[Closed] bbc1 now. benefit cap.

Whilst I agree TV programs like this aren't representative of the norm there is a lot fundamentally broken with our benefits system.
Personally I think most benefits should be in the form of food and electric/gas 'stamps', sure there might be a bit of stigma attached but sorry that's one of the downsides of the state supporting you. People on benefits smoking/drinking is a joke, they aren't basic requirements and consumption can actually cause even more of a burden on the state.
It's also still far too easy to get out of working even if you're able to do so (I know quite a few people doing it). It used to be claiming a bad back etc. but whilst that was tightened up on the 'new' thing is claiming mental health issues. This not only means people signed off long-term (without needing to be showing an effort to find work or attend regular job centre meetings) but also provides additional benefits and takes scarce resources away from those with genuine mental health issues.
I'm glad I live in a country with the safety net of a benefits system, even though I've been employed since 22 but it should be just that, a safety net for those in desperate need, not an alternative way of living as you don't want to do a certain type of job (or it's not worth doing as the pay isn't more than you receive on benefits).

http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/uk-population/
Absolutely staggering figures if correct, the world population has pretty much doubled in my lifetime from ~3.8 billion in the early 1970s to ~7.6 billion today.
The UK population has increased from ~55 million to over 65 million over the same timescale, ~18% increase with more of us living in urban areas, while the median age has risen from ~34 to ~40 (no doubt due to net migration).
The UK is doomed round about the time when many of us on these forums will be retiring, around 2040. By ~2060, once we are pushing up the daisies, things might improve again (depending upon population size and net migration levels).

This is a fascinating look at population growth [url= https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_on_global_population_growth#t-408156 ]Hans Rosling TED talk[/url]

I'm not reading this thread, can't be bothered.

I just wanted to point out that Hinterland was on BBC Wales at the same time and you lot were watching the wrong channel.

What Scotroutes said.

It's the TV equivalent of internet trolling. The BBC probably has a quota of this kind of crap to make or it loses the licence fee.

Technicalinept, Google urban area over unpopulated area of UK landmass. We ain't overcrowded by a long Chalk. Another myth to feed the weak minded

Oh yes we ****ing are.

Another oversimplified argument to make the hand wringing, guardian reading socialist elite make themselves feel "oh so superior".

Brilliant rebuttal

Did you Google what i asked, or did you, as i kinda suspect, just make that up...
Hmmmm see last 7 words of my quote.

As a population, the UK average lifespan has increased since 1970 to 2010, moreso for men than women (from ~69/75 to ~79/83).
http://visual.ons.gov.uk/how-has-life-expectancy-changed-over-time/

But net migration has had a significant effect on the UK population size growth since ~1990.
http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/the-impact-of-migration-on-uk-population-growth/

The percentage of births to non-UK originating women has increased over that timeframe, being 27% in 2014, according to that earlier link.
http://visual.ons.gov.uk/birthsanddeaths/

The meridian age will have increased partially due to people living longer on average, net migration appears to be the most significant factor, as to why the UK population is growing.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/articles/overviewoftheukpopulation/mar2017

How many of yous live or work in around council estates?

Mrs B does, as a SENCO - with the unofficial devolution of social work to schools and other agencies she sees this day in day out.

50/50 on deserving hard times cases vs. families that have deliberately engineered overcrowding to bump one of them up a social housing list.Proudly telling her that. Or making no efforts even with multiple agency involvement to address their childrens problems, as classing them as a disability affords better benefits payments.

But on balance, life on benefits isn't one I'd choose, and the overriding feeling is one of pity for the ones really trying and just not getting the additional help that could really make a difference.

rmacattack - Member
Stop trying to polish it up, the amount of low life scum is real, and they are taking a fair whack of money...

That's the thing though, rmac-

the amount

a fair whack

10? 20? 1000? 10000?

In other words, where are the validated numbers that [i]show[/i] us that we actually have a problem?

I've never seen any, for all that there have been dozens of these programs by now. Have you got some?

Whilst I agree TV programs like this aren't representative of the norm there is a lot fundamentally broken with our benefits system.
Personally I think most benefits should be in the form of food and electric/gas 'stamps', sure there might be a bit of stigma attached but sorry that's one of the downsides of the state supporting you. People on benefits smoking/drinking is a joke, they aren't basic requirements and consumption can actually cause even more of a burden on the state.
It's also still far too easy to get out of working even if you're able to do so (I know quite a few people doing it). It used to be claiming a bad back etc. but whilst that was tightened up on the 'new' thing is claiming mental health issues. This not only means people signed off long-term (without needing to be showing an effort to find work or attend regular job centre meetings) but also provides additional benefits and takes scarce resources away from those with genuine mental health issues.
I'm glad I live in a country with the safety net of a benefits system, even though I've been employed since 22 but it should be just that, a safety net for those in desperate need, not an alternative way of living as you don't want to do a certain type of job (or it's not worth doing as the pay isn't more than you receive on benefits).

FuzzyWuzzy hits the nail squarely on the head.

families that have deliberately engineered overcrowding to bump one of them up a social housing list.Proudly telling her that. Or making no efforts even with multiple agency involvement to address their childrens problems, as classing them as a disability affords better benefits payments.

But isnt this the smart think to do in a situation where there a very little other opportunities for advancement, seeing as the other 50% are struggling to get by and are at real risk of going under?
A survival mechanism, and vocally "owning" it?

Yep Thatcher would have been proud of such entrepreneurial spirit.

Mrs CD is a social worker and her experience appears to be similar to Mrs B above. We watched it and didn't take the same out of it as most have on here - yes there was some benefits Britain look they still drink and smoke - but the program trying to show whether the cap works and is fair. Like many policies it is poorly implemented and introduces more unfairness than it eliminates. All for saving a tiny fraction of the welfare bill.

As Scotroutes says it's diversionary tactics, some people in society will always abuse the system but for the media and their governments dogs would rather us focus on those doing it at the bottom rather than those taking significantly more at the top.

We should be focusing on how to improve economic opportunities for people on benefits.

In other words policies to bring more jobs to the areas that need them.

Who gives a damn?

At worst, this miniscule percentage of the population are gonna cost you personally a couple of pence a year..
If you're that bothered about your financial loss then purchase 1 tin of value beans per year instead of heinz to recoup the difference..

These unfortunate people who haven't made the choices that you would have made are doing you no harm whatsoever..
Which of you is uglier?
Them for accepting their deprivation or you for getting your knickers in a twist about it?

Live and let live

I know that Ton is trolling cos he's not [i]really[/i] enough of a sadsack to let this sort of thing ruin his day 🙂

You only get one life... enjoy it while you can

I don't understand why these people have 7 kids. I've only got one kid and it's easier to go to work than look after her TBH.

I know that Ton is trolling cos he's not really enough of a sadsack to let this sort of thing ruin his day

I resemble that remark. I tell you, I couldnt sleep after, got my gander right up it did.

Yep Thatcher would have been proud of such entrepreneurial spirit.

muggo - I do when both said women specifically got pregnant to get a house and so that they had enough money coming in to not have to work.

I normally wouldn't jump to conclusions but when it's your own family who openly say that they'll get pregnant rather than go to work and there 16 year old daughter gets pregnant on a one-night-stand (one of a few attempts) deliberately to get a house it kind of tarnishes your view of them slightly.

I don't begrudge people receiving benefits who genuinely need them but to use them as a lifestyle choice is wrong.

But again, what alternative for them is there?
Take away thier benefits and Singletrack becomes one long "my sheds been robbed again" thread
The benefits safety net works both ways

I don't begrudge people receiving benefits who genuinely need them but to use them as a lifestyle choice is wrong.

Its a pretty shitty lifestyle choice, there must be something very wrong in their lives to start with if they see it as an acceptable option.

We are entering a period of increased automation that means we have to find a new way of sharing the success. We can't just have a growing underclass living shitty lives excluded from normality. We need to start giving people hope, being inclusive, and allowing everyone worthwhile lives.

But what would you do if faced with that predicament?

I was agreeing with you.

It used to be claiming a bad back etc. but whilst that was tightened up on the 'new' thing is claiming mental health issues

The thing is, I think there is a pretty strong chance that anyone suffering long term unemployment will suffer a mental breakdown. I once spent 6 months unemployed, and it is quite obvious looking back that I spent a good chunk of that time suffering from depression.

Someone needs to build an online calculator that would let you put in your salary, number of kids, council tax discounts you get, etc etc and then tell you if you were a net taker or giver to the tax man.

We could use it to validate how high each posters horse should be in this kind of thread 😉

At worst, this miniscule percentage of the population are gonna cost you personally a couple of pence a year..

Can you show your workings please?

How much do you [i]imagine [/i] these people cost you my hebetudinous associate?

My son is on benefits. He is 23 and been looking for work ever since leaving university.
Can someone tell me what he needs to do to get what some here would consider a crazy amount of money for nothing as he seems to be missing it?

£375 Rent paid (1 room in house shared with 4).
£200 job seekers allowance from which he has to pay £100 in bills.

He is left with £100 to live each month. Is that the sort of luxury you are talking about? Or is than not the sort of example you want to acknowledge while you get back to your Daily Mail?

The thing is, I think there is a pretty strong chance that anyone suffering long term unemployment will suffer a mental breakdown. I once spent 6 months unemployed, and it is quite obvious looking back that I spent a good chunk of that time suffering from depression.

Two things strike me on this one:

1. The willingness of some to condemn those at the bottom for gaming the system to get the maximum out of it while not really applying the same condemnation to all those self employed entrepreneurs who are 'tax-efficient'. I know which category I'd bet takes the most from the system.

2. The disingenuous way the whole thing is reported in the first place. Most of these people aren't 'getting' £30,000 (or whatever sum it happens to be), it mostly goes to their private landlord who in turn is probably renting them an ex-council house which was bought for a massively discounted rate. Those landlords are the real scroungers but it's the ****ing Tory party which have enabled such a ridiculous situation to arise in the first place. And what's their solution? Extend right to buy to housing associations. Anyone would think they had an agenda.

Londons biggest private landlord of ex council owned properties is >> Taaadaaaa!
The Son of Thatchers housing minister. Troo story, bro

Can you show your workings please?

It's not a couple of pence, but it is f*** all.

2.4 billion on unemployment benefits ( https://fullfact.org/economy/welfare-budget/)
772 billion total budget 2016 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_Kingdom_budget)

Therefore

0.3% of budget is on unemployment benefits.

Total tax payers in UK - 30m ( https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/number-of-individual-income-taxpayers-by-marginal-rate-gender-and-age)

Total tax take from income tax- £182bn
Total income from NI - £138bn
( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_Kingdom_budget)

Total tax taken from peoples 'pay cheques' = £320bn

Mean tax per tax payer - £10,667 (in reality this is a very skewed distribution with higher rate tax payers providing the lions share)

0.3% of the mean tax - £32 per year

The rate of fraud is very low, but even if it was 10% (which is an order of magnitude higher than it is) then you're talking about £3.20. Or the cost of a large coffee and a bun.

The above is probably simplistic and riddled with errors as will now be pointed out to me, but i suspect the order of magnitude is correct.

Fraud was measured at 0.7% if i recall
I suspect gaming the system would be harder to quantify

Either way, im not arsed by it...

Fraud was measured at 0.7% if i recall

Indeed, so even if they are out by a factor of 15 it's still only a cup of coffe and a bun.

If it's 0.7% then it's 22 pence.

This is irrelevant though! The programme is about people who've [b]chosen[/b] to use the benefits system as their living, rather than working. It's not fraud, they're doing it legally. But there is only a finite pot of money, so it must surely be negatively affecting others who need benefits through no fault of their own, even if it doesn't affect us on here with our luxurious mountain biking lifestyles?

If people didn't have 7 kids they can't afford then they'd be more money in the pot to pay to people struggling to find work, like poor old @kerley's lad mentioned above.

It's not fraud, they're doing it legally. But there is only a finite pot of money, so it must surely be negatively affecting others

In the same way as all the people who manage to pay less tax than they should, but probably a lot less so.

Just don't get as many TV programs or media coverage about it though and not hard to work out why.

zilog6128 - Member

This is irrelevant though! The programme is about people who've chosen to use the benefits system as their living, rather than working..."

Actually, no it wasn't. Most on there hadn't chosen it as way of life. And this zero sum argument is completely wrong too. The program pointed out enough times that applying an arbitrary cap to benefits and forcing people onto the street costs more in the long run in other payments and interventions, and the government has admitted as much.

What's the point in caring tho? Even if 100% were taking the p1ss (which they won't be) then you're talking 32 quid a year on average. And most people pay less than the (mean) average tax.

Yes but why is kerley's lad not living back home instead of spending £375 a month on rented accommodation? Clearly I don't know the specifics of his case but none of our kids would expect the state to pay for their keep if they were in that situation

Ewan - are you talking about tax take or benefits?

The point I was making above is that the levels of tax avoidance - legal or otherwise - far exceeds the amount claimed in benefits by 'scoungers' and probably exceeds the benefits bill in its entirety. So, why not focus efforts where there is more to be gained?

The answer can only be ideology - divide and rule.

Who knows? Perhaps his parents don't have a spare room for him, or he's moved to a city with more chance of getting a job.

Doesn't seem unreasonable that someone actively looking for a job is claiming benefits, so this is fine by me.

ffs I started this for a bit of fun.........wishing I had put itv on now..... 😆

Yes but why is kerley's lad not living back home instead of spending £375 a month on rented accommodation? Clearly I don't know the specifics of his case but none of our kids would expect the state to pay for their keep if they were in that situation

You have missed the point. It was a real world example of what a person can get. Do you think £100 a month to live on is a luxurious life that many assume all people on benefits are living?

Ewan - are you talking about tax take or benefits?

The point I was making above is that the levels of tax avoidance - legal or otherwise - far exceeds the amount claimed in benefits by 'scoungers' and probably exceeds the benefits bill in its entirety. So, why not focus efforts where there is more to be gained?

I was talking about whether it's worth worrying that a very small percentage of people might be working the system to get more benefits than they are 'entitled' to. Agreed that illegal tax avoidance is a bigger issue and that this TV show is just lazy TV trying to cause an 'outrage' about a trivial issue.

Dickyboy - Member

Yes but why is kerley's lad not living back home instead of spending £375 a month on rented accommodation?

Perhaps because there's no jobs or prospects where he's from? I grew up in Cumbria and would have struggled to find decent work if I hadn;t moved south. On the one hand you say live with your parents - well that equates to unemployment and on the other hand you say get a job - for which you have to move away.

The real story in kerleys post is the fact that someone is raking £1500 a month in from the state in rent, presuming everyone in the shared house is on benefits. That is scandalous.

You only have to see my earlier post to see that i don't disagree with you about housing and how miserable it is to be on benefits.

Yes but why is kerley's lad not living back home instead of spending £375 a month on rented accommodation?

Maybe because he is a 23 year old grown man, not a little child.

To be fair it sounds like here are no jobs where he is now, at least none he can do/get. But I agree that most benefits end up in the pockets of private landlords, indeed we had a DSS tenant once or twice while living abroad (and a right ballache they were, trashing the place and running up arrears that the insurance covered).

When did Social Security become "Benefits".

Who controls the language controls the discussion...

Sam, don't make me get involved 🙂

You've changed your number btw, or are ignoring me - bastard.

PSA poverty porn on C4 now, get your poverty porn now on C4

Hatred and Pity for all!

Its a pretty shitty lifestyle choice, there must be something very wrong in their lives to start with if they see it as an acceptable option.

They grew up surrounded by people living like this (Ringland in Newport in the late 90's, before it got better) so they have become accustomed to no-one working, living in a tip etc. Despite moving to a much, much better area and having the opportunity to go to college they have, as a family, chosen to stay on the same path. The culture is really, really ingrained in them.

We need to start giving people hope, being inclusive, and allowing everyone worthwhile lives

Very much this. Whilst those in charge of the machines get richer it will be those that are replaced that suffer. This is something that will effect both "1St" and "3rd“ world countries.

And whilst Hans Rosling sounds incredibly up lifting, his predictions don't bode well for those of us (or our offspring) accustomed to a western lifestyle.
The world may well be able to hold another 30% more people, but in what conditions and to what detriment to the planet?

Save the planet? Kill yourself.