Higher Benefits for former Taxpayers

[Butts]

Should those who have a previous record of contributions receive higher benefits than those who have never "chipped in" ? (excluding the disabled and mentally unstable or others incapable of working)

Set a 10 year minimum contribution record and graduate it upwards - ie the longer you've paid in the more you get.

Seems fair to me

 

[TheEdge]

No, those who have never paid in (exclusions above excepted) should receive nothing more than a slap to the face.

Those who have paid in should expect assistance.

 

[michael769]

Thanks to VAT virtually everyone already "chips in", even those on benefits!

The only folks who don't are those too young to have never spent pocket money on sweets.

 

[Yew]

Considering the high levels of youth unemployment, no.

 

[Butts]

Thanks to VAT virtually everyone already "chips in", even those on benefits!

The only folks who don't are those too young to have never spent pocket money on sweets.

If the VAT they pay is coming from benefit money then they have not "chipped in" in the same sense.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Considering the high levels of youth unemployment, no.

Remember my original premise is that those who have contributed receive a higher level of benefits, not that those who have paid nothing get nothing.

 

[SS4]

I find the very notion of this to be despicable. As a society we owe everyone a decent standard of living regardless of colour, creed or wealth!

edit: Just re-read the post and it mentions a higher rate for those who have paid into the system. I shall turn my outrage down a tad . Still not impressed though, we don't need a tiered benefit system

edit the second: How do you propose those who are underemployed or otherwise do not pay tax but are still working (below the personal allowance)

 

[WelshBluebird]

No, those who have never paid in (exclusions above excepted) should receive nothing more than a slap to the face.

Those who have paid in should expect assistance.

So if someone comes out of full time education, can't get a job because there are not enough available, what do you expect them to do? Die?

 

[SS4]

So if someone comes out of full time education, can't get a job because there are not enough available, what do you expect them to do? Die?

Don't forget those who are disabled. I know OP and the poster you quoted excluded them but let's face it, the farce that is the WCA declares almost everyone fit to work

 

[anthony263]

My father is blind and struggles to do a lot of task yet they did say he could work. Of course our local GP etc pointed out that my father would not be able to work.

Personally I dont really think anybody would employ my father now anyway. Besides he used to have a very highly paid job until his late twenties when his eysight detriated thanks in part due to an NHS blunder at the time.

Despite completing my HND at university etc I have been struggling to find work since some companies wont employ someone who they believe is overly qualified for a job. I was lucky with my bus driving jobs however even that industry is proving difficult to get back into due to the high number of applicants

 

[ainsworth74]

Don't forget those who are disabled. I know OP and the poster you quoted excluded them but let's face it, the farce that is the WCA declares almost everyone fit to work

It's a bit more subtle than that. There is an interesting trend that those on Incapacity Benefit are just getting knocked off (no matter what), but for those that are applying for ESA for the first time it appears to be a bit more random though with a trend against getting the Support Group the first time round for sure. Doesn't matter if you're so deformed that you cannot eat without retching (therefore only eat once you're starving), you're clearly fit for work related activity with a return to work to be considered within three months :roll: Then again we should be grateful that they weren't just found fit for work! ATOS at least acknowledged that they're not completely fit for work

My father is blind and struggles to do a lot of task yet they did say he could work. Of course our local GP etc pointed out that my father would not be able to work.

It's tough to get ESA when you're blind as the criteria are stacked against you. I assume he's claiming PIP (or DLA)? As that's basically a dead cert if you're blind. Still might be worth contacting a local Welfare Rights Unit (alternatively Citizens Advice Bureau but they can be very variable) as they maybe able to help regarding the ESA.

 

[Butts]

Everyone seems to be missing the point.... I am not suggesting benefits are withdrawn from those who have not contributed, but that the levels should be higher for those who have.

 

[SS4]

Everyone seems to be missing the point.... I am not suggesting benefits are withdrawn from those who have not contributed, but that the levels should be higher for those who have.

You also excluded those with certain disabilities and, let's face it, the criteria the DWP use for figuring out who is disabled is farcical at best.

What do you suggest for the working poor whose income does not exceed the personal allowance (and hence pay no tax)? Giving them the same as those who've never worked will push them back onto benefits.

What you suggest is the start of a slippery slope IMO. It is all well and good to suggest those who have paid in get more but it still feel it would be at the cost of the baseline being reduced and the current government's attitude makes this more than just paranoia.

I still think welfare should be a social safety net; to allow people to keep their stomach full, a roof over their heads and enough to pay for essential utilities (including internet and a mobile phone because you're not getting a job without both of those). There doesn't need to be a tiered benefit system - those who stand to get the most are arguably those who need it the least.

 

[Butts]

You also excluded those with certain disabilities and, let's face it, the criteria the DWP use for figuring out who is disabled is farcical at best.

What do you suggest for the working poor whose income does not exceed the personal allowance (and hence pay no tax)? Giving them the same as those who've never worked will push them back onto benefits.

What you suggest is the start of a slippery slope IMO. It is all well and good to suggest those who have paid in get more but it still feel it would be at the cost of the baseline being reduced and the current government's attitude makes this more than just paranoia.

I still think welfare should be a social safety net; to allow people to keep their stomach full, a roof over their heads and enough to pay for essential utilities (including internet and a mobile phone because you're not getting a job without both of those). There doesn't need to be a tiered benefit system - those who stand to get the most are arguably those who need it the least.

I'm sure there was a time in the seventies when unemployment benefit was tiered dependant upon your previous income/contributions.

No one seems to object to DWP Pensions being based on the contributions you have made, with a safety net for those at the bottom.

 

[MrsDavidCaruso]

When I went onto JSA for a few months at the beginning of the year I was refused contribution based JSA, that is because in 2010 I was out of work for a long time but did not sign on as I had savings and didnt think I qualified for anything, I should have signed on to get my NI paid and then I would have got CBJSA. Yet I have been working for over 20 years and prior to 2010 for five years I was paying over 1,000 a month tax and NI, but that counted for nothing.

As my Husband was working I was also refused means tested JSA ( but I expected that) so really got NOTHING when I was out of work

Luckily I got a new job very quickly

 

[Bevan Price]

Should those who have a previous record of contributions receive higher benefits than those who have never "chipped in" ? (excluding the disabled and mentally unstable or others incapable of working)

Set a 10 year minimum contribution record and graduate it upwards - ie the longer you've paid in the more you get.

Seems fair to me

I think there should be a minimum 10 year contribution period by immigrants before they qualify for benefits / social housing, or fully free NHS treatments. If they cannot afford to support themselves, they should not come here.

However for UK citizens, there are numerous different reasons why some people get into financial difficulties, and it can be unfair to penalise some of them just because they could not manage to pay maximum contributions.

(I have little sympathy for those who are intentionally idle and make no effort to provide for themselves & their families, and would agree with any workable measures to discourage that scrounger element, but it can sometimes be difficult to distinguish between "unwilling to work" and "unable to get a suitable job".)

 

[SS4]

I'm sure there was a time in the seventies when unemployment benefit was tiered dependant upon your previous income/contributions.

No one seems to object to DWP Pensions being based on the contributions you have made, with a safety net for those at the bottom.

I wasn't around in the 70s so couldn't say but I daresay the economy has change a lot since then.

As for DWP Pensions nobody seems to mind implying it's all JSA when talking about benefitd

I think there should be a minimum 10 year contribution period by immigrants before they qualify for benefits / social housing, or fully free NHS treatments. If they cannot afford to support themselves, they should not come here.

However for UK citizens, there are numerous different reasons why some people get into financial difficulties, and it can be unfair to penalise some of them just because they could not manage to pay maximum contributions.

For the most part I agree although ten years is excessive IMO, I would reduce it to 2 years. We pay very little in benefits (especially JSA). To tie this in with Butts' idea the counter would include any tax paid in those years

(I have little sympathy for those who are intentionally idle and make no effort to provide for themselves & their families, and would agree with any workable measures to discourage that scrounger element, but it can sometimes be difficult to distinguish between "unwilling to work" and "unable to get a suitable job".)

Unfortunately that's something nobody has ever been able to solve and they never will. Depending on which side of the political spectrum you're on you either let it slide for the greater good or you punish everyone.

 

[anthony263]

It's a bit more subtle than that. There is an interesting trend that those on Incapacity Benefit are just getting knocked off (no matter what), but for those that are applying for ESA for the first time it appears to be a bit more random though with a trend against getting the Support Group the first time round for sure. Doesn't matter if you're so deformed that you cannot eat without retching (therefore only eat once you're starving), you're clearly fit for work related activity with a return to work to be considered within three months :roll: Then again we should be grateful that they weren't just found fit for work! ATOS at least acknowledged that they're not completely fit for work



It's tough to get ESA when you're blind as the criteria are stacked against you. I assume he's claiming PIP (or DLA)? As that's basically a dead cert if you're blind. Still might be worth contacting a local Welfare Rights Unit (alternatively Citizens Advice Bureau but they can be very variable) as they maybe able to help regarding the ESA.

Already done that and everything is being reviewed.

 

[ainsworth74]

Already done that and everything is being reviewed.

Ah well guess that's that The more you here about the WCA and the way ATOS go about it the worse it gets. Shocking doesn't cover it.

As for DWP Pensions nobody seems to mind implying it's all JSA when talking about benefits

You have to give them credit for so successfully convincing everyone that the main bill is from the like of ESA, JSA and other working-age benefits when of course the reality is that it's Pensions and old people who make up the biggest chunk of benefits spending.

 

[Yew]

You have to give them credit for so successfully convincing everyone that the main bill is from the like of ESA, JSA and other working-age benefits when of course the reality is that it's Pensions and old people who make up the biggest chunk of benefits spending.

Old people vote. thats why they dont try and reduce pensions...

 

[ainsworth74]

Old people vote. thats why they dont try and reduce pensions...

Oh I know why they're doing it just complementing them for being so utterly successful that it's become a 'fact'.

 

[WillPS]

The present system of having contribution-based and income-related rates is along the right lines.

What isn't right is the age at which benefits change.

As a 23 year old (last year) graduating from University and starting my own business (you know, creating a job rather than taking one, boosting the economy etc.) I had to sign on and make legitimate efforts to find a job.

If I were 2 years older, not only would I not have had to climb the JSA carousel (using up resources which were to all intents and purposes a waste on me) being eligible for Tax Credits, I would actually have got a higher entitlement.

I cannot fathom this bizarre notion that the cost of living rises by 20% on your 25th birthday. Perhaps it'll make sense next July.

 

[anthony263]

Seriously though i my opinion they do need to grow a backbone and be prepared to stand up to thse oap's.


Is it really any wonder when we see OAP's getting free bus passes and winter fuel payments etc why there is some resntment between us the younger generation and the older generation.

Even I having two sets of elderly grandparents agree that oap's are getting too muchespecially when we have all these care home bills etc. Even when voting you see these oap's voting for only the labour party or plaid cymru (especially in the welsh valleys) meaning nothing really changes in the government.

The recent news reports abouut this baby boom which is not a bad thing in my opinion especially if it help balance things out with there being so many oap's.

 

[Johnuk123]

The reality is that it's Pensions and old people who make up the biggest chunk of benefits spending.

No doubt you would have them all exterminated, after all they are such a burden.

Aren't they terrible paying tax all their lives and then expecting something back.

 

[anthony263]

The present system of having contribution-based and income-related rates is along the right lines.

What isn't right is the age at which benefits change.

As a 23 year old (last year) graduating from University and starting my own business (you know, creating a job rather than taking one, boosting the economy etc.) I had to sign on and make legitimate efforts to find a job.

If I were 2 years older, not only would I not have had to climb the JSA carousel (using up resources which were to all intents and purposes a waste on me) being eligible for Tax Credits, I would actually have got a higher entitlement.

I cannot fathom this bizarre notion that the cost of living rises by 20% on your 25th birthday. Perhaps it'll make sense next July.

£70 each week is not much when youy have a lot of bills to pay I can tell you from experience.

I am currently on JSA since I lost my job late last month and despite all my experience on my cv including going to university I am struggling. I have even taken to applying for jobs in places like Hereford, Bristol etc as a means of getting a job again.

 

[WillPS]

£70 each week is not much when youy have a lot of bills to pay I can tell you from experience.

I am currently on JSA since I lost my job late last month and despite all my experience on my cv including going to university I am struggling. I have even taken to applying for jobs in places like Hereford, Bristol etc as a means of getting a job again.

I don't think the adult rate is too high; I just don't see a justification for 24 year olds getting 20% less than 25 year olds.

 

[ainsworth74]

No doubt you would have them all exterminated, after all they are such a burden.

Aren't they terrible paying tax all their lives and then expecting something back.

I merely made a statement of fact (and that's what it is) pointing out that pensions are the biggest element of benefit expenditure contrary to the view put forward by the Government and media. I made no comment on what should be done about this (if indeed anything should be done).

As such I will leave it at that as your idiotic response does not deserve to take up any more of my time.

 

[SS4]

The present system of having contribution-based and income-related rates is along the right lines.

What isn't right is the age at which benefits change.

As a 23 year old (last year) graduating from University and starting my own business (you know, creating a job rather than taking one, boosting the economy etc.) I had to sign on and make legitimate efforts to find a job.

If I were 2 years older, not only would I not have had to climb the JSA carousel (using up resources which were to all intents and purposes a waste on me) being eligible for Tax Credits, I would actually have got a higher entitlement.

I cannot fathom this bizarre notion that the cost of living rises by 20% on your 25th birthday. Perhaps it'll make sense next July.

I heard that it is because under the age of 25 you're assumed to be a dependent in another's household (ie living at home). Over 25 it's assumed you live alone. Likelihood is that it's never been changed because it's saving DWP money.

 

[anthony263]

I don't think the adult rate is too high; I just don't see a justification for 24 year olds getting 20% less than 25 year olds.

I agree it is about right. Really however as you said JSA should be the same price for those aged over 18

 

[Butts]

I agree it is about right. Really however as you said JSA should be the same price for those aged over 18

And even more for UK Taxpayers of 10 years plus standing

With regard to Pensions they are the single highest drain on the Social Security purse.

If Pensioners Benefits were not so good would it encourage people to provide for their own retirement rather than "*****ng it up against the wall" and in the process saving money ?

 

[SS4]

And even more for UK Taxpayers of 10 years plus standing

With regard to Pensions they are the single highest drain on the Social Security purse.

If Pensioners Benefits were not so good would it encourage people to provide for their own retirement rather than "*****ng it up against the wall" and in the process saving money ?

You've still not covered the effect on the working poor who don't pay tax. For my part if your scheme was going to go ahead I would like to see something similar to the lower earnings limit that exists for NI whereby they're treated as paying in without paying in.

That said I still think it's a poor idea because it'll be the head of a slippery slope - don't forget this government is doing all it can to demonise the poor and those on benefits. There is a lot of money the treasury can get if it clamps down on tax avoidance and reduces the capital gains tax threshold back to it's level under Labour. It's easy to forget that in a Daily Mail style attack on immigrants and benefit claimants

As for saving money it's impossible for a lot of people who are living paycheck to paycheck - these are the ones that need the most support