'We need to bring integrity back to benefits system' (From This is Hampshire)
When news happens, text SDE and your photos or videos to 80360. Or contact us by email and phone.
'We need to bring integrity back to benefits system'
1:30pm Tuesday 14th February 2012 in News By Simon Moss
Maria Miller speaking in the House of Commons
THE benefits system in Britain has been brought into disrepute by people who “defraud” it – and it needs to make sure it always pays for people to be in work rather than living off handouts.
That’s the message of Work and Pensions Minister, and Basingstoke MP, Maria Miller, after a majority of MPs voted in support of the Government’s Welfare Reform Bill. The MP said the changes she has championed will ensure it always pays to be in work rather than living off the State.
Among the significant changes proposed is a benefits cap of £26,000 per family, and a one-off charge for parents wishing to access the Child Support Agency.
Mrs Miller, who has played a leading role in the welfare reforms, is adamant people must once again have “confidence” in the welfare system.
She said: “A great deal of my focus has been how we can restore integrity into our benefits system to make sure it is there for people who really need it, and not being brought into disrepute by people who are defrauding the system.
“The Welfare Reform Bill has got a number of significant changes incorporated within it, the most important of which is to help people take more responsibility for their lives and to make sure it always pays to be in work.
“There are too many instances where families can be better off on benefits rather than in work and that cannot be fair.
“First and foremost, I want to see a welfare system that supports people who can never work – and make sure that support is unconditional – but for people who can work, it is important that they don’t feel dependent on the system and that they are supported into employment.”
Mrs Miller continued: “Right from the start, our focus has been to ensure that in these difficult economic times, support is getting to the right people at the right time.
“My concern is the welfare system has become something which people don’t have complete confidence in, and that can make it difficult for those who really need that support to claim it without feeling as if they are subjected to potential criticism.
“It is important that we now focus our attention on the important stage of actually implementing our changes.”
Comments(16)
BugBear
says...
10:28pm Tue 14 Feb 12
MediaVoice
says...
8:48am Wed 15 Feb 12
I can't apply it to liberal MP's because they just say anything to please anyone whilst selling everyone out.
P Heath
says...
3:00pm Wed 15 Feb 12
Also the tax system idea is actually brilliant and self governing it covers all from poor to rich.
stevemac1970
says...
3:24pm Wed 15 Feb 12
The best way to reform the welfair state has to be to create jobs, but you won't do that by cutting the spending power of those in work and paying their tax. Give them the power to spend and you might have a growing economy rather than a growing DWP bill.
MadMc
says...
3:51pm Wed 15 Feb 12
BugBear
says...
4:26pm Wed 15 Feb 12
MadMc wrote:Sadly you sound like an out of touch politician any any of the parties, living in their ivory tower. Come on lets get real and be honest, how many people do you know claiming benefits to the value of over £100,000 pre year. For a start the unemployed only receive something like £50 pw to live on and then, depending what savings they have they may get help towards their mortgage/rent and council tax. Of course if they are like a very, very small minority and live in an up market place like Kensington, the housing benefit is going to be more. So now effectively what Marie Miller and her fellow cronies are proposing is a kind of ethnic cleaning as the people that are going to be most affected by this new policy, live in up market areas where the benefit is higher. Now before you jump in and say 'quite right too' bear this in mind. The cost of living in an up market area is higher, council tax is higher, rents are higher, the basic cost of living is higher therefore its all relative and in fact the percentage paid in benefit in those areas may actually be less than in a down market place like Basingstoke. It never ceases to amaze me that whenever times get hard, its always the poorest in society who get picked on first. Still at least the poor can hang on to their self respect unlike our MP's who fiddled their expenses.
You have to have a cap on benefits, it's a rediculous statement to say otherwise. There are people currently out there claiming over £100,000 a year in benefits, a lot of which is housing benefit. I work and owned by onw home but there came the point where I couldn't afford to live there anymore so had to move. Why should someone sitting on their backside claiming benefits in a comfortable (expensive) house stay in it if they can't afford to. There are far too many people out there claiming benefits because they don't want to work, I see them every week, sent along from the job centre, but they have no interest in the job or getting employed. I personally think £26,000 is still too high, why should someone get more than the national average person who is working 40 plus hours a week? Are we going to subsidice their wages upto £26k?
Buster Preciation
says...
8:21am Thu 16 Feb 12
If I earned the average wage and couldn't afford to live in my house then I would have to downsize or move somewhere cheaper. So why should someone who doesn't earn receive more protection than me?
Putting the cap at the average salary is going too far in my opinion. That says that the unemployed deserve more money than half the employed people!
MadMc
says...
2:01pm Thu 16 Feb 12
MediaVoice
says...
3:43pm Thu 16 Feb 12
P Heath
says...
4:20pm Thu 16 Feb 12
robertspet8
says...
4:38pm Thu 16 Feb 12
We do not have a cap at the moment so it is not a ridiculous statement (although it might be a rediculous one) :-).
Under my scheme (I have taken ownership, but it is based on the original proposals of better people than me), in theory there would be no cap especially for the disabled. But fit, healthy people would be given a tax code based on the criteria I outlined in my earlier comment. The important thing to note is that their tax code would be based on a cost of living index for the area in which they live not on the size of property and mortgage they happen to have. So if they find themselves out of work the payments they receive will not cover their current outgoings and they may well have to down size. Also nobody would receive more for not working than working.
The taxpayers would not maintain people in the style to which they had become accustomed. I doubt if my scheme would lead to anyone, other than the long term disabled, receiving £100,000pa if out of work.
P Heath
says...
7:14pm Thu 16 Feb 12
robertspet8
says...
11:14am Fri 17 Feb 12
P Heath wrote:Sadly politicians have been aware of this scheme for decades and they even had a chance to do something about it during the DHSS reforms of 1974. But they all have reasons to retain the status quo - the main one of which is that they can use the current system to score points with the electorate. Benefits have always been used as political footballs and none of the parties want to be the one which takes away Child Benefit for instance because it would be tantamount to electoral suicide.
Copy this to Maria and David Cameron I see no faults with your logic
Also look at the way Labour increased the Winter Fuel allowance with no regard to actual need - they knew it was a vote winner with the increasing elderly population. They decided to ignore common sense and the protests of the likes of Peter Stringfellow who said they didn't need or want it and asking the Government to redirect it to areas of real need.
No party has the courage or will to be the one to make the change.
THX 1138
says...
4:34pm Fri 17 Feb 12
MadMc wrote:You seem to be implying that only those out of work get benefits, but that isn't true. A lot of people in work but on low wages get their money topped up by working tax credits (which are benefits in all but name) and of course even more get child tax credits as well as child benefit. Also, many on low incomes are also eligible for housing benefit. I assume you don't turn down these benefits, but the state is effectively subsidising employers (including large profitable multinationals) who pay low wages.
Bugbear, I'm not an out of touch politician and I don't live in an Ivory Tower. I'm a single parent living in a one bedroom flat with my two daughters. I work 40 plus hours a week and take home a lot less than the national average. I amy not know anyone personally that gets benefits of over £100k but I do know a number of people in the Basingstoke area who are on benefits of over £35,000 a year (That's everything all in), who wouldn't dream of going back to work as didn't earn that much when they were working, so who is being realistic, certainly not you. The country can not sustain continuously paying out week after month after year without it having an adverse outcome for the rest of us... oh it is, or hadn't you noticed. You can't put money into creating more jobs if the money isn't there in the first place because it's being given out by the £billions each year. By cutting that payout leaves more money to create jobs and yes I do know it's only a small part of the country's deficit but lots of small cuts make a big pot
I can understand anger towards those claiming benefits fraudently, but if someone is only claiming what they are legally entitled to then I think your anger should be directed to politicians if you disagree with the amounts given. The poor did not cause the recession. The banks and politicians are largely to blame and banks have been bailed out billions by the taxpayer. My anger is towards them, not the poor, disabled and unemployed.
As for tax credits, why not scrap them entirely for those in employment, and increase the tax threshold and the minimum wage instead?
STEPH42
says...
1:01am Sun 26 Feb 12
robertspet8 says...
4:31pm Tue 14 Feb 12
These measures are just another sticking plaster. The whole tax, NI and benefits system needs to be changed root and branch. The government takes with one hand and then gives back with the other - why take any money off anyone if you are then going to give some of it back? All it does is create public sector jobs and increases the risk of fraud or error.
My proposal is that everything is done through the Tax Code system: scrap all non-targetted and universal benefits (child benefit, winter fuel allowance, bus passes, etc.); take everything into account in the Tax Codes - age, marital status (yes!!),children, other dependants, disabilities, incomes, where you live (because there would be a cost of living element), personal circumstances (independant, living with parents, etc.), etc.; if you then have a positive tax code you pay tax but receive no benefits and if your tax code is negative you receive benefit or have your income topped up; nobody would pay tax until they have earned enough to live on; the Tax Codes should insure that you are better off in work than not; there would be no cap. Of course it would need a lot of work to make sure it is fair and workable.
This system should guarantee unconditional support for those that can never work - how can Maria Miller offer unconditional support when there is a cap?
My system avoids means testing, people not claiming what they are entitled to and people claiming what they are not entitled to. There would be one annual form for everyone aged 16 or over to complete. Many of the public sector empoyees who would lose their jobs under my scheme could be re-employed carrying out spot checks on these forms to check the accuracy and veracity of the answers.
Perhaps if those in high office lead by example then there would be less fraud and abuse, much of which results from envy of those pigs with their snouts in the trough.
And that is more than enough cliches for one day :-)