Was it worth the sacrifice.

[Silk]

I think you will find it is............

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...only-repay-fifth-of-stolen-benefits-cash.html

Not really relevant to the issue of whether benefits are generous, is it.

 

[cunning fergus]

Not really relevant to the issue of whether benefits are generous, is it.

Surely that depends on your outlook?

If the official Govt view is that annual benefit fraud/failure is running at 3.3bn, I would argue that we have a very generous approach to managing these arrangements.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/uk/benefit-fraud-error-cost-3bn-30387182.html

If the Govt say 3.3bn the reality is that the actual position is far higher..............

 

[Silk]

Surely that depends on your outlook?

If the official Govt view is that annual benefit fraud/failure is running at 3.3bn, I would argue that we have a very generous approach to managing these arrangements.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/uk/benefit-fraud-error-cost-3bn-30387182.html

If the Govt say 3.3bn the reality is that the actual position is far higher..............

But you're talking about fraud and failure. Not whether the benefits paid are generous. That's two seperate issues.

 

[Garage_Doors]

Either I must be mistaken, or you can't read. The answer was "I was wondering what your alternative to paying money to the unemployed was, since you seem to think they can live on thin air."

What is your solution to the problem?

I'm sorry, nowhere in the above response does it clarify if your question was a serious one.
It was a simple yes or no question,
Nowhere is post #204 does it answer "Are your comments re Slave labour? Extermination, serious ones" yes or no.
You have continlty conveniently ignored it.

Each question you have posed I have tried to answer it, whilst you appear to have your own agenda by ignoring therefore there is no point In debating this further with you.

You know full well we are talking about abuse of the system rather that system itself.

 

[Garage_Doors]

Again you show how little you know by jumping to conclusions , you have no idea what benefits I'm on

Of course I don't know what you situation is but your one of the straight guys who is milking the system that's why you can't see my view point, I see the ones who are and and taking money always from guys like you who need it rather than those who see it as easy income. Those who are in the know, know how to work it and do very nicely whilst those on the level just you get by.

Because you can't cant see it you just throw insults.
I'm sure you will have noticed I have not given out a single insult in retaliation but tried to have a reasonable debate, other with nothing to contribute do.

 

[Creaky]

Er..the total welfare spend would include pensions and all those benefits that are paid to working people. So all it means is that we have both high unemployment and a growing elderly population. That doesn't mean that the benefits paid to individual families are generous. So actually it's quite easy to argue that it isn't generous.

No - it is easy to argue that the welfare system isn't lavish but it is certainly generous.

Generous - (adj) - showing a readiness to give more of something, especially money, than is strictly necessary or expected.

Are you really arguing that the welfare system only provides what is 'strictly necessary'.

 

[Silk]

No - it is easy to argue that the welfare system isn't lavish but it is certainly generous.

Generous - (adj) - showing a readiness to give more of something, especially money, than is strictly necessary or expected.

Are you really arguing that the welfare system only provides what is 'strictly necessary'.

No I'm not. In many cases it fails to even provide that.

And in fact rather than showing a readiness to give more, the system regularly sanctions people and takes benefits away.

 

[Silk]

I'm sorry, nowhere in the above response does it clarify if your question was a serious one.
It was a simple yes or no question,
Nowhere is post #204 does it answer "Are your comments re Slave labour? Extermination, serious ones" yes or no.
You have continlty conveniently ignored it.

Each question you have posed I have tried to answer it, whilst you appear to have your own agenda by ignoring therefore there is no point In debating this further with you.

You know full well we are talking about abuse of the system rather that system itself.

You haven't answered anything . it should be obvious to you if you actually read and yet to understand what I have written that I have answered the question.

 

[Creaky]

No I'm not. In many cases it fails to even provide that.

And in fact rather than showing a readiness to give more, the system regularly sanctions people and takes benefits away.

In any system involving so many millions it will always be possible to find individual cases where the system has failed in the same way that you can find cases at the other end of the scale.

I would suggest however that you are in the minority if you really believe that in general the welfare system only provides enough for what is strictly necessary - i.e. a roof over your head, food, clothing and health care.

 

[cunning fergus]

But you're talking about fraud and failure. Not whether the benefits paid are generous. That's two seperate issues.

No they are not, they are inextricably linked.

The UK taxpayer continues to pay into a system that is subject to eyewatering abuse and mismangment; which official statistics estimate to the tune of upto £100m a day.

This dynamic has occurred for years, however the position is getting worse with ever more complexity and receipents gaining access to benefits...................nonetheless the UK taxpayer continues to pay into the same rotten system.

The UK taxpayer is therefore very generous...................even the EU Commission think so....................

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...s-with-welfare-payments-to-EU-immigrants.html

 

[Silk]

In any system involving so many millions it will always be possible to find individual cases where the system has failed in the same way that you can find cases at the other end of the scale.

I would suggest however that you are in the minority if you really believe that in general the welfare system only provides enough for what is strictly necessary - i.e. a roof over your head, food, clothing and health care.

I suppose it all depends on what you regard as "strictly necessary". I would regard telephone and internet as very much necessary for people who are trying to get jobs, for example.

What you appear to be saying is that you can't argue from a few individual cases to the general situation, which is exactly what I am saying. But it's what most people do, including politicians and the press. Here are a few scroungers, therefore they are all scroungers. I don't mind being in a minority when the majority are ignorant of the facts.

 

[Silk]

No they are not, they are inextricably linked.

The UK taxpayer continues to pay into a system that is subject to eyewatering abuse and mismangment; which official statistics estimate to the tune of upto £100m a day.

This dynamic has occurred for years, however the position is getting worse with ever more complexity and receipents gaining access to benefits...................nonetheless the UK taxpayer continues to pay into the same rotten system.

The UK taxpayer is therefore very generous...................even the EU Commission think so....................

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...s-with-welfare-payments-to-EU-immigrants.html

You like the Torygraph, don't you?

Saying the system is generous because it is open to abuse (which is actually on a very small scale in terms of proportion of the budget) is like saying banks are generous because they sometimes get robbed. You are failing to provide even a decent argument that it is generous, never mind any actual evidence to back up your argument.

 

[Bold Seagull]

No they are not, they are inextricably linked.

The UK taxpayer continues to pay into a system that is subject to eyewatering abuse and mismangment; which official statistics estimate to the tune of upto £100m a day.

This dynamic has occurred for years, however the position is getting worse with ever more complexity and receipents gaining access to benefits...................nonetheless the UK taxpayer continues to pay into the same rotten system.

The UK taxpayer is therefore very generous...................even the EU Commission think so....................

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...s-with-welfare-payments-to-EU-immigrants.html

You could so easily read that article a completely different way if you so wished. The EU commissioner is stating in response to Britain, or any other EU states worried about abuses of their benefit systems by free movement, to ensure that their own benefit systems are not too generous. She is saying that if you think you have abuses of your benefit system, then you only have yourselves to blame for making it too generous - I don't think she actually makes any reference to any particular nation being too generous.

She goes onto say "It seems that some national systems are too generous. Don't blame the commission or EU rules for national choices and national regulatory systems,".

As it is that article was written in the great build up to the massive influx of Romanians and Bulgarians and the doom we faced at the turn of the year…….that never actually happened.

 

[Creaky]

I suppose it all depends on what you regard as "strictly necessary". I would regard telephone and internet as very much necessary for people who are trying to get jobs, for example.

What you appear to be saying is that you can't argue from a few individual cases to the general situation, which is exactly what I am saying. But it's what most people do, including politicians and the press. Here are a few scroungers, therefore they are all scroungers. I don't mind being in a minority when the majority are ignorant of the facts.

Is being able to afford a television licence, the odd drink down the local, an occasional night out and so on 'strictly necessary'? - of course they aren't.

I believe they are desirable, including a telephone and internet access, and should be affordable for those on benefits - ideally those on benefits and pensions due to individual circumstances should be at least comparable to the rest of the population but unfortunately at the moment such an aim is unrealistic. Diverting more and more into the welfare system without first earning the money to do so will, if we are not careful, kill the golden goose.

Even so I consider the current system, albeit with the current limited resources, is generous - just not perfect.

I recognise that more could be done but what really annoys me is that so many only seem to be able to criticise what I believe has to be one of the best and most integrated welfare systems in the world - and yes, one of the most generous.

 

[Silk]

Is being able to afford a television licence, the odd drink down the local, an occasional night out and so on 'strictly necessary'? - of course they aren't.

I believe they are desirable, including a telephone and internet access, and should be affordable for those on benefits - ideally those on benefits and pensions due to individual circumstances should be at least comparable to the rest of the population but unfortunately at the moment such an aim is unrealistic. Diverting more and more into the welfare system without first earning the money to do so will, if we are not careful, kill the golden goose.

Even so I consider the current system, albeit with the current limited resources, is generous - just not perfect.

I recognise that more could be done but what really annoys me is that so many only seem to be able to criticise what I believe has to be one of the best and most integrated welfare systems in the world - and yes, one of the most generous.

No system devised by humans is ever perfect. The only real answer is full employment. A country that accepts 2-3 million unemployed has to accept a large social security bill. In the past, various governments have accepted high unemployment in order to keep wages low, remember "a price worth paying"? The real scandals lie elsewhere. Lack of social housing, low wages, tax dodging by the rich etc. But the government has diverted attention away from these issues and set people against their neighbours by banging on about benefits, benefits, benefits.

 

[keaton]

Statistically people who complain most about benefits and immigration know the least about it

 

[Nibble]

I was on job seekers and help with rent some years ago after being made redundant. I don't know how much families get but as a single male of working age I can tell you it was a nightmare. Housing didn't cover my rent, JSA didn't cover my bills. I think for about 4 months I was struggling by with about 14 to spend on food, cleaning essentials and travel each week. Not that generous.
Plus I was terrified of being evicted as you know no private landlord in Brighton will take benefits and you get no help at all for being homeless if you are male, no disabilities and no kids. Luckily I got sorted by going self employed but it was a horrible time.

 

[Ernest]

Statistically people who complain most about benefits and immigration know the least about it

This is the problem, people spout nonsense that they read in the papers or a friend tells them.

How many members of NSC are on benefits ? Probably 90% or more, child benefits, right to buy, pensions, tax credits etc, benefits is just not about people out of work claiming a paltry amount of JSA.

 

[cunning fergus]

You could so easily read that article a completely different way if you so wished. The EU commissioner is stating in response to Britain, or any other EU states worried about abuses of their benefit systems by free movement, to ensure that their own benefit systems are not too generous. She is saying that if you think you have abuses of your benefit system, then you only have yourselves to blame for making it too generous - I don't think she actually makes any reference to any particular nation being too generous.

She goes onto say "It seems that some national systems are too generous. Don't blame the commission or EU rules for national choices and national regulatory systems,".

As it is that article was written in the great build up to the massive influx of Romanians and Bulgarians and the doom we faced at the turn of the year…….that never actually happened.

I will read it the way it is intended, our benefits system is generous; and is acting (to a greater or lesser degree) as a draw to migrants from other parts of the EU. I don’t hold the EU to account for this situation, however the sentiment from the EU is evidently to compel the UK Govt to make it LESS generous if you want to reduce immigration. A point I suspect many UK taxpayers would agree with.

As for the massive influx, I disagree, it has happened. You may want to rely on what comes out of the BBC, however the truth on numbers can still be found...............

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...le/313401/nino-analytical-report-may-2014.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...rseas-nationals-entering-the-uk-to-march-2014

I would argue a 129% increase in immigration from Romanians and Bulgarians is pretty significant, notwithstanding the steady influx of those nationals from the years since 2007, when compared to the years before?

Or are you going to interpret that in a completely different way too?

 

[Bold Seagull]

I will read it the way it is intended, our benefits system is generous; and is acting (to a greater or lesser degree) as a draw to migrants from other parts of the EU. I don’t hold the EU to account for this situation, however the sentiment from the EU is evidently to compel the UK Govt to make it LESS generous if you want to reduce immigration. A point I suspect many UK taxpayers would agree with.

As for the massive influx, I disagree, it has happened. You may want to rely on what comes out of the BBC, however the truth on numbers can still be found...............

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...le/313401/nino-analytical-report-may-2014.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...rseas-nationals-entering-the-uk-to-march-2014

I would argue a 129% increase in immigration from Romanians and Bulgarians is pretty significant, notwithstanding the steady influx of those nationals from the years since 2007, when compared to the years before?

Or are you going to interpret that in a completely different way too?

I'm not disputing you read it how the article intended!

What none of those stats give you is of those new national insurance registrations, how many started paying tax and how many started claiming benefits. All those stats give you are new NI registrations. They do not give you how many then left the country to go back home, how this compares to other migration changes etc.

You appear to be presenting this information purely on the basis of the immigration being motivated by benefits. I have no idea if that is true or not, and certainly isn't contained within any of the information you have posted.