Rusty Nails
Country Member
That is not the same.
I believe most people here support cracking down on both types of fraud and would like to see resources put into them commensurate with the potential returns.
Welfare. Can we afford it?
- Thread starter Beebo
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
That is not the same.
I believe most people here support cracking down on both types of fraud and would like to see resources put into them commensurate with the potential returns.
BoldonLad
Old man on a bike. Not a member of a clique.
- Location
- South Tyneside
No idea if we can "afford" it or not.
IMHO, "the system" has become horrendously complex, and, needs to be symplified
The argument/discussion of benefit fraud vs tax evasion is, to me, pointless, since I do not believe that anyone has accurate figures for either, and, the effect of both is more than the cost in £, there is also the cost in peoples attitude and motivation.
IMHO, change is needed, but, it would be too disruptive to too many people's lives to make the changes quickly, it would require a prolonged period of time (say 30-50 years), which means, it is not going to happen, since no Politician thinks beyond the next election.
Didn't Ms Reeves make extensive claims about filling "black holes" by clamping down on tax fraud?, how is that going I wonder?
IMHO, "the system" has become horrendously complex, and, needs to be symplified
The argument/discussion of benefit fraud vs tax evasion is, to me, pointless, since I do not believe that anyone has accurate figures for either, and, the effect of both is more than the cost in £, there is also the cost in peoples attitude and motivation.
IMHO, change is needed, but, it would be too disruptive to too many people's lives to make the changes quickly, it would require a prolonged period of time (say 30-50 years), which means, it is not going to happen, since no Politician thinks beyond the next election.
Didn't Ms Reeves make extensive claims about filling "black holes" by clamping down on tax fraud?, how is that going I wonder?
Psamathe
Guru
Maybe we can't afford what we are doing at the moment but maybe if we (our politicians) addressed why so many need so much we can afford that?
Also "afford" is often a question of choices.
AndyRM
Elder Goth
It's Spen. His "Well this is interesting" schtick is as ubiquitous and boring as CXRAndy's right wing love in, just without the unhinged social media links.
spen666
Über Member
Ohhh look its the text book play the man because someone disagrees with you.
Try actually dealing with the issue instead of insulting those who disagree with your views
AndyRM
Elder Goth
Sorry, I'll try harder to engage with your style of posting in the future. You make such an effort, it's only fair.
spen666
Über Member
Sadly you think playing the man when they have a different opinion to you is appropriate.
all it does is detract from any sensible debate.
if someone's views are wrong, then it should be possible to show that up by debate, not by insulting the person who holds views that differ from you
AndyRM
Elder Goth
I'm perfectly happy to debate with people on here, but I've been around long enough to know your disingenuous style, which you never like being called out on. This isn't an insult, it's just reading what your post.
Which is fine, but I think it's weird that you persist in doing it.
spen666
Über Member
Yes you are perfectly happy to debate with people who hold the same views as you.
Sadly you seem to persist in launching personal attacks on those who hold differing views by attacking the person, rather than debating the issues.
it is possible to hold differing views to someone and debate those views without launching ad hominen attacks on that person
AndyRM
Elder Goth
Yes, it's terribly sad, isn't it?
Nobody really "debates" anything on here anyway. You seem keen on the fitba thread though, have at it, you're off to a flying start.
First Aspect
Guru
I think that's not the case. There are plenty of us happy to debate. I've not kept up with this thread, but I'm happy to disagree with anyone if that would help.
Rusty Nails
Country Member
Oh no you're not.
AndyRM
Elder Goth
I should have said "properly" I suppose, but I agree that most people on here are pretty reasonable when it comes to discussion.
Pross
Über Member
As someone else said, can we afford not to have it?
The big issue, as with health and other big government 'projects' is that it has evolved piecemeal over time as it tries to adapt to changes in society. It really needs a group of experts to work with government to create a completely modernised system but unfortunately (again like health etc.) it is a political football and redesigning the system from scratch would probably take at least two parliamentary terms.
We need a system where it is never beneficial to give up the option to work if you are able to do so. My wife works in care and regularly has trouble covering shifts when people are on holiday or sick because others won't do extra hours as it affects their benefits. There shouldn't be a cliff edge. She also has service users (learning disabilities plus, in some cases physical disabilities) who have to spend money at the end of each year to stop their savings going over a certain level and impacting their future benefits whilst others struggle with nothing left over. It feels like there should be a more intelligent system based on individual need rather than a generic tick box that means some get more than they need whilst others don't get enough.
On the other side of the coin you've got the people that play the system and lead to the stereotype benefit scrounger. This will sound like one of those sterotypes but it is a genuine example. About 10 years ago I used to sing with someone in her early 20s, recently married with two young children. Her and her husband both worked in a supermarket doing their 16 hours. Neither would do any extra hours as it would affect their benefits. She was the cliche who smoked, went to the pub at least twice a week and bingo once a week which is her prerogative but one Christmas she was on Facebook asking how she could access a foodbank as she couldn't afford food for the kids. I know from another friend who worked at the same place that they could get as much overtime as they wanted at the time but she wouldn't do that and still found money for her cigarettes (possibly vapes by then) and bingo night. We need to provide a safety net for people but we also need to ensure that public money paid out in benefits gets used for the essentials whether that's by direct payment of utility bills, rent etc. and prepaid cards that allow purchase of essentials or some other means. When we had this discussion on Cake Stop there was a poster who insisted that once the money was paid out it was no longer public money and they should be free to do what they want with it but that seems to defeat the purpose of providing benefits.
We also need to somehow get people away from demonising 'benefits' whilst pushing for more money for 'poor pensioners'. We've had politicians over the years talking tough on benefits whilst increasing the state pension faster than wages or inflation. There seems to be some form of entitlement towards a state pension as 'I've paid for it' whereas the main difference is simply that we've been told we'll get it without having to jump through hoops to claim it.
The big issue, as with health and other big government 'projects' is that it has evolved piecemeal over time as it tries to adapt to changes in society. It really needs a group of experts to work with government to create a completely modernised system but unfortunately (again like health etc.) it is a political football and redesigning the system from scratch would probably take at least two parliamentary terms.
We need a system where it is never beneficial to give up the option to work if you are able to do so. My wife works in care and regularly has trouble covering shifts when people are on holiday or sick because others won't do extra hours as it affects their benefits. There shouldn't be a cliff edge. She also has service users (learning disabilities plus, in some cases physical disabilities) who have to spend money at the end of each year to stop their savings going over a certain level and impacting their future benefits whilst others struggle with nothing left over. It feels like there should be a more intelligent system based on individual need rather than a generic tick box that means some get more than they need whilst others don't get enough.
On the other side of the coin you've got the people that play the system and lead to the stereotype benefit scrounger. This will sound like one of those sterotypes but it is a genuine example. About 10 years ago I used to sing with someone in her early 20s, recently married with two young children. Her and her husband both worked in a supermarket doing their 16 hours. Neither would do any extra hours as it would affect their benefits. She was the cliche who smoked, went to the pub at least twice a week and bingo once a week which is her prerogative but one Christmas she was on Facebook asking how she could access a foodbank as she couldn't afford food for the kids. I know from another friend who worked at the same place that they could get as much overtime as they wanted at the time but she wouldn't do that and still found money for her cigarettes (possibly vapes by then) and bingo night. We need to provide a safety net for people but we also need to ensure that public money paid out in benefits gets used for the essentials whether that's by direct payment of utility bills, rent etc. and prepaid cards that allow purchase of essentials or some other means. When we had this discussion on Cake Stop there was a poster who insisted that once the money was paid out it was no longer public money and they should be free to do what they want with it but that seems to defeat the purpose of providing benefits.
We also need to somehow get people away from demonising 'benefits' whilst pushing for more money for 'poor pensioners'. We've had politicians over the years talking tough on benefits whilst increasing the state pension faster than wages or inflation. There seems to be some form of entitlement towards a state pension as 'I've paid for it' whereas the main difference is simply that we've been told we'll get it without having to jump through hoops to claim it.
First Aspect
Guru
Well yes, a lot of middle income parents are on "benefits" after all, so it shouldn't be stigmatised.
The debate isn't binary, and the knee jerk reaction to any suggestions of reform tends to be based on more extreme cases that wouldn't be captured by any reforms (which the exception off the top of my head of the can you walk 20 paces bullshit Iain Duncan Smith approach).
The cliff edge issue is a good point, but government after government have failed to solve it.
I keep coming back to where the very sharp rise since Covid has come from. Am I correct that it is GP diagnosed mental health issues? If so, there is some low hanging fruit there I think. It isn't to say that people with depression and anxiety iety at a certain level shouldn't get benefits, more that one's interaction with a GP on such issues is often not very much more than self diagnosis.
The debate isn't binary, and the knee jerk reaction to any suggestions of reform tends to be based on more extreme cases that wouldn't be captured by any reforms (which the exception off the top of my head of the can you walk 20 paces bullshit Iain Duncan Smith approach).
The cliff edge issue is a good point, but government after government have failed to solve it.
I keep coming back to where the very sharp rise since Covid has come from. Am I correct that it is GP diagnosed mental health issues? If so, there is some low hanging fruit there I think. It isn't to say that people with depression and anxiety iety at a certain level shouldn't get benefits, more that one's interaction with a GP on such issues is often not very much more than self diagnosis.
