No one 'wants' to be on benefits!

carmanmemoranda said:
I don't. Its exactly why wild claims are exactly that.
Click to expand...
If your not active in looking gor work, your benifits will be affected.

Who would admit not to be actively looking for work if their benifits would be cut. ?
 
Overpayments due to Claimant Error were 0.6% (£1.4bn) in FYE 2023, compared with 0.7% (£1.5bn) in FYE 2022.

Overpayments due to Official Error remained at 0.3% in both FYE 2023 (£0.6bn) and FYE 2022 (£0.7bn).
This section is a bit of a problem. How much should the gov spend checking. Not a good idea to run that at a loss
DWP can recover overpayments from people. This means not all of the £8.3bn overpaid is lost. A net loss estimate can be calculated, which deducts recoveries from total overpayments. DWP recovered £1.0bn of overpayments in FYE 2023 (£0.4bn from Housing Benefit and £0.6bn from other DWP benefits). The same amount was recovered in FYE 2022.
Some recoveries made by DWP are not included in the net loss estimate, as they do not relate to expenditure included in the fraud and error reporting (mainly recoveries of tax credits and of benefit advances).
The coronavirus pandemic continued to have consequences that affected UC fraud and error during FYE 2023. In particular, the Minimum Income Floor (MIF) was temporarily suspended to help UC claimants during the coronavirus pandemic. The MIF is an assumed level of earnings used in the monthly UC payment calculation. It affects self-employed claimants expected to work while receiving UC.
Under-declaration of income from work undertaken (Earnings/Employment) remained the largest source of Fraud, despite decreasing from 3.9% in FYE 2022 to 2.9% in FYE 2023. This reduction was caused by a decrease in Fraud relating to under-declared income from self-employed work (Self Employed Earnings) from 3.6% in FYE 2022 to 2.3% in FYE 2023. Both were statistically significant decreases.
The highest proportion of over payment "fraud" relates to undeclared earnings. The other main ones are shown in a graph. Living together, capital and failure to engage. Most people bank balances went up during covid as the BofE noticed.
 
mattylad said:
My own brother in law was on benefits when he met my sister and they both remained on it for many years, it's only since he drunk himself to death that she has got a job.
Even then they live in a large semi detached council house (albeit a rough estate) and probably still gets some benefits.

For some it's a way of life, they think why should they work when others will pay for them not to.
Fair do's they have less money than if they had a job but also have less to pay out if they get council support.
Click to expand...
That's the behaviour which needs some attention. If B-I-L was told he had to do community service to get his benefit, then he may not have suffered the dereliction he did. I know a River Warden who was unemployed a long time after tryoing some office jobs. He's very good about the state of the river and the wildlife. I may be optimistic but I'd like to think there woud be others on the dole who would be ok at a job like that, though they never thought it possible.

mattylad said:
Whilst I have worked since I was 16, I was on family credit for many years, I often had to turn down a pay rise because it meant I would lose much much more in family credit & all the benefits that came with it.
Click to expand...
That was the stupid situation for as long as I can remember. Is it still? I hope not.
 
Justin Passing said:
That was the stupid situation for as long as I can remember. Is it still? I hope not.
Click to expand...
There are bound to be instances where it still does apply and for other reasons.

Taiwan has another idea with coping with job losses. Train for something else and benefits will be paid. Guess what - it still has it's problems and it also can not be done on the cheap.
 
Sorry, but the alleged motivation is irrelevant.

There are loads of jobs in this economy that are either going unfilled or massive numbers of foreigners need to be brought in to fill them, with all the costs and risks involved in that. Why on earth are we paying able bodied people to be idle whilst this is the case? I'll say it again, unless somebody is so disabled they can't work, then choices are being made. The option of living on benefits shouldn't be available. Being completely useless and charging everybody else for it is morally reprehensible and shouldn't be permitted.
 
berty3000 said:
Sorry, but the alleged motivation is irrelevant.

There are loads of jobs in this economy that are either going unfilled or massive numbers of foreigners need to be brought in to fill them, with all the costs and risks involved in that. Why on earth are we paying able bodied people to be idle whilst this is the case? I'll say it again, unless somebody is so disabled they can't work, then choices are being made. The option of living on benefits shouldn't be available. Being completely useless and charging everybody else for it is morally reprehensible and shouldn't be permitted.
Click to expand...
Not sure that the jobs available would fit the people available. They'd mostly be crap at picking fruit - too slow.

They should do something though even if it's tidy parks, collect litter, learn to read and write.... do some exercise...
They would be unreliable - mandatory bodycams.
 
Bod ... said:
If your not active in looking gor work, your benifits will be affected.

Who would admit not to be actively looking for work if their benifits would be cut. ?
Click to expand...
You have to provide proof

If you don’t get a job in x time you have to go in for an interview

It’s already pretty tough on benefits….on UC people routinely get their benefits cut because computer says no.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top