Cap on state benefits per household ?

volauvent

http://www.cherwell.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=9316

Do people think we should place a cap on weekly benefits per household like they did in the uk?

StillWaters

volauvent wrote: »

http://www.cherwell.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=9316

Do people think we should place a cap on weekly benefits per household like they did in the uk?

I wouldn't be surprised if it is coming down the line. I think it would be a good move against careerist claimants.

Phoebas

volauvent wrote: »

http://www.cherwell.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=9316

Do people think we should place a cap on weekly benefits per household like they did in the uk?

It looks like their FAQ was written by a boards user.

What can I do if I am affected by the cap?

• You can get a job so that you are exempt from the cap

volauvent

Yes but it seems Fine Gael/ labour are reluctant to tackle any of the illness related schemes, which appear to be often subscribed to by the " careerists " you speak of.... with applications made for multiple schemes.For example people on invalidity getting two or three carers allowances and their partner is on invalidity too. So household getting invalidity pension times two plus full household package ( bins, fuel, travel, rent supplement) plus carers allowance time two. And no means testing in this scenario. Correct me if I'm wrong. Also non single single-mothers deserve a mention in this category- politically sensitive area that it looks tasteless to "target".
A cap seems like a rational thing to integrate into the system

woodoo

Certainly there should be a cap and we need to be a bit ruthless and weed out the genuinely sick from the malingerers too.

The single biggest move the government could make would be to do what Germany does and introduce a 2nd tier of lower benefits for anyone unemployed longer that a couple of years. This in conjunction with the weeding out of malingerers would be a good move imo.

I find it amazing that we pay the same dole year after year after year with no change.

Treehousetim

woodoo wrote: »

I find it amazing that we pay the same dole year after year after year with no change.

To be honest this part I don't mind because dole is not such a huge chunk of money. Its the multi-scheming with large net totals that for me are annoying as people doing this end up with large amounts of disposable income ( plus no regular bills ) compared to the low waged worker.
No one begrudges the genuinely sick person some payments but how do you weed out the malingerers? Its not that easy and directives on that need to come from the top. But for political reasons often they don't. Capping payments per household and means testing even in cases of illness-related schemes seems like a good place to start. Although defining a household can be tricky no doubt esp with non-single single mothers an ongoing problem.

RichardAnd

Treehousetim wrote: »

No one begrudges the genuinely sick person

You really haven't been on this forum very long, have you . . .

Kristopherus

Treehousetim wrote: »

To be honest this part I don't mind because dole is not such a huge chunk of money. Its the multi-scheming with large net totals that for me are annoying as people doing this end up with large amounts of disposable income ( plus no regular bills ) compared to the low waged worker.
No one begrudges the genuinely sick person some payments but how do you weed out the malingerers? Its not that easy and directives on that need to come from the top. But for political reasons often they don't. Capping payments per household and means testing even in cases of illness-related schemes seems like a good place to start. Although defining a household can be tricky no doubt esp with non-single single mothers an ongoing problem.

The problem with the malingerers is that weeding them out might cost more than it saves.

Treehousetim

Kristopherus wrote: »

The problem with the malingerers is that weeding them out might cost more than it saves.

Yep but putting a maximum amount on obtainable benefits is a low cost way of doing it surely.
The problem I can see with means testing is the penalty it imposes on people who declare their real relationship status.
Although they must have dealt successfully with this in some other country's welfare system.
Although its a political minefield of course so the average worker is done over to keep bad press from the door.

goose2005

Kristopherus wrote: »

The problem with the malingerers is that weeding them out might cost more than it saves.

And this is the main issue with a lot of those at the 'bottom' of society - travellers, addicts, 'skanger' types - efforts to help them are so complex and expensive, and deliver so little by way of results, that society basically gives up and gives them a bit of money to keep the damage they do to a minimum.

hmmm

goose2005 wrote: »

And this is the main issue with a lot of those at the 'bottom' of society - travellers, addicts, 'skanger' types - efforts to help them are so complex and expensive, and deliver so little by way of results, that society basically gives up and gives them a bit of money to keep the damage they do to a minimum.

That's the same sort of attitude which says we shouldn't try and reduce politicians pensions or increase the tax from the religious orders to pay for abuse, because the cost of holding a referendum would outweigh the benefits. But sometimes I think it is good for society to pay the money and set an example, even if the simple monetary cost/benefit is negative.

volauvent

Well everyone needs a few bob to live and there are not jobs for everyone so giving an ok dole is understandable in some respects. However certain people are making 600/700-worth weekly in "household benefits" plus multiple payments ( invalidity, carers etc...) plus spouses/ partner's income or welfare payments. Plus they have no child care costs.
Where is the justice in that when a working family might have a pittance in disposable income compared to that? I don't get how that is justified by our politicians.

Corkbah

sensible approach would be to inhibit those who break the rules/laws ....ie. if you are convicted of a criminal offence you are suspended from receiving payments from the state (simply allowing those that do flout the law that there are consequences).

of course this has a double effect in that it either forces career criminals out more often - (in theory) giving a higher chance of getting caught...or it will reduce crime simply because the criminal families will see the financial benefits of staying straight !!

all the time while doing this - make a criminally accused pay an attendance fee for every court appearance - this can be deducted at source for social welfare recipients ?

Remove Free legal aid and have it subsidised (as per above) - this will also lower the huge legal bill the state has and will reduce payments out in the social welfare dept.

Reduce child benefit as children multiply (if you have a second child - first child should have some left over toys/clothes which can be passed down etc etc)

StillWaters

volauvent wrote: »

Also non single single-mothers deserve a mention in this category- politically sensitive area that it looks tasteless to "target".
A cap seems like a rational thing to integrate into the system

The OPFP has been overhauled, eg the age limits have come down substantially.

tails_naf

We constantly hear of cases that it 'would cost too much to means test x'.
It seems to be a statement that is taken at face value - but one I've never actually seen costed.

If we had a system that basically attached a PPS number to every payment the government makes out, then that is essentially a standard database (and a pretty small one by today's standards - where billions of transactions are recorded!)

So for example, you are on JSA - your PPS number is attached to your weekly payment, and each week you claim, an entry is logged. Similarly, if you are on disability, each payment is recorded. IF you are a carer, your PPS is recorded, plus the PPS of the person you are caring for. Child benefit - PPS of mother and father, plus child it is being claimed for.
Failure to supply info means benefit reduced or cut.

With this info gathered over time - you could quickly query the database to say - give me everyone who has claimed for > 5 years, or find me everyone who is both a carer, and caring for someone (as one poster pointed out).

Setting up a rudimentary system to do that would not be that expensive and databases of this scale are setup and managed regularly by firms all across the world.

Start simple and begin gathering the data. You can add features and what not over time, but at least get the info out.

So can anyone give reasons why it is always claimed as 'too costly' to implement?

Halloween Jack

tails_naf wrote: »

We constantly hear of cases that it 'would cost too much to means test x'.
It seems to be a statement that is taken at face value - but one I've never actually seen costed.

If we had a system that basically attached a PPS number to every payment the government makes out, then that is essentially a standard database (and a pretty small one by today's standards - where billions of transactions are recorded!)

So for example, you are on JSA - your PPS number is attached to your weekly payment, and each week you claim, an entry is logged. Similarly, if you are on disability, each payment is recorded. IF you are a carer, your PPS is recorded, plus the PPS of the person you are caring for. Child benefit - PPS of mother and father, plus child it is being claimed for.
Failure to supply info means benefit reduced or cut.

With this info gathered over time - you could quickly query the database to say - give me everyone who has claimed for > 5 years, or find me everyone who is both a carer, and caring for someone (as one poster pointed out).

Setting up a rudimentary system to do that would not be that expensive and databases of this scale are setup and managed regularly by firms all across the world.

Start simple and begin gathering the data. You can add features and what not over time, but at least get the info out.

So can anyone give reasons why it is always claimed as 'too costly' to implement?

All of that is already done by the dsp. Do you think they don't keep payment records etc?

Geuze

What you describe is done already.

What we need is a far more sophisticated database.

tails_naf

Geuze wrote: »

What you describe is done already.

What we need is a far more sophisticated database.

Wow, so why are we not using the information we have already gathered?

And what do you think needs to be added to this 'far more sophisticated' database before it is useful?

Gathering the data is all that matters - generating reports from that data and cross-referencing it with other data is pretty trivial, as long as there is a common index (like PPS No).

flutered

volauvent wrote: »

Yes but it seems Fine Gael/ labour are reluctant to tackle any of the illness related schemes, which appear to be often subscribed to by the " careerists " you speak of.... with applications made for multiple schemes.For example people on invalidity getting two or three carers allowances and their partner is on invalidity too. So household getting invalidity pension times two plus full household package ( bins, fuel, travel, rent supplement) plus carers allowance time two. And no means testing in this scenario. Correct me if I'm wrong. Also non single single-mothers deserve a mention in this category- politically sensitive area that it looks tasteless to "target".
A cap seems like a rational thing to integrate into the system

how can one claim two or three carers allowances, please let me know, as i a, in recipt of invilidaty pension, the house hold package is cut to half, i have always had to pay my refuse charges, everything is means tested, in my case twice a year, please tell me where you get your info from, it is almost impossible to get the invilidity pension or the carers in the present climate, so please provide facts, not presumptions.

volauvent

flutered wrote: »

how can one claim two or three carers allowances, please let me know, as i a, in recipt of invilidaty pension, the house hold package is cut to half, i have always had to pay my refuse charges, everything is means tested, in my case twice a year, please tell me where you get your info from, it is almost impossible to get the invilidity pension or the carers in the present climate, so please provide facts, not presumptions.

Sorry, disability which is not means tested as far as i know but is the same package as invalidity ( free lots of things). And I know two people who claim multiple carers allowances on top of invalidity in one case and disability in the other.
But well done to point it out.

MMAGirl

any scobe not already addicted to drugs just goes and gets addicted. then they are declared an addict and back on the sick again. free drugs too.

Irish Steve

Strikes me a better system for monitoring "relieving officers" would be a good idea too.

Family I am aware of went to the RO to get "new clothes so they could carry the granny's coffin". Got something like €600. 3 months later, another member of the family dies, and they went back to the RO, with the same story, and got another hand out for "new clothes". The entire family is on SW, and getting all sorts of benefits, and are experts are manipulating the system to get the maximum out of it for the least return. Several of them have never worked, yet they get benefit.

A real examination and assessment of some of the "medical" cases would also be interesting, I worked at one time with someone who had a bad hip, he was well able to do the job, heavy manual lifting a big part of it, yet a member of the family mentioned above supposedly has "a bad hip", but you have to look very closely to even see a slight limp.

That's the sort of fraud that should be being rooted out of the system, but there's no real will to do so.

uberalles

Last four words of this specials song ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxHcx7FO8nI&feature=youtube_gdata_player

volauvent

Irish Steve wrote: »

A real examination and assessment of some of the "medical" cases would also be interesting

It would but all involved ( doctors etc )are probably backed into a corner with threat of being scape goated. The politicians don't have the guts to take it on as the media delight in making them look like villains if they take a hard line. So the problem continues...back pains, non genuine depressions galore ( note: accepting a percentage are genuinely severely debilitated)

Godge

Geuze wrote: »

What you describe is done already.

What we need is a far more sophisticated database.

tails_naf wrote: »

Wow, so why are we not using the information we have already gathered?

And what do you think needs to be added to this 'far more sophisticated' database before it is useful?

Gathering the data is all that matters - generating reports from that data and cross-referencing it with other data is pretty trivial, as long as there is a common index (like PPS No).

Have a read of the Data Protection Act and the case law around it to see the limitations of the use of data.

tails_naf

Godge wrote: »

Have a read of the Data Protection Act and the case law around it to see the limitations of the use of data.

Ok, so we collect all the information about what we pay to whom, but then limit ourselves on how we use this data? Priceless.

So it's not an issue of 'its too costly to means test' - as we could do it by using already gathered information, its an issue of 'we legislated ourselves into a corner'.

That said, I'm somewhat skeptical that a flippant statement like 'read the data protection act' covers it. What specific part of that act prevents the government, or dpsw in this case, that has gathered this information from using said information to inform how and to who they spend their money?

Does this mean that any effort to gather info on likely fraud/over-claims cases would end up in it being knocked down on data-protection grounds?