Benefit changes yay or nay?

[TheAnimus]

I'd argue they are a recognition of our civilised values that every human has a right to live a certain standard of life and a recognition that they can still contribute to society by doing so. Now you can argue that being forced to only have essentials is enough for a civilised standard of life, or you can argue that actually having the freedom of choice - including the freedom to make bad decisions - is part of living a certain standard of life, and taking away someone's financial freedom, no matter how limited it was in the first place, is treating them as a lesser citizen through no fault of their own necessarily. Surely better to educate them to help them make better informed choices?

The problem comes, what is that standard level of life, what about people who are actively irresponsible (ie have lots of kids, as someone who has read about our population growth, I consider 3 to be lots) or those who just can't be bothered to work.

The fact is we do try to influence people, education by enforcement if you will, via pricing.

We tax all the good fun stuff really rather heavily, be it just VAT or duty. We try to encourage less of it. The problem is that a lot of people are bad with their money. But throwing more money at them makes it worse. I honestly think one of the biggest mistakes we have made is the idea that people who are state sponsored single parents, those who have never independently funded their own home, are given one completely self-contained one. Other countries often go for the idea of shared/sheltered accommodation in that circumstance, communal kitchens are a great way for people to come together, learn and save money.

Instead we have this idea of independence for people who are state supported, I have never been convinced that is a good idea for all cases.

[csgohan4]

The problem comes, what is that standard level of life, what about people who are actively irresponsible (ie have lots of kids, as someone who has read about our population growth, I consider 3 to be lots) or those who just can't be bothered to work.

The fact is we do try to influence people, education by enforcement if you will, via pricing.

We tax all the good fun stuff really rather heavily, be it just VAT or duty. We try to encourage less of it. The problem is that a lot of people are bad with their money. But throwing more money at them makes it worse. I honestly think one of the biggest mistakes we have made is the idea that people who are state sponsored single parents, those who have never independently funded their own home, are given one completely self-contained one. Other countries often go for the idea of shared/sheltered accommodation in that circumstance, communal kitchens are a great way for people to come together, learn and save money.

Instead we have this idea of independence for people who are state supported, I have never been convinced that is a good idea for all cases.

In some respects when you go on benefits you do lose your freedom for a certain lifestyle and have to be somewhat frugal in your spending, that is common sense and clearly people don't or rather fail to understand this.

If those who are using them for genuine reasons, then they won't be punished if the proper system/safeguard in place. I think having more than 3 children when your unemployed is taking Government for a free lunch don't you think?? I mean basic common sense, if you can't afford X,y,z what makes you think you can afford 3+ children while unemployed, it's a shame but the education system/ society has failed as a whole to promote self learning and becoming self reliant

[TheAnimus]

Having any child whilst not been in a financial responsible situation makes you utter scum in my mind. The family planning centre provides all manner of free help preventing this from happening.

The problem is that benefits fail as a safety net for the everyday working joe, until they've hit utter rock bottom. Go on a training course, benefits suspended need accommodation? Oh sorry you're a young single male with no dependants. Get a redundancy, so sorry, no tax reduction for you, that will be £1.8k council tax please. You've got £1,500 in savings, so you can't get JSA and you won't qualify for tax exemption. Good luck paying your rent/mortgage.

However they then provide a lifestyle far beyond basic essentials for those who are aligned to them.

This isn't fair, this isn't just, this isn't what benefits should be.

They either are a bare minimum, in which case it should apply more universally, worked for 3 years and made redundant, your JSA starts today, for 3 months, without any means testing, because you know, you've paid for it and more!

As it stands people who contribute nothing get the most benefit, we've seen a massive growth which isn't sustainable and we need to be honest about what we are not just able, but willing to spend. As it stands we are not able to spend what we do, I for one, don't want to see a reduction in education and consider health more important than Sky.

[csgohan4]

Having any child whilst not been in a financial responsible situation makes you utter scum in my mind. The family planning centre provides all manner of free help preventing this from happening.

The problem is that benefits fail as a safety net for the everyday working joe, until they've hit utter rock bottom. Go on a training course, benefits suspended need accommodation? Oh sorry you're a young single male with no dependants. Get a redundancy, so sorry, no tax reduction for you, that will be £1.8k council tax please. You've got £1,500 in savings, so you can't get JSA and you won't qualify for tax exemption. Good luck paying your rent/mortgage.

However they then provide a lifestyle far beyond basic essentials for those who are aligned to them.

This isn't fair, this isn't just, this isn't what benefits should be.

They either are a bare minimum, in which case it should apply more universally, worked for 3 years and made redundant, your JSA starts today, for 3 months, without any means testing, because you know, you've paid for it and more!

As it stands people who contribute nothing get the most benefit, we've seen a massive growth which isn't sustainable and we need to be honest about what we are not just able, but willing to spend. As it stands we are not able to spend what we do, I for one, don't want to see a reduction in education and consider health more important than Sky.

Clearly the benefits system is flawed for everyone from the those that deserve it to those that don't. The other problem is that of voters of political parties.

See labour condeming the changes so they get more votes. What ever a party does for the good of the country may not be popular and not get them votes, but what the masses want, they get generally as they vote party's in. Real shame and shows the extent of the selfishness of the voters.

As a famous President once said; 'Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country'

However in order for the above to apply, the Government needs to get their affairs and policies in order first before people starting take a more altruistic view of their government.

I think no one party is to blame but rather everyone has a hand in the continual errosion and decay of Country's policies and society here in the U.K. Often promoting policies which are not fit for purpose and showing disregard to the important opinions of it's own people.

[mcmiller]

Csoghan / TheAnimus neither of you have taken morality into account in any of your posts.

You talk a lot about meritocracy, capitalism (or whatever you prefer to call it) but what about people who's job were once important but now through now fault of their own society no longer needs them e.g. UK miners. It seems to be me that you would suggest that the reason they are no longer have job or a job which pays the same wage is their own fault. Or perhaps mothers, artists or religion which all get sidelined by meritocracy because they create no material wealth but still contribute to society.

[Saracen]

....


but to answer your question what are benefits for? I'd argue they are a recognition of our civilised values that every human has a right to live a certain standard of life and a recognition that they can still contribute to society by doing so. Now you can argue that being forced to only have essentials is enough for a civilised standard of life, or you can argue that actually having the freedom of choice - including the freedom to make bad decisions - is part of living a certain standard of life, and taking away someone's financial freedom, no matter how limited it was in the first place, is treating them as a lesser citizen through no fault of their own necessarily. Surely better to educate them to help them make better informed choices?

That's all very laudable, and admirable, and (in an entirely non-sarcastic way) liberal, and I agree, it's a great objective.

The problem is that by doing that to the extent that we do, and long have, when we are running a huge deficit economy, we are providing that great liberal-minded idealism and sticking the next generation or two with the bill for it.

If we were a filthy rich country, sitting on an ocean of oil, for instance, we could provide all sorts of lovely things, free at the point of delivery. But we aren't. As a country, we are a debt junkie, unable to see past the next fix.

It's like giving to charity. Me doing it is great, if I'm paying for it. Me doing it if I'm stesling from you to do it is nowhere near so admirable. And that, when we decide to provide more than a basic safety net, but instead, to provide a more generous standard of living, and "choice", is what we're doing. What we aren't doing is giving those that will be paying for it, i.e. future generations of taxpayers, any choice while we indulge in our liberal-minded welfare largesse, using their money.

If we could afford to be generous, great, go for it. But not by mortgaging the next generation's future to do it. We need to be doing everything we can to save money until we can get the economy sorted, and can actually afford to be so virtuous in our ambitions.

[TheAnimus]

Csoghan / TheAnimus neither of you have taken morality into account in any of your posts.

You talk a lot about meritocracy, capitalism (or whatever you prefer to call it) but what about people who's job were once important but now through now fault of their own society no longer needs them e.g. UK miners. It seems to be me that you would suggest that the reason they are no longer have job or a job which pays the same wage is their own fault. Or perhaps mothers, artists or religion which all get sidelined by meritocracy because they create no material wealth but still contribute to society.

There are at least two different issues there.

Morality. Which part do you mean? The difference between the rich and the poor? (Relative Poverty) The Obligation to help others in need? (Charity)

You then talk about people who society no longer needs, the tough fact of the matter is it is their responsibility, if not their fault. I remember fondly writing WIMP BASIC, it was obvious Acorn were in trouble and that it shouldn't be a path I focus on. If I had gone further into that dead end, it would be no one's fault but my own. It would not be remotely fair to say gimmie thousands of pounds, I should be living a lifestyle of a skilled software dev, but the industry doesn't respect it.

With the case of mining, I'm assuming your meaning coal mining? Whilst it is very sad that a lot of people who didn't vote for a union vs government war, were caught up in the midst of it, it is again their responsibility to be agile. If you have any kind of global free market, things are going to change radically. From a global perspective things have really only gotten better for the poorest in society so far this century, and for a large number of Chinese things are set to get better than I think anyone dared even imagine 30 years ago.

This brings up the morality question from a different angle. Is it morally acceptable for someone to be obstinate or maybe lacking drive. If someone was to demand the same continuous vocation, with no willingness to change or adapt to the demands of the rest of the world?

Coal mining was a great example of that failure too. Looking back with hindsight the behaviour of the protectionists was incredibly damaging, the subsidies were not sustainable and industrial action by a few wreaked havoc to many. The often proclaimed message of not one pit closure dragged down almost the entire industry, whilst providing inefficiencies for consumers of the products and secondaries. If you're trying to manufacture glass, it doesn't matter where the coal comes from, it doesn't matter if it's from 100 miles away or 3,000 miles away, what matters is the price of it. Efficiency allows for even more efficiency and so forth, after all you need to produce your glass at a lower price to be able to have a viable business.

The point I'm trying to draw out is that having a non-sustainable system actually hurts those who are told they will benefit from it the most in the long term.

Look at any silly government backed scheme which isn't based on a sustainable business model. I can't think of one that anyone would suggest has worked long term, but it is rather easy (too easy with hindsight I admit) to notice how areas that depended on subsidies have lost out, compared to those which had sustainable plans.

Imagine if people said we should subsidies Jessops or Woolworths! One is simply getting its arse kicked by Amazon & quality independants, the other, by Poundland and Tesco.

Or even HMV, which really lost out to the iTunes models which everyone uses, and supermarkets selling the limited range of the chart. I've yet to meet someone who thinks we should have acquiesced to all coal miner demands, but thinks we should have saved HMV!

Yet whilst we have sympathy for those who lost their jobs as a result of HMVs obsolescence in todays world. I would suggest that those workers have a moral obligation to learn a new role, rather than demand to sell DVDs and CDs.

This is why I think we should have low benefits, which are a safety net to all, start immediately depending on previous time worked, that are provided by a centralised weighted authority (so you qualify for a tax rebate immediately if you've been PAYE'd more than you will earn this year now, rather than wait potentially a year).

But more importantly, we need to ensure we have access to education, vocational training and such should be free at point of access for everyone of every age, just with some fees applied to things such as university degrees which are a bit less useful to the economy (which is fair enough, if its been 100% paid for by tax payer, it should be something that has a high probability of providing a return to the tax payer).

The difference is education, applied properly, provides a good return on investment. Giving people who are NEET an extra £5 a week, when the government is borrowing crazy money, does not.

The world is changing at a pace never seen before in history, no one is suggesting that the USA will be the dominant power anymore. The demands we as people make upon each other, that we make for lifestyle things are really changing http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?v...c=ch&c=vm&l=en

Video killed the Radio star...

[csgohan4]

Csoghan / TheAnimus neither of you have taken morality into account in any of your posts.

You talk a lot about meritocracy, capitalism (or whatever you prefer to call it) but what about people who's job were once important but now through now fault of their own society no longer needs them e.g. UK miners. It seems to be me that you would suggest that the reason they are no longer have job or a job which pays the same wage is their own fault. Or perhaps mothers, artists or religion which all get sidelined by meritocracy because they create no material wealth but still contribute to society.

My point isn't about issues with those that claim genuinely, my issue is those that don't use the benefits as intended and drag those that do with them. Hence a more controlled way to give out benefits would be better, than the current system. Of course the government will never have decent policies or rather common sense approach as they just go where the wind sails i.e where their voters want.

[Willzzz]

More importantly there should be a strong incentive to get off benefits.

[mcmiller]

There are at least two different issues there.

Morality. Which part do you mean? The difference between the rich and the poor? (Relative Poverty) The Obligation to help others in need? (Charity)

Both.

I dont see how the obligation to help others in need is charity they seem to be opposites.

You then talk about people who society no longer needs, the tough fact of the matter is it is their responsibility, if not their fault. I remember fondly writing WIMP BASIC, it was obvious Acorn were in trouble and that it shouldn't be a path I focus on. If I had gone further into that dead end, it would be no one's fault but my own. It would not be remotely fair to say gimmie thousands of pounds, I should be living a lifestyle of a skilled software dev, but the industry doesn't respect it.

It's arbituary when youre born and where etc... so is it still that persons fault when they die from starvation in Ethiopia or get caught up in a war or if they are born with a disability? Extreme examples but it follows this capitalist logic.

With the case of mining, I'm assuming your meaning coal mining? Whilst it is very sad that a lot of people who didn't vote for a union vs government war, were caught up in the midst of it, it is again their responsibility to be agile. If you have any kind of global free market, things are going to change radically. From a global perspective things have really only gotten better for the poorest in society so far this century, and for a large number of Chinese things are set to get better than I think anyone dared even imagine 30 years ago.

This brings up the morality question from a different angle. Is it morally acceptable for someone to be obstinate or maybe lacking drive. If someone was to demand the same continuous vocation, with no willingness to change or adapt to the demands of the rest of the world?

Coal mining was a great example of that failure too. Looking back with hindsight the behaviour of the protectionists was incredibly damaging, the subsidies were not sustainable and industrial action by a few wreaked havoc to many. The often proclaimed message of not one pit closure dragged down almost the entire industry, whilst providing inefficiencies for consumers of the products and secondaries. If you're trying to manufacture glass, it doesn't matter where the coal comes from, it doesn't matter if it's from 100 miles away or 3,000 miles away, what matters is the price of it. Efficiency allows for even more efficiency and so forth, after all you need to produce your glass at a lower price to be able to have a viable business.

The point I'm trying to draw out is that having a non-sustainable system actually hurts those who are told they will benefit from it the most in the long term.


Look at any silly government backed scheme which isn't based on a sustainable business model. I can't think of one that anyone would suggest has worked long term, but it is rather easy (too easy with hindsight I admit) to notice how areas that depended on subsidies have lost out, compared to those which had sustainable plans.

Imagine if people said we should subsidies Jessops or Woolworths! One is simply getting its arse kicked by Amazon & quality independants, the other, by Poundland and Tesco.

Or even HMV, which really lost out to the iTunes models which everyone uses, and supermarkets selling the limited range of the chart. I've yet to meet someone who thinks we should have acquiesced to all coal miner demands, but thinks we should have saved HMV!

Yet whilst we have sympathy for those who lost their jobs as a result of HMVs obsolescence in todays world. I would suggest that those workers have a moral obligation to learn a new role, rather than demand to sell DVDs and CDs.

This is why I think we should have low benefits, which are a safety net to all, start immediately depending on previous time worked, that are provided by a centralised weighted authority (so you qualify for a tax rebate immediately if you've been PAYE'd more than you will earn this year now, rather than wait potentially a year).

But more importantly, we need to ensure we have access to education, vocational training and such should be free at point of access for everyone of every age, just with some fees applied to things such as university degrees which are a bit less useful to the economy (which is fair enough, if its been 100% paid for by tax payer, it should be something that has a high probability of providing a return to the tax payer).

The difference is education, applied properly, provides a good return on investment. Giving people who are NEET an extra £5 a week, when the government is borrowing crazy money, does not.

The world is changing at a pace never seen before in history, no one is suggesting that the USA will be the dominant power anymore. The demands we as people make upon each other, that we make for lifestyle things are really changing http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?v...c=ch&c=vm&l=en

Video killed the Radio star...

I dont want to get involved with all the details of what happened with the miners it was first example that came to mind but when a person loses his job and cant achieve the same level of success as he had prior. Should those who are now successfull because societies needs have changed really turn a blind eye and say it's your own fault?

For the record im not defending people who's careers amount to watching TV all day. I am suggesting that there is simply more to this arguement than the just meritocracy ideology that youre talking about and has failed.

[mcmiller]

My point isn't about issues with those that claim genuinely, my issue is those that don't use the benefits as intended and drag those that do with them. Hence a more controlled way to give out benefits would be better, than the current system. Of course the government will never have decent policies or rather common sense approach as they just go where the wind sails i.e where their voters want.

OK this is a hypothetical question. How much should a person who was born disabled, he cant work but he still has a reasonable quality of life though, receive from the government?

[mcmiller]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...alz-review-scm

When companies use very aggressive techniques to not pay taxes have they fullfilled their moral obligation to contribute or do they not have one?

Companies using these techniques to not pay taxes could mean that I do not get the necessary healthcare I need when we I hospital.

[TheAnimus]

Both.

Ok, but they are both seperate issues, its not really fair to say "well if we aren't going to let people starve, we aren't going to let them make do with only a 32" HD TV either". I don't think it really does any good to try and drag the idea of having a system that supports the most vulnerable who are unable to support themselves, also be tasked with wealth redistribution.

It's arbituary when youre born and where etc... so is it still that persons fault when they die from starvation in Ethiopia or gets caught up in a war or if they are born with a disability? Extreme examples but it follows this capitalist logic.

Err, no, it doesn't follow anything I've heard of labelled as capitalist. In fact Ethiopia is a great example of something which is staunchly non-capitalist. For the sake of clarity I'm talk about free market economic principles of capitalism.

I dont want to get involved with all the details of what happened with the miners it was first example that came to mind but when a person loses his job and cant achieve the same level of success as he had prior. Should those who are now successfull because societies needs have changed really turn a blind eye and say it's your own fault?

I'm trying to see how what I'm writing here is different to what I wrote before.

If you don't adapt your skills to what people want and value, then you will not be rewarded. That is perfectly fair. Otherwise I'd be doing something I'd enjoy more, to the detriment of societies wishes, we probably all would (except a lucky few!).

For the record im not defending people who's careers amount to watching TV all day. I am suggesting that there is simply more to this arguement than the just meritocracy ideology that youre talking about and has failed.

I'm not 100% sure what you mean by your last few words, meritocracy ideology has failed? is that a fair interpretation?

In which case I'd say, no, it hasn't, a resounding no.

Can you point me to an example of a society based on an assessed need? All I can think of are:
China
Cuba
PolPol
USSR
Vietnam (in a very minor way)
Venezuela

Being the ones that jump to mind. They did succeed incredibly in having only a small gap between the rich and the poor, lets make that fairly clear. But if I could be poor/un-employed in England or any of them, I'd choose England in a heartbeat. Even with benefits cut by half.

The simple fact is that all of these countries do better with a meritocratic capitalist system, fewer people are starving, people have more free time, more modern conveniences and less state sponsored death.

The problem is people are lazy. This isn't something to be ashamed of, I'm a really lazy mofo, I'm so good at providing value to businesses because I'm so damned lazy I design a lazier way of doing things, which is more efficient. It is only the practical application of me that provides any value to society.

People who provide no value need to be encouraged to do so, it's not a case of throwing them on the scrap heap, in the example of miners I think there was a chronic government failure to provide any re-training. However given the behaviour of the unions and certain key people, insisting in an all or nothing strategy, they forced it upon everyone. Quite frankly it is in no way fair that a miner was having his lifestyle subsidised by the taxpayer and the energy consumer. The consequence of the change of lifestyle this has on the miner is completely inevitable. Feel free to show an example of a government subsidy on something which provides no long term return on investment has worked! I can't think of a single one, but can think of many, many failures. (Mining,Railway,ShipBuilding,Rover etc).

This is the thing, we can't simply subsidise everything, if someone doesn't make an effort to change with the demands of society, what right do they have to expect a high quality of life, paid for by society, when they contribute nothing society values?

It is cruel, but simple. If you aren't the most efficient and your in competition, you die.

To try and fight that is just pissing against the tide. To demand society to come and save you because you got swept away trying such an act is immoral.

[TheAnimus]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...alz-review-scm

When companies use very aggressive techniques to not pay taxes have they fullfilled their moral obligation to contribute or do they not have one?

Just FYI, the source you linked are a complete bunch of hypocrits on this matter.
(first hit on google on the matter, not read it yet, but seems to cover the point: http://autonomousmind.wordpress.com/...tax-avoidance/ )

Companies using these techniques to not pay taxes could mean that I do not get the necessary healthcare I need when we I hospital

When you see a company in the A&E of your local hospital you might be on to something.

Taxing a company, as I think I mentioned before in this thread, is a pointless thing unless the investors are outside your tax boundary. It makes more sense to tax individuals the same on say CGT as they are on Income.

However, the notion of taxing invisible things appeals to people who don't like to bother themselves with where the money originates in the first place. VAT is a much more progressive tax in a sense that is not applied on many essentials. Corporation tax is.

When was the last time you heard of a bread shortage in the UK? Compared to any planned economy. We don't have to go far back in Vietnams history for when they had state controlled farming, private landownership was illegal. They used to be a net importer of rice, with much starvation.

They relaxed the rules on private farms, small holdings at first. Taxing them based on the size and quality of the land. All of a sudden the farmers were yielding more from the same land, in the same kind of weather conditions. Afterall where is your motivation when you get no extra reward for working a 18 hour day of back breaking labour, over a 14 hour day. The fact that so many enterprising people, meritocratically adapted meant that within just a few years Vietnam went to a net exporter of foodstuffs. These changes became rolled up in Đổi Mới their change from state to personal responsibility.

It is worth noting that plenty of people did starve during the transition, they tried things which simply didn't work, there was a complete absence of insurance against natural disasters. I don't think anyone would say it was smooth or easy.

However, compared with the state run organisation of food distribution, it is much better for everyone as a whole, far, far fewer people are malnourished compared to the 80s.

So when someone is making a profit on something like that it isn't a bad thing at all. If I'm selling you a computer, that can do everything the one you nearly bought for £1000 does, but it costs you £500, it doesn't matter that I'm still making £450 on it, you're still better off. If I wasn't going to profit from it, I wouldn't be thinking of ways to save you the money.

This is why taxing a company can be strangely counter-intuitive, it takes away money that could be invested back into their enterprise, and under many situations (see previous examples in this thread of mine) it simply isn't practical.

Companies aren't real things, they don't have wealth, people do. Tax people.

But to use the whole "well we could afford xyz if BigCorp1 paid their taxes" is really stupid.

[sammyc]

The fact that he lacks any sympathy for people who are not him. The idea that birthright matters when comparing net drains.

Attitude is not an indicator of whether someone has suffered hardship.

Not all benefits, only certain ones which are related to disabilities.

Those are the appropriate benefits for someone who is disabled to claim...

First hand, direct experience. I only know of one disability claimant who doesn't have sky (they don't have a TV). This ranks up against over 20 who do. I'm not saying its all, but reviewing the needs and allocation of resources here is a good thing.

I'm not denying that it is a good thing, for a second. Your personal observations don't make for much of a statistical example however.

Except for the links to data, spending amounts, hell even graphics for people who aren't men of numbers to back up the assertion that care costs cannot continue to grow. The solution I have put forward is a reduction in the care bill by giving less benefits and trying to direct the limited money to people whose need is truly greatest.

That's still pretty unspecific as regards Mr Poorly. Reduce his benefit by a £%? Reduce the number of claimants?

However, realistically, I think we just need a sharp reduction in the care bill. That basically translates as "****ing over the sick". But the issue is, if we don't it would be a worse situation in the future. Borrowing money to provide help for economically inactive is not just wrong, its incredibly cruel to the future generations who pay it off.

The metaphor of host and parasite is incredibly apt from an economic point of view, I suggest if you find it distasteful to remind yourself exactly what they are contributing. Afterall we are talking about having to borrow money at great expense to keep the lifestyles of people who contribute nothing economically. It is not in the long-term parasitical interests to allow the host to weaken.

It might appear cruel to not dress it up with terms like "those most unfortunate" or "those in severe ill health", but that is less functionally descriptive of the problem.

I don't regard referring to those in severe ill health by such terms to be 'dressing it up'. It's a fairly down-to-earth straightforward statement, not exactly overly euphemistic is it? The objection to the parasitic metaphor is that it implies not only something that is non-contributory, but something that it would be desirable to be get rid of. Besides, it is unnecessary - the concept of 'those who need to take but cannot contribute' is easy enough to grasp without metaphor. By the non-contributory yardstick, that covers my neighbours wife, kids, pets and elderly father, but I've never felt the need to put 'Happy Xmas you parasitic old codger!' in his Christmas card.

JSA, social housing, etc.

A disabled claimant who had had benefits withdrawn would not be able to claim JSA, for the reasons previously stated. Aside of which, why not simply reduce disability benefits to the level of JSA?

However a lot of this is side issue. The point that needs addressing in relation to those genuinely incapacitated is that it is one thing to tell 100 claimants that we're sorry, we acknowledge your bona fides but benefits must be cut. It's quite another to unjustly find them fit for work.

[sammyc]

OK this is a hypothetical question. How much should a person who was born disabled, he cant work but he still has a reasonable quality of life though, receive from the government?

I'd also like to know this..