Lottery winners "on the sick"

[AJS-]

As he said he paid into it for 40 years, I don't really see the problem. As others have noted, comparable to a tax loophole, just happens to be one that actually pays rather than reduces tax liability.

[10 Pence Short]

The level of benefit from the State should be enough to keep you from being homeless and dying of starvation, that's it. Whilst there will always be people happy to live as much as possible from the State, I do not believe people will aspire to live at or below the breadline on the State in preference to earning enough that they don't have to live in poverty.

If you send out a message, as we experienced under New Labour, that the State will help you achieve a desirable lifestyle regardless of your input and resources, then you get exactly what you describe above.

[theaxe]

10 Pence Short said:

The level of benefit from the State should be enough to keep you from being homeless and dying of starvation, that's it. Whilst there will always be people happy to live as much as possible from the State, I do not believe people will aspire to live at or below the breadline on the State in preference to earning enough that they don't have to live in poverty.

If you send out a message, as we experienced under New Labour, that the State will help you achieve a desirable lifestyle regardless of your input and resources, then you get exactly what you describe above.

I don't disagree with you that the state should only provide for the basics. My point is how do you decide who should get those basics and who should not.

[MX7]

Completely ridiculous. Hopefully this will mean the rules are changed.

[MX7]

AJS- said:

As he said he paid into it for 40 years, I don't really see the problem.

That's like saying you've paid your car insurance for 40 years, so it's ok to set light to it just so you get a new one.

[davepoth]

The problem as I see it is not the system - but that people don't want to say no when the government offers them stuff. We all need to live within our means, personally, as families, and as a country, and having an entitlement attitude is not helpful.

[AndyACB]

My retired parents get winter fuel allowance but could manage quite easily without it. I'm glad the get it as they've worked hard all their lives in both the Army and as a home help on crap money. If a feckless layabout who never paid anything into the system gets it then I think it's right that they should get what they've effectively earned.

I'm more concerned that we give this money to all sorts of lazy bds and foreign leeches that haven't contributed and just take,take,take.

[AJS-]

MX7 said:

AJS- said:

As he said he paid into it for 40 years, I don't really see the problem.

That's like saying you've paid your car insurance for 40 years, so it's ok to set light to it just so you get a new one.

Not really. It's like saying you paid your car insurance for 40 years, so you're still entitled to claim for an accident despite your lottery win.

[MX7]

AJS- said:

MX7 said:

AJS- said:

As he said he paid into it for 40 years, I don't really see the problem.

That's like saying you've paid your car insurance for 40 years, so it's ok to set light to it just so you get a new one.

Not really. It's like saying you paid your car insurance for 40 years, so you're still entitled to claim for an accident despite your lottery win.

Yeah, you're right, but it shouldn't be. It should be that it's paid to people who are in genuine need.

[Manks]

davepoth said:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/feedarticle/10076834

I have just scalded myself on my own urine.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2096373/Mick-Jean-OShea-claiming-disability-benefit-6-YEARS-10m-Lottery-win.html

"The couple live in Sneinton, Nottingham, in a council house they purchased for £5,000 in 1977. Houses in the area now sell for an average of £190,000."

Oh no they don't. The average for Sneinton is about £82500.00. Good Old Daily Mail, when in doubt just make something up to keep the readership's blood pressure rising.

[AndyACB]

MX7 said:

Yeah, you're right, but it shouldn't be. It should be that it's paid to people who are in genuine need.

I agree but while it's not then people who paid into the system are perfectly entitled to claim their lot. It's not means tested, they are right to claim it.
If Mr Abdul Abdullah arrives from Somalia having shredded his passport and flushed it down the bog on the plane the UK's finest border agency fall over themselves to direct him to the nearest benefits office. Until this stops there is no case for saying these lottery winners shouldn't get their share.

[10 Pence Short]

You can't use one wrong to defend another. There's no logic in that argument.

[AndyACB]

Yes I can, it's up to me to hold my own opinion. A bit pompous to say otherwise.

[davepoth]

AndyACB said:

Yes I can, it's up to me to hold my own opinion. A bit pompous to say otherwise.

I've said it once, I'll say it again.

"I'm Alright Jack"

[10 Pence Short]

AndyACB said:

Yes I can, it's up to me to hold my own opinion. A bit pompous to say otherwise.

Absolutely, you have a right to have an opinion.

I'd argue your use of 'right to claim' is wrong morally, if not by the current system. They have a right, but they are not right to do so, in my opinion.

[paddyhasneeds]

On the face of it, I don't see anything wrong with this tbh.

If you get rich they don't say "Pay less tax since you need less from the state now" so why should someone be expected to forego benefits they're entitled to when they've paid into the system?

The caveat of course being that I'm assuming he really is entitled to them and not like that piss boiling former educational software developer.

[Deva Link]

10 Pence Short said:

The level of benefit from the State should be enough to keep you from being homeless and dying of starvation, that's it.

Disability benefits are a bit different to that - they're there to make life a bit more bearable.

OK, the couple in question don't need the money. But no-one is suggesting they shouldn't claim their State pension. And that's a greater amount than they're getting in disability benefits.

Edited by Deva Link on Saturday 4th February 17:59

[AndyACB]

10 Pence Short said:

Absolutely, you have a right to have an opinion.

I'd argue your use of 'right to claim' is wrong morally, if not by the current system. They have a right, but they are not right to do so, in my opinion.

I see what you're saying, I personally wouldn't continue to claim but I don't begrudge these two from claiming to what the system says they are entitled to either.

My moral compass would have me living in a cave on mouldy cheese before I asked for benefits but I can why people do claim and are under absolutely no obligation from the system to stop claiming once their circumstances change.

I'd be interested to hear how this kind of case should be dealt with - means testing?

[davepoth]

Deva Link said:

Disability benefits are a bit different to that - they're there to make life a more bearable.

OK, the couple in question don't need the money. But no-one is suggesting they shouldn't claim their State pension. And that's a greater amount than they're getting in disability benefits.

State pension isn't strictly speaking a benefit though. Although we know there is no pension fund, contributions are pretend paid into that fund, and you get a pension based upon your contribution to that fund. If you have never worked a day in your life you won't get the basic state pension at all. If it had been possible to opt out of the state pension and they'd paid the same money into a private scheme this wouldn't even be mentioned.

[davepoth]

AndyACB said:

I see what you're saying, I personally wouldn't continue to claim but I don't begrudge these two from claiming to what the system says they are entitled to either.

My moral compass would have me living in a cave on mouldy cheese before I asked for benefits but I can why people do claim and are under absolutely no obligation from the system to stop claiming once their circumstances change.

I'd be interested to hear how this kind of case should be dealt with - means testing?

No - that's the wrong way of coming at it, as means testing can rarely be done cheaply enough to make it financially viable. (i.e. it's cheaper just to pay everybody)

The decision has to come from the claimant. And that's a big ship to turn around.