Should we continue to pay benefit to this person

[SFTPhotography]

Your really living in cloud cuckoo land of you think the majority of making loads of money out of it, doubtless the top 5% of legitimate claimants (not committing some kind of fraud) have a flipping good income out of it, most however that get the higher rates often live in the areas with higher living expenses (rent etc) however the vast majority are not making loads of money as the tabloids would have you believe, there benefits system does need massive reform though ironically to do it right would actually cost the country a small fortune...

I go with what I see day in, day out. It's not going to pay for the Ritz and BMW's, but its financing more than it ought too. It should cover and no more, heat, very basic eating (see links in post 73) and possibly clothing...

I donate my old clothing actually, people on the benefits shouldn't be buying clothing, but getting charitble donations, using food banks. When the state pays for your life, it should tell you how to live.

 

[Gremlin]

Where I used to live the guy opposite, married 3 kids all primary school age, couldn't work as he had a bad back
Each of the kids had a flat screen tv in there room and a laptop PC. plus one in the kitchen and a huge wall
mounted one in the front room.
He had a room built on the back of the house for his disability scooter that was used as an office
Could be seen doing all sorts of heavy work in the supposed privacy of his back garden
Drove a disability benefit paid for new people carrier type car
Every saturday during the season could be seen running up and down as linesman whilst his
son played football for a local youth team, often seen carrying kids on his shoulders.
Despite many report to the relevant people he seemed to have a charmed existence, always boasting
of have the latest smartphones/gadgets etc

 

[dejongj]

If you can survive of £1/day and the benefit affords trips to the movies and MacDonalds then there are problems.

Do you think the government should support luxuries. Life on benefits should be as Austere as it possibly can be.

I do think it should be increased for the first 18 months to say 70% of your average income over the past four years. Or to something of that ilk. That way it is a proper safety net and avoids a race to the bottom. It would also provide ample time to get another position at a similar level or start something yourself. Just my thought. However there after I agree to the lowest level.

 

[fracster]

I hope that nothing serious happens to certain forth right people posting their opinions on benefits, amongst a myriad of other things, that make them reliant on benefits. Not every single person on benefits is a scrounger, people have accidents, illnesses, redundancy, lose spouses who are bread winners etc etc.

It would make this country a far less pleasant place to be if we could not be bothered to help others who are in genuine need.

 

[dejongj]

I hope that nothing serious happens to certain forth right people posting their opinions on benefits, amongst a myriad of other things, that make them reliant on benefits. Not every single person on benefits is a scrounger, people have accidents, illnesses, redundancy, lose spouses who are bread winners etc etc.

It would make this country a far less pleasant place to be if we could not be bothered to help others who are in genuinely need.

And that is why I think it should be increased for a limit d period of time relative to what you put into the system.

 

[SarahLee]

We're slipping back into discussing the poster rather than the topic of the thread again.
Back on topic please, gentlemen.

 

[Peter69]

@SarahLee I see your point about vouchers. Surly any refund would be based on proof of purchase?

I only see benefits from my side of the story having lived nearly 10years on the due to illness. I paid a mortgage, run a BMW535 and eat well. At one point our household was getting £3500 per month. Don't get me wrong, I'm greatful but isnt this going too far?

 

[Maggie52]

Jesus! there for the grace of God. I suspect this sort of treatment of the poor, sick vulnerable of our population will cost the country a whole lot more.

 

[Moadib]

I don't understand because my GP wants me to loose 4st and this is part of her advice. Ask any dietician

Exactly, and that is primarily the problem. If *I* choose what I eat and I become so overweight that society has to support me in some way then (IMO) the outcome is all my fault - society needs to try and change my behaviour in order to avoid the negative consequences I am creating.

But IMO the opposite is also true - if I follow what society tells me, and I become overweight and impaired, society has responsibility in that outcome. As someone else pointed out earlier in the thread, we need to understand WHY she is becoming more and more overweight. As far as I could see she was arguing that she was eating loads of potatoes and pasta (it sounded like that was her dietician advise). If it's the case it's hardly a surprise when she continues to be overweight when following that same advice. As long as her sate sponsored dietician keeps telling her that, then IMO we have a responsibility for the (negative) outcome that will continue to result.

 

[Moadib]

Sure if in were to hit Google I could find potential health issues but I'm really bothered, it is however widely agreed that meat is a perfectly healthy food as part of what we should all be eating which is a healthy and balanced diet, I'm not going to preach on diet as until just a few months ago I had one of the worst diets going but have taken huge steps to improve my lifestyle

Oh and for the record it's also perfectly possible to be a vegetarian and also over weight

Undoubtedly it's possible.

http://live.smashthefat.com/5000-calorie-vegan-challenge-day-21/

 

[Moadib]

It's not rocket science in that a (simplified) statement is that if your calorific intake exceeds that used in the course of your actibities then this will be converted into fat

Actually that's far from as simple as many think, and very much depends on the KIND of calorie. See my above post - there are three sets of videos where the guy doubled his daily calorie intake for 21 days
1) 21 days eating a high fat whole food diet, nearly 6,000 calories per day
recover back to baseline
2) 21 days eating a standard UK diet (typical "fake food" type of thing, nearly 6,000 calories per day
recover back to baseline
3) 21 days eating a vegan diet, nearly 6,000 calories per day

The differences in outcome after 21 days clearly show that when your caloric intake exceeds your expenditure, the results are VASTLY different depending upon what you are eating. The stuff dieticians are peddling about "calories in, calories out" is nonsense.

 

[wyx087]

I only see benefits from my side of the story having lived nearly 10years on the due to illness. I paid a mortgage, run a BMW535 and eat well. At one point our household was getting £3500 per month. Don't get me wrong, I'm greatful but isnt this going too far?

£3500 pm! That's more than double my household income at the moment: young couple, I'm working, wife on unpaid internship. Just about make ends meet.

Perhaps we should have a few kids, yes, that ought to get benefits in our favour and allow me to get that BMW M2 I always wanted.

 

[boyfalldown]

.

 

[Russ77]

Actually that's far from as simple as many think, and very much depends on the KIND of calorie. See my above post - there are three sets of videos where the guy doubled his daily calorie intake for 21 days
1) 21 days eating a high fat whole food diet, nearly 6,000 calories per day
recover back to baseline
2) 21 days eating a standard UK diet (typical "fake food" type of thing, nearly 6,000 calories per day
recover back to baseline
3) 21 days eating a vegan diet, nearly 6,000 calories per day

The differences in outcome after 21 days clearly show that when your caloric intake exceeds your expenditure, the results are VASTLY different depending upon what you are eating. The stuff dieticians are peddling about "calories in, calories out" is nonsense.

I'm not doubting that for one minute but let's face it, people who become obese to the point that their mobility is impacted aren't likely to be doing options 2 or 3 are they?

Whilst option 2 isn't ideal either, people that east a massive fry up everyday, washed down with sugary tea and bottles of coke, followed up by a chippy lunch and takeaway tea and then copious amounts of sweets and chocolate before bedtime can't really call themselves victims can they.

If you are eating a balanced diet, incorporating all the different food groups in the right proportions, it's the quantity you eat that will make you add/lose weight.

 

[jakeblu]

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for helping people in need.

Yeah sure you are

 

[jakeblu]

I go with what I see day in, day out. It's not going to pay for the Ritz and BMW's, but its financing more than it ought too. It should cover and no more, heat, very basic eating (see links in post 73) and possibly clothing...

I donate my old clothing actually, people on the benefits shouldn't be buying clothing, but getting charitble donations, using food banks. When the state pays for your life, it should tell you how to live.

Aww f*ck it lets just bring back the workhouses, there were certainly no obese people in them

 

[jakeblu]

Actually that's far from as simple as many think, and very much depends on the KIND of calorie. See my above post - there are three sets of videos where the guy doubled his daily calorie intake for 21 days
1) 21 days eating a high fat whole food diet, nearly 6,000 calories per day
recover back to baseline
2) 21 days eating a standard UK diet (typical "fake food" type of thing, nearly 6,000 calories per day
recover back to baseline
3) 21 days eating a vegan diet, nearly 6,000 calories per day

The differences in outcome after 21 days clearly show that when your caloric intake exceeds your expenditure, the results are VASTLY different depending upon what you are eating. The stuff dieticians are peddling about "calories in, calories out" is nonsense.

Not all calories are created equal

 

[Russ77]

Aww f*ck it lets just bring back the workhouses, there were certainly no obese people in them

I don't think anyone's suggesting workhouses but the system does need to be overhauled.

I mean how is it fair that some people are working their plums off 40+ hours a week for £6.50 per hour and still struggle to make ends meet and pay tax which goes to those who have made conscious choices to avoid working (one way or another) and have a nice comfortable lifestyle granted to them for doing nothing more than sitting on their arse all day?

 

[SFTPhotography]

Aww f*ck it lets just bring back the workhouses, there were certainly no obese people in them

As @Russ77 has put it there is no need to.

However, workhouses should exist for prisoners etc. Sitting on their arses in jail. Nope, chain gangs etc is what is needed. The leftists would call it slavery, I would call it punishment for crime.

 

[Russ77]

Whilst not specifically talking about disability allowance, there was talk about long term unemployed being made to work to receive benefits which IMO is a great idea for many reasons.

JSA should only be short term, 2-3 months tops. At the end of that time people still wishing to claim should do work in the community on behalf of the local authority. I'm not necessarily talking about picking up litter but for example someone who has office based skills could help with admin in the council officies, tradesmen could assist with building maintenance.

We're always hearing that councils are short staffed due to cut backs, well here's a solution. I can't imagine being jobless and doing nothing all day, even if I have a couple of weeks off work I can end up going a little stir crazy if I'm not kept busy.

Keep people busy and in the habbit of having a routine and they are easier to employ.

The problem is that there's a particular mindset that needs to change. For example, a friend of mine is from Yorkshire, an old mining village to be precise. His friends are jobless and blamking it on the pit closures that happened before they were even born

 

[jakeblu]

I don't think anyone's suggesting workhouses but the system does need to be overhauled.

Really?

I donate my old clothing actually, people on the benefits shouldn't be buying clothing, but getting charitble donations, using food banks. When the state pays for your life, it should tell you how to live.

I mean how is it fair that some people are working their plums off 40+ hours a week for £6.50 per hour and still struggle to make ends meet and pay tax which goes to those who have made conscious choices to avoid working (one way or another) and have a nice comfortable lifestyle granted to them for doing nothing more than sitting on their arse all day?

Some people abuse the system, it really can't be stopped without imposing extreme draconian measures on every single benefit claimant. What is being suggested here, by some, is to reduce those genuinely in need to nothing much better than a begging bowl. As someone else said previously 'there but for the grace of god'. I really hope you do not find yourself in a position where you have to shop using food vouchers and queue up outside Oxfam to get school shoes for your children.

 

[SFTPhotography]

Really?

Some people abuse the system, it really can't stop it without impsoing extreme draconian measures on every single benefit claimant. What is being suggested here, by some, is to reduce those genuinely in need to nothing much better than a begging bowl. As someone else said previously 'there but for the grace of god'. I really hope you do not find yourself in a position where you have to shop using food vouchers and queue up outside Oxfam to get school shoes for your children.

Benefits are there, or should be there to allow for survival IMHO and nothing more. Anything more than that can make them preferrable to working and that is not right.

 

[Deleted member 49549]

@SarahLee I see your point about vouchers. Surly any refund would be based on proof of purchase?

I only see benefits from my side of the story having lived nearly 10years on the due to illness. I paid a mortgage, run a BMW535 and eat well. At one point our household was getting £3500 per month. Don't get me wrong, I'm greatful but isnt this going too far?

Do you mind if I ask how you received that much per month?

 

[Russ77]

What is being suggested here, by some, is to reduce those genuinely in need to nothing much better than a begging bowl. As someone else said previously 'there but for the grace of god'. I really hope you do not find yourself in a position where you have to shop using food vouchers and queue up outside Oxfam to get school shoes for your children.

I'm certainly not suggesting that for one minute.

Let's not forget, as it stands there are CURRENTLY genuine cases where people are on benefits and facing extreme hardship.

I know of several people personally who have worked most of their lives and when they needed help it simply wasn't there.

I stand by my comments 100%, the system as it stands sucks, those that know how to work it are milking it for all it's worth, there are many who genuinely need it and it is failing them badly.

 

[Russ77]

Benefits are there, or should be there to allow for survival IMHO and nothing more. Anything more than that can make them preferrable to working and that is not right.

Exactly or to put it another way.......

Person A is 60 years old, has worked from the age of 16, earnt over average wage for most of his working life and for the last 30 years been well inside the 40% tax braket. He is made redundant with very little payout, is forced to sell his home and live off the same weekly payout as Person B....

Person B is 25 years old, has never worked and has never actively sought work. He is the father of 5 children and lives in a 5 bedroom house with the mother of his youngest 2 children (paid for by the state). They own 2 iPhones, the full Sky TV package and regularly have nights out on the town.

@jakeblu Tell me how that is a fair system?

 

[jakeblu]

Well seeing as person B represents a very small amount of benefit claimants around 1% of non-working housholds according to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Its difficult if not impossible to stop the abusers of the system but you would punish the other 99% in an attempt to try!

 

[Russ77]

Well seeing as person B represents a very small amount of benefit claimants around 1% of non-working housholds according to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Its difficult if not impossible to stop the abusers of the system but you would punish the other 99% in an attempt to try!

You're making stuff up again Jake, I've never once said or implied that however you have made that inference which is incorrect.

 

[new2me]

Person B is 25 years old, has never worked and has never actively sought work. He is the father of 5 children and lives in a 5 bedroom house with the mother of his youngest 2 children (paid for by the state). They own 2 iPhones, the full Sky TV package and regularly have nights out on the town.

You're making stuff up again Jake,

Is Person B a genuine case?

 

[Russ77]

Is Person B a genuine case?

Nope, they're both ficticious examples.

 

[new2me]

Nope, they're both ficticious examples.

Seriously?

 

[wyx087]

Person A is 60 years old, has worked from the age of 16, earnt over average wage for most of his working life and for the last 30 years been well inside the 40% tax braket. He is made redundant with very little payout, is forced to sell his home and live off the same weekly payout as Person B....

Hang on a minute, this person doesn't have spouse, savings or any form of insurance and pension? by 60 at over 40% tax band, surely he'll have paid off his mortgage long ago.

As a rule, I never spend more than I can afford, I also always have around 2 months of my salary in cash savings for emergencies. I really can't see any reason why a person with such income at 60 don't have ANY savings or disposable assets (cameras in our case) that can be sold to live for 5 years until state pension comes in.

As unfortunate as it is, I find Person A highly irresponsible.

 

[Russ77]

Hang on a minute, this person doesn't have spouse, savings or any form of insurance and pension? by 60 at over 40% tax band, surely he'll have paid off his mortgage long ago.

As a rule, I never spend more than I can afford, I also always have around 2 months of my salary in cash savings for emergencies. I really can't see any reason why a person with such income at 60 don't have ANY savings or disposable assets (cameras in our case) that can be sold to live for 5 years until state pension comes in.

As unfortunate as it is, I find Person A highly irresponsible.

Either you've missed the point or are being pedantic, either way bully for you and your financial arrangements!

 

[Maggie52]

Whilst not specifically talking about disability allowance, there was talk about long term unemployed being made to work to receive benefits which IMO is a great idea for many reasons.

JSA should only be short term, 2-3 months tops. At the end of that time people still wishing to claim should do work in the community on behalf of the local authority. I'm not necessarily talking about picking up litter but for example someone who has office based skills could help with admin in the council officies, tradesmen could assist with building maintenance.

We're always hearing that councils are short staffed due to cut backs, well here's a solution. I can't imagine being jobless and doing nothing all day, even if I have a couple of weeks off work I can end up going a little stir crazy if I'm not kept busy.

Keep people busy and in the habbit of having a routine and they are easier to employ.

The problem is that there's a particular mindset that needs to change. For example, a friend of mine is from Yorkshire, an old mining village to be precise. His friends are jobless and blamking it on the pit closures that happened before they were even born

I would just like to point out that "workfare" is in operation now. (People working for their benefit monies) Whilst I can perhaps understand that to be asked to work on community projects to benefit your community etc would appear to be worthwhile and not a bad idea, this is not however what is happening. People who are unemployed for whatever reason, people who are in receipt of ESA (Employment & Support Allowance) the old sick benefit, meaning their doctor has deemed them unfit for work at this time, are being made to work for large private companies. Tesco, Argos, Asda and various charities. I certainly do not agree with this. If the like of Tesco et Al have vacancies for these people then they ought to be paying them a living wage. There has also been reports of full time staff being made part time in order to accommodate. How can this be right? Claimants who do not agree to this have their benefits stopped.
I'm sorry but I find this unacceptable, why should multi national organisations benefit from free workfare?
Sadly their will always be people who "play the system" there always will be. But genuine honest claiments are being punished for the very minor few. I believe the governments own figures regarding fraudulent claims is something like 0.7%
It sickens me when I hear people advocating draconian measures and taking us back to Victorian times, how can anyone believe that is a humane way to treat people?
Yes, we need welfare reform, yes people who can work should work, but by taking us back as a society to Victorian times is not the way forward.

 

[viv1969]

Yes, we need welfare reform, yes people who can work should work, but by taking us back as a society to Victorian times is not the way forward.

Best thing said so far.

 

[PaulF]

Exactly or to put it another way.......

Person A is 60 years old, has worked from the age of 16, earnt over average wage for most of his working life and for the last 30 years been well inside the 40% tax braket. He is made redundant with very little payout, is forced to sell his home and live off the same weekly payout as Person B....

Person B is 25 years old, has never worked and has never actively sought work. He is the father of 5 children and lives in a 5 bedroom house with the mother of his youngest 2 children (paid for by the state). They own 2 iPhones, the full Sky TV package and regularly have nights out on the town.

@jakeblu Tell me how that is a fair system?

Nope, they're both ficticious examples.

Either you've missed the point or are being pedantic, either way bully for you and your financial arrangements!

As a way to make a point, that has to be one of the worst I've seen in a long while.
Think of something that fits your point, make it up from thin air, then state it as fact until asked, brilliant, just brilliant. Sure fire way to ensure no one takes your views on the given subject seriously.
My first thought when reading 'Person A' was this can't be for real the guy must have a 6 figure bank balance unless he's an idiot and thus thought that 'Person B' would also be a product of fantasy too.

There are some views in this thread that are at both extremes of the discussion, mine would be somewhere in the middle, people who need help (financial/medical etc) should get that help, those that don't need it shouldn't. If you're capable of providing for yourself then that's what you should, or at least be trying to, do.

 

[new2me]

There are some views in this thread that are at both extremes of the discussion ...

Unfortunately, it is usually the extreme views and cases that tend to get in the media ... backed up with exaggerations and lies ... and name calling

 

[big soft moose]

. When the state pays for your life, it should tell you how to live.

I seem to rember the state making a collosal bail out to the banking sector ... and yet I don't recall you being in support of the state being able to determine whether bankers should get bonuses etc

 

[kennethwfd]

to return to the original question, no this person should not continue to receive state aid. She is young enough to make a fresh start, but refuses to follow advice or the offer of surgery

I have no problems with a welfare state supporting those who are unable to do so, but her lifestyle is her choice

Quotre :-When an NHS dietician was sent to her home to help her lose weight, she refused to give up her daily fry-ups, claiming they were a “bonding exercise” with her mum, who is on disability benefits for arthritis.

A string of doctors have begged disabled Jodie to have a gastric band fitted to help her lose weight and get her back on her feet

Need I say more

 

[boyfalldown]

Maybe a tabloid newspaper isn't the best place to get information to make a choice around anyone"s benefit claim

 

[MWHCVT]

Maybe a tabloid newspaper isn't the best place to get information to make a choice around anyone"s benefit claim

Exactly