U.K Welfare breakdown demonstrates Government are trying to divide a nation

We have all seen the U.K Government's continuous attack on so called 'Shirkers' and 'Skivers', but having done a bit of research into the breakdown of welfare benefits, it appears that they are merely going out of their way to divide a nation and castigate the unemployed.

I was surpirised to find that only 3% of the welfare budget is spent on people who are actually claiming Job Seeker's Allowance. Yet these are the people who are continuously called out by the U.K Government and labelled 'Shirkers' and 'Skivers'.





As you can see by far the largest area of spend within the welfare budget is Pensions at 46% and Housing Benefit 14% (Which is paid directly to Landlords). In fact 80% of Housing Benefit is currently paid to people who are working. This just underpins the fact that we are subsidising wages, through the welfare system.

Unemployment Benefits are nowhere near as generous as many European countries as this is usually based on what a person was earning before becoming unemployed.

This Government are turning people against each other. It's what some call divide and rule. I appreciate the welfare system needs reforming, but instead of attacking and stigmatising Benefit recipients, how about introducing a living wage? A wage that prevents people from claiming benefits, putting more onus on employers to pay their employees fairly.

This would boost the tax revenue and assist in bringing the defecit down. Making people pay for extra rooms in their homes will not do this, in fact people will potentially become homeless under this scheme, putting an additional burden on the state.

I have just looked at some other stats and the Government have estimated that fraud amongst recipients of disability benefits is around 0.3%

People will always argue that bringing into effect a "living wage" will make the cost of living soar - And i dont believe that for ONE SECOND.

Landlords need to be taken down a notch or 6, capped the amount they can charge for a house/room. Also the government needs to set about building more SOCIAL housing - But as Harriet Hareman stated "There is just simply no one in government to care enough to fight for the issue of more social housing"

What about pensions though? That figure looks set to rise as the decades progress

I don't think pensions will rise as fast as they have been simply due to the fact that the Government will be implementing the changes in pensionable age.

By the time someone in their forties retires and receives a pension, they will 70 at least, maybe older. It will continue to rise in line with life expectatncy.

I am guessing that anyone starting work now will be 75 before they start receiving a pension.

reply to post by Cobaltic1978


I agree with all your points, there is definitely a divide and conquer agenda. The thing is most people in this country recieve some kind of benefit or tax credit (i can't see child tax credits on the chart?) , so by demonising a few obvious scrounger types with 10 kids, they are also subtley influencing everyone to be suspicious of everyone else and judge them for the amount they may or not be getting and how worthy they are. A good tactic to make us resentful of our neighbours and not the criminals in charge.

Any 'working class' person wanting to retire at 65, in the UK, with a decent pension, will have to put at least £400.00 a month into a pension fund, as soon as they start work, that's a huge chunk out of a real average yearly wage of £12.000, less income tax, value added tax, etc.

Originally posted by pikestaff
Any 'working class' person wanting to retire at 65, in the UK, with a decent pension, will have to put at least £400.00 a month into a pension fund, as soon as they start work, that's a huge chunk out of a real average yearly wage of £12.000, less income tax, value added tax, etc.

With Govts able to change Pension rules on a whim , shouldn't people accept that
the State is incompetent at providing such insurance and consequently should be
free to plan their own, after all it's obviously a pyramid scheme and hence you may
'pay ' but you might not be able to 'play' when it's your turn.

reply to post by Cobaltic1978


An old old war tactic : divide and conquer. What this government does not want is for everybody to start thinking and wondering why billions of tax is not being paid by rich individuals and corporations. It crops up every now and then on the news followed very quickly by a government announcement of some welfare announcement. Classic re-direction of anger. That way the poor and middle earners in society are pointing figures at each other whilst the rich continue to suck out ever more cash.

Western economies are broken, those in positions of power know this so they are applying economic sticking plasters to prop it up long enough for the rich to squeeze out as much as they can and stash it away offshore before it goes belly up.

Incompetant bankers in jail : zero.
Libor fraudsters in jail : zero.
Directors of corporations known to have avoided tax in jail: zero

Bankers with bonuses and/or salaries 20-40% larger than 2 years ago : all of them
Tax avoiding directors with bonuses and/or salaries 20-40% higher than 2 years ago : all of them

DUH!!!!!!!

Even if people do complain about welfare, theses people spend their money back in the system they live in, thus creating jobs and keeping the economy rolling.

Can we say the same about banks?
Can we say the same about corporations?
Can we say the same about royalty?
Can we say the same about people investing in foreign companies?

The "elite" sure have plenty money, but this money ain't worth nothing because it just sits there while lowering the values of everyone else's money.

If the majority have someone to point the finger at, blame the elite and not the poor.

Job seekers allowance is paid to people that have had a job, the government then harrasses the have worked, unemployed, in full knowledge that they will find alternative work, because that is in character for them

The target for the shirkers is way off the mark, lets have a little look at the true shirker shall we?

Housing benefit, yes well take 100% paid to the landlord, but wait! our shirker also owns his property, so has house swapped with a fellow shirker, to make that 200% this is common practise.

With all the meds that the doctors have given our guy over the years, he qualifies for the disability living allowance, at 100%, naturally, he sells the meds on.

Being unable to work, incapacity also comes in handy, so lets grab 100% of this too.

Being a long term sickie has its benefits, and speaking of which, he needs a carer, so his wife claims 100% carers allowance.

Maybe not your typical benefit claimant, but not far off the mark, it's the benefits you may least expect, that the real shirkers abuse, day in, day out.

And you are arguing in favour of this???

Oblivion must be a wonderful place to live in.

reply to post by Cobaltic1978


I keep saying time and time again, the welfare system is not the problem. The problem is the greedy elite. The banksters who profit from mortgages and steal our money then make us pay it back. The corporations who pay their workers as little as they could get away with, rather than a decent living wage. The tax avoiders and evaders who are costing the country many times more than the entire benefits bill. The politicians who claim excessive expenses,which vastly exceeds the amount a JSA claimant gets in an entire year, in addition to a bloated salary.

So instead of going after those who are causing the problems they steal from the poor and vulnerable because if they went after the real problems then they'd be going after themselves. They are cowards and bullies. They know the majority of people they are targeting are not in an ideal position to fight back. They are pure evil and need to join maggie in hell.

If they want to make work pay then punish the corporations for not playing fair, rather than punishing the poor desperate to make ends meet.

reply to post by Watchfull


I very much doubt that's the case for the vast majority on DLA. Most are seriously ill or disabled. Not a situation to envy and certainly no lifestyle choice.

I'm sure the vast majority would give up their benefits in a blink of an eye, if it meant their disabilities were cured.

Originally posted by theMediator
Even if people do complain about welfare, theses people spend their money back in the system they live in, thus creating jobs and keeping the economy rolling.

This info graphic from the Financial Times shows how the whole country will be affected by welfare reform. It gives actual figures for how much money will be taken out of local economies.

Government changes to Britain's benefit system are the most significant for a generation. The geographic impact varies widely, with post-industrial regions such as Blackpool hit hard, while leaving wealthy southeastern townslargely untouched. The FT assesses the whether the potential long-term gain is worth the immediate pain.
Cuts to welfare payments will hit the local economies of northern towns and cities as much as five times as hard as the Conservative heartland southern counties, according to research commissioned by the Financial Times into the impact of austerity.
The government's radical reform programme, aimed at reducing one of the largest fiscal deficits among OECD nations by moving people off the benefit rolls and into work, is taking £19bn a year out of working-age social security between now and 2015.


ig.ft.com...

That's £19b taken out of local economies in just two years. These idiots running the country think taking money out of local economies won't lead to the closure of local businesses and services that people can no longer afford. The idiots believe their greater austerity for the economy's poorest will miraculously create jobs and boost local economies?

I'm with Soros on this one; austerity does not work.

reply to post by Watchfull


I am not arguing on the case of a few indivduals who do exploit the system, I am merely pointing out the fact that the Government are trying to put all the economic problems onto a minority of people. The wrong people imo.

Sure there may be a number of people who fit your description, but my Mother-in-law claims DLA as she is severely disabled. She worked all her life and paid into a system that was designed to assist people in such circumstances.

People have already said it here, the corporations who pay zero tax, the bankers on inflated wages and a Government who are collusive in allowing this to continue. If you refuse to see through their lies, then obviously you are contented in supporting such people who are actually at the steering wheel of the bus, driving us into oblivion.

With respect to pensions, how much of the pensions are paid via National insurance (as opposed to "welfare")- ie people have paid all their life into a system, so I wouldn't strictly class this as "welfare"

Also, this comment about housing benefit being paid to "landlords"- so what, the point of that is that the person living in the house is receiving a benefit by not having to pay 400 odd (or whatever the amount would be) a month to live there, as they would normally have to the pay the rent/mortgage themselves

Originally posted by Credenceskynyrd
With respect to pensions, how much of the pensions are paid via National insurance (as opposed to "welfare")- ie people have paid all their life into a system, so I wouldn't strictly class this as "welfare"

Also, this comment about housing benefit being paid to "landlords"- so what, the point of that is that the person living in the house is receiving a benefit by not having to pay 400 odd (or whatever the amount would be) a month to live there, as they would normally have to the pay the rent/mortgage themselves

National Insurance payments are paid into the Social Fund. The Social Fund is where welfare payments are paid from, including state pensions, so it's one in the same. The majority of people receiving this 'Welfare' payment have indeed paid into a system all their working life.

I appreciate Housing Benefit is paid directly to Landlords and I think this is the sensible way. A recent pilot in a number of areas within the U.K supports this. The Government did trial paying Housing Benefit to claimants directly, giving them the responsibility to pay the landlords. However, there was a significant increase in rent arrears as some claimants were using the money for other purposes.

What I was pointing out in my OP was that 80% of Housing Benefit is paid to people in work. These are not shirkers or skivers, these people are working for minimum wage, which obviously isn't enough for people to live on without receiving assistance from the state. We are subsidising business, many large corporations who make billions in profit each year, but pay very little corporation tax. I cannot for the life of me understand how people are being sucked in by the lies we are being sold.

Originally posted by Cobaltic1978
reply to post by Watchfull

 

I am not arguing on the case of a few indivduals who do exploit the system, I am merely pointing out the fact that the Government are trying to put all the economic problems onto a minority of people. The wrong people imo.

Sure there may be a number of people who fit your description, but my Mother-in-law claims DLA as she is severely disabled. She worked all her life and paid into a system that was designed to assist people in such circumstances.

People have already said it here, the corporations who pay zero tax, the bankers on inflated wages and a Government who are collusive in allowing this to continue. If you refuse to see through their lies, then obviously you are contented in supporting such people who are actually at the steering wheel of the bus, driving us into oblivion.

edit on 11/4/13 by Cobaltic1978 because: (no reason given)

As your Mother in law is severely disabled, then, I agree that she should be cared for by our system, regardless of whether she has paid in all her life, or not.

The corporations are being actively pursued, tax loopholes are being closed, and even bankers are being monitored with the new Prudential Regulation Authority.

99% of employees in the UK have not had a pay rise for years, whilst the benefit system has been left unchanged. This is fundamentally unfair.

To claim that the groups on benefits are being singled out, when the rest of the nation is, has been, and will be making sacrifices too, shows your political bias.

I personally, am not in agreement with paying back some ridiculous debt to God knows who, but if that's what our government intends to do, then everyone must make their contribution, life cannot just continue as if nothing happened. The nation can not afford niceties.

reply to post by Cobaltic1978


When you buy into the progressive mindset and allow them into public office were they can slowly nudge the system guess were it all leads? Failure and it will be epic in nature.




You can trust in one thing if it is a progressive idea it will only cause more harm. We should make them pay a living wage. . Like I said before this will be a epic failure. The UK and many other countries have bought into the lie and it is time to pay the piper.

Meanwhile as the nation get's whipped up into a frothy frenzy, ex pats living in sunny climes and affluent pensioners who simply don't need it are still getting their winter fuel payments, and I'd rather not even get started on the handouts for children that don't even live in this country...

The media and Gov prefers as ever though to concentrate their hatred on the bare minority of pisstakers and tar everyone with the same brush. Makes for epic news obviously to bang on about people who have a rake of kids when in actual fact the Philpots of the nation account for a little less than 200 claimants.

reply to post by SearchLightsInc


Housing benefit is high because rents are high. Rents are high because of a lack of housing where it is needed ie in the SE green belt. Cameron to his credit has vaguely tried to reform planning laws to make the building of new houses easier but the conservative NIMBYS (Not in my back yard) have stopped it.

Picking on the unemployed is easy because the unemployed don't vote for the conservatives.

I think the OPs thread is good and glad they have raised this issue.

God help generation X Y Z.