not suggesting that the scenario you mentioned was 'dreamed up' but theoretical obstacles are often put in front of any policy. With regards the benefit trap you describe, I know there are people who need benefits and are trapped but your comment I was responding to was
"The negative part of giving benefits to people who dont need it ...". In other words people who have an income but then choose not to better themselves.
People on minimum wage often do need benefits to help with housing costs so I would exclude them from my comments.

I think this demonstrates how difficult it is to navigate this diverse and often emotive issue.

triumphv8
triumphv8  6450 forum posts United Kingdom
19 Sep 2012 - 8:50 PM


Quote: Quote: Sorry I stand corrected, many of course are on much more than that


Who ?

These families


Worth reading some of the comments aswell.

Last Modified By triumphv8 at 19 Sep 2012 - 9:19 PM
Focus_Man
Focus_Man  4481 forum posts United Kingdom631 Constructive Critique Points
20 Sep 2012 - 8:43 AM


Quote: Sorry I stand corrected, many of course are on much more than that

Who ?

As MPs resume their debate on the Welfare Reform Bill - the government wants to cap benefits claimed by families to 26,000 a year

" 'Nuff Said?"

keith selmes
20 Sep 2012 - 9:04 AM


Quote: As MPs resume their debate on the Welfare Reform Bill - the government wants to cap benefits claimed by families to 26,000 a year

" 'Nuff Said?"

Not really. This appears to be a done deal, and it's a little more complicated as well.

From here:
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/BenefitsTaxCreditsAndOtherSuppor...

We can read this


Quote: Benefit cap - what it is

The benefit cap will apply to people aged 16 to 64, also known as 'working age'.

The cap means that households where no one is in work should not get more in benefits than the average wage paid to people in work. This is after tax and National Insurance has been taken off.

A household means you, your partner if you have one and any children you are responsible for and who live with you.

and the exceptions


Quote: The cap will not apply if you qualify for Working Tax Credit or get any of the following benefits:

Disability Living Allowance
Personal Independence Payment (from April 2013)
Attendance Allowance
Industrial Injuries Benefits
Employment and Support Allowance, if paid with the support component
War Widow's or War Widower's Pension

keith selmes
20 Sep 2012 - 9:35 AM

Looking a bit further, it appears about 5% of benefit receiving households are above the cap, and the usual reason is the high cost of housing. Some councils will top up the rent from their own funds, and some will try to move families to cheaper areaa.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/16/housing-benefits-cap-wretche...

But Boris comes out as a bit of a leftie - he seems to be wanting something like council houses ?

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/apr/25/boris-johnson-kosovo-style-cleansi...

Boris quotes:

Quote: To cap the benefits and to allow landlords to keep jacking up the rent is wrong


Quote:
the key thing is that rents are going up because we have not got enough homes.
"We've got to commit ourselves to building about half a million homes over the next decade

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.