The government's long road towards abolition of welfare benefits

[Nystagmite]

What happens to people like me, then who through no fault of our own, have never been able to contribute? Do we just starve on the streets?

 

Many people who have never contributed, have good reasons not to. Contrary to what the media / Government wants people to believe, we're not all lazy scroungers.

[joeski]

What happens to people like me, then who through no fault of our own, have never been able to contribute? Do we just starve on the streets?

 

Many people who have never contributed, have good reasons not to. Contrary to what the media / Government wants people to believe, we're not all lazy scroungers.

 

 

the Daily Mail is one of the papers that always gets on the case of the unemployed, making out we're all scroungers yet they never delve into the pasts of MP's who lie on their c/v's for example.

[Desperate Daniella]

Some people genuinely need and deserve benefits. Others don't and this has got to be tackled bit by bit.

 

The problem can't be solved overnight, but we have too many people and cannot afford any more. Schools and hospitals can barely cope as it is. They should stop any child benefits for more than two children. Obviously this wouldn't affect existing families but they should start this in, say, a year's time. If you want more than two children that is fine, provided you can support them. Of course there are some loving, responsible large families, but there are an awful lot of very neglected and abused children out there and it is a lifestyle choice for many young girls to have four or five children, all by different fathers none of whom are around for very long. The benefits are pretty generous if you have four children.

 

There have been two tragic cases in the papers recently about very young families both of whom had started on the road of producing one child a year. A 21 year old should not be the mother of four children. It is too much to cope with. The first 21 year old mum who had three very young children and was pregnant with her fourth threw herself off the top of a building. Her partner had walked out. Her family said she had some mental health issues. Of course she couldn't cope but she shouldn't have had to cope. Years ago young girls didn't get flats and generous benefits if they got pregnant. They had to stay with their own families, and most of them didn't want to get pregnant anyway.

 

The second case involved another very young couple who had just had their third baby in three years. He had been born prematurely so was obviously not very strong at four months old. They had an all night party and even though the baby was clearly ill they did not take him to hospital. They found him dead when they got up at 11 the next morning. What a sad, miserable life that baby had.

 

There are hundreds of thousands of people living like this and they will bring up their children to do the same. You see people with large groups of children in the supermarket, trolley piled high with cheap food, and lots of special offer beer and then there are the 200 cigs on the way out. The children aren't benefiting from the benefits and the feckless parents don't give a damn about them.

 

Look at Mick Philpott and the money he was getting. Look at his reaction when the mistress left with their mutual children. She took the benefits. That's why he wanted her back. The children who died were sleeping in their clothes apart from the little girl. One was sleeping in his school uniform. These weren't loved children, they weren't even fed properly. No night-time bath, bedtime story and cuddle for them. They were produced to get Mick Philpott more money.

 

We need less people and wanted children, not a conveyor belt of poor unloved babies born to rack up the benefits.

 

And, yes, that is only a small percentage of the overall welfare budget, but you have got to start somewhere

[Desperate Daniella]

What happens to people like me, then who through no fault of our own, have never been able to contribute? Do we just starve on the streets?

 

Many people who have never contributed, have good reasons not to. Contrary to what the media / Government wants people to believe, we're not all lazy scroungers.

 

Exactly. A lot of people who haven't contributed have good reasons not to, and everyone who claims benefits isn't a lazy scrounger, but people in your situation shouldn't have to go through the mill to get the benefits you are entitled to. There's only so much money to go round and it's time to prioritize so that people in your situation are helped quickly and efficiently.

 

I've just helped a friend to deal with an ESA situation for her badly disabled son. It was a nightmare. He has so much the matter with him. He can't even speak. He was born disabled. Just because he'd reached the age of 18 didn't mean there would suddenly be a miracle cure. They had all his medical records. It took six months to sort out and we had no help from our useless MP whatsoever.

[antone]

Exactly. A lot of people who haven't contributed have good reasons not to, and everyone who claims benefits isn't a lazy scrounger, but people in your situation shouldn't have to go through the mill to get the benefits you are entitled to. There's only so much money to go round and it's time to prioritize so that people in your situation are helped quickly and efficiently.

 

I've just helped a friend to deal with an ESA situation for her badly disabled son. It was a nightmare. He has so much the matter with him. He can't even speak. He was born disabled. Just because he'd reached the age of 18 didn't mean there would suddenly be a miracle cure. They had all his medical records. It took six months to sort out and we had no help from our useless MP whatsoever.

 

ESA(Y) used to be the solution to situations like these - where someone had a disability that predates their 16th birthday, they could be treated as having paid the necessary NI even if they hadn't. Sadly, like so many good and useful ideas (Job Grant, HB run on), it was abolished in the latest round of welfare cuts.

[Nystagmite]

Don't remember ESA(Y). I know we had IB(Y) though.

 

@ DD - you mention restricting child benefits to the first two children. Now, whilst I agree with this, (after all, if you work, you may have to decide whether another child is financially possible) what happens if you fall pregnant with triplets, quads, etc?

[Desperate Daniella]

Well they finally backed down and paid it and backdated it from the date it was due, but the problem is that you have to deal with so many different departments. We actually took him to the local Jobcentre who kept saying they'd confirm that they'd seen him, but of course the head office kept saying there was no trace. Then they gave her a fax number, then said she'd used the wrong fax number, and finally that the fax number was a correct number but not in the right office. Then they said she'd sent papers to the wrong address - in the pre-labelled envelope they had sent her. The sheer incompetence was staggering.

 

And the MP's dopey assistant kept saying they had written and would write again. "So who did you write to?" I asked. "The Correspondence Department." How was that going to help? As if a Cabinet Minister couldn't get a name.

 

Then my friend received two-thirds of a piece of paper saying that his claim had been turned down, and the whole top third with the details, address, references, etc., was missing. So whoever sent it didn't want to put their name to it.

 

[Desperate Daniella]

Don't remember ESA(Y). I know we had IB(Y) though.

 

@ DD - you mention restricting child benefits to the first two children. Now, whilst I agree with this, (after all, if you work, you may have to decide whether another child is financially possible) what happens if you fall pregnant with triplets, quads, etc?

 

That's a very good point. I don't think anyone would have any problems with special circumstances.

[Desperate Daniella]

And, while I'm having my rant, why are all these departments (and HMRC) on 0845/0844 numbers? I, like many of us, have free calls to UK landlines as part of my phone package, but we have to pay to call them. And we all know they get money back on those calls, so they are taking even more money from people who are probably hard up anyway. My bill went through the roof with all the calls and when I complained I was told it was "only" 4p a minute. And of course the first couple of minutes are spent listing to their stupid recorded messages before you even get to Press 1, etc., and then have to wait in the queue or "call back later", so you can start again and give them more money.

[Guest]

I agree with all that you say DD....its disgusting that some people abuse the system and sadly that would never change, so there has to be strategy in place to prevent it, whilst also recognising that those of us who are genuine shouldn't have to beg to be in receipt of the benefits we need. Its not an easy thing to get right, but that's still no excuse for Atossers finding ill people fit for work regardless, and treating everyone like a scrounger whilst stating that those in need will always be looked after. It always seems that we go from one extreme to another in this country and that nobody in power has common sense or can apply logic to anything. I thought that jsa was a limited benefit anyway, if someone gave up or lost a job through their own fault didn't get it automatically and or for a certain period of time?...rightly so. Those on it because they have no job and lets face it, none to apply for.....?.....who is responsible for job losses and cutbacks causing job losses...why are more jobs seemingly lost than created?....who is tackling this problem? pointing fingers and taking heat of themselves isn't sorting anything out is it?....

[antone]

This is a very useful graphic, showing a breakdown of where the DWP spends its money. Crucially, 47% is spent on SRP, nearly twice the amount the government spends servicing debt. It's hard to see how welfare spending can be cut without touching this budget, but doing so would be politically impossible. The amount spent on, say, JSA is tiny by comparison - the complete abolition of this benefit would hardly make a dent in welfare spending. ESA costs even less per year.

 

One of the big problems in terms of dealing with "scoungers", "fraudsters" and so on is that there really aren't that many of them. Any system restrictive enough to catch them all would also catch people who genuinely need help.

[Nystagmite]

One of the big problems in terms of dealing with "scoungers", "fraudsters" and so on is that there really aren't that many of them. Any system restrictive enough to catch them all would also catch people who genuinely need help.

 

These fraudsters know how to play the system, hence why it can take some time for them to be caught.

 

They claimed that PIP (and I think, ESA) would be given to those most in need. It doesn't seem that way to me, looking at the criteria.

[Guest]

There is also as DD said....just too many people............

[antone]

There is also as DD said....just too many people............

 

Well, reasonable people could debate that - I don't agree, but it's not a hill I'm going to die on. But one thing is clear: we can easily afford to fund the welfare state. We just don't want to, and I wish the government would be honest about that.

[Guest]

well yes then antone I wish that too as what I said is borne out of what I keep hearing...brainwashed that the UK cant afford the welfare state.

[antone]

well yes then antone I wish that too as what I said is borne out of what I keep hearing...brainwashed that the UK cant afford the welfare state.

 

Well, there'd be no harm in reducing the welfare bill (it is quite a large chunk of the budget, right enough) but not at any price. The sick and unemployed don't need to be thrown to the wall in the way we're seeing right now. The time to look at cutting welfare bills is when things are prosperous.

 

There's a social cost to all this austerity as well, as various groups are pitted against each other - the working poor against the unemployed is the main example of this. Take the "strivers vs skivers" rhetoric as an example. Isn't it funny how the number of lazy people who don't want to work increases when the economy is doing badly and falls when it's doing well? Funny that.

[Desperate Daniella]

The UK can't afford to be the welfare state for the whole world.

 

I agree that it would be very difficult to catch fraudsters, which is why I think we have to start by reducing child benefit. At the moment it is not only our own UK feckless who are adding to the problem by having loads of children like the people I mentioned above, our generous welfare benefits attracts people from all over the world. You see them everywhere trailing about seven or eight children with another one on the way. Many people, born here and coming here, are having too many children, and their children start having babies in their teens.

 

Fred and Ginger don't work and have 8 children. 10 people

 

6 of their children have 6 children 36 new people.

 

30 of those have 6 children 180 new people

 

150 of those have 6 children 900 new people, and so on.

 

 

Or Bonnie and Clyde have 3 children

 

2 of their children have 3 children 6 new people

 

4 of their children have 3 children 12 new people

 

8 of their children have 3 children 24 new people.

 

It must make sense to remove the incentive for people to have large families if they can't afford them.

 

Then there would be no excuse for not spending money on people who are disabled or genuinely in need.

[scotgal68]

The welfare states exists so our families, friends, neighbours don't starve. The government want us all to think it's recipients of benefits are the cause of all that is wrong with this country. They want us to be so preoccupied with blaming the sick, the unemployed the disabled that we can't see the real cause of austerity measures.

 

We are being shafted, royally, but not by those dependant on the welfare state, but by the very people we elect to serve us! Keep your eyes on them and away from the poor, the destitute and those who aren't able to (for whatever reason) participate in mainstream..

Those people need our understanding and the support of the welfare state.

[antone]

Regarding family sizes, here's a quote from The Economist, as reported in the Guardian:

 

"Though most of them seem to end up in newspapers, in 2011 there were just 130 families in the country with 10 children claiming at least one out-of-work benefit. Only 8% of benefit claimants have three or more children. What evidence there is suggests that, on average, unemployed people have similar numbers of children to employed people ... it is not clear at all that benefits are a significant incentive to have children."

 

Lots of other useful information in that article.

[Desperate Daniella]

The welfare states exists so our families, friends, neighbours don't starve. The government want us all to think it's recipients of benefits are the cause of all that is wrong with this country. They want us to be so preoccupied with blaming the sick, the unemployed the disabled that we can't see the real cause of austerity measures.

 

We are being shafted, royally, but not by those dependant on the welfare state, but by the very people we elect to serve us! Keep your eyes on them and away from the poor, the destitute and those who aren't able to (for whatever reason) participate in mainstream..

 

These people need our understanding and the support of the welfare state.

 

Most people on benefits do need our understanding and the benefit of the welfare state. But some do not and we cannot keep adding more and more people to the benefits list, especially people who don't work but have loads of children and spend the benefits on drugs, gambling and booze, rather than their children.

[Desperate Daniella]

Regarding family sizes, here's a quote from The Economist, as reported in the Guardian:

 

 

 

Lots of other useful information in that article.

 

There may not be that many people with 10 children, I agree, but there are loads with 5+. That is too many children if you are not working and expect the state to provide everything.

[postggj]

I am on benefits, (ESA) wish i had the money to gamble, get drunk, and smoke. The only drugs i purchase are from the chemist

 

Where are the statistics to back up that assumption in reality, or is it no more than stereo typing and demonizing people on benefit

 

People should be ashamed of them self in supporting the argument that those on benefits are work shy scroungers WITHOUT THE FACTS TO SUPPORT THEIR CLAIM

Edited June 6, 2013 by squaddie

[osdset]

The way things are going the diseases associated with poverty will make a comeback, so having multiple offspring will guarantee at least one or two survive. No need to worry about cost the workhouses or prisons will accommodate.

[Desperate Daniella]

I am on benefits, (ESA) wish i had the money to gamble, get drunk, and smoke. The only drugs i purchase are from the chemist

 

Where are the statistics to back up that assumption in reality, or is it no more than stereo typing and demonizing people on benefit

 

People should be ashamed of them self in supporting the argument that those on benefits are work shy scroungers WITHOUT THE FACTS TO SUPPORT THEIR CLAIM

 

And I have said all the way through this thread that there are genuine claimants who will get bu**er all on benefits and who should get them, and there are also those who are working the system because they have more and more children.

 

I don't think most people on benefits are workshy scroungers. I have not said that. What I have said is that people who can't afford to have children shouldn't have them. People who have them already obviously can't have their benefits cut, but people considering having children should need to know that they shouldn't have more than two unless they can support them themselves.

[Desperate Daniella]

And it breaks my heart to see older people walking around the supermarket with a small basket with a number of reduced items in it while others with loads of kids in tow have a basket piled high and three bunches of flowers, loads of soft (expensive) fruit, and great cuts of meat. I have an elderly, poor, friend living on a pension and she wonders how these people can afford all this when she is struggling on a state pension to pay her bills and the choice is between food and heating.