Was George Osborne right?

[rover 623gsi]

To quote the Economist: "Though most of them seem to end up in newspapers, in 2011 there were just 130 families in the country with 10 children claiming at least one out-of-work benefit. Only 8% of benefit claimants have three or more children. What evidence there is suggests that, on average, unemployed people have similar numbers of children to employed people ... it is not clear at all that benefits are a significant incentive to have children."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/06/wel...

[herewego]

Dixie68 said:

FiF said:

All the reports I have read have made a calculation which determines the benefit, and then calculate a figure which he would have had to earn by working in a job in order to get the estimated amount of said benefits after tax, national insurance and so on.

I can't be bothered to determine if the primary and secondary calculations were correct. Of course there is also the problem that these calculations don't know all the particular ins and outs of what was being claimed. To think that he would get 70k in benefits is absurd and shows lack of thinking the situation through.

I've just gone through one of the many benefits calculators online and using the lowest rate for items such as rent of a similar council house in their area, applicable child benefit etc I come to the figure of £76,141. That includes child benefit and subsidised housing/council tax etc.
Now obviously I'm not on benefits so may have got some questions wrong, so I researched online and chose the lowest benefit figure each time as I said above.
Try one of the calculators yourself.

Can you copy paste a list of the benefits he was getting? the only one I've seen consistently is 8000 for child benefit plus wages from wife and girlfriend which don't really seem relevant.

[Twincam16]

Some interesting points on the subject raised here: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/mrs-ju...

Philpott's behaviour was not dissimilar to Fred West's (and he wasn't 'created' by the benefits system), and it's worth pointing out that when he started on his particular path of abuse, he was gainfully employed - in the army, no less.

Those who abuse the benefits system need taking to task, but I suspect that the redtop-reading public are being whipped up into a frenzy about it so they can act as a rather irrational vindicating voice while IDS slashes the money given to the disabled or declares them 'fit to work' when they're not. I notice that the 'distance walked unaided' has been shortened today as part of the PIP legislation in classifying disability - very cynical IMO.

Harriet Harman raised a good point the other day too - your level of benefits received should relate to the amount of tax you've paid when you were working. That way, the system would work as it's intended - ie a safety net for those temporarily out of work - so if you've never worked then you'll have no 'credit' with which to claim anything other than the bare minimum.

[Deva Link]

Twincam16 said:

Harriet Harman raised a good point the other day too - your level of benefits received should relate to the amount of tax you've paid when you were working.

That's how it works in quite a few countries in Europe - basically, you're no worse off for a couple of years after losing your job.

Twincam16 said:

That way, the system would work as it's intended - ie a safety net for those temporarily out of work - so if you've never worked then you'll have no 'credit' with which to claim anything other than the bare minimum.

The UK system is supposed to only pay the bare minimum now - it's just that people's definition of the bare minimum varies quite a lot.

[FiF]

herewego said:

Dixie68 said:

FiF said:

All the reports I have read have made a calculation which determines the benefit, and then calculate a figure which he would have had to earn by working in a job in order to get the estimated amount of said benefits after tax, national insurance and so on.

I can't be bothered to determine if the primary and secondary calculations were correct. Of course there is also the problem that these calculations don't know all the particular ins and outs of what was being claimed. To think that he would get 70k in benefits is absurd and shows lack of thinking the situation through.

I've just gone through one of the many benefits calculators online and using the lowest rate for items such as rent of a similar council house in their area, applicable child benefit etc I come to the figure of £76,141. That includes child benefit and subsidised housing/council tax etc.
Now obviously I'm not on benefits so may have got some questions wrong, so I researched online and chose the lowest benefit figure each time as I said above.
Try one of the calculators yourself.

Can you copy paste a list of the benefits he was getting? the only one I've seen consistently is 8000 for child benefit plus wages from wife and girlfriend which don't really seem relevant.

The thing which seems to muddying the waters is the way he insisted all wages and benefits paid to whoever were fed into his account.

A woman with 5kids working part time would qualify for something. How do we know what was going on?

I'll have a furkle with one of these calculators to see what that kicks out if someone has been able to rack it up to 70k.

[TTwiggy]

I believe he stabbed (multiple times) his girlfriend straight after leaving the army? Yet I don't see any attempts to link his behaviour to his time spent in the forces.

[crankedup]

Crafty_ said:

crankedup said:

If this is the best we have in our Politics I fear for our future, as a Nation.

Don't worry, Milliband and Balls are waiting in the wings...
..actually, on second thoughts..

Meanwhile, Harman pops up out of nowhere: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9977158/H...

Edited by Crafty_ on Sunday 7th April 13:06

Agreed, they are all hopeless. Labour have really shown how poor they are now the benefits changes are in the open.

[oyster]

sugerbear said:

Except that both his "partners" worked, albeit in part time cleaning type jobs.

So in effect he was a "stay at home" dad OR he was sponging off his partners depending on which way you look at it.

I am sure that there are plenty of people in a similar position (albeit without the high number of children) who use the state to "support" themselves.

Osborne's attempt to link benefits to the the crime is a stupid as linking Fred West killing spree to him being a builder or Harold Shipman to being a doctor.

Could you do me a favour and find me the text or transcrip where Obsborne links benefits to the crime? Because I can't find that at all.

(Unless you are referring to Ed Balls doing so, but that isn't George Osborne is it?).

[RYH64E]

Deva Link said:

Twincam16 said:

Harriet Harman raised a good point the other day too - your level of benefits received should relate to the amount of tax you've paid when you were working.

That's how it works in quite a few countries in Europe - basically, you're no worse off for a couple of years after losing your job.

Twincam16 said:

That way, the system would work as it's intended - ie a safety net for those temporarily out of work - so if you've never worked then you'll have no 'credit' with which to claim anything other than the bare minimum.

The UK system is supposed to only pay the bare minimum now - it's just that people's definition of the bare minimum varies quite a lot.

We've had this debate before, often. Our system is completely arse about face in as much as those who've paid most into the system get least out of it when it's needed, if you've got savings (and most high earners will have something) then after the first 6 months of job seekers allowance you get nothing. It may be possible to get help towards your mortgage if you're out of work, but I don't know anyone who's had any, but if you rent then housing benefit is available.

The two sustainable states in this country are to be either very rich or very poor (very rich is probably better), or in the case of several young ladies I know, very poor but with a non-declared working boyfriend. Those in the middle get stuffed every time.

[Art0ir]

RYH64E said:

Deva Link said:

Twincam16 said:

Harriet Harman raised a good point the other day too - your level of benefits received should relate to the amount of tax you've paid when you were working.

That's how it works in quite a few countries in Europe - basically, you're no worse off for a couple of years after losing your job.

Twincam16 said:

That way, the system would work as it's intended - ie a safety net for those temporarily out of work - so if you've never worked then you'll have no 'credit' with which to claim anything other than the bare minimum.

The UK system is supposed to only pay the bare minimum now - it's just that people's definition of the bare minimum varies quite a lot.

We've had this debate before, often. Our system is completely arse about face in as much as those who've paid most into the system get least out of it when it's needed, if you've got savings (and most high earners will have something) then after the first 6 months of job seekers allowance you get nothing. It may be possible to get help towards your mortgage if you're out of work, but I don't know anyone who's had any, but if you rent then housing benefit is available.

The two sustainable states in this country are to be either very rich or very poor (very rich is probably better), or in the case of several young ladies I know, very poor but with a non-declared working boyfriend. Those in the middle get stuffed every time.

Labour's proposals yesterday were of interest to me. What you get back is dependent on what you have paid in. Far too common sense for Labour, I'm terribly suspicious.

Singapore's Central Provident Fund is also something I favour greatly.

[Digga]

Art0ir said:

Labour's proposals yesterday were of interest to me. What you get back is dependent on what you have paid in. Far too common sense for Labour, I'm terribly suspicious.

I was pretty staggered by Harperson's quote too. I can only think that Labour have received reliable feedback on the views of the voter (rather than the hysterical media or pressure group opinion we've been seeing) on this topic.

FWIW, some of the most pro-reform people I've met are low income earniner who themselves might be 'better off' on benefits, were it not for their sense of pride and responsibility - dieing on their feet is better than living on their knees.

[Twincam16]

Digga said:

Art0ir said:

Labour's proposals yesterday were of interest to me. What you get back is dependent on what you have paid in. Far too common sense for Labour, I'm terribly suspicious.

I was pretty staggered by Harperson's quote too. I can only think that Labour have received reliable feedback on the views of the voter (rather than the hysterical media or pressure group opinion we've been seeing) on this topic.

FWIW, some of the most pro-reform people I've met are low income earniner who themselves might be 'better off' on benefits, were it not for their sense of pride and responsibility - dieing on their feet is better than living on their knees.

I do suspect sometimes that Labour is still pretty divided between Blairites and non-Blairites. Blairism seemed to be about giving the impression of pleasing all of the people all of the time, presiding over economic ruin while telling everyone that everything was fine and we could all just keep borrowing and spending and nothing bad would come of it because we'd abolished boom and bust.

The war took the gloss off and Blair's position was untenable as a result. I do find it rather telling that he's basically become a kind of delusional international sleb rather than doing something worthy on the backbenches or in the Lords after leaving front-line politics.

I do reckon there are some in the Labour party willing to listen to their constituents - after all, they're the ones who'll be voting for them.

[RYH64E]

Art0ir said:

Labour's proposals yesterday were of interest to me. What you get back is dependent on what you have paid in. Far too common sense for Labour, I'm terribly suspicious.

Singapore's Central Provident Fund is also something I favour greatly.

It'll never happen, Labour has an instinctive dislike of 'rich' people, the only function of 'rich' people is to pay for the rest, and even then they're vilified. This is why labour will never solve the unemployment problem, they could help to create employment by offering incentives such as tax breaks to large and small employers, but that would be perceived as helping the rich get richer and so totally unacceptable to the rank and file labour supporters. Look at the current row over Corporation Tax, it isn't enough for companies to employ people, pay VAT and Business Rates, and employers NI on top, if they don't pay CT as well they're branded tax evaders and vilified. The people Labour need to encourage are the wealth creators, and they will never do it.

[turbobloke]

RYH64E said:

The people Labour need to encourage are the wealth creators, and they will never do it.

Agreed, that's exactly what Labour or any Party in office need to do, and I also agree it would be remarkable if Labour ever did the job - properly and by design. Over the 13 year national trainwreck of the last Labour government, just about the only group to do really well was the top 1% of earners, but that happened because Labour were (and are) incompetent. It didn't happen by design, as a strategy, though one deliberate aspect of that period was Labour's willingness to draw milk from the City tax teat, and then waste it - incompetence again.

[MrBrightSi]

How dare anyone say that this is a shoddy political PR stunt.

I think for once, they've dared to say something most normal people think.

People like him love scrounging hard off the tax payer, my next door claims to be an "alcoholic" yet still keeps 5 kids. He doesn't work because one is deaf yet goes to school everyday.

I'm sure there are many more who offend worse than this cretin, yet whenever someone who is in the position to actually do something, they are scorned as some sort of evil wker.

As much as i detest companies dodging tax and the rich moving their money offshore to stop paying tax, i equally detest those who have no ambition and play the system like a fiddle.

[CaptainSlow]

WhereamI said:

No. Taking money from people in tax and then paying some back to them in benefits make no sense.

Yes it does in certain circumstances. However, let's discourage the traditional family unit they'll only slow down this country's decline down the stter.

[WhereamI]

CaptainSlow said:

WhereamI said:

No. Taking money from people in tax and then paying some back to them in benefits make no sense.

Yes it does in certain circumstances. However, let's discourage the traditional family unit they'll only slow down this country's decline down the stter.

It's not about 'discouraging the family unit'. Paying me child benefit is the equivalent of taking £100 off me then spending £20 of it administering the process of giving the remaining £80 back to me, utterly pointless.

But it is also part of a mindset that takes benefits away from being a safety net to become some all encompassing unaffordable nirvana where everyone has 'a right'. If you want to define anything as a cause of a 'decline down the stter' it is that.

[Digga]

WhereamI said:

CaptainSlow said:

WhereamI said:

No. Taking money from people in tax and then paying some back to them in benefits make no sense.

Yes it does in certain circumstances. However, let's discourage the traditional family unit they'll only slow down this country's decline down the stter.

It's not about 'discouraging the family unit'. Paying me child benefit is the equivalent of taking £100 off me then spending £20 of it administering the process of giving the remaining £80 back to me, utterly pointless.

But it is also part of a mindset that takes benefits away from being a safety net to become some all encompassing unaffordable nirvana where everyone has 'a right'. If you want to define anything as a cause of a 'decline down the stter' it is that.

And the whole Machiavellian process is another way for the public sector to justify another small army of seat-shining, final-salary pensions.

[Ari]

MissyMac said:

I've just done a quick calculation on how much benefit he (Philpott) and his family would be entitled to and it is nowhere near 70K. The newspaper are just increasing it every time I read a story about him. I think that the case is just being used as a political tool.

Ok so here's the Daily Mail breakdown. Which of these figures is wrong?

[otolith]

If (as we are told) there are hardly any people abusing the benefits system, why is any attempt to stop people abusing it treated as evil Tories bringing about the end of the welfare state?