is means testing for unemployed impossible?

[petemurphy]

While in theory it should be done for people to get benefits is it actually possible.

Ie people can just convert cash into assets, move it elsewhere ( friends/family ) when doing a means test. e.g. a chum of mine was on benefits whilst driving a porshe as he had under 16k of cash. If he had sold the car he could not be on benefits.

any way round this?

[ShadownINja]

It's stupid, isn't it. Out of interest, did he buy the Porsche (btw which one? a 924 doesn't really count as being a benefits-cheating supercar owner!) before claiming benefits to get rid of his savings?

[petemurphy]

ShadownINja said:

It's stupid, isn't it. Out of interest, did he buy the Porsche (btw which one? a 924 doesn't really count as being a benefits-cheating supercar owner!) before claiming benefits to get rid of his savings?

he already had it - a boxster and less than 16k cash. but see no reason why if he had had 16k+ he could not have bought one and so declare on benefits he had no cash. not sure what the answer is

[thinfourth2]

Should we be means testing them

I can easily see us spending billions in means testing to make a saving of a few million

If we went to other way and gave everyone in the country 5K a year then you remove a huge amount of admin costs and removes the benefits trap

Yes my tax might go up by 5 k a year to pay for it so i will be no better off but it stops those that want to work from being stuck in the benefits trap

[petemurphy]

thinfourth2 said:

Should we be means testing them

I can easily see us spending billions in means testing to make a saving of a few million

If we went to other way and gave everyone in the country 5K a year then you remove a huge amount of admin costs and removes the benefits trap

Yes my tax might go up by 5 k a year to pay for it so i will be no better off but it stops those that want to work from being stuck in the benefits trap

that almost makes sense ( but dont give them art )

[Engineer1]

I would also add from the otherside, that the tosl are too coarse but if you tighten the criteria in an attempt at fairness you can make it cost more. If you are a couple and one works over 16hours a week you don't get the means tested benefits irrespective of what your fixed outgoings are, do they expect you to sell all your assets to fund your life just because you have been out of work over 6 months?

[ShadownINja]

petemurphy said:

ShadownINja said:

It's stupid, isn't it. Out of interest, did he buy the Porsche (btw which one? a 924 doesn't really count as being a benefits-cheating supercar owner!) before claiming benefits to get rid of his savings?

he already had it - a boxster and less than 16k cash. but see no reason why if he had had 16k+ he could not have bought one and so declare on benefits he had no cash. not sure what the answer is

I suppose it is similar to someone who is made redundant when they have a mortgage. Should they be made to sell everything before they are helped? I think everyone should be helped if they need it, providing they don't stay unemployed. So either, they are only allowed benefits for a set period of time or they have to demonstrate that they are applying to suitable jobs for the level of skill/experience/qualifications and are being rejected due to a large number of applicants and/or better applicants. It is a tricky one, though, as you could stop genuine people who need a helping hand and are otherwise contributing to society.

[RYH64E]

petemurphy said:

ShadownINja said:

It's stupid, isn't it. Out of interest, did he buy the Porsche (btw which one? a 924 doesn't really count as being a benefits-cheating supercar owner!) before claiming benefits to get rid of his savings?

he already had it - a boxster and less than 16k cash. but see no reason why if he had had 16k+ he could not have bought one and so declare on benefits he had no cash. not sure what the answer is

Presumably he paid a decent amount of tax in the time when he earned enough to afford the Porsche? Maybe it would be more acceptable if he had spent any disposable income on White Lightning and Benson and Hedges?

We have a completely arse about face system where those who pay the vast majority of tax are entitled to nothing when they are out of work if they have been prudent enough to save some of their earnings, whereas those who have never paid tax, or have spent everything that they have earned and have no savings, get access to the full range of benefits.

[petemurphy]

RYH64E said:

petemurphy said:

ShadownINja said:

It's stupid, isn't it. Out of interest, did he buy the Porsche (btw which one? a 924 doesn't really count as being a benefits-cheating supercar owner!) before claiming benefits to get rid of his savings?

he already had it - a boxster and less than 16k cash. but see no reason why if he had had 16k+ he could not have bought one and so declare on benefits he had no cash. not sure what the answer is

Presumably he paid a decent amount of tax in the time when he earned enough to afford the Porsche? Maybe it would be more acceptable if he had spent any disposable income on White Lightning and Benson and Hedges?

We have a completely arse about face system where those who pay the vast majority of tax are entitled to nothing when they are out of work if they have been prudent enough to save some of their earnings, whereas those who have never paid tax, or have spent everything that they have earned and have no savings, get access to the full range of benefits.

yes he did im not criticsing him just pointing how easy it is to get around means testing so is there any point.

i quite like the everyone gets 5k idea or for instance everyone gets the tax free allowance so it either comes off your tax if you are earning or if you are not you get it back which provides a mimimum amount to live on.

[RYH64E]

petemurphy said:

RYH64E said:

petemurphy said:

ShadownINja said:

It's stupid, isn't it. Out of interest, did he buy the Porsche (btw which one? a 924 doesn't really count as being a benefits-cheating supercar owner!) before claiming benefits to get rid of his savings?

he already had it - a boxster and less than 16k cash. but see no reason why if he had had 16k+ he could not have bought one and so declare on benefits he had no cash. not sure what the answer is

Presumably he paid a decent amount of tax in the time when he earned enough to afford the Porsche? Maybe it would be more acceptable if he had spent any disposable income on White Lightning and Benson and Hedges?

We have a completely arse about face system where those who pay the vast majority of tax are entitled to nothing when they are out of work if they have been prudent enough to save some of their earnings, whereas those who have never paid tax, or have spent everything that they have earned and have no savings, get access to the full range of benefits.

yes he did im not criticsing him just pointing how easy it is to get around means testing so is there any point.

i quite like the everyone gets 5k idea or for instance everyone gets the tax free allowance so it either comes off your tax if you are earning or if you are not you get it back which provides a mimimum amount to live on.

I quite like the idea of tax/ni including a proper insurance element so that the more you have paid over the years the more you receive when you need it.

Baseline benefits should be very, very basic, anything above basic subsistence level (think food vouchers and hostels) should be based upon your previous contributions.

[thinfourth2]

RYH64E said:

I quite like the idea of tax/ni including a proper insurance element so that the more you have paid over the years the more you receive when you need it.

Baseline benefits should be very, very basic, anything above basic subsistence level (think food vouchers and hostels) should be based upon your previous contributions.

Which is very unfair on those that have never worked think of their rights etc and so on.

Where as paying everyone £5k a year is bone crunchingly fair

[RYH64E]

thinfourth2 said:

RYH64E said:

I quite like the idea of tax/ni including a proper insurance element so that the more you have paid over the years the more you receive when you need it.

Baseline benefits should be very, very basic, anything above basic subsistence level (think food vouchers and hostels) should be based upon your previous contributions.

Which is very unfair on those that have never worked think of their rights etc and so on.

Where as paying everyone £5k a year is bone crunchingly fair

Except that the only way you are going to pay everyone £5k a year is by increasing the taxes of those who actually pay, so I am liable to gain £5k in one hand and lose £7k from the other.

People don't have a right to a house in London, Sky tv, cigarettes and alcohol. They may arguably have the right to a roof over their head and food on the table, that should be baseline benefits. Let them work for anything else, or not as the case may be.

[petemurphy]

would be interesting to see the calculations of whether a standard credit of 5kish is cheaper or more epenisve than the current system.

[tinman0]

Unemployment benefits need to be tiered.

If you have paid into the system a certain amount, then you are fully entitled to the gold plated backing from the Govt to find that new job. And that includes mortgage payment, and a decent amount.

But that generous limit is limited to 3 or 6 months.

Once you reach the 3 or 6 month limit, your benefits go down.

Same as if you've had a low paid job, or no job at all, you are in the second tier from the start.

What would help is for some proper limits to unemployment benefits though.

For instance, there is no reason on earth why there are long term unemployed people. 2 years max of benefits and your out. If you are under 25, then the limits should be 2 months. No reason at all why long term unemployment should exist.

If people can make their way from Iraq/Afghanistan to get a job, then our own unemployed can dig a bit deeper.

[blueg33]

RYH64E said:

thinfourth2 said:

RYH64E said:

I quite like the idea of tax/ni including a proper insurance element so that the more you have paid over the years the more you receive when you need it.

Baseline benefits should be very, very basic, anything above basic subsistence level (think food vouchers and hostels) should be based upon your previous contributions.

Which is very unfair on those that have never worked think of their rights etc and so on.

Where as paying everyone £5k a year is bone crunchingly fair

Except that the only way you are going to pay everyone £5k a year is by increasing the taxes of those who actually pay, so I am liable to gain £5k in one hand and lose £7k from the other.

People don't have a right to a house in London, Sky tv, cigarettes and alcohol. They may arguably have the right to a roof over their head and food on the table, that should be baseline benefits. Let them work for anything else, or not as the case may be.

I am with you on this. The way jobseekers allowance works is that it doesnt pay for these things. If you are the type of person that has contributed for years you get sod all out if you need it. That was ably demonstrated to me when I was out of work. The only benefit I could get was £42 per week to feed a family of 4 and pay the mortgage. No others were available to me because I have an endowment mortgage and the endowment was counted as savings even though I can't access it. I therefore had to pay for everything like rates, school uniforms etc that people who have never contributed get for free.

It made me very angry that lazy scum (and some of them in the job centre were just that) get everything paid for including their fags, sky, food etc, but they have contributed nothing (think I need to go buy the Daily Mail now)

[thinfourth2]

RYH64E said:

thinfourth2 said:

RYH64E said:

I quite like the idea of tax/ni including a proper insurance element so that the more you have paid over the years the more you receive when you need it.

Baseline benefits should be very, very basic, anything above basic subsistence level (think food vouchers and hostels) should be based upon your previous contributions.

Which is very unfair on those that have never worked think of their rights etc and so on.

Where as paying everyone £5k a year is bone crunchingly fair

Except that the only way you are going to pay everyone £5k a year is by increasing the taxes of those who actually pay, so I am liable to gain £5k in one hand and lose £7k from the other.

People don't have a right to a house in London, Sky tv, cigarettes and alcohol. They may arguably have the right to a roof over their head and food on the table, that should be baseline benefits. Let them work for anything else, or not as the case may be.

I think you will find that 5k a year would be baseline benefits which would be a roof over their head and nothing else.

Also i think that is everyone got 5k a year then your tax bill would not go up by 5k as think of how much form filling would vanish

The 5k a year would replace all benefits, replace the old age pension, replace the student grant, and remove means testing tax credits etc and so on.

It wouldn't punish those that want to work, it wouldn't punish those that want to learn and it certainly wouldn't benefit those that never wish to work

[R1 Loon]

I think you're all missing the point of The Welfare System, which was originally designed purely to keep people away from abject poverty. It's no surprise though that most are missing this point, as successive governments seem to have done exactly the same.

The issue shouldn't be about who qualifies for most, but that there should be no incentive to live on benefits. No meas testing, just a fixed small amount of money paid weekly that they have to make last that week.

Forced movement of the log term unemployed to other more prosperous regions sounds like a good idea to me, but why not force them "voluntarily" by making the benefits so low, that they'd move themsleves.

[Mojocvh]

Engineer1 said:

I would also add from the otherside, that the tosl are too coarse but if you tighten the criteria in an attempt at fairness you can make it cost more. If you are a couple and one works over 16hours a week you don't get the means tested benefits irrespective of what your fixed outgoings are, do they expect you to sell all your assets to fund your life just because you have been out of work over 6 months?

YES.

[Mojocvh]

RYH64E said:

petemurphy said:

RYH64E said:

petemurphy said:

ShadownINja said:

It's stupid, isn't it. Out of interest, did he buy the Porsche (btw which one? a 924 doesn't really count as being a benefits-cheating supercar owner!) before claiming benefits to get rid of his savings?

he already had it - a boxster and less than 16k cash. but see no reason why if he had had 16k+ he could not have bought one and so declare on benefits he had no cash. not sure what the answer is

Presumably he paid a decent amount of tax in the time when he earned enough to afford the Porsche? Maybe it would be more acceptable if he had spent any disposable income on White Lightning and Benson and Hedges?

We have a completely arse about face system where those who pay the vast majority of tax are entitled to nothing when they are out of work if they have been prudent enough to save some of their earnings, whereas those who have never paid tax, or have spent everything that they have earned and have no savings, get access to the full range of benefits.

yes he did im not criticsing him just pointing how easy it is to get around means testing so is there any point.

i quite like the everyone gets 5k idea or for instance everyone gets the tax free allowance so it either comes off your tax if you are earning or if you are not you get it back which provides a mimimum amount to live on.

I quite like the idea of tax/ni including a proper insurance element so that the more you have paid over the years the more you receive when you need it.

Baseline benefits should be very, very basic, anything above basic subsistence level (think food vouchers and hostels) should be based upon your previous contributions.

What about Dental care? What about glasses (so you can drive without being a hazard to others)??

Before you bleat, I get neither as I have a forces pention of £104 a week, so I am entitled to NOTHING.

The kids and wife have lost weight too.

[thinfourth2]

R1 Loon said:

I think you're all missing the point of The Welfare System, which was originally designed purely to keep people away from abject poverty. It's no surprise though that most are missing this point, as successive governments seem to have done exactly the same.

The issue shouldn't be about who qualifies for most, but that there should be no incentive to live on benefits. No meas testing, just a fixed small amount of money paid weekly that they have to make last that week.

Forced movement of the log term unemployed to other more prosperous regions sounds like a good idea to me, but why not force them "voluntarily" by making the benefits so low, that they'd move themsleves.

Sadly with the human rites bks etc it is basically imposible so while the idea of making the benefits system the bare bread and water minimum is quite nice it will never happen.

So make it a system where the choice to work or not is entirely in their hands.

they can sit on their arse and have nothing or they can work and get a bit more

Current system is they want more they just fill in a few more forms the reason that workers get screwed when they fall on hard times is they don't know how to work the overly complicated system