Re: Workfare judged illegal : Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:55 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

I don't know any pensioner who doesn't buy food, or pay for heating. Do you?

Is that it, then? A pensioner is to be provided with nothing except sufficient for the basics of food, heating "etc" until they die? Subsistence kind of thing? Perhaps a temperature regulator with a maximum of say 60F should be compulsorily fitted, and vouchers for calories of no more than 2000 a day food should be obligatory.

A radio costs a penny or two a day electric to run. Is that a basic thing, or should their pension leave them unable to afford the luxury?

Can they have an extra pound per month above subsistence / basics, so they may share a glass of stout, or is that OTT for the public purse?

As Rock God says I think you've misunderstood me, I don't think that at all, I was just making the point why should certain benefits be restricted and people on certain benefits patronised and demonised but not others.

Re: Workfare judged illegal : Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:59 am  

TrinityIHC wrote:

I'm not surprised, Him's point is very obtuse. I have called for tighter controls on what people spend their CHILD benefit on - ie their kids. He's trying to draw a comparison with the state pension, which is a totally different animal altogether.

As others point out, why is it a totally different animal? It's a benefit provided by the taxpayer. The aim of the state pension is to ensure pensioners can afford the basics. The aim of Child Benefit is to ensure parents can afford the basics for their kids. If Child Benefit is to be restricted, why not the State Pension? Or any other benefit for that matter. Is it because its harder to demonise pensioners than unemployed people on council estates?
Despite the fact that the State Pension bill is bigger than Housing Benefit, Disability Living Allowance, Income Support, Attendance Allowance, Incapacity Benefit, Council Tax Benefit, Child Benefit and Job Seekers Allowance combined.

[DaveO]

Re: Workfare judged illegal : Thu Feb 21, 2013 1:57 pm  

TrinityIHC wrote:

If the overly generous welfare state we have didn't exist, would she have had 11 kids? Of course not, she's taking the mickey imo.

Coincidentally my late Dad was one of 11. Nine brothers and two sisters. He was born in 1926 before the welfare state existed. So bang goes that theory.

I like the mooted idea of child related payments being limited to 2 children.

Limiting it to two is nonsensical.

How about my friends who adopted four kids from the same mother? Should they be denied child benefit for two of them? That would then become a disincentive to take all four thus keeping four siblings together. I can guess your response. That would be a special case. Or break the kids up.

How much do you think it costs to supervise a system that has special cases for this and that exception?

Re: Workfare judged illegal : Thu Feb 21, 2013 2:05 pm  

TrinityIHC wrote:

Maybe it's the way I was brought up. I was always taught to "work hard, pay your way and stand your corner" - The whole idea of sitting on my backside surrounded by a house and posessions that have been paid for by the sweat of another man's brow is utterly abhorrent to me.

I don't hold others to my beliefs, but when people take the mickey it grates a bit. If everyone in the country decided they quite fancied having 11 kids, a house and a horse funded by the state, we'd be in a right mess. As I say I don't mind carrying the unfortunate, those unable to work, pensioners etc but people who "opt out" of paying their share and then expect the rest of the country to pick up their tab.

But as you say, you wouldn’t want that lifestyle anyway, and only 190 families in the entire country would. So if what you describe as overly generous welfare has encouraged only such a miniscule amount of people to have that lifestyle. Why are we worrying about everyone in the country suddenly doing it?

Re: Workfare judged illegal : Thu Feb 21, 2013 5:49 pm  

Him wrote:

As others point out, why is it a totally different animal? It's a benefit provided by the taxpayer. The aim of the state pension is to ensure pensioners can afford the basics. The aim of Child Benefit is to ensure parents can afford the basics for their kids. If Child Benefit is to be restricted, why not the State Pension? Or any other benefit for that matter. Is it because its harder to demonise pensioners than unemployed people on council estates?
Despite the fact that the State Pension bill is bigger than Housing Benefit, Disability Living Allowance, Income Support, Attendance Allowance, Incapacity Benefit, Council Tax Benefit, Child Benefit and Job Seekers Allowance combined.

Pensions are to be spent by the pensioners, they have control over this and can spend it as they please. The kids don't have control of the money intended for them, rather there are many irresponsible parents who choose to spend the money on themselves and neglect their kids.

I'm not bothered about pensioners claiming say £5500 (+Housing) a year to LIVE on, when the woman we are using as an example gets that PLUS another 25 - 30k to spend on her kids, despite never paying a penny of NI or income tax.

Dave-O -With no welfare state, your father's parents evidently had to work for their money and decided they could afford 11 kids. These days there are few people who could afford to support such a large family without handouts, in this womans case 100% handouts.

Smokey - Add together the cost of child benefit/tax credits for all non-working families and it becomes a much larger issue. The fact is that many people have maybe 3,4 or 5 kids and never lift a finger to contribute, whilst enjoying a secure if not extravagant lifestyle, when there are people actually helping fund this who are struggling to keep a roof over their head.

If everyone pulled together in the right direction, we'd be laughing but there's too many people with their snouts in the public trough (politicians included) who are quite frankly taking the P out of the working man who funds them, if we all downed tools, popped out a load of sprogs and went to sign on there would be no way the greedy and lazy leeches (again politicians included) in our society could survive.

Re: Workfare judged illegal : Thu Feb 21, 2013 6:28 pm  

Him wrote:

As Rock God says I think you've misunderstood me, I don't think that at all, I was just making the point why should certain benefits be restricted and people on certain benefits patronised and demonised but not others.

Ah. I see.

Him wrote:

As others point out, why is it a totally different animal? It's a benefit provided by the taxpayer.

It is wrong to equate pensions as a benefit like other benefits. The state retirement pension was always supposed to be your return out of the pot, for the many years you had spent putting money into the pot, usually around 50.

Obviously this situation modified, when you had large numbers of people who for whatever reason, were not gainfully employed for large swathes of their lives, and so did not actually put anything into the pot. There are anecdotally now plenty of whole families generations of whom have, officially, never worked and all of whom exist as professional benefit claimants.

However, they are by no means you typical OAP of today, who come from a different generation and a different time, and who invariably did work hard and long, often for very low pay, and the pensions I am talking about I would certainly view as the state paying them its share of the bargain, that is, a retirement pension which they have EARNED, by defined rules and figures, and to which they are entitled. You can't change the rules after their working life has finished and they have retired, and suddenly claim they are some sort of scroungers.

Then you have the categories of people who paid lots of money into private or employer-based pension pots. As we know, many such people have been financially raped, with disastrous results for the anticipated decent private pensions for which they have paid, but the money has disappeared.

Then yu have the categories of other people who would have had a certain income from their pensions, but find that it has been decimated largely by reason of successive chancellor's repeated tax raids on pension funds.

Then you have the banking farrago and the disastrous knock-on effects for those pension funds which were in significant degree invested in various equities, the prices of which collapsed as all the banking bubbles burst.

Finally, making the new rules or floating the latest proposals, you have people like the scumbag Bichard who talks a good game about some old granny being a burden on the state, and should be made to care for other old people etc or have pension cuts, when all his life he was paid from the public purse, and since he was in his fifties he has been scoring maybe £150K a year as his "pension" from public money, and will continue to do so till he croaks.

Somebody ought to do the maths - cut every gold-plated civil service pension like Bichard's by 50%, and let's see what that produces. THOSE are the sort of benefits that should be in the thieves' sights, but of course there is no fookin chance of that happening at all. If we are so badly off that we really do have to further financially rape some old guy who toiled in a mill or on a bin wagon or a bus for 45 years, and was so poorly paid that he never could save up any reserve let alone a private cosy pension, let's make him the final target - not the bloody first.

Re: Workfare judged illegal : Thu Feb 21, 2013 6:41 pm  

Well said the Aardvark.

Re: Workfare judged illegal : Thu Feb 21, 2013 7:04 pm  

Well said the Aardvark.

Re: Workfare judged illegal : Fri Feb 22, 2013 9:52 am  

And welfare-to-work programme isn't working.

And welfare-to-work programme isn't working.

[DaveO]

Re: Workfare judged illegal : Fri Feb 22, 2013 10:30 am  

TrinityIHC wrote:

Dave-O -With no welfare state, your father's parents evidently had to work for their money and decided they could afford 11 kids. These days there are few people who could afford to support such a large family without handouts, in this womans case 100% handouts.

How do you know if my Dad's parents could afford it? They managed of course but the idea it was a carefully considered decision based on finance is far from the truth. My dad who was the youngest was a twin so they didn't plan for twins I am sure. Things were different back then with kids starting work at 14 and expected to bring in money into the family home so I am sure that helped how they financed things as the older children went out to work but of course that option is not open to families these days.

That is not the point though. Your stance is without the welfare state we wouldn't have anyone with such large families. This is absolute b@ll@ocks.