Truly shocked by Tory bank trials for benefit claimants.

I hate this culture where people feel clever to have defrauded the taxpayer. It should be regarded as shameful. But equally, the benefits system is complex and genuine mistakes are bound to happen.

We need to prevent these financial losses wherever they occur, whether it’s tax evasion by the better off to benefit fraud. We also need to close corporate tax loopholes. This will take a lot of taxpayer funded manpower however, so I’d like to see the tax code vastly simplified and a universal basic income applied.

Just been reading about the fact that there are over 6 million households in such serious poverty they are regularly skipping meals. It's really offensive to me the government is wanting to cut back even more, instead of looking for ways to improve the lives of British citizens.

They release these kind of press releases to distract from the real scandal - the huge increase in poverty since the start of austerity in 2010.

You only have to look at this site to see how much punching down goes on.

Well said

No of course not.

But means testing PIP and DLA would make the system even more cumbersome than it is already. As a pp said, a lot goes unclaimed already because people can't face the rigmarole of claiming. We shouldn't add to that.

If that means a few mega rich people get to claim too, so be it.

yes, the cap doffers who prostrate themselves before the wealthy & powerful just cant help themselves

and the fact the wealthy people have means which are orders of magnitude over and above those of non-wealthy people counts for nothing??

People intentionally defrauding the system, tend to be aware of the rules.I doubt they’d leave that amount in their bank account for benefits people to find.
I can’t believe there are people that still allow themselves to be manipulated into feeling anger at the most vulnerable in society and sit passively while allowing the fraudsters in charge to systematically destroy this countries health and education system.

Don't know why they can't apply this effort to the non payers of CMS.

I notice the people screaming for the govt to treat any benefit claimant this way never call for the govt to push to find the people underclaiming and pay out the estimated £23 BILLION the govt says goes unclaimed.

It's nothing to do with fairness, all this faux outrage about pensioners having £50 too much in their savings or some single parent losing their mother and getting £17k who are included in the figures quoted is all to do with spite.

Most people never see £50k in their lives as a lump sum they could theoretically spend, unless it's as part of the value of their house between house sales.

I think on balance it was right.

His little boy Ivan was disabled and him receiving DLA is a way of wider society acknowledging disabled people have issues to face over and above those that non-disabled people deal with. A decent society has a safety net for everyone who might need it.

Also it is more cost effective to not means test some types of benefit.

I am no fan of Cameron's but he will have paid a fair chunk in tax over his time.

It is right that disabled children are eligible for support.

Eligible yes but I think it was wrong.

It was right.

His child was eligible.

Wrong.

More than just the balance. Some types of capital are disregarded. For example if you're between homes and have the sales proceeds from sale of home A earmarked for home B that can be disregarded. So can insurance payouts for loss of a home.

A full list of the disregards is on Schedule 10 of the UC Regs 2013.

David Cameron was in receipt of benefits for his little boy and he's a millionaire. Was that wrong or right?

Yes, if entitled to it.

You post a lot but clearly don't understand the eligibility rules or the reasons for them. Those in receipt of UC, PC or ESA in 2024 may have paid considerable tax themselves over their lifetime.

Depends on the balance doesn’t it? Should somebody with 50,000 sat in the bank live off money paid in tax by people who have far less or no savings?

But we already know the % fraud level, this might make it earlier but doesn't change anything.

You accept that some people could have £50k in the bank and it not be fraud - a balance does not automatically mean any fraud has been committed?

NotSentFromIphone good post, thank you.

I used to work for DWP processing a means tested benefit. I don't think many claims are fraudulent initially but further down the line, especially with capital increases/inheritance etc, claimants decide not to let on 'as they'll never know' and they want to keep their nest egg to help grandchildren etc. In those days, it was picked up via tax paid on interest by HMRC but was generally 2 financial years later and they ended up owing 10's of thousand which hit the prosecution level.

Hopefully this new more modern way of data matching in near real time will nip fraud in the bud. Not all fraudsters are 'bad' people, just normal people who let things go on to long and they end up in a pickle once they reach the prosecution value, end up in court and get publicly shamed in local media.

The savings limits are stupidly low. They have been the same for almost 40 years. £6000 and £12000 in 1988 was a fair whack of money.

Me too. I'll bet it's a DWP press release though.