Unemployed earning more than working households

Just out of interest, what would you have done had you been of limited intellect? Are we able to acknowledge that a large number of people, perhaps 30%, are simply unable to meet GCSE maths and English standards? Manual work has always been their mainstay, has enabled them to exist and subsist in this country without holding their hands out. What now? What 'retraining' would you offer them, in a country that requires an NVQ to drive a bus and a H&S card to even set foot on a building site, and where so many manual labouring jobs are now occupied by European citizens? I'm not talking about 'well paid' work, just 'work' full stop.

He implied it

That sounds far too low - the above was based on 2 children, so with 2 extra children you'd get an extra 1305 child ben and 4170 CTC. Even without HB you'd get close to 19,000.

But you'd probably get ISMI or SMI or whatever it's called now (support for mortgage interest) which would pay the interest on your mortgage. I think they've changed the rules on this - you used to have to wait 9 months and could then get it forever but now I think you wait 3 months but it's time limited.

Part of the problem is that it's so hard and expensive to get rid of bad tenants, or non paying tenants, that landlords have to budget for this in the rents they charge. Basically good tenants subsidise bad ones. Also you try finding somewhere to rent when you've not got a job, you'll see "NO DSS" everywhere because of the same thing, landlords know they are more likely to get problems with HB claimants so they discriminate against all of them. So called tenants rights result in high rents and great difficulty in finding accomodation for those on benefits.

And society would be better off without a police service?

Ret.

Also what makes it worse in the UK is the way young people (under 25) are treated by the benefits system if they haven't got children - a lower amount of JSA/IS, a lower entitlement to housing benefit, no working tax credit. However if someone under 25 has a child, they then get treated as an over 25 year old! So not only do they get all the child related benefits, but they get a lot extra for themselves.

Also the UK benefits systems is relatively far more generous to the first child than subsequent children, and there is extra in the first year (extra CTC, extra child ben, sure start maternity grant). Plus it's far more generous to single parents than couples (as Frank Field pointed out).

The combination of all the above make a very significant difference to the income of young single woman on benefits (or even in a low paid job) if she gets pregnant, far more than the cost of bringing up the child, at least initially. The idea that this doesn't have a significant effect is insane - personally I know at least 3 single women who made the decision to have a child with the intention of living off benefits at least initially. I know because they asked my advice.

Benefit (& taxation) policy needs to take far more account of the effect of choices and the incentives/disincentives created. The UK has one of the lowest unemployments rates in the EU, but has one of the highest proportion of children being brought up in jobless households. This is down to benefit and taxation policy, pure and simple, but the government is too stupid to realise this.

And get weighed off for fitting people up. Ask Colin Stagg.

Tim Woodall posted

Wouldn't that be wide open to fraud? You set up a bogus company and offer some friends part-time employment at 3k a year. HMRC then tops them up with a further 3K in negative income tax. At the end of the year your "employees" each hand you back 4k. You've made a 1k profit - a praiseworthy 33% return on managed assets - and they've made 2k each for doing precisely nothing.

I can think of many variations on the same theme.

Simpler just to increase the personal allowance?

Not much of an incentive though. And not much of an incentive to work for only 30p in the pound.

Probably true. There would be other unintended consequences too, for example new types of fraud.

He doesn't need to. It is about setting thew tone of a debate. If you continually harp on about Jews who are convicted of fraud I think most people with a functioning brain would concede that as anti-semitic. Continually hapring on about benefit fraud without explictly acknowledging that the vast majority of claimants are honest is also prejudicial. But then you knew that already, didn't you.

But you still support benefit curbs that would target him even though you concede that the problem isn't his?

And suppose they are only averagely good? Then they don't get the job even though they could do it, and probably would get it were they not disabled. If we are serious about combatting unemployment amongst the disabled then we must also get tough with employers as well as claimants. If this is a serious national problem then what is wrong with expecting employers to put in a bit more effort? Employers are part of society too.

Indeed. At the moment it is demanded exclusively of claimants.

I read his post and I have responded to it appropriately.

He implied it.

Yeah, right. Like using the word "many" instead of "all"? He was quite clear in what he wrote. You read it as something different because that makes it easier to knock down. Typical strawman argument.

What about all the sad obsessives who continually harp on about the police? I've killedfiled most of them but I've seen a few replies...

You really are particularly dense, aren't you. Try reading what is written instead of what you assume is intended based on god know what prejudice. Where have I said I support any "benefit curbs"? Come on. Where? What have I written that even implies it?

I've written many times on usenet that I object to all forms of means testing. I think benefits should be paid to all based on circumstance (family, disability, possibly location etc) but not means tested (sometimes called a "citizen's income") and that taxation (a relatively high flat rate) should be used instead of income related benefit withdrawal.

Therefore in this case, the person I am thinking of could do as much work as he could or wanted to, no matter how intermittantly, and his benefits would not be affected at all (he'd just pay more tax on his earnings along with everyone else).

Then employment law needs reforming.

What if the employer only requires intermittant service from his employees? If the employee can't work then he doesn't and doesn't get paid (or sacked). If the employer doesn't need the employee to work on a particular day, then he doesn't need to pay him. That's a similar level of flexibility.

It's so much easier to build a strawman and knock it down than actually address points made.

Until the time comes (soon I believe) when doctors have to assess people for the type of work they are capable of doing - rather than not capable of doing, I will still believe that there is a huge amount of fraud. There are even people claiming incapacity benefit because they are drug addicts for heaven's sake!!

Absolute nonsense. What you are talking about is stereotyping - and it doesn't stop you from demonising all police officers because of the wrong doing of a small minority does it? Your attitude allows bogus claimants to get away with defrauding the tax payer through fear of upsetting genuine claimants.

Is 1.5 million - up from 67,000 in a decade, not a 'huge number'? You cannot seriously believe that there has been such a massive increase in genuine claimants in ten years? !!

You really take the biscuit Alan.

Ret.

No I did not.

Ret.

I've yet to see anyone explain how we have moved from 67k claimants in 1997 to 1.5 million today - if the vast majority are honest and genuine? What has happened to our work force to create an increase in incapacity of that magnitude in a single decade? Please tell me.

Ret.

State employed eh? So another scrounger in your eyes? The fact is that these doctors are overwhelmed by dealing with these matters and will often agree that someone is suffering from a bad back or depression or stress for an easy life. We'll see how things change when doctors are required to assess people on what they *can* do - rather than what they cannot.

In other words - no you cannot explain it. Nobody can because it's a clear indication of fraud on a large scale.

And in your view, society would be better off without a police service? You're funny you know.

Ret.

The situation right at this moment in time is unique and clearly the job situation is in turmoil - but this is very recent.

For the past few years we have had East Europeans flooding into the UK and walking straight into jobs in catering, hotel work, etc. Employers were welcoming these immigrants because a) they couldn't get any Brits to do the work, and b) they were far better and more reliable workers than the Brits. There was plenty of work available - and unskilled work at that - but the Brits just didn't want it. Why is that do you think?

Ret.

We would certainly be better off without the current one

Vigilantes rule ok?

Ret.

Two million 'wrongly get benefit'

Fewer than a third of the 2.7 million people claiming incapacity benefit are legitimate claimants, a government welfare adviser has said. David Freud, an investment banker, said up to 185,000 claimants work illegally while on the benefit.

He told the Daily Telegraph it was "ludicrous" medical checks were carried out by a claimant's own GP.

The Department for Work and Pensions said the number claiming incapacity benefits was at its lowest since 2000.

"But we agree with David Freud that there are many more people who could and should be supported to move off benefits and into work," a spokesman added.

"We are implementing his review and have already committed to replacing incapacity benefit and introducing a new medical test that places the emphasis on what work a person can do, rather than what they can't."

Ret.

Ret. posted

Because it very rarely pays a living wage. It is the kind of work I have described to you in another post - sporadic, part-time, temporary, seasonal, liable to be terminated without notice, and paid at the absolute legal minimum hourly rate, and sometimes even less.

The reason these migrant workers are willing to work in such conditions is that their job opportunities in Eastern Europe are even worse than they are here, so for them it makes sense to do these crap non-jobs for a while to get some cash. For somebody who was born here and wants to live a proper life, have a family etc, it makes very little sense. What such people need is a full-time, steady job that pays sufficient to cover their rent and subsistence.