"I've paid into the system!"

[Cyclone]

TBH I expect governments to act in the best interests of all citizens and spend money where they see fit.

I don't get involved in individual cases, good luck to those people if they want to sponge off the system. Its the elected governments job to curb that, not mine.

 

---------- Post added 12-05-2015 at 12:18 ----------

 

 

With respect, getting frustrated about other people is not going to help. There maybe more to some of the cases (like the neighbours bad back one) that you don't know about....that's just gossip and chinese whispers IMO.

 

You don't feel that it's a citizens responsibility and duty to report a crime when they see or become aware of it?

Or is it just benefits fraud you wouldn't report, car theft? Assault? You'd report those?

[ubermaus]

I wonder what costs society more? Having well-paid people lose everything and gain crippling debt because they got unemployed for 3 months or having people dependent on the state and refusing to work? Or perhaps both? I wonder what might be a route out of both situations?

 

 

 

What would you tweak dear Ubermaus?

 

 

 

You can, if higher paid people are feeling like they are at least getting something back for paying more.

 

 

 

We've had the unemployment discussion a million times before, but I can't remember whether it was with your or MrSmithy reincarnate #x.

 

It is also irrelevant - the goal is to help people between jobs, not to help them out of jobs.

 

Also - this whole line is a very narrow tangent of the whole discussion.

 

Fair enough. I cant argue with the first point.

Second point, I would unify benefits. One pot for all. Everybody working and not working gets something + the not working get extra.

 

This 'paying in more get out more' is a rubbish idea IMO. But if you can show me a country where this system works I'd be happy to reconsider.

 

---------- Post added 12-05-2015 at 12:24 ----------

 

You don't feel that it's a citizens responsibility and duty to report a crime when they see or become aware of it?

Or is it just benefits fraud you wouldn't report, car theft? Assault? You'd report those?

 

No, I think the adverts telling people to 'shop your neighbour' is unsavoury and devisive.

 

---------- Post added 12-05-2015 at 12:25 ----------

 

Like I said above, often its 'chinese whispers'.....the government has units anyway for spying on people and catching them in the act.

 

It's not my job to do that.

[truman]

Second point, I would unify benefits. One pot for all. Everybody working and not working gets something + the not working get extra.

 

 

Can you clarify this a bit? Are you proposing a sort of citizen's income a la greens? If so then what is the reasoning behind the non workers getting extra?

[L00b]

Second point, I would unify benefits.

Isn't that what UC is proposing?

One pot for all.

One pot for all is a truism, it's always been the case there that is one pot of tax income for all.

Everybody working and not working gets something + the not working get extra.

 

Isn't that what the current system is doing with WTCs for low wage workers?

 

I mean, don't get me wrong: I'd love the idea of getting something (who wouldn't?)

 

But isn't it self-defeating and needlessly costly to administer, for those who work? Why take the money from me to give some of it back to me? Why not take less money from me instead?

This 'paying in more get out more' is a rubbish idea IMO.

Politically it's a non-starter, because it would be the onset of two-speed everything: health, benefits, etc. But practically...think if e.g BUPA & Westfield were nationalised? Everything else kept the same (optional, contribution-based), but they become portions of the NHS. Would you see any difference in practical terms? No. Edited May 12, 2015 by L00b

[tzijlstra]

Fair enough. I cant argue with the first point.

Second point, I would unify benefits. One pot for all. Everybody working and not working gets something + the not working get extra.

 

This 'paying in more get out more' is a rubbish idea IMO. But if you can show me a country where this system works I'd be happy to reconsider.

 

 

It works in a lot of different countries in different ways. One country where one is required to provide their own insurance for unemployment is the US, on the other end of the 'state-involvement spectrum' is the Netherlands, where it is more regulated, but in place. I am fairly sure it is also part of the Swedish and Norwegian systems, always lavishly hailed as the ideal of socialist economic states.

[Chelle-82]

TBH I expect governments to act in the best interests of all citizens and spend money where they see fit.

I don't get involved in individual cases, good luck to those people if they want to sponge off the system. Its the elected governments job to curb that, not mine.

 

---------- Post added 12-05-2015 at 12:18 ----------

 

 

With respect, getting frustrated about other people is not going to help. There maybe more to some of the cases (like the neighbours bad back one) that you don't know about....that's just gossip and chinese whispers IMO.

 

I agree, but it won't stop me feeling it from time to time.

 

Benefits are paid to people like my cousin and my friends neighbour, this will be happening all over the UK, I cant do anything about it.

 

The personal part which upsets me and does get me frustrated is seeing my old gran shattered at the end of each week and worrying about which bill she has to pay next and if she's got enough money to see her through until pay day. She 84 for gods sake!

 

My brother, who I adore and admire went until he was in his 30's before he was told he had been entitled to travel expenses. He could have claimed this as soon as he left school, it wouldn't have been much but it would have helped him out a little.

 

---------- Post added 12-05-2015 at 12:31 ----------

 

Fair enough Chelle, my only comment would be that you could report your friends scrounging neighbour, and I'd encourage you to do so. It's people who do that kind of thing that make it more difficult for the genuinely needy to get help.

 

He has been reported. Not by myself personally but another neighbour. Shall see what happens with that one.

[psynuk]

If you take the stance that those who are entitled should be informed and awarded what they are due, surely the same should apply for those who are not.

So if you ever advise someone they could get x benefit, shouldn't you be advising the authorities that someone is getting x when they shouldn't? To avoid hypocrisy at least.

[ubermaus]

Can you clarify this a bit? Are you proposing a sort of citizen's income a la greens? If so then what is the reasoning behind the non workers getting extra?

 

Example...everybody in the country get's something, say £20 a week.

 

When you are made unemployed you get £20 per week + another £60 per week.

[Hippogriff]

I have only just seen the opening entry to this thread and I like the idea of people who put more into the system being able to get more out of the system when they need it.

 

For this to work effectively, I guess everyone would need an 'account' opened up by the Government when they're born.

 

I suppose the time you spend in hospital for being born should not be an amount put onto your personal account - but your parents.

 

However, your schooling should be. I bet that costs a lot. It must be £1,000s per year and there's many years. Any healthcare you take advantage of must also be accounted for.

 

So, when you're 16, I bet you'd be running a deficit with the Government of many thousands of Pounds... now, when you start paying taxes and NI those amounts (both or just one?) can be used as credits to your notional account.

 

It will probably take you many years of working to get to a zero balance.

 

If you have a <£0 balance, it doesn't stop you receiving any benefits, you would just receive them at the lowest amount.

 

If you have a >£0 balance, then you can start to get better benefits - for example, if you go into hospital (under the NHS) maybe you could elect to have a separate room with a nice TV and wifi...

 

If you are made unemployed and you have a notional surplus, maybe you can elect to take the basic unemployment benefit, or top it up a little bit to make the time you spend unemployed that bit easier to handle.

 

Obviously you can still elect to use private healthcare, schooling and what-have-you as you can today. They still exist.

 

I like the concept.

 

You never get to separately add to or withdraw from this notional account. It just maintains a running total for you - are you providing more to society than you are taking from it?

 

Last year George Osborne sent me a letter with a nice pie chart showing me how much tax and NI I'd paid in the previous year. I found it to be a scary figure. I thought at that time that I must now be giving more back than I have taken out, overall... but then I did recall that I went to university for free (I even got a grant, and a loan) and I've been to hospital a few times (that can't be cheap) and the GP a lot... and I'm only 40 - so maybe I would still be running at a deficit??? Who knows how much it costs to 'keep a person'? I mean, I've taken for the most part of my earlier life, I'm paying back (a lot) now, but it'll only be 30 years before I'm taking back out again...

[ubermaus]

Isn't that what UC is proposing?

One pot for all is a truism, it's always been the case there that is one pot of tax income for all.

 

 

Isn't that what the current system is doing with WTCs for low wage workers?

 

I mean, don't get me wrong: I'd love the idea of getting something (who wouldn't?)

 

But isn't it self-defeating and needlessly costly to administer, for those who work? Why take the money from me to give some of it back to me? Why not take less money from me instead?

Politically it's a non-starter, because it would be the onset of two-speed everything: health, benefits, etc. But practically...think if e.g BUPA & Westfield were nationalised? Everything else kept the same (optional, contribution-based), but they become portions of the NHS. Would you see any difference in practical terms? No.

 

Example...everybody in the country get's something, say £20 a week.

 

When you are made unemployed you get £20 per week + another £60 per week.

 

JUST for contributing you get something out the public pot....

 

---------- Post added 12-05-2015 at 12:40 ----------

 

It works in a lot of different countries in different ways. One country where one is required to provide their own insurance for unemployment is the US, on the other end of the 'state-involvement spectrum' is the Netherlands, where it is more regulated, but in place. I am fairly sure it is also part of the Swedish and Norwegian systems, always lavishly hailed as the ideal of socialist economic states.

 

The US is in a right old mess with poverty due to this system.