Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
31 December 2008
19:4211771The generosity of the Labour Government has been extended to the elderly who live in care homes.
I've read that tens of thousands of elderly people in care homes are to be given a spending money increase of just 75p a week. They will have no more than £21.90 a week to pay for everything from clothes to toothpaste, books and phone calls.
The below-inflation rise was condemned as 'Scrooge-worthy' and 'an insult'. It means vulnerable elderly people will have less spending money than prisoners in jail. The spending limit applies to all care-home residents whose bills are being paid by the state.
Any income they receive - normally a state or private pension - must be handed over to help fund their care. The spending allowance is the only part of their own money they can keep. At present it is £21.15 a week but Health Secretary Alan Johnson has announced an increase to £21.90 from April. That is a rise of 3.5 per cent - with inflation running at 4.1 per cent on the Government's favoured Consumer Prices Index.
The decision provoked outrage among MPs and charities. Age Concern said the increase was 'barely enough to buy a packet of biscuits' and complained that a string of Government promises to review the system have been broken.
By contrast, prisoners can spend £33 a week of their own money on products available in jail, which include food, cigarettes and toiletries.
I also hear that an astonishing 140,000 households are pocketing more in benefits than the average take-home wage. The families are living on handouts worth in excess of £20,000 a year, official figures show.
The enormous payouts dwarf the incomes of millions of hard-working families who are struggling to cope with the recession and the rising cost of living. The average salary is £25,100 before tax, but after deductions it shrinks to £19,126. In contrast, state benefits are tax-free. A worker would have to earn £27,000 a year to take home more than 20,000. However, half of all working women earn less than £21,424, and one in ten full-time employees is on less than £13,613 before tax. Ministers said they were unable to calculate the number of households receiving more than £30,000 a year from the state. But previous figures suggest it could be around 20,000, with 70,000 being paid £25,000-plus.
While enraging taxpayers, the revelations will also fuel claims that Labour has cultivated a generation dependent on the state.
A Happy New Year if you're on benefits; tough luck if you're elderly and in a care-home.
But of course, no one will complain because it's a Labour Government doing all this.
Roger
31 December 2008
19:5211773Careful - to label as "handouts" the proper entitlements of those who are genuinely unable to work risks not only offence but the promotion of hositlity and anger towards the very most vulnerable in our society. Absolutely, there are some who don't want to work, and there should be strategies in place for them. There are others who, through no fault of their own, have never had an opportunity to break free of the generational habit of benefits, and there are others still who are genuinely unable to work, some of whom have "invisible" challenges such as mental health challenges, which leave them vulnerable to the unfounded accusation of being "scroungers". To big up the few who really do "scrounge" - and there are some, no doubtabout it - is to insult those who don't scrounge but who do accept their entitlements. it is this attitude that leads to many elders forgoing their entitlements because they don't wan to "scrounge", despite having paid the most into the system, in many ways.
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
31 December 2008
22:0311779I would have hoped that most on this forum would have grown-up enough to get past the 'red-top' stereotype of benefit recipients. While there will always be a percentage fiddling the system (just as there will always be a larger percentage fiddling their tax returns) the majority claim benefit because they have to. Shop workers on part-time and low wages have to claim to make up the cost of rent etc. Those unable to work are expected to pay their utility bills, food etc. out of their benefit, with only rent and council tax paid as an extra benefit. Any 'emergency loans' claimed to cover bills, or buying such luxuries as a bed, are deducted from the benefit on a regular basis and thus reduce the amount recieved. Far from being 'tax free', benefits are assessed for income tax and when a claiment is lucky enough to get a job the arrears result in increased income tax until it is repayed.
As Bern rightly says, it is this prejudiced and incorrect, blanket labeling of those on benefits as 'scroungers' that leads to the vunerable with a self defeating sense of pride to suffering the worst in their attempts to avoid the label. Benefits are not a luxury, they are the civilised way of ensuring that society cares for all through the bad times so that they can all enjoy the good times.
If you really want to encourage claiments back into the habit of work you should change the nonsense of only being allowed to earn ten pounds a week before it affecting the benefits. It takes so long and so many forms to adjust for even a pound over that people are disinclined to do it. If they were allowed to earn a more realistic amount (say thirty pounds) then more would be inclined to take days work when it was available and thus be in the environment where they are more likely to find full time employment.
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.
Richard Armour
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
1 January 2009
08:3711787The point of the benefits piece, is not against those who "need" the extra income to survive, but against the culture of benefit fraud, those having a lazy attitude and the fact that it is becoming - has become, a way of life for far too many.
Why is it an "entitlement" to be given such large sums of money ?
I've always said on here that the vulnerable, the needy, elderly and those who cannot work through whatever reason (mental or physical disability or someother similar reason) should be looked after; it cannot be right, it simply cannot, that people get more money for staying at home, than people do for working.
Chris, I've heard the expression before on here, but what's meant by "Red-Top".
Roger
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
1 January 2009
09:0811792I have mixed feelings on this one, I feel as Bern/Chris says there are those unable to work for a number of reasons, but without doubt a number of Govts have helped to create a society where a number of people just do not work, or have no intention ever of working, its these peple that the Govt/agencies need to target.
No govt has ever tackled this Issue, but it is one that is emotive but needs addressing, I fear that it never will under ANY colour of Govt.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
1 January 2009
09:3511796We need to get back to the idea of a basic safety net of benefits so no-one needs starve or be homeless. Anthing on top should be cut out completely. We are all being taken for mugs subsidising lazy worthless lifestyles from our taxes. I find it interesting that people on benefits are among the biggest smokers, if you can afford something as worthless as a cigarette on benefits then benefits are too high.
Hard, maybe - we need to be hard.
1 January 2009
09:3611797No one would argue that fraud doesn't exist - as Chris rightly points out it is as much a white collar crime as a benefits crime - but the prejudicial labelling of people on benefits is irresponsible and cruel. And however much you say you support people in genuine need to claim benefits, the language we use and the asuumptions we make about those who do so will be the factors we remember and the factors that cause problems. In my line it is important to describe aspiration as well as need - no-one likes to feel "needy" and a real balance needs to be struck between needs and aspirations, and we seriously need to look at our language and how that impacts on our perceptions.
1 January 2009
09:3711798BarryW - "lazy and worthless", are such good examples of the way we stigmatise people. Well done.
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
1 January 2009
09:3911801Barryw
Whilst there are a number of solutions, as I said earlier I don't feel any political party truely wants to take this issue on.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
1 January 2009
09:4011802Fair enough, Bern, I have no problem about stigmatising those who deserve it. Perhaps they will change their ways if we start doing so instead of finding excuses and fancy labels for being wasters.
Dont get me wrong, I am not saying everyone on benefits is worthless, if I thought that then I would want to get rid of benefits all together, but too many of them are.
1 January 2009
09:4611807I am not getting you wrong - you are stigmatising an entire subgroup of people because some break the rules. It is akin to saying drivers are a bunch of murdering ba*****s because some break the speed limt and kill people. And please don't say you don't mean it like that - what we say and how we say it is what counts and what is remembered, not what we meant to say.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
1 January 2009
09:5611813Bern - no its not about breaking the rules, the rules are far too generous and as such encourage sloth. Some people still have the pride to get work and improve their lot but far too many do not and we see families where 3 generations have never worked. It is these latter (and others headed that way) who deserve to be labelled lazy and worthless and should have all their benefits taken away.
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
1 January 2009
10:0211816Barryw
Whilst I probably share SOME of our views, you cannot label(as Bern/Chris says)people.
Those that we can get into work we should, but there are often good reason why some can't work, so whilst I share SOME of your viewpoint, the outcome(way you want to deal with it) take awy all handouts
I'm afraid I couldn't support, would need a lot more research as to reasons why, how best to help, what best to do.
Just stopping benefits effects all the family, is it the kids fault? there are implications of such a move.
I don't have the answers, but would like to see some radical changes, but as i'v said I don't think any govt will take it on.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
1 January 2009
10:2111821So Keith, where you have 3 generations where no-one has ever worked is it because they cant or wont? Won't is the answer, not all of them will be disabled and unable to work. Indeed even many disabled are capable of doing some form of work, as many in fact do to their great credit.
No excuses, parents should be responsible for their own children. They need to be given deadlines and benefits gradually reduced/withdrawn as each deadline passes.
We should get to the stage where no-one gets benefits for more than a period of 12 months unless they are proven to be unable to do any kind of work at all for reasons of health. Beyond that, food vouchers only.
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
1 January 2009
10:4311825I understand where your coming from, but as iv said I don't have the answers any more than you barryw.
Need to do something though.
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
1 January 2009
10:4511826Roger, 'Red-tops' are the tabloids that peddle opinions (and Tv programmes) instead of news - Sun, Mirror etc..
BarryW, you are skating on very thin ice there. How many families of disabled spend their time caring? How would you define levels of disability as to what work they should do? Many ill and disabled would love to work but their conditions preclude a lot of jobs so would you propose a blanket withdrawal of benefits (even if there was no suitable work available) or would you want to grade entitlement to specific job descriptions? If you wanted to do that who would then monitor all the ill/disabled in a given area to see if they were actually applying to vacancies that fitted their particular circumstances? Once you had done that who would then tell the companies who they had to employ from the very many applicants most vacancies get these days, based on the requirements of benefit claims rather than on suitability for the post?
Devise a tax system that cannot be fiddled and you will be on your way to finding a benefit system that cannot be fiddled. In the meantime basing attacks on the criminal minority is just further stigmatizing the majority. As to deadlines, how would they take into account local and national economic downturns? There are no more jobs in Woolworths now.
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.
Richard Armour
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
1 January 2009
10:5111828Oh dear Barryw
what do you have to say now?
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
1 January 2009
10:5111829Chris - its not fiddling that bothers me as much as excessive generosity and our expense. Sometimes you have to be hard to be kind. Incidentally - insurance companies have ways of assessing disability for income protection claims and maybe some lessons can be learnt from them, they are usually very good.
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
1 January 2009
11:5211835It should be the fiddling that is of prime concern. Phrases such as 'excesive generosity' can only come from those that have never tried to live on benefits, without fiddling. Food vouchers were tried and they do not work. I once stood in line behind a 'voucher customer' mid month and watched them piling chocolate and 'treats' into the trolly, more than I could afford, just to make up their shopping to the value of their voucher. Probably not their fault either as they would almost certainly have prefered to spend the value on clothes, services or some other 'luxury' not covered by benefits.
It is not the difficulty of assessing disability that would be the problem but tying it into available work and then getting the firms to employ those particular people, without incurring greater expense by paying them to do so. There would be no saving in getting somebody off benefits if the payments were then going to companies to provide the employment.
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.
Richard Armour
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
1 January 2009
12:1811838this life of luxury on benefits.
job seekers allowance is about 50-60 quid a week.
i suppose they must fritter it all away.
