Victor Meldrew

Ok, I'm up and had my coffee, it's the weekend and I am firmly back in 'Grumpy old Men' mode (it's what I do best!).

I have enjoyed the 'Nanny State Britain' thread and thought I woujld go another step with this one.

The UK Welfare State was initially put into place in order for the majority to help look after the minority who, through no fault of their own, needed financial and other assistance to help them lead, at least, a reasonable existence.

Fair do's

Now I know (at least I think I do) that on the whole being on benefits does not give you a lavish and luxurious lifestyle.

I also (think I) know that there are many (maybe a majority of?) people who would rather not be on benefits, and that there are many problems with being on benefits, including the effects it has on ones morale. This rant is not aimed at such people

Is it me, or does it now seem that the whole thing has got out of hand.

There seem to be a section of people, even 2nd generation now living their whole life on benefits by choice as it is easier than working.

I know of at least one family whose father (unmarried, in his late fifties) has never worked since the 1970's (well not legally) and has his house, his car and his income provided for by the taxpayer. His daughter, a single mother, has a flat, furniture and income paid for her. His Mum has not worked since her late 40's and bought her council house with the benefits she was given. Her house is now worth around £125k and she never paid a penny for it.

On the other hand, if you work hard to earn a crust, buy your own house, and provide your own savings for your retirement, as well as paying your own pension fund, unless this is all used up, you cannot claim a thing.

Doesn't seem fair and right to me. Or am I seeing it wrong?

Rant over.

What do you think?

Bijilo123

I think you are seeing it 'wrong' as you say. But you are quite right as to the purpose of the state welfare arrangements - they are to provide for those who cannot provide for themselves. The majority of people do not want to live on welfare and you are right that it will not enrich you to be on benefits, If however - and I invoke Maslow here (look it up), your needs are less than enrichment in the monetary sense then you can thrive on benefits and not work like the person you know who has not worked since the 70's. Brining them into the argument is irrelevant because they are a minority. We all know cases like that - except I don't, but some newspapers like to publicise them for the effect it creates, for example like your rant. This is a minority and represents an inneficiency in systems that, whilst unfortunate, can only be overcome by increased compliance and monitoring effort that would be costly and not really right. For every one person that may seem to be cheating the system or living perpetually on benefit there are many more who we would consider just cases.

If you do work then you are exactly in the camp that provides - it is not you personally that is providing, you and we are providing through taxes - funds to the state and they deal with it thereafter, some funding being set aside for weldare.

Your belief that a person who ceases to work will not get benefit is wrong. There is generally a threshold of about £16,000 of liquid assets and if you have more than that you get no cash benefit, lesas and you do.

Victor Meldrew

Maslow as in 'Maslow's hierarchy of needs' right? I vaguely remember him.

Regards the family I mentioned, they are quite happy with their 'lot' and have no intention or desire to move from it.

I am just curious (as I have indicated in my original post) as I don't have concrete facts and figures, just experience of a number of people like those who I have used as an example to quote. I have (often in the past)frequented one community where this is the norm.

You say the person/family I have quoted are in the minority, correct? what do you base this on opinion or facts? also if they are a minority percentage wise, how many people like this do you think there are in actual numbers?

The threshold of £16000 might seem quite high, but if, for example I have spent 10 years saving £50,000 for my retirement and find that at 55 say, I become unemployed, it would disgruntle me greatly that I would have to spend this until it went down to £16,000 before I could claim help.

This is compounded by the fact I have seen others get something for nothing when in reality they too could have worked to attain the same situation.

I guess this comes across a knocking all those who are on benefits, but it isn't intended as such. It's just a frustration over those who you say, slip through the system and abuse it.

Bijilo123

As regards your justifiable challenge as to the number of undeserving claimants and fraudsters to legitimate ones the statistics are as follows:

Proportion of disingenuous claimants: 0%
Proportion of genuine claimants: 100%

OK so that is tongue in cheek - my point being that everyone has been processed and so if someone is getting an undeserved benefit then it is because of a weak system as well. And that, like a slightly damaged car is expensive to repair and maintain.

What I do see is lots of 50 year old men in town wearing down at heel clothes wandering without purpose with a shopping bag with not much in it and who used to have good jobs. I feel sorry for them because they might not survive this intact.

Your analysis of £16,000 is good. It will take a person about 6 years to save up £16,000 and about a year and a half to spend it. But the value of the benefit will be trivial until that sum is effectively exhausted.

Here is another calculation. How much money would you need to put in the Building Society at todays interest rates to get £5000 per annum for ever?

Answer - at a generous 2% the amount is £250,000. At 1 % it is half a million.

My point is that to fund £100 a week which is the state pension you need to have say £300,000 set aside by the state. Bearing in mind that the entitlement to pension arises after 30 years contributions then that means about £10,000 per annum. I recall that the contribution in my early days was £2.20 a week or about £100 per annum - a bit less than the £10,000 needed. Some people make an argumet which starts..' I've paid in all my life...'

Fine, but not enough.

We need more children with more jobs to fund this and the other benefits or we will lose them.

Victor Meldrew

Aren't you living overseas?

Bijilo123

No, I'm living here. It is impossible for me to be other than here.

Here is Essex, my home is in Gambia - I'm staying in the UK to look after my Dad who is very ancient, very ill and very much loved.

Beedubya

When I first came here I noticed that WAY more people here use walking sticks, zimmer frames and the like and those mobile scooters. And not necessarily older people either.

I remember my first day out shopping, waiting for my sister outside Asda and doing some people watching and I was gobsmacked!

I don't know if all of these people are genuinely unhealthier than in Australia or what the reason is...........

Victor Meldrew

Would they get more/higher benefits if classed as disabled, or if they were physically unable to work? (he asked cynically!)

Beedubya

Elementary my dear Watson

NikiL

Or you have people like my stepsons mother who has stated in the past that she doesn't see why she should work if she doesn't wish to. The same woman who worked while claiming full benefits as a non worker, who then claimed legal aid for a child residency case as a non worker.

There are huge numbers of people like her, huge. They detract from the genuine numbers who need to claim benefits. The system is extremely weak, mainly because (I believe) from the sheer volume of numbers that require processing.

Please, don't be a pompous ass spouting Maslow.

Victor Meldrew

[QUOTE=NikiL;8275283]Or you have people like my stepsons mother who has stated in the past that she doesn't see why she should work if she doesn't wish to. The same woman who worked while claiming full benefits as a non worker, who then claimed legal aid for a child residency case as a non worker.

There are huge numbers of people like her, huge. They detract from the genuine numbers who need to claim benefits. The system is extremely weak, mainly because (I believe) from the sheer volume of numbers that require processing.

Please, don't be a pompous ass spouting Maslow.[/QUOTE]

I presume that was directed at the other guy?

dunroving

When you listen to/watch coverage of the US public's response to the proposed idea of eligibility for health care for everyone, you realise the good side to the UK's NHS and wellfare system. In the States, there is very much a mentality of "I go to work for a living, "they" can get a job if they want, and pay for health care, why should my taxes have to pay for "their" health care (welfare check, etc.)?" BBC was showing interviews from US this week showing exactly that sort of attitude. The UK NHS is portrayed as a "socialist" system, derided as being quasi-Communist, etc., by the anti Health Care bill crowd.

Ironic, then, that the poem on the Statue of Liberty includes the phrase, "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, ..." etc., from the poem "The Colossus".

Yes, we should take care of those who can't take care of themselves and who are unable to find a job, or unable to work through illness or disability. And yes, there are multi-generational welfare families who have learned helplessness.

But no, we shouldn't be subsidizing the work-shy, lazy and shiftless, and they do exist ... forget statistics, just open your eyes, they're there. Acknowledging their existence doesn't make you a sensationalist or Daily Mail reader, it just makes you a realist.

p.s. I worked in what used to be called the "Dole Office" many moons ago and there were plenty of people back then making fraudulent claims, I doubt anything has improved. Blaming the system for people's dishonesty and laziness is a cop-out. What about personal responsibility?

Beedubya

I agree that we SHOULD have benefits for people who genuinely need it. But honest to God doing my people watching outside Asda was a real eye-opener, people walking in perfectly fine with disabled stickers on their car and getting onto a mobile scooter to do the shopping.

My sister has a neighbour who is registered blind and taps along the pavement with a white stick but is often seen by them underneath his car fixing it. She also observed him one day coming home and putting his key RIGHT into the lock - you know as you do when you have perfect vision....

Bijilo123

Maslow actually is the framework to understand the behaviour. The system is not extremely weak and there are not huge numbers of false claimants. There are huge numbers of claimants - but even if they are claimants because they do not want to work they may still be legitimate claimants because they don't have enough money. There are checks and balances to prevent false claims but the only way to make them foolproof is to spend a lot more money on the process.

Victor Meldrew

Although Maslow may have some credence in this situation, I think you are looking too deeply into the situation.

Many of the false claimants are just lazy selfish people who drain the system as much as they can, without conscience