[FredSpencer]

Flyer, get your flask and pack-up before you read this ..... you're going to need it.

Originally Posted by carlpenn

I read somewhere the annual Benefits bill is £91 bn Per Year.

Not even close. Your figure is less than half the total for last year. It would cover the pensions bill with a little left over or nearly the combined disability and low paid workers benefits.

I also read somewhere that there are 600,000 Motability Cars in the UK.

A quick check on wikipedia shows there being 600,000 Motability customers with 3 million cars having been supplied since the scheme started in 1978. The vehicles are mostly funded out of the Disability Living Allowance paid to disabled people but vehicles are only supplied for people who qualify at a higher level. Extra funds for more expensive vehicles/modifications are provided by charity grants and are means tested. They are not provided just because someone fancies a flash motor. The finance scheme is administered by 5 banks on a not for profit basis. Insurance is done by one company only as is breakdown cover.

The scheme provides reliable motoring to allow disabled people to get about for whatever reason. This might be purely for social or recreational purposes, but it also allows people to get to educational establishments or a place of employment.

Take into account the price range of these Cars - £8k to £20k - We can then look at an average price, so that would be £14k.

£14k x 600,000 Cars = £8400,000,000

Then after 3 Years these Cars are sold for a few Thousand (Less than half the value normally) which goes back to the Motability Scheme (From what I understand) - So technically all at a loss

You've come up with a very big figure there but haven't qualified it with a time period. One could be forgiven for thinking you mean that is the cost every year but that's simply not the case. Even at your higher figure of £20,000 per car it works out at only £1.2 billion per year.

That's still a large sum of money and some of it is, I'm sure, fiddled by those that shouldn't really qualify. However, there is no evidence that it is on a large scale and in the overall scheme of things even if there was no fiddling at all it wouldn't make a significant difference to the tax we pay.

---------------------------------

Then consider:

How much has the War in Iraq / Afghanistan cost the UK?

I doubt anyone can really give an accurate figure about these wars and it is cost that will continue to amass and which we will be paying for many years to come, one way or another. A complete subject on its own, really.

How many billions have we paid to the EU just for the privilige of being told how to run our Country?

Is that really all it boils down to? Have we not gained anything at all? Whether, when everything is taken into consideration, we have made a net gain or loss is open to debate. Equally, how much of a monetary value can be calculated for the gains and losses is open to debate. What is a certainty though is that we haven't just paid over X billions of pounds to the EU just to be told how to run our country. As with pretty much everything in life some things have been good and some others not. That would be the same if the EU had never existed as we would have had to find another way of getting on with other countries. We might have come up with a better way but we also might not.

How many billions have we funded in Aid, only to be used by Corrupt Gov't of that Country.

Whilst I hate seeing those who choose Benefits as a Lifestyle, I also hate seeing my hard earned Taxes being sent to places that shouldn't get it.........?

I give up. How many? Is it every penny we spend on foreign aid? If not, what percentage is it? Do you have any real idea, or do you just object to us spending any money at all in this way? Do you not think there can be any benefits for our country? Have you no compassion at all for people a lot worse off than we are?

Also, the Media have a great time working hand in hand with the Gov't slagging off Benefits Claimants, so we create a Social divide and all fall in love with Cameron the Benefits slasher, meanwhile Cameron is selling our Souls to the Highest bidders. We need to pay attention to what is going on behind the Scenes, not what the latest Gov't driven Media Frenzy is....

I agree with you completely on this bit ..... but it is exactly what some of your previous points seem to do in my view.

_____________________________


I've no doubt a lot of things could be done differently which would both be better and more cost effective. I would very much like that to happen. I fully accept we can't afford to do things the way we have.

I watched the 1949 benefits programs. Whilst the circumstances depicted were obviously contrived, they did give a good idea what it was like back then. It should also be remembered that the system was devised at a time of full employment so was bound to be a lot less expensive than now. In the early years we had such a labour shortage we encouraged immigration as well.

About the only thing that was universal back then was the health service. The range of medical treatments was a lot smaller then and people didn't live as long. There have been massive increases in treatments and people live a lot longer now. The NHS originally included social care for a lot of people as well, but that has become a costly entity in its own right.

Most benefits were dependent on having paid 'contributions' but, of course, it wasn't as simple as that even then. For instance, those that didn't qualify for unemployment benefit could get what was called National Assistance. So even then people who hadn't contributed could get benefits, albeit at a lesser rate.

Disabled people were assessed on their capabilities, not cast on the scrap heap and, as I've said before, businesses had to employ them if they could do an advertised job. There was a much greater hands-on involvement by Labour Exchange staff in getting people into jobs, both able-bodied and disabled (many will be pleased to know this included single mums too). That would be prohibitively expensive now if done for everyone but I think might reasonably be done for the younger unemployed. Physically going round to where they live to asses their circumstances and to check thy are doing what they are required to do to find a job is what happened then and could happen now.

Despite what anyone thinks I do believe people should be required to do things to help themselves. They were then and they should be now. I just temper this with the fact that the people now being stigmatised were put in the position they now hold, by and large, rather than just believe they all chose their way of life.

What some now would see as interference was actually genuine help then. People were expected and required to help themselves but were given real assistance. Not like the system now where hopeless people are shuffled around hopeless systems according to the latest half baked scheme someone has thought up.

Young people aren't as expensive to employ as older ones. Mention has been made of the minimum wage with no acknowledgement of the fact that it is different at different ages. It's my belief that the minimum wage is too low. I give you the fact that we spend close to £50 billion a year topping up wages for low paid working people. I fully accept that higher pay can price us out of markets but it is a simple fact that one way or another this cost has to be met. Whether or not it really needs to be as much as it is can be argued, but remember, even poor people spend money and much of our economy depends on what we spend. The measure of GDP includes this shuffling around of money in the economies of each country.

There is also the huge Elephant in the room that no-one is allowed to mention and remains pretty much untouchable - means testing. Accepting the fact that we can't afford to go on spending as we have been does, in my view, make means testing a necessity. The only argument I hear against it is that people who need the money very often wouldn't claim it to the detriment of their health and well-being. This is a valid point, but if we go back to 1949 systems we would 'interfere' in these peoples lives as well. There was an example of this with a pensioner in one of the programs and it was just as robust a system as it was for the unemployed. I would rather the state had a right and requirement to make sure everyone was alright rather than throw money at huge sections of the community, for whatever reason, whether they need it or not.

I'd be willing to bet (not something I do normally) that we could have a much better country that costs us much less if we lived on these lines. Self interest groups, whether these be employers, unions, ethnicity or gender based groups, along lines of class or heritage or any other basis that favours some over others and including the political parties shouldn't be accepted.

Some will, by now, have me down as a Communist but that's not the case. People should be allowed, encouraged and helped to do the best they can. They should be able to keep as much of what they earn as the country can afford, but the country is the People, in my view, and not just a plot of land where the resources, including people, can be exploited. If it's not right that people should be allowed to exploit the system to get something for nothing at the bottom of the pile it's equally right that people at the top shouldn't be allowed to exploit it to get more than they are entitled to.

I'm going to leave it at that for now because if Flyer hasn't nodded off he must be in danger of wetting himself.