To think dh is winding me up when he says some people on benefits are getting £500 a week?

[angelos02]

I'm pretty sure he's talking bullocks? Otherwise why the fuck would anyone do a minimum wage job?

practy people with fluctuating health conditions often can work - but mostly not full time, and usually not without needing a lot of flexibility from their employers with regards to time off sick - because they are likely to be off sick more often.

In that situation, employers tend to employ people who will not need that kind of support. Which is understandable, because they have businesses to run.

What we need is to put tax incentives in place for businesses who employ people who have been affected by illness or disabilities - equal access to work just isn't going to happen any other way.

At present the system is entirely geared t be punitive. Apparently some people like that.

Yes, but when you're in a situation like the one we had under Labour where almost every GP was signing off large amounts of people you were only going to trip those alerts if you were, for example, signing off large amounts of fake/stolen identities onto sickness benefits. I actually did quite a bit of project work into auditing that sort of thing during that period and the indicators which tripped investigation were looking for that type of large scale fraud and not for doctors who were just signature happy.

How come GPs CANT be trusted when it comes to deciding who is fit for work and yet CAN be trusted when it comes to being in charge of their surgerys budget!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Touched on this in the same project work. GPs can be trusted to manage their own budgets because it impacts on them. They don't want to put up with a queue of whinging patients who can't get through on the phone because they haven't employed enough receptionists or haven't upgraded their computer systems so it takes a week to get a repeat prescription.

But many GPs perceived writing sick notes as the path of least resistance and the easy option which minimised impact on them. Refusing them and having someone kick off at and threaten your staff bi-weekly or come in and delay your surgery by two hours once a week when refused wasn't worth it and there was very little incentive to do that.

Besides, just looking at the numbers of people who claimed to be apparently too sick to work in this country; if you compare them to the rest of Europe they are so high that you would expect some sort of catastrophic event like Chernobyl in the background to explain the difference. But there isn't one. And there appears to be no plausible reason for the rest of Europe being apparently so much healthier than the UK.

The only possible explanation seems to be that for some reason people in the UK for some reason seemed to want to be declared too sick to work, and found it fairly easy to be found so too. And it's very difficult to see any other reason for that other than our previously too generous system.

Employers who don't pay people when off sick (except SSP after day 3) tend to find people turn up to work. So that's the best way for the state as an employer and private sector employers to go to deal with initial sickness absence to start with.

Actually our health care system, as well as the welfare state is partly responsible for the higher numbers in the UK of people unfit/ unable to work. Because in other countries you wouldn't survive to claim dla. Or be needed as a ft carer, because they just wouldn't survive. Or you'd live in extreme poverty.

Personally I'd rather 99 people had a decent quality of life, despite being unable to work, along with one lazy arse. Rather than have 99 people either dead or suffering and the one lazy arse forced to work.

BillSykes; Labour fiddled the unemployment figures by moving people onto sickness benefits, not by getting people into work BTW.

Liar.

Care to back that up pineapple? I think it's a pretty uncontroversial fact that successive governments did this.

The numbers claiming incapacity benefits increased by 150% between 1979 and 2007.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6247345.stm

I really just fail to understand what the left wants on this. As far as I can see it's generous benefits on demand, no questions asked, which should be expected to provide a standard of living well in excess of that which can be afforded by many, many working people. And that this is coupled with an expectation that nobody would ever exploit that or that it would bring a whole raft of social problems with it.

It's just naivety beyond belief. And it would almost certainly mean that we would end up in such a mess our children's generation wouldn't be able to afford any sort of welfare system at all. Look at what's happened to Greece.

I want disabled and sick people to have their illnesses certified by GO'scand consultants. I also want disabled and sick people to have a decent standard of living. Why does a healthy person deserve a far better standard of living?

Bill Sykes - I agree with your response to 'why can't GPs be trusted when it comes to...etc'. There have been many 'long-term sick' service users I know who are so difficult, covertly threatening (knowing explicit threats can result in specific responses like discharge and even Police involvement), persistent and complaining that I know it's far easier for a GP to sign them off then deal with the fall out which creates hours upon hours of wasted GP time, wasted and unnecessary onward referrals and upset and often traumatised staff and all this costs money. Far more than would be spent by giving them sick notes.

Taking that to the extreme i've known of service users seen by their GP at a different location than the surgery due to personal demands not supported by their clinical needs, transported to routine appts by non- emergency ambulance (!) because they refused to use other transport etc. The most difficult people you could encounter and even though I didn't agree with the accommodations made, I fully understand how it happened. It was far easier than to not be able to answer the 'phone in a busy HC service (preventing others from getting through) because they would 'phone from multiple numbers repeatedly all day every day so you couldn't just not answer their caller ID and they initially seem reasonable so you don't terminate the call and then descend into ranting and demands.

Having to deal with complaints made to solicitors and MPs etc who have to act on behalf of their clients/constituents and they've had exactly the same problem with someone ranting at them, repeatedly phoning or turning up etc so they do what they're asked to get rid of them.

And GPS are human. Sometimes it can be because the service user is lovely but they have problems and yes, they could be working but they're last on your list of people taking the piss out of the system and because you know them so well and sympathise with whatever shit they've been through, you don't want to be the one to potentially destabilise that. I'm a HCP and there are quite a few people I should have discharged a while ago but they benefit from seeing me and I care about them and I know that once I discharge them, they will have no other support. I can't feel bad about that. They're not stopping me seeing other people btw, I slot them in on my admin days.

As I said in my previous post, far too many people were signed off for far too long with inadequate assessment under successive governments so something had to give but now it's swung too far the other way and people who are genuinely unable to work through illness are now automatically treated as trying to play the system until they jump through hoops that are designed to exclude the majority; regardless of actual impairment.

I really just fail to understand what the left wants on this. As far as I can see it's generous benefits on demand, no questions asked, which should be expected to provide a standard of living well in excess of that which can be afforded by many, many working people.

You're not listening

All we want it a hole-free safety net and a decent chance for everyone to earn enough to support themselves if they can work or access to sufficient alternative income if they can't.

That means employers paying their fair share (better wages), housing not becoming a south-sea bubble style runaway profit scheme (suitable market interventions) leaving less of the bill for the state to pick up.

But it also means proper welfare provision.

And that this is coupled with an expectation that nobody would ever exploit that or that it would bring a whole raft of social problems with it.

The thread is chock-full of people saying the opposite; That the feckless few will always be with us and will exploit anything there is to exploit and that the system mustn't throw the vast majority under the bus to punish the few.

Why are you ignoring that?

Because Bullseye likes the feckless poor narrative, likes to blame Labour for everything. Proper post truther.

I have a fluctuating health condition, have a lot of time off sick, only get statutory sick pay and work part time. I do understand the realities of this.

All we want it a hole-free safety net and a decent chance for everyone to earn enough to support themselves if they can work or access to sufficient alternative income if they can't.

But a 'hole-free safety net' as far as I can see seems to be nothing short of benefits on demand no questions asked. And pretty much self certification of sickness. Which doesn't really appear to be workable unless you're willing to accept a huge benefits bill which we can't really afford and is going to leave future generations paying such a huge bill that they won't be able to afford any sort of safety net for their own generation.

That means employers paying their fair share (better wages), housing not becoming a south-sea bubble style runaway profit scheme (suitable market interventions) leaving less of the bill for the state to pick up.

But how do you intend to do that? Particularly when the left seem to want to run this alongside a tandem system of subsidising companies which pay low wages and suppress tax receipts. And also it doesn't chime with the left's other priorities which are supporting unskilled low wage migration which isn't going to do anything to help with wage levels and is also putting so much pressure on the housing market that affordable housing is little more than a pipe dream and only really benefits wealthy landlords?

The thread is chock-full of people saying the opposite; That the feckless few will always be with us and will exploit anything there is to exploit and that the system mustn't throw the vast majority under the bus to punish the few. Why are you ignoring that?

Because I don't think they're few and I don't think they're feckless. In fact I think you would have to be pretty stupid to go out and work long hours in a shitty low paid job when you can easily access a far better standard of living from the state by doing nothing. That's not fecklessness, that's common sense and I don't blame people for doing it.

I like the idea behind the post-war welfare state and used to very much believe in it. But that idea was backed up by a feeling that those who could contribute should and in fact had a moral duty to do so for those who really couldn't for some reason be it long term or a temporary blip. The problem is that there now seems to be a complete disconnect between the moral duty to contribute to if you can and help others and the right to assistance when you need it and only taking it when there is a real need.

Instead it's always assumed that somebody else will be the one to contribute and provide the funds to keep the welfare state rolling. And that want rather than need should always be the primary driver behind whether or not someone can access the welfare state.

Until that connection is remade between people having a duty to contribute as well as a right to take I think the welfare state is pretty fucked as a concept. But I think that's pretty symptomatic of a society where individual desires are prioritised over the needs of the community as a whole anyway. I think it's pretty sad that's what the left has become anyway.

Welfare was there to be used as a last resort, to cover the basics in times of need. That's what we need to return it too. They should never be at rates that pay as much as people who work all week, ever.

At the moments its flawed and wasting money on choices. The majority on tax credits claim them as they don't work, want to work part time or had children they couldn't afford to support but wanted them anyway. Income support and all its accompanying benefots means people can simply have a child and not work whilst we give mothers who do the right thing nine months SMP only. Allowing people to do this was a huge political mistake and has now encouraged a selfish attitude and the belief that the state owes them. They aren't bothered about the state of the system as long as they get their money. It's not a feckless few, there are millions of claimants doing that.

Future generations will suffer though, children now will have a skewed vision as to how real life works. Many won't have seen that you need to work to gain things in life so a work ethic for many simply wont exist.

Less tax payers means less for everything not just benefits. We need more people paying in and not taking out.

It's always blamed on low wages but If a person is only able to do a low wage job they have choices, work hard and gain promotion, study more or learn to live within their means of that salary. Increasing wages for no skill jobs would make a mockery of those jobs that require years of training and those wages would have to rise too and then the cost of living moves with it so nothing changes.

So those that will never be able to work or will never manage more than a minimum wage job will always live in poverty. Everyone does not have choices. Can you tell me what choices my profoundly disabled child has?

Exactly haddock it's a double whammy. I would love to work when my dc are school age. It's unlikely I will be able to , so Dragons wants me to be poor and unable to work.
A job is a luxury many receiving " welfare" would love. Why do you think it's something people don't want?

But a 'hole-free safety net' as far as I can see seems to be nothing short of benefits on demand no questions asked. And pretty much self certification of sickness.

Self certification? Who said that?

Fit and healthy people will almost always prefer to work. What we need to get back to is a situation where people can be fully (if modestly) self-supporting on any FT job's wage.

When people work hard but their hours are variable or their rate is low, they can't escape the indignity and intrusion of having to supply all their bank statements to a housing benefit department or disclose their relationship breakdowns promptly to HMRC, when they have to do all of that even in long-hours manual work anyway, I'm not surprised that people prefer the security of fixed, permanent PT contracts to insecure temporary or zero-hours contracts that might bring longer hours or might not.

And I don't blame them. Humans are hard wired to seek the maximum security available to them.

We are vastly oversupplied with low-wage labour now. It's wrecked the economics of the bottom end of the labour market.

But how do you intend to do that? Particularly when the left seem to want to run this alongside a tandem system of subsidising companies wh

Minimum wage hike NOW.

Either tax BTLs (with warning) or reintroduce rent tribunals or both.

But how do you intend to do that? Particularly when the left seem to want to run this alongside a tandem system of subsidising companies wh

Minimum wage hike NOW.

Either tax BTLs (with warning) or reintroduce rent tribunals or both.

Because I don't think they're few and I don't think they're feckless. In fact I think you would have to be pretty stupid to go out and work long hours in a shitty low paid job when you can easily access a far better standard of living from the state by doing nothing.

So you start by giving people credit for being rational actors.

You increase NMW and you address the oversupply of unskilled labour.

If it really is that easy or desirable to sit on your arse doing nothing how come even shitty NMW jobs now tend to have lots of applicants and unless as an employer your asking for the world at anti social hours or with no regularity to them they go really quickly?

If we really want people in full time work why have we limited the max help anyone can get with childcare for under 3's to 70% of £300 per week for 2+ children?

Around 2.8 million people have been out of work for 2 years or more, which is about 4 % of the population, Three quarters of people who are on benefits for more than two years are sick or disabled. So the people who are not sick or disabled make up about 1.2% of the population so is a few. Also meaning that 2.8% of our society is disabled or long term sick, I think these are very small numbers.

The Joseph Rowntree foundation found no examples of families where no one hard worked in three generations, and under 1% of workless households,not 1% of the poplation, had a situation where no one had worked in two generations. Small numbers.

Between 2008 and 2013, 980,000 people were declared fit to work or fit to work in the future, now this does sound like a lot, but when you consider that about a third of these verdicts were changed upon appeal, and a third were declared "fit to work at some point in the future" you come out with a figure of about 320,000 people who were able to work under the new tests, which works out at 64,000 people a year. Considering how many people have had to undergo testing, repeatedly, this is a very low return.

Problems further arise because as we know, the tests made simple value judgements on complex situations, the programme designed to help people back into work failed to address the complex needs of individuals and was largely ineffective at returning them to work ( which didn't mean they got their benefits back btw).

Even after all of this, the number of people claiming long term sickness and disability remains largely unchanged at around the 2 million figure. Where it has been ( and you're going to love this Bill) since 1998. This followed the massive increase in the number of people claiming long term disability and sickness under the Conservative administrations of the 1980's and 1990s. In 1981 574,000 people were in this category, which rose steadily throughout the Tory reign to 1,932,000 in 1998.

Which utterly disproves your "Labour fiddled the unemployment statistics" rhetoric, God, don't you just love facts.

Your posts are riddled with appeals to various sources, for example you appeal to emotion and thrift, we can't afford or think of the children, when in fact the benefits bill for those long term out of work is a very small part of public spending. It also plays on the "Nations finances are like that of a household" myth, which the right wing like to promote, but is overly simplistic and untrue.

Furthermore your posts repeatedly appeal to emotion when you make the claims about people choosing a lifestyle and expecting others to pay for it. Strange then that if you are working you need to be earning significantly more than the average salary to be considered a net tax contributor, but it plays on emotions of fear and jealousy that someone somewhere is getting something for nothing.

Your final bit about "the left" has not only been proved to be spurious, but it is indicative of the way the right present themselves at the moment, like they care for the community or have what is best at heart. All the time ripping at the fabric of our society for the benefit of the individuals at the top, not for the good of all. Wrap it up in cotton candy all you like, but its still the same outcome.

I presume the 2.8 million unemployedis those on JSA, not millioms of people on income support or tax credits. There's no way its all the claimants.

The Rowntree study is very flawed, it says never worked. So anybody who did as a student, or worked for the couple of years before kids etc didn't qualify. So it has no bearing on the long term out of work situation or those using tax credits to fund them whilst they do just a few hours.

£300 a week help towards childcare is very generous and most don't qualify so have to self fund their own childrens costs as they should. Moaning not all of their childs costs are picked up by the state shows how many people no longer believe its a parents job to support their child financially.

It's an employers market, NMW jobs suit students, those wanting a second income or second role etc so will always have applicants. Many are usually part time so those wanting to work less whilst netting more in benefits and avoiding the cap will apply too.

It's not £300 a week towards childcare though Dragons it's up to £210 a week. Maths not your strong point?

My SIL has never worked since having her first DC 18 years ago. Her mum did the same. She does not want to work and is open that she would be no better off working. Her DP works, but not many hours. They are behaving rationally.
Their DCs get access to free music lessons, musical instruments, school trips and much more.