Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

dogma wrote:

AustonT wrote:
I suppose you can argue that anyone can demand anything they want. I can "demand" your wallet, that doesn't mean I should or that you should give it to me. Demand is a word with a lot of connotations, when you're sucking at the teat of government and you "demand" more what you are rally doing is begging without the cardboard sign.

I'm not really speaking to what should be done, because I generally believe that people should always do what is in their best interest, irrespective of morality. I'm merely saying that people in Western democracies have quite a bit of leverage when it comes to extracting benefits from the government.

In that case: +1

Melissia wrote:... which is saying he thinks they get too much money.

They being the impoverished, the disabled, thos with special needs, etc.

Melissia, it really isnt though is it?

Look, I wrote "... I said I felt as though the UK government provides more than adequately for the impoverished"

That's not me saying I think they get too much really is it?

I mean, sure I think that they possibly do get a wee bit too much because I think getting 66k a year IS pretty high, considering that If your working a 40 hour week at minimum wage your only going to be making 20. But I admit I am somewhat ignorant of the mechanics of the payments, and I am aware that the bloke wont have been getting it all "cash in hand" so I don't think im particularly saying "diabled people get far too much money"

I was simply pointing out that I said in the conversation earlier in the week, that clearly disabled people aren't being left to starve. And when they are kicking up a fuss and marching on Westminster I find it somewhat offensive, because they are crying poverty and the story clearly shows that funding, housing, and carer support are all provided to people with special needs by the state.

mattyrm wrote:

I left the marines and found work inside two weeks, its not like Ive got a degree or anything, and needless to say Snipers haven't got any relevant experience for civvy jobs!

Not everyone has the abs to do the full monty...

mattyrm wrote: That's not me saying I think they get too much really is it?

I mean, sure I think that they possibly do get a wee bit too much because I think getting 66k a year IS pretty high, considering that If your working a 40 hour week at minimum wage your only going to be making 20. But I admit I am somewhat ignorant of the mechanics of the payments, and I am aware that the bloke wont have been getting it all "cash in hand" so I don't think im particularly saying "diabled people get far too much money"

How does they get "too much" fit with:

mattyrm wrote:

George Spiggott wrote:I don't have a problem with genuinely ill people getting the support that the[y] do.

I think few people would disagree with that mate. It's not like its your fault if you wind up in a wheelchair or something.

C'mon Matty, could you at least have a consistent line of argument please. Either what they get is fine or they get too much, you can't choose both.

biccat wrote:You're assuming that the bulk of the system goes to people who legitimately deserve benefits. This may not be true.

But it is true. Fraud has been tested in countless welfare systems, and in the worst cases has been shown as no more than 5%. To claim that the bulk of payments are going to persons who don't have a legitimate claim to them is to declare absolute ignorance of the issue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vulcan wrote:There is a world of difference between someone genuinely crippled and this con man. (What? No one checked his medical records? No one checked in with his doctor? They just took his word for it?)

The problem is that many medical problems are quite hard to fully diagnose, and some doctors are willing to sign off after hearing a list of symptoms. When large numbers of fraudulent claims have been identified, it's generally been because one guy got caught, and this prompted them to check everyone that his doctor signed off on.

Punish the con man for being a con man. Don't punish the cripple for being a cripple.

Yeah, pretty much. Taking that one instance of fraud and assuming it is representative of the whole system is pretty flawed, but then using that as an argument that welfare payments should be lowered is just plain incoherent.

The size of welfare payments is one issue, the level of fraud in the system and how to minimise it is quite another. One can be in favour of tighter controls of welfare, while opposed to reducing in welfare. Or indeed, the opposite, which is my position - I'm opposed to tighter controls on welfare (as the controls in place already cost a lot more than the level of fraud they remove from the system), but in favour of reduced direct welfare payments for the unemployed*, because I believe it is very generous, and the other forms of welfare like paid parental leave and child payments and the like are completely absurd.


*Those suffering injuries that prevent them working should have benefits at least as high as they presently receive, that is a tough life.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

alarmingrick wrote:You make a great point CT, but there seriously needs to be much better monitoring, inspecting or some kind of oversight.
Just think of the waste that could be eliminated. If you incurred some additional costs, the waste you eliminate could more
than cover them.

Have you ever seen any study that measured the level of fraud. Or are you just guessing that it must be really high?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:So rather than decreasing the benefits, shouldn't you want to increase the regulation? I certainly would agree that effective regulation is needed to cut down on fraud. But then again, given the inherent and irrational fear many people have regarding anything regulatory, I'm not sure how that'll be responded to.

Ah, but this is regulation dedicated to controlling the great unwashed. We're always in favour of stuff to keep those nutjobs in their place.

Meanwhile, poor regulation let Bernie Madoff steal about $60 billion from people. But we're opposed to regulation on the financial sector. But getting some unemployed guy to come in for an interview to establish he really is looking for work... well we're all going to assume that'll save billions. No need for anyone to actually look at any numbers confirming that or anything else, we'll just assume its true.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote: Yes.

I love that in your world there are people who hear that a quadriplegic can get 100 pounds a week without having to look for work, and that totally looks like a decent life, but those people will stop and reconsider if it gets cut to 80 pounds.

It is a remarkable world you live in.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mstersmith3 wrote:Wait he did a back flip skiing and gets paid? See that is self inflicted. I see a need for a "Darwin" regulation. If proven to be half slowed you get squat.

Yes, it was probably a stupid thing he did. But the reality remains that we don't let people starve to death because they once did something stupid.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Albatross wrote:My point was that £40K per year just for being alive is not 'not much', and that the fact that there are people who consider that to be the case in this country is shocking to me. It's a lot of money, and the man in question hasn't earned it.

The £40K per year wasn't just cash in the hand, it included support for his entirely fictitious back injury. Now, because he was a fraud that money might was entirely wasted, but it doesn't mean such support for genuine invalids isn't only justified, but badly needed.

The plain reality is that it costs a lot to give someone an apartment they can live comfortably in when they've got a serious back injury. Guide dogs for the blind cost a lot of money. Mental health care costs a lot of money. If we are to attempt to make these people's lives as enjoyable as possible, there will be a hefty bill. There's just no way around that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mr. Burning wrote:As for £40k being generous. Is this money taxable? If my salary was £40,000 pa then i would get a heck of a lot less to live on after taxes and NI. And still have to pay for my housing etc.

But he isn't just getting £40k to spend as he pleased. That number was the total spent on him to give him support for his fictitious injury. It included a lot of stuff that people with chronic back complaints need just to make their lives bearable like furniture modifications.

And for the record, payments received as compensation for the lost of body functionality, such as the loss of an arm or a serious spinal injury, are tax exempt payments. But payments received in compensation for lost income are taxable.

Again, this comes back to the public sector workers not being held accountable for the work they are paid to perform. It's no good reforming part of the system, the entire network needs a radical overhaul and a total rethink of how welfare services are monitored and provided for.

Seriously, have you ever read a single study into the scope of welfare fraud in any system, anywhere in the world, are you just assuming it must be really bad?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Albatross wrote:I don't think that anyone said that was the case, I certainly didn't. Disabled people and those with specific learning difficulties DO get freebies, though. Students who are dyslexic or who have ADHD (etc.) at our University get £1000 to buy a laptop and accessories, plus free books, a digital dictaphone... I personally know a girl with ME who was given the use of a specially-adapted car (fuel costs met), a newly-refurbished house in a nice area (again, costs met by the taxpayer), not to mention a top-of-the-range wheelchair, all the pain meds she can eat and a 3 month stay in a specialist pain spa clinic in Bath, as well as tax relief and Disability Living Allowance. She could probably work, but where's the incentive? That is an extraordinary level of profligacy on the welfare state's part, and we do it so we can feel good about ourselves. When you get down to it, that's the reason.

I agree that the payments given to people with minor disabilities are quite ludicrous, and should be cut entirely.

The plain reality is that it costs a lot to give someone an apartment they can live comfortably in when they've got a serious back injury.

That's an assumption. You've seen the amount of money that the person has been given, and because you're favourable to the idea of the state supporting the disabled (provided they're a genuine claimant) you assume that there must be a good reason for the amount of money allocated to their care. By the same token, people who are more hostile to the idea might see that amount of money as a waste - prejudice runs both ways. Incidentally, you seem to be agreeing with me - it is a lot of money, that's all I was saying!:

Guide dogs for the blind cost a lot of money. Mental health care costs a lot of money. If we are to attempt to make these people's lives as enjoyable as possible, there will be a hefty bill.

sebster wrote:

Again, this comes back to the public sector workers not being held accountable for the work they are paid to perform. It's no good reforming part of the system, the entire network needs a radical overhaul and a total rethink of how welfare services are monitored and provided for.

Seriously, have you ever read a single study into the scope of welfare fraud in any system, anywhere in the world, are you just assuming it must be really bad?

I'm not assuming anything. I'm not saying that levels of fraud are way off the scale. I can hand on heart state right now that if you walked into any welfare office here in the uk with a claim, the questions asked of your claim by front line staff are shockingly inadequate. The whole appearance of these departments, such as job centres is shockingly inefficent and un-professional.

For instance, your claim for jobseekers allowance, when you qualify, depends entirely, on you rocking up to your signing day at the appropriate time with a log of your job searches. You can put anything on them, anything, and no one will check the veracity of your claims. Staff have 'done their job' by briefly looking over what you submit to them.
In and advisor interview, if they give you details of any vacancies, they do not follow through and check you have done anything with them, if they do, your claim to have spoken with the employer etc, is taken as read. Their job is done and you can continue to claim.
The jobcentre isnt about getting you back into work and off benefits, the staff aren't there to challenge you or to meaningfully assist you, they do their job, by rote.
'Have you done any paid or unpaid work in the last 2 weeks?' 'Okay, sign here'. That's as much as you get.

These front line roles have to change, claimants should be challenged on a regular basis.

Mr. Burning wrote:

sebster wrote:

Again, this comes back to the public sector workers not being held accountable for the work they are paid to perform. It's no good reforming part of the system, the entire network needs a radical overhaul and a total rethink of how welfare services are monitored and provided for.

Seriously, have you ever read a single study into the scope of welfare fraud in any system, anywhere in the world, are you just assuming it must be really bad?

I'm not assuming anything. I'm not saying that levels of fraud are way off the scale. I can hand on heart state right now that if you walked into any welfare office here in the uk with a claim, the questions asked of your claim by front line staff are shockingly inadequate. The whole appearance of these departments, such as job centres is shockingly inefficent and un-professional.

For instance, your claim for jobseekers allowance, when you qualify, depends entirely, on you rocking up to your signing day at the appropriate time with a log of your job searches. You can put anything on them, anything, and no one will check the veracity of your claims. Staff have 'done their job' by briefly looking over what you submit to them.
In and advisor interview, if they give you details of any vacancies, they do not follow through and check you have done anything with them, if they do, your claim to have spoken with the employer etc, is taken as read. Their job is done and you can continue to claim.
The jobcentre isnt about getting you back into work and off benefits, the staff aren't there to challenge you or to meaningfully assist you, they do their job, by rote.
'Have you done any paid or unpaid work in the last 2 weeks?' 'Okay, sign here'. That's as much as you get.

Yeah, I can vouch for this, having seen this sort of thing on many occasions. Jobcentres are scum-infested gak-holes, and the staff don't seem interested in doing their job. In fact, all too often there seems to be this weird situation whereby, if you play ball and do everything you're supposed to, your life is harder than if you're a scummy tramp who marches in stinking of booze demanding 'your' giro money. I have seen this with my own eyes - cause enough trouble and they will give you what you want just to shut you up and/or get you the feth out of there. Nice, polite people who are genuinely looking for work seem to face much tougher questioning, in my experience.

These front line roles have to change, claimants should be challenged on a regular basis.

Oh, the rules should be waaay stricter, down to things like personal appearance and hygiene in jobseeker interviews, not to mention alcohol and substance abuse. Turn up drunk, looking and smelling like gak? No money for a fortnight. There are people who genuinely go to the jobcentre to look for work, and who need support - those people shouldn't have to put up with an intimidating atmosphere. For me, a jobcentre is like A&E - I would never go to one unless it was completely unavoidable. It shouldn't be like that.

I wouldn't have a problem with people being required to turn up not drunk, etc. It's the same as what working people have to do.

George Spiggott wrote:Either what they get is fine or they get too much, you can't choose both.

The thing is George, Im clearly and commonly vocal with my political opinion, but this thread isnt about be slagging off doleys and people that rely on the state, this thread is about me saying a week ago that people who rely on the state crying poverty are being dishonest, because as this story clearly shows, they DONT starve. They CAN afford to feed their kids. Ask yourself these questions, are people on wellfare/disablity starving to death? When was the last time you saw a rake thin disabled person? Are people in the UK that rely on the state more likely to be obese or malnourished?

I support Cameron's efforts to reform our wellfare system, and I am convinced that any reforms will still allow people to be warm, well fed and clothed.

Is that better?

And anyway, were clearly aware of my position on numerous things, what's yours exactly? I have told you how I feel, do you think that if some bloke lives in a house in Kensington and his rent is 3 grand a month, then he falls down a well and stops working we should be paying his rent?!

Cant he just move? You can support reforms and a common sense approach and not want people to starve to death.

I want people to have to have to put some bloody effort in thats all, not contract rickets and sleep in the gutter.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote: Yes.

I love that in your world there are people who hear that a quadriplegic can get 100 pounds a week without having to look for work, and that totally looks like a decent life, but those people will stop and reconsider if it gets cut to 80 pounds.

It is a remarkable world you live in.

To be fair mate, that was a one word answer cos I was on my phone and getting pissed in the pub.

What I basically meant to say is...

Well.. see above. I do in essence want the state to spend less. But that can be achieved without making people live off gruel and sleep in a bus shelter.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CT GAMER wrote:

mattyrm wrote:

I left the marines and found work inside two weeks, its not like Ive got a degree or anything, and needless to say Snipers haven't got any relevant experience for civvy jobs!

Not everyone has the abs to do the full monty...

Pah! As If I would lower myself to doing such a degrading job!

I will have you know I am employed doing immensely gratifying and rewarding work mopping the floors in an adult movie cinema.

sebster wrote:as the controls in place already cost a lot more than the level of fraud they remove from the system

I just really wanted to highlight this point again.

people think that if you crack down on fraud, you would reap this huge windfall by reducing waste. Sadly, that's not true. Employee the investigators and following the paper trail to finally get the burden of proff required to eliminate fraud would cost more than the amount of fraud that occurs. Plus, the fines/prison terms will always take second fiddle to more serious crimes.

However, like airport security; some enforcement theatre is required to keep any old opportunitist from ripping off the system. However, instigating more byzantine and draconian anti-fraud reforms would serve NO purpose except helping people feel a bit of catharsis from stories like the one the original poster cites.

Plus, more anit-fraud reforms = bigger government! Scary!

Edit: Also, most people in poverty are obese because mass produced crap food is uber cheap and available now. Compare the cost of a can of Chef Bouyarde to the cost of the components that you would have to buy to go into the equivalent. It's actual veggies, fruits, and fresh meats that are more expensive and don't keep as long now-a-days.

BrassScorpion wrote:The US does not even provide a top-notch health care delivery system much less a decent social safety net.

You and I are in total agreement there! U.S. Healthcare SUCKS unless you are a multimillionaire, the social safety nets are a joke, and there are tons of people who think we do TOO MUCH!

Albatross wrote:

These front line roles have to change, claimants should be challenged on a regular basis.

Oh, the rules should be waaay stricter, down to things like personal appearance and hygiene in jobseeker interviews, not to mention alcohol and substance abuse. Turn up drunk, looking and smelling like gak? No money for a fortnight. There are people who genuinely go to the jobcentre to look for work, and who need support - those people shouldn't have to put up with an intimidating atmosphere. For me, a jobcentre is like A&E - I would never go to one unless it was completely unavoidable. It shouldn't be like that.

It would be far better if Jobcentres were run as employment agencies or have that kind of framework, mentality and professionalism. Give a gak and maybe your claimants will too.

I also think support should be extended for when claimants get jobs. Since you can look at anything up to 8 weeks for your first wages to get paid. 'Thanks for getting back into employment and paying tax and NI again. We'll make sure you aren't living on fresh air for the next month'.
(Subject to checks on your employment status).

Vulcan wrote:

BrassScorpion wrote:The US does not even provide a top-notch health care delivery system much less a decent social safety net.

You and I are in total agreement there! U.S. Healthcare SUCKS unless you are a multimillionaire, the social safety nets are a joke, and there are tons of people who think we do TOO MUCH!

Yes, me. I believe that hunger and desperation make America great. I also believe in my heart that many social programs are designed to keep the lower class, IN the lower class. I don't expect anyone to agree with me, and I certainly wouldn't make it a plank in a political platform.

mattyrm wrote:The thing is George, Im clearly and commonly vocal with my political opinion, but this thread isnt about be slagging off doleys and people that rely on the state, this thread is about me saying a week ago that people who rely on the state crying poverty are being dishonest, because as this story clearly shows, they DONT starve. They CAN afford to feed their kids. Ask yourself these questions, are people on wellfare/disablity starving to death? When was the last time you saw a rake thin disabled person? Are people in the UK that rely on the state more likely to be obese or malnourished?

I support Cameron's efforts to reform our wellfare system, and I am convinced that any reforms will still allow people to be warm, well fed and clothed.

Is that better?

I think we've long since established that you don't want them to starve, I don't think anyone has accued you of that. When it comes to the specifics of what you do want, other than to support whatever Cameron says you seem a little more nebulous.

mattyrm wrote:And anyway, were clearly aware of my position on numerous things, what's yours exactly?

There's something deeply wrong with the social housing situation, I think that the state should pay for the accomodation of those who cannot support themselves. However there is something deeply wrong with the cycle of money out of public hands and into private hands. Furthermore, the sale of social housing to individuals (which I support) must be balanced by the building of new properties to replace them. This is the fundamental problem with the Right to Buy scheme that nobody is really interested in fixing.

To use this case as an example (and ignoring the fact that he was not entitled to it for the moment): I don't mind that they pay all his rent, I do mind that his rent was £70,000. But then I'm from up north, not from that London so I'm not fully in the picture. I'm not aware of any policy to realign the way that asylum seekers are distributed though the country so I don't see how Camerons changes will fix this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If Jobcentres were run in a way that would cut out the loathsome 'temp agencies' then that would be a great thing indeed, not only for Jobseekers but also for the industries that they work for.

Albatross wrote:That's an assumption. You've seen the amount of money that the person has been given, and because you're favourable to the idea of the state supporting the disabled (provided they're a genuine claimant) you assume that there must be a good reason for the amount of money allocated to their care.

No, I've seen how much money it actually costs to provide support for someone with a serious disability. Way back in the day I was sounding off about how important tort reform was, after some guy here in Australia won a couple of million after a company's negligence made him a quadriplegic, and I thought that was way too much money. Except one of the guys listening was presently completing a study into the costs of workplace injuries in Australia, and he sat me down with a list of costings for what it took to give these people a decent life, from modified housing (a modified kitchen will set you back $50k easy, a modified bathroom another $35k), to carers (part time care for 20 years is $400k), on-going physio (for 5 or more years you're looking at another $100k) and countless little things you would never think of until you're the one stuck in that situation.

Incidentally, you seem to be agreeing with me - it is a lot of money, that's all I was saying!:

Yes, it sure is a lot of money. No argument there. My point is that this idea that the person is living the easy life on welfare is nonsense. Once a person loses a basic function like mobility or their sight, it costs a lot of money to give them a decent life.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mr. Burning wrote:I'm not assuming anything. I'm not saying that levels of fraud are way off the scale. I can hand on heart state right now that if you walked into any welfare office here in the uk with a claim, the questions asked of your claim by front line staff are shockingly inadequate. The whole appearance of these departments, such as job centres is shockingly inefficent and un-professional.

For instance, your claim for jobseekers allowance, when you qualify, depends entirely, on you rocking up to your signing day at the appropriate time with a log of your job searches. You can put anything on them, anything, and no one will check the veracity of your claims. Staff have 'done their job' by briefly looking over what you submit to them.

See, you're putting the bull before the horns. What you've done there is offer evidence for the claim "it is easy to defraud the system of welfare" and used that to assume "therefore there is loads of welfare fraud".

As an example, consider a shopowner putting a stand of lollies out the front of his store, people would put a pound in the slot and take a bag of lollies. The owner can't really see the stand from his spot in the store, it runs on an honour system. By your reasoning above, you'd have to tell that shopowner that theft was incredibly easy, and that the system must be reformed. The shop owner replies "but I check the numbers every night, and I can tell you theft is very rare."

That's the actual, real thing that matters - the actual amount of theft. And we know that in the UK the amount of fraudulent payments is about 50,000 people per year, or just a tick under 1% of total recipients, and that includes people that were entitled to some amount of payment but mislead in their claims to access more money, so the total dollars paid out that are fraudulent is well under 1%. A similar study in the US show that about 1.9% of total welfare paid out is fraudulent.

Now, if fraud is as easy as you claim, why isn't it more common? Possibly a lot more people are a lot more honest than you have assumed. Possibly the motivation just isn't there, claiming an extra 30 pounds isn't worth the risk of getting caught and losing access to payments at all, and maybe facing jail time. Maybe a lot of people just aren't that tuned into gaming the system (this one makes a lot of sense, given how many people actually fail to claim all the money they are entitled to). I don't know, but the simple fact is you have to start and finish with one final set of numbers, how much fraud is actually going on, and that number, in the UK, is less than 1%.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote: The thing is George, Im clearly and commonly vocal with my political opinion, but this thread isnt about be slagging off doleys and people that rely on the state, this thread is about me saying a week ago that people who rely on the state crying poverty are being dishonest, because as this story clearly shows, they DONT starve. They CAN afford to feed their kids. Ask yourself these questions, are people on wellfare/disablity starving to death? When was the last time you saw a rake thin disabled person? Are people in the UK that rely on the state more likely to be obese or malnourished?

I definitely agree with you there, the amount paid is more than sufficient. I think the issue comes from the payments being set around the assumption of being enough money to exist on indefinitely, when really welfare should be enough money to survive on for a short period of unemployment, and not more.

Reducing the benefit is not unthinkable, and would save considerable money, and I think is a reasonable course of action. Sounding off about welfare fraud is simply not.

I suspect Cameron knows this as well, and is just sounding off about welfare fraud because it's an easier political sell.

To be fair mate, that was a one word answer cos I was on my phone and getting pissed in the pub.

What I basically meant to say is...

Well.. see above. I do in essence want the state to spend less. But that can be achieved without making people live off gruel and sleep in a bus shelter.

Is fair enough.

I will have you know I am employed doing immensely gratifying and rewarding work mopping the floors in an adult movie cinema.

They still have adult movie houses? In the age of the internet? Why?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Easy E wrote:However, like airport security; some enforcement theatre is required to keep any old opportunitist from ripping off the system. However, instigating more byzantine and draconian anti-fraud reforms would serve NO purpose except helping people feel a bit of catharsis from stories like the one the original poster cites.

Absolutely, the argument isn't to remove fraud checks in place. The argument is simply that saying 'we're going to crack down on fraud in the system' is going to save very little money, and people should stop pretending otherwise.

sebster wrote:

Albatross wrote:That's an assumption. You've seen the amount of money that the person has been given, and because you're favourable to the idea of the state supporting the disabled (provided they're a genuine claimant) you assume that there must be a good reason for the amount of money allocated to their care.

No, I've seen how much money it actually costs to provide support for someone with a serious disability. Way back in the day I was sounding off about how important tort reform was, after some guy here in Australia won a couple of million after a company's negligence made him a quadriplegic, and I thought that was way too much money. Except one of the guys listening was presently completing a study into the costs of workplace injuries in Australia, and he sat me down with a list of costings for what it took to give these people a decent life, from modified housing (a modified kitchen will set you back $50k easy, a modified bathroom another $35k), to carers (part time care for 20 years is $400k), on-going physio (for 5 or more years you're looking at another $100k) and countless little things you would never think of until you're the one stuck in that situation.

Incidentally, you seem to be agreeing with me - it is a lot of money, that's all I was saying!:

Yes, it sure is a lot of money. No argument there. My point is that this idea that the person is living the easy life on welfare is nonsense. Once a person loses a basic function like mobility or their sight, it costs a lot of money to give them a decent life.

A modified kitchen at 50 grand is not a 'decent' life, it's a bloody luxurious one, embarked upon because you know you're not the one paying the bill.

And we know that in the UK the amount of fraudulent payments is about 50,000 people per year, or just a tick under 1% of total recipients, and that includes people that were entitled to some amount of payment but mislead in their claims to access more money, so the total dollars paid out that are fraudulent is well under 1%. A similar study in the US show that about 1.9% of total welfare paid out is fraudulent.

Now, if fraud is as easy as you claim, why isn't it more common? Possibly a lot more people are a lot more honest than you have assumed. Possibly the motivation just isn't there, claiming an extra 30 pounds isn't worth the risk of getting caught and losing access to payments at all, and maybe facing jail time. Maybe a lot of people just aren't that tuned into gaming the system (this one makes a lot of sense, given how many people actually fail to claim all the money they are entitled to). I don't know, but the simple fact is you have to start and finish with one final set of numbers, how much fraud is actually going on, and that number, in the UK, is less than 1%.

See, 'fraud' is a very ambiguous term, in relation to benefits. Is it your assertion that out of all of the 5.7 million working age benefit claimants in the UK(source: http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/index.php?page=statistical_summaries), only 50,000 shouldn't be claiming them? Is everyone else just genuinely unable to find work? I find that very, very, very hard to believe.

The truth is, a person may on paper have a perfectly legitimate claim for Jobseeker's Allowance and they may not actually be breaking any laws by claiming - the only thing that may be lacking is not the opportunity to work, but the motivation. Simply claiming benefits whilst also working is not the only kind of fraud. Sitting on your arse collecting money from the government, all the while blaming 'the credit crunch' or 'the recession' for the fact that you haven't filled out an application form in months is also a type of fraud, in my eyes.

Albatross wrote:A modified kitchen at 50 grand is not a 'decent' life, it's a bloody luxurious one, embarked upon because you know you're not the one paying the bill.

No, it isn't. Go to your kitchen tonight, and make dinner from the confines of a wheelchair. Find out how many tasks are completely impossible. Now find out how expensive it is to get fridges

See, 'fraud' is a very ambiguous term, in relation to benefits. Is it your assertion that out of all of the 5.7 million working age benefit claimants in the UK(source: http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/index.php?page=statistical_summaries), only 50,000 shouldn't be claiming them? Is everyone else just genuinely unable to find work? I find that very, very, very hard to believe.

Welfare fraud is putting a statement on your claim form that isn't true, in order to get more money than you deserve. It isn't ambiguous at all. It could be that you mislead about the relationship between yourself and your partner, so you both get single person's allowance, or you claim an injury you don't have, or (most commonly) you fail to declare income you earned in order to keep claiming full benefits.

And it isn't my claim, it's the finding of the 3,000 people in the UK who work full time tracking welfare fraud and building cases for prosecution.

The truth is, a person may on paper have a perfectly legitimate claim for Jobseeker's Allowance and they may not actually be breaking any laws by claiming - the only thing that may be lacking is not the opportunity to work, but the motivation. Simply claiming benefits whilst also working is not the only kind of fraud. Sitting on your arse collecting money from the government, all the while blaming 'the credit crunch' or 'the recession' for the fact that you haven't filled out an application form in months is also a type of fraud, in my eyes.

Which is certainly a problem, but it isn't one that you'll solve by sounding off about welfare fraud.

sebster wrote:

Albatross wrote:A modified kitchen at 50 grand is not a 'decent' life, it's a bloody luxurious one, embarked upon because you know you're not the one paying the bill.

No, it isn't. Go to your kitchen tonight, and make dinner from the confines of a wheelchair. Find out how many tasks are completely impossible. Now find out how expensive it is to get fridges

Right, so I can get a normal kitchen for around 10 grand, now I'm in a wheelchair and all-of-a-sudden the price shoots up by 500%!? Please explain that to me, because I did a little bit of browsing to find advice on 'accessable' kitchens earlier, and the ball-park figures were a fraction of that.

See, 'fraud' is a very ambiguous term, in relation to benefits. Is it your assertion that out of all of the 5.7 million working age benefit claimants in the UK(source: http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/index.php?page=statistical_summaries), only 50,000 shouldn't be claiming them? Is everyone else just genuinely unable to find work? I find that very, very, very hard to believe.

Welfare fraud is putting a statement on your claim form that isn't true, in order to get more money than you deserve. It isn't ambiguous at all. It could be that you mislead about the relationship between yourself and your partner, so you both get single person's allowance, or you claim an injury you don't have, or (most commonly) you fail to declare income you earned in order to keep claiming full benefits.

And it isn't my claim, it's the finding of the 3,000 people in the UK who work full time tracking welfare fraud and building cases for prosecution.

DWP wrote:For 2010/11, it is estimated that 2.1 per cent of total benefit expenditure was overpaid due to fraud and error. This is down from the 2009/10 level of 2.2%.
The estimated value of overpayments is £3.3bn which is the same value as in 2009/10.

http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd2/index.php?page=fraud_error

The DWP paper also mentions that fraud, for the purpose of DWP statistics, is defined as having met three criteria, the third of which is having one's benefit stopped based on a review of of the claim, which means it only counts as 'fraud' if you're caught. Which is interesting, and highlights a potential problem with the use of quantitative data in this context, as does this statement:

The estimates do not encompass all fraud and error. This is because fraud is, by it's very nature, a covert activity....and some suspicions of fraud on the sample cases cannot be proven.*

*taken from the pdf.

Of course, supporters of welfare will dismiss qualitative data that suggests widespread gaming of the system takes place as just 'anecdotal', but building an argument on quantitative data which is reliant upon a definition of fraud as 'that which is identified and proven' seems like faulty methodology to me.

Albatross wrote:Right, so I can get a normal kitchen for around 10 grand, now I'm in a wheelchair and all-of-a-sudden the price shoots up by 500%!? Please explain that to me, because I did a little bit of browsing to find advice on 'accessable' kitchens earlier, and the ball-park figures were a fraction of that.

You can get a normal kitchen for 10 grand? I knew Australian building costs were high, but here you're looking at a lot more than that for anything that isn't a hole filled with charcoal.

That might be part of the problem, and I was thinking in Aussie dollars when I said 50,000, so it'd be more like 25,000 pounds. My bad there.

Still, I'm really getting an 'anything I don't understand is easy and cheap' kind of vibe. Is it too much to just accept that's what it costs to give someone without the use of their legs a kitchen? I mean, it isn't even that big a part of the cost, being a one-off expense. Compare it to on-going physio, and carers.

Are you going to claim those things aren't necessary?

DWP wrote:For 2010/11, it is estimated that 2.1 per cent of total benefit expenditure was overpaid due to fraud and error. This is down from the 2009/10 level of 2.2%.
The estimated value of overpayments is £3.3bn which is the same value as in 2009/10.

http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd2/index.php?page=fraud_error

The DWP paper also mentions that fraud, for the purpose of DWP statistics, is defined as having met three criteria, the third of which is having one's benefit stopped based on a review of of the claim, which means it only counts as 'fraud' if you're caught. Which is interesting, and highlights a potential problem with the use of quantitative data in this context, as does this statement:

The estimates do not encompass all fraud and error. This is because fraud is, by it's very nature, a covert activity....and some suspicions of fraud on the sample cases cannot be proven.*

*taken from the pdf.

Of course, supporters of welfare will dismiss qualitative data that suggests widespread gaming of the system takes place as just 'anecdotal', but building an argument on quantitative data which is reliant upon a definition of fraud as 'that which is identified and proven' seems like faulty methodology to me.

If you are aware of methodology that could be put in place that could identify such fraud, then you'd do well to recommend it to government, and then we'll get to see if there's really dollars to be saved in cracking down on fraud.

Most contractors working for government departments would have higher set prices for their products hence why aids for the disabled and the infirm, such as kitchens are higher than if brought by private individuals.

This is the same issue that blights the NHS.

Here the system of purchasing needs to be changed to deliver value for money. Thus easing the burden on the state.

As for fraud, fraud would be easy, not many people do it. But, you still have a system in place where it seems that fraudsters, the lazy and genuine hard working people are all dealt with by a system that at best is indifferent.

Not to mention, specialty gear can not/is not mass produced as cheaply.

If you dedicate a whole line to creating a niche product, that is a line tht isn't being used to sell mass market crap. Therefore, to make up the difference, you charge more for the niche stuff.

You have to make up the lower sales volume with higher mark-up.

Yeah Capitalism.

Easy E wrote:Not to mention, specialty gear can not/is not mass produced as cheaply.

If you dedicate a whole line to creating a niche product, that is a line tht isn't being used to sell mass market crap. Therefore, to make up the difference, you charge more for the niche stuff.

You have to make up the lower sales volume with higher mark-up.

Yeah Capitalism.

Concrete for ramps is a niche product?, hand rails?

I believe we were talking about a kitchen, not home access.

And what's niche about a wheelchair acceable kitchen? Lower countertops, an apartment size ice box?

AustonT wrote:Yes, me. I believe that hunger and desperation make America great.

Right, hunger and desperation are great unless you're feeling it.

This kind of arrogance is tragically amusing.

LOL at the conceit that someone defrauding the state constitutes proof that being on benefits pays well to the "genuinely" disabled. That's just utterly ridiculous.

In order to properly defraud a large amount of money, one is required to lie, deceive and inveigle, creating an alternate existence that ticks exactly the right boxes to qualify for as many layers of benefit as possible. Amazingly enough, disabilities rarely fit so neatly into all the right boxes. Anyone with the right level of cunning could create a fictional "disabled life" which would open a plethora of doors. But we aren't talking about people with execptional greed, dishonesty and cunning. We are talking about everyday non-criminal folk who happen to be disabled. Thus, they will not tick all the right boxes, will not receive vast amounts of funds, will not appear in the Volkischer Beobachter as an example to be reviled.

Disability Benefit Fraud is 0.2 percent of the whole. There is more money left aside in unclaimed benefits than is lost in that fraud by a massive amount, and disability hate crimes are actually on the rise due to ludicrous suppositions like the OP, and equally hate-filled hyperbole from the national media. The disabled in general have moved from being pitiable victims to reviled scroungers, and it is almost entirely because people with a very limited knowledge of the benefits system believe that singular examples constitute the whole. By picking up the worst cases of fraud, or the extreme examples of high cost rents or oversized families claiming Child Benefit and publicising them, the media are achieving exactly the same thing that the Nazis were trying to do with their propaganda. By inventing figures and creating "shock" headlines that are so much bullcrap, the media does nothing to combat fraud, but everything to create hatred for one of the most vulnerable parts of society by definition.

Mr Spiggot is quite correct: The "new" testing actually removes the need for medical evidence, and replaces it with a mere observational test based on a computerised checklist, in order to "fail" as many claimants as possible. The reasons for this are predominantly because the private contractor is paid to do this. (Atos Healthcare.) A simple google should provide more than enough damning evidence against this company, the American branch of which was found guilty of "disability denial" and insurance fraud in several Americam states. (Unum.) Unum have been heavily involved in the new privatised version of disability benefits in the UK, DESPITE that fraud. (Perhaps even because of it.) The entire process is a shabby attempt to screw money out of the state by Atos. Who exactly is defrauding the tax-payer at 10k a go? The poor disabled person who is foolish enough to be honest about his health, or the multinational corporation that is costing the state more money than it saves in its farcical "testing"?

Research more. Or better yet, get hit by a car tomorrow and then try to claim back some of the national insurance you paid in to the system which you thought would be there as a safety net.

Melissia wrote:

AustonT wrote:Yes, me. I believe that hunger and desperation make America great.

Right, hunger and desperation are great unless you're feeling it.

This kind of arrogance is tragically amusing.

Replace arrogance with experience.
I find your amusement arrogant.

http://www.hometone.com/entry/the-world-s-most-wheel-chair-accessible-kitchen/

http://www.care-design.co.uk/

http://www.fittedkitchen.org/2011/unique-fitted-kitchen-design-for-wheelchair-users-0928.php

Kilkrazy wrote:http://www.hometone.com/entry/the-world-s-most-wheel-chair-accessible-kitchen/

http://www.care-design.co.uk/

http://www.fittedkitchen.org/2011/unique-fitted-kitchen-design-for-wheelchair-users-0928.php

So what I gathered from those is:
Plumbing mounted in the wall or further back.
Lower counter tops, looked like a restaurant dish sprayer in one...hardly essential
side open oven mounted more at eyelevel
stop top with front mounted controls
drawer style dishwasher
side open fridge

Other than the side open oven which isn't common (at least in the US) these are not specialty items. were I to do a kitchen remodel tomorrow I might not worry about the plumbing or counter height, but everything else I'd use (or am currently using). I fail to see how the example of a wheelchair accessible kitchen shows the high cost of niche market disability goods...I'd be surprised if the cost was more than 20% of a normal remodel, and I see no reason a standard remodel contractor couldn't do the work. If the argument is that a dedicated handicap accessible contractor can command a niche market I say to you...especially in a down economy as a re modeller I'd underbid you and get the job 8 days of the week...
Maybe I missed and essential point in the text wall.