Penistone999 Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 If we can afford new Tridents, and go bombing ISIS then obviously the govt has the money but just chooses it's spending priorities. Yeah, like Battalions of Taxmen to harrass hard working members of the public. There`s a massive saving that could be made there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 We still live in the 5th richest country in the world, but according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and development we come 35th out of 40 countries signed up to the OECD with only Mexico and Chile getting a worse deal. Our state pensioners receive just 38% of average wages, compared with an average of 63% across the 34 countries described as developed or emerging nations. Germans receive a state pension worth half of average earnings, and the French get just over two thirds. The most generous nation was the Netherlands at 96% Food for thought? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 I agree with this. The pensioner population is varied; ranging from the dirt poor to the wealthy. There are some entitlements that pensioners get which go to those whether they need them or not. I used to be in favour of benefits being universal, however I'm thinking, especially in these straightened times that money should be targeted to those that need it. I know that this may involve the dreaded 'means test'; and I do know that if the state organises services for the poor, they tend to be poor services. We haven't got Universal benefits. Except for the pension. And the pension is a massive success, with there being very little poverty in those of pensionable age. The reason we have so many problems and so much poverty in the working age population is because we have meagre means tested benefits that are often delayed, unknown of, difficult to claim, impossible to claim even under certain circumstances, and when finally claimed, they are regularly stopped (sanctioned) for spurious reasons, without due notice, and in a way where to appeal a person is denied further entitlements and assumed guilty till he can prove his innocence. The fall back scheme, is a very punitive means test for a pittance, and many are unaware of it, and even those that are, can find themselves unable to claim due to the lack of notice of impending destitution and inability to backdate a claim. We then have the problem of lower wages and rates of subsitence benefits for younger working age people, whose subsistence living costs are higher than other age group. Perhaps some kind person on here has the facts and figures to establish whether the money saved from targeting benefits will offset the cost of the bureaucracy / or can we avoid the means test- I genuinely don't know. You'd save money in the DWP by ending sanctions, still have the means tests in operation, but ensure the poorest people have a de facto basic income and thus no absolute poverty. In turn you'd also save money in other services such as LAs, the Police and the NHS. Merely replacing sanctions with a disallowance would also save money in the above (and other) public services. It'd also save money in many private services, property, industry and co-ops. I am in favour of getting rid of the means test and having universal benefits, and reckon it would save further money from the public purse whilst having many other positive outcomes. However benefits and social services for those over 18 and under 65, and without children are threadbare. Indeed. The problems we have though are not limited to the means-test and the main one causing the greatest harm is sanctioning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penistone999 Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 We haven't got Universal benefits. Except for the pension. And the pension is a massive success, with there being very little poverty in those of pensionable age. The reason we have so many problems and so much poverty in the working age population is because we have meagre means tested benefits that are often delayed, unknown of, difficult to claim, impossible to claim even under certain circumstances, and when finally claimed, they are regularly stopped (sanctioned) for spurious reasons, without due notice, and in a way where to appeal a person is denied further entitlements and assumed guilty till he can prove his innocence. The fall back scheme, is a very punitive means test for a pittance, and many are unaware of it, and even those that are, can find themselves unable to claim due to the lack of notice of impending destitution and inability to backdate a claim. We then have the problem of lower wages and rates of subsitence benefits for younger working age people, whose subsistence living costs are higher than other age group. You'd save money in the DWP by ending sanctions, still have the means tests in operation, but ensure the poorest people have a de facto basic income and thus no absolute poverty. In turn you'd also save money in other services such as LAs, the Police and the NHS. Merely replacing sanctions with a disallowance would also save money in the above (and other) public services. It'd also save money in many private services, property, industry and co-ops. I am in favour of getting rid of the means test and having universal benefits, and reckon it would save further money from the public purse whilst having many other positive outcomes. Indeed. The problems we have though are not limited to the means-test and the main one causing the greatest harm is sanctioning. If benefits claimants played by the rules, they wouldnt be sanctioned. Quite simple really. Dont blame the system ,blame the claimants who know thev rules ,but dont obey them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cassity Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 If benefits claimants played by the rules, they wouldnt be sanctioned. Quite simple really. Dont blame the system ,blame the claimants who know thev rules ,but dont obey them. I think you are the last person on earth to start blabbering about rules and disobeying them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 (edited) I think you are the last person on earth to start blabbering about rules and disobeying them. Nice deflection. Want to address the point? Most us accept that some people will live at least partly on money that others earned. Simply because they are unable to provide for themselves and their families. Do you think those people should be allowed to take money that others earned by subterfuge if they have no legal entitlement to it? Edited December 5, 2015 by unbeliever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister M Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 If benefits claimants played by the rules, they wouldnt be sanctioned. Quite simple really. Dont blame the system ,blame the claimants who know thev rules ,but dont obey them. Many of those that are sanctioned do play by the rules; the problem is the rules are so byzantine, the system so Kafkaesque, and weighted against the claimant is it any wonder some fall foul? http://www.theguardian.com/society/patrick-butler-cuts-blog/2015/feb/03/sanctions-staff-pressured-to-penalise-benefit-claimants-says-union http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/08/benefits-sanctions-government-kafkaesque-bureaucracy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 Many of those that are sanctioned do play by the rules; the problem is the rules are so byzantine, the system so Kafkaesque, and weighted against the claimant is it any wonder some fall foul? http://www.theguardian.com/society/patrick-butler-cuts-blog/2015/feb/03/sanctions-staff-pressured-to-penalise-benefit-claimants-says-union http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/08/benefits-sanctions-government-kafkaesque-bureaucracy The majority manage. All that the state generally asks of those who are living off other peoples taxes is that they earnestly seek work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mossway Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 I received a letter yesterday informing me that my £100 Winter Fuel Allowance was being paid into my Bank A/C It's ludicrous to pay me a hundred pounds I don't need. All I do is ring Majestic and order a hundred quid's worth of wine. I caught the bus to the R Hallamshire and back to Out Patients on Friday and used my free Bus Pass Card - I don't need it and could easily pay the bus fare. I suppose I could justify it to myself by saying I've paid Income Tax for fifty odd years But the reason I don't wholly agree with means testing is that it let's,to an extent, the feckless,idle,spendthrift, hedonists off the hook from making any provision for themselves in their retirement. The State ie the taxpayer will pick up the tab ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cassity Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 Nice deflection. Want to address the point? Most us accept that some people will live at least partly on money that others earned. Simply because they are unable to provide for themselves and their families. Do you think those people should be allowed to take money that others earned by subterfuge if they have no legal entitlement to it? No I don't..which made my comment all the more valid. Penny is a hypocrite hiding behind respectability. So not really a deflection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now