Benefits Street

[kalniel]

There was an interesting comment on Radio 4's "Today" programme alleging that the Benefit's Street makers have selected material to show the community in as bad a light as possible, and ignoring that many living on "Benefits Street" are in full time regular employment.

5% (which I think was the figure - I wasn't listening all that hard this morning) isn't what I'd call many though. More concerning to me was the usual people being told one thing and the show being another. Hard to know who to believe when the statements from the residents flat out contradicted that of the producer - no evidence either way of what was actually said.

[herulach]

I think that there are certain things in life that, and I mean this in no disparaging way at all to anyone (I don’t even know the backgrounds of the people on here), you need to have walked, even a small bit, of a fairly similar path to fully appreciate what it is like for certain people, and appreciate the challenges they face. That is of course, just my opinion. The rebutting of everything is par for the course – evade, deflect, deny.

When I read some of the posts on this thread, It reminded me of a friend from work I used to have. Really nice guy, but silver spoon job. He would work with people from deprived areas, in between his holidays to exotic places, and then feel no sense of embarrassment in telling me ‘what these people need is…..’ usually, nay inevitably, followed by something that would have decreased their living standards, but would have been ‘for their own good’. It’s hard not to feel a small degree of sympathy with someone like that, when they are so removed from the realities of what they are talking about, no matter how frustrating they are.

And with that, and with the news that a working couple were allegedly 'cut' from the show, a show that I have no intention of watching, I think I will call it a day on this thread. What I will say is this – I have been appalled at the tone at how other human beings, who live lives that I imagine none of us would want to live, have been talked about on here. Forced contraception, people being evil for having children, prison for those that have children and can’t afford it and the general dehumanisation of a whole group of people….. if that tone was taken about a particular ethnic group, we would rightly be up in arms, but it seems to me that others feel, because they pay tax, that they can say what they like about the poor. It has been nothing short of disgraceful, if entirely predictable.

G8ina – apologies if I overstepped the mark at all.

One of the working couple in question was interviewed on the today program this morning together with the editor of the series, and apparently asked to be removed as they were benefits assessors.

I'd imagine that the majority of the people in this thread aren't against benefits on principle, just the specific implementations various governments have put together over time which misalign incentives. Child benefit is just the most controversial example.

Assume (again as I think most would agree) that having a child you can't afford to support is a bad thing, both for the child and for society as a whole. Given that and that benefits in general aren't a bad idea you have to decide how to set incentives in such a manner that people don't chose to have kids they can't afford (which is different than forbidding it entirely).

As the current system exists, a schoolleaver with minimal qualifications who was a rational economic actor (and female) would have a couple of kids and live in a council house. Their pay is better than someone on minimum wage, and they get all the free time they could want. Until those situation changes (and other less extreme analogues) people will accuse the system of not functioning correctly.

Do I think people who make that choice should be punished? Absolutely not, I think it should be a much less attractive option though. you can achieve that in a lot of ways though, not least through better education and improving the job market.

[OilSheikh]

Saw an article in Evening Standard yesterday. An Italian lady who used to be a waitress is squatting in an Art gallery. She has been here for only 2 months. And, she plans to apply for housing benefits when she gets her National Insurance no. She doesn't work. Her supposed partner works 55 hours a week and doesn't pay any taxes as he does cash jobs.

Nuf said.

[kalniel]

Saw an article in Evening Standard yesterday. An Italian lady who used to be a waitress is squatting in an Art gallery. She has been here for only 2 months. And, she plans to apply for housing benefits when she gets her National Insurance no. She doesn't work. Her supposed partner works 55 hours a week and doesn't pay any taxes as he does cash jobs.

Nuf said.

Yeah, reporting standards must have declined if they say he doesn't pay taxes due to cash jobs - you still pay taxes on cash jobs.

[OilSheikh]

Yeah, reporting standards must have declined if they say he doesn't pay taxes due to cash jobs - you still pay taxes on cash jobs.

As I recall he works as a builder. So, he gets ca$h after finishing his work. How is the taxman going to know about him ?

[peterb]

As I recall he works as a builder. So, he gets ca$h after finishing his work. How is the taxman going to know about him ?

Through the reports the employer makes to HMRC under the Construction Industry Scheme if he is in employment. If he is self employed, the situation is less clear, although the fact he is paid in cash does not necessarily take him outside PAYE.

However, this has little relevance to the original topic about he Channel 4 programme, "Benefits Street".

[g8ina]

and to be perfectly honest I think with over five pages we've done this to death....

I intend to lock it tomorrow morning, fair warning.