Benefits in Britain. fact and fiction

[Mister M]

Do you feel better now you have got that rant off your chest.

 

---------- Post added 08-04-2013 at 17:45 ----------

 

 

It would be an interesting set of figures for sure.

 

Apologies if it came across that way - I just find it incredulous that real people would conform to some poor stereotype, that itself isn't very accurate

[I1L2T3]

The interesting figure would how many children the first and second generation had because 15,000 households can easily be 100,000 people.

 

Yes it could. Which would mean 99.85% of people are not in such a family. Still bad news for the Tory narrative.

[MrSmith]

15,000 is an estimate. It does sound a lot but the real story here is that 99.94% of families are not like the Philpotts. And that is great news although to does blow a hole in the benefits narrative the Tories are trying to create.

 

It would have blown an hole in it if Tories had claimed they are like the Philpotts, but they haven’t so your point is pointless.

 

---------- Post added 08-04-2013 at 17:57 ----------

 

Apologies if it came across that way - I just find it incredulous that real people would conform to some poor stereotype, that itself isn't very accurate

 

It a wasn't stereo type, it was just an observation.

[I1L2T3]

It would have blown an hole in it if Tories had claimed they are like the Philpotts, but they haven’t so your point is pointless.

 

---------- Post added 08-04-2013 at 17:57 ----------

 

 

It a wasn't stereo type, it was just an observation.

 

They haven't directly claimed all benefits claimants are like the Philpotts. But they want you to think it. As I've said before it's dog whistle politics. Look it up.

[Mister M]

They haven't directly claimed all benefits claimants are like the Philpotts. But they want you to think it. As I've said before it's dog whistle politics. Look it up.

 

Agreed - the smearing began long before Philpot had reached the headlines.

 

Probably a big factor in explaining why £16 billion of benefits and tax credits goes unclaimed each year.

[MrSmith]

They haven't directly claimed all benefits claimants are like the Philpotts. But they want you to think it. As I've said before it's dog whistle politics. Look it up.

 

You can't know what they want us to think, but your prejudices can lead you to that conclusion.

 

---------- Post added 08-04-2013 at 18:24 ----------

 

Agreed - the smearing began long before Philpot had reached the headlines.

 

Probably a big factor in explaining why £16 billion of benefits and tax credits goes unclaimed each year.

 

Clearly if it isn't claimed it can't be needed.

 

 

 

They said as many as four out of five low-paid workers without children were missing out on tax credits worth at least £38 a week, while half of working households entitled to housing benefit, worth an average of £37.60 a week, do not claim it.

 

Up to three million households are also thought to be missing out on council tax benefit, while as many as 1.7 million pensioners are thought not to be claiming the pensions credit, which would boost their income by an average of £31 a week.

 

Take up of housing benefit and council tax benefit have both fallen during the past decade.

[I1L2T3]

You can't know what they want us to think

 

Of course we can. It's clearly a continuation of the strivers/shirkers narrative.

 

If you don't agree I'm cool with that.

[SevenRivers]

Another useful link:

http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/6817/economics/the-growing-size-of-the-welfare-state-in-the-uk/

[I1L2T3]

Another useful link:

http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/6817/economics/the-growing-size-of-the-welfare-state-in-the-uk/

 

Good stuff. Thanks for posting.

 

The first graph is quite alarming but it means nothing by itself. The really important bit is spending as a % of GDP. It is too much.

 

Almost 1/6 of the spending goes on subsidies to landlords through housing benefits payments, in many cases a subsidy for private landlords. I'd agree the founders of the welfare state in 1948 would never have imagined that. They wouldn't have imagined tax credits being used to bring wages up to meet living costs either, effectively a subsidy for employers.

 

They'd never have imagined a system designed to be a safety net for the most needy could be hijacked by so many scroungers in the private sector.

[SevenRivers]

Good stuff. Thanks for posting.

 

The first graph is quite alarming but it means nothing by itself. The really important bit is spending as a % of GDP. It is too much.

 

Almost 1/6 of the spending goes on subsidies to landlords through housing benefits payments, in many cases a subsidy for private landlords. I'd agree the founders of the welfare state in 1948 would never have imagined that. They wouldn't have imagined tax credits being used to bring wages up to meet living costs either, effectively a subsidy for employers.

 

They'd never have imagined a system designed to be a safety net for the most needy could be hijacked by so many scroungers in the private sector.

 

A couple of thing that stood out for me from that link; the increase in real terms spending has been fairly linear since the inception of the welfare state through successive governments, and the fact that our spending on welfare as a % of gdp is fairly average, middle of the road among developed nations.