Screening benefit claimants

[Danllan]

Nobody will argue that, UBI aside, if there are to be 'benefits' they shouldn't be a free for all.

Whether to stop social freeloaders or ensure more for the genuinely unfortunate, there needs to be an evaluation of who is entitled to and eligible for what.

So... after local government officials checking that people have a right to claim money from the rest of us, how about a jury panel of the public to approve and confirm things?

Same basis as normal juries, surely this type of public involvement would ensure no playing of the system and, therefore, less tax money wasted / more in the pot for genuine cases. As well as less resentment by those paying in.

Thoughts?

 

[essex man]

This would include health benefits?
I.e. people who deliberately/knowingly making themselves unhealthy and disproportionately taking healthcare resources from the pot.

 

[teslacoils]

How about just leave folk on benefits be, and go after white collar criminals / ublic sector contract nepotism?

 

[ollie989898]

Need a rank and file overhaul of the prison system first. Double the prison capacity and make it cheaper to keep people. Less 'human rights' and all that BS.

 

[Ncap]

How about just leave folk on benefits be, and go after white collar criminals / ublic sector contract nepotism?

Thank you. Unexpected on this forum. Thank you again

 

[teslacoils]

Thank you. Unexpected on this forum. Thank you again

I've been on benefits. Fortunately I'm well educated as the paperwork involved is not simple.

Picking on people on benefits is simply a smokescreen to hide the appealing fraud committed much higher in the chain.

I'm sure it plays well with voters, but it's just pulling the wool over people's eyes.

 

[Bald n Grumpy]

How about just leave folk on benefits be, and go after white collar criminals / ublic sector contract nepotism?

Just go after cheats who rob the country blind
Plenty out there whether they're on benefits or fiddling large company pension pots
A cheats a cheat whatever level they're at
(And no I don't begrudge genuine benefit cases)

 

[JCMaloney]

There are far bigger cherries to pick with a much greater return.

Although I would have a work-fare system for benefits, get them out litter picking and the like.

 

[Tim W]

Nobody will argue that, UBI aside, if there are to be 'benefits' they shouldn't be a free for all.

Whether to stop social freeloaders or ensure more for the genuinely unfortunate, there needs to be an evaluation of who is entitled to and eligible for what.

So... after local government officials checking that people have a right to claim money from the rest of us, how about a jury panel of the public to approve and confirm things?

Same basis as normal juries, surely this type of public involvement would ensure no playing of the system and, therefore, less tax money wasted / more in the pot for genuine cases. As well as less resentment by those paying in.

Thoughts?

Complicated?
If I had to wade through & understand the circumstances of every person claiming BPS before it's approved then most payments would never be paid ?

 

[teslacoils]

There are far bigger cherries to pick with a much greater return.

Although I would have a work-fare system for benefits, get them out litter picking and the like.

Yes, I'd like to see this, although I think litter picking for convicts. No need to shame benefits claimants. But can't think of much more isolating than having no work.

 

[Danllan]

This would include health benefits?
I.e. people who deliberately/knowingly making themselves unhealthy and disproportionately taking healthcare resources from the pot.

All.

How about just leave folk on benefits be, and go after white collar criminals / ublic sector contract nepotism?

No, both. You have a socialist bent and are actually seeking to excuse those screwing the benefit system and the taxpayer - very 'socially' minded. I'd go for all playing the system, top or bottom.

Complicated?
If I had to wade through & understand the circumstances of every person claiming BPS before it's approved then most payments would never be paid ?

I've seen juries handle complicated stuff perfectly well, they ask questions when they need help and then carry on.

What I'd like to see is the people being trusted to make decisions for the people as often as possible, rather than largely unknown and unaccountable bureaucrats or self-important place-seekers doing it.

 

[wanton dwarf]

Need a rank and file overhaul of the prison system first. Double the prison capacity and make it cheaper to keep people. Less 'human rights' and all that BS.

IMHO prisoners should have to work and be made to pay back those who they've wronged.

 

[wanton dwarf]

Yes, I'd like to see this, although I think litter picking for convicts. No need to shame benefits claimants. But can't think of much more isolating than having no work.

It's not about shaming. It's about making idleness not pay.

Some people will go out of their way to do nothing. Perhaps they have had bad jobs in the past. A good job is uplifting and the resultant pay gives some measure of freedom.

Whilst litter picking is a bit desperate I do think the unemployed need to given some work experience and hopefully a bung from the employer.

 

[Exfarmer]

Nobody will argue that, UBI aside, if there are to be 'benefits' they shouldn't be a free for all.

Whether to stop social freeloaders or ensure more for the genuinely unfortunate, there needs to be an evaluation of who is entitled to and eligible for what.

So... after local government officials checking that people have a right to claim money from the rest of us, how about a jury panel of the public to approve and confirm things?

Same basis as normal juries, surely this type of public involvement would ensure no playing of the system and, therefore, less tax money wasted / more in the pot for genuine cases. As well as less resentment by those paying in.

Thoughts?

While you are at it, how about the same system for farmers and their handouts? I suspect Joe Smith in Bog street may get more sympathy than Tom Chritchley Jones from Chritchley Jones Farming, be careful what you wish for!

 

[robs1]

While you are at it, how about the same system for farmers and their handouts? I suspect Joe Smith in Bog street may get more sympathy than Tom Chritchley Jones from Chritchley Jones Farming, be careful what you wish for!

Farmers work for their dole money and provide food so I guess the precedent is set. I'm all for helping those who lose their job or are I'll, but and it's a big but I'm.sure we all know some who never seem to get a job of stealing always on the sick, their are millions claiming for some illness or other,

 

[wanton dwarf]

While you are at it, how about the same system for farmers and their handouts? I suspect Joe Smith in Bog street may get more sympathy than Tom Chritchley Jones from Chritchley Jones Farming, be careful what you wish for!

Shame we don't have a say on your extravagent environmental payments.

 

[Hindsight]

Nobody will argue that, UBI aside, if there are to be 'benefits' they shouldn't be a free for all.

Whether to stop social freeloaders or ensure more for the genuinely unfortunate, there needs to be an evaluation of who is entitled to and eligible for what.

So... after local government officials checking that people have a right to claim money from the rest of us, how about a jury panel of the public to approve and confirm things?

Same basis as normal juries, surely this type of public involvement would ensure no playing of the system and, therefore, less tax money wasted / more in the pot for genuine cases. As well as less resentment by those paying in.

Thoughts?

Always thought you might be a chap that would relish the chance to reintroduce the Poor Laws. Which side do you fancy being on then Danllan the barrister. Judge, jury or peasant. Lets guess. You do like to throw a stone into the calm waters of the pond. Anyway gives you bit of a buzz if we take the bait. Hey ho - enjoy.

 

[Vader]

It's not about shaming. It's about making idleness not pay.

Some people will go out of their way to do nothing. Perhaps they have had bad jobs in the past. A good job is uplifting and the resultant pay gives some measure of freedom.

Whilst litter picking is a bit desperate I do think the unemployed need to given some work experience and hopefully a bung from the employer.

Here is the socialist Republic of South Yorkshire there are family's who never worked since Maggie shut the pits.
Parents live on benefits and kids follow the tradition, no need to work, play the system.

Known family has a free disability car, what tows the caravan they bought out of their gov handouts. ...

 

[teslacoils]

It's not about shaming. It's about making idleness not pay.

Some people will go out of their way to do nothing. Perhaps they have had bad jobs in the past. A good job is uplifting and the resultant pay gives some measure of freedom.

Whilst litter picking is a bit desperate I do think the unemployed need to given some work experience and hopefully a bung from the employer.

My point was that criminals should be litter picking. And if you have benefits claimants litter picking too, it's as if they are being punished.

I don't doubt there are feckless claimants, and fraudulent ones, but vastly disproportionate resources are aimed at them compared to much more serious economic crime.

 

[Pasty]

I don't think this is the right time to be discussing this. There are people out there on furlough laughing their arses off as they have another job so 2 incomes. It's messed up. There are others who lost 2 jobs and now their car is bust and are on £400 a month with a 3 bed house with a mortgage and zero benefits / grants or whatever. Have a heart.