Jaywick - How did it get that bad?

^ the man has a good point ...

 

Going off on a tangent there, this isn't about those with special needs, but the bone idle sat on their backsides enjoying the trappings of life that most of us have worked very hard to achieve. I am grateful I was never brought up in such location but to say "I'd venture that if you were to consider the upbringing of each and every one of the people featured in the documentary, you would find a history of abuse, neglect, mental illness, addiction, impoverished childhood, lack of opportunity, care and stability". is just excusing them.

 

Didn't quite work for Hitler though...

I take your point and those of others regards opting to receive benefits despite the fact that they are capable of working, and I agree, it isn't fair that someone who works full time may have a smaller income than someone who plays the system, but you have to accept that in any state subsidized welfare programme there will be those who 'free load'...I don't condone it, but that's the rub. In addition, you can't look at this in isolation....the main business of government, amongst other things, is wealth redistribution, so it's valid to raise the issue of tax avoidance in the same debate...benefit dependency isn't the same as benefit fraud...both need to be tackled, but there's an even bigger elephant in the room that no one's looking at because we're all too busy hurling the remote at incendiary dross like 'Skint'

 

A reason becomes an excuse when questioned...

 

My point was more an attempt to illustrate the rationale underpinning the relative merits of charity...it's very easy to castigate someone portrayed in a poor light, but the people who edit these types of programmes rarely, if ever, depict the circumstances which contribute to their present state.

 

I'm not trying to change anyone's mind...just offering a different perpsective. At the risk of repeating myself, the govnt.'s job is to redistribute wealth. Revenue is collected through various levies and taxes and then redistributed, a proportion of which goes towards welfare payments. If corporations and others were compelled to pay ALL the legally requisite taxes, there would be substantially more revenue available for the government to spend on job creation, social housing and other necessities, such as tackling the causes of benefit dependency....Big Business is in it for one thing and one thing alone....profit. Watch these corporations feck off abroad when someone has the cohonies to close the loopholes riddling UK PLC.....

 

Erm, I only wanted to say I'd been there and it was beetroot.
Having read all of the above it essentially says......

OR

 

It is entirely valid to discuss tax evasion by the very wealthy at the same time as the type and amount of benefits paid to the poor. Government is tasked by us to redistribute the wealth of the country and both issues will have a financial impact on how they do it.
We need to find, not only an equitable financial solution but, more importantly we need a social solution which helps the unemployed out of their poverty trap and lead them to becoming a useful member of society.
Unfortunately many children in places like Jaywick are doomed to repeat the bad choices of their parents. We are in an excellent situation to exploit our independent currency and revitalise our manufacturing base which we will need to do if the Euro collapses. Greece, Ireland, Cyprus and Spain as well as Italy now are looking very fragile and as they are locked into the euro they will have great difficulty in servicing their loans.
If we, as a country, can step up to the plate we could take advantage of this and regenerate our economy.
With the right education and encouragement along with a reduction in benefit levels coupled with real trade training opportunities the sky's the limit. Maybe even a trade surplus.

 

Bob for PM!

 

Can't we send them to Australia ,again...?

 

.or

or switzerland?

 

My REAL point was how does it get like that, the TV program I had no knowledge of.
The place is Marmite, nothing that couldn't be dealt with by a few weeks work and let's face it there are plenty of people with bog all better to do.
Perhaps they can't organise themselves but surely the powers that be could help?
Anyhow, it's good to see a thread promoting some healthy debate without being locked.

 

'People are better off on benefits than working' is one of the most persistent myths about poverty in the UK. Chris Goulden explains why this simply isn't true - and why it misses the point anyway.

There were hints of this myth yesterday in response to the excellent Tonight programme on the working poor. While in some extreme cases, it may be true, the social security system, combined with National Minimum Wage policy, is designed specifically to make sure you get more money in a job than if you’re out of work. There seems to be inordinate public, political and media cynicism about this principle in practice. Let’s look at the figures:

If you are single person aged over 25 who is unlucky enough to lack a job, this is what you get each week (using JRF’s Minimum Income Calculator, which makes assumptions about rent and council tax, for someone living in social housing):

• Job Seeker’s Allowance £71.70;
• Housing Benefit £73.22 (enough to cover rent on your flat);
• Council Tax Support £13.24 (to cover most but not all of your Council Tax of £14.47 following localisation and a 10% cut);
• Total disposable income £70.47.

If you get a full-time job on the National Minimum Wage (£6.31 an hour) then you will:

• Earn £236.63 gross;
• Pay £11.12 in income tax and £10.52 National Insurance;
• Receive back £5.54 in Working Tax Credit (and you don’t even get that if you’re working only part-time);
• Get nothing in Housing Benefit & Council Tax Support as your earn too much to make you eligible;
• Leaving you with a total income of £132.84 (disposable income of £62.37 a week more than on the dole).

Now effectively this is £62 for 37.5 hours work, which may seem like it’s not worthwhile, especially when doing a low-paid job long-term is likely to be bad for yourmental and physical health. But it’s objectively not less money than you get on benefits (and unemployment is also bad for your health). What’s more, having to pay more than £20 a week to the Treasury and receive a fiver back in Tax Credits looks like an inefficient use of the State’s resources. The income tax figure has, in fact, dwindled and will do so further as the Coalition policy of raising the threshold to £10,000, and maybe beyond, plays out.

Fine, the cynics will say, but what about families with children? We know that they get loads of benefits. Looking at the figures, it’s again clear that financially they are better off in work. Here’s what a family of four gets when neither parent works:

• JSA £112.55;
• Child Benefit £33.70;
• Child Tax Credit £114.94;
• Housing Benefit £86.88 (for rent on a 3-bed terraced house);
• Council Tax Support £20.59 (of a bill of £22.50);
• Total disposable income £259.28.

If one of the parents gets a full-time job on NMW, they get:

• Gross earnings £236.63 (i.e. same as the single person);
• Therefore, same income tax (£11.12) and NI (£10.52);
• Considerably more Working Tax Credit £43.34;
• Retain their Child Benefit (£33.70) and Child Tax Credit (£114.94);
• Reduction in Housing Benefit as it’s tapered away somewhat to £31.64;
• With the same deal for Council Tax Support (to £3.59);
• Leaving a total disposable income of £332.82; an increase of £73.54 per week.

Lone parents also get a lot of financial support in work that would produce a similar result. The fact that you’re not better off on benefits doesn’t imply that working poverty is not a problem – both are still poverty but they are experienced differently with varying consequences. And many go from unemployment to low-paid work and back again, with 4.8 million different people claiming JSA in the last two years. The real issue is that households relying on either the national minimum wage or out-of-work benefits do not have a standard of living that is sufficient or acceptable in the UK today. There really is no need to set them against each other.

 

May I say that your post is obviously well researched and very good.
The problem is the persons mind set. They, the under class, we are talking about, really don't give a toss about anything. No aspirations, no motivation, no interest in their community, basically nothing. They are happy with their existence as long as they have beer, fags and TV. They supplement there income by stealing.
I've been in homes that were completely renovated by the council and within six months he are total .... holes. You could move them into a stately home and it would be a bomb site within months. Throwing money at them does not work. throwing resources such as social services, council, police, probation, drug workers has all had very limited success and costs a fortune which is not covered in your statistics.
They are happy, I just resent paying so much for it.
It is no doubt learnt behaviour over generations but how do you break the cycle? Remove babies from that environment at birth? Enforced sterilization?
Sorry bud I realistically can't see how it can be sorted.

 

Put four kids into the equation, add a "claimed" disability, add in extra JSA for two people, mobility allowances, prescription charges, grants and loans (that never get paid back).
Theoretical figures from studies may well be fine for demonstrating theories, I KNOW real people, in the real world who really do this and I couldn't give them a job and pay them enough to stop. FACT!

 

That's very much the real world for some people..
Who spend generations learning how to rip of the system..