ATOS

[shetlandpeat]

The Conservatives voted down paying a living wage for staff and contractors. If folk were paid a reaonable wage they would not need to claim so many benefits. They also used a job evaluation process to cut pay and cut it further with T&C changes. Meanwhile they set up a private company to syphon tax monies for services. They make themselves directors. The chief exec is one too. If you check public records, you will find all the directors were paid collectively £11,000,000 last year and plan to do so again.

What the plan is is to set these cuts up and use fall guys. The Localism Act is a farce, especially as locals now have a lesser voice.

Hammering people will not save anything but seems to line the pockets of a few. Speaking to folk who will be hit by this sledgehammer is quite an eye opener and upsetting as there is little that can be done. The stress on folk is too much for some. It is a nasty policy to provide headlines that add a stigma to 99.5% of claimants. Where is the justification? Keep in mind though, It is all your fault according to the Localism Act as you had the power to address this.

[unlinkedstudent]

 

Just to pile on to Distortio's most excellent points above:

 

Why the hell should the poor have to pay for the mistakes of the rich?

 

It shouldn't be all about money. What about morals?

 

Bwh-ha-ha-ha!

 

How the hell can you bring up morals in this situation? Please tell me all about the morals of Starbucks, Google and Amazon. Tell me about the morals of Philip Green, Boots or Tesco, Cadbury, Walkers Crisps and Diageo

 

Tell me about the morals of George Osborne, whose first move as Chancellor was to cut taxes on the rich by 5%.

 

I think you need to develop some morals of your own, unlinked, instead of getting them, wholesale, from the Tory press.

 

Edit: A side order of empathy wouldn't go amiss, either.

 

That's fecking rich, suggesting I develop some morals of my own and suggesting a side order of empathy wouldn't go amiss. In case it hadn't escaped your notice, I live with someone who is housebound. I don't, incidentally, need to read newspapers to know that they are people fiddling the system and quite happily blatantly doing so. I don't need to read newspapers to know that there are people who deserve more money to help them live day-to-day with their disabilities. I don't need to read some press report to know that systems are far from perfect.

 

I raise points so you just seem content to take the piss out of them instead of actually attempting to put forward an intelligent suggestion as to what you would do concerning the welfare benefits system and/or the replacement of ATOS. Is it a case that you can't and would rather take the piss out of me instead? Oh wait no, ALL of GB's problems must be the fault of the rich, is that it then? All of GB's problems are the fault of the current Government then?

 

So blame the rich and current Government for everything because after all, there can't surely be other factors involved, now can there?

 

@Distortio - you appear to accuse me of saying you've said things when you haven't - touche, how about you stop saying I've said stuff I haven't either? Edit: Comments are for discussion and not necessarily in direct response to your posts. And yes, I agree with you; some people (not all) on low wages do claim Housing Benefit, tax credits, etc.

 

Oh, and I've worked in the square mile. Never saw any cocaine. Never saw any fast cars. Did see caviar at a lunch once. I did, however, see plenty of hardworking people, many of whom didn't and never have received great big fat bonuses working from 7am to 6pm without taking lunch breaks. I most certainly won't tarnish all those claiming benefits with the same brush, perhaps others might care to realise that not everyone working in the finance sector earn mega bucks and many are quite ordinary working class people.

[ArabiaTerra]

I raise points so you just seem content to take the piss out of them instead of actually attempting to put forward an intelligent suggestion as to what you would do concerning the welfare benefits system and/or the replacement of ATOS

 

Ok, then. Here's my suggestion for dealing with the "problem" with the benefits system:

 

Leave the system alone.

 

The previous system had problems with fraud, sure, but no more than any other complicated bureaucratic system. Compared to the problems with corporate tax dodging and the tax dodging of the oligarchs, it is trivial, a drop in the ocean.

 

Yet instead of concentrating your ire where it should be, you have bought into the Government propaganda that it is some massive problem that is bleeding the country dry. This is not true.

 

It's just the usual government smoke and mirrors to divert attention from the real problem which is the rich who are robbing us blind.

 

That's fecking rich, suggesting I develop some morals of my own and suggesting a side order of empathy wouldn't go amiss.

 

Ok, so I went a little overboard there, I apologise.

 

I just get so angry and frustrated when I see otherwise intelligent people falling for this crap. The rich caused the problem. The rich are the problem. But they also own the government, or at least, the Tory party.

Please don't let them fool you as they have so many others.

[ArabiaTerra]

Also, unlinked, on the subject of what's morally correct in the benefits system (seeing as you brought it up):

 

Should you police the system so vigorously that for every benefit scrounger you catch, you also deny benefits to 1 genuine claimant? 5 genuine claimants? 10 genuine claimants?

 

Or should you accept that there will always be fraud and concentrate on making sure genuine claimants get what they are entitled to.

 

And according to the figures Distortio posted above, ten times as much benefits are unclaimed than are fraudulently claimed. Surely a moral system would insist that ten times as much be spent making sure those entitled to benefits received those benefits, than was spent pursuing the frauds.

 

There are many things you can say about the ConDem benefit reforms, but that they are moral is not one of them.

[Ghostrider]

The UK is bankrupt, financially, morally and ethically, and has been for a very long time, under all the parties. The implosion will come, its only a matter of how long the papering over the cracks that has gone on for decades manages to forestall it.

 

As regards unclaimed benefits, firstly one would wonder how they know an even approx ballpark figure, after all if someone isn't claiming, how can they tell they're there, and even if they were to claim, that their claim would be successful.

 

That said, it comes as no surprise that there are a number who don't claim. Perhaps some do so through ignorance or misinformation, in which case, certainly more needs done to reach out and advise them. However I would venture that for a proportion it is out of choice. Having reviewed current claim forms for some benefits, I have come to the conclusion that there is no way to complete them and claim that does not involve the claimant giving up their self-respect, dignity and privacy in the process. Disability claim forms especially, also have the added humiliation and stress of being required to act like an inept performing chimp and attempt to undertake set test routines to prove your (in)capabilities, which is about the last things any genuinely disabled person needs to have to deal with, on top of getting through each and every day with their disability constantly dragging them down.

 

The Goverment need and want to trim the welfare bill, that much is clear, as is the fact that they're more bothered about trimming the bottom line, than how that trimming is achieved. The amount unclaimed will continue to grow as long as the current convoulted, invasive and ludicrous claim forms remain in place, especially where disability claims are concerned. More and more people will come to realise that the work, hassle and stress of going through with a claim is nowhere near worth the pittance of crumbs paid out at the end of it all, and will come to the conclusion that any other way of raising enough cash to get by on, whatever that may be and even if it means living on less than benefits would be, is preferable to having to jump through their hoops whenever they feel like it, having them breathing down you neck constantly, and having to know everything about you inside and out.

 

It will make sod all difference to fraudlent claimants, regardless of what obstacles are put in their way, your average cheat has a work round planned out and memorised before a change in claiming conditions have come in to effect.

 

Certainly the current claiming system will achieve the Government's goal of trimming the bottom line for welfare costs, but it runs a real risk of creating numeorus beggars, low level criminals and a whole new slew of benefit cheats, those so pissed off with being messed around by the current benefit system that they say, "F*** It, if they're going to be asses about it, may as well screw them for everything we can, in any way we can....".

[Distortio]

In case it hadn't escaped your notice, I live with someone who is housebound... I don't need to read newspapers to know that there are people who deserve more money to help them live day-to-day with their disabilities.

 

it had. but this makes your stance all the more baffling. i'm sure you won't be quite so enthusiastic about these reforms when ATOS decides your housebound friend is fit for work and sends them off to some 6 month unpaid work placement with the threat of removal of benefits if they don't comply. and presumably you also won't need to read a newspaper to know this attack on the poor and infirm is exactly the sort of thing your beloved ConDemNation thinks is needed to help fix the economy because, after all, we are all in this together somehow, eh?

 

So blame the rich and current Government for everything because after all, there can't surely be other factors involved, now can there?

 

can you say what other factors you think have facilitated this drastic redistribution of wealth from bottom to top?

 

@Distortio - you appear to accuse me of saying you've said things when you haven't - touche, how about you stop saying I've said stuff I haven't either?

 

did i? didn't think i did. sorry, what do you think i said you'd said that you didn't say?

 

And yes, I agree with you; some people (not all) on low wages do claim Housing Benefit, tax credits, etc.

 

thanks, but that's not really an opinion to agree or disagree with depending on your beliefs, it's a fact.

 

Oh, and I've worked in the square mile. Never saw any cocaine. Never saw any fast cars. Did see caviar at a lunch once. I did, however, see plenty of hardworking people, many of whom didn't and never have received great big fat bonuses working from 7am to 6pm without taking lunch breaks. I most certainly won't tarnish all those claiming benefits with the same brush, perhaps others might care to realise that not everyone working in the finance sector earn mega bucks and many are quite ordinary working class people.

 

well, they're obviously not the people at the top then, are they?

[unlinkedstudent]

No one has actually defined "rich".

 

Reference has been made to various large companies. It isn't the fault of the companies that loop holes exist. Do any of us completing our tax returns ensure we use every single loop hole available to us/claim every allowance we can?

 

Reference has also been made to a living wage. How many companies leave GB and employ folks abroad? Dyson left the UK, didn't they, because it was too expensive to produce here and the incentives to set up shop abroad were more favourable than remaining here.

 

So what would happen if all companies followed Dyson's stance? Those companies do pay tax; you might not be happy that, in your opinion, they don't pay enough but they do also provide jobs.

 

Not happy with the profits they make? Nothing is stopping you from saving up and buying shares in profitable companies (or perhaps on principle you wouldn't).

 

How is the welfare benefit system to be funded if companies and other individuals didn't make a profit and, in turn, pay taxes?

[Distortio]

As regards unclaimed benefits, firstly one would wonder how they know an even approx ballpark figure, after all if someone isn't claiming, how can they tell they're there, and even if they were to claim, that their claim would be successful.

 

in this information age it can't be too hard to arrive at a figure. i'm no statistician, but maybe census data, NI contributions, tax returns, whatever data they use to publish the number of people living in poverty, number of people out of work/in low paid jobs etc could give some indication? actually, there's probably a whole department dedicated to it. bureaucracy has at least made lots (and lots and lots) of information available. or if say 99% of the wealth is owned by the top 2% of people or whatever it is, just divide the remaining 1% of GDP by the population and there you have it!

 

anyway the figures come from the DWP so it's not like they have any reason to overestimate it. if anything it's probably much higher.

 

The Goverment need and want to trim the welfare bill, that much is clear, as is the fact that they're more bothered about trimming the bottom line, than how that trimming is achieved.

 

want to, definitely. need to? no. savings could doubtless be made, but creating financial incentives to private firms to harass people off benefits doesn't seem to be the way to go.

 

The amount unclaimed will continue to grow as long as the current convoulted, invasive and ludicrous claim forms remain in place...

 

i'd have thought it would decrease as more and more people are forced into poverty and have to claim despite their previous reluctance. but of course then they'll end up in the workfare scheme providing free labour for tesco, so it's pretty grim either way.

 

totally agree with the rest of your post.

[Gibber]

I'm no statistician,

 

Since when!?

[Distortio]

No one has actually defined "rich".

 

dictionary probably had a go.

 

Reference has been made to various large companies. It isn't the fault of the companies that loop holes exist. Do any of us completing our tax returns ensure we use every single loop hole available to us/claim every allowance we can?

 

no, most of us can't afford an army of high-flying accountants to figure all that out.

 

Reference has also been made to a living wage. How many companies leave GB and employ folks abroad? Dyson left the UK, didn't they, because it was too expensive to produce here and the incentives to set up shop abroad were more favourable than remaining here.

 

So what would happen if all companies followed Dyson's stance? Those companies do pay tax; you might not be happy that, in your opinion, they don't pay enough but they do also provide jobs.

 

yeah, lots of companies outsource the work to countries where they can pay their workers less. do you think it's fair that the poor should take the hit in order to bribe companies to stay in the uk? it's a balance that all too often falls on the side of big business. and when workfare is rolled out and we're all providing free labour to companies will you still be saying it's worth the sacrifice to keep poundland in the uk?

 

some do pay tax. as we've all heard recently, many don't. and increasingly we will find the jobs they provide being filled by unpaid labour. makes good business sense after all.

 

Not happy with the profits they make? Nothing is stopping you from saving up and buying shares in profitable companies (or perhaps on principle you wouldn't).

 

yeah, tried that... it didn't work out.

 

How is the welfare benefit system to be funded if companies and other individuals didn't make a profit and, in turn, pay taxes?

 

or to put it in tory terms: why bother to fund the welfare state at all when we can actually profit from the poor and sick?

 

 

having to spell it all out like this is making me sound like the 1970's, i'm off to bed.

[Distortio]

I'm no statistician,

 

Since when!?

 

since 2.45pm on the 19th october 2006.

 

it was a thursday.

 

then again briefly between the 4th august and the 26th september 2008. both 6.00pm on tuesday and sunday respectively.

[ArabiaTerra]

No one has actually defined "rich".

 

Reference has been made to various large companies. It isn't the fault of the companies that loop holes exist. Do any of us completing our tax returns ensure we use every single loop hole available to us/claim every allowance we can?

 

So why do these companies spend millions lobbying the government about the tax code? Why do these companies buy a broom cupboard in Geneva, screw a brass nameplate to the door and call themselves Swiss? Fair enough, you could say it's the governments fault for allowing these things to go on, but when it's the corporations and the rich who provide the bulk of political parties funding, who do you think will be calling the tune?

 

The system is corrupt, from top to bottom.

 

Reference has also been made to a living wage. How many companies leave GB and employ folks abroad? Dyson left the UK, didn't they, because it was too expensive to produce here and the incentives to set up shop abroad were more favourable than remaining here.

 

So what would happen if all companies followed Dyson's stance? Those companies do pay tax; you might not be happy that, in your opinion, they don't pay enough but they do also provide jobs.

 

Actually, Dyson left because they couldn't get planning permission to extend their factory (thank you, nimby's) and a new one in Malaysia was cheaper than building a whole new one here.

 

On the subject of offshoring in general, it's a difficult problem as long as there are third world hell-holes where international corporations can get away with sweat-shop conditions and slave wages. One solution would be import taxes to equalise the price between imports and domestic production, but that would just mean they re-located to inside the EU where we couldn't levy such taxes. That's the way the deck is stacked and that's what the whole globalisation thing is all about. Why do you think all the corporations are pushing so hard to lower trade barriers all the time?

 

The system is corrupt, from top to bottom.

 

Not happy with the profits they make? Nothing is stopping you from saving up and buying shares in profitable companies (or perhaps on principle you wouldn't).

 

How do you buy shares when you have no money because you have no job because some corporate pond-scum has off-shored your job so he can buy himself a second yacht?

 

The system is corrupt, from top to bottom.

 

How is the welfare benefit system to be funded if companies and other individuals didn't make a profit and, in turn, pay taxes?

 

Who said anything about stopping companies from making a profit? These companies would still be profitable even if they paid their taxes. And if they aren't, then they are parasites and shouldn't be operating in the first place.

 

The thing is, the whole global economy is seriously flawed. The idea that there can be infinite growth on a finite planet is pure insanity, yet that's the system we are now in. Capitalism is the best system we have ever tried for generating wealth and technological progress, but it has been hijacked by the super rich. The difference between the rich and the rest, even here in the industrialised west, is approaching levels not seen anywhere since before the French Revolution, and we all know how that ended.

 

We need comprehensive reform from top to bottom.

[ArabiaTerra]

The UK is bankrupt, financially, morally and ethically, and has been for a very long time, under all the parties. The implosion will come, its only a matter of how long the papering over the cracks that has gone on for decades manages to forestall it.

 

Actually, we're not bankrupt, at least not financially. The debt is a lie.

 

As a proportion of GDP, Britain’s national debt has been higher than it is now for 200 of the past 250 years

 

 

 

As regards unclaimed benefits, firstly one would wonder how they know an even approx ballpark figure, after all if someone isn't claiming, how can they tell they're there, and even if they were to claim, that their claim would be successful.

 

That said, it comes as no surprise that there are a number who don't claim. Perhaps some do so through ignorance or misinformation, in which case, certainly more needs done to reach out and advise them. However I would venture that for a proportion it is out of choice. Having reviewed current claim forms for some benefits, I have come to the conclusion that there is no way to complete them and claim that does not involve the claimant giving up their self-respect, dignity and privacy in the process. Disability claim forms especially, also have the added humiliation and stress of being required to act like an inept performing chimp and attempt to undertake set test routines to prove your (in)capabilities, which is about the last things any genuinely disabled person needs to have to deal with, on top of getting through each and every day with their disability constantly dragging them down.

 

The Goverment need and want to trim the welfare bill, that much is clear, as is the fact that they're more bothered about trimming the bottom line, than how that trimming is achieved. The amount unclaimed will continue to grow as long as the current convoulted, invasive and ludicrous claim forms remain in place, especially where disability claims are concerned. More and more people will come to realise that the work, hassle and stress of going through with a claim is nowhere near worth the pittance of crumbs paid out at the end of it all, and will come to the conclusion that any other way of raising enough cash to get by on, whatever that may be and even if it means living on less than benefits would be, is preferable to having to jump through their hoops whenever they feel like it, having them breathing down you neck constantly, and having to know everything about you inside and out.

 

It will make sod all difference to fraudlent claimants, regardless of what obstacles are put in their way, your average cheat has a work round planned out and memorised before a change in claiming conditions have come in to effect.

 

Certainly the current claiming system will achieve the Government's goal of trimming the bottom line for welfare costs, but it runs a real risk of creating numeorus beggars, low level criminals and a whole new slew of benefit cheats, those so pissed off with being messed around by the current benefit system that they say, "F*** It, if they're going to be asses about it, may as well screw them for everything we can, in any way we can....".

 

Apart from disagreeing about whether the government needs to cut the welfare bill, I agree with everything you say here.

 

I've been a victim of the benefits system too and anyone who thinks it's a picnic or an easy life hasn't got a pink clue what they're talking about. Nobody chooses to be on benefits when there are reasonable alternatives available such as decent jobs which pay a living wage.

 

But that's the crux of the matter: A living wage. When the only alternative you've got available is 50-60 hours a week at minimum wage which after rent, bills etc leaves you only a few pounds better off, if at all then can you blame people for playing the system? I don't.

[go.oot.by.dog]

ATOS declare Richard III fit for work

 

 

A severely disabled Leicester King faces having to find work after being declared fit to work by French firm ATOS Healthcare despite being registered dead and suffering severe 550-year-old sword wounds to the head.

 

The dead monarch, Richard Plantagenet, was called for a reassessment of his fitness for work by ATOS – which carries out disability assessments on behalf of the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) - after it was discovered the deposed King had spent years lying around a Leicester City Council car park doing absolutely nothing.

 

As a result of the reassessment by ATOS, the last royal descendant of the House of York was shocked to receive a letter this week telling him he had been given a score of zero in all criteria, which means he is considered to be fit to work.

The letter from the DWP states it considers Mr Plantagenet’s lack of eyes doesn’t prevent him from “finding his way around familiar and unfamiliar places†and the fact he is bereft of life does not mean his “capability for work is limited.â€

 

However, the deceased king has questioned the disability assessment, claiming he has been registered dead since he was killed and crudely buried by his successor Henry VII during the Battle of Bosworth in 1485.

[shetlandpeat]

http://diaryofabenefitscrounger.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/david-1-goliath-0.html