Victor Meldrew

I'm afraid I must be going (even more senile).

As far as I could see, JF's 'So what' was a reference to my answering a previous posters request for clarification. I wasn't making a point, I was stating a fact.

I wasn't questioning his further comment. I agree the 'fraud' committed by financiers (what else can you call it?) and the fraud committed by MP's (if not legal fraud, it is a moral fraud/crime) is another, just as important issue.

Unless he meant 'So what..... there are people doing far worse'.(?)

I'll go and get my cocoa........

Wub

Awww.....bless

formula

No, sorry...I didn't make myself clear. My son worked in Oz for three months last year and paid a lot of money to the Oz government. Is there anyway he can reclaim some of this money? He also had his own health insurance policy but had to pay into medicare(?). Is there anyway he can claim back those payments too?

BristolUK

After over 30 years working for DHSS/DSS/DWP in local offices assessing and paying Supplementary Benefits/Income Support/Social Fund assessing low income benefits such as free prescriptions/dental treatment/Optical charges/Hospital bus fares/Wigs and Fabric Supports etc and working as a benefits advisor, doing "better off" calculations for in work benefits, I think I have a fair knowledge of the welfare benefits system, thanks very much.

All I can do is repeat what I said earlier that most people would consider welfare payments to be for those at the bottom end of income scales as opposed to those earning well above official poverty levels.

You're free to consider it otherwise and the FT may bracket everything together for the sake of simplicity if it wants, in the same way papers have always used all embracing, but inaccurate, terms like Dole Payments.

Technically one could say that if it improves one's welfare it's a welfare payment so maybe we can leave it at that.

I'd still like to see you go up to a well paid professional couple living in a detached house in a nice area, kid at a top nursery, older kid at 'posh' school, Husband is a Rotarian, Wife is a school governor and tell them they're on "welfare" though.

I'm exaggerating but I'm sure people get the point.

formula

It's interesting how some people don't want to believe they are living on welfare, when they have:-

• asked for government forms for these tax credits, income related benefits
• filled in those said forms with proof that their income is under the threshold needed for these payments
• applied annually to retain these welfare payments.
• applied for financial help for any childcare costs with proof of costs
• have to advise the government of any difference in their wages as this affects how much money the government gives them.
• have to repay any benefits if they haven't advised the government of extra money the parents have earned.
• don't get the money paid into their account if they don't apply for this benefit every year.

I'm sure that the family you describe with children at at a "posh" private school, will either:-

a) Not be on welfare - the family are over the income level the government have set, achieved by either one parent on a good wage or maybe one parent full time and one part time.

b) Realise they are on welfare when they apply for financial help every year.

Whatever happened to only having the number of children the parents could afford to keep on their wages? In those (just a few years ago) days, often the mother would work a few evenings a week when the husband got in or one day of the weekend to support the children. Now all we seem to hear is "don't want the extra hours work as it affects me tax credits". Or "we are pregnant, what money are we entitled to?" That said, the single parent needs the state to be the other parent, if the real other parent won't support their children.

Socialism is all well and good if the country can afford to pay for it year after year - we can't.

formula

Agreed that those on the many benefits should give something back to the country for the money they are given, but those on the job seekers benefits should be using their time to look for work. Plenty of other types of benefit claiments to choose from though

BristolUK

I can make a list too.

There must be many situations where people do something similar to get something different.

Everybody has to complete at least one tax return in their lives but that doesn't make it all equal.

There's more than just filling in forms and providing docs to claiming welfare benefits you know.

Here's some of the stuff that makes claiming welfare type benefits somewhat different to tax credits

• Having to go and wait with often unpleasant people in unpleasant surroundings every two weeks and satisfy an official that one has been looking for work.
  
• Having to apply for jobs that may be completely inappropriate for one's qualifications and experience.
  
• Having to take a demeaning test about one's ability to read despite one's education and proven ability.
  
• Being forced into attending inappropriate 'training' so Job Centre staff can meet training placement targets, even though it does nothing for employment opportunities.
  
• Having to jump through hoops to get travelling expenses, that otherwise could not be afforded, to attend a job interview - while the employer wonders about their suitability for employment if that presents such a problem to the job applicatnt.
  
• Taking a ticket and waiting hours on end at the benefits office because the payment relied upon to feed a family hasn't arrived in the post or in the bank.
  
• Having to apply for a loan to repair or replace the cooker that's just blown, being unable to cook until the loan is processed and do you buy more expensive take-outs in the meantime and then living below the threshold while repaying the loan.
  
• Having to complete regular questionnaires about your medical condition and then worrying that an official with no medical background decides that you are fit for work or being sent to medicals that your health and/or transport problems makes it very difficult to attend.
  
• Facing reductions or delays in your poverty level income because the bus was late or you're in danger from a violent ex partner or you needed to take your child to the doctor when the investigator called unannounced.
  
• Having to invade the privacy of those nothing to do with your claim because they have to make disclosures sometimes of their situation.

Etc etc....

While conditions are necessary sometimes, all these things, and more, are requirements for people on 'proper' welfare benefits.

Those applying for tax credits for Little Johnny's nursery place don't go through anything like this.

You see the difference?

I'm sure you realise that was a composite family I described.

I didn't say private school. I said "posh" and my use of inverted commas was to show it wasn't something to be taken literally. Perhaps I should have just said "the best" because parents do research and try to send their kids to the best schools. A perfectly reasonable desire that sometimes involves additional expense. That they can afford.

Unlike the parent on real welfare benefits.

Elvira

All this concern about "inappropriate" welfare claims etc.......... while at the same time a Tory "Lord" is able to cheat the Inland Revenue of 127 million pounds:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...servatives-tax

How is it possible to be "non-domiciled" whilst being an active member of the shadow government in the House of Lords?

Wub

Thank you Elvira - this is exactly the point I'm trying to make. All this stereotyping of people who are in receipt of welfare....and there's Lord Wotsit effectively in receipt of mega-welfare bucks!

One law for the rich....another for the poor.

slapphead_otool

At the end of the day, if you are expecting people to give you money for nothing, you can expect to have to jump through hoops.

Benefits should be like a bank account. Pay in, take out. And if all you have ever done is take out, then your pension is going to be crap.

Get a job lads, get a job. Any job.

BristolUK

Well that's why I said some conditions were necessary......the point I was making was that these conditions are what illustrates the difference in what formula appears to see as the same thing.

formula

At least one of those conditions you mentioned apply to the tax credits welfare payments too. If the government suspects welfare fraud, your data protection rights go out of the window. They can investigate anyone connected to you if they think you have a false claim.

Welfare is welfare. Tax credits and the associated tax credits child minder costs, are income based welfare payments. If people don't like the thought of being on welfare and are a two parent family, then they should get off their bums and put some more hours of work in, to keep their own children. Children raised on welfare, often become the next generation of welfare claiments.

formula

You're worried about the UK missing out on 127 million when the annual welfare bill is £164.7 billion! I'm amazed that people think these welfare payments can continue. Government debt has doubled in the last 10 years and they are still borrowing huge amounts of money and priniting more sterling.

Lots of very rich people live in London, but don't pay taxes to the UK. Apparently, the government want them to live here to spent some of their money in the UK.

How do the MPs and Lords get away with it? They made the rules for themselves. Like when the MPs voted to plug their pension hole with more tax money. Like Gordon Brown spending 100,000.00 of tax payers money in legal fees to try to stop their own bill, the Freedom of Information Act, being used to show their expenses. A socialist government at it's worst - everyone has to have the same, but we can have more. The only MPs to have false accounting charges against them were 3 Labour ones plus one tory lord.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6999858.ece

Here is one.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...penses-charges

As has been pointed out before, the Euro MPs make the most in expenses. Neil Kinnock and his wife seem to creaming it in at the taxpayers expense. Never has a man been rewarded so much, for being such a failure.

Don't forget Blair gave back to the EU, a large chunk of the UK rebates, for nothing in return....well, nothing for the taxpayers. The UK pay the second highest amount into the EU (Germany pays the most). It seems Tony had desires on wanting to be President Blair (of the EU) and him giving back the UKs rebate was a small price to pay for his own ambitions. Guess which section of UK society is going to be paying for that? Never has a government stiched it's own voters up so much.

Back to welfare payments, the money isn't there, never was, UK debts have doubled in 10 years (thanks Gordon) and our EU payments are now up (thanks Tony). Do the maths. Whatever government gets in, is going to have to make massive cuts in public spending. Although don't expect Gordon to reveal where those cuts are going to be, until after the election.

Beedubya

Honestly I don't know any of this stuff!! Maybe ask on the Aussie thread called The Barbie??

Wub

If you look back at the economics of the UK you'll find that after the Second World War, the situation, financially, was a similar one to the one we currently find ourselves in.

The massive amount of money owed to the banks and the investment houses left the country close to bankruptcy and rebuilding the nation was a priority.

From house building to the National Health Service - money was invested into the crumbling infrastructure and eventually, the economy re-booted - leading to the boom times of the 60's.

The rest, as they say, is history.

Time for a re-boot?