Access to benefits

woodbine

Mike I mentioned SM relations as they are millionaires BUT they live in the same house that they lived in when they weren't and the house next door sold before xmas for 500k it's as simple as that, and I maintain that they don't need the WFP as they have said this to us a number of times, as for SRP they both have decent private pensions that they could live on.
If you don't believe what I am saying at least have the bottle to say you don't thank you.

woodbine

[removed by moderator - personal attack, profanity]

Tori_Scope

A comment containing profanity aimed at another member has been removed, as this isn't something we allow on the community. You can read our house rules here.

We do of course allow debate to take place on the community, and it's okay to disagree with someone's comment by providing robust evidence or an alternative view that questions their opinion. That being said, it's important to remember that this reply should remain civil and friendly in tone. We all enter debates with different backgrounds, experiences, and mindsets, and showing empathy and respect is vital in ensuring that discussions remain constructive.

If you think another member has made a comment that breaches our house rules, including if it isn't in line with our 'keep it friendly' statement, please report it so that we can review it and take action if necessary.

This thread will remain open for the time being.

racyguy

calcotti said:

The last obvious case of reacting to the 'people getting benefit they don't need' approach was the introduction of the Child Benefit High Income Charge.
Recent House of commons briefing paper explores all the complexity that introduced
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8631/CBP-8631.pdf

I agree entirely. Family Allowance as it was was paid out on the basis of the number of children you had. Yes this money was a lifeline for some who saw it as extra funding going towards the maintenance of the children. Yet the way it was being handed out was like a sausage machine. In my younger days along with my many friends and work colleagues their wives popped to the post office to collect their entitlement. Some saw it as to be frittered away simply because they simply didn't need it. Back in 1990 I had twin girls aged 9 and was at that time receiving a net salary of over £5500 a month.
I disagreed with my wife in collecting this money as we had no need of it. Her argument was that she was entitled to it so claimed it. 

calcotti

racyguy said:

calcotti said:

The last obvious case of reacting to the 'people getting benefit they don't need' approach was the introduction of the Child Benefit High Income Charge.
Recent House of commons briefing paper explores all the complexity that introduced
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8631/CBP-8631.pdf

I agree entirely. 

I don’t think we do agree. My point was that removing the non means tested universality of Child Benefit has resulted in a complicated mess. I understand your stance to be the opposite of that.

woodbine

Of course the answer to all this is the introduction of a universal basic income, it would at a stroke do away with thousands of DWP jobs (perhaps they could be better employed chasing tax avoiders?), it would also mean that those who are unable to work don't have to jump through hoops to get the financial help they need. There were plans to test this out in Sheffield but the govt. got cold feet, it has been tried in a couple of countries and seems to have worked reasonably well.
It's not perfect but it is a possible solution to the mess which is the current benefits/taxation system that we have that isn't in anyway fit for purpose.
I think I might just live to see its introduction.

calcotti

Don’t know if Wales is progressing it’s plans for a trial
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-57120354

Spoonbill

@racyguy Intervening again, can I suggest that you've set yourself a trap of homing in on "what about"s and then expanded these beyond the evidence base (anecdote) to create a general theory of (highly managed) distribution?

You're being met with arguments which take into account wider social implications, and attempt to highlight documented systemic social problems of conditionality. This doesn't resolve your concerns about exceptions, but attempts to put them into perspective and introduce bigger social factors to consider.

I would briefly suggest also that you might not have considered that changes might be funded in ways that don't impoverish anyone nor increase costly bureaucracy: on that, however, I feel it being too expansive to introduce to this thread (not to mention not the ideal place to discuss macro-economics).

Would it help if we were to grant that universal measures might produce anomalies which aren't 'fair' to the finest measure? (But consider: what part of life is?)

calcotti

Spoonbill said: Would it help if we were to grant that universal measures might produce anomalies which aren't 'fair' to the finest measure? (But consider: what part of life is?)

And similarly means tested also creates unfairness in that there are usually thresholds or boundaries of one sort or another where somebody on one side of the boundary gets treated differently to someone on the other side.

No system can be perfect so it is a balance between fairness and practicality.

racyguy

Username_removed said:

I love the idea that Child Benefit was being handed out and frittered away. In what sense I wonder? 

If you had Child Benefit snd saved it that was because it was the only thing which enabled you to save i.e. your income was too low.

If you spent it on the maintenance of a child then that also showed your income was too low. Children thrive by having something more than maintenance. 

The idea that you should claim something because you have an entitlement is basic. To ridicule your own wife for having a sensible core belief seems rather odd. I note @racyguy that you don’t get around to telling us what you’re wife spent it on. I didn’t it was anything she didn’t need. 

It was frittered away by many of my friends, work colleagues and my wife. What my wife did with the weekly allowance was to either buy things for the home or more clothes, shoes and handbags for herself all of which were not needed with much of it being unused or given away. The children were funded in all ways out of my income.
All of our savings came by way of profits made in selling and moving our homes and the residue out of my salary each month.
My wife saw nothing wrong in taking what she saw as an entitlement for which no need existed.

woodbine

I think that the very basic idea behind family allowance was to put some cash into the mums purse at a time when many of them didn't work and were reliant on their husbands income, initially it was never paid for the first child, but IIRC that changed in the 1970's when it was payable for all kids and at a higher rate for the first. I suspect had it kept up with inflation it might be more than it is today.

chiarieds

I would add my perspective, if I may. Many women (tho it could equally be men) stay at home to look after their children; an unpaid 'job.' Do you therefore not consider anything that you might have brought home in the way of any income shared for the good of your household?

It's very easy to say that this money is for specific things, & comes from this certain amount of money, yet normally money comes from a common 'pot,' to which your wife also contributed with Child Benefit, n'est-ce pas? May I suggest that your children were 'funded' out of your joint monies.

It's dissimilar, but my now ex-husband 'argued' that he'd paid my National Insurance contributions as he crossed over the road from our business to pay them into our joint bank account. Condiments, we were not only married at the time, but had also been business partners for decades, & shared all our money.

Lisatho11987777

I am only commenting on what I used to do with my child benefit I would give my children pocket money put ten pound in the sweety in pay a baby sitter once a month so I could go out and whatever was left went in the emergency tin if one of them needed new shoes things like that  I have always been told if I am entitled then claim it and I always did 

calcotti

Username_removed said:..Means-testing of CB is a near perfect example of the proven continued failure of means-testing. 

Far from being better targeted, it has resulted in thousands being too scared to claim their correct entitlement for fear of overpayments, 

To which one should add, as a result thousands of people (predominantly women) not accruing NI credits to which they are entitled which will reduce their future State Pension entitlement.