Large families

There is also ignorance about the fact the allowance is for incapacity for ALL work, not just your original occupation. Some people are unwilling to take a lower paid job.

Ceesnan, Galen and sunseeker, I agree with you all. There is obviously more benefit fraud going on that is reported or included in the statistics. It won't cut any ice with those who place great importance and weight on statistics, though....

should be 'than is reported'.

My views are that the pensions sum should be removed from the 'political' talk about benefits for similar reasons others have said.

I still think top-loading child benefit so there is a good sum for 1st child and reducing it more significantly with subsequent children..to a maximum of 4 kids... but not retrospectively. In that way people can make informed choices about having more than 4 children. In the unusual cases of multiple births perhaps exceptions could be made! I do think that for wealthy families (family income of over 150k?) this is not a necessary benefit and should not be given....if a cheap way to administer this is possible..same with winter fuel tbh.

Disability benefit should be based on assessment by doctors only and not pseudo-medics with a tick list.

Unemployment benefit should not provide funds that are more than the 'average' annual income.

Reduce the various 'benefits'...
you are either disabled/ill and cannot work so max £25k pa (average income) plus funds based on individual needs to provide for specialist care

or
unemployed so benefits up to £25k pa depending on circumstance. e.g. 20 yr old living at home with working parents £70 pw. married couple with 2 x ch £25K

Also if there was a way so that Gov paid gas/electric bills directly for those on benefits included in their £25K) I am sure the politicians would put more pressure on energy companies to reduce costs!

It seems the Guardian article had it dead right!
Is only one side supposed to be 'open-minded', or does it work both ways?
I am prepared to admit that there is probably quite a lot of undetected fraud - I just don't think that is a reason for cutting benefits to the most vulnerable members of society. By all means, let the system be tightened up, but, please, not the ATOS way!
Now, what concessions are the other side prepared to make?

£25k isn't going to provide much incentive to work, though, is it? Especially in areas where pay is much lower than the national average.

My post was replying to nanaej, of course.

You make some good points Nanaej.

£25K has to provide the incentive to many people on the minimum wage!

Did anyone suggest that cutting benefits to the most vulnerable members of society was a good thing? I'm confused now about which benefits we're supposed to be considering - I thought we were talking about people claiming benefits who choose not to work when there is no reason for them not to.

Couldn't agree more about ATOS assessments as I think you are all aware. It will be interesting in the autumn when the appeals for pip start coming through to see how ATOS and capita have performed.
Incidentally, there is a move to replace the doctors on the appeal sessions with ' health care professional' in other words ATOS look alikes!

Yes, quite Greatnan - the incentive to stay on benefits if they're getting paid £25k not to work, as nanaej suggests!

ana I said up to £25k ..if I had been earning £35k plus before my company collapsed then certainly I would be keen to find a job that put me closer to my previous earnings. Don't always assume those on benefits have only ever earned low incomes. Redundancy and job loss can hit all strata of society. And remember too that the vast majority of people want to work. It is a minority who take advantage. Those who cheat the system need to be caught and dealt with by existing laws and those who misuse the system by choosing not to find work can be tracked and seen to be cheats ...& dealt with by existing laws.

Ana - you are perfectly free to define the terms of the discussion in any way you please. My original thoughts were about the suggestion to stop child benefit after the second child but feel free to include any benefits you choose.
In fact, my very first posts on this thread or the related thread was just to express my opinion that it was wrong to use the Philpott tragedy to criticise people with large families. I still think that. You see, I do have a closed mind about some things!

Are you including housing benefit in the £25k?

Also Ana if a couple with 2 x ch have a mortgage to maintain it could well be cheaper to pay up to £25k to keep the family in their home than to force them to be repossessed and get into a far worse state.

Did anyone ever watch 'Cathy Come Home? it illustrated how easy it was for a family to disintegrate due to joblessness.

Yes Galen ..I am suggesting that no benefits specifically for disabled or unemployed should be over £25k per family unit except in some disability cases when specialist support is required e.g. might need to include the cost of f/t live in care

just so I am not misunderstood again, I do not mean ALL claimants get £25k but up to £25k!!!

when I'm not sure why you think I'm insulting, I was quoting Greatnan!

Greatnan which statistics do you mean? I don't have time to trawl through and I don't take notes. As I can't remember them all I cannot say whether I accept them or not.

I reiterate what Greatnan says about the insults although I have only been on GN for, I think, less than a year and she has said she has been getting them for a lot longer than that. I am getting rather used to them too.

Yes, I do see what you're saying, nanaej, it's just that seems remarkably like the current Labour proposals to 'stagger' unemployment benefits, and would probably cost a lot more to adminster as well as adding to the welfare bill.
(Yes, I did see Cathy Come Home, and I wasn't assuming that all people on benefit are or have been low wage earners)

Greatnan, I don't understand by your original thoughts having about the suggestion to stop child benefit after the second child.
What thoughts were those?

missed out 'what you mean' before the 'your' there.

I mean the statistics about the amount of benefit fraud.
And it was the other member from Malvern who constantly took issue with me, (the one you have never met) , usually about exactly the same things that excite your criticism. I didn't say it was you. I know exactly when you joined.

It was insulting to imply that I had a closed mind - since you quoted me exactly it was obviously directed at me.

How open is your mind? I have made some concessions in the light of various posts - it would be nice to have some reciprocation.

It may be like the Labour proposals. I am not worried by that but do not suggest them because of that . I agree that if the administration costs would be very high it may not be worth doing...but sometimes we need to invest before we gain!

Didn't know we had two from malvern