Social Security

[SoulKiss]

To avoid derailing other threads, just how SHOULD we support those who have hit hard times or sickness/illness.

Not a poll, a place for discussion on what should be done.

My thoughts are that a life on the dole should not be one of comfort, there should be few if any luxuries to act as an incentive to Improve.

The whole thing should become cash-less, I mean why are there advertising campaigns to encourage people on housing benefit to pay their rent on time?

Why is this not paid directly to the landlord, so avoiding any chance of it being spent elsewhere?

Why not do a deal with Tesco and get Jamie Oliver to come up with a bunch of Meal Plans/Recipes and have food parcels delivered, each containing healthy balanced food and the instructions to prepare it, again this being paid directly.

It would also address obesity issues etc.

Clothing would also be provided likewise.

As a condition of getting these benefits (and any others) all women and if/when the technology is available are to be put on contraceptive treatments - implanted if possible.

It is my view that we ARE responsible to ensure that each and every member of out society has somewhere safe to stay, food on their plates, clothes on their backs and shoes on their feet.

[Jabba]

Bit harsh in my view.

There's a difference between those who want to work/pay their way and genuinely can't (for whatever reason....ability/sickness) and those who can't be bothered to make the effort or think that it's okay to sponge off the state.

I have every sympathy with the former.

[SoulKiss]

Bit harsh in my view.

There's a difference between those who want to work/pay their way and genuinely can't (for whatever reason....ability/sickness) and those who can't be bothered to make the effort or think that it's okay to sponge off the state.

I have every sympathy with the former.

I have to agree, but its the fact that we are onto a 2nd generation who have never worked and have all the loopholes to more money pointed out to them that we need to be harsh.

If life unemployed ISNT a bit crap, what incentive to change things?

There would still be sickness benefits etc for those with genuine problems, that would end up with something like the National Minimum Income type idea.

[timwilky]

OK

My missus has paid into the system all her working life, at age 46 she developed breast cancer and as a result of post operative complications she took about 18 months to return to work.

During this time she has been getting about £70/week from state. She had a job, but was incapable of working. Monthly she had to attend an interview at the job centre to ascertain what she could do, and what they could do to get her back into work etc.

Daft as for the first 12 months she could hardly walk as a result of nerve damage to her feet/hands from chemotherapy. she now has breathing difficulties as the radiotherapy has damaged her lungs. She now takes a massive amount of steroid trying to recover her lungs.

But she has gone back this week. She is not capable of doing her old job and has been redeployed and is on a 4 week trial to ensure she is capable of doing the job.

she had to have an examination by a DHSS doctor to make sure she was genuinely incapable of doing any work. a 50+ page form asking how high she could lift a book etc. How long she could sit at a desk etc. Stupid as she already had a job. she was not unemployed but incapacitated by illness.

She would gladly given up the £70/week to have her breasts back, to have had 6 months of not feeling **** every day. To be able to walk up the stairs without having to stop and catch her breath etc.

Nobody wants to go "on the sick", for those that are there they would much rather be able to return to work.

If there is a problem, it is that for the past 10 years government has been encouraging long term unemployed onto the sick as they then see unemployment rates drop. suddenly we are in the stupid position that unemployment had dropped by over 1 million under new labour, but the sickness claimants had increased by over 3 million.

[Milky Bar Kid]

I don't understand why they make it so difficult for people like Tim's wife who have worked all their lives but yet will hand out money to people who don't deserve it and have never worked a day in the lives willynilly.

[SoulKiss]

OK

My missus has paid into the system all her working life, at age 46 she developed breast cancer and as a result of post operative complications she took about 18 months to return to work.

During this time she has been getting about £70/week from state. She had a job, but was incapable of working. Monthly she had to attend an interview at the job centre to ascertain what she could do, and what they could do to get her back into work etc.

Daft as for the first 12 months she could hardly walk as a result of nerve damage to her feet/hands from chemotherapy. she now has breathing difficulties as the radiotherapy has damaged her lungs. She now takes a massive amount of steroid trying to recover her lungs.

But she has gone back this week. She is not capable of doing her old job and has been redeployed and is on a 4 week trial to ensure she is capable of doing the job.

she had to have an examination by a DHSS doctor to make sure she was genuinely incapable of doing any work. a 50+ page form asking how high she could lift a book etc. How long she could sit at a desk etc. Stupid as she already had a job. she was not unemployed but incapcitated by illness.

She would gladly given up the £70/week to have her breasts back, to have had 6 months of not feeling **** every day. To be able to walk up the stairs without having to stop and catch her breath etc.

Nobody wants to go "on the sick", for those that are there they would much rather be able to return to work.

If there is a problem, it is that for the past 10 years government has been encouraging long term unemployed onto the sick as they then see unemployment rates drop. suddenly we are in the stupid position that unemployment had dropped by over 1 million under new labour, but the sickness claimants had increased by over 3 million.

I see most of what your wife went through as pointless bureacracy.

In my view, there should have been a contribution to the rent/mortage on your home equal to the percentage that her income was of the household income.

This would also apply to electricity/gas/water etc, but would have to be handled by a rebate system - you get the bill, you take a copy of it to the SS office, they have the %age she is entitled to available, they arrange a payment there and then using the payment details on the bill, you then go to the post office/bank and pay the rest.

That secures the roof over her head.

Food and clothing could still be dealt with as above - do it online and then add the items for you and only pay for your meals while hers are free - ie the final amount on the bill would be about half.

Ok so the household income would be reduced, but food, warmth, clothing and a roof over her head would all be taken care of - and would be more than the £70.

As for the duration of payment, well it would start from when declared sick, until certified by a doctor that you are fit to return to work, with the ongoing medical checkups forming the continuing case.

[gruntygiggles]

Tim, it is stories like yours and your wifes that can ometimes make me sick to the stomach at the state of this country. I have no aspirations to go into politics, but I do have many views and opinions on topics like this.

See my post on another similar thread:-

http://forums.sv650.org/showthread.php?t=126854&page=6

I do not like the generalisation surrounding benefits and the people that claim them, but it's easy to see why people find it so easy to fall into the trap of grouping all people together.

Your wife Tim, and I'm very glad she is gradually doing better and better, is a perfect example of just why the current system is so wrong. £70 a week does not even begin to cover the costs associated with dealing with serious illness, let alone the loss to your monthly income and associated mortgage, bills etc.

I don't think we can go as far as to dictate to people what they eat or drink, but I do think that at present, the worst of the categorisation comes from the government itslef. What we need to do is have a system of assessment that allows us to separate the few individuals and families that manipulate and take advantage of the system from the many many genuine claims for support.

Those people do need, in my opinion to be put into a programme that gives them a roof over their heads, an acceptable standard of living (not on the pverty line), food and clothing. The children in these ouseholds though need to be the priority and so the state should have more control of the childrens access to well fitting clothes and shoes and a good diet. The parents and adults should not be allowed to have lifes luxuries when they are perfectly able, but unwilling to work and pay for these themselves.

For everyone else that has a genuine claim, more needs to be done to offer better financial support and far greater supplementary support.

Gotta dash, but I'm sure I'll have more to say later.

We should just not be so quick to judge and spend more time trying to understand and empathise.

[timwilky]

All I can say, is thank god there is a system that awards some benifits to the unemployed/ sick. Of course it is not generous. It is not designed to be.

My son was laid off in October, his response was to go out and work on minimum rate, this did not even meet his mortgage payment. However if he had signed on, he would have got about £40/week, strange though that if he was 3 years older would get about £50/week. He would of course had got his mortgage interest, and council tax paid. So essentially £40/week fag&beer money. except out of that he would have gas/electric/food to pay for etc. Instead he would work 80/week on min rate until he was able to get a new job and he now only works 60/week to pay his commitments.

Try living as a single bloke/couple on the benefits system. It will soon drive you back to work.


I still think the tax credit system is wrong. It is essentially a means test on benefits. everybody in the same circumstances should be entitled to the same. A flat rate per dependant person in the houshold

[eviltwin]

Food parcels? Forced chemical alteration of natural state of being just because of a period of unemployment

Seriously?

Why not suggest a swift kick in the ribs in on the bargain, whilst down

Crikey, did an unemployed person spill your pint last night or something? ;)

[SoulKiss]

Food parcels? Forced chemical alteration of natural state of being just because of a period of unemployment

Seriously?

Why not suggest a swift kick in the ribs in on the bargain, whilst down

Crikey, did an unemployed person spill your pint last night or something? ;)

When long-term unemployed people have a better standard of living than I do then yes, someone needs a kicking.

And why should they be able to produce another drain on society when they cannot support themselves, as it is to many of them a baby is just a further income.

Oh and why should an unemployed person be in the pub in the 1st place?

[timwilky]

Oh and why should an unemployed person be in the pub in the 1st place?


To ask if they have any vacancies?

[SoulKiss]

To ask if they have any vacancies?

Touche :)

[gruntygiggles]

I don't think we can ever have a system where we chemically alter a person to change their way of living or make life so darned hard on them. Yes, there are people out there that make up reasons for not working, use the benefits to pay for booze/smoking/drugs and have children in order to bring in more money but it has gone too far now to put too many restrictions or too much negative press on them.

We are in a state now where the kind of individual/family that lives like this are doing it because it is all they know. They were not brought up to have any aspirations or pride and have learned a way of life that most of us see as being easy. It is not easy though. Yes, how great to be able to stay at home, do what you want, have kids and let the state pay for it, but you take a good hard look at these people and tell me if you think they are really happy. I bet you they're not, they just don't know any other way of living and can't hold down jobs because they have never learned to cope with responsibility or handle being told what to do. Sure they'd never admit it, but it's a difficult and scary thing to completely change your way of living.

There have been many instances across the country with different trials where these people have been interviewed and given work placements in the industry that they have a passion for. It has helped to ignite the fire in them and when one person gives you a bit of praise for getting out of bed in the morning and doing a good days work, it means more than an entire country telling that person they are a waste of space.

Why can't we have a situation where, if you are fit and able to work, but can't find a job or don't want to find one, you have to do some form of public service. It could be tailored to suit the individual and who knows, maybe some of them would grow a little pride and want to get out there and get a paying job.
If you wanted to work, then this would give you something consructive to do with your time and if you didn't, it might just give you the spring board and confidence you need to take the plunge and start earning for yourself.
I would rather do this and have the odd success story than do nothing and watch these people live miserable lives, manipulate the state and teach the way of life to the next generation.

Just my opinions though and they change from time to time!

[Ed]

When long-term unemployed people have a better standard of living than I do then yes, someone needs a kicking.

And why should they be able to produce another drain on society when they cannot support themselves, as it is to many of them a baby is just a further income.

Oh and why should an unemployed person be in the pub in the 1st place?


I take it that this is not a serious post.

[Biker Biggles]

Big difference of course between some one who is sick and one who is fit and well but unemployed.
Originally the welfare state was designed to be a "helping hand" to get you back into work when unemployed and a basic safety net for those who couldnt support themselves.It still is in theory but like all organisations it has expanded into any other areas it could and has become a way of life for some.It should never be ticket to a cushy life though,paid for by the rest of the working people.

[SoulKiss]

I take it that this is not a serious post.

Why would it not be - minus the physical violence of course.

The Hand-out State we now live in means that people travel from all over the world to take advantage of it, if we were not so attractive why would asylum seekers travel through other free countries - like half of Europe, to get here?

So a little short-sharp shock treatment for the system may be just what it needs.

Remember these are just my thoughts on the spur of the moment - I havent mentioned yet that if for example you Ed were to hit hard times, I wouldn't look at throwing you out of your house - you would loose a percentage of your home to the state based on how much it paid into your mortgage, but you wouldn't have to move house to some sinkhole council estate after you had bankrupted yourself paying the mortgage while you waited for better times to come.

On the other hand like Grunty has said, I would expect people in that situation to have to turn up a location every morning to be assigned their Community Service jobs for the day - be it sweeping streets, cleaning graffiti or whatever.

I am just looking for a fairer deal for everyone, and I dont see why the guy at the end of the bar who has been standing there smoking and drinking for the last 4 hours should be doing it with money from MY pocket.

[shonadoll]

The very fact that people have to raise money for MacMillan nurses, as people cannot afford to have cancer, makes me angry.

The problem is lumping people who have a genuine illness in with workshy types who want to be off sick.

It's all too easy to abuse, and the genuine people are tarred with the same brush.

[SoulKiss]

The very fact that people have to raise money for MacMillan nurses, as people cannot afford to have cancer, makes me angry.

The problem is lumping people who have a genuine illness in with workshy types who want to be off sick.

It's all too easy to abuse, and the genuine people are tarred with the same brush.

I really hope (and I think I am failing) that my "policies" are targeted flatly.

What I am advocating is that a, admittedly basic base-line life would be provided by the state.

This includes food, water, shelter, clothing but delivered in a way that ensures value for money for those who are paying for the system.

The food parcel idea is to encourage better nutrition than a bunch of 3 for £5 bags of frozen Iceland junkfood feeding the kids for the week and the rest of the cash going on the parents.

The Community Service thing is as much to encourage people to get out - its all too easy to fall into a life of just sitting around the house when you are not working - thats personal experience from when I was between jobs in Nov 07, spend an hour checking the job sites and chasing agencies and then the rest just in front of the computer/telly.

More than the few weeks I was like that and it would become a way of life.

Is it really a bad thing to reduce the luxuries, such as cigarettes and alcohol of those that are not earning them?

[Ceri JC]

Bit of a controversial one, but what are people's opinions of benefits having a basic margin on which you can survive as a minimum (no luxuries) and increases on it based on the amount of NI you pay. Effectively the more you are taxed, the more you get paid back during hard times. This could gradually drop back over a 3 month period to the miminium amount, starting 3 months after you commence redundancy. You need to be back in work for a minimum of 2 years to "reset" this counter (to prevent someone taking a £100K job then going on the dole for £40K PA forever more).

I know this seems like favouring the people who are most likely to have savings, but it just seems that the current system means if you earn more, pay more tax and have more outgoings, you're more at risk of losing things (and arguably, least deserving of doing so) like your house, car, etc. by missing a few payments as it's going to be far harder to keep up payments expensive things whilst on the dole. If you take the view that this would be decadent and dole should just ensure you don't die of hunger, why not go the other way and seize and liquidate people's assets to fund the benefits they receive and only pay out once these have been exhausted?

[Ed]

I have a crumb of comfort, SK is not going to evict me:D Sadly the Government won't cover my mortgage interest until after 9 months, by which time the lender would have evicted me anyway, so too late ducky.

What all this conveniently ignores is that I have paid higher rate tax for just about all my working life. I have paid NI too, stamp duty, VAT, the whole damn lot. I have paid in a fortune and if I fell on hard times I expect something back. Why shouldn't I? Why is there an automatic assumption that people who have signed on are workshy? Why are people on benefit labelled 'dolescum', 'council fodder' and other similarly offensive terms?

The other point follows - that JSA, and Income Support, are legal entitlements. Parliament has approved them, and if you don't like people claiming, well don't criticise them as they didn't make the rules, the answer is to change the law.

A number on here have made the point that a life on benefit isn't easy. That is perfectly true. I don't buy the theory that people don't go back to work because they prefer to claim benefit. It's true that some people are better off on benefit because they lack skills in the workplace. This is a difficult problem, probably cyclical because nobody has ever treated these people with respect and so they don't achieve, and rooted in poor self-esteem.

I don't think that anyone will get rich quick on this:

How much do you get?

Contribution-based Jobseeker's Allowance
You get a weekly rate according to your age:

AgeAmount16 - 24£47.9525 or over£60.50
Your payments might be reduced if you're getting a pension.
Income-based Jobseeker's Allowance
The maximum weekly rates are:

StatusAmountSingle people aged 16 - 24£47.95Single people aged 25 or over£60.50Couples and civil partnerships (both aged 18 or over)£94.95Lone parents (aged under 18)£47.95Lone parents (aged 18 or over)£60.50


but of course it depends on your expectations in life. To some, that would be a fortune, and it's amazing how little you can live on if you really put your mind to it.

[Ceri JC]

What all this conveniently ignores is that I have paid higher rate tax for just about all my working life. I have paid NI too, stamp duty, VAT, the whole damn lot. I have paid in a fortune and if I fell on hard times I expect something back. Why shouldn't I?

What I proposed in my previous post would help deal with this. In a worst case scenario where it looked like you'd be off work for more than 6 months, you'd at least have a window in which to downsize in a controlled manner, rather than liquidating your assets overnight (and hence, because of the urgency, having to take a big hit in their value).

On the one hand I want to ensure there's enough in the pot to ensure no one starves (not least because I don't want people to be driven/given the excuse to commit crimes to survive). At the same time, I think if you've paid more into the pot, you should be entitled to more when you need to draw on it than someone who has paid in less or indeed, perhaps nothing (I know the unemployed technically have contributions paid for them, but that's semantics; it's the taxpayer who pays those too).

[Luckypants]

I thought that income related 'dole' was phased out in the 70s because it was costing too much? I too agree that after paying in at 40% plus NI (not forgetting employers NI as a result of your working) then you should get more out. A phased reduction in benefit from say 75% of earning when made redundant to a basic level of benefit over 12 months would be fairer I think. This also acts as an incentive to work, if you have paid in something, you get more out than just the basic subsistence level.

When I was made redundant in 1994, I had paid in over £12K to the system the year before. Similar amounts for the 4 years prior to that. But I got nothing in terms of benefits because my then partner earned too much and that was not a huge salary. Penalised for working hard! I spent all my redundancy payment, all our savings and all my partners wages keeping our house and other bills paid. I was out of work for 9 months and not one iota of help.

The above is why I don't see why those who have never work should get anything.

[Magnum]

That allowance is seroiusly poor. I'm on £85 a week standard hours + overtime. That's with me in full time education.
I think the jobs are out there if people actually go looking for them and accept the fact they may have to work minimum wage.

I remember seeing an article in a paper about Slough (i think, or somewhere similar) that had one of the highest unemployment rates in england. There were also about five different job vacancies mentioned in this article in Slough's local paper all offering minimum wage. No one at all responded to the adverts.

[dizzyblonde]

IThe above is why I don't see why those who have never work should get anything.

Oh there are many, perhaps the org should get tents and camp on the green in front of my house, gather their deckchairs to see the locals round here who do exactly that.
I just roll my eyes in my head and ignore it these days, as whatever the system, theres always someone that will take advantage or bend the rules to suit

[timwilky]

As someone who pays his 40% tax, NI etc. I too have gripes about the levels of benefits. What I do not understand is why my lad at 21 is deemed to require less to live on than a 25 year old who may live at home with mummy/daddy yet my lad has to pay his gas/electricity etc.

I discussed this with the nice lady at the job centre two weeks ago when I took the wife for her monthly get a job interview. The nice lady did not understand the reason for the rule either and was genuinely shocked when she check my statement was correct.

Interestingly the nice lady only deals with getting those on incapacity benefit back to work. She herself suffers from MS and twice Lynnes interviews had to be cancelled because this lady was unable to work. But she is a good example to all who meet her of if I can work, is there a reason why you cannot.

It is a safety net. It is not meant to be generous. I therefore cannot understand how anyone can live on it for an extended period. Unless of course they also do a bit of cash in hand.

[madness]

I think that a lot of us are far to quick to judge others. There are a lot of people who cannot work due to health reasons. As for everyone else who doesn't work, then that is the governments fault and the system that has developed over the years. I've had the view for many years, and it's a view shared by others on here, that if you can't find your own job, then you'll be given one to earn your keep rather than receive a 'handout' for sitting on your backside. Everywhere I go I see 'work that needs doing. Litter needs picking up, graffitti needs removing, old peoples overgrown gardens need tidying. There are so many vital land based jobs that need doing. Parts of the country flood every year because drainage maintainance has not been carried out for decades. It's about time that someone with some common sense got into power and shook the whole system up.

[diamond]

My younger brother has MS and has had it since he was 20 (about 10 years) Over the last year or so his health has deteriaorated to the point where he is unable to walk for weeks at a time. Because of this he has cut down his hours from a five days week to a four day week. This was done purely because he is physically unable to manage a long week without having a relapse. With the social/income support that he gets because of his drop in wage he is actually better off now he only works 4 days, how does that work.
Now i have no gripes about him getting this money, i wouldn't want to be in his shoes for anything, but if thats the way the system works how will it ever encourage the malingerers (sp) in society to work a full week or infact work at all.

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Ahh, a gripe about hand outs in a time of financial troubles. Completely understandable. In fact, the government picked up on this a few months ago and made some half arsed plans to 'get tough'.

It's all ******** though. The time to try and deal with getting people off benefits and into work was when there were jobs available. The government did fk all when there was plenty of money and employment about and now they're panicking, desperately trying to look like they're doing something useful.

Be angry with the government about their benefits policies, but be angry because they did nothing when it would have made a difference. There's little point getting wound up about hand outs now - very soon it'll be because most of those people are out of a job and actually need it.

[carty]

To avoid derailing other threads, just how SHOULD we support those who have hit hard times or sickness/illness.

Not a poll, a place for discussion on what should be done.

My thoughts are that a life on the dole should not be one of comfort, there should be few if any luxuries to act as an incentive to Improve.

The whole thing should become cash-less, I mean why are there advertising campaigns to encourage people on housing benefit to pay their rent on time?

Why is this not paid directly to the landlord, so avoiding any chance of it being spent elsewhere?

Why not do a deal with Tesco and get Jamie Oliver to come up with a bunch of Meal Plans/Recipes and have food parcels delivered, each containing healthy balanced food and the instructions to prepare it, again this being paid directly.

It would also address obesity issues etc.

Clothing would also be provided likewise.

As a condition of getting these benefits (and any others) all women and if/when the technology is available are to be put on contraceptive treatments - implanted if possible.

It is my view that we ARE responsible to ensure that each and every member of out society has somewhere safe to stay, food on their plates, clothes on their backs and shoes on their feet.

+1 apart from the last bit - I don't believe we are responsible - they should take responsibility for themselves

[gettin2dizzy]

That allowance is seroiusly poor. I'm on £85 a week standard hours + overtime. That's with me in full time education.
I think the jobs are out there if people actually go looking for them and accept the fact they may have to work minimum wage.

I remember seeing an article in a paper about Slough (i think, or somewhere similar) that had one of the highest unemployment rates in england. There were also about five different job vacancies mentioned in this article in Slough's local paper all offering minimum wage. No one at all responded to the adverts.
You get paid at school? :confused:

[anna]

It´s funny how in my opinion it is only those that have never had to use the benefit system who have a misconception that people live better than those "hard working" people who aren’t on it.

I for one am grateful of the system, I won’t go into details but, when I was younger without the aid of the benefit system I would never have been able to go to college or university. Then pour a hell of a lot of money back into the tax system during my working time!

My sister and her partner have the help of benefits due to his crone’s disease. They have two children, but I never see them with wide screen TV´s or any of the other comforts you assume that people have whilst on benefits. What I do see is a hardworking family, working their arses off to work around a horrendous situation

Sure I also know situations that the system has failed, my aunt for example had throat cancer, but because she had walked into her medical appointment for a certificate for the sick benefit they told her she was fit for work. I fail to see how they could have come to that conclusion as she could barely talk and lost so much weight she barely had the strength to hold herself.

The system may not be perfect but I´m glad it´s there.

SK sure I agree with the Housing benefit being paid direct to landlords no reason why it shouldn’t and, would save a lot of administration. However as I understand it, this is an option that is currently available.

I don’t agree with the food aspect. This is just draining more resources I have no idea how you think this would work. People have different eating requirements and suddenly you have taken this out of their hands.

Parents are currently given milk tokens etc and various "essential tokens" as it is, likewise with clothing for items such as school uniforms.

If I had these things taken out of my hands when I had to claim and a percentage of my money was given to me like this I would never have been able to live. You have taken the choice out of people’s hands.

For example in order for me to go to college I wouldn’t buy new clothes; I was then able to use the money for the bus to get to college.

You are just creating a system with rules on the assumption that EVERYONE is lying and cheating the system. It´s simply not true and I don’t care to follow how that line of thinking would end!!!

[anna]

Be angry with the government about their benefits policies, but be angry because they did nothing when it would have made a difference. There's little point getting wound up about hand outs now - very soon it'll be because most of those people are out of a job and actually need it.

I actually agree with you.

[Nicky S]

Bit harsh in my view.

There's a difference between those who want to work/pay their way and genuinely can't (for whatever reason....ability/sickness) and those who can't be bothered to make the effort or think that it's okay to sponge off the state.

I have every sympathy with the former.

I have to agree

[timwilky]

Can I have comments on this.


Benefit cheats 'claimed £130,000'


http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45534000/jpg/_45534809_peters_pa_226.jpg Allan and Lorraine Peters worked at the same cleaning firm

A family of benefit cheats claimed more than £130,000 stating they were too ill to have jobs even though they all worked at the same firm, a court heard.
Allan and Lorraine Peters, from Eccles, Greater Manchester, said they were unable to walk and claimed incapacity benefits and got two mobility cars.
At Minshull Street Crown Court, Peters and his son Garry, were each jailed for nine months for benefit fraud.
Lorraine Peters, another son and her brother got non-custodial sentences.
The court heard investigators seized wage slips in false names and a picture of the Peters, smiling as they boarded a gangplank for a boat trip on a Spanish holiday.
'Catalogue of illnesses'
The court heard Mr Peters, 56, said on his claim form he suffered from angina, chronic pulmonary disease, sleep apnea, spondylitis and high blood pressure. He said he needed oxygen to be kept in his car and tasks like getting dressed were a "nightmare".
He claimed £32,000 in benefits over four years while being paid £90 a week for doing 16 hours at North West Cleaning where his wife, two sons and brother-in-law also worked.
His wife was on the highest rate of benefits, claiming she suffered a "catalogue" of illnesses, could not leave the house or do anything herself without help and needed a nebuliser daily.
Lorraine Peters was a site supervisor at the firm, while being paid £37,500 in benefits.
Her son, Garry, 31, claimed to suffer arthritis and was paid Incapacity Benefit and Income support worth £39,000 for more than six years, while working as a cleaner and as a window cleaner.
Another son, Martin, 28, claimed Income Support, Jobseekers Allowance and a Carer's Allowance, supposedly for looking after his ill parents. He stole benefits worth £10,000 the court heard.
Compton McKenzie, 51, the brother of Lorraine Peters, also fraudulently claimed £10,000 in Incapacity Benefits.
Lorraine Peters is now back on benefits, having re-applied and been granted - this time legitimately - incapacity benefit, disability living allowance and a mobility car.
Her husband applied for benefits but was refused and is now appealing.
False names
The court heard the family gave false names and made up National Insurance numbers after Garry Peters first began working for the firm in 2004, before being joined by his relatives.
All five admitted benefit fraud.
Judge Thomas, passing sentence, said it was wrong to say the family "lived the life of Riley" by fleecing the benefits system - but said the system depended on people's honesty.
Lorraine Peters was sentenced to nine months imprisonment, suspended for two years.
Martin Peters was given a 12-month community order, a 160 hours unpaid work order and a six-month supervision order.
Compton McKenzie was ordered to carry out 160 hours unpaid work, given a 12-month community order and a two month night-time curfew.
Mr Peters senior is appealing the Department of Work and Pensions decision not to pay him benefits.

[metalangel]

Looks like they spent it on beer and pies.

[Dicky Ticker]

45years of paying contributions and getting sick again after paying for heart surgery privately,returning to work for another 3years but now on pension credits because the heart complaint has resurfaced.Yes I will take everything I can and I still pay income tax because I was prudent and saved, plus private pension.

ENJOY YOUR HEALTH WHILE YOU HAVE IT,DON'T GET INVOLVED IN AN ACCIDENT
as by your proposals life may become pretty miserable on incapacity benefits

You never know what life holds in store for you so making such sweeping statements seems a bit rash

I do object to scroungers but many people who are genuine cases and paid there contributions into the system do not deserve to be tarred with the same brush

[SoulKiss]

Can I have comments on this.

Send the bailiffs round and get my £130k back please.

And ban them from EVER using the Social Security/NHS again.

[Ceri JC]

Can I have comments on this.

A close friend works solely prosecuting scum like them and she says it's sickeningly commonplace. Here's the real kicker; the maximum amount you can fine them is capped spectacularly lowly (£5K, IIRC). As with most sentences, the maximum penalty is very is seldom dished out. One judge in my neck of the woods is well known for issuing a sentence very quickly, with very low fines, just to close the case ASAP. The reason being, he considers the prosecution "a waste of the taxpayers money" as it costs the state more for the cost of the case than they are able to reclaim. This may be true, but what does this do to disincentivise people thinking about committing benefit fraud, or indeed, those who've been prosecuted for it in the past? My friend has also only seen someone given a prison sentence once and that was when the (clearly guilty) party appealed the small fine so the case got bumped up to a higher court who effectively applied the prison sentence out of spite for time wasting, rather than the original offence.

If you're going to commit benefit fraud, even if you get caught provided you get £5,000 worth before they catch you, congratulations, you'll be in profit. Makes it sound pretty appealing when you consider it frequently goes undetected for years on end and cases where people rack up £30,000+ untaxed (in addition to the salaries they are racking up working at the same time) are commonplace. There's a perception that it tends to be working class people doing cash in hand labour jobs, but my friend says you get people from all walks of life doing it.

----

FS: You are completely right that now is entirely the wrong time to do anything about it. I just wish they'd "put something in their diaries" for 2012 to address it. ;)

[SoulKiss]

45years of paying contributions and getting sick again after paying for heart surgery privately,returning to work for another 3years but now on pension credits because the heart complaint has resurfaced.Yes I will take everything I can and I still pay income tax because I was prudent and saved, plus private pension.

ENJOY YOUR HEALTH WHILE YOU HAVE IT,DON'T GET INVOLVED IN AN ACCIDENT
as by your proposals life may become pretty miserable on incapacity benefits

You never know what life holds in store for you so making such sweeping statements seems a bit rash

I do object to scroungers but many people who are genuine cases and paid there contributions into the system do not deserve to be tarred with the same brush

You are right, and you see things from further down the fence, but not the other side.

Like you and many here I have paid in for years, however I have never taken out, so in my experience my cash goes to these spongers, who seem, going by the rubbish left at the collection areas at the flats that to my knowledge are primarily funded by the Social, live a better standard of living.

I accept my views stated are a bit extreme, but what I was proposing was the base-line, from which additional help would be provided - so EVERYONE gets a roof, clothes and food.

From there we look at individual cases.

I am not sure that amount paid in should have any real bearing, apart from "have you ever contributed a meaningful amount", with, perhaps a speculative angle - so that someone at twenty-two, just started a good job with good prospects that would have been a good contributer for the next 40-odd years who is injured and cant work would be treated the same as someone who is 50 in the same position.

Its the people who have never contibuted that would be stuck with the basics.

Think of the statements at the beginning of the thread as a block of concrete - harsh, a bit sharp at the edges, but able to be chipped away into something meaningful.

[Ceri JC]

ENJOY YOUR HEALTH WHILE YOU HAVE IT,DON'T GET INVOLVED IN AN ACCIDENT
as by your proposals life may become pretty miserable on incapacity benefits


My dad gave me good advice when I started working: Don't get sick and don't become unemployed. ;)

I'm not particularly fussed about reducing the cost of benefits to the taxpayer; I'm more interested in it being apportioned more fairly.

[ArtyLady]

My dad gave me good advice when I started working: Don't get sick and don't become unemployed. ;)



If only that were possible to control :(

[Ceri JC]

If only that were possible to control :(

His point was that it's something you have limited influence over, but by God, do everything can to exert that small amount of control you do have. Not intended as a crack at anyone, BTW.

[Luckypants]

A close friend works solely prosecuting scum like them and she says it's sickeningly commonplace. Here's the real kicker; the maximum amount you can fine them is capped spectacularly lowly (£5K, IIRC).

<snip>
If you're going to commit benefit fraud, even if you get caught provided you get £5,000 worth before they catch you, congratulations, you'll be in profit.

<snip>


Surely you are also ordered to repay the fraudulently claimed benefits? I think this is the case, so if you get caught you need to find the money to pay it back and pay the fine.

[Ceri JC]

Surely you are also ordered to repay the fraudulently claimed benefits? I think this is the case, so if you get caught you need to find the money to pay it back and pay the fine.

I'll check with her, but unless I misunderstood her, I don't believe they can. One person she recently successfully prosecuted only got a fine around £3,000, for £40,000+ worth of fraud, despite owning a house worth in excess of £100,000. They couldn't/didn't reposses her house/car to repay the difference.

EDIT: What you said, should of course be the way the way they operate. :)

[Bibio]

just to put a little twist as regards to people claiming benefits...

if a (so called scum) benefit claimant had actually got up off their bum and decided to work for a living, they might possibly have your job... so is it not worth the money you pay back into society to have the job you have now.

benefit claimants are but a teardrop in an ocean compared to the money the government spend on 'arms' and invading other country's for the 'suposed' good of that country..

if goverments would stop pocking their noise into other countrys affairs, we might not have terrorists.... so we would not have to spend more money protecting ourselves against them...

do you honastly think that the goverment would reduce the money they gather from the public if everyone in the country worked.. i think not, they would just find other ways to waste it...

personally i'm quite glad that there are people out there that are quite happy not to work. as it makes it easier for the people that want to work to get a job.. i would be more that happy to have a job and pay 'ERIT' out of my wages to pay for someone who might otherwise have my job.