Child Benefits Again

The petition is entitled stop all tax credits and child benefit and make parents behave responsibly from the outset and the explanatory notes say

"Having children is entirely optional so there is no reason why anyone should choose to have a baby they are unable to support.

We ask the government to stop paying benefits and tax credits to parents and making all the responsible people who choose not to have children support all those who have them regardless of thier own ability to support the child.

Many of this countries problems would go away if people were more responsible about thier children (anti-social behaviour to name but one). So we ask you to make the parents think before producing babies they know they cannot afford.

If they are so irresponsible to have children when they cannot afford them, then why should the rest of us pay them to keep on doing it."

Yet another petitioner unable to think and unable to search. I covered this precise concept in Restricting Child Benefits. I suppose the petitioner could argue that she isn't duplicating that other petition, because after all she wants no one to get benefits, rather than allowing benefits for up to two children - but really, they're saying the same thing, and neither petitioner has used their brains in the least.

People like this make me cross.

Benefits for the Young

The petition is entitled Make Benefits Fairer to Young Single People and the explanatory notes say

"Stop unfairly favouring those with children in the benefits system. They choose to have children, and should not do so if they can't afford them. Stop increasing payments of benefits for 3rd and subsequent children. The world is overpopulated. Large families are a luxury, not a right. A woman with 5 children can get the equivalent of a £35,000 salary, when some single young people who work have to survive on £11,000 and repay student debts. Make rates of all benefits the same for those aged 18-24 as for over-25s; why is someone under 25 not entitled to the same standard of living? When calculating benefit entitlement, assume anyone over 18 does not wish to live with their parents - many young people can't afford to move out, and the state does not help them but happily saves on benefits at the expense of ordinary, hardworking parents. Introduce low-interest loans to assist young people on low incomes to pay for a deposit on accommodation."

For whom do you think child benefits are? Who is intended to benefit from these benefits? The key is in the name - the children.

I quite agree with the bit about those between 18 and 24 getting less benefit than over-25s, by the way - that's quite insane. And the "low-interest loans" to assist young people finding accommodation I'm ambivalent about.

But I really, really, really don't like the petitioner's assumption that innocent children should be penalised because their parents chose to have them ...

Benefits and the NHS

The petition is entitled make people pay a proportion of their benefits to the NHS and the explanatory notes say

"all people who are hard working tax payers have to pay for the NHS out of their wages, what about people who have never worked? They should have a reduction in their benefits and it SHOWN that the reduction is to pay for the NHS. There are many 16 year old mums who have never paid anything into the system who get the services of midwife, hospital for the birth etc etc .WHO DO THEY THINK PAYS FOR THIS SERVICE.If you are to reduce the benefit it may make them think twice if they can see that someone has to pay."

The fundamental problem with this bit of lunacy (aside from the usual problem that the petitioner has clearly never discussed being on benefits with anyone who's actually on them) is that, of course, benefits are carefully calculated (in theory at least) to be a small but possible amount on which to live. If one took some of it away to "pay for the NHS", one would need, to be just, to increase the benefits by the same amount ... In other words, you'd increase admin complications (which would cost money) without getting any back - and what evidence do we have that this would "make [anyone] think twice"? None. Think twice about what, for that matter. It's a bit blooming late for these hypothetical teenage mums to think twice, isn't it?

Immigrants' rights to benefits

The petition is entitled Before Imigrants are granted permission to Stay in the UK. They must prove that they are financially able to support them selves and any dependants for 12 months without having to rely on the State and the explanatory notes say

"Like many other western countries. Should Imigrants wish to move and live in the UK. They must be able to support them selves and their dependants for 12 motnhs without needing assistance from the state. This includes housing, transport and all other living expenses."

Has the petitioner done any research?

There's a nice little guide that the BBC provides explaining who is entitled to live in the UK.

• EU and EEA nationals from the pre-expansion EU must live in the UK supporting themselves and their dependants for six months before being entitled to benefits.
• Nationals from the new EU member states, in Eastern Europe, must live in the UK for two years before being entitled to benefits.
• Commonwealth citizens may claim benefits as soon as they arrive if they can prove they intend to make their permanent home in the UK.
• Spouses and under-18 dependent children of permanent UK residents (i.e. citizens and those entitled to live here permanently) may live here, and under some circumstances unmarried partners as well. Presumably they're entitled to benefits, but equally presumably their partner's income is taken into account.
• Widowed parents and elderly parents and grandparents of permanent residents may come to the UK providing they are not going to be dependent on the state.

That appears to be the sum total if people who can come to the UK and claim benefits, except for refugees/asylum seekers, to whom a whole different set of criteria apply.

So. What changes does the petitioner wish to see? An extension from six to twelve months that an EU national must be resident before being entitled to benefits, apparently. I'm sure that's going to have an enormous effect on everything ...

Benefit Claimants

The petition is entitled ensure stricter qualification criteria for people claiming benefits! and the explanatory notes say

"i feel that i, like the majority pay my dues to this country in terms of tax and insurance only to find the minority of this country being given free handouts. i feel that a lot of these people think "if this country is a soft touch then why should i work". this attitude to me is disgraceful and i would like to see greater checks and stricter criteria to those offered money, as it seems anyone with a good act of a limp will be signed off. i feel the truly genuine cases would not mind being quizzed or greater indepth checks conducted. we will see the response that this survey generates and hopefully save this countries nhs service and save millions if not billions in fraud. i have had enough of people coming into this country claiming millions in benefits, free housing, disability allowances, and what do we get...........nothing just higher taxes and 6 hour waiting times at hospitals."

I think the petitioner should go back to school and learn about how "I", when used as the first person nominative singular pronoun, is capitalised.

Going on from that, the petitioner - and all the other people posting similar petitions, of which there are many to which I may well come in due time - should do firstly some research to see how many people are claiming which benefits, and secondly, should talk to some people who are on benefits to find out just how few of them want to be or think it's a "soft touch".

I am sick far beyond the back teeth of idiots who have jumped on the bandwagon of benefit fraud without the least idea of what being on benefits is like or how many people are in the unpleasant position of needing to claim. Gaah!

Benefit Cheats

The petition is entitled set up a public website that names people (with their home addresses) who are claiming benefits and explains what they are claiming. (generic descriptions only, i.e. invalidity benefit etc.) Then if a neighbour suspects that they are claiming fraudulently they can report them to the appropriate authorities. The tax payer has a right to know where his money is going and we have to reduce the number of people in this country that have for generations, decided to live on benefits and exploit every possible loophole in the benefit system as a lifestyle choice rather than go out to work like the rest of us do and the explanatory notes say

"This could reduce the number of benefit cheats by half and perhaps we would not have to be so reliant on economic migrants to do the work "we don't want to do.""

Eeeeee, the civil liberties issues!!! The woolly liberal in me (most of me) is screaming wildly.

On the other hand, benefit cheats are the scum of humanity - I particularly take exception to people claiming disability/invalidity benefits unjustly. I knew a man once who claimed to have been incapacitated by organophosphate sheep dip. He limped around town, hanging on his wife's arm, or hobbled using a stick and told everyone how ill he was and how his life was blighted and so on. Then he strode out through his back garden and took his dogs on long walks, every day. I did report him. But as far as I know nothing's changed. Conversely, I had a housemate who was genuinely incapacitated by ME. Men like the cheat make her life harder, by making people mistrust all invalidity benefit claimants and by taking some of the money that could otherwise be being spent on genuine claimants. So they piss me off.

However, this isn't a solution. Quite aside from anything else, I'm having kittens at the thought of, say, battered wives being on this database and consequently their abusers being able to find them. (Sure, one could safeguard against it by theoretically ensuring that they were exceptions and not put on the website. But you can bet some would fall through the net accidentally and stuff. Argle.) It would be a logistical nightmare updating it and things. The privacy issues don't bear thinking about. We're forever being told about the risks of identity theft, and I can only think that this would increase the risks of that.

And moreover it's unnecessary legislation. If you suspect your neighbours are claiming benefits unjustly, you should report them. If it turns out they're not claiming benefits, well, OK, it's taken someone some time to check it out - but that's got to be less effort overall than this logistical nightmare of a proposition!

Restricting Child Benefits

The petition is entitled limit the payment of child related benefits to a maximum of two children per family on the basis that financial responsibility for children should rest with the parent and not the state and the explanatory notes say

"there should not be a financial incentive to have children .Obviosly this would not be a retrospective action but one designed to make people think twice about bringing children into the world when they have no means to support them financially."

The fundamental flaw about this proposition: for whose benefit is child benefit? The key is in the name - it is to benefit the child. This proposal would penalise the children; that cannot, by anyone's morals (well, almost anyone's morals) be right.

Quite aside from that, I'm not actually sure why we want to be stopping people from having more than two children. Is it on an environmental basis? I can see that argument - but there's no indication that that's what this petitioner is worried about. She seems to think that child benefit constitutes a financial incentive to have a child; Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs give the lie to that theory. For the eldest child, parents get £17.45 per week, or £17.55 if for a lone parent; for each additional child, £11.70 per week. That's a very maximum of £912.50 for a child ... I don't think, somehow, that anyone who can do basic arithmetic is going to have a child because the child benefit is going to make them financially better off.

Benefits for Immigrants

The petition is entitled Stop Giving Benefits To Immigrants Who Are Able To Work and the explanatory notes say

"I am sick of hearing about immigrants coming into my country illegally and then claiming benefits they should not be getting. Why should I work hard and pay ridiculous amounts of tax to fund their lives of luxury? It is about time the Government stopped wasting money on people who don't deserve it. If people want to come and live in our country they should have to work like we all do."

I'm sick of hearing this, too. Mostly because I don't believe for a minute the problem is the scourge people like the petitioner think it is, and I feel that refugees and other immigrants are given an appalling press by, well, the press.

But let's face it, I don't know that I know any more than the petitioner does - so, before I castigate him for his ignorance and bigotry, I did a spot of research.

Broadly, to be able to claim benefits, you have to have legitimately lived in the UK for at least six months under various things like being an EU or Commonwealth citizen, or the relative of a citizen. Or else you have to be an asylum seeker (gets very limited benefits) or a refugee. You can't just turn up and claim benefits, except in the latter case.

According to the BBC, 28,000 people applied for asylum in the UK in 2006. And more than 18,000 people whose applications had been turned down were deported. So that's around 10,000 extra people who are either still waiting for their cases to be heard, or have been granted refugee status. The latter are broadly entitled to everything that a British citizen is, including benefits, and employment. Which presumably means that if they're able to work but are claiming benefits, they'll be expected to seek work and be able to show that they're doing so. (Incidentally, these 10,000 people include children. Can't find figures for how many, though.)

Now, I cannot for the life of me find data on how many people in the UK actually subsist solely on "benefits". There are around 1,700,000 people classified as "unemployed", but other benefits claimants aren't, of course, in this figure. Still. Let's suppose for a moment that all 10,000 of those people who haven't been deported have in fact been granted refugee status, and that they're all adults who are capable of working, but none of them have got jobs, so they're all claiming Jobseekers' Allowance. That's an 0.6% increase on the unemployment figures. Less than the seasonal fluctuation figures. Tiny. A mind-bogglingly small number of people.

Actually, of course, it'll be a smaller number. Some of them will still be waiting for their status to be settled (which means they're on rather smaller benefits than something like Jobseekers' Allowance, and they're not allowed to work, and quite a bit of the benefit is in the form of vouchers. Not a luxurious lifestyle); some of them will be children, so not claiming benefits as such; some will actually be being supported by families or by the savings they've escaped with; some will be unable to work, or past retirement age.

In short, the petitioner (who signs himself "Mr England" - does anyone think he's given his own name there?) is sick of hearing about something that's not actually an issue. Is listening to the ranting of bigots and, instead of questioning it, is leaping into his own bigotry. It's really rather disgusting.

Scrapping Child Benefit

The petition is entitled scrap child benefit after the child is 5 years old when the mums go back to work and the explanatory notes say

"There is no need for tax payers to fork out for up to 16 years for other people's children when the mums can easily go back to work (at least part time depending on their situation) when the child starts school at the age of 5 unless they are still in education themselves."

With most of the loony petitions - see the one entitled "Corporal and Capital Punishment", for example - you can sort of see where they're coming from. Or one can say "Pah, someone's reading the Daily Mail too much!" But this ... I've heard of these anti-children people; certainly I know I've "met" some people online who think all children should be kept well away from them. But to go this far? Where are they coming from? What sort of society do they want to live in? One assumes the petitioner would also object to, oh, VAT not being charged on children's clothes, for example. It's just ... strange to the point of incomprehensible. To me, anyway.

Benefit Reforms

The petition is entitled Limit payable benefit to the equivalent of a 40 hour week at the current minimum wage, with NO other benefits in kind, such as council tax payments and free dental care or prescriptions to all but the elderly and disabled and the explanatory notes say

"The benefit system creates an unfair advantage to those who are currently unemployed. Many of those are unwilling to work, so after benefits are paid, the council tax is paid , rent is paid, dental care , health care, food tokens and all other benefits of one sort or another are paid, these people become far better off than others who are working and struggling to survive, having to pay ALL their own bills. The Government should also introduce a system of insurance for people to be included in their national insurance contribution, that guarantees a benefit on enforced redundancy at the equivalent of approximately 85 - 100% of the wage as paid at the time of redundancy, protecting people who have worked, but are unable to do so through no fault of their own."

One assumes that this petitioner has never so much as met an unemployed person, let alone taken the time or trouble to find out how much "benefits" (all the multifarious sorts) are actually worth. That is the only explanation for their ignorance.