Channel 4, Britain's benefits scandal.

[Rowls]

Appreciate the considered response.

Same

I'm not going to reply in detail to all the points you made - we don't have to agree on every single minor point. I just want to make one exception to your final point:

Perhaps we agree in some fashion. I don't think you can say a job is worth doing if it doesn't pay enough to put a roof over one's head or enough food on the table. In-work poverty is a huge problem, see the astronomical rise in the usage of food banks by those in paid work. This is keenly felt by those on casual or zero hour contracts and on minimum wage.

Agree with your sentiments entirely here. We might not quite agree on the solution but here's where I'd like to suggest a large part of the problem is:

Somebody on the minimum wage, working 40 hours/week earns £25,396 per year. I think that's a considerable amount for a minimum wage.

They will pay a minimum of £3591 in income tax and NI contributions.

Expecting people earning what we call the minimum wage to be paying three and a half thousand pounds is obscene.

[boatshed bill]

You put your "answer" in with my question, but I will ask again: Could you manage on £24k if you were in the same circumstances as many young jobseekers?
About £21,000 after stoppages. Rent of say £800pcm (average around here). £250(ish) a week?

[Claretincraven]

You put your "answer" in with my question, but I will ask again: Could you manage on £24k if you were in the same circumstances as many young jobseekers?
About £21,000 after stoppages. Rent of say £800pcm (average around here). £250(ish) a week?

That’s up to lifestyle choices. Me, left school, college sandwich course, low paid job akin to a modern apprenticeship, lived at home with parents, moved up the ladder, left home when I got married at 28. And I wasn’t any different to a lot of other people. Nowadays that sort of idea doesn’t seem to go through many peoples head. If someone earns 21k after stoppages maybe they should be thinking of doing something different to spending nearly half of it on renting a house.

[boatshed bill]

That’s up to lifestyle choices. Me, left school, college sandwich course, low paid job akin to a modern apprenticeship, lived at home with parents, moved up the ladder, left home when I got married at 28. And I wasn’t any different to a lot of other people. Nowadays that sort of idea doesn’t seem to go through many peoples head. If someone earns 21k after stoppages maybe they should be thinking of doing something different to spending nearly half of it on renting a house.

Not everyone has the benefit of being able to live with their parents.

[bfcjg]

You put your "answer" in with my question, but I will ask again: Could you manage on £24k if you were in the same circumstances as many young jobseekers?
About £21,000 after stoppages. Rent of say £800pcm (average around here). £250(ish) a week?

I am really struggling to make head nor tails of your justification of a young person sitting on their backside as £24 k isn't enough for them round here.
In answer yes, I'd work for £24 k a year, whilst in work I'd apply for housing benefit to help out failing that I'd rent a room out, and or cut my cloth accordingly no cigarettes, modest alcohol, crap phone and basic contract, Aldi shopping. That said I was brought up to work and have done since 16 bettering myself at every and any opportunity given, the people turning down the £24k could do with a kick up the backside, and that kick should be a total removal of benefits, they'd work then.

[Dyched]

Not everyone has the benefit of being able to live with their parents.

He also said “When be got married”. 2 incomes make a MASSIVE difference.

[boatshed bill]

I am really struggling to make head nor tails of your justification of a young person sitting on their backside as £24 k isn't enough for them round here.
In answer yes, I'd work for £24 k a year, whilst in work I'd apply for housing benefit to help out failing that I'd rent a room out, and or cut my cloth accordingly no cigarettes, modest alcohol, crap phone and basic contract, Aldi shopping. That said I was brought up to work and have done since 16 bettering myself at every and any opportunity given, the people turning down the £24k could do with a kick up the backside, and that kick should be a total removal of benefits, they'd work then.

So you are offering this job just to young people?

[bfcjg]

So you are offering this job just to young people?

I'm not offering the job!!!

[timshorts]

What is the answer?

Employ more enforcement officers. Over a year they allegedly save more in lost tax and stopped/reclaimed benefits from fraudsters.

I have reported somebody for deliberately depriving herself of an inheritance so that she can carry on claiming benefits.
That was about a year ago.
We have heard nothing, but there again, she hasn't received her £100,000+ either.

[mdd2]

Same

I'm not going to reply in detail to all the points you made - we don't have to agree on every single minor point. I just want to make one exception to your final point:



Agree with your sentiments entirely here. We might not quite agree on the solution but here's where I'd like to suggest a large part of the problem is:

Somebody on the minimum wage, working 40 hours/week earns £25,396 per year. I think that's a considerable amount for a minimum wage.

They will pay a minimum of £3591 in income tax and NI contributions.

Expecting people earning what we call the minimum wage to be paying three and a half thousand pounds is obscene.
[/quote)
So who should pay the £3591instead

[atlantalad]

Just a view on people thinking £24k/ year is insufficient for a young person to live off.

Pensioners have to manage on less than half that.

Pensioners are not job seekers.

So the advice for anyone currently approaching pension age ( 67) would be - don't retire, carry on working ( obviously after leaving your current employment to actually retire). You cannot be discriminated against because of your age and 'wanting to/seeking' to continue working. You could then claim you are looking for work and claim the fit for work benefits/ Universal Credits- which would be greater than state the pension. An added bonus is that you would have your NI contribution credits given to you so it tops up contribution years and more state pension when you eventually decided to call it a day and drop down your benefits level to that of the state pension.

[boatshed bill]

I'm not offering the job!!!

No, but you are sort of promoting it.

[CrosspoolClarets]

My dad is 94, worked and paid taxes all his life and struggles with mobility issues and is almost deaf. We applied for attendance allowance to help him out financially, it was denied, we appealed and it was denied again.
Meanwhile there is a career criminal lives near me with 5 kids. He has never worked and never will. Gets sufficient benefits to have a better house than most and his kids have all the best designer clothes and fancy bikes.
How can this be right?

Out of interest what reason did they give for it being denied again on appeal?

How comprehensive was the form filled in? It is about 30 pages and quite detailed, it has to be proven that care is needed from a third party (which can be a wife).

I’d bet my last dollar some will have succeeded who are in less need than your Dad.

[Colburn_Claret]

You are literally saying people working in low wage jobs should take courses at night schools that don't exist any more. Funding for them was decimated a decade or more ago.

I'm not saying it's impossible (I retrained into a new career myself a couple of years ago as a network engineer), however it's not as easy as it used to be.

The point is it doesn't have to be easy, it just has to be done. People who are waiting for someone else to sort their lives out are in for a hell of a long wait.
That aside this isn't about people struggling to find opportunities, it's about people who wouldn't walk to the corner of the street for 40 hours of stacking shelves because a, its too boring or b, minimum wage is not enough.
All of your arguments about how difficult it is are moot, because there is a sub culture who will do anything possible to avoid work.
For so many reasons, on many levels that is just wrong.

[dougcollins]

Well done C4, you got a few frothing at the mouth on here.

[Stonehouse]

Must be millions of people with similar stories,got married and lived in 2 up 2 down and struggled to pay bills I worked 6 til 2 and 2 til 10 shifts and after each shift went taxi driving to keep us afloat ,partner packed in work when pregnant and as soon as she was able worked an evening shift at Prestige ,never claimed benefits apart from the original family allowance and £25 towards a pram that everyone got.Not bragging just saying for the first 5 to 10 yrs of married life it was tough but have reaped the benefits for the last 40 yrs .Its your life and take responsibility if at all possible.

[houseboy]

Employ more enforcement officers. Over a year they allegedly save more in lost tax and stopped/reclaimed benefits from fraudsters.

I have reported somebody for deliberately depriving herself of an inheritance so that she can carry on claiming benefits.
That was about a year ago.
We have heard nothing, but there again, she hasn't received her £100,000+ either.

I find that fascinating Tim. I don’t know how you came about this information as it seems as though it would be, to my mind, highly personal and therefore not public knowledge, and ‘public knowledge’ if indeed it is that also tends to suffer from hyperbole. I have to say that it seems strange that someone would wave goodbye to 100k just so they could stay on benefits.
These enforcement officers you speak of presumably wouldn’t work for nothing (and given government officers would indeed be well paid) so how many of these well paid officers would we need and would they also track and enforce tax dodgers (a separate skill set I would imagine)? Could the creation of an army of officers even recoup the cost of their employment collectively?
I don’t pretend to know the answer but I would have a lot of questions about the creation of this army of benefits officers. A lot is said by reactionaries about benefits scroungers whenever one of these (usually biased) stories appears on TV or in the Tory dominated press, but very little is done to try to find the underlying cause of it. Yes, some are probably lazy but many are trapped in a situation where they exist on benefits (most people on benefits are definitely NOT living it up) but taking a job would make them even worse off. I assume you are a family man and as such you do the best you can for them, and if you were struggling along on benefits but then you were told to go out and work 35 hours a week for even less how would you feel?
All this benefits issue has rumbled on for years, it’s not new, and it will continue to do so until those in power address it from all sides, not just pick on the easy target.

[Hipper]

Up The Clarets Forum.

Start a thread on a particular subject and do it in such a way that nobody actually talks about the subject itself, Channel 4, Britain's benefits scandal.

Quite clever really but a bit pointless. Why not title it 'Scroungers'.

[rincon]

Out of interest what reason did they give for it being denied again on appeal?

How comprehensive was the form filled in? It is about 30 pages and quite detailed, it has to be proven that care is needed from a third party (which can be a wife).

I’d bet my last dollar some will have succeeded who are in less need than your Dad.

Yes, You're right. I attended a tribunal hearing last week and sat in front of a 'judge' a doctor and a benefits specialist, with my dad and a representative from his housing association. My dad was cross examined by the trio and despite being nearly deaf, had to try and answer.
We received a letter this week telling us that our appeal was refused.
The representative was amazed and disgusted by their decision, but it probably boiled down to the long form that I'd filled in honestly and to the best of my ability, had not including enough information, as I didn't want to exaggerate anything.
We had submitted additional information on our appeals, but they would not accept that.
The lesson, with hindsight, is I should have got an expert to fill in the form for me in the first place. Then his claim would almost certainly have been successful.

[steve1264b]

Hi Rincon were you applying fot attendance allowance?

Top tip, you can apply on line, but only on mondays, its much easier than filling in the paper form.

Its much more tick box, we got a call from an assessor and he got the full amount.

He is on dialysis x3 a day.

[Jakubclaret]

It's a shame the system is in that much of a mess the people who desperately need help aren't getting any & the people who don't really deserve anything seem to be getting it good. It's been a problem for some considerable time.

[basil6345789]

In lots of cases the people who work have less than those who don't , that's why they don't work.

Why do they have the choice?

[Commy]

I’ve often wondered what people actually spent their disposable income on in the 70s/80s/90s.

My generation to me spend a fortune on what are luxuries. Smart phones, netflix, amazon, spotify, justeat (takeaways), sky.

I see it with my mates, they’ll be earning minimum wage but have the majority of all those things. At least £200. That’s before the spend £100s on a car and insurance and rent/mortgage.

So my question is what did people buy in older times? As I’ve said £200 and that’s before even going out for a drink and some food, holidays etc etc.

Luxury items were usually household things in the 70s. Washing machines were a luxury. We had a twin tub and when that went my dad used to go to the laundrette every Sunday, for years, until we got a washing machine. Televisions could be classed as a luxury as well as an awful lot of people rented them from Radio Rentals. You also only saw one car in a family unless they had money.

[bfcjg]

Why do they have the choice?

Even labour are now intimating that if you choose not to work by refusing jobs you lose benefits.
Re not working, free eye care,dentistry, local authority leisure,prescriptions etc etc, when you get older more pension credit as you don't have a private pension and no charge for care home fees as you don't have your own home.
Where's the incentive ?

[Row x]

Luxury items were usually household things in the 70s. Washing machines were a luxury. We had a twin tub and when that went my dad used to go to the laundrette every Sunday, for years, until we got a washing machine. Televisions could be classed as a luxury as well as an awful lot of people rented them from Radio Rentals. You also only saw one car in a family unless they had money.

I do wonder how we'd have managed in the 70s and 80s if there had been the same choices as today.
We had two good wages coming in, but interests rates on mortgages were through the roof. We rented a TV, and made do with one car and had nothing left at the end of the month. Had sky, netflix, mobile phones, internet etc existed then, there is no way we would have been able to afford them, even less so when my wife gave up work to have children, as the childcare for working mum's was non existent

[warksclaret]

Was Mike Tresor featured on it

[GetIntoEm]

there were still plenty of layabout wasters in the 70s and 80s, its not just a now problem.

they are just entitled (or believe they are) to more these days.

they refer to it as payday ffs

give em food vouchers

[gtclaret]

Just this. Totally agree. And it used to cost the country more in lost tax than benefit scroungers. At least that was the case.
Just out of interest I wonder how many benefit moaners use Amazon?

The problem is that the tax avoidance is a global issue,the super wealthy could easily move the money out of reach of any nations tax grab.This was something the EU could have tackled but they chose not to. Benefits are a national issue that the government could easily tackle,but they choose not to.

[Woodleyclaret]

Identity cards are vital Multiple arrangements of first and other names have long been used in the Asian heritage community to confuse authorities
The illegal ( in our laws) use of having multiple wives all with different last names has been totally ignored by agencies frightened to death of having the race card pulled out by the people under investigation. Anyone allegedly marrying abroad must then ensure there is a registery office ceremony where both participants names can be logged and placed on a database to check benefit fraud.

[mdd2]

Dennis Healey when Chancellor talked about the social wage which all benefitted from but was only paid for by taxpayers (of all kind). That wage included "free health care, dental care (in the 19774079 Government), education defence etc and at that time it amounted to quite a few £/week and at least these days £120/week for every man woman and child. That is additional to the benefits people may or may not receive.

[nil_desperandum]

With reference to the above post:
ID cards were proposed by Blair 20 + years ago. A very good idea I thought, but the right wing press and the other parties thought it an outrageous suggestion and it was pulled by the new Coalition Govt.
He is proposing it again now. It makes complete sense to me, but many are still opposed for different reasons.
"Blair (recently) said public sector embrace of AI would save a fifth of workforce time, while investing in “AI-enabled education,” can “raise educational attainment and boost GDP by 6 per cent in the long term.”

A paper published by the TBI on Tuesday said adopting AI in the public sector could save taxpayers £10 billion per year by the end of the current parliament, while AI-driven growth in the private sector could “offset all the extra fiscal pressure facing the UK up to 2040.” Digital IDs alone would save £2 billion a year by reducing fraud and increasing efficiency, it said.
Some of course will oppose them simply because it was a Blair idea.

[AfloatinClaret]

there were still plenty of layabout wasters in the 70s and 80s, its not just a now problem.

But there's perhaps more now... A good proportion of those layabout wasters in the 70 & 80s will have spent their days producing 3 or 4 kids to join the family business, who between them have produced a dozen or more grand-children, who're already on that same gravy train by now.

Economics dictate that not only do non-working families produce more children per generation, that generational cycle also turns faster:
Self-funded it's difficult to afford kids before you're thirty and even then only a couple of them, but if you're working the social security system, then you want, indeed need, to start popping out the next generation by 16/17 at the latest so that you can get onto the housing list and reach your full earning potential asap.

[AfloatinClaret]

With reference to the above post:
ID cards... Some of course will oppose them simply because it was a Blair idea.

That'll be me; I was all in favour until I read your post advising that Tony Bliar's in favour. I met TB at the topping-out ceremony of a Working Mens Club only shortly after he was first elected in about 1982 or 83 and when asked about him afterwards, expressed the opinion that 'he's a sleazy, self-serving git'; I've never seen any reason in the subsequent forty years to change that initial impression

[nil_desperandum]

That'll be me; I was all in favour until I read your post advising that Tony Bliar's in favour. I met TB at the topping-out ceremony of a Working Mens Club only shortly after he was first elected in about 1982 or 83 and when asked about him afterwards, expressed the opinion that 'he's a sleazy, self-serving git'; I've never seen any reason in the subsequent forty years to change that initial impression

At the time of posting I was referring to Woodley Clarets post
But anyway - whilst many will share your view of Blair, it doesn’t mean that all his ideas were wrong
In fact he had many good ideas
Even our more recent PMs had at least one good idea , though I’m struggling as bit with Truss

[IanMcL]

I always find it a tragedy that the Establishment, when they need to take the heat off, put out a programme where ordinary people with little, in the scheme of things, set about others, over what amounts to virtually nothing.
(I agree there are some oddities)

What would be a much better watch is a programme featuring some scumbag tax dodgers and fraudsters like Michelle Mone.

These are the thieves of all time.

[ClaretPete001]

At the time of posting I was referring to Woodley Clarets post
But anyway - whilst many will share your view of Blair, it doesn’t mean that all his ideas were wrong
In fact he had many good ideas
Even our more recent PMs had at least one good idea , though I’m struggling as bit with Truss

The Iraq War? The freeing up of the Bank of England along and other regulatory bodies along with the US that allowed the banking sector to crash the global economy?

Developing an economy based upon working class consumer debt with banks offering multiples of income to buy houses, which also helped to crash the economy?

Being just about the only EU country to accept migrants after the expansion of the EU led to immigration increasing from the tens of thousands to the hundreds of thousands?

The widening of the University sector and the Mc Job graduate along with the neglect of technical education that was the start of the skills and productivity problems we now face?

The marginal increase in wages at the same time as a doubling of house prices due to buy to let mortgages and little new social house building.

The truth is Blair was as much as a disaster as those who followed him. Margaret Thatcher said her greatest legacy was Tony Blair and New Labour, possibly because his neo liberal failures dwarfed her own.

Apart from all that - what's to quibble over.

[nil_desperandum]

The Iraq War? The freeing up of the Bank of England along and other regulatory bodies along with the US that allowed the banking sector to crash the global economy?

Developing an economy based upon working class consumer debt with banks offering multiples of income to buy houses, which also helped to crash the economy?

Being just about the only EU country to accept migrants after the expansion of the EU led to immigration increasing from the tens of thousands to the hundreds of thousands?

The widening of the University sector and the Mc Job graduate along with the neglect of technical education that was the start of the skills and productivity problems we now face?

The marginal increase in wages at the same time as a doubling of house prices due to buy to let mortgages and little new social house building.

The truth is Blair was as much as a disaster as those who followed him. Margaret Thatcher said her greatest legacy was Tony Blair and New Labour, possibly because his neo liberal failures dwarfed her own.

Apart from all that - what's to quibble over.

You seem to be deliberately trying to pick an argument where there isn’t one , and in doing so are in danger of politicising a thread topic that has so far been sensibly and respectfully discussed
My only point was that I agreed with Blair’s ID card proposals - and still do
We don’t want to widen this into a political argument- especially as I am in broad agreement with you.

[gtclaret]

Any evidence to support that claim?

Lots, there's many examples,for every increase in wages there must be at least 10 cases where wages were reduced.I sometimes wonder what world some people live in

[ClaretPete001]

You seem to be deliberately trying to pick an argument where there isn’t one , and in doing so are in danger of politicising a thread topic that has so far been sensibly and respectfully discussed
My only point was that I agreed with Blair’s ID card proposals - and still do
We don’t want to widen this into a political argument- especially as I am in broad agreement with you.

Sometimes the urge just takes you to empty your spleen. It's a bit like Pavlov's dogs. You ring the Blair bell and the bile just starts pouring out.

I am intrigued as to how you can politicise a thread entitled 'Britain's benefits scandal?' but ho hum

[dsr]

With reference to the above post:
ID cards were proposed by Blair 20 + years ago. A very good idea I thought, but the right wing press and the other parties thought it an outrageous suggestion and it was pulled by the new Coalition Govt.
He is proposing it again now. It makes complete sense to me, but many are still opposed for different reasons.
"Blair (recently) said public sector embrace of AI would save a fifth of workforce time, while investing in “AI-enabled education,” can “raise educational attainment and boost GDP by 6 per cent in the long term.”

A paper published by the TBI on Tuesday said adopting AI in the public sector could save taxpayers £10 billion per year by the end of the current parliament, while AI-driven growth in the private sector could “offset all the extra fiscal pressure facing the UK up to 2040.” Digital IDs alone would save £2 billion a year by reducing fraud and increasing efficiency, it said.
Some of course will oppose them simply because it was a Blair idea.

Potential problems with digital ID cards:

1. It will give every Tom, Dick or Harry who works for the government the right to demand to see the digital card, and de facto the same right to private individuals if you want to go anywhere or do anything.

2. It will be massively inconvenient when it goes wrong, which it will do.

3. It will mean I have to carry a charged-up smartphone wherever I go, which is both inconvenient and expensive.

4. It won't increase efficiency. Government computerisation never does.

5. It will in effect be a single security barrier against fraud, which is fine as long as it works, but if it's breached it means that everything is lost - banks, credit cards, passport, the whole boiling lot.

[nil_desperandum]

Potential problems with digital ID cards:

1. It will give every Tom, Dick or Harry who works for the government the right to demand to see the digital card, and de facto the same right to private individuals if you want to go anywhere or do anything.

2. It will be massively inconvenient when it goes wrong, which it will do.

3. It will mean I have to carry a charged-up smartphone wherever I go, which is both inconvenient and expensive.

4. It won't increase efficiency. Government computerisation never does.

5. It will in effect be a single security barrier against fraud, which is fine as long as it works, but if it's breached it means that everything is lost - banks, credit cards, passport, the whole boiling lot.

Perhaps this topic deserves its own thread, but just a few points:
1. Almost all European countries operate successful id schemes- albeit it is only compulsory in 11 EU states
A voluntary scheme exits elsewhere, but would not really help us in cracking down on terrorism and fraud
2. ID cards were successfully used in the UK during both wars and continued until 1952
They were particularly useful in establishing identity for the new NHS scheme and there was some resistance to abolishing them
3.A relatively small number of countries have no id card of any type and they are mainly English speaking - Australia, NZ, Canada and UK amongst them
Other forms of id are still needed even to carry out the simplest of transactions though
4. Digital id is already operating successfully in some of the world’s most advanced countries/ economies, notably Singapore, Sweden, Belgium and India. The best technology is said to be the Estonian model
5. Most paper documents are becoming obsolete (something that I personally regret) and within a decade or so ditalised ID will be common worldwide whether we like it or not
6. Most of the issues raised in respect of privacy, personal security, “big brother” etc. are valid, but we’ve already gone past the point of no return and we find ourselves tracked in almost anything we do online and digitally.
7. None of your points above are irrelevant or invalid. You raise serious concerns, which I share, but these issues are there to be overcome, and imo the many benefits to our economy and national security of having an advanced digital id “card” vastly outweigh the obvious potential pitfalls

[ecc]

Not everyone has the benefit of being able to live with their parents.

Very true. I'd say it might be a minority especially the older the "child" gets.

[ClaretOfMancunia]

Lots, there's many examples,for every increase in wages there must be at least 10 cases where wages were reduced.I sometimes wonder what world some people live in

Can you provide those evidence or examples?

[warksclaret]

Sometimes wonder where we would be but for the immense work done by a number of charities for those really in need of food-not sure the Government understands poverty when you hear them talk