egafd.com

The country is in a hell of a mess because of those unemployed shirkers taking up vast amounts of the country's GDP. Really?

Err, not really. Social security is a very big spend for the government but it includes stuff like pensions and a load of benefits such as maternity allowance, sick pay, tax credits, housing benefits etc etc that working people get in an environment where private rental rates in the South have spiralled out of control and wages have been driven down in real terms for much of the last 10 years.

So what proportion of the social security budget goes to the unemployed?

3%.

So what proportion of the unemployed claims are fraudulent?

0.7%

Have a nice day.

David Johnson wrote:

>
> So what proportion of the social security budget goes to the
> unemployed?
>
> 3%.
>

David,

Does 3% represent the total of all benefits paid to the unemployed or just unemployment benefit?

If the latter many of the unemployed will be also receiving other benefits eg housing, council tax relief.
Of course if working for the minimum wage or just above many would still be getting some benefits but nevertheless with this scenario the true direct cost of the unemployed is more than 3% of the total social security budget.

This is a very good question. I checked and the figure is 2.6% purely paid for unemployed benefits e.g. jobseekers allowance.

I haven't seen a breakdown for the UK between unemployed and employed for those means tested benefits such as council tax benefit, housing benefit etc.

But the bottom line point you make is correct if you put together the benefits which the unemployed might be able to claim it is going to be more than 3%.

For me, the question is not so much about setting "strivers" against "shirkers" as the Tories are trying to do, but more about how on earth we got into the situation whereby according to the IFS, the 1% restriction on benefits upgrading is going to impact on 60% working people as opposed to 40% non-working.

And the basic reason for this is

1. In the UK, the well paid jobs in shipbuilding, docks, coal mining, steel making, much of the car building industry and manufacturing in general etc etc have all but disappeared to be replaced by mnimum wage employment.

2. Neither Tories nor Labour have grasped the basic problem which is that benefits for low paid workers are subsidies for small companies and large corporations. THatcher was one of the first to bring in benefits for the "working poor" and this has continued and expanded as pay has been squeezed and squeezed.

THe only solution I can see is the introduction of a living wage to get the working poor off tax credits etc etc and rent controls to tackle the housing benefit bill . Otherwise cutting benefits in real terms is just going to add to the increasing stream of people in work going along to food banks. ANd people going to hospitals in London will find themselves pushing their own trolleys into the operation theatre because poorly paid porters can no longer afford to live in London.

All those people claiming benefits for doing low paid work are not really in private employment. The tax payer is subsidising that company so the company can make bigger profits.

Why would any company pay more than the minimum wage if it knows the tax payer will top up their wages? This is madness.

If any job is offered it should be done so on the understanding that tax payers don't have to top up their wages. So the minimum wage needs increasing to a living wage. But I guess the government wants to keep the unemployment figures low.

David thanks for replying.

As you say a significant issue is the reduction in skilled and semi-skilled jobs that pay a living wage while many new jobs are low paid hence to provide even the government definition of an acceptable standard of living a top up with benefits and allowances is required.

Just take my area.
Thirty years ago the main employer of several thousand people was an automotive component manufacturing company.
Back then my aim was to get a job there. While never exciting most who worked there assumed they had a job for life if they wanted it and of course a good benefits package on top of their salary.
The numbers employed gradually declined and the site finally closed at least 15 years ago. While there is a technology park on part of the site providing skilled jobs the total number employed is a small percentage compared to 30 years ago.

Another smaller automotive component factory finally closed a few years ago.
That site is currently being re-developed with a large supermarket despite another on the retail park opposite and two others in the area not to mention major traffic delays in the area most of the weekend, a hotel, some residential blocks and ( a token gesture of ) a few small business units.
Hence the new jobs will be mostly basic and low paid.

Apologies for not getting back sooner. I definitely agree with you and my experience as a kid backs up your feedback.

I was brought up in the North East at a time when shipbuilding was still a major employer at places like Swan Hunter. There was a huge steelworks at Consett and mines, although declining, were still being worked.

And now? All the above has gone and not a great deal has replaced it. It's great to see the regeneration work done in places like Newcastle-Gateshead with the metro, the Sage building and developments on the Tyne. However, you do get the impression that it is a bit "all fur coat and no knickers" i.e. the well paid. skilled jobs in industry have largely gone for good.

Another 800 jobs gone at Honda in Swindon. And Jessops is closing all its shops as of today so even relatively low paid jobs in retail don't seem to be holding up.

As for "rebalancing the economy", I will believe it when I see it.

Nation to be taken back to being either a slave or master.