The demonisation of the social security system

[David Johnson]

Well alongside Mr. Slater's excellent graph, I will add my pennyworth.

One of the reasons we are in the shit is because of all these benefit scroungers. Right? Wrong.

1. There are approximately 2.5 million people unemployed.
2. There are approximately 450,000 long term unemployed people i.e. unemployed for more than 2 years.
3. According to the ONS there are about 440,000 jobs available.

So let's assume you regard every single one of the 450,000 long term unemployed people a scrounger and forced them to fill the 440,000 available jobs, you would still have 2 million people with no jobs to apply for, never mind actually get and leave the world of social security.

So in terms of the UK's total social security bill what we have is not so much a scrounger problem, though that is not to say there aren't any scroungers, but a jobs problem is the key.

So in order to reduce the deficit, the main problems we have are as follows:

1. A Jobs crisis. If you have no growth which is the situation the UK has been in for the last 2 and a half years, there is no way you can pay off the debt. The social security bill will continue to be too high. The social security bill has gone up under the Tories.

2. A Housing crisis. Margaret Thatcher sold off a 1 million council houses during her time in power and refused to allow councils to replace them. Neither the Labour government nor the coalition have done anything much at all to improve that situation. As a result housing benefit has soared as the cost of private rented housing is on the whole higher than the cost of council housing. So what housing benefit should be regarded as is scrounging private landlords' subsidy. We need more council houses to be built and rent controls to reduce the extortionate rates that can be charged in the private sector in many of our cities.

3. A Low Pay crisis. In many parts of the country housing benefits and tax credits are the only reason people are able to actually work and not starve. Tax credits should be calle the scrounging employer subsidy. What is needed is a living not minimum wage to reduce the tax credit bill. The Tories and the corporates will whinge but so they did when Labour introduced the minimum wage.

4. A Tax avoidance and Tax Evasion crisis. This should be known as a scrounging Corporates subsidy. A concentrated effort to reduce that would have a huge impact on the deficit.

There you go, have a good weekend, boys and girls.

[andy at handiwork]

Cant argue with that, though I'm sure some will.

[Arginald Valleywater]

Yep. Met a bloke yesterday who was bleating about the welfare reforms. Do you run I car I asked as I helped him fill in a DHP form. Yes, that SAAB Turbo outside. No further questions your honour, my client can just about get by on ?350 a week.

[David Johnson]

Poor Argie,

I met a bloke in a pub yesterday who had a Porsche parked outside. He reckoned he was better off on the dole than doing an investment banking job.

It aint right is it?

Get Discretionary Payments (DHP and DCTP)

When we wouldn't help


In general, we wouldn't pay Discretionary Housing Payments in these situations.
?If your benefit falls a long way short of the rent because the landlord is overcharging by a large amount or because of the Local Housing Allowance rates.
?Because Local Housing Allowance rates and local reference rents have put homes in many parts of Manchester beyond the means of many people claiming Housing Benefit.
?If your preference for a size of home, type of home or area to live in is not strictly necessary and you have no compelling reasons for this preference.
?When your non-dependants have not paid their share of your housing costs but they have the means to do so.
?The inadequacy of benefits for disability to cover the cost of disability towards which they are paid.
?If you are unwilling to use other available resources or to apply for other more appropriate forms of help.
?If you could deal with your housing costs in other ways, for example, by moving to cheaper accommodation or by claiming other benefits.
?If you move from a council or Housing Association tenancy to unaffordable private-rented accommodation, unless the move is for the most compelling reasons.
?If you move to private-rented accommodation when it should be clear to you that the property is too large or unaffordable.
?If you move from a property with a lower council tax band to a higher banded property, other than for the most compelling reasons.
?If you apply for a discretionary payment towards council tax for an empty property

[Essex Lad]

David Johnson wrote:

> One of the reasons we are in the shit is because of all these
> benefit scroungers. Right? Wrong.
>
> 1. There are approximately 2.5 million people unemployed.
> 2. There are approximately 450,000 long term unemployed people
> i.e. unemployed for more than 2 years.
> 3. According to the ONS there are about 440,000 jobs available.
>
> So let's assume you regard every single one of the 450,000 long
> term unemployed people a scrounger and forced them to fill the
> 440,000 available jobs, you would still have 2 million people
> with no jobs to apply for, never mind actually get and leave
> the world of social security.

Tony Blair said when asked why he didn't invade Zimbabwe that while you can't do everything that should not prevent you doing something. Governments of all hues seem reluctant to do anything to force people into jobs and off benefits. As soon as any attempt is made to change the system, familiar voices chant about "nasty" Tories or "starving" children and, to quote Del Amitri, nothing ever happens.

If you "force" the unemployed to take those 440,000 jobs what do you get? Well, 440,000 fewer people claiming benefits for a start. That's almost half a million people who could be paying tax again, making a contribution and not adding to the viewing figures for the Jeremy Kyle Show.

Psychologists tell us that work is beneficial from more than a financial point of view. Yes, not everyone can have a highly paid job, not everyone can do a glamorous job but anyone can take pride in the job that they do.

What was that Gordon Brown said "British jobs for British workers"? Ensure all jobs are offered to people who have been resident here at least two years before allowing a newcomer to take the job. I realise that this would be illegal under EU law but that's easily changed...

[David Johnson]

You haven't understood the point I am making. I will attempt to explain it again.

The ONS stated there were about 440,000 jobs available. There are about 450,000 long term unemployed which still leaves another 2 million unemployed.

So from the point of view of the social security bill, getting this bill down has nothing much to do with dealing with "scroungers". There are plenty of "non-scroungers" applying for these vacant jobs as can be seen from the fact that 1700 people applied for 8 close to minimum wage jobs in Costa Coffee.

Yes, we want to get the long term unemployed into work, but concentrating on this as the media overwhelmingly does, does nothing for reducing the overall bill because there are plenty of other people applying for these jobs.

It's a lack of jobs problem that is the key factor not that we have some people who would prefer not to work.

[Essex Lad]

David Johnson wrote:

> You haven't understood the point I am making. I will attempt
> to explain it again.

Er, yes I did.
>
> The ONS stated there were about 440,000 jobs available. There
> are about 450,000 long term unemployed which still leaves
> another 2 million unemployed.
>
> So from the point of view of the social security bill, getting
> this bill down has nothing much to do with dealing with
> "scroungers". There are plenty of "non-scroungers" applying
> for these vacant jobs as can be seen from the fact that 1700
> people applied for 8 close to minimum wage jobs in Costa
> Coffee.
>
> Yes, we want to get the long term unemployed into work, but
> concentrating on this as the media overwhelmingly does, does
> nothing for reducing the overall bill because there are plenty
> of other people applying for these jobs.
>
> It's a lack of jobs problem that is the key factor not that we
> have some people who would prefer not to work.

I don't believe I mentioned scroungers I said forcing 440,000 people into work would mean at the very least 440,000 not claiming dole. Yes, that still leaves two million or so not working but as Chairman Mao so memorably said a long journey begins with the first step...

[David Johnson]

To repeat, in financial terms there is no advantage in forcing 440,000 people into work because there are on average so many people chasing so few jobs, the vast majority of them "non-scroungers". Secondly you may well view the long term unemployed as "scroungers", I do not.

It might make you feel better. It might make the government feel better, though long term unemployment is going up so they are obviously failing.

What it wont do is reduce the deficit or the debt anymore than would otherwise happen anyway. Therefore it is far, far, far more important to concentrate on what needs to be done on creating growth and it is on this subject that the coalition have done such a piss poor job.

No wonder they concentrate exclusively on rabbiting on about "scroungers".

[bamboo]

Chairman Mao also said;

'I am a lone monk, walking the world with a leaky umbrella'.

Some things he said made sense. Clearly not everything though.
!wink!

[Essex Lad]

David Johnson wrote:

> To repeat, in financial terms there is no advantage in forcing
> 440,000 people into work because there are on average so many
> people chasing so few jobs, the vast majority of them
> "non-scroungers". Secondly you may well view the long term
> unemployed as "scroungers", I do not.
>
Typical left-wing smear tactics: imputing a belief where there is no basis. In this discussion I have not called the long-term unemployed "scroungers".

How can there be no financial benefit in people not signing on? They pay tax and National Insurance, their employer pays National Insurance. They spend their money on stuff which bolsters the economy, etc etc.

If there was "no advantage" why should anyone bother to work?