Government ministers have revealed a top ten list of improbable and entertaining excuses offered by rumbled benefits cheats, including the defence of one perp who insisted: "It wasn't me working, it was my identical twin." Another brilliantly claimed: "I wasn't aware my wife was working because her hours of work coincided with …
>immigrants are most defiantly not interested in benefits as they will not be entitled to them
Oh the irony, we are discussing people claiming benefits they are not entitled to and one of your arguments is that illegal immigrants are not entitled to benefits. They are not entitled to work neither yet you claim that is what they go for, you seem to be confused and negating your own arguments. If they are looking for work then why do they pass through at least two other countries on their way to the UK? What makes the UK so attractive? High paid menial jobs?
Whatever illegal immigrants are entitled to do or claim is totally irrelevant, what matters is what they believe they are going to find.
Site - where builders work
Sight - what your eyes are for
Some MP on radio 4 some time back.....
Was saying how amusing he found it listening to new MPs who thought £65k was a lot of money.
To think these people have the nerve to try and demonise benefits claimants as though they're the real corruption problem in this country
No, this isn't aimed at everyone on benefits - some people truly deserve to be helped out, it's one of the better parts of our democracy... however...
I know a few people who haven't worked a day in the last 5 years or more and there's nothing wrong with them. Nothing at all. They would rather sit on their backsides and get benefits than going out to work. This makes me exceptionally angry. The reason it makes me angry is because I work my backside off to get by and part of the money I earn is paying for these lazy gits.
They claim there's no work out there, but when presented with a job, usually of the menial persuasion, a trip to the doctor seems to be the order of the day. "I'm sick, I can't work"
I'm no fan of this current government, I was no fan of the last, but something has to be done to ensure people who deserve benefits get them and people who are skiving don't.
To be honest, one way would be to raise the minimum wage. It's not rocket science that a lazy git would rather do nothing and get housing benefit & £50 a week rather than get £100 a week and less housing benefit by working.
Me and my partner haven't had a decent holiday in 4 years, yet my partners friends have been overseas twice in the last 2 years on holiday - neither of them work. What's up with that?
Me and my partner haven't had a decent holiday in 4 years
maybe you shold have worked harder at school and god a better job then!
I had a couple of great holidays last year.
People like you with a crappy poorly paid jobs whinging and whining about how life isn't fair cos better people than you have better lives really make me sick.
"I know a few people who haven't worked a day in the last 5 years or more and there's nothing wrong with them. Nothing at all."
And I know people who haven't worked a day in the last 5 years (or more) and who would *love* to work. They have been on endless "training courses" and "back to work" schemes and all the rest of the MSC (that's the Massive Statistical Cover-up because whilst they're on these schemes they're not classed as "out of work and claiming benefits), but, despite all that, when the job centre are sending thirty or forty people out for interviews for *every* job vacancy, the odds of them actually getting work are pretty bloody slim.
As for "one way would be to raise the minimum wage." who, exactly is going to *PAY* them that money? If you hadn't noticed, there's a recession on at the moment and most businesses are looking to cut costs, not pay more, so you'd actually get *fewer* people working. It's not exactly rocket science...
Not another one...
You REALLY think it's easier to live on housing benefit and JSA? REALLY? As opposed to minimum wage (~£200 after tax, PLUS ~$50 a week working tax credits)? Really? That's what you think? And your unemployed 'friends' would rather do that would they? If they were real people?
In some cases, yes
For a single person in my area
JSA - £67.50 per week (£3510 per year)
Council Tax Benefit for a band A property with single person discount (£750 per year)
Housing Benefit £150 per week (£7800)
Total benefits £12060. To take home that, you would need to earn £14261.24 plus the cost of getting to work plus the value of any healthcare benefits. That is at least £7.31 per hour for a 7.5 hour day, a bit more than the minimum wage.
A single mother with three children (all amounts £ per week, £ per year)
Job Seeker's Allowance 67.50, 3510
Child tax credit 157.22, 8175.44
Housing Benefit (3 bed house) 207.69, 10799.88
Council Tax Benefit (band D property, single person discount) 21.73, 1129.96
(plus child benefit which you get whether you work or not so not relevant)
Total relevant benefits £23,615.28 per year, plus health care benefits, free school meals and various other education related benefits.
To take home that, you would need to earn at least £31254.29 per year, which is quite a bit above the median wage, and considerably higher than minimum wage.
JohnathanB, you forgot something...
Your hypothetical single mother, if working, would probably also have substantial costs related to childcare since the hours she's working are unlikely to align well with school hours. Childcare ain't cheap.
It'd be funny if it weren't so flipping frustrating...
he's taking the piss you muppets
else/or he's looking for a punch in the doofer
either way i chuckled a bit
I would suggest you have no room to be criticising others about their education, as you are unable to communicate effectively in what I presume to be your mother tongue yourself.
Oh, and maybe you could bother to read the OP in future before firing off. They stated that it seems unusual that people who don't work can have more holidays than them, not people who earn more due to having a "better job".
Yes. There are people who don't want to work. The same people didn't want to work BEFORE the recession. Employers can ask for a lot more in a candidate than they could in 1999-2005 and still get a decent number to interview. Not surprisingly, they interview the ones who want to work, not the ones whose applications make it clear they are just applying "because the Job Centre told them to".
Sorting out the tax and benefit system would help: whatever your circumstances are, there should be a certain level of earnings where benefits and allowances are exactly cancelled out by tax. At the moment there is no step between the government paying you over £3000 a year not to work and you forking out NI and Council Tax from a low wage you have actually earned.
"thirty or forty people out for interviews for *every* job vacancy, the odds of them actually getting work are pretty bloody slim."
interview much?? any decent job is going to have at Least 40 applicants. stop with the EXCUSES. anyway, if you do 40 interviews you can expect to bag one job, on average... so do ten a week and within a month you have a job ??
you missed putting
the troll icon....
Big businesses in the UK are paying less and less tax.
The ruling elite have been found fiddling their expenses.
Tax inspectors are losing their jobs.
And yet we're supposed to be bothered by the tiny minority of these idiots?
Perhaps it is then time to simplify the system - more complex = more opportunities to avoid tax.
Getting tired of all this downvoting
ok ok, to all you lot that seem to think everyone on Benfits is , owed a living
Tell me, how would you Save £160,000,000,000 a year, and thats just how much we borrow from the bank, every year, all current taxes would need to remain the same or you would need to save even more than the 160 billion. So go for it, tell me how you are going to save the country, your all very keen on downvoting anyone who thinks stopping people claiming benifits who shouldnt get them is a good idea, your all probably the same folk who downvote people who suggest major changes in the biggest money sucker of them all, the public sector (inc the NHS)
so im curious, how are you going to pull back £160billion, once youve done that perhaps you can think about the other £4 Trillion including future pensions, of debt we are all ready in, any ideas?
... we could stop fighting in multiple arenas, bring the military back within the borders of the UK, and therefore save a huge amount in supplies, transport costs ... oh, and millions of quid's worth of munitions that just literally keeps going up in smoke. I suspect that would make a good dent in your figures over the course of a few years.
Then, we could make sure that government money is spent within the country, and not contracted out to foreign concerns.
Then again, ensuring that electricity companies are not owned by anyone outside the UK. Ditto with train companies. Let's keep UK money in the UK.
When all those things are done, and if there is still a shortfall, then we can look at taxing people and companies with lots of money properly.
If there is still a shortfall, we can look at taxing the middle classes a bit more.
Only then, if there is a shortfall, should we even think about preying on those at the bottom.
See what I did there?
Remind me ...
Why does the government reward people for not working and for not saving? So they can create extra jobs for people to snoop around catching the people who are secretly working or saving and make sure they are suitably punished?
It's a fair cop guvnor
but they must be taking a lead from our venerable MP's, who are often caught red handed stealing from the People's Purse, or they are simply caught telling porkies so large that they wouldn't fit into the Guiness Book of Records, ie; when the Minister pushing the Localism Bill ( durr wotsiz name) pushes ahead a project to send nuclear waste to landfill in Peterborough, against almost total opposision locally.
Why not have a story about Wankers not paying their taxes after making huge bonuses for crashing their companies. How many billion was that, oooh we only have their figures to relie on.... Lets bash the Benefits Cheats (the poor) again ...... instead....
Didn't Cammeron have a hand in Black Friday a while back ?
WTF peeps ? Behaving Like Sheeps, BAA ! beep beep
How about this one
You pay your staff minimum wage so they have to be subsidised by the state. The savings you make on wages turn into huge profits for you and your share holders. It's a really good scam because the person who gets rich doesn't have to make the benefits claim directly, so doesn't risk going to prison for getting something wrong on the form.
>barefaced cheek and ridiculous excuses for stealing money from the taxpayer.
Only MPs are allowed to do that.
better excuse would be
"My bank is so big that if it goes bust, it will pull down the other banks and crash the UK's economy"
Note for government ministers :
The correct response is "go f*** yourself" not "here have 16 billion pounds"
To high unemployment in the UK, is to tax imports of electronic goods.
i.e. those expensive plasma screens and other items which everyone "has to" have but are made in our favourite location.
This tax should only apply to goods made overseas, NOT components or subassemblies.
Therefore generating much needed employment in skilled areas, with the resultant drop in carbon emissions from reductions in sending said expensive goods from the other side of the world.
Kill two birds with one stone, simplez.
AC, because a certain rather large economy won't like this one bit :-)
there's the minor matter
of GATT, the Treaty of Rome, etcetera, that such behaviour would put the UK in breach of
This is merely government misdirection
The real crimes are bankers pushing their private debts onto the government, then forcing the public to accept austerity measures to pay for them. All the supposed savings to benefits programmes won't add up to a thousandth of the money that could have been saved by letting bank fail.
Isn't more money lost to human and system error on the part of the DWP? Where's the reporting of that? It probably does get reported but it doesn't suit the agenda of the right wing tabloid press as much to get highlighted as much.
Anyone defrauding the public purse deserves to be punished, whether they are benefit fraudsters, tax dodgers or councillors, MPs and peers fiddling expenses. However, those who already have plenty of money (such as many of the MP and peers caught fiddling expenses) should get extra helpings of whatever punishment is being dished out, IMO. All of those in public office caught stealing should have been thrown out of, and barred from, any future public office.
Get a job...
"These excuses are outrageous, of course they are, but they represent a tiny fraction of benefit claimants"
Anyone claiming benefits should ensure they are entitled to them and if something like unemployment should be seeking 'employment' so they are not a drain on the rest of us. Unemployment benefits should be short term - even time limited - people should be given the chance to find a new job / retrain but it's unfair on the 'rest of us' to keep paying for them to not work.
everything in moderation
Time limited benefits is not the answer.... if you haven't noticed alot of areas aren't hiring, unless you count 10 hours a week as gainfully employed?
Toughen up on what counts as looking for work to maintain JSA (one application a fortnight is not searching for work). Redeploy some of these Council staff that are on the way out as "follow up advisors" to sort those that genuinely tried to get the job vs those that sit there and say "I won't work if you do hire me" (I know lots that do this). And you are keeping the system for those that are playing by the rules properly.
What are you going to do with those that do say "I won't work if you do hire me"? Let them starve, penniless on the streets - or, more accurately, encourage them into criminal behaviour? There is nothing effective that a truly humane society can do with people with that mind-set, so just accept it. Such people are in a very, very small minority, and are just noise in the system.
But what if you actually had to compete for *your* job, 'barking'?
Plenty of people out there with superior reasoning abilities (and grammar) and less addicted to self-pity. Btw, this is England - retraining is not even an option. Rather like training, in fact.
Lord Freud, Welfare Reform Minister, said: "The Bank bailout is no joke, and yet our investigators are routinely dealing with barefaced cheek and ridiculous excuses for stealing money from the taxpayer."
There, fixed that for him.
does it get more blatant folks? do we need more hints? the rich steal it all, the bankers crashed the lot and got bailed out, how many billions were we fleeced? £850 billion......this is just the most common example there are thousands more examples of crap like this.
so lets get all the people who lost money, houses, jobs etc and blame the BENEFIT CHEATS as they are a lower class than the workers, someone for them to blame, better than them blaming the real crooks.......
Irony is like Silvery, but less valuable
"our investigators are routinely dealing with barefaced cheek and ridiculous excuses for stealing money from the taxpayer" but enough from the IPSA about MPs' expenses...
Let's tread on the downtrodden
I've not worked for a number of years. I have a list of ailments. All of which are internal (Loud chronic tinnitus, IBS, GERD, TMJD, Migraines, anxiety, panic attacks and yoyo depression). It's made my life unpleasant to say the least. I really don't know how I will cope if forced into work. But because of the way the new medical exam works. Unless you are having a heart attack on the floor at the time they will pass you as fit for work. I won't say I am keen to work (Not many are really). In fact I am shit scared! But I don't feel the way people are being pushed back into work is right. Surely the way forward is in a supportive role. Working with some specialists who can help those who have ill health to deal with and offering ways and means to work around those limitations and still be able to earn enough to make living worthwhile? Surely a person should not be made worse off working than not?
From what I have been reading however they seem to be adamant in punishing anyone on incapacity benefit. In all honestly I don't know what will happen if I am forced back into work. An employer certainly will not put up with someone who sometimes can't even get out of the door on some mornings simply because of their health issues. But they say they will punish those who either turn down jobs or keep losing their jobs by cutting their benefits.
Sure I don't believe people should have the right to a free lunch everyday. But surely there are better ways in dealing with this problem?
Yet we are in this situation because of the banking system causing the economy crash and the pure greed of the wealthy and who do they use to pull the money back from? The poorest and most needy (as always).
It is unfortunate, but the massive expanse of the Public sector and the benefits under Labour were and are unsustainable. The ferryman now wants paying and so, as usual, those at the bottom of society will get screwed. The best choices are not necessarily being made but you can't keep borrowing on new sovereign credit cards to pay your current bill.
Please dispense with the bank bashing - it's another sideshow. We were living well beyond our means before they went arse up and, although they made matters worse, big cuts would still need to have been made as revenues were down and expenses kept rising.
we're not in this situation because of the banking system, we are in this situation because Labour took one of the best balances this country has had and shafted it.
Borrowing has skyrocketed since they came in.
because they said they would do this and that, that all costs money, where did you think it came from?
elections are now ironic, they compete with each other on how much more of our money they are going to spend... its really rather stupid when you think about it, they more they promise the more they have to take from us... or as in Labours case, the more they have to borrow from the bank
intrestingly, we will make quite a bit of money out of the banks now that we own a sizeable chunk of them, once that all plays out we will be in a slightly better place, but we wil still be sticking over £100 Billion every year on to a credit card!! Does nobody see this is stupid???
I didn't know I was still on benefit
So many years paying in ... so little paid back when the axe does fall.
Those evil lying people
who claimed a few extra quid a week to feed their kids should have asked for duck houses for their castle moats instead. That would have been fine.
Increase in minimum wage = fewer people employed = greater burden on the state?
Dear HM Govt.,
Deal with the real corruption in this country and I'll start listening to your constant shite about benefit fraud.
May the seed of your loin be fruitful in the belly of your woman.
A. Lifelong Taxpayer
only being able to come up with an excuse that weak is a good enough reason for the rest of use not to want you as a co-worker. We all might be better off if such people are provided with enough money to live out their day's in sufficient comfort not to turn to crime. Its not like the government doesn't have enough money to kill foreigners or subsidise bankers so taking care of the unfortunate people without the intelligences to survive in the modern world is hardly a massive burden.
Targetting the wrong areas again - pay me to advise you
Cheats are small fry and pretty easy to go after. What the government doesn't want to do is a total benefit reform. Making work pay better than benefits should be top priority.
Heres an example after tax for a single person over 25
Mimimum wage take home pay = £160
Jobseekers allowance + housing benefit + council tax benefit = £150
£10 per week difference to NOT go to work. Not have to commute. And don't forget free prescriptions vs £7 per item.
Now if you have a child or are disabled then the difference is more. Each child is "worth" Child Tax Credit + Child benefit (£70ish per week). Vs paying for childcare it's a no brainer.
For the record I've worked from a teenager until a few years ago. And I am now financially better off than when I have been in employment. And thats without bothering to cheat the system.
But I have seen how badly the current system is broken and how a couple of changes would encourage people to work without hitting those that genuinely need the support of the benefit system. Unfortunately trying to speak to the right person is never going to happen as I'm not in the right "network".
Radical reform required
The entire benefit and tax system is broken. We need to address it with a brainstorming approach. That is to say: all ideas on the table however crackpot. They are not there to be shot down. If anyone proposed the current system that would certainly be shot down as absurd, unfair on both the working and the claimants. The aim is to look for the positive aspects of all the crackpot ideas and look for a solution that will probably still be short of perfect but captures many of the positive aspects and minimises the negative.
An example might be something like this: everyone gets £X000 a year from Govt - enough for subsistence lifestyle BUT everyone pays tax at quite a high rate so there comes a point, maybe £20k where the £X000 has all been reclaimed in tax. The admin cost of taking with one hand and giving back with the other is high, the biggest beneficiaries of the current arrangements are the middlemen - public sector (tax admin) who cream off their generous slice in exchange for doing their job badly. Merge Tax and NI, NI is not insurance it is income tax. Running two separate tax gathering schemes is bonkers (costly). Brown got away with "no basic rate tax increase" by shoving the increase onto NI instead. NI is a sliding scale but there's a maximum so high paid pay proportionatley less. Yes I know you can see immediate problems - like multi-occupant households with shared expenses benefit disproportinately, how do we address the cost of having a kid but remember this is brainstorming.
Having said that our biggest problem is public sector. They've been on the gravy train for a decade. Not only do salaries now exceed private sector for equivalent jobs, they come with a generous and largely hidden benefit package. Now the hard times have arrived they'll not give an inch. Forget MP expenses, its a headline grabbing sideshow. It was a condoned fiddle to keep the MPs salaries looking low, a few fiddled rather more than had been intended at a cost of a few million a year. Our problem is about billions not millions. Private sector has mostly lost final salary pensions, over the last decade, teachers, having presided over the failure of the education system, are threatening strike over any change to their pensions. Bad at your job private sector, you'll lose it, public you don't. Private sector: to succeed you'll take work home, Public sector you'll succeed by making a name for yourself with a high profile over-interpretation of legislation, using it to spectacularly catch the small fry for minor infractions. Private sector: Forget the working hours directive, that only applies to hours in the workplace. Public sector: 9-5 with statutory coffee and lunch breaks. Even a McDonalds burger flipper on statutory minimum is expected to complete home study booklets - and gets no extra pay for working unsocial hours. Try that one on a public sector "worker"!
Shoesmith on £130k - as head of an organisation in chaos and failing to deliver what it's paid for, private sector she'd have "been given the opportunity to resign" even if she were a cabinet minister with responsibility for a failing department (about the same salary) she'd return to the back benches (half the salary). If she had any decency she'd have tendered her resignation in response to the death of "baby P" or else when Ofstead reported "insufficient strategic leadership and management oversight". If reports are correct that she's in line for £2.5m unfair dismissal compensation - well that would buy a lifetime annuity of £100k-£150k p.a. Better pay than if she was working.
Your idea about a minimum amount given to each adult member of society is known as the "Citizen's Income", or variations on that theme. It is definitely an idea that needs serious consideration - if everyone gets enough to live on (just), then there is no question of fraud.* The down side is that it would almost certainly need identification tied to the person, and therefore identity cards would be back on the agenda. It would remain to be seen whether the Citizen's Income would be enough to answer the question "What is the benefit of the ID card to the individual".
* One of my first academic papers was written on this topic.
Boom Shankar to you too. :o)
Lord Freud saying the problem's huge?
Clearly he's just overcompensating for something!
You have to admit...
"stealing money from the taxpayer" sounds aggressive, evil and nasty, doesn't it?
Except these people weren't taking anything from 'the taxpayer' and they weren't 'stealing' either.
They were submitting statements the DSS choses to define as 'false'.
At the very most this is fraud.
I somehow doubt the underprivileged would walk away from it as cleanly as those who defraud people of far more money, such as those in banks, government, etc.
Maybe 'not wearing a suit' is the actual crime, eh?
- Geek's Guide to Britain INSIDE GCHQ: Welcome to Cheltenham's cottage industry
- Game Theory Is the next-gen console war already One?
- BBC suspends CTO after it wastes £100m on doomed IT system
- AT&T adds 61¢ 'Mobility Administrative Fee' for users
- Updated Reports: New Xbox could DOOM second-hand games market