Grendel
Well-Known Member
So there are no other benefits? Housing costs, energy etc?
This was in 2016, so I can accept a lot of changes to the system have happened since then. I was still pretty sure though that you had to provide evidence of what you were doing to find work.
To reiterate though, the amount is not even £5k per year. Nobody can live in luxury off that.
The issue is that you believe that society can be conveniently divided into ‘productive’ and ‘unproductive’ categories, often defined by characteristics that aren’t necessarily predictive of their economic status (i.e. whether they were born in this country) and often splitting hairs over what kinds of government expenditures should be taken into account (welfare payments bad, free schooling good etc).Adults can support themselves, children can’t. They also don’t receive money directly from the government.
I can’t believe you thought that was a good question.
Are those contingent on being unemployed?So there are no other benefits? Housing costs, energy etc?
Yeah we can trust whatever claims the European Federation of Public Service Unions make.Ahh the doff capping plebory of regurgitating the private sector is more efficient than the public sector. How do you even measure that for starters. You can’t measure public sector work in terms of turnover or profit or production capabilities etc etc. Public sector work is not measurable by the same terms and vice versa. It’s a lazy trope at best. Where’s the evidence other than a few right wing politicians and political commentators repeating it enough for the plebs to believe it.
The issue is that you believe that society can be conveniently divided into ‘productive’ and ‘unproductive’ categories, often defined by characteristics that aren’t necessarily predictive of their economic status (i.e. whether they were born in this country) and often splitting hairs over what kinds of government expenditures should be taken into account (welfare payments bad, free schooling good etc).
Like most topics on here, everyone agrees with the central point that our welfare system (or asylum system, or healthcare system etc) is in need of reform. But the attempts to hijack the process in the name of advancing pet projects on immigration etc mean we just go round in circles until we’ve all been bludgeoned into submission by your extended essays.
It’s not a belief, it’s a fact and it’s why we have progressive taxation.
Immigration status is actually taken into account. The Beveridge Report in 1942 specifically mentions UK citizens. It was through numerous EU treaties that extends this to EU citizens as a whole and ILR as we know it today was set up in 2003. Net migration has increased significantly from then and was assumed a low % of migrants would be self-sufficient and net-tax contributors, that’s no longer the case. 1/6 UC claimants being foreign is clearly a big problem. In 2022, payments to foreigners on UC was £6bn, surpassed £10bn in 2024 and projected to be £12bn this year…
With respect, it’s you that was trying to play silly games and ended up looking silly when it become apparent you couldn’t (or wouldn’t) distinguish public services and welfare handouts. The clues are in the names; National Health Service, Personal Independence Payment, Universal Credit.
One final point, if yourself and others articulate “the need” for reform on immigration or welfare and yet, offer no ideas, decry any suggestions made and use straw man arguments or ask stupid questions like ‘why are the elderly/children not classed as “unproductive” and not working age adults?’ At best, you’re playing a fool…
Some of those suggestions included suspending all benefit payments if someone is unemployed for too long and turning the £25/week child benefit payment into a voucher. If there were others I missed, let’s discuss them, but the dialogue is all about being punitive on people for being unemployed as though it’s a lifestyle choice. That’s where I take issue unless you’ve got empirical rather than anecdotal evidence. Take places where there really is a lack of work/opportunity and you’re denying people a social safety net for reasons beyond their control. There is nobody here who thinks unemployment is or should be more attractive than work or study.It’s not a belief, it’s a fact and it’s why we have progressive taxation.
Immigration status is actually taken into account. The Beveridge Report in 1942 specifically mentions UK citizens. It was through numerous EU treaties that extends this to EU citizens as a whole and ILR as we know it today was set up in 2003. Net migration has increased significantly from then and was assumed a low % of migrants would be self-sufficient and net-tax contributors, that’s no longer the case. 1/6 UC claimants being foreign is clearly a big problem. In 2022, payments to foreigners on UC was £6bn, surpassed £10bn in 2024 and projected to be £12bn this year…
With respect, it’s you that was trying to play silly games and ended up looking silly when it become apparent you couldn’t (or wouldn’t) distinguish public services and welfare handouts. The clues are in the names; National Health Service, Personal Independence Payment, Universal Credit.
One final point, if yourself and others articulate “the need” for reform on immigration or welfare and yet, offer no ideas, decry any suggestions made and use straw man arguments or ask stupid questions like ‘why are the elderly/children not classed as “unproductive” and not working age adults?’ At best, you’re playing a fool…
WTF...How is it right to offer sex offenders money.
Fucking insane.
Romanian grooming gang boss offered £1,500 to leave UK while awaiting trial for 10 rapes | UK News | Sky News Romanian grooming gang boss offered £1,500 to leave UK while awaiting trial for 10 rapes
Reminds me I wonder how that chap who got paid £500 to behave on a plane is doing.I know and it's not the 1st time either
Let’s be honest, there’s nothing stopping him coming back.Reminds me I wonder how that chap who got paid £500 to behave on a plane is doing.
If that is true and pensions still comprise the biggest chunk of the welfare budget, we're in bigger trouble than I thought.
Reminds me I wonder how that chap who got paid £500 to behave on a plane is doing.
Did somebody say Just Eat?he’s delivering a pizza near you
Too late. Bastard’s eaten half of ithe’s delivering a pizza near you
Except that the aims and objectives, as well as the scope and remit of both are completely different.Pointing out that the public sector is less productive than the private sector is not sneering, it’s a fact.
Says the person who made the sweeping statements that all children are future tax payers, all pensioners are previous tax payers and all unemployed people (including migrants) have never and never will be tax payers.Your arguments are artificial in the sense that you make sweeping statements and observations usually without any data to back it up.
So you're saying this idea that work brings you prosperity and meaning is nonsense then. And if they're that poor and relying on wages from employment and not state handouts, who should be taking the blame that these people lived in squalor?Oddly most of them worked
So lets say that all housing benefit goes through the crime budget rather than the welfare budget as homelessness plays a significant part in crime due to things like drug abuse and vulnerable people ending up in crime gangs or prostitution. In fact while we're at it let's put people having money to buy food so they don't have to steal it from shops put in there too. State pension can go against the health budget as it reduces the number of pensioners requiring medical treatment and bed blockingThis silly game of yours is embarrassing. Public services and welfare benefits are not the same thing.
So a person currently not working/paying tax but helps run programmes that help keep people off the street or out of gangs/crime - are they not contributing?If you’re paying no tax, you earn less than 13k and will invariably be on UC… so this line of question is misleading. To put answer directly, if you’re not paying tax, you’re not contributing.
Let’s agree that measuring public sector productivity is more difficult than the private sector… In any case, whatever measurements are, the public sector is producing less of what it is currently measured on.Except that the aims and objectives, as well as the scope and remit of both are completely different.
Not everything that counts can be counted and not everything that can be counted counts,.
A public service = a tax funded, government runSo lets say that all housing benefit goes through the crime budget rather than the welfare budget as homelessness plays a significant part in crime due to things like drug abuse and vulnerable people ending up in crime gangs or prostitution. In fact while we're at it let's put people having money to buy food so they don't have to steal it from shops put in there too. State pension can go against the health budget as it reduces the number of pensioners requiring medical treatment and bed blocking
With a bit of creative accounting we can move pretty much the entire welfare budget into public services.
So a person currently not working/paying tax but helps run programmes that help keep people off the street or out of gangs/crime - are they not contributing?
Stop this ridiculous idea that the only measure of whether someone contributes or not is purely down to tax/welfare. Or even tangible measures in general.
The whole discussions around the state pension revolve around literally that topic.It’s not a ridiculous idea. A welfare state can only survive if the number of people paying into it outnumbers the people taking out of it.
This thread demonstrates that a lot of left leaning people do not grasp this or simply don’t want to confront this.
So do you ignore all the aspects like costs of policing/courts from crime which has led from things like homelessness and joblessness. Do we then ignore the health costs of those affected by such crime (such as robbery) potentially leaving the victim in need of emotional support and being unable to work for a time as they recover (if they ever do?) It's way more complicated and nuanced than the simplistic version of paying tax = good, not paying tax = bad,It’s not a ridiculous idea. A welfare state can only survive if the number of people paying into it outnumbers the people taking out of it.
This thread demonstrates that a lot of left leaning people do not grasp this or simply don’t want to confront this.
Well give that our tax receipts don't cover the services we provide, are they now not public services?Let’s agree that measuring public sector productivity is more difficult than the private sector… In any case, whatever measurements are, the public sector is producing less of what it is currently measured on.
A public service = a tax funded, government run
Welfare benefits = handouts to selected groups
Housing benefits or state pensions are not public services…
So you're saying this idea that work brings you prosperity and meaning is nonsense then. And if they're that poor and relying on wages from employment and not state handouts, who should be taking the blame that these people lived in squalor?
… and the rest of it.The whole discussions around the state pension revolve around literally that topic.
Its those compassionate, lazy dole dossing millennial lefties that will cause it to collapse.… and the rest of it.
From 2021 to 2025, there are 3m more people on UC who do not even have to find work. The total number of people on UC who are not in work has surpassed 5m people. It isn’t sustainable.
The ONS is confirming that tax rises are being ate up by benefits. The government is allowing benefits to increase with inflation at a completely inappropriate time.
Longer term, any government with a left wing agenda can’t spend money on other priorities if it’s crippled by these rising costs.
On a v moral level, why do you focus on pensions so much? It’s obviously a problem but everyone is entitled to the state pension, even people who do not pay into the system.
The Centre for Social Justice reckons by 26/27, an unemployed person on sickness and housing benefit (25k pa) could out earn an individual on minimum wage (22.5k). Under no circumstances should welfare pay more than work.
Look, when the whole system collapses on itself, it’s ‘compassionate’ and ‘empathetic’ people who refused to make tough decisions to secure the long term future of the welfare state.
All while having the audacity to drink coffee and eat avocados.Its those compassionate, lazy dole dossing millennial lefties that will cause it to collapse.
They'd rather lie in bed or day all day playing pokemans on their switch
People on this forum have a tendency to try and make those aged between 16-35 the bad guy.All while having the audacity to drink coffee and eat avocados.
First off this is incorrect, you need to have x number of years of NI contributions to qualify and then y number of years to receive the full amount.On a v moral level, why do you focus on pensions so much? It’s obviously a problem but everyone is entitled to the state pension, even people who do not pay into the system.
First off this is incorrect, you need to have x number of years of NI contributions to qualify and then y number of years to receive the full amount.
There's two main reasons why I'm focusing on them. The first is that they contribute half of the total welfare bill; when attempting to tackle any problem it makes sense to focus on the component with the biggest impact first. As a rough breakdown, the welfare bill goes as follows:
Pensions 50%
Universal credit 30%
Disability benefits 15%
All other payments 5%
The second reason lies in that funding the pension is going to become an even bigger problem moving forward as people continue to live for longer while the birth rate falls and thus there are proportionally fewer working age people to pay into the system. This will lead us with a rising pension bill while NI contributions struggle to keep up. Not to say anything that we have no real state support for social care and this is an enormous problem on the horizon.
I could flip the question on you to be honest: on a v moral level, why do you focus on universal credit so much? It's obviously a problem but isn't the biggest component of the welfare bill (and it's not particularly close either).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?