Benefits...Again!
Comments
-
Points 1 and 2 +100%, well said.pliptrot wrote:In all the arguments made the principal points are missed. These are:
1. if not working is financially attractive then those in work are not being paid enough. Let's not race to the bottom.
2. regulations are written and controlled by those with wealth and power, to protect that wealth and power, and are loaded against those with neither. Usually they're incredibly unfair.
3. work has dignity (no, I'm not proclaiming pride in hardship....) and is intrinsically good. To work is to play a part in society, that greater thing which provides us food, comfort, security. In Britain, this is more important than anywhere else, because as a nation we still have the strongest community of all.
Point 3, can't agree. It is greed and selfishness that has created the current divide. On every level of society we display short termism and self centred behaviour from greedy execs moaning about minimum wage to shirkers.
Frank, a genuinely fascinating take on the non-workers withdrawing their labour. It's not an angle I've heard before but it's a compelling viewpoint.0 -
I've seen enough of the world to know that Britain - and the British senses of what is right and of community- is best. The debate has lurched to the right since 1979, and the disaster that occured in that year, and there are people with ugly views in power spoiling things, but no country, nowhere, can boast the proud traditions that Britain has on fairness, decency, tolerance and community.0
-
As damning a statement on the rest of the World as you are likely to read.pliptrot wrote:I've seen enough of the world to know that Britain - and the British senses of what is right and of community- is best. The debate has lurched to the right since 1979, and the disaster that occured in that year, and there are people with ugly views in power spoiling things, but no country, nowhere, can boast the proud traditions that Britain has on fairness, decency, tolerance and community.
We will have to agree to disagree.None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
pliptrot wrote:I've seen enough of the world to know that Britain - and the British senses of what is right and of community- is best. The debate has lurched to the right since 1979, and the disaster that occured in that year, and there are people with ugly views in power spoiling things, but no country, nowhere, can boast the proud traditions that Britain has on fairness, decency, tolerance and community.
0 -
Ballysmate wrote:BillyMansell wrote:
Interesting that you should see shifting assets as acceptable because they are working within the regulations, but then the banks were working within the regulations, corporations and accountants practicing tax avoidance have been working within the regulations and 99.5% of people claiming benefits are working within the regulations. It would be interesting to see the cost to the Treasury of the middle classes "working within the regulations" to abuse their entitlement to benefits and care.Ballysmate wrote:BillyMansell wrote:One thing that has happened this week that hasn't yet been mentioned is the discussions on the proposed changes to social care and how this affects the older generations;
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... SSIBLE.pdf
I was at a HealthWatch meeting earlier this week where an assistant director of social care was presenting the consultation on the proposed changes. What was particularly interesting to hear was how the councils, government and HMRC are very mindful that despite the perceptions of the lower classes abusing benefits it is the middle classes who can be very adept at not wanting to pay their way and may well attempt to abuse their entitlement to social care through such practices as shifting property and other assets to younger generations. They are already considering that statutes of limitation on the transfer of assets won't apply to social care.
I can't condone taking underhand steps to avoid responsibilities, but as long as people move their assets within the regulations, that is fine. I have sympathy for those people who have strived all their lives to make something of themselves, faced with the prospect of losing it to pay for their care in later life. It is not the fact that they have to pay, it is the fact that some can p1ss their life up the wall and the state will pay. People are realising that it is not worth putting money by for old age.
When does "working the regulations" become "playing the system"? Is it as simple as only when a person sees no direct or personal benefit or the perception of seeing others benefit and a misplaced belief of themselves somehow losing out?
As for protecting their sense of entitlement, it should be remembered that many recipients of social care are young people with physical and/or learning disabilities, who haven't lived long enough to p1ss it up the wall, and their carers as well as other older people who have also been "hard workng" throughout their lives. By people abusing their entitlement to care then they damage the need for care of many with genuine needs.
The reason I regard it as being acceptable is it is their money, they move it within what is allowed. As soon as they fall outside those parameters, obviously that is evasion.
I agree there are some claimants such as those with disabilities, who should be well catered for within the benefit system. I can't agree that those that have been prudent and put something by for their twilight years should be penalised and money given to younger people who are sometimes shy of work.
Some here seem to be bemoaning the length of time people live after their retirement and there may be some merit in the idea of increasing the retirement age.
The system whereby a person has to sell their assets and are not allowed to pass them on to their nearest and dearest ( I believe that the authorities are allowed to go back 7 years to check) is perverse. Imagine that it was deemed that if you had a certain level of wealth you would have to pay for all your heath treatment, whatever your age. Would anyone accept that? People seem to regard the elderly differently.
I forget who said that you can judge a nation by the way they treat the elderly.
I can't say I agree with your idea of how it works, the money is not given to younger people in any way, it's used to pay for the care of the person in need. To flip your argument why should a twenty something of today be responsible to work and pay through taxation for the care of someone who just happens to be born before them and just so they can leave their own kids a fat inheritance? Judge a nation how it treats the elderly? You could also judge it by how it treats those who are the future...0 -
verylonglegs wrote:Ballysmate wrote:BillyMansell wrote:
Interesting that you should see shifting assets as acceptable because they are working within the regulations, but then the banks were working within the regulations, corporations and accountants practicing tax avoidance have been working within the regulations and 99.5% of people claiming benefits are working within the regulations. It would be interesting to see the cost to the Treasury of the middle classes "working within the regulations" to abuse their entitlement to benefits and care.Ballysmate wrote:BillyMansell wrote:One thing that has happened this week that hasn't yet been mentioned is the discussions on the proposed changes to social care and how this affects the older generations;
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... SSIBLE.pdf
I was at a HealthWatch meeting earlier this week where an assistant director of social care was presenting the consultation on the proposed changes. What was particularly interesting to hear was how the councils, government and HMRC are very mindful that despite the perceptions of the lower classes abusing benefits it is the middle classes who can be very adept at not wanting to pay their way and may well attempt to abuse their entitlement to social care through such practices as shifting property and other assets to younger generations. They are already considering that statutes of limitation on the transfer of assets won't apply to social care.
I can't condone taking underhand steps to avoid responsibilities, but as long as people move their assets within the regulations, that is fine. I have sympathy for those people who have strived all their lives to make something of themselves, faced with the prospect of losing it to pay for their care in later life. It is not the fact that they have to pay, it is the fact that some can p1ss their life up the wall and the state will pay. People are realising that it is not worth putting money by for old age.
When does "working the regulations" become "playing the system"? Is it as simple as only when a person sees no direct or personal benefit or the perception of seeing others benefit and a misplaced belief of themselves somehow losing out?
As for protecting their sense of entitlement, it should be remembered that many recipients of social care are young people with physical and/or learning disabilities, who haven't lived long enough to p1ss it up the wall, and their carers as well as other older people who have also been "hard workng" throughout their lives. By people abusing their entitlement to care then they damage the need for care of many with genuine needs.
The reason I regard it as being acceptable is it is their money, they move it within what is allowed. As soon as they fall outside those parameters, obviously that is evasion.
I agree there are some claimants such as those with disabilities, who should be well catered for within the benefit system. I can't agree that those that have been prudent and put something by for their twilight years should be penalised and money given to younger people who are sometimes shy of work.
Some here seem to be bemoaning the length of time people live after their retirement and there may be some merit in the idea of increasing the retirement age.
The system whereby a person has to sell their assets and are not allowed to pass them on to their nearest and dearest ( I believe that the authorities are allowed to go back 7 years to check) is perverse. Imagine that it was deemed that if you had a certain level of wealth you would have to pay for all your heath treatment, whatever your age. Would anyone accept that? People seem to regard the elderly differently.
I forget who said that you can judge a nation by the way they treat the elderly.
I can't say I agree with your idea of how it works, the money is not given to younger people in any way, it's used to pay for the care of the person in need. To flip your argument why should a twenty something of today be responsible to work and pay through taxation for the care of someone who just happens to be born before them and just so they can leave their own kids a fat inheritance? Judge a nation how it treats the elderly? You could also judge it by how it treats those who are the future...
I fear you have perhaps misunderstood or I may not have made myself clear. I repeat that people with disabilities should be catered for within the benefit system and I am aware of the mechanism by which it works. I referred to younger people in the broader context of this thread, not disabled younger people.
The young will always be paying for the pensions of the previous generations. I don't begrudge my taxes helping to pay to assist the elderly, but it looks like I am in a minority. Hopefully the next generation will do the same for me.
Do you not want to pass anything on to your offspring?
All I am saying is there is a disparity. If you save for your old age, you run the risk of the state taking it off you. In your world, the best option would be to spend the lot, arrive at retirement age and say to the State,"Here I am, look after me." There would be no incentive to do anything else.
As I said, all those that think it fair to make the elderly who have a certain level of income/savings pay for their care, whilst others get it free, how would you feel if you were expected to pay for treatment/convalescence based on you income or the size of your house. I know the circumstances are not quite the same, but it is the same principle. The same level of care should be available for all regardless of their ability to pay.0 -
:?:verylonglegs wrote:To flip your argument why should a twenty something of today be responsible to work and pay through taxation for the care of someone who just happens to be born before them and just so they can leave their own kids a fat inheritance? Judge a nation how it treats the elderly? You could also judge it by how it treats those who are the future...
Didnt these old folk pay in, so they are only getting some of it back?
Arent these kids that are getting the inheritance paying their way to?*
The young get an education and can use it to get a job. Just like the elderly did when they were young.
You pay in on the understanding** that you are helping those that cant help themselves, for your own future, and your childrens education***.
*Thats if they are lucky. In increasing cases their house will be used to pay for their care. The elderly paying their way again.
**As an ideal principle where no one screws the system.
***I know that doesnt include university outside Scotland. Ask your own MP why. They are spending there budget on something else, thats why.None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
Those of you who consider it fair for the State to go back, I think 7 years(?), to search for any disposal of estate and demand its return, in the case of a senior citizen who is suffering dementia and therefor needing to be cared for, consider this.
If, God forbid, any one of you were diagnosed with a mental condition that needed treatment, would you be comfortable with the State making similar demands to your finances?
Or is it just for the elderly?0 -
It's serves no-one any good to be so misinformed, using straw men or emotional arguments particularly when I provided a link to the consultation document that contained much of the information.Ballysmate wrote:Those of you who consider it fair for the State to go back, I think 7 years(?), to search for any disposal of estate and demand its return, in the case of a senior citizen who is suffering dementia and therefor needing to be cared for, consider this.
If, God forbid, any one of you were diagnosed with a mental condition that needed treatment, would you be comfortable with the State making similar demands to your finances?
Or is it just for the elderly?
The whole purpose of changing social care, and why welfare for the elderly has to be reformed, is because the elderly in need are having their entitlement undermined by those elderly who can afford care or who don't require universal benefits. As for the argument that they've paid in for years, that is a fallacious argument as their contributions have been long spent within universal care and pensions (there's an odd parallel here with the "I pay road tax" brigade claiming the they own the roads) and with people living far beyond the years that was originally anticipated then there isn't enough to go around so why should the elderly now expect something for nothing.
That is why the government is proposing that people take out an insurance policy to cover the cost of care beyond the social care cap. My only two concerns with this proposal are a) any fund should be socially managed and away from the grabbing hands of private companies because b) there is a mass of evidence from America of private insurance companies applying the bio-psychosocial model* when assessing care needs to deny people vital care to maximize their returns.
As for people protecting assets, why should these individuals be exempt from reform of the regulations when banking, legitimate tax avoidance schemes and the 99.5% of legitimate benefit claimants have all faced reform often prompted by little more than an outcry from the misinformed public. As I said earlier, removing any statute of limitation on transferring assets is something the government are mindful of having to do for the Social Care Bill as, and let's make no bones about this, transferring assets has everything to do with avoiding paying your way in the world and only secondarily with leaving something for the next generation.
*The bio-psychological model is the same model used by Atos to deny sick people their benefit entitlements. There' nothing wrong with the model per se but instead of being used to help and support people, it's abused by large companies to deny people the help and support they need and maximize company profits.0 -
And the circle of arguments continue.
People have different opinions.
Going forward, I for one have made my points again and again and see no point in putting them forward again as I wont change anyones opinion. Nor have I read anything to change my view.
Done.None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
Plus one for the above. Me done too...0
-
BillyMansell wrote:
It's serves no-one any good to be so misinformed, using straw men or emotional arguments particularly when I provided a link to the consultation document that contained much of the information.Ballysmate wrote:Those of you who consider it fair for the State to go back, I think 7 years(?), to search for any disposal of estate and demand its return, in the case of a senior citizen who is suffering dementia and therefor needing to be cared for, consider this.
If, God forbid, any one of you were diagnosed with a mental condition that needed treatment, would you be comfortable with the State making similar demands to your finances?
Or is it just for the elderly?
The whole purpose of changing social care, and why welfare for the elderly has to be reformed, is because the elderly in need are having their entitlement undermined by those elderly who can afford care or who don't require universal benefits. As for the argument that they've paid in for years, that is a fallacious argument as their contributions have been long spent within universal care and pensions (there's an odd parallel here with the "I pay road tax" brigade claiming the they own the roads) and with people living far beyond the years that was originally anticipated then there isn't enough to go around so why should the elderly now expect something for nothing.
That is why the government is proposing that people take out an insurance policy to cover the cost of care beyond the social care cap. My only two concerns with this proposal are a) any fund should be socially managed and away from the grabbing hands of private companies because b) there is a mass of evidence from America of private insurance companies applying the bio-psychosocial model* when assessing care needs to deny people vital care to maximize their returns.
As for people protecting assets, why should these individuals be exempt from reform of the regulations when banking, legitimate tax avoidance schemes and the 99.5% of legitimate benefit claimants have all faced reform often prompted by little more than an outcry from the misinformed public. As I said earlier, removing any statute of limitation on transferring assets is something the government are mindful of having to do for the Social Care Bill as, and let's make no bones about this, transferring assets has everything to do with avoiding paying your way in the world and only secondarily with leaving something for the next generation.
*The bio-psychological model is the same model used by Atos to deny sick people their benefit entitlements. There' nothing wrong with the model per se but instead of being used to help and support people, it's abused by large companies to deny people the help and support they need and maximize company profits.
I believe the 7 year rule concerns Inheritance Tax. HMRC can go back this far to search for 'gifts'. Unfortunately, I will never have sufficient assets for this to be a problem for my heirs.
There is no time limit for means tested benefits. If a gift has been made within 6 months of someone going into care, they can claw it back. Longer than this, then the local authority will find it more difficult to show intent.
Currently the threshold for receiving assistance is £23,250 but will rise to £118.000 in April 2016.
I again give the eg of my bros in law. If you missed my earlier post hereit is.Re: Benefits...Again!
by Ballysmate » Mon Sep 30, 2013 10:13 pm
It amazes me how people on here don't seem to mind being mugged off. I assume most on here work and pay tax. Those on here who are seeking employment, good luck to you and I hope you get all the support to which you are entitled, both financially and morally. But any who are career scroungers are beneath contempt.
I had a full and frank exchange of views with my brother in law today. He was bemoaning the standard of living of the political classes and the unfairness of the 'bedroom tax'.
I snapped and said that he must be demoralised at where his taxes are being spent, knowing full well that he hasn't paid any for years. I then accused him of not working or looking for work for the last twenty years. He became indignant and protested that it had only been ten years!
During this time, neither he nor his wife have worked. They have three children, the oldest being 21, the youngest 12. His wife claims to be agoraphobic and can't work and therefore they claimed benefits. During this time she drank so much that earlier this year she suffered liver failure and he now claims to have cut his drinking down to 3 or 4 cans a night.
His wife now qualifies for a car on mobility. (Forget for a moment this she agoraphobic) and they are now the proud owners of a 13 plate Honda Civic, which they use to enjoy many a pub lunch.
Makes you proud to go to work and be a taxpayer.
If he goes on to a ripe old age, he will get cared for at nil cost, having contributed SFA to either paying for his own lifestyle, or assisting anyone else through any tax/NI contributions.
As daviesee said, no-one is going to alter anyone else's view.
Time to move on and go forward.
Finito.0
