Re: Eastleigh : Tue Mar 05, 2013 6:59 am  

cod'ead wrote: Total benefit fraud is estimated at £1.2bn That's the total mind you, including pensions, short-term sickness, housing benefit etc. While £16bn benefits go unclaimed And its also worth pointing out that a percentage of that "fraud" will actually be clerical error resulting in benefits being paid incorrectly and a claiming back routine being instigated some time later (much later, if ever). I speak as someone who, four years ago made a claim for two paid-in benefits when both of us were made redundant, both claims were wrongly calculated by the Ministeries concerned and both resulted in them asking for a substantial amount of money back nine months later, both re-claims admitted that it was their error but that they were entitled to repayment. I have no doubt that in a government log somewhere both of these incidents are described as "fraud" and also as a detected and resolved fraud.

cod'ead wrote: Total benefit fraud is estimated at £1.2bn That's the total mind you, including pensions, short-term sickness, housing benefit etc. While £16bn benefits go unclaimed And its also worth pointing out that a percentage of that "fraud" will actually be clerical error resulting in benefits being paid incorrectly and a claiming back routine being instigated some time later (much later, if ever). I speak as someone who, four years ago made a claim for two paid-in benefits when both of us were made redundant, both claims were wrongly calculated by the Ministeries concerned and both resulted in them asking for a substantial amount of money back nine months later, both re-claims admitted that it was their error but that they were entitled to repayment. I have no doubt that in a government log somewhere both of these incidents are described as "fraud" and also as a detected and resolved fraud.

[Kosh]

Re: Eastleigh : Tue Mar 05, 2013 9:31 am  

The Video Ref wrote:

There was a study last year. Detailed assessments were carried out of disability claimants in a number of areas. I seem to recall Bolton being one of them.

The results generated significant coverage and debate in the national press. Amongst other things, it was reported that 70% of disability benefit claimants are assessed once and 'signed off' for life. It does seem bizarre that, based on a sole assessment, you are eligible to claim disability benefits for life.

If I recall correctly, the bottom line was that 1/3 of those assessed in the total study did not meet the criteria to claim the benefit they were receiving. Or, to put it less politely, they were malingering.

Disability benefits, as with any benefits, should be there as a safety net to help the genuinely needy. They should not be a lifestyle choice.

This post does not constitute evidence. You could at least link to your data or the study you're basing your argument on.

The Governments own figures show total benefit fraud to be way below the 1/3rd figure you quote. And I mean way below.

Has it occurred to you that large numbers of disability benefit claimants get 'signed off for life' because their condition isn't going to get any better?

Re: Eastleigh : Tue Mar 05, 2013 11:05 am  

I'm just having to turn that awful Saints and Scroungers rubbish off my tv set.It makes me want to vomit!

Re: Eastleigh : Tue Mar 05, 2013 1:46 pm  

The editorial of today's Times has summed up much of the problem with the UK's welfare system.

It basically states that the link between contribution and welfare has declined to the point of invisibility. It goes on to say that pretty much anyone can be eligible irrespective of the contribution they have made. It argues this is a breach of the popular idea of fairness.

Or to put it slightly differently, far too many people are getting paid out, without having first paid in. And other people are not happy about it.

Re: Eastleigh : Tue Mar 05, 2013 2:36 pm  

So, another opinion piece that we cannot read here – and still no evidence of that "abuse".

[Kosh]

Re: Eastleigh : Tue Mar 05, 2013 2:45 pm  

The Video Ref wrote:

The editorial of today's Times has summed up much of the problem with the UK's welfare system.

It basically states that the link between contribution and welfare has declined to the point of invisibility. It goes on to say that pretty much anyone can be eligible irrespective of the contribution they have made. It argues this is a breach of the popular idea of fairness.

Or to put it slightly differently, far too many people are getting paid out, without having first paid in. And other people are not happy about it.

I heard this on the Today program this morning. It's utter tripe, as can easily be demonstrated by looking at the case of a school leaver who can't get a job. Do we allow him/her to starve because he/she hasn't 'contributed' yet? Or how about the person who contributes their entire working life without ever needing state help. Do they get a refund on retirement?

There was never a direct link between contribution and entitlement apart from one element of the state pension. And the reason is because it is neither logical nor workable in practice.

Re: Eastleigh : Tue Mar 05, 2013 2:59 pm  

Mintball wrote:

So, another opinion piece that we cannot read here – and still no evidence of that "abuse".

The 'opinion piece' you speak of is the editorial of a the UK's main broadsheet. It's not the Sun, the Daily Mail, or any other sensationalist rag.

It can be easily read by nipping to a newsagent or supermarket. You don't even have to buy the paper.

Re: Eastleigh : Tue Mar 05, 2013 3:09 pm  

According to The Independent Cameron has told his ministers that their favoured target, the Welfare Budget, cannot take all of the strain of further cuts and conservatives they should look for cuts in their own departmental budgets. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 19957.html So, I guess we can either expect the Welfare Budget to be cut further or Cameron to go soon.

According to The Independent Cameron has told his ministers that their favoured target, the Welfare Budget, cannot take all of the strain of further cuts and conservatives they should look for cuts in their own departmental budgets. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 19957.html So, I guess we can either expect the Welfare Budget to be cut further or Cameron to go soon.

Re: Eastleigh : Tue Mar 05, 2013 3:15 pm  

Kosh wrote:

I heard this on the Today program this morning. It's utter tripe, as can easily be demonstrated by looking at the case of a school leaver who can't get a job. Do we allow him/her to starve because he/she hasn't 'contributed' yet? Or how about the person who contributes their entire working life without ever needing state help. Do they get a refund on retirement?

There was never a direct link between contribution and entitlement apart from one element of the state pension. And the reason is because it is neither logical nor workable in practice.

The entire basis of the welfare system, as envisaged by Sir William Beveridge, was that help is afforded at a time of need in return for contribution when the going is good.

Your school leaver would, ultimately, contribute throughout the course of his/her working life. The worker who reaches retirements gets something called a pension. It's not rocket science. And you don't need a 1.0 in economics from Oxford to understand that basic principles.

In the second paragraph you have answered your own question.

People are not asking for a direct link between contribution or entitlement. What they are saying is that the system is broke. And needs fixing.

Re: Eastleigh : Tue Mar 05, 2013 3:20 pm  

Dally wrote: According to The Independent Cameron has told his ministers that their favoured target, the Welfare Budget, cannot take all of the strain of further cuts and conservatives they should look for cuts in their own departmental budgets. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 19957.html So, I guess we can either expect the Welfare Budget to be cut further or Cameron to go soon. The bit about linking the right to claim benefits to the payment of national insurance is interesting. Sort of like asking people to contribute to a system when the going is good, that they will ultimately benefit from when they hit hard times. It sounds eminently fair and makes great economic sense. I really don't see why some people have a problem with that.

Dally wrote: According to The Independent Cameron has told his ministers that their favoured target, the Welfare Budget, cannot take all of the strain of further cuts and conservatives they should look for cuts in their own departmental budgets. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 19957.html So, I guess we can either expect the Welfare Budget to be cut further or Cameron to go soon. The bit about linking the right to claim benefits to the payment of national insurance is interesting. Sort of like asking people to contribute to a system when the going is good, that they will ultimately benefit from when they hit hard times. It sounds eminently fair and makes great economic sense. I really don't see why some people have a problem with that.