'The Culture of Worklessness'

Thanks anno. Very helpful!

But will people read the statistics - and believe them?

Some will. Some won't. Such is human nature.

The figures in the report, for which anno provided a link, show that out of a population of around 63,000,000:

There are 130 families with 10 children claiming at least one out-of-work benefit.

Fewer than 5 families are receiving the equivalent of £100,000 p.a.

The percentage of benefits paid to the unemployed is very small. The UK's welfare bill as a proportion of GDP has been fairly stable for the past 25 years and any upward trend is driven by pensioners.

It's all very well talking about reducing benefits to give more incentive for people to work but, as has been said before on GN, how about paying decent wages to provide that incentive? Why is it that companies - and often large, very profitable companies (many of which are avoiding paying tax) , are paying minimum or just above minimum wages, and the state is having to make up the difference through benefit payments?

At the same time, people earning over £150,000 a year have just received a tax reduction. The reason put forward is that people are unwilling to pay a 50p tax rate and will find ways to avoid it. Very public spirited. The cost to the exchequer is around £100 million.

A report by CityWire Wealth Manager (31.8.12) quotes the Treasury as saying "the benefits of cutting the 50% top rate of income tax are "highly uncertain".

Now we just need people with open minds to accept these figures

Annodomini I read that yesterday on the paper version with considerable interest. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation is a highly respected organisation with a reputation for integrity.

Eloethan I cannot understand the argument put forward by George Osborne and others that the 50% tax rate for top earners brought in less revenue – presumably because people found legal ways not to pay it – but that a 45% tax rate will. Why won't they just use the same legal loopholes?

absent Yes, I don't get it either. These people aren't known for their sense of public duty. Presumably that's what the Treasury comment is referring to when it talks about the uncertainty of the measure being beneficial.

I have read the current thinking on the benefit debate on the Joseph Rowntree website www.jrf.org.uk/welfare-reform

I have to say that it has changed some of my misconceptions. I do not believe much of what is written in the press, there is always another agenda of whatever political persuasion. The JRF knows what it's talking about though and I would not hesitate to believe what they say.

I note that they intend to produce costed proposals to reduce poverty based on what works around the world.

Bravo Sel. It takes gumption to say you have seen a different side of things. I'm not making a sweeping assumption that you have suddenly joined us lefties, but appreciate your comment.

I have huge respect for the JRT, however one of the very first paragraphs of the report states that they were unable to find any families where three generations have never worked. I cannot believe this as a few years ago (before I moved into my current house) I did some voluntary work which involved the police (I do not want to say too much about it) but during the course of this I came across some families where 3 generations had never had a job and one family where 4 generations had never had any legitimate employment.

This is all much as one would expect; never believe headlines!

I worked as a SW for much of my life and most of the clientele were decent people who had fallen on hard times because of illness, unemployment etc. The benefits system was an absolute lifeline to them and I would not care to live in a society where this did not exist and people in these situations were not helped.

In addition there were some rogues on my books who frankly didn't give a flier about anything or anybody and were happy to live off the state. They were very much in the minority numerically, but loomed much larger in the caseload because they were such hard work! In the main they had suffered poor upbringing and poor education, and were more to be pitied than blamed. The needs of their children (the innocent parties) had to be and should be paramount. We may dislike what the parents choose to do, but as a society we need to give their children the best possible chance of a good education and nutrition.

The bad inage caused by this tiny minority made it hard for those in dire need of benefits, through no fault of their own, to hold up their heads in society.

I hate to see the disadvantaged being villified and penalised when the bankers who have c****d up are getting off scot free and walking away with big bonuses. I think that the government bailing out a bank is just as much state "benefits" as JSA.

I couldn't have put it better Mishap.

Gillybob that is certainly true in the North East.
I met a woman at a function who had set up a business training and mentoring young people who were third generation unemployed.
Mishap it's the 80:20 thing - 20% of the people causing 80% of the problems.

Exactly!

Sel - you have my total respect.

when, Greatnan thank you - we actually don't disagree on the need to support those who need it, just on the means of achieving the money to do so

Agreed, Sel.

I found this amusing:

eveningharold.com/2013/04/05/residents-on-benefits-plead-to-be-taken-into-police-custody-to-keep-village-safe/

Greatnan: 'Many a true word spoken (written) in jest'

Loved it I have bookmarked the page for future wry smiles, thank you Greatnan

Yes - very funny. I liked the one about the Ed Miliband cardboard cut-outs, too!

There are several good satirical sites - I like Platitude of the Day - but I spend too much time on line.

Message deleted by Gransnet for breaking our forum guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.