Blair to force those on incapacity benefit to workFollow

Linky



Now while I agree with this and my jaw also dropped to the floor to see 2.7 million people claiming this benefit ... (surely there must be some fraud, I cannot see that 5% of the population is unable to work AT ALL). I am not sure I like some of the ideology behind the goverments aims. I wonder if this will be used correctly?

I watched a programme on TV last night that left a nasty taste in my mouth. It was about Benefit *cheats* in the UK. Those who are apparently claiming benefits when they should not.

Now while some cases they showed were legitimate cases of fraud, others worried me silly at how the state was dictating the private lives of those on benefits.

In one example, a single mother had a boyfriend. The boyfriend was not the father of her children. The relationship was not cemented but still young, passionate and loose. The boyfriend was staying from 3 to 4 nights at her house. And now comes the part I really detest.
The benefits agency had the rights, to stop all benefit payments to this young mother simply because she had a boyfriend. The government claiming that if you have a lover, they should pay for your children. This is regardless of who is the legal parent and how long the relationship has gone on for.
If the partner is found to be living in the same residence, you can even be taken to court and have benefits taken.

Now, call me fickle but is this not cruel and barbaric? As a single parent, the goverment says that you cannot date anyone who is not prepared to shoulder the financial burden of your children. WTH, thats make you SO attractive for sure. The restrictions on your personal life are ludricrous. Now for most couples, when you first meet ... staying together is quite normal. Normal couples can meet, stay at each others houses when they like, how they like without comment. But if you are a single parent on benefits, you may not ... the government will stop your benefits if you stay at your partners or they stay with you for the night. Hell, they will stop your benefits just for daring to seek another partner.
I can just picture the add in the paper "single mum, seeks partner but you must pay up front for my children that you did not father because the government says so". Ridiculous.

Now if a relationship becomes serious and the BF accepts legal responsibility for your children, becomes a stepfather and you marry. Well yes, drop the benefits because you are then a FAMILY. But I wonder, do goverments think about how much they hurt their citizens and trap them in a single parent existence by making it financially punitive to date?

Bleh ...

And I rambled on there, but I really worry about any new scheme coming from a government that has such an appalling way of treating its citizens and prying into our personal lives. I saw something that shocked me last night with our benefits and how we (britain) treat single parents.
I honestly wonder if under this scheme will work.

Also, I am not worried so much about getting people back to work. I am wondering how on earth it is possible that 2.7 million people in the UK can claim they cannot work at all. Unless you are blind, deaf and armless there is work that you can do.

And yes .. maybe I am peeved to find out where far too much of my taxes are going.

Edited, Tue Jan 24 08:52:02 2006 by JennockFV

I have no idea how disability works in England or in the US, but don't you get some sort of amount based on how much you are disabled? For instance, I am currently 0% disabled according to Veterans Affairs. That means I get free medical care for my disability, but no compensation. I am working on an appeal to my claim, and my goal is 10% disability, which gives you 112 bucks a month for the rest of your life. There is no way to live off of that, heh, therefore forcing me, who is perfectly capable of working, to work (eventually...I am just being a full time student at the moment).

Obviously compensation for an injury incurred during military service is somewhat different, but I was just curious how this works.

It's about time he made those lazy bastards out there pull their weight. Good for him.

Edited, Tue Jan 24 10:48:19 2006 by NephthysWanderer

Alla prediction for 2013: Energetically Challenged becomes an accepted disability.



Edited, Tue Jan 24 10:49:58 2006 by NephthysWanderer

That's sound of an ambulance, comin to take me away, because the sight of you stopped my heart.

It's a fair question. When does a safety net become a hammock?

First you must realize and define the actual purpose of welfare. Let say its a safety net to protect hard and honest workers in case of bad times such as a mill closure etc. Gives them a chance to get back on their feet and find new work. Then we must ask "how is this being abused?". Obviously people are abusing the rules and using it as a source of income with no intention of finding a job. So we must locate specific ways in which it is abused and specific rules that are twisted. We must then cut them out and restructure the system back to its original intent.

Welfare is their to help you get back up on your feet when you fall down. It is not a means of support. Welfare as well as job training programs will help you take care of yourself, they are not their to take care of you. The person should be given a period of time in which to collect their ****, after said period of time they are cut off from welfare. They are then given one of two option

Option One - Take care of yourself. If that means getting a job great. If that means you are homeless well to bad you were given a chance.

Option Two - For those more likely to go the homeless route. The Army. We will feed, cloth you, train you and pay you. If you stick around long enough you get benefits. The training you receive will be valuable in any number of civilian fields once you get out. Also it is better than starving. Earn your keep.

Edit - Conservatives that want to abolish welfare are just shooting themselves in the foot. Liberals that want to make welfare into a hand out are doing the same thing but at the other end of the spectrum.

Edited, Tue Jan 24 11:50:03 2006 by bodhisattva

Over half the week? That money is to provide a place of residence for the "disabled" mother and her children. Not for whatever freeloader she takes in off the street. His responsibility isn't to provide for her children, his responsibility is to pay his own fair share. If he is living in the residence then he would be expected to contribute to it's rental.

I'm not sure about the U.K. but in the U.S. government subsidized housing is offered at significantly reduced rates based on the resident's income. If I'm pulling in $150,000 a year why should I pay 1/4 of the rent the couple next door pays for the same housing because my girlfriend is disabled? Our combined income is still over twice what theirs is, but their tax dollars are going to pay my rent.

Oh please, you missed the entire point of my post. First off, the boyfriend had his own house that he was paying for and living in.

So direct to the point, are you saying that she cannot have boyfriends? And that if she has one, she is not entitled to have him stay the night? Bear in mind they are lovers, not husband and wife or cohabiting seriously. They are not in a serious *committed* relationship.

I wonder .. how many people from allas have been in relationships where early in, you stayed nights reguarly at your lovers house? Are single parents on benefits not allowed this freedom? Are they somehow beholden to draconic laws that limit their ability to date normally? Really ...... please re-examine what you just said.
Her BF has his own house, he is simply staying with her so they can ... well .. fill in the blanks yourself.

If this boyfriend turned serious, *if* the relationship was to progress. *IF* he decided that he wished to play happy families and become a guardian to the children, move OUT of his OWN home and in to HERS full time and make a family unit .. THEN the benefits should be stopped and the family should shoulder the cost, as one parent can work full time to support the family while the children are under school age. On that I totally agree.
But why play god and demand that anyone who dares go near a single parent has to pay for the entire families upkeep?

In the long term, allowing someone to find a partner helps all involved. With a partner you can share parental duties. It makes it easier for both parents to work. But I think the crucial thing here is ... seperating what is a casual relationship - "getting to know each other" and a committed relationship of "happy families". You really have to allow for a period of transition.

Fear is a prime motivator in the economy. Although we may prefer not to use it, considering ourselves civilized, it is impossible to remove completely. Too little and people will not achieve as much as they could. Too much and people develop psychological issues.

The nature of our fears have changed dramatically just over the last hundred years within the first world. In general we no longer fear starvation or death due to the elements. A prime motivator for the middle class has become health care. Such as the death of a child which could be prevented by care beyond the means of the parents to provide.

Our tools to remove certain fears have been criticized for being rather digital: either you gain the benefit or nothing. This has been said to snare people by making intermediate states between reliance on the state and absolutely no need of the state very difficult to achieve.

Jennock has brought up a similar point. Yet Xythex brings up a counter point about fairness. It isn't fair that someone who at least is potentially escaping from poverty still gains full benefits. Yet another point could be made that none of this is the government's business - either because of privacy concerns or social darwinism. That's why we vote. It's pretty important.

The cost of the dignity granted by social liberalism is liberty of those who recieve it and those who pay for it. How many times in the past have I stated that the least free people in any society are those on some form of government assistance? Now do you understand what I was talking about?

In an ideal world people would take only what they needed, and there woulnd't be a problem. However, in the real world, people are greedy and will take more if offered. This fact ensures that any social services program must have rules that those wishing those services must adhere to. And yeah. The end result is always a reduction of the liberty of those in the programs. It's a pretty much guaranteed result.



Ok. I'll put on the other aspect of the social conservative now. Um... Then why ever formalize the relationship? If the guy marries her, then he takes on responsiblity for her and her existing children. If he just shacks up with her he is at worst responsible for any children he generates. Or, she can simply claim that she doesn't know who the father is, continue to get more funding from the government for another child, he can continue in the relationship with her (such as it is). Congratulations! You've just brought down the entire concept of familiy units in your society via economic dissencentives. Be proud though because you're "helping those in need"...

Yeah. I'm being a bit snarky, but the downsides of these types of systems that you seem to be just now noticing have been somewhat obvious for decades.



Good point! So how about we just get rid of the benefits? Then she can do whatever she wants and no one will care where anyone lives or stays. That's "freedom"...

tpical the masses are blind to the cruption in the goverment that is surpost to be serving the people not it self.... and yet there are some like my self who can see clearly that a crime has been comited......










you see what I thought I do is be one of those deaf-mutes then I would not have to have any goddamn stupid useless conversations with anybody. or should I?

and as aways there is an idot who butts into a grown up disgusion and pretends thay are hard core by spouting a load of sware words and beliving thay are clever when the truth is he is now seen as the forum clown or retared person I give u Molish our own ******/idot/clown (please delete non apropret or use all 3)


there is plenty of evidence Duke Youshutup how ever im sure a person with you intrelcet dose not need me to provied them... try reading the paper.... and I dont mean the SUN/NEWS OF THE WORLD/THE MIRROR try for something not run by Blair and his cronys... like the Daily Mail.... or the Gardian..... or perhaps you dont read.....