Forums Forums National News Allotments Sell-Off

The very fact it's been in the can since the 16th century suggests to me no country, government or regime thinks it would work.
Human nature being what it is, the freeloaders would ruin any type of scheme like that. I'm repeating myself, it shouldn't be comfortable not working for a living, if you are able.
It's an age old problem, when Parish relief was introduced centuries ago, freeloaders ruined the concept for those who really needed it, that is why harsh workhouses were introduced, you had to be desperate to go in them, it deterred the scammers who seek an easy ride.
Like most ideas that seem to be beneficial, you won't get everybody on board pulling in the same direction.

Which creates the age old problem that the more socialist a state, the more authoritarian it has to be .... but then they get carried away with too much rule making and it ends up as police state with little freedom and rights which isn't in the spirit of socialism.

Communist countries are usually the opposite of communist (the same often goes for communes).

Socialism and inclusion can't go together, that's why we have prisons, if people want to damage society then they cannot be in that society and have to be removed.

I strongly disagree that people should be a slave to work, there should be a realistic minimum, it is ludicrous that people are forced to work more than they need to, the circa 40 hour working week is way beyond what is necessary in this day and age but is a system retained by the gentry to restrict freedom.

Until recently the DWP and HMRC counted 27 hours (iirc?) as full time, I think it has now gone up to 35 hours? Not too sure as I have no need kept up with the hidden rules and hoops to jump through.

Most freeloading is unsustainable without also committing crime, the actual amounts of freeloading are way overstated in the media. Ask anyone that has been in the benefits system in the last few decades, the system literally puts you through mental torture, if you weren't suffering from depression and anxiety before entering the system you soon will be. It is easier and less stressful to make money from crime than from the benefits system. Then there are numerous traps to fall into, if you take a low paid job, this can be a barrier to getting a job more suited to your qualifications, employers these days are suspicious of why you are cleaning toilets but are a qualified brain surgeon, yes there is a counter-argument but it doesn't make it the norm.

There isn't a system that works for everyone , never has been and never will be.
Those that favour a less hours working week, never favour a reduced pay. I've yet to come across a system that pays you more for doing less.

I've never been in the benefits system so I don't know what it's like and I don't think they are all scroungers but there must be some and why should society carry the some.

The biggest trials of 4 day working week without paycuts has been completed across a number of countries and the results where overwhelmingly positive with many companies maintaining it after the trials. https://www.zmescience.com/science/...h-no-pay-cut-and-the-results-were-great/

The few benefit scroungers cost the country very little, it has been shown that the amount spent chasing them down far exceeds the lost money. Also the cost of mistakes by DWP exceeds the the cost of the scroungers. The the number of rich that fiddle their accounts way way exceeds the cost of benefit scroungers. Where should our priorities be, attacking those who have little money even though they are fiddling the system or those that are fiddling the system with much larger amounts and can afford not to?

Our priorities should be tackling both.

That is a bit like treating a silent protestor the same as a bomb carrying terrorist.

Contradicting some of my previous statements which were based on the last time I looked at the figures well over a decade ago .....

Benefit Fraud (knowingly) is estimated at £7.8bn which is 2.8% of benefits which is inside the 3% accuracy required of financial errors (and hence why it is 2.8%, doing the cost effective minimum possible to meet the target).

The total cost of fraud in the UK is estimated at over £200bn from independent examiners. The Civil Service obfuscate their estimated figures, public sector fraud alone is around £50bn.

The total cost of tax fraud is a hard figure to produce, it depends what you call tax fraud*, the categorisation is how the Civil Service manage to down play it. The minimum figure is likely to be around £30bn, the likely figure is probably around £50bn, the highest figure is probably £120bn.

The operating cost of HMRC is about £4bn, the operating cost of DWP is about £8bn

* examples of fringe tax fraud:-
A career criminal not paying tax on things he steals and sells
A gambler whose profits are part of his routine income not paying tax
A recipient not paying duty/VAT on an item from abroad (eg through ebay) where the sender has fiddled the paperwork
Gifting more money than allowed without it appearing in probate (noting that discounting things to relatives or friends is a gift, this includes rent for Capital Gains Tax but not Inheritance Tax).
Arbitrary classification of aggressive tax avoidance.

No it's not, cheating is cheating and fraud is fraud, they should be addressed equally. If loopholes need closing then close them. Look at shoplifting, turn a blind eye and it increases, go easy on benefit cheats and it increases. Leave loopholes open and an accountant drives straight through them. Society benefits when you treat them all the same and clamp down on it, not treat it as one is worse than the other.

You would spend the same amount of money on detecting and prosecuting someone that drops a bit of paper and a an individual that is a triple murderer?

There are 22.6 million people receiving benefits, the average amount of fraud per claimant is £345 a year, less than half a butty a day but you want to check all claimants for fraud.

How can you investigate 22.6 million people? Its impractical and hugely expensive.

Yes, I agree with you that you need a deterrent but like speed limits, you accept a bit of flexibility, you don't routinely prosecute for 20.56 mph.

What is fraud is the number of people unknowingly or unwillingly under claiming benefits, despite the law saying they are entitled to those benefits. The executive does their very best to avoid paying out those entitlements. The state should be following up and helping those that appear to be under claiming, in many cases it is blatantly obvious, they can rattle off a list very easily.

The amount of unclaimed benefits is huge, estimated at £23bn for in-work benefits alone, then there are various other out of work benefits.

In the last 3 years I have enabled others to claim more than £100k in benefits they didn't believe they were entitled to, its not something I do a lot these days, that was less than 7 hours of my time and their time in total. The hardest part is convincing the individual they are entitled to something, they expect some indication from the state, its one hell of a kick and a relief seeing them going from total disbelief to joy.

I have seen people get fined for benefit fraud even though overall they were under claiming.

I've never been involved in industrial injury compensation but I have come across many people that didn't claim it despite being obviously entitled. They often go from "its too much effort to claim" to "its too late to claim now" after the impacts of the injury combined with age takes hold. A number of industrial injury compensations are administered by the state.

I think a lot of people would like a solution to shoplifting but other than investigating every person in the country, there is no legal solution. Just like there is no solution to incoming boats. However I'm sure the laws would change if the boats arrived in the super rich's lakes.