Large families

£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.

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?

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!

should be 'than is reported'.

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....

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.

Granjura your SiL's experience does reflect my own. I too was raised on a council estate, in a poor part of Bristol. My DH and I worked our socks off to make a good life for ourselves but I know some of my old school friends who remained on the same council estate making no effort to work. When I go back now and talk to other school friends they are fully in favour of the welfare reforms, they tell me they are tired of leaving home at 7.30 to catch a bus knowing their neighbours will not be up much before lunchtime.

One old friend even suggested to me that the welfare state as it now exists actually holds back what used to be called the working class. His theory was that by paying people to stay at home and do nothing, they were being robbed of the drive needed to make a better life for themselves and their families.

Whilst I didn't wholly agree with him I had to accept that he was actually living with it day in day out whereas I am now living in a comfortable, middle class enclave where few people are claiming benefits.

That's their benefits not their disabilities!

Ceesnan I couldn't agree more. There is a lot of undetected fraud about. Some claimants have no intention of ever working and fake their disabilities. Others think they are entitled to them as right.

When, don't worry about the insults - I have lived with them for the best part of 18 months and they really are water off a duck's back. I think they say more about the people who make them than they do about me.

I really don't think anybody here has been so stupid as to say the system is not open to abuse - the only point at issue, to my mind, has been the extent of the abuse. I don't think anecdotal tales from one person are acceptable as evidence. Some estates are clearly more deprived than others.
Movedalot - I am very glad to hear that you have kept an open mind. May I ask if you have accepted the statistics that have been provided about the percentage of benefits claimants who are defrauding the system? And do please feel free to use my name if you mean me!

In greatnan's link there was a comment about the relatively low rate of benefit fraud. IMO that should have read "detected benefit fraud". I should imagine we all know of someone who is bucking the system, and however small the amount, if they don't declare it, they are benefit cheats. Sorry to go off track by the way, but while I'm on the subject I remarked a week or so ago about over 800,000 people withdrawing their claims for disability benefit and had it suggested to me that it could have been because they had got better, or found work.....REALLY?!

It is indeed sad that the 'poorer' are also divided- but in a way, it is very informative to see this. It reminds me of my sil, born and breed on a tough Council Estate, having lost his dad young, and who tells me I haven't got a clue about welfare abuse. Most of his family lives there and so does his mum. So why would many, like him, who have voted in favour of welfare reform? Is it because they know better than the likes of me, who has never lived on a Council Estate (although I have many friends who do, and would also vote in favour)? My sil has decided to go and live abroad, because he just couldn't bear to witness the abuse of the system, and because he was sick and tired of working like a dog, day in, day out, very long hours - whilst the rest of his friends and family watched him and laughed- and said they could get more on benefits, so why bother? There are some fabulous and honest people who need benefits and live on Council Estates- but it is silly to deny that the system is opened to abuse- and of course the lack of jobs 'created' by the Conservative Government is the perfect 'excuse'.

Nobody has replied - why did my sil decide to work so hard, and never say 'I can't do it, there are no jobs' and instead to become more determined to find work and be proud? What makes the Sugars of this world decide to fight instead of lose?

Bit insulting, Moved?

That is what I find so sad, that some see it as "two mutually exclusive schools of thought". What a shame that such a diverse group of older people have to have such closed minds. Life is never so black and white and such entrenched positions don't help any of us move forward. Old dogs and spots come to mind.

Probably three as its gn

What is the position on Gransnet - I gathered there were two mutually exclusive schools of thought?

www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/focus/article1241993.ece

I think that this does not reflect the position on GN

Not only are these policies driving an even bigger wedge between the haves and the have-nots but also through the have-nots.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/12/anti-welfare-rhetoric-families

How very sad.

Definitely - a pension is a very different thing altogether, and most of us have worked very hard to get ours. It is an 'entitlement' not a 'benefit' as such.

I agree Galen although there is a school of thought which says the winter fuel allowance was introduced instead of a sensible pension increase. I just think that our pensions should be taken out of the equation.

Pensioners tend to claim a lot of benefits as well as their pensions. Free prescriptions, eye tests, bus passes, winter fuel payments, £10 bonus etc all count as benefits.

Galen sorry for the late response, not been on since you corrected me. I am sure you are right DLA may well have been replaced by another name, I can't keep up with it all

Eloethan I think we will only know whether capping child benefits at a certain number of children will stop people having more than they can afford if it is trialed. I think a lot of people think it would but clearly others differ.

I think that state pensions should be reclassified so that the 'welfare' label can be removed. Other benefits to pensioners should stay under that label and then we would all have a clearer idea of how much is being paid to the unfortunate. It seems totally unfair to classify pensions which people have worked and paid for to be classified as 'welfare'. Have I got this wrong? I keep hearing how much of walfare is paid to pensioners and think that includes state pension.

Thank you, bags - I am afraid my memory is not what it was and I get confused because so many names are similar. I 'know' several members very well, having exchanged pms with them, perhaps when I have sent them a message of sympathy but it would be very easy to make an inappropriate remark which could be hurtful if someone had, say, lost a child or a partner, or had a serious health problem.
I have been lucky enough to meet several members now and it has been most enjoyable, and others have sent me messages of support when I have talked about my own family problem.
I am sorry if anybody thinks there is anything sinister in my little 'aide-memoires'.