Looks like there are a lot of benefit fraudsters out there..

[wc98]

Murph7355 said:

Do you have examples of what they get that you want? And why you aren't a business owner?

most recent was yesterday. a mate works on a local estate, who are installing a biomass plant which will provide power for the estate house and all associated dwellings. mainly cottages rented to private tenants plus those of estate work force.taxpayer pays for install of "green" energy biomass plant (if ever there was a means of generating electricity that should not be termed green it is biomass as used in the uk) ,estate owner gets subsidised energy ,and cottage tenants now pay estate owner for their energy supply as opposed to energy company.

possibly misunderstood question. they do not have anything i want . i would like to see a genuinely level playing field for everyone when it comes to suckling on the public purse teat. the current system is so biased towards land owners it is not even funny. if you want to suggest people deserve easy access to these high level subsidies because they happen to have inherited a large amount of land that their forebears gathered through nefarious means, that is up to you. we all have different opinions.

Edited by wc98 on Thursday 27th August 17:23

[Murph7355]

wc98 said:

most recent was yesterday. a mate works on a local estate, who are installing a biomass plant which will provide power for the estate house and all associated dwellings. mainly cottages rented to private tenants plus those of estate work force.taxpayer pays for install of "green" energy biomass plant (if ever there was a means of generating electricity that should not be termed green it is biomass as used in the uk) ,estate owner gets subsidised energy ,and cottage tenants now pay estate owner for their energy supply as opposed to energy company.

possibly misunderstood question. they do not have anything i want . i would like to see a genuinely level playing field for everyone when it comes to suckling on the public purse teat. the current system is so biased towards land owners it is not even funny. if you want to suggest people deserve easy access to these high level subsidies because they happen to have inherited a large amount of land that their forebears gathered through nefarious means, that is up to you. we all have different opinions.

I generally consider myself a pint half empty chap, but you make it seem quite full

I don't have an issue with people taking advantage of tax breaks, no matter how wealthy they are, inherited or otherwise. I tend to agree that our tax code is a mess and that many of the breaks make little sense. But I feel that applies to all levels one way or another. It's the job of the rule setters to ensure we have a decent system and parties of all colours have failed miserably on that front.

It would be interesting to see how much tax the land owner in your example actually pays in £s. I would imagine it's > £0. It would also be interesting to see just how much his works cost him as I'm afraid I'm far from convinced the taxpayer picked up the whole tab.

As for inherited wealth/land....do you have kids? Will you be leaving them your house? Not really sure what "nefarious" means are but I'm assuming you must be referring to acquisitions hundreds of years ago then passed down. Life's too short to fret about that and over time it will even itself out. But being inclined towards allowing the government to take hold of assets after death is a very slippery slope which will have unintended consequences for the vast majority IMO.

As you say though, we all have different opinions...

[Ahimoth]

walm said:

Jasandjules said:

Actually, people declared fit for work or too well for ill health benefits die.........

In other news, ACTUAL WORKERS also die.

Both of these assessments are far too easy.

Hopefully someone will do a proper analysis of the figures, and people will actually read it.

Probably not going to happen.

[Jasandjules]

Ahimoth said:

Both of these assessments are far too easy.

Indeed. But there is quite a significant number of deaths it seems in those figures.

Now, either those who are rejected are exceedingly accident prone and die falling off ladders etc at a significantly igreater proportion than the general public..... OR it is a reasonable assumption to suggest that some (let's call it 50%) died of the conditions and/or its impact upon them, that they were trying to claim disability for.

[walm]

Jasandjules said:

OR it is a reasonable assumption to suggest that some (let's call it 50%) died of the conditions and/or its impact upon them, that they were trying to claim disability for.

60% of the time, that works every time.

[Ahimoth]

Jasandjules said:

Indeed. But there is quite a significant number of deaths it seems in those figures.

Now, either those who are rejected are exceedingly accident prone and die falling off ladders etc at a significantly igreater proportion than the general public..... OR it is a reasonable assumption to suggest that some (let's call it 50%) died of the conditions and/or its impact upon them, that they were trying to claim disability for.

We don't know if it's an excess mortality though. I can only suggest waiting to see what More or Less have to say.

Saying that ATOS et al have screwed up a good number of these assessments is uncontroversial though. The appeal success rate should have been bigger political capital than it was or is.

[Justayellowbadge]

Jasandjules said:

Indeed. But there is quite a significant number of deaths it seems in those figures.

Now, either those who are rejected are exceedingly accident prone and die falling off ladders etc at a significantly igreater proportion than the general public..... OR it is a reasonable assumption to suggest that some (let's call it 50%) died of the conditions and/or its impact upon them, that they were trying to claim disability for.

My back of a fag packet numbers above suggest they don't. In any given year roughly 5% of deaths are people claiming incapacity, and those claiming incapacity represent roughly 5% of the population in general.

[BrassMan]

wolves_wanderer said:

People too ill to work die at a greater rate than healthy people. Stop the presses

Eh?
If the percentage of the population medically unfit to work is fixed, then the death rate should be the same. They may die younger, but percentage per year should match.

[Esseesse]

Jasandjules said:

wolves_wanderer said:

People too ill to work die at a greater rate than healthy people. Stop the presses

Actually, people declared fit for work or too well for ill health benefits die.........

You could be quite ill but perfectly fit for work...

[Jasandjules]

Esseesse said:

You could be quite ill but perfectly fit for work...

I know. I am. Well, for some work at least.