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.

MrDwhitey wrote:

mattyrm wrote: I dont agree with waterboarding either.

You say that, and I just have this image of you in a pub shouting "It doesn't go far enough!" to the other patrons.

Hah!

No as I told Dogma in the thread on the subject of Waterboarding, people on higher pay scales than me said torture isn't effective, so that's good enough for me.

Plus, I dislike the idea of getting someone to do things that I am not comfortable with doing, and I wouldnt be comfortbale torturing someone. And those chickenhawk Bill O'Reilly types have such a hard on for it that I cant help but disagree with them.

Shooting a weapon at people who you believe deserve it is one thing, but its quick and well... relatively clean. Actually torturing another human being is something that nobody should be comfortable doing unless they have severe mental issues. Plus, how can we claim the moral high ground if we behave as badly as our enemies?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

Well, unless you get pissed and go train surfing.

Wait, isn't Kilkrazy supposed to be a mod? Why then is he going out of his way to attack posters? Just lock the thread or punish the user if you genuinely believe that there is racism at play here.

For my part, no-one should be able to receive nearly half a million pounds in benefits, legitimate claimant or not.

mattyrm wrote:Well, unless you get pissed and go train surfing.

Ha! Got you! Blaming it on the drunken train surfers eh? You fascist pig!

mattyrm wrote: 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.

Seriously, so if the guy in your OP link was telling the truth (ie was actually the invalid he claimed to be) you'd be ok with him getting the money he did right? We're all against fraudsters getting money. Where exactly is the debate?

George Spiggott wrote:

mattyrm wrote: 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.

Seriously, so if the guy in your OP link was telling the truth (ie was actually the invalid he claimed to be) you'd be ok with him getting the money he did right? We're all against fraudsters getting money. Where exactly is the debate?

The debate is that last week I was arguing the toss saying that I didn't believe that people were getting a raw deal from the state as it stands, because disabled groups marched on Westminster about perceived "cuts" the benefits system, and they said they "had it hard enough already" and as a staunch supporter of Superdave Cameron I disagree and feel that we do actually provide well enough for those people that are unfortunate enough to be on disability.

There is a happy medium between doing the moral thing and providing assistance to people who need it, and giving far too many concessions to people that rely on the state.

Albatross wrote:Wait, isn't Kilkrazy supposed to be a mod? Why then is he going out of his way to attack posters? Just lock the thread or punish the user if you genuinely believe that there is racism at play here.

For my part, no-one should be able to receive nearly half a million pounds in benefits, legitimate claimant or not.

It was £400,000 over a decade, so £40,000 a year.
This is including full time care by carers. So if he was "genuine" and unable to walk/look after himself, it's not really that much.

Albatross wrote:Wait, isn't Kilkrazy supposed to be a mod? Why then is he going out of his way to attack posters? Just lock the thread or punish the user if you genuinely believe that there is racism at play here.

For my part, no-one should be able to receive nearly half a million pounds in benefits, legitimate claimant or not.

Dont give him any ideas, im sick of sucking on the ban hammer!

As I said, Im clearly not racist, I am an equal opportunities hater of any and all things Religion, the whole abotion and euthanisa things are my biggest gripes, and that is hardly an Islam thing, plus the other obvious fact that anyone can be a Muslim. Its not tied to one race.

In fact, was this bloke a Muslim!? I don't think it the article mentioned it anyway!

mattyrm wrote:

Albatross wrote:Wait, isn't Kilkrazy supposed to be a mod? Why then is he going out of his way to attack posters? Just lock the thread or punish the user if you genuinely believe that there is racism at play here.

For my part, no-one should be able to receive nearly half a million pounds in benefits, legitimate claimant or not.

Dont give him any ideas, im sick of sucking on the ban hammer!

As I said, Im clearly not racist, I am an equal opportunities hater of any and all things Religion, the whole abotion and euthanisa things are my biggest gripes, and that is hardly an Islam thing, plus the other obvious fact that anyone can be a Muslim. Its not tied to one race.

In fact, was this bloke a Muslim!? I don't think it the article mentioned it anyway!

He was Moroccan so 5 stars if you can guess his religion.

Joey wrote:

Albatross wrote:Wait, isn't Kilkrazy supposed to be a mod? Why then is he going out of his way to attack posters? Just lock the thread or punish the user if you genuinely believe that there is racism at play here.

For my part, no-one should be able to receive nearly half a million pounds in benefits, legitimate claimant or not.

It was £400,000 over a decade, so £40,000 a year.
This is including full time care by carers. So if he was "genuine" and unable to walk/look after himself, it's not really that much.

Only in this country could we consider doling out £40k a year to people who literally haven't lifted a finger to earn it 'not really that much'. Quite shocking really.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Joey wrote:

mattyrm wrote:

Albatross wrote:Wait, isn't Kilkrazy supposed to be a mod? Why then is he going out of his way to attack posters? Just lock the thread or punish the user if you genuinely believe that there is racism at play here.

For my part, no-one should be able to receive nearly half a million pounds in benefits, legitimate claimant or not.

Dont give him any ideas, im sick of sucking on the ban hammer!

As I said, Im clearly not racist, I am an equal opportunities hater of any and all things Religion, the whole abotion and euthanisa things are my biggest gripes, and that is hardly an Islam thing, plus the other obvious fact that anyone can be a Muslim. Its not tied to one race.

In fact, was this bloke a Muslim!? I don't think it the article mentioned it anyway!

He was Moroccan so 5 stars if you can guess his religion.

Yeah, I mean, they're brown aren't they? They're bound to be Muslims.

Albatross wrote:

Joey wrote:

Albatross wrote:Wait, isn't Kilkrazy supposed to be a mod? Why then is he going out of his way to attack posters? Just lock the thread or punish the user if you genuinely believe that there is racism at play here.

For my part, no-one should be able to receive nearly half a million pounds in benefits, legitimate claimant or not.

It was £400,000 over a decade, so £40,000 a year.
This is including full time care by carers. So if he was "genuine" and unable to walk/look after himself, it's not really that much.

Only in this country could we consider doling out £40k a year to people who literally haven't lifted a finger to earn it 'not really that much'. Quite shocking really.

It's not "shocking".
Shocking-To a shocking degree; extremely: "my feet are swollen something shocking".
I'd advise you read more books and less tabloids.
On the subject, £40,000 a year compared to, roughly, £800-£1000 a week for care provided by the NHS/private.
Presumably you'd prefer dumping the infirm in the street?

"This person suffering from hereditary defects costs the community 60,000 Reichsmark during his lifetime. Fellow German, that is your money, too."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Albatross wrote:
Yeah, I mean, they're brown aren't they? They're bound to be Muslims.

Morocco is 98.7% Muslim.
The fact that you're incapable of noticing genuine intolerance speaks wonders for your outlook on life.

mattyrm wrote:The debate is that last week I was arguing the toss saying that I didn't believe that people were getting a raw deal from the state as it stands, because disabled groups marched on Westminster about perceived "cuts" the benefits system, and they said they "had it hard enough already" and as a staunch supporter of Superdave Cameron I disagree and feel that we do actually provide well enough for those people that are unfortunate enough to be on disability.

There is a happy medium between doing the moral thing and providing assistance to people who need it, and giving far too many concessions to people that rely on the state.

So we provide well enough? But should we provide less? If there are cuts people will get less. So you think genuinely ill people should get less.

Is this feeling that they should get less based upon a sound understanding of the financial needs of someone who requires 24 hour care, or something else?

Again, nobody is saying Fraudsters should get anything, but a key component of the cuts is to remove healthcare professionals from the equation. That will cost less (in the short term, before the appeals for mis-diagnosis eat up all the money). But diagnosis by check list will make it easier to commit fraud and harder for genuine cases who for whatever reason do not conform to the check list.

So Cameron's plan will help fraudsters, hinder genuine claims and probably not cost any less in the long term. I'm fairly opposed to that.

Was your Grandfather legally selling or illegally selling? What was he selling to them?

Albatross wrote:Wait, isn't Kilkrazy supposed to be a mod? Why then is he going out of his way to attack posters? Just lock the thread or punish the user if you genuinely believe that there is racism at play here.

What attack exactly?

Disagreeing with another poster isn't an attack.

Closing a thread because of, or moderating someone who you disagree with is lame, and that is one of the reasons another noted OT member lost his mod status I would wager...


That aside, Mattyrm likes to tell us over and over how he "tells it like it is", and "doesnt pull any punches" and any other number of cliches he uses to excuse his attempts to shock and stir the pot (often boarding on racism and hate speech).

If that is how you present and represent yourslef then you have to be willing to accept when people give you the same about your statements. The cliche here would be "take it like a man" I think...

Albatross wrote:Only in this country could we consider doling out £40k a year to people who literally haven't lifted a finger to earn it 'not really that much'. Quite shocking really.

What do you propose we do with bedridden people?

Personally I think that they should become wards of the state in small state run establishments. It would be cheaper and harder to exploit. Thatcher style 'care' in the community patently doesn't work.

Jihadin wrote:Was your Grandfather legally selling or illegally selling? What was he selling to them?

Army equipment, entirely illegal. Not guns or bullets obviously, but general army wear. Cloth, equipment, etc.
Just a very informal creaming off of equipment, the kind of thing that goes on in the army today, as well as private businesses. I'm sure most people know someone who works in a restaurant who can get very cheap high quality steaks.

Joey wrote:

Albatross wrote:

Joey wrote:

Albatross wrote:Wait, isn't Kilkrazy supposed to be a mod? Why then is he going out of his way to attack posters? Just lock the thread or punish the user if you genuinely believe that there is racism at play here.

For my part, no-one should be able to receive nearly half a million pounds in benefits, legitimate claimant or not.

It was £400,000 over a decade, so £40,000 a year.
This is including full time care by carers. So if he was "genuine" and unable to walk/look after himself, it's not really that much.

Only in this country could we consider doling out £40k a year to people who literally haven't lifted a finger to earn it 'not really that much'. Quite shocking really.

It's not "shocking".
Shocking-To a shocking degree; extremely: "my feet are swollen something shocking".
I'd advise you read more books and less tabloids.

Right, let's nip this in the bud right here and now: I've seen you swaggering around here recently being extraordinarily rude to people, acting as if you're some sort of genius with an incisive wit, but here's a piece of advice - You aren't funny, you're just rude and aggressive. I imagine that you consider yourself to be forthright - I'm sure that you make statements like 'I'm just being honest', 'I speak my mind, and call a spade a spade' all the time, but the fact is, you're one of those exceptionally stupid people who mistakes forthrightness for ignorance. You're not in a position to make any assumptions about my reading habits or level of education, I just disagree with you so you're making ad hominem arguments. That's both incredibly arrogant, and indicative of a lack of emotional maturity on your part.

Presumably you'd prefer dumping the infirm in the street?

Oh, of course I would. I mean, I said it didn't I? I clearly typed it out in block capitals. In fact, I'm surprised you didn't quote me.

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.

So he was a military surplus seller. No issue then.

George Spiggott wrote:

Albatross wrote:Only in this country could we consider doling out £40k a year to people who literally haven't lifted a finger to earn it 'not really that much'. Quite shocking really.

What do you propose we do with bedridden people?

I propose that we provide them with a basic level of care, and that family should pick up the slack. Basically what we are doing now. The problem I have with, to be fair, the entirety of the welfare state in the UK is the sense of entitlement benefit claimants seem to have, particularly the disabled. Surely they should be thankful for what, if anything, they get? I mean, no-one is really entitled to any assistance, are they? They receive it as a consequence of society's generosity and collective guilt - they, and we, should recognise that. There is no inherent 'right' to assistance. We've agreed upon it. It's a construct.

Personally I think that they should become wards of the state in small state run establishments. It would be cheaper and harder to exploit. Thatcher style 'care' in the community patently doesn't work.

Well, the truth is that it works for some, and doesn't work for others.

Albatross wrote:I propose that we provide them with a basic level of care, and that family should pick up the slack. Basically what we are doing now. The problem I have with, to be fair, the entirety of the welfare state in the UK is the sense of entitlement benefit claimants seem to have, particularly the disabled. Surely they should be thankful for what, if anything, they get? I mean, no-one is really entitled to any assistance, are they? They receive it as a consequence of society's generosity and collective guilt - they, and we, should recognise that. There is no inherent 'right' to assistance. We've agreed upon it. It's a construct.

All 'rights' are constructs, nobody is 'entitled' to anything -ever, lets not go there it's far too deep a tunnel. We as a society generally believe that they should have help, whether they're thankful for it is irrelevant.

So if you want 'basically what we are doing now' then are you merely shocked by how much thing cost? If so, it is a tenuous claim to be well read on the subject and shocked by how much it costs.

Perhaps you've done a little 'book' reading on the subject and are more bemused than shocked.

George Spiggott wrote:

Albatross wrote:I propose that we provide them with a basic level of care, and that family should pick up the slack. Basically what we are doing now. The problem I have with, to be fair, the entirety of the welfare state in the UK is the sense of entitlement benefit claimants seem to have, particularly the disabled. Surely they should be thankful for what, if anything, they get? I mean, no-one is really entitled to any assistance, are they? They receive it as a consequence of society's generosity and collective guilt - they, and we, should recognise that. There is no inherent 'right' to assistance. We've agreed upon it. It's a construct.

All 'rights' are constructs, nobody is 'entitled' to anything -ever, lets not go there it's far too deep a tunnel.

Fair enough!

We as a society generally believe that they should have help, whether they're thankful for it is irrelevant.

Actually, I disagree. It's my opinion that people in receipt of state benefits are not in a position to 'demand' anything from society as a whole, yet that is precisely the sort of attitude that is exhibited by some that subsist on welfare, and by some of those who fight their ideological corner. They don't actually DO anything to deserve the money gifted to them by society except exist with some form of disability. Now that's not to say that I believe that the disabled should not receive support, nothing could be further from the truth. No, they should be supported of course - my point is that any notion of 'entitlement' should be eradicated from the debate, as it's not an intellectually honest basis for a discussion on welfare. No-one, no matter how in need, is morally 'entitled' to financial support from society. They are gifted it, and we should recognise that. That's all I'm saying, and as ever, YMMV.

So if you want 'basically what we are doing now' then are you merely shocked by how much thing cost? If so, it is a tenuous claim to be well read on the subject and shocked by how much it costs.

I don't believe that I claimed to be at all well-read on the subject, but nevertheless, handing out in benefits almost four times what a person on minimum wage could expect to earn in a year when working full-time is a lot of money, whichever way you slice it - especially when you consider that the guy in question was obviously mentally capable enough to undertake advanced study. I have in my family a person with dementia, and their home care budget for the year is nowhere near even half that. Bear in mind that this is a person that can't cook for herself, dress herself etc.

Perhaps you've done a little 'book' reading on the subject and are more bemused than shocked.

I am actually quite shocked that someone would consider £40K a year in benefits to be not a lot of money. Whether or not the expenditure is justified is a seperate issue for me.

Albatross wrote:I disagree. It's my opinion that people in receipt of state benefits are not in a position to 'demand' anything from society as a whole, yet that is precisely the sort of attitude that is exhibited by some that subsist on welfare, and by some of those who fight their ideological corner. They don't actually DO anything to deserve the money gifted to them by society except exist with some form of disability. Now that's not to say that I believe that the disabled should not receive support, nothing could be further from the truth. No, they should be supported of course - my point is that any notion of 'entitlement' should be eradicated from the debate, as it's not an intellectually honest basis for a discussion on welfare. No-one, no matter how in need, is morally 'entitled' to financial support from society. They are gifted it, and we should recognise that. That's all I'm saying, and as ever, YMMV.

I said 'generally', so you have no need to disagree. It's already covered in what I wrote. Regarding 'entitlement', didn't we both agree to not use that line of argument.

Albatross wrote:I am actually quite shocked that someone would consider £40K a year in benefits to be not a lot of money. Whether or not the expenditure is justified is a seperate issue for me.

Maybe Joey is loaded. I took his meaning to be 'not unjustifiable for the situation'. In this context £40k is not a lot of money. You should re-read the OP though. £40k is not one year's direct benefits to that individual, approximately a third of that was payment to carers.

£70k Housing benefit is pretty disturbing to me. You can buy most of a house with that (not in London). However I understand that housing in London can be problematic.

Albatross wrote:
Right, let's nip this in the bud right here and now: I've seen you swaggering around here recently being extraordinarily rude to people, acting as if you're some sort of genius with an incisive wit, but here's a piece of advice - You aren't funny, you're just rude and aggressive. I imagine that you consider yourself to be forthright - I'm sure that you make statements like 'I'm just being honest', 'I speak my mind, and call a spade a spade' all the time, but the fact is, you're one of those exceptionally stupid people who mistakes forthrightness for ignorance. You're not in a position to make any assumptions about my reading habits or level of education, I just disagree with you so you're making ad hominem arguments. That's both incredibly arrogant, and indicative of a lack of emotional maturity on your part.

okay.

Albatross wrote:
Oh, of course I would. I mean, I said it didn't I? I clearly typed it out in block capitals. In fact, I'm surprised you didn't quote me.

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.

Roughly 90% of what you said was an ad-hom, you then ignored the statistics I posed and concentrated entirely on a rhetorical device I employed. It's therefore irrelevant arguing with you further.

Joey wrote:
Roughly 90% of what you said was an ad-hom, you then ignored the statistics I posed and concentrated entirely on a rhetorical device I employed. It's therefore irrelevant arguing with you further.

Funny thing, ad hominem isn't bad per se.

For example, you might reply to "Well, he doesn't like Mexicans!" with "Yeah, but he's a racist!" without any fallacy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Albatross wrote:
It's my opinion that people in receipt of state benefits are not in a position to 'demand' anything from society as a whole....

Eh, not so much. All people are in position to demand things of any other person or group of people, especially if the group suffering demands is either averse to violence, or aspirant to democracy. You live in the West, so that's an affirmative response to both.

George Spiggott wrote:

Albatross wrote:I disagree. It's my opinion that people in receipt of state benefits are not in a position to 'demand' anything from society as a whole, yet that is precisely the sort of attitude that is exhibited by some that subsist on welfare, and by some of those who fight their ideological corner. They don't actually DO anything to deserve the money gifted to them by society except exist with some form of disability. Now that's not to say that I believe that the disabled should not receive support, nothing could be further from the truth. No, they should be supported of course - my point is that any notion of 'entitlement' should be eradicated from the debate, as it's not an intellectually honest basis for a discussion on welfare. No-one, no matter how in need, is morally 'entitled' to financial support from society. They are gifted it, and we should recognise that. That's all I'm saying, and as ever, YMMV.

I said 'generally', so you have no need to disagree. It's already covered in what I wrote.

I was disagreeing with your assertion that their thankfulness is irrelevant.

Albatross wrote:I am actually quite shocked that someone would consider £40K a year in benefits to be not a lot of money. Whether or not the expenditure is justified is a seperate issue for me.

Maybe Joey is loaded. I took his meaning to be 'not unjustifiable for the situation'. In this context £40k is not a lot of money. You should re-read the OP though. £40k is not one year's direct benefits to that individual, approximately a third of that was payment to carers.

£70k Housing benefit is pretty disturbing to me. You can buy most of a house with that (not in London). However I understand that housing in London can be problematic.

Yep. Why do people get to live in expensive houses in London, though? Can't they be relocated to somewhere more cost-effective to the tax-payer than North London? It's notoriously overpriced. Also FYI, I read the OP - I still happen to think that £400,000 in benefits over a decade, even including care, is extraordinarily generous.

Joey wrote:Roughly 90% of what you said was an ad-hom, you then ignored the statistics I posed and concentrated entirely on a rhetorical device I employed.

What statistics? The ones about tax evasion costing the UK more than fraud? I ignored them because (and here's an example of how to use the word 'irrelevant' correctly) they were irrelevant - they had absolutely nothing at all to do with the statement that I was making.

dogma wrote:Eh, not so much. All people are in position to demand things of any other person or group of people, especially if the group suffering demands is either averse to violence, or aspirant to democracy. You live in the West, so that's an affirmative response to both.

Well, of course they can make demands should they wish. I happen to think that it's morally indefensible to do so.



To all, a question: Are the severely disabled effectively kept alive for our pleasure?

Albatross wrote:Wait, isn't Kilkrazy supposed to be a mod? Why then is he going out of his way to attack posters? Just lock the thread or punish the user if you genuinely believe that there is racism at play here.

For my part, no-one should be able to receive nearly half a million pounds in benefits, legitimate claimant or not.

I didn't say anything about racism, that is an interpretation of my comment that mattyrm made.

Looking at his posting history, there is a preponderance of complaints about benefit claimants, immigrants, and religious people especially muslims. People can draw their own conclusions.

What I am saying is that for someone with that history to post a thread about a muslim immigrant benefit fraudster, and claim he is declaring his support for current social policy, is at best disingenuous.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Albatross wrote:Wait, isn't Kilkrazy supposed to be a mod? Why then is he going out of his way to attack posters? Just lock the thread or punish the user if you genuinely believe that there is racism at play here.

For my part, no-one should be able to receive nearly half a million pounds in benefits, legitimate claimant or not.

I didn't say anything about racism, that is an interpretation of my comment that mattyrm made.

Looking at his posting history, there is a preponderance of complaints about benefit claimants, immigrants, and religious people especially muslims. People can draw their own conclusions.

What I am saying is that for someone with that history to post a thread about a muslim immigrant benefit fraudster, and claim he is declaring his support for current social policy, is at best disingenuous.

...And I'm saying that is antagonistic. Which would be fine, of course, except for the fact that you are a moderator - if you antagonise another poster they are unable to respond in kind because you're in a position to ban them, and you know that. That's an abuse of power. If either the thread or the OP have broken a rule, shut them down. Don't draw mattyrm into an argument just so you can ban him again. It's petty.

Yeah lets just ignore the childish notion that if you are slightly right of someone's very left political opinion you are a Nazi and just stick to what's being actually written by people. The story is on the bbc website, not the daily mail, and neither I nor they mentioned Religion. Keep on topic.


George. How does a new approach make it easier to commit fraud? Im not seeing your logic.

As alby said there can be changes applied that are logical and don't leave you living in squalor. Why do you get to choose your postpone when you rely on the state? Surely its ridiculous to live as a tenant in Knightsbridge at a cost of 3 grand rent a month to the state?

Will your care be that much worse if we just.. you know.. move you?

Is it antagonistic to point out a flaw in someone's argument?

mattyrm [i]did respond in kind[/l] by accusing me of casting him as a racist. He could have addressed my point differently by bringing some genuine information about the successes of the welfare state.

Albatross wrote:I was disagreeing with your assertion that their thankfulness is irrelevant.

Can we measure their thankfulness in a meaningful way? Is it required in each case for payment? No we cannot, therefore it is irrelevant. Let's put 'thankfulness' with 'rights' and 'entitlement' shall we? They are, as you rightly say, intellectually dishonest arguments.

Albatross wrote:Yep. Why do people get to live in expensive houses in London, though? Can't they be relocated to somewhere more cost-effective to the tax-payer than North London? It's notoriously overpriced. Also FYI, I read the OP - I still happen to think that £400,000 in benefits over a decade, even including care, is extraordinarily generous.

You appeared to be missing a salient point, I didn't think or say you hadn't read it. Social housing is a massively complex problem with a long history. There's not enough information here to say why he was given housing in North London. You raise some good points but IMO Social Housing is better suited to it's own thread rather than a tangent here.

@ Mattyrm: The new system requires that your illness fit a check list (actually the current one does too, but the check list will be the only test in the new system) rather than be subject to testing from a Medical Professional with years of experience. Do you really think the check list will be harder to 'beat' by fraudsters than a Medical Professional?

The problem with saying "wwwaaaahhh, that person gets £40K a year in benefits" is that the person in question doesn't see most of that money because it goes to other people like the wages of full time carers. It's not for buying them freebies.

For example some people complain about the high amount of money paid in housing benefits. But that it related to the cost of the rent, the benefit claimant doesn't see that money. £100 a week, £200 a week, it doesn't matter because they don't see the money, often it is paid direct to the landlord. To the benefit claimant it's just numbers on a piece of paper, they never get to hold that money and they don't get an say in how to spend it.

Now the amount paid in housing benefits is not the fault of the claimant, but of the landlord trying to milk it knowing the local authority will cover what the person renting owes. That should be an excuse for the state imposing rent controls in the private sector if I ever saw one. But the government don't do this, and with all these people jumping on the buy-to-let market the rental prices in the UK have shot up.

So instead of attacking the benefits and making it more difficult for people to pay their rent and feed their families, introduce things like state imposed rent controls on the private market and cut the cost to the tax payer and ease the burden on those private renting out of their own pocket. Then they might have a bit more money to spend in the shops and get the economy going.

Howard A Treesong wrote:The problem with saying "wwwaaaahhh, that person gets £40K a year in benefits" is that the person in question doesn't see most of that money because it goes to other people like the wages of full time carers. It's not for buying them freebies.

For example some people complain about the high amount of money paid in housing benefits. But that it related to the cost of the rent, the benefit claimant doesn't see that money. £100 a week, £200 a week, it doesn't matter because they don't see the money, often it is paid direct to the landlord. To the benefit claimant it's just numbers on a piece of paper, they never get to hold that money and they don't get an say in how to spend it.

Wrong, first its still money stolen. Even if the carers benefits were lost to everyone (which cant work as someone needs to accept the funds) its an additional cost to enable the enhanced level of benefits an Incapacity claim holds.
However in this and other cases you have got accomplices, in this case blood relatives to masquerade as carers and claiming those monies. The fraud is very substantial.

Howard A Treesong wrote:
Now the amount paid in housing benefits is not the fault of the claimant, but of the landlord trying to milk it knowing the local authority will cover what the person renting owes. That should be an excuse for the state imposing rent controls in the private sector if I ever saw one. But the government don't do this, and with all these people jumping on the buy-to-let market the rental prices in the UK have shot up.

Not true. While fair rent laws apply you are still gaining accommodation for free by deception if you are not going through with the requirement of a claim to which housing benefit is linked. Noone gets Housing benefit (and Council Tax benefit) independently, its entirely related to a secondary claim based on Pension related, Incapacity related, Jobseekers related or Income related. If the welfare claim is fraudulent the Housing benefit is likewise fraudulent.

Howard A Treesong wrote:
So instead of attacking the benefits and making it more difficult for people to pay their rent and feed their families, introduce things like state imposed rent controls on the private market and cut the cost to the tax payer and ease the burden on those private renting out of their own pocket. Then they might have a bit more money to spend in the shops and get the economy going.

Please try again. You can't draw a worthwhile conclusion on the basis of a sequence of bad errors.
Rent controls will not work as a number of institutions now have the entire funding based on rent. Hostels and secure accommodation ares good example of this. Hostels (like the YMCA) would charge rent and claim subsidy from local or central government to offset care funds, however since 2004 this system was streamlined into a single rent and benefit calculation. Frankly it was a good idea as special rates of Housing benefit were introduced for hostels and supported accommodation to account for the extreme hike in rents accompanying this. Now adding rent caps would cripple supported accommodation, or would have to set uyp a new list of exceptions. When you make allowances for exceptions you create a need for further assessment to qualify exceptions and the opportunity for accommodation providers to obtain exempting from rent capping by underhand methods. All in all your system is unworkable from the get go, and only helps to disturb a free market without any of the benefits of limiting a free market.

There is room for capping a free market even under a Conservative government, however it begins and ends with infrastructure costs. Hard caps on fuel bill rates is a plausible example and one that should and has been looked into.