Tekforums
Chat => General Discussion => Topic started by: Bacon on February 08, 2012, 15:41:23 PM
-
Deserves its own thread, the acting is rather good for a Youtube video, stick with it and listen to the words.
-
Haha, brilliant.
-
It’s like a Mail reader’s wet dream! :lol:
-
Class :muttley:
-
What makes this good is because its absolutely true.
16 Year old girls in the UK getting up the duff so they do not have to work as they are a bit thick and lazy and can earn more on benefits then the jobs they could get.
-
What makes this good is because its absolutely true.
Err, no it isn't, You certainly don't get sickness benefits easily. Yes, there are plenty of people willing to milk the system for all they can get, yes there are those who have lots of kids and then claim benefits for them, but it's a minority of those claiming. Far more is owed by dishonest companies and individuals than can ever be claimed by the unemployment scroungers.
As for young girls getting pregnant to claim extra benefit it takes some effort to look after the kid, and even then the government keep spending a lot of effort to get them into work. There are plenty of dozy young women who aren't bothered about getting pregnant but generalisation is unfair. There are also plenty of women who have been in stable relationships, got children and then the relationship has irretrievably broken.
If there was decent jobs out there then it would be reasonable to expect all those who could work to do so, except there isn't.
OTOH there are plenty of business people willing to rip you off, should I tar all workers with the same brush? Really the unemployed and sick are an easy target.
-
What makes this good is because its absolutely true.
Err, no it isn't, You certainly don't get sickness benefits easily. Yes, there are plenty of people willing to milk the system for all they can get, yes there are those who have lots of kids and then claim benefits for them, but it's a minority of those claiming. Far more is owed by dishonest companies and individuals than can ever be claimed by the unemployment scroungers.
As for young girls getting pregnant to claim extra benefit it takes some effort to look after the kid, and even then the government keep spending a lot of effort to get them into work. There are plenty of dozy young women who aren't bothered about getting pregnant but generalisation is unfair. There are also plenty of women who have been in stable relationships, got children and then the relationship has irretrievably broken.
If there was decent jobs out there then it would be reasonable to expect all those who could work to do so, except there isn't.
OTOH there are plenty of business people willing to rip you off, should I tar all workers with the same brush? Really the unemployed and sick are an easy target.
There are plenty of jobs around, its just a case of people not lowering standards or thinking that many jobs are under them.
I have worked in Sales, Management, Tech Support, but after being out of work for a while and my Mother being sick and then dealing with her Death i chose to take a job as a Courier and have been working for the same company for almost 2 years. I vowed never to do driving work again about 10 years ago but we all have the choice to make an exception rather than sitting on the dole for a lifetime, round here there are generation after generation who simply have no will to work and would rather sponge.
-
someone on full benefit allowance (ie rent, council tax, cash, etc.) isnt that much worse off than someone on minimum wage.
What do you think about the £25k cap on people receiving benefits? its a good thing imo - £25k in a lot of areas is a good wage.
Yet people can get that by dossing around drinking special vat all day
-
someone on full benefit allowance (ie rent, council tax, cash, etc.) isnt that much worse off than someone on minimum wage.
What do you think about the £25k cap on people receiving benefits? its a good thing imo - £25k in a lot of areas is a good wage.
Yet people can get that by dossing around drinking special vat all day
The cap is too high, average wage is reported to be around £17k so why is the cap at £25k, it should be average wage or even lower still in order to entice people back into work.
When i was claiming (yes i have experience!) i was getting under £60/week and that had to pay my Rent/Bills and provide a enough cash to pay for paper/envelopes/stamps to apply for jobs, i really don't understand where they get these figures from.
The problem is that those on long term benefits want to live the life of luxury, more so than working people.
-
someone on full benefit allowance (ie rent, council tax, cash, etc.) isnt that much worse off than someone on minimum wage.
What do you think about the £25k cap on people receiving benefits? its a good thing imo - £25k in a lot of areas is a good wage.
Yet people can get that by dossing around drinking special vat all day
The cap is too high, average wage is reported to be around £17k so why is the cap at £25k, it should be average wage or even lower still in order to entice people back into work.
The problem is that those on long term benefits want to live the life of luxury, more so than working people.
I dont have a problem with people on benefits for the right reason.. i do have a problem with those making themselves unavailable for work
(for a number of reasons) or claiming while working. I agree that some do get knocked up to live a life of a benefit culture
-
A true scenario, I am at my brothers house and one of his mates walks in and says "Look at my hands, i have so and so wrong with them so i can't work", yet people like this still manage to lift pints down their local all night, spend £100s at betting shops and do cash in hand work for their mates.
Another time i was sent to one of these "Social Purpose" Companies, the place where you go to look for work while being supervised, i had an hour session in this place where i would sit at a table because those Long Term unemployed would be sat browsing the internet (rather than using the computers to look for work or print letters). On several occasions you would find the main group of them sat around the main table chit chatting about how they could get round working, passing off so called trade secrets, what to tell Dr's, what to tell the Dole office etc to get out of working, it is totally shocking that people can get away with this for so long! I bet we all know individual/s who have not worked in 10/20 years.
I drive a van, i'm 6ft 8, its an Astra van that i drive 300+ miles a night in, the rear bulkhead obstructs me from putting the seat in a comfy position for my size, yet i still manage to turn upto work everynight and do it, and i might add without a single day off sick, and i assure you when its bad weather or im out for 12 hours it gets rather uncomfortable and painful, but at the end of the day you have a simple choice you either want to work or you don't!
-
A true scenario, I am at my brothers house and one of his mates walks in and says "Look at my hands, i have so and so wrong with them so i can't work", yet people like this still manage to lift pints down their local all night, spend £100s at betting shops and do cash in hand work for their mates.
If they can afford to either buy 'pints all night' or spend £100s at betting shops they aren't on basic benefits, they have to be getting money from some other source. If they are getting cash in hand for work then they should be legally declaring that as income.
-
Err, no it isn't, You certainly don't get sickness benefits easily.
Apparently people can or at least could - thus the stupidly inflated numbers of people in receipt of said benefit and the need to reform it. Alcoholics, druggies, the obese, people with depression etc... while serious problems in some instances they're hardly cancer patients. Far too many people with a defeatist attitude who perhaps could do *some* work but have now been conditioned to consider themselves 'ill' and incapable of anything.
-
Until she went into hospital my mother was as well as any other 82 year old, most of the time. After she did get taken in she died within 4 weeks of lung cancer.
Many people have lived with cancer and worked well enough for a long time, it depends on the kind of cancer and how it evolves in their case.
Just being an alcoholic or drug dependant isn't enough to get you sickness benefit, neither is just being depressed. Being obese certainly won't get you any special treatment
-
Until she went into hospital my mother was as well as any other 82 year old, most of the time. After she did get taken in she died within 4 weeks of lung cancer.
So she presumably wasn't a cancer patient then? Rather someone who had it (and seemingly didn't know that she had it?)... nor was she presumably working at the age of 82.
On the other hand a cancer patient, undergoing radiotherapy, isn't necessarily going to be fit for work. Anyway this irrelevant to the point that the system needed reforming and large number of claiming probably could do at least some form of work.
Just being an alcoholic or drug dependant isn't enough to get you sickness benefit, neither is just being depressed. Being obese certainly won't get you any special treatment
Except all of those have caused people to claim - especially 'depression'
re: obesity, alcohol and drug related issues:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13152349
He promised "tough action" after government figures showed 80,000 people claimed incapacity benefits due to drink, drug or weight-related issues.
Notice the figures at the bottom - Depression isn't only a reason to claim its the top reason... nearly 400,000 claimants. This is exactly why the system needs reform - far to many people taking the mickey on conditions that are difficult to diagnose/prove.
-
Topic/Thread not aimed at genuine claimants.
As Dave has pointed out, 400k people claiming because they are depressed, don't we all get depressed in our lives? Maybe if these people worked instead of sitting at home all day they wouldn't be depressed.
-
Until she went into hospital my mother was as well as any other 82 year old, most of the time. After she did get taken in she died within 4 weeks of lung cancer.
So she presumably wasn't a cancer patient then? Rather someone who had it (and seemingly didn't know that she had it?)... nor was she presumably working at the age of 82.
Not quite, she was quite fit and did house work and cooked for herself. If she had wanted then she could have worked. Just because you draw a pension doesn't mean someone is incapable of working and many pensioners do full time jobs.
As to her condition, until she went into hospital and was x-rayed nobody had any idea that she had cancer. When she was taken in they thought she just had some infection.
Just being an alcoholic or drug dependant isn't enough to get you sickness benefit, neither is just being depressed. Being obese certainly won't get you any special treatment
Except all of those have caused people to claim - especially 'depression'
re: obesity, alcohol and drug related issues:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13152349
While those figures are paraded about by politicians there is one little issue, someone can suffer from multiple issues on the list. One fairly close friend had an issue with his knee joints and back, which badly reduced his sleep. He became alcoholic because drinking alleviated the pain more than the drugs the doc was giving him. Does that put him on the sick because of the alcoholism or the inability to walk or sleep properly? It's a case of 'tick all that apply', not just one, each additional issue gives you more points and it's the total that matters. He ended up obese as well, because of his inability to exercise and drink problem. He died due to liver failure.
He promised "tough action" after government figures showed 80,000 people claimed incapacity benefits due to drink, drug or weight-related issues.
Notice the figures at the bottom - Depression isn't only a reason to claim its the top reason... nearly 400,000 claimants. This is exactly why the system needs reform - far to many people taking the mickey on conditions that are difficult to diagnose/prove.
Yep, but how many of those are ONLY suffering from depression? How many is it an additional issue?
The actual list of points is this, you are expected to score at least 15 points to get incapacity benefit, and getting those can be a struggle. Their doctors will push you off the list if at all possible.
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=534086
Some of them are strange and have no bearing on someone's ability to work, for instance, can a person in a wheelchair work? They could easily hold a call centre job, so yes, they can work.
How about someone who's deaf? Again, deafness doesn't stop you from working.
Incontinent? Wear a nappy.
How about this?
f Overlooks or forgets the risk posed by domestic
appliances or other common hazards due to poor
concentration
This only scores 1 point, so they are fit to work. Who cares if the have altzheimers?
The problem is that the criteria for getting incapacity benefit has no relevance to your ability to work, it's just a list of items you might or might not be able to do.
Question, if you were a businessman, would you employ Marvin the robot to work in your factory?
-
Until she went into hospital my mother was as well as any other 82 year old, most of the time. After she did get taken in she died within 4 weeks of lung cancer.
So she presumably wasn't a cancer patient then? Rather someone who had it (and seemingly didn't know that she had it?)... nor was she presumably working at the age of 82.
Not quite, she was quite fit and did house work and cooked for herself. If she had wanted then she could have worked. Just because you draw a pension doesn't mean someone is incapable of working and many pensioners do full time jobs.
As to her condition, until she went into hospital and was x-rayed nobody had any idea that she had cancer. When she was taken in they thought she just had some infection.
Your mum was a pensioner - not a good example to use in this arguement. She wasnt claiming benefits, only a pension which she/her partner contributed to their whole lives.
She may well have been fit enough to work, but I doubt many employers would take the risk.
Just being an alcoholic or drug dependant isn't enough to get you sickness benefit, neither is just being depressed. Being obese certainly won't get you any special treatment
Except all of those have caused people to claim - especially 'depression'
re: obesity, alcohol and drug related issues:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13152349 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13152349)
While those figures are paraded about by politicians there is one little issue, someone can suffer from multiple issues on the list. One fairly close friend had an issue with his knee joints and back, which badly reduced his sleep. He became alcoholic because drinking alleviated the pain more than the drugs the doc was giving him. Does that put him on the sick because of the alcoholism or the inability to walk or sleep properly? It's a case of 'tick all that apply', not just one, each additional issue gives you more points and it's the total that matters. He ended up obese as well, because of his inability to exercise and drink problem. He died due to liver failure.
sometimes you need to peel back the layers. If the drugs wasnt working, he should have went for a 2nd opinion.
He promised "tough action" after government figures showed 80,000 people claimed incapacity benefits due to drink, drug or weight-related issues.
Notice the figures at the bottom - Depression isn't only a reason to claim its the top reason... nearly 400,000 claimants. This is exactly why the system needs reform - far to many people taking the mickey on conditions that are difficult to diagnose/prove.
Yep, but how many of those are ONLY suffering from depression? How many is it an additional issue?
The actual list of points is this, you are expected to score at least 15 points to get incapacity benefit, and getting those can be a struggle. Their doctors will push you off the list if at all possible.
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=534086 (http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=534086)
Some of them are strange and have no bearing on someone's ability to work, for instance, can a person in a wheelchair work? They could easily hold a call centre job, so yes, they can work.
How about someone who's deaf? Again, deafness doesn't stop you from working.
Incontinent? Wear a nappy.
How about this?
f Overlooks or forgets the risk posed by domestic
appliances or other common hazards due to poor
concentration
This only scores 1 point, so they are fit to work. Who cares if the have altzheimers?
The problem is that the criteria for getting incapacity benefit has no relevance to your ability to work, it's just a list of items you might or might not be able to do.
Question, if you were a businessman, would you employ Marvin the robot to work in your factory?
good posting a link to incapacity benefits... a benefit that no new claimaints have been able to get for a few years & those on it are being re-assessed for ESA the replacement.
One of the biggest 'cons' what they go for is DLA. Thats their golden ticket. Paired with ESA a claimant can get about £200 a week in benefit cash, housing benefit, council benefit, etc.
Also sometimes a free car, etc. Nothing stops a disabled person working & getting DLA btw - so yea, a wheelchair person could work in a call centre. Ive worked at a few places that employ people in chairs, as well as the deaf & blind. Credit to them for wanting to work...
-
It's hard to believe someone with dementia only gets 1 point on that scale.
After seeing my great aunts house burn down after she put an electric kettle on the stove... It's surprising that such a dangerous state of mind is given such a low consideration.
Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk
-
It's hard to believe someone with dementia only gets 1 point on that scale.
After seeing my great aunts house burn down after she put an electric kettle on the stove... It's surprising that such a dangerous state of mind is given such a low consideration.
Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk
This post on MSE sums it up
Very interesting, food for thought. By those criteria I wouldn't get IB and I've got cancer! Perhaps I should become an alcoholic, they get more points than I do The only points I get would be for my hearing loss, and that's never stopped me working!
Also
a Cannot sit comfortably 15
-
good posting a link to incapacity benefits... a benefit that no new claimaints have been able to get for a few years & those on it are being re-assessed for ESA the replacement.
That's because there is no availability of the criteria for ESA...
Atos Healthcare Medical Assessments
These tests were designed by dubiously constituted committees, tried out on a statistically insignificant number of claimants, then re-worked to make them harder to pass and then written up into the most incomprehensible and convoluted legislation possible. Which is apparently only open to interpretation by the DWP and Atos Healthcare, where they deem necessary. The questionnaire which you have to complete is misleading and, at times irrelevant to the actual legal tests. The guidance given to the alleged doctors or medical professionals is equally questionable, so indeed is the whole set up. With Atos Healthcare being paid per medical test and the alleged medical professionals a commission per test, it is no wonder the accuracy leaves alot to be desired. In many instances claimants have concluded the medical professional couldn't have been in the same room at the time of the assessment.
http://www.http://esahelp.co.uk/
-
Until she went into hospital my mother was as well as any other 82 year old, most of the time. After she did get taken in she died within 4 weeks of lung cancer.
So she presumably wasn't a cancer patient then? Rather someone who had it (and seemingly didn't know that she had it?)... nor was she presumably working at the age of 82.
Not quite, she was quite fit and did house work and cooked for herself. If she had wanted then she could have worked. Just because you draw a pension doesn't mean someone is incapable of working and many pensioners do full time jobs.
As to her condition, until she went into hospital and was x-rayed nobody had any idea that she had cancer. When she was taken in they thought she just had some infection.
So, again, she wasn't a cancer patient then....
Try getting someone undergoing radiotheapy to work...
Anyway the point is irrelevant, the issue is people claiming who actually are capable of some work.
Main point is that about 7% of the working population is claiming it:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmpubacc/404/40405.htm
Take a look at that chart - our population didn't increase that rapidly from 1979, arguably we've made advances in medicine over the past 30 or so years yet the number of claimants has risen from about 750,000 to 2,6000,000....
Did a significant portion of the population suddenly develop new illnesses that prevented them from working - while some conditions are on the rise (obesity) it still doesn't account for such a large increase. The reality likely is that the majority of those 2.6 million probably shouldn't be entitled to receive it and are in fact capable of doing some work in spite of their condition or are just plain fraudsters. Essentially a large portion of them either need to man the F*** up as there were likely a lot of people not claiming back in 1979 who were suffering with any number of similar minor conditions or they need to realise that they can't keep BS'ing about being depressed as a means to avoid work.
-
It's hard to believe someone with dementia only gets 1 point on that scale.
After seeing my great aunts house burn down after she put an electric kettle on the stove... It's surprising that such a dangerous state of mind is given such a low consideration.
Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk
prob bercause she coould walk 20meters, sit & get up from a seating chair & stand around for 20mins.
These points dont test the mental mind, only the physical condition capable to work
-
Main point is that about 7% of the working population is claiming it:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmpubacc/404/40405.htm
Take a look at that chart - our population didn't increase that rapidly from 1979, arguably we've made advances in medicine over the past 30 or so years yet the number of claimants has risen from about 750,000 to 2,6000,000....
Did a significant portion of the population suddenly develop new illnesses that prevented them from working - while some conditions are on the rise (obesity) it still doesn't account for such a large increase. The reality likely is that the majority of those 2.6 million probably shouldn't be entitled to receive it and are in fact capable of doing some work in spite of their condition or are just plain fraudsters. Essentially a large portion of them either need to man the F*** up as there were likely a lot of people not claiming back in 1979 who were suffering with any number of similar minor conditions or they need to realise that they can't keep BS'ing about being depressed as a means to avoid work.
That problem came about because Thatcher had so many people out of work, with no real hope of getting into work. In order to massage the figures they let people who were borderline into sick benefits, which reduced the headline unemployment figure. Unfortunately they didn't take in the consequences, that once someone was on benefit it would be very difficult to shift them from that position.
-
Very true and thus we go back to my original point that it certainly has been, in the past, relatively easy to get said benefits. Tis slightly ironic that part of the reason these benefits need to be reformed by the current Tory, sorry, 'coalition' govt is due to the actions of a previous Tory govt.
-
Maybe, but they had no chance of getting a job then, and just as little chance of getting one now.
It seems the main time they try to shove people out of claiming is when there isn't the jobs available. Really it's a cost cutting exercise.
There are plenty of healthy, fit people out there wanting to do jobs but can't get one, the sick would be competing against these, so who gets the jobs and who doesn't? There is also a minimum wage, unless you are willing to scrap that too. These combined make it virtually impossible for someone who is pushed off the sick to get a job.
Even if they did get one there's then the problem of holding onto it. There aren't many employers who are willing to give a depressive a job and there are a huge number that are unemployable due to ability, insurance or safety issues.
-
I love the fact "pain" is cited in 61k reasons.
No illness behind that then, just "pain".
-
Pain covers an awful lot of things, the NHS run “pain” clinics: http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Pain/Pages/Longtermpain.aspx
MY Mum was treated at a pain clinic for years due to pain caused by Arthritis, her issues started in her late 40’s and was able to carry on working till 58 with there help. Short term pain can be treated with painkillers easily enough, but in the longer term alternative methods and coping strategies are needed due to tolerances and other issues associated with long term use of painkillers.
-
Pain is quoted as a symptom, it isn't accepted on it's own as a reason to get benefit. If you have Arthritis then pain is a symptom of that, same with ME or any similar issue that affects the nervous system. Spinal damage would also count as pain. I would be in there for pain, but I also have many other issues that increase my points score. I suffer from a form of fits that mean I'm effectively not there for several seconds, I don't normally detect this happening so I can't tell how often it happens unless I note that something has changed.
Unfortunately the presence or absence of pain is also one point that the doctors can't detect easily so the scroungers claim to have it more often than not.
-
There are plenty of healthy, fit people out there wanting to do jobs but can't get one, the sick would be competing against these, so who gets the jobs and who doesn't? There is also a minimum wage, unless you are willing to scrap that too. These combined make it virtually impossible for someone who is pushed off the sick to get a job.
And yet hundreds of thousands of polish people have managed to do just that - travel over here and get a job.
'get on yer bike' tbh... Part of the problem is that we've got a very static workforce, people in areas of the UK suffering from high unemployment seem reluctant to move to look for work compared with other European populations. We shouldn't really need as much immigration as we currently have but in reality the chance that a low skilled Geordie or Scouser would move to say the south east in search of a job is relatively slim.
-
Then again. You're all paying for this...
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/world-s-fattest-man-is-revealed-to-be-british-and-weighs-58-stone.html
-
That is ridicules - if he's been bed ridden fir a decade then he's relying on others to buy his food and prepare him meals. Just feed him less!!! The people looking after him could have started sorting this out 10 years ago.
-
So I only just looked at this and I have to say I disagree with what some of you are saying. The depression thing for example - don't you think you're generalising this a bit? You're pretty much saying that people with depression should just cheer up and get on with life, but if you really had depression you would know that feels like one of the most impossible things you could do. And half the time, these people are claiming because they can't get a job. I was doing some research a few days ago on the Mind website, and it says that people have been fired because they failed to disclose they had depression.
I also know for a fact that employers treat you as disabled if you tell them you have a mental health problem. For example, I have Generalised Anxiety Disorder. I have no problem with people knowing this, I'm not about to start sacrificing chickens or something equally ridiculous, it just means that sometimes I get a bit too panicky in situations I don't feel comfortable in, but for the most part the symptoms don't affect my abilities to complete tasks. However tell a potential employer this and you can see their minds are made up - they're not going to employ you.
A friend of mine also told me how someone once interviewing him questioned his school. He went to a school for people with learning disabilities because he is slightly autistic. If you knew this person you wouldn't think him any different from anyone else - yet as soon as he mentioned that the interviewers demeanour completely changed. He treated him like he had the mental capacity of a lemon, and needless to say he didn't get the job.
I've been trying ever since I left school (almost three years now) to get a job and it's never worked out. In fact in the hundreds of applications I have made I have only had 5 interviews. I am fully resigned to the fact that chances are I won't have a job by the time I've left college, and I am going to have to sign on for JSA, because otherwise I can't afford to live. My parents can't afford to pay for my prescriptions, they can't pay for my credit and food and other expenses and I don't expect them to. I would literally do anything to have a job so I can pay my way, but I know that it just isn't happening, because there are literally no jobs going.
Don't believe me? A Tesco store opened in my town centre. There was 187 jobs going, over 4,000 people applied - that's over 20 people applying for one job.
It really is just my luck that I am female, aged between 16 and 25, living in the South and have not been previously employed. Look at any article about unemployment and it'll tell you that I have more chance in becoming a banana than getting a job.
-
Nope I'm saying that someone with depression can probably do some work and that lots of people currently claiming to be incapable of work are actually capable of work. Especially people with conditions that are hard to quantify or prove/disprove such as depression. While some of those people might not be able to find work they should be on JSA if they are capable of working and not signed off as being incapable.
-
What Dave said and also consider we are not just talking about now, or the last weeks, months, we are talking years and years i think we all know people who have been claiming benefit longer than some of the forum members have been alive.
-
Nope I'm saying that someone with depression can probably do some work and that lots of people currently claiming to be incapable of work are actually capable of work. Especially people with conditions that are hard to quantify or prove/disprove such as depression. While some of those people might not be able to find work they should be on JSA if they are capable of working and not signed off as being incapable.
There's also the fact that sitting on your arse all day does nothing to help depression, and actually having some kind of job to do that gives you a little bit of self worth goes a long way to helping, as does the contact with other people every so often. Even if it's only part time and in a job that is quite supportive and allows time off if required the worst thing for a depressive to do is to sit at home wallowing. Work helps, it's proved with science and everything.
-
So I only just looked at this and I have to say I disagree with what some of you are saying. The depression thing for example - don't you think you're generalising this a bit? You're pretty much saying that people with depression should just cheer up and get on with life, but if you really had depression you would know that feels like one of the most impossible things you could do.
The problem is most people have never had real depression, they occasionally feel a bit down and consider that as being depressed when it isn't anywhere near.
Real depression has genuine effects on the brain chemistry. There are medical treatments but, as with all medicines, they can have side effects which may be worse than the problem.
Nope I'm saying that someone with depression can probably do some work and that lots of people currently claiming to be incapable of work are actually capable of work. Especially people with conditions that are hard to quantify or prove/disprove such as depression. While some of those people might not be able to find work they should be on JSA if they are capable of working and not signed off as being incapable.
So let's set the limit at, say, Professor Stephen Hawking? then obviously everyone has the potential for work.
The problem isn't people being able to do some work, virtually everyone could do 'some work' depending on how you define it. It's people being capable of and accepted for jobs. Had Hawking been a bricklayer I'm pretty sure he wouldn't be doing that now. His problem doesn't affect the way his brain works, and there has been an awful lot of effort to help him continue what he does, so he can do some work. Note, that is because he chooses to do it, not because society requires it.
The question becomes, at what point is someone so ill that they cannot be expected to successfully complete a working day or at what point a person is unemployable?
-
Its been said a few times in this thread and all over the internet, and in the media, the issue isn't with those that genuinely need it, its all the people who can work but are choosing to claim benefits instead.
I've said this a few times in this thread myself, how hard is that to understand?
Watch the video again, listen to the bit where she says:
The Doctor confirmed it, i'm a lazy cow.
-
Its been said a few times in this thread and all over the internet, and in the media, the issue isn't with those that genuinely need it, its all the people who can work but are choosing to claim benefits instead.
So how do you identify those that don't need additional benefits but who are getting them from those who genuinely need? There is no clear cut line that can be drawn. Even if you could do that there is the question of if the person is really that sick or just acting.
And she's obviously an actress pretending to be a lazy cow, I've seen the real thing and TBH she's rubbish :P
-
Its been said a few times in this thread and all over the internet, and in the media, the issue isn't with those that genuinely need it, its all the people who can work but are choosing to claim benefits instead.
So how do you identify those that don't need additional benefits but who are getting them from those who genuinely need? There is no clear cut line that can be drawn. Even if you could do that there is the question of if the person is really that sick or just acting.
And she's obviously an actress pretending to be a lazy cow, I've seen the real thing and TBH she's rubbish :P
sick benefits are more than unemployment benefits. thats why everyone tries to get on them.
Plus once on it, you dont have to attend the local job centre, or get sent to job club, etc. - your just left to it.
After a few months, you dont even need to send in any doctors papers. The department are to busy to assess everyone
periodically as well, so people can easily get 12-24 months of receiving a giro without anyone ever questioning them.
-
Its been said a few times in this thread and all over the internet, and in the media, the issue isn't with those that genuinely need it, its all the people who can work but are choosing to claim benefits instead.
So how do you identify those that don't need additional benefits but who are getting them from those who genuinely need? There is no clear cut line that can be drawn. Even if you could do that there is the question of if the person is really that sick or just acting.
And she's obviously an actress pretending to be a lazy cow, I've seen the real thing and TBH she's rubbish :P
sick benefits are more than unemployment benefits. thats why everyone tries to get on them.
Plus once on it, you dont have to attend the local job centre, or get sent to job club, etc. - your just left to it.
After a few months, you dont even need to send in any doctors papers. The department are to busy to assess everyone
periodically as well, so people can easily get 12-24 months of receiving a giro without anyone ever questioning them.
See? Egg tells me about something I'm already on and inevitably gets it completely wrong. Your doctor puts you on it initially, then after a year you are assessed by a government appointed doctor or service. After that it can be ten years before they bother to look into your case again. The first year is paid at a lower level.
-
sick benefits are more than unemployment benefits. thats why everyone tries to get on them.
Plus once on it, you dont have to attend the local job centre, or get sent to job club, etc. - your just left to it.
After a few months, you dont even need to send in any doctors papers. The department are to busy to assess everyone
periodically as well, so people can easily get 12-24 months of receiving a giro without anyone ever questioning them.
That’s not true anymore my Mrs works with the long term mentally ill, people who tend to be at the more serious end of the spectrum, these are not the people you see down the pub living the life of Riley on benefits, they tend to be quite isolated and avoid social interaction with others.
Over the last few years she is finding more and more of her time is supporting them with benefits as it has a direct effect on their welfare and mental health, with the changes from Incapacity Benefit to Employment and Support Allowance a good number of her long term clients have been called in to attend medicals and been found fit for work.
You need 15 points to be found unfit for work, the number of her clients with severe mental health issues being awarded 1-2 points and in some cases zero from the 15-20 minute long medical is concerning, it focuses too much on what the person can do on a “good day” rather than the limits on a “bad one”, reports from the clients GP or mental health team are not taken into account at this stage, quite often the result is overturned at appeal when reports are taken into account, but often the damage is done and often worsens there condition and end up needing a lot more support from the mental health team for an extended period, hospitalising and suicide in some cases.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/may/31/incapacity-benefit-cuts-mental-health?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487
While I have no issue with people needing to have a good reason to receive benefits in the long term a little common sense is also needed and needs to take into account the collateral damage, the ones who appear to be suffering the most are the genuine who don’t know how to work the system. Scumbags will always find loopholes in the system!
-
Its been said a few times in this thread and all over the internet, and in the media, the issue isn't with those that genuinely need it, its all the people who can work but are choosing to claim benefits instead.
So how do you identify those that don't need additional benefits but who are getting them from those who genuinely need? There is no clear cut line that can be drawn. Even if you could do that there is the question of if the person is really that sick or just acting.
And she's obviously an actress pretending to be a lazy cow, I've seen the real thing and TBH she's rubbish :P
sick benefits are more than unemployment benefits. thats why everyone tries to get on them.
Plus once on it, you dont have to attend the local job centre, or get sent to job club, etc. - your just left to it.
After a few months, you dont even need to send in any doctors papers. The department are to busy to assess everyone
periodically as well, so people can easily get 12-24 months of receiving a giro without anyone ever questioning them.
See? Egg tells me about something I'm already on and inevitably gets it completely wrong. Your doctor puts you on it initially, then after a year you are assessed by a government appointed doctor or service. After that it can be ten years before they bother to look into your case again. The first year is paid at a lower level.
So there is a good chance someone could trick the Doctor and get a minimum of a years free cash, and if they manage to persuade the Appointed Doctor they could face 10+ years on benefits without being checked, how is this any better?
Also, i would bet that there are several websites/forums online where discussion on faking this takes place, as i pointed out earlier an hour or two in one of those Job clubs can you net you enough information on a good day, just listening to the regular benefit fraudsters.
-
I have typed this reply once and lost it so will keep this brief.
The purpose of the benefit system is to assist people who need it, like the NHS it is something we provide that some other countries don't and this is something I am proud of.
Some people are genuinely ill, some people try and are unable to find a job. And a few times in this thread it has been stated these people should have benefits.
Others take advantage of this system.
Seems we have three options available:
* get rid of the benefit system completely so those people fraudlently applying get nothing.
* accept that some people will not be genuine but not want to make it harder for the real claimants.
*make it harder, lowering the number of people on benefits knowing that some/alot of genuine people will no gain assistance.
I think of it the same as our prison/legal system.
For example.
In prison there are going to be some people who are innocent. Like all inperfect systems this happens.
Now do we release all prisoners so those innocent are free or keep them loacked up knowing the guilty are off the streets?
-
Its been said a few times in this thread and all over the internet, and in the media, the issue isn't with those that genuinely need it, its all the people who can work but are choosing to claim benefits instead.
So how do you identify those that don't need additional benefits but who are getting them from those who genuinely need? There is no clear cut line that can be drawn. Even if you could do that there is the question of if the person is really that sick or just acting.
And she's obviously an actress pretending to be a lazy cow, I've seen the real thing and TBH she's rubbish :p
sick benefits are more than unemployment benefits. thats why everyone tries to get on them.
Plus once on it, you dont have to attend the local job centre, or get sent to job club, etc. - your just left to it.
After a few months, you dont even need to send in any doctors papers. The department are to busy to assess everyone
periodically as well, so people can easily get 12-24 months of receiving a giro without anyone ever questioning them.
See? Egg tells me about something I'm already on and inevitably gets it completely wrong. Your doctor puts you on it initially, then after a year you are assessed by a government appointed doctor or service. After that it can be ten years before they bother to look into your case again. The first year is paid at a lower level.
yea serious... I know nothing about it, despite being on it myself for 9 months after knee trouble left me unable to even stand, let alone walk for the best part of 4 months.. slowly getting back to being able to walk until about may last year.
Basically, I saw the doc, he gave me a sick paper, I contacted the benefits helpline... they sent me the forms, that i sent back with docs paper... sent in 2 further doctors papers & got assessed by an Atos professional all within 8 weeks. was awarded sickness benefit & was told I will have a toatl of 6 1 to 1 interviews with my local JCP to see how I was coping.
Over the following 6 months, I had 2 interviews. I was on the lower rate also.
Difference may be I was on ESA - while you may be on the older benefit it replaced. Slowly though, they are looking at the older cases with the aim of everyone going onto ESA.
Getting sickness benefit isnt that difficult - but thats not the issue - the big benefit fraud issue is DLA - harder to get than sickness benefit, but the handouts for DLA is stupid amounts & is paid on top of any other benefit -- Even people who working may be entitled to DLA - its there to help those ill to manage better, so is a worthwhile benefit.
-
I have typed this reply once and lost it so will keep this brief.
The purpose of the benefit system is to assist people who need it, like the NHS it is something we provide that some other countries don't and this is something I am proud of.
Some people are genuinely ill, some people try and are unable to find a job. And a few times in this thread it has been stated these people should have benefits.
Others take advantage of this system.
Seems we have three options available:
* get rid of the benefit system completely so those people fraudlently applying get nothing.
* accept that some people will not be genuine but not want to make it harder for the real claimants.
*make it harder, lowering the number of people on benefits knowing that some/alot of genuine people will no gain assistance.
I think of it the same as our prison/legal system.
For example.
In prison there are going to be some people who are innocent. Like all inperfect systems this happens.
Now do we release all prisoners so those innocent are free or keep them loacked up knowing the guilty are off the streets?
Option 4 please.
* If you cannot work / are sick then you get 50 pound a week in food / clothing vouchers, that only cover essentials. IE, you can go to sainsburys and buy whatever cereal you like, whatever brand of milk you want, etc, but you cannot buy alcohol or cigs. Chocolate oranges and jaffa cakes are also not included. The government can draw up a list of allowed brands, doesn't need to be too long.
* You can get housing benefit I am ok with that - but not in London or other expensive areas. If you cannot afford rent in Kensington then off to Hartlepool you must go. If you don't want to live in Hartlepool then get a job.
* Heating and electricity can be covered by the government. I think the savings from the above will more than offset this.
The problem is we hand out money and then complain that people spend it on things we don't approve of. I don't think anyone would have a problem feeding, clothing and housing people in times of need. What we don't like is them buying SkyTV and 50" LCDs. This will stop that.
Coming from an area that is predominantly made up of scrounging lazy twats (the North), I know the abuse of the system that goes on.
-
The problem is we hand out money and then complain that people spend it on things we don't approve of. I don't think anyone would have a problem feeding, clothing and housing people in times of need. What we don't like is them buying SkyTV and 50" LCDs. This will stop that.
Coming from an area that is predominantly made up of scrounging lazy twats (the North), I know the abuse of the system that goes on.
but they only get sky n sh*t because of all other benefit addons they screw the system for.
The genuine person on genuine benefits could never afford sky.
Its quite difficult to live on £55 a week - and keep motivated.
I tend to agree about vouchers for food, etc.
but people should still have some cash for entertainment, otherwise it will prob increase crime, especially for the genuine people
or otherwise they will feel worthless & only living to exist.
-
* If you cannot work / are sick then you get 50 pound a week in food / clothing vouchers, that only cover essentials. IE, you can go to sainsburys and buy whatever cereal you like, whatever brand of milk you want, etc, but you cannot buy alcohol or cigs. Chocolate oranges and jaffa cakes are also not included. The government can draw up a list of allowed brands, doesn't need to be too long.
And you expect that to get past into law? Think it will be shot down in flames tbvh.
-
* If you cannot work / are sick then you get 50 pound a week in food / clothing vouchers, that only cover essentials. IE, you can go to sainsburys and buy whatever cereal you like, whatever brand of milk you want, etc, but you cannot buy alcohol or cigs. Chocolate oranges and jaffa cakes are also not included. The government can draw up a list of allowed brands, doesn't need to be too long.
And you expect that to get past into law? Think it will be shot down in flames tbvh.
Why should it? America has had food stamps for a long time, the biggest problem with this though seems to be that it creates a black market for trade of them.
-
Not sure I'd go as far as food stamps but certainly there is a lot of reform needed as far as benefits are concerned. I don't see why council housing shouldn't be organised on a London wide basis for example - currently it's organised by individual boroughs but in reality there is no reason why an unemployed person *needs* to live in zone 1 (and the majority of council tenants are unemployed). People shouldn't keep council housing when they earn above a certain amount - certainly not when they are on 6 figure salaries. People also shouldn't be allowed to hold onto council properties with multiple bedrooms once they have no use for them (kids grown up etc..). We've also got the few farcical situation where some councils have been housing large families in mansions in central London due to lack of suitable council accommodation - when in reality the cost of knocking together two council homes in say another borough would be far less than the 100k + paid in rent to some private landlord to house the family.
-
Not sure I'd go as far as food stamps but certainly there is a lot of reform needed as far as benefits are concerned. I don't see why council housing shouldn't be organised on a London wide basis for example - currently it's organised by individual boroughs but in reality there is no reason why an unemployed person *needs* to live in zone 1 (and the majority of council tenants are unemployed). People shouldn't keep council housing when they earn above a certain amount - certainly not when they are on 6 figure salaries. People also shouldn't be allowed to hold onto council properties with multiple bedrooms once they have no use for them (kids grown up etc..). We've also got the few farcical situation where some councils have been housing large families in mansions in central London due to lack of suitable council accommodation - when in reality the cost of knocking together two council homes in say another borough would be far less than the 100k + paid in rent to some private landlord to house the family.
unfortunately people have something called rights :(
-
The problem becomes fairly obvious when the do-gooders start all that expensive litigation claiming we've breached their human rights.
The other problem is we are trying to cut spending in as near enough recession by kicking people off benefits. There are no jobs for them, if there were suitable jobs I would certainly support a programme to help people get into them.
Perhaps there are easier targets like rich people claiming benefits that are not means tested? This isn't the only case of someone with millions in the bank still getting a nice slab of mobility benefits. There is also rich people claiming child benefits too.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9061259/Lottery-winners-receive-benefits-despite-10.2-million-win.html
While we are on that there are several football clubs likely to end up in deep financial problems because of the way they have paid their players in order to reduce the tax bill, seems it wasn't exactly legal.
While you are at it perhaps you can sort out all the rich people who are not paying tax, or at least not as much as they should? That bill is far higher than the benefits payed out are.
-
The problem becomes fairly obvious when the do-gooders start all that expensive litigation claiming we've breached their human rights.
The other problem is we are trying to cut spending in as near enough recession by kicking people off benefits. There are no jobs for them, if there were suitable jobs I would certainly support a programme to help people get into them.
Perhaps there are easier targets like rich people claiming benefits that are not means tested? This isn't the only case of someone with millions in the bank still getting a nice slab of mobility benefits. There is also rich people claiming child benefits too.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9061259/Lottery-winners-receive-benefits-despite-10.2-million-win.html
While we are on that there are several football clubs likely to end up in deep financial problems because of the way they have paid their players in order to reduce the tax bill, seems it wasn't exactly legal.
While you are at it perhaps you can sort out all the rich people who are not paying tax, or at least not as much as they should? That bill is far higher than the benefits payed out are.
I'd like to add to serious' post, maybe if we had the tax money from our gypsy neighbours it could be used to build a team to investigate genuine claimates from others.
-
I work, but I use someone elses money every day... What do I do?, I have to submit expenses.
I have to categorise my expenditure and submit all reciepts, It takes me about half a working day each month.
Why the hell we give folk money every week without asking them to track their expenditure I have no idea.
If I can be told to itemise a £5 receipt into meal, drinks and sundry (newspaper)... They can be told to itemise their weekly shop.
You should give then a float each week to live on. Then you refund the items they've reciepted and submitted to the system.
It should if their being honest about their expenditure equal out, so they always have £50 available (or whatever the benefits are) each week.
That way people can spend money on whatever they like but if all £50 each week is going on alcohol and still complaining about bring unable to live on their benefits, someone can intervene and say "oi!".
If folk claim their money and never submit their expenses, then they don't get anything more until they do.
Home inspection and someone has a brand spanking new 50 inch plasma tv, hasn't claimed it as part of their expenses or submitted reciepts. Bam... Lets have a ganders around for other stolen property shall we? Or start observing them for working cash in hand?
Bosh - false claimants, theft and tax dodging solved with one solution, expenses.
Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk
-
I work, but I use someone elses money every day... What do I do?, I have to submit expenses.
I have to categorise my expenditure and submit all reciepts, It takes me about half a working day each month.
Why the hell we give folk money every week without asking them to track their expenditure I have no idea.
If I can be told to itemise a £5 receipt into meal, drinks and sundry (newspaper)... They can be told to itemise their weekly shop.
You should give then a float each week to live on. Then you refund the items they've reciepted and submitted to the system.
It should if their being honest about their expenditure equal out, so they always have £50 available (or whatever the benefits are) each week.
That way people can spend money on whatever they like but if all £50 each week is going on alcohol and still complaining about bring unable to live on their benefits, someone can intervene and say "oi!".
If folk claim their money and never submit their expenses, then they don't get anything more until they do.
Home inspection and someone has a brand spanking new 50 inch plasma tv, hasn't claimed it as part of their expenses or submitted reciepts. Bam... Lets have a ganders around for other stolen property shall we? Or start observing them for working cash in hand?
Bosh - false claimants, theft and tax dodging solved with one solution, expenses.
Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk
that would cost to much money. Just give them vouchers instead & access to computers where they can shop to spend the vouchers.
take away all the alcohol & fags from this online shop
-
that would cost to much money. Just give them vouchers instead & access to computers where they can shop to spend the vouchers.
take away all the alcohol & fags from this online shop
I'm pretty sure they can't do that. If they could they would already be doing it.
-
The problem becomes fairly obvious when the do-gooders start all that expensive litigation claiming we've breached their human rights.
The other problem is we are trying to cut spending in as near enough recession by kicking people off benefits. There are no jobs for them, if there were suitable jobs I would certainly support a programme to help people get into them.
Perhaps there are easier targets like rich people claiming benefits that are not means tested? This isn't the only case of someone with millions in the bank still getting a nice slab of mobility benefits. There is also rich people claiming child benefits too.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9061259/Lottery-winners-receive-benefits-despite-10.2-million-win.html
While we are on that there are several football clubs likely to end up in deep financial problems because of the way they have paid their players in order to reduce the tax bill, seems it wasn't exactly legal.
While you are at it perhaps you can sort out all the rich people who are not paying tax, or at least not as much as they should? That bill is far higher than the benefits payed out are.
I'd like to add to serious' post, maybe if we had the tax money from our gypsy neighbours it could be used to build a team to investigate genuine claimates from others.
They do have teams like this. My friend is/was one.
-
Labour said updated figures from the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) showed families with children would, on average, be £511 a year worse off as a result. The IFS had previously published the impact in terms of percentages, but have updated it to show it in cash terms.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17619212
Another 212,000 couples on less than £17,000 a year would lose working tax credit unless they were able to increase their hours of employment, the opposition said.
http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/one-million-families-hit-govt-061214395.html
And another good reason why some will find it better on the dole than working 16 hours a week.
-
Well housing benefit is undergoing some much needed change and getting job seekers to have to attend some work experience would seem to be another good step.
Quite frankly I've got very little time people on unemployment benefits long term (people with medical conditions excluded obviously) - they've got as much time as they want to retrain/gain skills etc...
-
Mr Osborne told The Daily Telegraph: “I was shocked to see that some of the very wealthiest people in the country have organised their tax affairs, and to be fair it’s within the tax laws, so that they were regularly paying virtually no income tax. And I don’t think that’s right.
“I’m talking about people right at the top. I’m talking about people with incomes of many millions of pounds a year. The general principle is that people should pay income tax and that includes people with the highest incomes.
“I’m not allowed to be shown the names of the individuals but I’ve sat with the most senior people at the Inland Revenue, the people who run some of the high net worth units there. They have given me examples, anonymised examples, and so we are taking action.”
The report found that Britain’s 20 biggest tax avoiders have used three main loopholes to legally reduce their their income tax bills by a total of £145 million in a year.
http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/osborne-im-going-wealthy-tax-200021296.html
So, millionaires not able to avoid income tax? Some of these people are paying less tax than you! ???
-
Mr Osborne told The Daily Telegraph: “I was shocked to see that some of the very wealthiest people in the country have organised their tax affairs, and to be fair it’s within the tax laws, so that they were regularly paying virtually no income tax. And I don’t think that’s right.
“I’m talking about people right at the top. I’m talking about people with incomes of many millions of pounds a year. The general principle is that people should pay income tax and that includes people with the highest incomes.
“I’m not allowed to be shown the names of the individuals but I’ve sat with the most senior people at the Inland Revenue, the people who run some of the high net worth units there. They have given me examples, anonymised examples, and so we are taking action.”
The report found that Britain’s 20 biggest tax avoiders have used three main loopholes to legally reduce their their income tax bills by a total of £145 million in a year.
http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/osborne-im-going-wealthy-tax-200021296.html (http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/osborne-im-going-wealthy-tax-200021296.html)
So, millionaires not able to avoid income tax? Some of these people are paying less tax than you! ???
no, they are paying less income tax
however they are paying corporation tax as well as dividens tax.
Its easy to shout & moan, but dont forget, these are the people creating jobs, paying salaries as well the employers portion of NI
-
Mr Osborne told The Daily Telegraph: “I was shocked to see that some of the very wealthiest people in the country have organised their tax affairs, and to be fair it’s within the tax laws, so that they were regularly paying virtually no income tax. And I don’t think that’s right.
“I’m talking about people right at the top. I’m talking about people with incomes of many millions of pounds a year. The general principle is that people should pay income tax and that includes people with the highest incomes.
“I’m not allowed to be shown the names of the individuals but I’ve sat with the most senior people at the Inland Revenue, the people who run some of the high net worth units there. They have given me examples, anonymised examples, and so we are taking action.”
The report found that Britain’s 20 biggest tax avoiders have used three main loopholes to legally reduce their their income tax bills by a total of £145 million in a year.
http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/osborne-im-going-wealthy-tax-200021296.html
So, millionaires not able to avoid income tax? Some of these people are paying less tax than you! ???
Has been going on for a while - good job we've got a govt who's willing to try and crack down on it now.. also see the increase in stamp duty for homes above 2 million - 7% as an individual and 15% as a company... all good steps really as this sort of tax avoidance is reprehensible. Though this is a thread about benefits so somewhat off topic really...
I doubts any of them are paying less tax than me though - they might be paying a lower percentage and avoiding a considerable amount but they're likely still paying a considerable amount all the same.
-
again off topic but I'd love to see a radical approach to taxation implemented in a smaller European state such as a flat tax or just a scrapping of income tax altogether an implementing a higher sales tax with a scaled tax free allowance for people on low incomes. (I think we'd still need to keep capital gains and income tax on dividends with the sales tax example). both could be implemented with the same safety net for the lowest earners and/or even the lib dem goal of taking anyone on 10k and below out of the tax system. Main aim of either scheme would be to simplify the tax system and seriously cut down on tax avoidance.
Negative taxation could be looked at too - sort of like a universal benefit - not earning anything then you count for negative taxation and the state pays you...
amount paid declines on a scale right up to the 10k tax free amount - structure it so that work pays.... i.e. someone earning 5k a year from part time work will still receive 50% of the negative tax amount someone earning 0 would get... dole is currently just over 3k a year... so lots of scope for how to scale it from 3.wot-ever to 0 as someone's income goes from 0 to 10k...... doesn't have to be linear even....
-
How would you get to repay people their vat? Some will spend money on a higher percentage of items that VAT is paid on than others. You can't just give them a flat amount. At that point it is unworkable.
Also, VAT is a flat rate tax on everyone, everyone pays it. The people who would gain most from an all VAT option are those with higher incomes. Most people see it as a highly unfair option. If you think any government would try it think back to the poll tax. Or how do you fancy paying a 50% VAT rate on everything and get to see your real rate of tax?
-
How would you get to repay people their vat? Some will spend money on a higher percentage of items that VAT is paid on than others. You can't just give them a flat amount. At that point it is unworkable.
Also, VAT is a flat rate tax on everyone, everyone pays it. The people who would gain most from an all VAT option are those with higher incomes. Most people see it as a highly unfair option. If you think any government would try it think back to the poll tax. Or how do you fancy paying a 50% VAT rate on everything and get to see your real rate of tax?
You don't have to repay people based on spending - you set a figure and scale it off according to income - net effect being that someone on say 10k is still mostly out of the tax system. Obv people are still free to go spend more money and essentially be taxed further or to buy cigarettes incurring extra duty etc... people on higher incomes won't necessarily gain from taxing spending - you'd likely want to keep capital gains, income tax on dividends and stamp duty... its got very little to do with the poll tax
point is it would be interesting to see the effects of it being implemented somewhere - current system of taxing income has some obvious inefficiencies when it comes to allowances/deductions/loopholes... tax avoidance is a major issue - something as simple as introducing a penalty stamp duty rate of 15% for people buying homes through a company will instantly bring rich tax avoiders such as non-doms into the tax system I don't think we should discount ways of raising revenue other than income. Whether you're taxing income or spending or savings or capital gains or property transfers etc.. you can still introduced a buffer to prevent the poorest in society from being taxed - the main aim ought to be to introduce the most efficient system that prevents large scale avoidance and maximises revenue. For the ordinary people in the street the total amount of tax revenue collected doesn't have to change much simply because you change the means by which its collected.
-
I'm just going to say I've had recent experience of the new employment and support allowance benefit. They're now being much tougher on people applying, as I can attest to. I had to apply for it about a year and a half ago for slipped disc so therefore quite bad back pain and also nerve pain down both legs and pelvis area. I only had my medical examination 6 months ago in January and have only just received my judgement, which is that they think I can work. So they are denying more applications but they take f**king ages doing it, and all this time they are paying someone £150 odd every two weeks. My pain was legit and also because it took them so f**king long it has gotten much worse and so the information they're going off is now incorrect. I intend to reapply because I now have difficulty standing in same place for more than 5 minutes without having to sit down. Sitting is also affected so I can only sit for a certain amount of time, I can't walk particularly far and then I also have the constant back pain, which I'm on 80mg Oxycontin for, and due to some issues around that drug I am now tolerant to a bigger dose than I currently take which makes for all kind of fun. add to that some other conditions I didn't have when I first applied. I'm still going to appeal the current judgement but because I'm absolutely skint and have justifiable reasons for applying again I'm going to do it
Anyway to boil it down I think they're rejecting more applicants but taking f**king ages to do it in, if you think it takes a year minimum for them to process it. Then they've made the appealing process more rigid.
In my denial letter I received 2 letters per se, the first was I think a template letter saying that'd I'd been denied and here are ways for you to appeal or ask us to reconsider the judgement. For appeals they include a leaflet which I'll move on to shortly and then to reconsider you had to contact them either by phone or in writing but didn't specify and address. When I rang the number on the front of the letter to ask them to reconsider they said they don't do it by phone and that in fact asking them to reconsider is the first part of the appeals process.
The second letter contained the transcript of my conversation at the work capability assessment that I had with their Doctor and also the assessment itself, It deigned that I had a score of 0 points and that I needed 15 points to get Employment and Support Allowance, I couldn't tell you what scored points and what did not as they did not provide that information. Probably because people would just say they had whatever the points scale said was worth 15. At the end of that letter they said if you wanted them to reconsider their decision to contact them either by phone or in writing, which was again half wrong, as I'm sure doing it in writing would work.
Thirdly I was given a leaflet titled "if you think our decision is wrong" at the front of the book they say you can do four things, 1, explain their decision face to face or over the phone 2, ask them to look again at the decision 3, ask for a written statement of reasons 4, appeal against the decision. They also say some decisions go to an independent tribunal. At the back of the leaflet there is a form for you to write your appeal in, it also states that you must say specifically why the decision is wrong, and not just "the doctor says I have a bad elbow"
I've heard they're denying more people and then letting them in on appeal, the idea being a legit person will appeal and someone trying their luck will not appeal. I don't particularly agree with that as it's a big f**king hassle for someone that they could just have let in normally, I mean if they could make the 15 points to a lenient examiner.
that's just my 2 pence, I don't think I've written it that well and may well delete it.
-
Edd, they are failing a lot of people in the hope they wont appeal.
The whole process is outsourced to Atos Healthcare & Atos get paid by reducing the benefit list...
Appeal & you should get what your entitlted to - as well as it being back dated (which aint much help when you need the help now!)
With a slipped disc Id be suprised if you cant get to 15 points. Afterall, im sure its painfull walking, tying up your shoes, even sitting & getting up, etc.
touching your toes, etc. You really need to emphasize the pain & not grin & bare it like legit people do. If theres a slight pain or discomfort you should tell them your in pain & discomfort (not telling them its only slight).
I had a similar problem with my knee just under 2 years ago. My physical problem is easy to see by anyone though, so I breezed the 15 points, and didnt have to go through the appeal process.
-
The whole Work Capability Assesment is designed to monitor you from start to finish.
My local one for example is on a 3rd floor of a building with no lift. One of the scoring is if a person can manage 3 steps on a stairs or not.
Other things like walking 50 meters without pain or discomfort, or needing to stop for a rest. It all starts before you even have your appointment with an examiner.
Also, dont forget, tehy are not medical trained or experts, they are just there to tick boxes & add up points. If they cant physically see a disability, it makes thing tougher
to convince them.
-
Worse than that I think they get paid on the number of people they fail. It's a horribly convoluted and totally irrational test.
I went through before the new system came into effect. Even then I got told I could work. I appealed and rather than keep my stuff here they sent my papers off to Ireland for storage. After 10 months of pestering them they realised what they had done and retrieved them. It was a full year before I went in for my appeal and won. I've not heard from them since.