Income Support, is it fair on the Tax Payer?

[debumblebee]

Instead of listening to all the lefties tell us that people don't get enough rent rebate and hand-outs (usually single mums in states accommodation), what do tax payers and Social Security payers think of it all?  The UK keeps on getting attacked by France for being too generous with welfare and encouraging problems by the way asylum seekers are waiting to get in from Calais.  Also today the UK came under attack for excessive public spending including hand outs which they are now having to borrow more money to supplement.

So a basic question, do you support the welfare state and do people in Jersey still take the piss?  You know that people can claim handouts even when having about £50,000.00 in savings in the bank, or is it £30,000.00?  Some people who don't even have those kind of savings just pay tax and social security and have no say.  So is it right, or should people who claim really have to show that they are broke before they get anything at all, and perhaps it should be based on a minimum age of say 50 when you are allowed such savings?

[Ashley]

People take the piss, simple as.

If you offer a loop or way around a situation then it'll be taken advantage of.  It's in everyone's nature to do so to some extent.  How far you take your own morals is up to your own conscience.

I know people who don't work, have free accommodation for them and their kids and free money to look after them, very comfortably - all off the back of claiming to be depressed - when they're not - they're lazy.

It makes me depressed, sitting at my desk, working . . . wondering why I'm paying so much tax so these people can take advantage of the system.  I bloody wish the states would do something about it all.

And no, I'm not going to drop these people in it - It's not my job. I already pay my taxes for someone else to work this stuff out on my behalf.

[mpwpj]

People take the piss, simple as...

Not just the claimants though.

The principle of the system is sound, the set-up of the system is okay, but the administration of the system is abysmal. For example, lets compare two similar cases:
Two neighbours, same age, semi-detached house, so near identical design.  Same number of children, both all locally born etc.  The differences between them:

Household A has a married couple with three children under 7years, mum doesn't work, dad does earning approx. £18,000. Pays Income Tax and Soc.Sec. Not entitled (according to the SS jobsworth retards) to any Income Support.

Household B has an unmarried single mum, also three children of the same age, but from three different dads.  Single mum chooses not to accept any financial support from any of the dads so she doesn't 'owe' them any visiting rights etc. Receives £33,000 in Income Support, untaxed and no SocSec.

I think the trouble is not the Income Support law or principle, it's the human element at SS, who're incompetent.

[Ashley]

It's absolutely mental that anyone with any savings whatsoever should be entitled to income support.

How can it be reasoned or justified?  They have money to spend but that's savings so it doesn't count?

People in this situation are the complete opposite of me.  They don't work, aren't paying taxes, have savings and also get free money.  I work, pay taxes and I'm am skint.

If these people are working but not earning much then that's even more ridiculous.

[mpwpj]

It's absolutely mental that anyone with any savings whatsoever should be entitled to income support...

I think the threshold for savings should be lower, and that if there are savings they should be expected to deplete at a rate inline with the IS being received.

IS should be viewed as a short term safety net, not a career. IS should never be expected long-term, without thorough investigation of circumstance; unfortunately the opposite is true it seems.  When you're desperately in need and first trying to claim some support they make you jump through hoops, then once you've got your foot in the door (or snout in the trough?) you can settle in for the long term.

[Chris]

It's absolutely mental that anyone with any savings whatsoever should be entitled to income support.

How can it be reasoned or justified?  They have money to spend but that's savings so it doesn't count?

People in this situation are the complete opposite of me.  They don't work, aren't paying taxes, have savings and also get free money.  I work, pay taxes and I'm am skint.

If these people are working but not earning much then that's even more ridiculous.

I wrote something then decided not to bother.
Now I will.

For example, some of this is true, some of this is what if;

I have a full time job, I live in a flat, I am 23(single) and unable to apply for rent rebate and earn just enough to support myself and spoil myself a little bit.

Imagine I have inherited money, or saved up money and put it into investments locked away for 5 years with release fees of up to £1.5k.

I am planning for my future here, I do not want to spend it all at once.


Why should I not apply for rent rebate/income support if I barely make ends meat which here's a truth now, I have once in my life, but had investments.

Because all that means is I get paid, pay my bills and then, each month, eat into my savings until it's dried up?? I guess though, Investments are different to savings.

If I want money out of investments I need to jump loops and do my homework, takes weeks/months to sort it out right. I also get penalised for it.

Please note, I've never been on rent rebate or income support

[Ashley]

All I can say is, as far as I'm concerned, if you have the means on this earth to look after yourself, then you should. I don't understand why I, who cannot apply for any benefits, have to pay more of my money away each month because some people don't want to break a deposit.  It's like those scummy mates when you're a kid in McDonalds. Wanting to borrow a quid of your fiver for some chips because they don't want to break a 20 pound note.

If you can feed yourself - do it.  You don't see 3rd world people clinging onto their investments for convenience sake.

It's madness.  If these people weren't so tight then I wouldn't be so skint.

[boatyboy]

Jersey has admitted funding problems in providing care for children who suffer with
Psychological problems shortage of nurses and now the senior citizens are being means tested. The article below is inspired and addresses the problem and offers answers regarding the welfare state. If only the politicians ( Jersey and elsewhere ) would grow up and do the same.

Quote :-

The vast welfare bureaucracy enables the Government to intrude ever more into people's lives, particularly in the areas of family life and child-rearing.

And through providing financial incentives for lone parenthood while penalising couples, it has positively encouraged family disintegration, the single most important factor behind our culture of selfishness and disorder.

It has also provided a myriad of incentives for dishonesty. Of course, some people are genuinely ill, but through Incapacity Benefit, the state is ripped off to the tune of billions of pounds each year by those who are not too disabled to work, but are simply playing the system.

According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the Government is paying tax credits or out-of-work benefits to about 200,000 more lone parents than are living in the UK.

Our health service teeters on the edge of continual crisis.
And long-term care for the elderly is a disaster, with care homes shutting through lack of funds and people facing astronomical bills for care they were told would be provided free.

Politicians are reluctant to admit the welfare state is bust because it is embedded in the national consciousness as a symbol of British decency, embodying principles of altruism and caring.

But it betrays these principles every day. Look at the appalling neglect and abuse of elderly people in hospital. The poorest people in countries such as France, Germany and Switzerland receive a higher standard of care than they do in our NHS.

This is the principle behind child benefit, surely the most effective engine for the mass production of fatherlessness - and consequently child misery - that could ever have been devised.

Continued below easy to read, just about says it all, please click on hyper link.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/columnists/article-450789/How-welfarism-destroying-Britain.html

BB

[mpwpj]

...Why should I not apply for rent rebate/income support...

The answers in your own post.

I... ...earn just enough to support myself...

Plus the fact that you have savings or investments.

[boatyboy]

MP you said,

Plus the fact that you have savings or investments.

Does that mean a low earner who is very thrifty ( down right tight with money ) who drives a  nine year old car and makes sure that his her family is well provided for but does not go on holiday and saves lets say £16,000 over ten years should not be entitled to the same deal as the family who earn the same but spend it all. Rubbish. Savers should be rewarded. This is not how the Government wants it to be, no money, you do as you are told and provide work for social services and benefit depts.

BB 

[Goreyman]

As we all like facts on this site her is the link to Income Support rates

http://www.gov.je/SocialSecurity/Benefits/IncomeSupport/ISRates.htm

So for a single person under 65 the max saving you can have before your Income Support is reduced is £7911 and for a couple £13113.
For every £1000 of savings over the limit you have your Income Support is reduced by £4 per week.
So if a single person had £30,000 savings any Income Support would be reduced by £88 per week.

You can workout how much people in different positions would get by using the rates given. You get money for the people and children in the house; a household payment for bills (£46.20) irrespective of size of house; and your rent paid upto a maximum stipulated for type of dwelling (eg 2 bedroom flat max of £187.11).

So Ashley lets assume you are single with no kids live in a one bedroom flat and have no savings.

Adult = £90.30 (for food clothes transport etc)
Household = £46.20 (utility bills etc)
Flat = £148.82

So you would get £285.32

This works out at £8 per hour (35 hour week) which is £2ph more than the minimum wage (£6.08)!!!

Which raises the questions - is the Income Support too much to live on? or is the minimum wage too low? forcing people on the minimum wage to work 60 hours a week?

So Ashley if you work out your weekly "normal" outgoings (rent bills food clothes transport etc) you will be able to determine if £285 is too much or if the minimum wage is too low.

[mpwpj]

...Does that mean a low earner who is very thrifty ( down right tight with money ) who drives a  nine year old car and makes sure that his her family is well provided for but does not go on holiday and saves lets say £16,000 over ten years should not be entitled to the same deal as the family who earn the same but spend it all. Rubbish...

No, I believe they should both be entitled to the same deal, but that's not X amount, needed or not.  Income Support should be about meeting people's basic needs, not paying for holidays or ensuring they have enough money to save or invest.

For example I'd love to be able to take my family on holiday, but can't afford to because I don't earn enough.  I don't blame the government for this, I blame myself.

What annoys me however is that while I work approx. 45hrs a week and am denied IS, surviving on credit and often feeling bad that I can't provide as I'd like to for my children, my neighbour's income is 80% higher than mine while they don't work; 100% of their income is IS and they've just got back from vacationing in the sun.  

IS is clearly providing far in excess of need in this case.

[Adrian]

life isn't fair

I know plenty of people getting benefits when they don't deserve them.
Being on the sick with your nerves seems to be the main way to benefits over here.
The social security over here is a joke, if there was one brain cell at the social security department it would die of lonelyness

[ole razzy]

The social security over here is a joke, if there was one brain cell at the social security department it would die of lonelyness

It already has. The Chief Officer is banging my ex-wife. Now there's no more of a lonely experience then that I can assure you. 

[Pomme de terre]

PMSL!