Re: Benefit changes

Atlas Thu Oct 18, 2012 1:04 am

History should tell you all you need to know on the subject.

Take any 'Empire' after its decline and read the narrative carefully. Britain will not be an exception to the rule any more than will the USA in another 50 - 100 years. Its called evolution. Things will settle down (as much as anything in this world can 'settle down') and find its role amongst all the rest who have been there and done that. We shall certainly have to settle for 'less' as the world population expands and takes that which it demands. We need to nuture friends and play the game whilst at the same time having an eye out for the jackpots (which do come along every now and then) and concentrate on that which 'others' want and sell it to them. For that we shall need a fair, healthy, energetic, intelligent, workforce and the wit to say 'NO' or 'YES' when its required. If you think things are bad now - you haven't lived long enough. In very many ways we have never had it so good. So do as the good book says - Praise the Lord and keep passing the ammunition and keep an eye out for the 'hinch's' of this world - Rolling Eyes

Irishman Thu Oct 18, 2012 9:58 am

Atlas wrote:The 'State' has a duty of support for all its people, children being part of that. The healthier and more educated (and I mean that in terms of literacy and reasonings) the better the future - all other things being equal.
Britain and the British (and I mean all who choose to live and work here) would do better to remember the old adage a divided house is never a home or better still united we stand divided we fall. Only a fool would think nationalism a good thing. We have seen,and still do see, how nationalism divides communities and leads to terror and bloodshed when taken to its extremes (and please don't tell me that rarely happens, history says otherwise). I have no truck with minorities who think they can get better deals elsewhere whilst using the cover of stronger neighbours to protect and nuture them - if the cap fits wear it to those who are reading between the lines - . As an island nation we have done well for ourselves considering our size and population. If it isn't broken why try to mend it - or manipulate it?

Alas the State wouldn’t be the State without a steady stream of children and that was the thought when they introduced family allowance (Child benefits) it was thought it would encourage people to have children to do the work needed to earn the money to pay out pensions for the few. These days from the last 20/30 years people are not having children or indeed limiting them to one or two, there is a natural effect of not having children in a bad economy but now we have a more important problem of pensioners out numbering the young with an economy based on the service industry rather than manufacturing industry.

No need for plebs now, Conservatives are businessmen and they will run the country as a business, what do you do if a business gets in trouble, you cut away the dead legs and help the healthy sections improve. Help the rich get richer and the poor plebs can fend for them selves.

cyfrifia Thu Oct 18, 2012 11:37 am

Imbalance between young and old is because people live longer. Hopefully that's the way of the future and economies need to adjust to it. There are plenty of people about, far too many some might say. If the 'state' needs more workers, it just imports them.

'State' and 'nation' mean different things to different people, best summed up as 'The state of the nation'.

UP THE DALE Thu Oct 18, 2012 1:26 pm

Like I have said previously, we need more children, as they will become the tax payers of tomorrow, otherwise we will have more and more poor pensioners etc who will need state or even charity help. And to answer previous pompous statements made, children from poorer backgrounds are just as likely to become good tax paying citizens as from the middle or upper classes, perhaps even more, especially IF given the right support, including financial when they are young. After all it is not the poor or working classes that caused the problems we see now in this country, it was the bankers and other finance people.

cyfrifia Thu Oct 18, 2012 2:18 pm

Why do we need children to be born here, when we can save all that expense and bother by importing ready grown up immigrants to do the jobs as necessary?

Atlas Fri Oct 19, 2012 1:31 am

Which would remove the necessity of primary and secondary schools, kids playgrounds, teachers - yes I'll drink to that, and a couple of million jobs that go with it. - What is needed is balance - but nature, when interfered with, doesn't work that way. And therefore as we already interfere with the 'balance' it will take government to 'plan' for a structured future. God help us all. Sad

Irishman Fri Oct 19, 2012 7:15 am

cyfrifia wrote:Why do we need children to be born here, when we can save all that expense and bother by importing ready grown up immigrants to do the jobs as necessary?

Now that would be a radical change to Britain as we know it, the Englishman would indeed disappear in time.. Shocked

Charly Fri Oct 19, 2012 7:47 am

They have already disappeared from most forms you have to fill in Irish Sad

cyfrifia Fri Oct 19, 2012 12:19 pm

Irishman wrote:
cyfrifia wrote:Why do we need children to be born here, when we can save all that expense and bother by importing ready grown up immigrants to do the jobs as necessary?

Now that would be a radical change to Britain as we know it, the Englishman would indeed disappear in time..

Britain is changing fairly radically, well, things do happen more quickly these days. In the past, England has had wave after wave of different cultures invading, largely displacing, sometimes ruling over and to an extent absorbing the previous lot, Celts, Picts, Romans, Vikings, Saxons, Normans and more recently from the remains of empire. Also lots of people leaving, as happened when Britain was expanding into Empire, Australia, Canada, Africa etc. With air travel now, people from further away arrive. It's the same process, the population of England is always 'churning' and changing, sometimes faster, sometimes slower.

It's an uncomfortable process for whoever is being invaded at the time, but it does have it's advantages in terms of a complex culture. Perhaps being English is understanding that is the nature of England and making the best of it. Maybe being English is more a tolerant and pragmatic attitude than anything else?

Maybe the English identity will emerge as more definite as Scotland and Wales become more separate. The main unresolved snag with this sort of setup always seems to be about religion, it used to be between different types of Christianity, it's more complicated now, but perhaps no more problematic.

Sorry, I've drifted off benefits, the conversation just seemed to go that way. Can anyone bring it back on track?

Atlas Sat Oct 20, 2012 1:12 am

Back on track? What would be the point? Whatever transpires this next two years will be at the behest of the government we have in power who seem hell-bent on cutting wherever and whenever they can. I repeat what I said earlier. ALL benefits to my mind 'should' be at a point of 'need'. I disagree with 'universal' in any shape or form. Welfare was never meant to be 'universal' as a 'right' but was brought in after the war to service that sector of people who 'needed' a helping hand to live whilst sorting out their difficulties to 'compete' on a level with everyone else or for those whose medical or physical problems were such that the 'State' (all of us) required we provide a reasonable standard of living. I know the argument is that to 'means test' all benefits would be too expensive. My argument is that at least you would know that the benefits were going (in the main) to those who REALLY needed them. You can't have it both ways. Which do you want - the former or the latter??? If you are not prepared to spend that which is required to do the job then don't moan that the system is providing for the 'fraudster' and the 'lay-about' or pouring money into the pockets of those that don't 'need' it Wink

cyfrifia Sat Oct 20, 2012 11:23 am

The benefits system is a hotch-potch that has developed over the years as we go from one sort of government to another. It's a pity the last Labor government didn't knock it into shape properly. A lot of things suffer from this constant back and forth between capitalist and socialist ideas.

Irishman Sat Oct 20, 2012 11:49 am

3 million unemployed up and down the country, 300 thousand jobs at this point in time available much of those jobs high tech. Why do we continually bang on the state of the Benefits system, millions of Benefit money goes unclaimed each year we have a small percentage of fraud much of which they catch in the end.

If they shut down ever benefit in the system it would not make a blind bit of difference to the economy other than to cripple it with millions and millions having no jobs and every man for themselves, what a world that would be, getting your throat cut for a slice of bread.

Cameron can kick the poor for as long as he likes but it still won’t help the economy in this country but it might just help fill up his jails.

cyfrifia Mon Oct 22, 2012 9:39 am

Universal Credit will eventually replace housing benefits, jobseeker's allowance, tax credits, income support, employment and support allowance - formerly known as incapacity benefit - with a single payment.

The system will be "piloted" in parts of north-east England next April and will come into force across Britain for new claimants from October 2013 while existing claimants will be transferred to the new system in stages until 2017.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20023113

How is this going to work out for people, will it be better, worse, or chaos?

Charly Wed Jan 30, 2013 12:49 am

The changes in child benefit have now taken place and those earning above the set amount have lost their benefit completely...now I know why there had to be changes for people in the UK.
We've had to share it out a bit further Rolling Eyes

http://news.uk.msn.com/uk/children-living-abroad-get-benefits-2

On the other hand if you are a disabled UK resident....

DLA can be paid for the first 26 weeks of a temporary absence abroad. If you are away for more than 26 weeks, you may have difficulty re-qualifying when you return because you usually need to be present in Great Britain for 26 of the last 52 weeks to get DLA

and thats not all...

Income Support – example
Sarah is taking the kids on holiday to France for six weeks this summer to stay with her sister. Because she is on Income Support and staying abroad for more than four weeks this will affect her claim and she must tell her local benefits office before she goes.

Jobseeker’s Allowance – example
Martin is on Jobseeker’s Allowance and decides to go off on holiday with this mates to Ibiza. If he doesn't tell us he's going, he's committing benefit fraud. If you are on Jobseeker’s Allowance, you need to let us know straight away that you are going abroad for any amount of time – even if it’s for a holiday – as this may affect your claim.

Pension Credit – example
It’s October and Elsie and Reg are off to Benidorm for six months to spend winter in the sun. Because they receive Pension Credit and are away for more than 13 weeks this will affect their claim and they need to let us know they are going.

Dalelad Wed Jan 30, 2013 9:51 am

Would that be children of Poles earning money and paying taxes in this country?

I can't see a problem with telling the benefits people you are out of the country for the situations described above

cyfrifia Wed Jan 30, 2013 10:46 am

It would ease administration costs if those claiming pension credit were tattooed with a bar code on the forehead which could be scanned at passport control.

johnb Wed Jan 30, 2013 1:02 pm

you are on Jobseekers Allowance and out of the country (i.e. not signing on) you are not available to work therefore benefit should not be paid.

Simples!!

cyfrifia Wed Jan 30, 2013 1:47 pm

It certainly is not acceptable to have benefit claimants wandering around Europe as if it was some sort of free movement of people zone.
This post may contain nuts

Charly Wed Jan 30, 2013 2:40 pm

Dalelad wrote:Would that be children of Poles earning money and paying taxes in this country?

I can't see a problem with telling the benefits people you are out of the country for the situations described above

It was the differences I was pointing out DL, one law for one and one law for another.
Some of the people benefits are being paid for have never set foot in this country... yet UK disabled/pensioners and jobless people have a different set of rules to abide by.

Dalelad Wed Jan 30, 2013 8:24 pm

You could cherry pick any number of laws or benefits to back up any number of arguments. The situations are not related apart from involving benefits.

Charly Wed Jan 30, 2013 10:25 pm

But its benefits we are discussing...isnt it?
So what I am saying is some people cannot leave the country without losing some or all of their benefit , yet others need never set foot in the country and their payments are secure...how is that not one rule for one and another for someone else?

johnb Thu Jan 31, 2013 12:52 pm

Different benefits...

Charly Thu Jan 31, 2013 2:33 pm

and what when the 'Universal Benefit' comes into force in April, I wonder what will change?

teamplayer2 Thu Jan 31, 2013 4:44 pm

If they catch the dishonest and the scroungers of the country is one thing, but not always the case.

They may change the rules but never solve the problems, but there again some of our leaders in the country seem to have a problem solving tax and expenses claims they make. Though that does not matter just keep bashing the hard working and the unfortunates of this green and pleasant land run by the coalition. Mad

Sponsored content