has the welfare state wrecked Britain?

slim · Sep 23, 2006

The labour party after the war introduced the country to a welfare system. This system was the envy of the world and was supposed to help people during times of difficulty. It was a wonderful system.
However is it now past it's sell by date. Too many are abusing the system.
The system pays more in benefits to the workshy than they could ever earn if they managed to get employment, therefore they stay on benefits for years and even life. Its no use blaming them, no one is going to work if they are worse off.
I believe that the blame is completely down to successive governments and their ever iincreasing benefit payouts.
If we can get back to the benefit system being enougth to live on and no more then perhaps the money saved could be used to help lower paid working tax payers

andym · Sep 23, 2006

If the powers that be were a bit more aware of just who and how much was being claimed,things would be a lot better.The big problem is that immigrants see the UK as a Free Bank!Come to UK and we'll house,feed,eductate,treat medically all for free!!!!!It doesnt matter that you havnt put any dosh in the pot,come on in!!!Then when youre here,why not fly in your extended family as well?The more the merrier!
Id love to be a Benefit fraud Investigatator,id love the job!i wouldnt be popular but then i dont give a shit!If it were up to me then NO free handouts would be given to Immigrants and those on Benefit would be investigated on a regular basis and of they are seen to be spending Child benfit on Sky TV subscriptions and the like then it would be stopped!Why not get these people on benefit to work on Local Projects like upgrading housing or cleanong the streets and graffiti removal.They must have had a job or trade once.obviously those that genuinly deserve benefit will benefit from the increase in monies available after the wasters and other money sucking scum have been identified.

Heart-of-Oak · Sep 23, 2006

andym said:

Here, here, Why have a dole payment for nothing. They should have to prove intend and desire to work by carrying out useful tasks for the goverment (armed service?? - not sure) or local council.

I know a Benefit Fraud Investigator. They work hard but get nowhere. It takes months and thousands of pounds more of taxpayers to seal the deal on their cases and get them to even repay the money they've *stolen*. Frankly the investigation system wastes even more money in my assessment. The solution is actually to remove the free handouts.

Always_a_Civvy · Sep 23, 2006

slim said:

Sorry to correct you Slim, but actually having lived off benefits for six months many years ago I can tell you that it wasn't enough to live on. Later, when I worked for the then DHSS we had people who were struggling to bring up a family on the amount of benefits they received. Those who played by the rules simply couldn't survive on benefits - even the Government admitted this much a couple of years ago. The problem is with those who abuse the system and expect a meal ticket for life for doing nothing. They should not be confused with the majority of deserving people who claim.

On the pay front - too many employers are relying on the benefits system to top up disproportionately low wages which are insufficient to live off in expensive parts of the country. Indeed, it should not be forgotten that significant numbers of public sector workers (and servicemen's families) receive benefits to supplement the low incomes of the main or sole earner.

Always_a_Civvy · Sep 23, 2006

andym said:

It's not at all cost effective Andy, and you would need protection when visiting clients! Having said that a tiny minority of really frustrated clients used to visit the DHSS offices and smash them up threatening staff with pickaxes, broken bottles and knives (not a suitable working environment for a pornopadre :wink

. What is much more cost effective and brings in much more money is targetting tax evasion through off-shoring, etc. Tax evasion by big business costs the equivalent of 2p in the pound extra for the rest of us to pay!

Levers_Aligned · Sep 23, 2006

andym said:

So, it's just the 'immigrants' carrying out fraudulent claims who require our attention? WHat about the tens of thousands of good old white, Anglo-Saxon lazy ******* currently claiming disability allowance, fronting up at the benefits office with paint on their clothes and claiming for kids they don't support?

I knew quite a few 'rabbits' as they were called back in the day. Aside from the death threats, harrassment and in some cases physical violence, coupled with the sheer frustration of red tape and beauracratic incompetence allowing wholesale fleecing of the benefits system I heard it was a scream. Many didn't last six months.

You are Richard Littlejohn, and I claim my Â£5.

So - serious question now - how would you determine who gets what and when? Give us some details about your grading system and your assessment of means. Try not to infringe people's basic human rights here (because I am sure as shit you'd get a bit touchy if some redarsed Civil Servant probed into your life and decided that the injury you'd sustained and the benefits you wished to claim was being offset by the electronic luxuries you'd accrued over the years) and then tell me what you'd do, as elected representitive of the people and with executive powers over legislation, with the thousands upon thousands of people you would commit to the streets and destitution. Ask yourself what their next move will be and how much you will be redirecting into the Home Office to stem the bulging crime statistics as a result of your short-sighteness. Have a look around this planet at the way some of the countries treat their poor and how they in turn get by.

Cue - Daily Mail mad 'you're a liberal' ranting.

Levers

slim · Sep 24, 2006

Always_a_Civvy said:

slim said:

Sorry to correct you Slim, but actually having lived off benefits for six months many years ago I can tell you that it wasn't enough to live on. Later, when I worked for the then DHSS we had people who were struggling to bring up a family on the amount of benefits they received. Those who played by the rules simply couldn't survive on benefits - even the Government admitted this much a couple of years ago. The problem is with those who abuse the system and expect a meal ticket for life for doing nothing. They should not be confused with the majority of deserving people who claim.

On the pay front - too many employers are relying on the benefits system to top up disproportionately low wages which are insufficient to live off in expensive parts of the country. Indeed, it should not be forgotten that significant numbers of public sector workers (and servicemen's families) receive benefits to supplement the low incomes of the main or sole earner.

So please tell me why so many of the ;local chavs on benefits which are not enough to live on are doing all of the following:

1. Driving cars
2 Sporting new expensive tattoos
3 Having their nails done at the local boutique
4 Smoking
5 Going to the local boozer
6 Wearing expensive designer trainers
7 Conversing on the latest mobile phone

Or in this day and age are these items considered necessary in this modern age.
I stand by what I said and agree entirely with the guy who said make them work for their benefits

slim · Sep 24, 2006

Unfortunately always a civvie I believe that you are a member of the most abused members of our society, a single person. A single person on benefits is basically on just enough to survive. Single people pay a higher percentage of their earnings in taxes (all types) than anyone. When they hit hard times they are treated despicably. I believe that a single person who has worked and paid taxes for say 5 years should be given a greatly enhanced benefits package for a maximum of six months. During that time the majority will already have returned to work.
I am all for a fairer welfare system but completely against my taxes going to support the workshy.

Always_a_Civvy · Sep 24, 2006

slim said:

Hi Slim,

I am single and I do get pissed off by genuine scroungers - it's just in my limited experience, most people claiming benefits are not scroungers. Yes you will get abusers in any system. I suspect the chavs are still living with mummy & daddy and getting their lifestyle subsidised to that extent, enabling them to spend their welfare on luxuries, but it is still more cost effective the allow the present system to continue than to penalise the majority in order to weed out the minority.

On the disability front - most people with my medical condition claim the maximum disability benefits and don't work - those of us who work are in a minority. Some genuinely cannot work - most choose not to - it's easier - so I can appreciate your outlook. Of those of us who do work, I must be honest and say that the majority I know have been in some sort of service uniform sometime in their lives either in the auxiliries (like me) or as regulars - so it may have something to do with ones attitude. The problem today is that people are not socially conditioned to take responsibility for themselves - if you've had a good upbringing (and I don't mean in the class sense) you will typically behave responsibly as some of our youngsters on RR clearly demonstrate. What is needed is for the rest to receive the same nurturing environment to facilitate the same positive outcome.

Steve.

Robmister · Sep 25, 2006

slim said:

The labour party after the war introduced the country to a welfare system. This system was the envy of the world and was supposed to help people during times of difficulty. It was a wonderful system.
However is it now past it's sell by date. Too many are abusing the system.
The system pays more in benefits to the workshy than they could ever earn if they managed to get employment, therefore they stay on benefits for years and even life. Its no use blaming them, no one is going to work if they are worse off.
I believe that the blame is completely down to successive governments and their ever iincreasing benefit payouts.
If we can get back to the benefit system being enougth to live on and no more then perhaps the money saved could be used to help lower paid working tax payers

What are these benefits that are 'ever increasing?'

I must sign myself up for them!

FlagWagger · Sep 25, 2006

slim said:

I'm not sure that all of the people are workshy, however the system does trap people - if you're on benefits, then if you find a paying job, your benefit is cut disproportiately and you're actually worse off working.

I've used the benefit system once in over 20 years of working and found the experience sobering and educational - it certainly wasn't rewarding!

I agree, the current complex system needs replacing with a simpler fairer system. How about guaranteeing every taxpayer a minimum level of income equivalent to their basic tax allowance - if they exceed this level they pax tax, if they are below this level they receive top-up benefits. Nice and simple and we can dispense with a large amount of accountants within the DWP who currently oversee the overblown system currently in place (43 page application forms for a Â£52 / week benefit!).

flatbackpinky · Sep 25, 2006

how about for those who have worked and find themselves temporarily short of an employer be given 75% of their previous two average wage then reduce down to the current level . Once all persons who are claiming jobseekers , disability , and other such benefits and are not working with the rules that allow them to work and still claim benefits legally should report to the jobcentre for allocation of work details. Part B of my scheme is to purchase and install two large brass cannons to be sighted outside each and every public building ie tax offices health centres schools etc then those that arent detailed on guard duty during the "off watch period " are to be issued with a tin of brasso and a cloth to polish said cannons. this will have a two fold effect those who are workshine will have to get up before trisha starts and maybe just maybe it will instill some social pride and responsibility after they have polished a few vomit and urine covered cannons that their friends have decorated the night before . or failing all else put them in the stocks for an hour a day and pelt them with rotten fruit and veg in payment for their benefits, OK maybe i went a little too far at the end and impinged on the rights of fruit and veg but sod it we can always grow more

Squirrel · Sep 25, 2006

My sister is a social worker in Wrexham (sh1thole of Wales, and I'm ashamed to say, the town of my birth) and last week she span me a dit that really made my blood boil.

Persistent customer rocks up at social services, saying he's got no money to buy food for his 4 kids. This is a regular occurence as he's a bit of an alky and as per usual he was shitfaced. He kicks off when sis refuses, she told him, quite rightly that he'd been given his benefits and that they're for food, not for booze. He threatens her and the police are called.
The police, instead of fcuking arresting him, then start to act as negotiators, asking the social services if there's any money that they can give him as it would be the easiest way to diffuse the situation. (Personally, I thought the easiest way would be for him to be arrested, but there you go!).
Sis' supervisor is called who authorises the release of Â£30 so that he can go and get some shopping in for his kids, Sis receives a bollocking in front of said loser and is told that the funds are there for cases like this, and that how would they look as a department if this scum's children starved because the money was not provided to feed them. It doesn't end here; he then demanded an extra 5 quid for a taxi home, as he claimed he wouldn't be able to walk with the shopping. This was readily provided!
I fully agree with the supervisor's point that the Dept for Social Services have a responsibility to this loser's children, as he's obviously not a capable parent himself, but surely they should be taken in to care then. If the thresholds haven't been met to do that, then the question needs to be asked "Where does the state's responsibility end and the individual's start?".
As long as society doesn't put some people in a position where they are forced to take a degree of responsibility for their own actions and situation, then they never fcuking will!
As for my sis, she has my respect, because I wouldn't last a day in that job.
RANT OVER

slim · Sep 25, 2006

Squirrel said:

My sister is a social worker in Wrexham (sh1thole of Wales, and I'm ashamed to say, the town of my birth) and last week she span me a dit that really made my blood boil.

Persistent customer rocks up at social services, saying he's got no money to buy food for his 4 kids. This is a regular occurence as he's a bit of an alky and as per usual he was shitfaced. He kicks off when sis refuses, she told him, quite rightly that he'd been given his benefits and that they're for food, not for booze. He threatens her and the police are called.
The police, instead of fcuking arresting him, then start to act as negotiators, asking the social services if there's any money that they can give him as it would be the easiest way to diffuse the situation. (Personally, I thought the easiest way would be for him to be arrested, but there you go!).
Sis' supervisor is called who authorises the release of Â£30 so that he can go and get some shopping in for his kids, Sis receives a bollocking in front of said loser and is told that the funds are there for cases like this, and that how would they look as a department if this scum's children starved because the money was not provided to feed them. It doesn't end here; he then demanded an extra 5 quid for a taxi home, as he claimed he wouldn't be able to walk with the shopping. This was readily provided!
I fully agree with the supervisor's point that the Dept for Social Services have a responsibility to this loser's children, as he's obviously not a capable parent himself, but surely they should be taken in to care then. If the thresholds haven't been met to do that, then the question needs to be asked "Where does the state's responsibility end and the individual's start?".
As long as society doesn't put some people in a position where they are forced to take a degree of responsibility for their own actions and situation, then they never fcuking will!
As for my sis, she has my respect, because I wouldn't last a day in that job.
RANT OVER

Thanks for the input.
This case is typical of many abuses of the welfare system which is overdue for a refit. As you say take the kids into care, reduce his benefits and see how long he lasts

Maxi_77 · Sep 25, 2006

There is no doubt that the system needs both better policing and reform.

Policing to deal with the vast army of those who claim and workas well, they need to be dealt with. I agree there are also many who could work but don't but in general that is because the system is clumsy and people lose almost all benefits the day they start work and have to wait months for the alternatives to kick in like tax credit.

Reform to ensure that some one who can work is given proper assistance to cover the finacial transition from benefit to work. Because many of the things that make the dole a survival system for those that get it are add ons which are triggered by being on the dole they are lost as well when some one goes into work. Things like family tax credit are supposed to replace them but like all things from the government start up takes time and can have problems. These people cannot get xtra cash to tide them over between starting work and tax credit starting, unless they go to money lenders which is not a good idea, so many just don't try. The whole system needs to be streamlined and unified so that one office deals with all the problems and the path from benefit to work is smoothed out.

Peter

Always_a_Civvy · Sep 25, 2006

Maxi_77 said:

Ah Peter if only!

slim · Sep 25, 2006

Abuse of the system is rampant. When caught fraudulently claiming benefits the punishments are laughable.
Why not announce a date say January 1st 2007.
State that anyone criminally abusing the system will have benefits stopped.

To appease the do gooders basic human needs could be catered for i.e rent paid, gas and electricity allowance (paid direct to providers) & food stamps.

Further abuse of the system would mean that this would also stop. Any children would be taken into care.

Yes its harsh but something needs to be done.

Squirrel · Sep 25, 2006

Would get my vote Slim, When you running for PM mate?

wompingwillow · Sep 25, 2006

1. Driving cars
2 Sporting new expensive tattoos
3 Having their nails done at the local boutique
4 Smoking
5 Going to the local boozer
6 Wearing expensive designer trainers
7 Conversing on the latest mobile phone

Cataloges, loan sharks, yes car credit.

Wish I had the money to do all thoughs things. However I have chossen to spend my Â£80 a week income support on

1. Going back to college to do a access course
2. Gas, electricity and water rates.
3. Sending my child to nursery
4. Bus pass to get to college ( although to save money I tend to walk)
5. food and clothing,

1. Driving cars < couldn't afford to run a car
2 Sporting new expensive tattoos < I have no idea
3 Having their nails done at the local boutique < I had mine done once they cost me a Â£5 because college student did them
4 Smoking< I don't smoke
5 Going to the local boozer< yes sometimes, but not every night
6 Wearing expensive designer trainers< I have a pair of sketchers, that are 6 years old, most of my clothes come from charity shops or jumble sales.
7 Conversing on the latest mobile phone< I have a nokia 3310 which cost me Â£20 and is so old the ringer on it no longer works and the battery lasts for about 1/2 day if I'm lucky.

I don't have sky, use the computers ether in college or my parents.

So please don't tar all people on benefits with the same brush, some of us are intellegent people, who have found themselfs down on their luck and need some short term help to get ourselfs back on our feet and become useful members of the community again.

Always_a_Civvy · Sep 25, 2006

slim said:

I have no problem with paying the benefits for housing, utilities, etc directly to the supplier. I think this would be a good way to combat misuse of benefit for purposes for which it is not intended. Nor as a liberal do I have any problem with those who defraud the system being punished for their crime: withdrawing the priviledge of benefits seems perfectly reasonable to me. My worry is that the moral imperative that underlies this philosophy might be extended to socially manipulate peoples behaviour, as it was used in Soviet Russia. After all we are already seeing this moralism in action in the US and those who wish to transfer functions of the welfare state to charities, paid for by the taxpayer, could result in those charities with a religious ethos refusing to help groups they like scapegoating like gays and ethnically mixed parents (prohibited as an abonimation in scripture).

The second point that concerns me is the ethics of putting the children into care. I think it would be preferable to determine at school which people are unsuitable to be parents and stop them having children in the first place, but this is of course the very social engineering nthat is potentially open to abuse!

Steve.

Similar threads	Forum	Date
Press release: Wrexham care home abuser has sentence increased	MoD News	Yesterday at 2:52 PM
Press release: Regulator finds quality and transparency in charity accounts has fallen	MoD News	Dec 20, 2018
Press release: Oldham knife murderer has sentence increased	MoD News	Dec 20, 2018

has the welfare state wrecked Britain?

War Hero

War Hero

Badgeman

ADC

ADC

War Hero

War Hero

War Hero

ADC

Newbie

GCM

Lantern Swinger

Lantern Swinger

War Hero

MIA

ADC

War Hero

Lantern Swinger

MIA

ADC

Similar threads