| Author | Message | ||
| Anon Guest |
GUERNSEY Press 24 June: ‘Giving people too much support does nobody any favours – least of all the taxpayers.’ I agree totally with Mr Burford’s views on the unmarried mothers who deliberately get pregnant so that they do not have to work and are given baby equipment, a States house and money/benefits as a result. A lot of youngsters have no idea of moral standards and self-respect because they are not taught this at school nor by their parents. We saved to get a mortgage when we got married and I worked full time for five years before having my first child. The likes of us are paying taxes to give to these irresponsible people. These days, there is too much state sympathy for the unmarried mother who surely, after having the first child, has learnt all about contraception. Have we not seen in the UK that lazy people would rather live on benefits than work? People were too proud to ask for help in years past. As Mr Burford says, ‘Excessive social support just exacerbates the position and makes more people irresponsible.’ Name and address withheld. | ||
| John Burford Guest |
FURTHER to my letter published in the Guernsey Press on 24 June. Apart from several phone calls expressing concern about the growth of state- funded single households citing examples, I am enclosing a copy of an unsigned letter, together with two reports from the Guernsey Press, which spells out the obvious concern about the present state of affairs. I can understand their fear of having their names published if they live near recipients of States largesse. JOHN BURFORD ‘I COULD not agree more, John, with your letter to the Guernsey Press on 24 June 2010. These women get all the expensive sex education, trouble is they are not interested as what they need is moral guidance, but there is none of that it seems coming from their families. There are many gymslip mothers still walking along the front. They are so proud with the States providing and they also get money from the fathers too. These young women seem to attract another unsuspecting male who is targeted to become the next daddy. The States do know all this but do nothing. The days when it was the unfortunate girl who got pregnant have well gone as it is a fashion I think. The States should be firm with these women and not give them houses, flats etc. They should make them live in a hostel for single mothers and I am sure they would be careful not to have number two or number three babies just for the sake of more benefits or housing. There are plenty of homes in Guernsey, there is enough to go around and if Mr Jones would do the honest thing, he should and not give homes to these single mothers who do get pregnant for the purpose of a house. One only has to look back to the days when it was not so easy to get a States house and if most did, it was only meant for a short time and then buy a house. Single, unmarried women then would not boast of being pregnant, as then it was a mistake, nothing to shout about and if they did keep the child, they would certainly not go on to make the same mistake with another pregnancy. I hope through your letter many people will contact the deputies about this subject, as now it’s a joke. These women are causing the funds of our pensions to depreciate. I know some people may argue these facts that it is to make pensions easier by making everyone (even dependant, married women) get a pension at age 65 after 2014, for some who have been married for a long time being a home-maker and looking forward to quality time with the husband when he is 65, to myself unfair. None of my family have ever claimed a penny from the States. Even when our children were born we didn’t get the large sums of family allowance that is given today for the first child and some of our family members, male and female, have died around 50 years of age. I don’t think it would be much of an incentive to married couples having an enjoyable retirement if not a poorer situation if the wife is a few years younger than husband. I hope Mr Dorey will offer some allowance for married couples when the wife is a few years younger as an incentive to marriage, say if one was married 10 years or more, just in case he was worried that maybe one of these single mothers with children from one, two or three men do think of another way of not going out to work after the children have left and attract a male more nearer pensionable age. It is possible, but all in all, for myself, we have done all the right things and saved but the savings will now be used for the years that we have now lost the married dependant allowance and not have these savings for the quality time we had been saving for. I hope couples like us will realise what has been changed within the new pension arrangements and what the real impact on married couples is going to be, as most of my friends are not aware and cannot save just yet because paying off the mortgage before 65 years comes first. I don’t understand how Guernsey laws and changes in many things seem to be in line all of a sudden with the UK. It used to be a slower pace of life in Guernsey and we would be years behind the UK. Our old Normandy laws are being disposed of etc. but we could learn a lot of the French laws. Look at how they have protested lately for putting the pensionable age up to 62. I wonder if the French men would be cross if when they retired and the wife was younger, then she goes out to work and he can do the chores the wife did. I would like to hear about that situation. Never mind, this is Guernsey and I hope there are some younger politicians about to come into the States one day to undo a lot of wrongs of deputies and ministers before. We could do with some revolution to hopefully not become an island bankrupt with more single mothers with unruly offspring getting all the funds before pensioners, who have worked and saved for little extras yet are having to use their savings for supplementing pensionable income. The system clearly favours unmarried, single mothers with offspring. The future of marriage and the family unit does not look fashionable if your next-door neighbour is getting a better life on benefits while your taxes pay for it. It is so very true. Hopefully, Mr Dorey will take notice, also Mr Jones before another Bouet area happens in the new estates being built, again more taxpayers’ money. P.S. Enclosed is a clipping from the Guernsey Press of a person ignorant of the system. There was a similar one last week. Mr Dorey should offer a freephone number to help combat these cases as is done in the UK then the taxpayer may feel justice if more of these claimants are caught for being ignorant of the system.’ | ||
| Rob Gray Guest |
Your correspondent refers, I believe, to the provisions of the income tax law under which persons who lived and worked in Guernsey for less than a full year may be able to claim a repayment of all, or part, of the tax they paid in the island, through what was known as “proportional relief”. This relief was repealed with effect from 1 January 2010. An extract from the States report that dealt with the matter is reproduced below: 2.11.4. The cost of giving proportional relief is in the region of £855,000 annually and there are also considerable administrative resources used in dealing with such claims in the Income Tax office. This is particularly so in the case of seasonal workers, because of the need to contact the taxpayer, usually after they have left the island, in order to obtain evidence of overseas income. 2.11.5. In addition, compliance checks can also be difficult because of the problems associated with establishing details of overseas sources of income, such as where an individual has been employed overseas, and these problems are exacerbated when dealing with cases where the individual has left Guernsey and contact is difficult. Through such compliance work, a number of declarations made that overseas income was ‘nil’ have been found, on examination, to be false. 2.11.6. The department therefore proposes that the provision enabling claims to proportional relief be removed, with the result that income tax allowances would be given purely on the basis of the number of weeks spent in Guernsey (in other words, on the basis of the initial ETI Coding Notice given to seasonal workers during the course of their employment in Guernsey) thus removing the need for additional work after the end of the year. 2.11.7. The removal of proportional relief, however, would affect non-resident pensioners who have moved away from Guernsey. The department considers it would be still be appropriate to consider some form of relief for such individuals and proposes that they be granted personal allowances on the basis of the period in the year during which a pension is received. In other words, if a pension is received for a full 12 months, a full year’s personal allowances would be given. I hope that this is of assistance to you. Rob Gray, Director of income tax | ||
| Deputy Mark Dorey Guest |
Thank you for inviting my comments on the letter from your correspondent. I will respond on the sickness benefit issue only. The department is currently up to date with its payment of straightforward sickness benefit claims and most people receive their benefit within two weeks of submitting their claim. Your correspondent took exception to receiving a letter reportedly saying that ‘no further benefit would be paid to me [the correspondent] unless they [Social Security] received a new certificate.’ This is a partial quote of an automatically produced letter that reads ‘Records show that your medical certificate is due to run out. If you are still incapable of work you need to send in a certificate dated on or from [relevant date]. Please note that no further benefit will be paid after this date unless a new certificate is received.’ This letter is intended to be a helpful prompt to people with ongoing incapacity for work. It is not sent in cases where a return to work date appeared on the previous medical certificate. Deputy Mark Dorey, Minister, Social Security Department | ||
| Wendy De Bourgonniere Guest |
I’VE been off work for two weeks due to an operation on my leg. I was signed off work until 10 June and, like a good, dutiful, honest person, I went back to work on that day. Now bearing in mind I haven’t received any sickness benefit yet (by 13 June), I received a letter from the Social Security on 11 June stating that no further benefit would be paid to me unless they received a new certificate. I telephoned the department to tell them I hadn’t received any benefit and had returned to work on 10 June, as stated on my previous sick note. I was then told that I should get my sickness benefit voucher by 15 June, if my contributions were up to date. Well, that comment is like a red rag to a bull for me. I’ve always worked and can count the times on one hand that I’ve been off sick, but the point I want to make is, why do people like us, who work hard, have to go through all this rubbish just to get a bit of money back when we’re off sick? After all, we pay our contributions but most of the time we feel like we’re begging even though we’re entitled to claim. All those I see sitting on benches with cans of booze in hand don’t have to claim at all, do they, because it’s all given? They don’t even have to go on work schemes, do they? One wonders who are actually the clever ones, workers or shirkers. I also want to ask if it’s correct that people from EU countries who come to work in shops and on building sites have to pay a small amount for a licence to work, but get all their tax given back to them when they go back home? If this is the case, what exactly are they contributing? At least if you’re local, the tax you pay stays on island. A friend of mine told me the place she worked at has had to close down and she applied for another non-skilled job. Out of the 10 applicants, she was the only local and guess what – she didn’t get the job. I told her to take this up with her deputy and she told me they just don’t care. Well, I’m not surprised at that, because a few weeks ago I’d written about a woman who’d been refused help with an operation on health grounds and I’d asked why abortions are free in some cases, with women having more than one abortion. I’d said any deputy could call me, none did, surprise, surprise. I spoke to one deputy (he knows who he is) and he told me he’d look into it and get back to me – I’m still waiting for his call. And as far as top civil service pay, I’m not even bothering. These are the people who are probably advising our politicians on how much more money they can waste and how much more they can make us paupers pay through the nose. WENDY DE BOURGONNIERE. | ||
| Deputy Mark Dorey Guest |
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to comment on the above letter. The Social Security contributions system for employed and self-employed is relatively simple – if your earned income is on the lower limit (equates to £5,928 per year) or above, then you pay a percentage contribution on your earned income as your contribution to your benefits. For a non-employed person, the lower limit is £14,820 per year. If your income is at that limit or above, you pay a percentage contribution on your total income after deducting an allowance of £6,290. The department, in recent years, had received representations making similar points to the writer and proposed a £6,290 allowance with effect from 1 January 2010, which the States approved. The situation where someone who earns £1 under the lower limit does not pay a contribution and someone who earns £1 more has to pay a contribution, which results in them being worse off, does, at first glance, seem to be unfair. The writer calls this a poverty trap but that is not correct, as a poverty trap is when someone’s earnings increase and it causes them to lose benefits with the result that they are worse off. The person paying the contribution does in fact have a very valuable benefit, at a subsidised price, because that contribution counts towards an old-age pension entitlement and several other benefits. The person who is £1 under the limit and makes no contribution may receive a smaller pension in the future and reductions in other benefits. Indeed many non-employed people with personal income below the lower income limit choose to pay voluntary contributions at the entry rate of £16.24 per week in order to improve their eventual pension position. Your correspondent proposes a system of graduated contributions, which is a form of marginal relief. A number of years ago, Guernsey income tax included marginal relief but this was discontinued because of the difficulties it caused. It was expensive to administer and it was difficult to understand. A system of graduated contributions would also be very unfair to a person whose income is below the lower limit and chooses to make a voluntary contribution, as they would pay more than a person who has a higher income that is just above the lower limit. The current system is simple and fair and it is efficient to collect and administer. I believe that most people understand it and if anyone wants any part explained, then please contact the Social Security Department, which will be happy to help and advise. However, the computer system is many years old and has become expensive to amend and will need to be replaced in the next few years. The replacement of both the Social Security contributions system and the Income Tax collection and administration system was one of the projects in the capital prioritisation programme. This will now be prioritised relative to other projects as part of the financial transformation programme. Your correspondent attributes to me comments about the fairness of the system. These were from a phone call on this subject, which included discussing a person’s personal case and my comments have been taken out of context. After the phone call, I also replied in writing. Finally, for clarity, the contributions system is fair as it results in most people, who spend their working lives in Guernsey, having a complete contribution record and benefiting from a full old-age pension when they reach pension age, which is funded from the Guernsey Insurance Fund. Deputy Mark Dorey, Minister of Social Security | ||
| Mya Roberts Guest |
ARE you a victim of the poverty trap inflicted by Guernsey Social Security? A poverty trap is a situation created by tax laws that take more than an individual gains in wages, leaving that person worse off. It creates a culture of unwillingness to work, earn and pay one’s way. Are you a non-employed person who receives just one pound over the lower income limit? If so, you’ll have to pay a staggering 84,447% (yes, eighty-four-thousand per cent) Social Security contribution on that £1. So, income of £14,819 = no contribution. Income of £14,820 = £844.47 contribution. How can that make sense? Self-employed? You’ll pay 62,244% on that £1 over your lower income limit. Employed? Lucky you, you only get to pay 35,568% on that extra £1. (Employers beware – you’ll pay even more.) A simple adjustment to the contribution scales using graduated contributions would overcome this injustice at no cost to the States, yet it seems to be beyond the wits of the department or the current computer software to put things right. Mark Dorey, Social Security minister, admitted to me that although the current system is unfair, his department has no plans to change it. He also tried to excuse this by telling me that it used to be even more unfair (so that’s all right then). He also assured me that contributions were ‘good value’. I agreed with him that, yes, it was good value – as long as they are paid in a way that does not discriminate against those on lower incomes. From each according to ability, to each according to need. So, tough. We must put up and pay up to make life a little more simple for a civil servant or two. And this at the bidding of the department responsible for ensuring the social welfare of the citizens of Guernsey. Poverty traps hit the unemployed and lowest paid. This one is a big secret. Justice? I don’t think so. Fairness? Hardly. MYA ROBERTS | ||
| John Burford Guest |
MODERN times: an all too familiar story. 'When I was a young girl, I lived in a nice three-bedroom house with my mum and little brother. We didn't have a dad like some of my playmates but we did have several uncles who visited mum. When they came to visit they mostly gave my brother and I some money and told us to go out and play for an hour or so. Sometimes, when we got home, the uncles were gone, but one day, when my little brother was with his friends and it was raining, I went home early and found mummy in bed with my uncle. She said he was not feeling well and she was comforting him and told me to go and watch telly. As I grew older I found several of my uncles needed comforting and one day, when mum was out, I took Paul home and asked him to play mummies and uncles, so we went to my bedroom - it was very nice. After this I tried many of Paul's friends, until one day I noticed funny things happening and told mum. She said I was pregnant and asked who the father was. I said I did not know. She said it wasn't important, as the Social would provide me with all I needed, pram, cot, clothes etc. This made me ask who gave us this nice house and all the things in it and money to live on. She explained that she had me first and life was not too easy so she had my brother and then the Social provided us with all we needed. I asked if now I was going to have a baby would they give me a house. She said not until I had a second one. I am now 19, living in a house provided by the States with only two bedrooms because I have two boys and now don't have to worry or work until my youngest is 18 and if I have another one not until he, or she, is 18. No worries, no work, no tax, what a lovely life I now have. Men visiting me who are allowed to stay the night, in fact, one is the father of my eldest child. Both boys refer to my men as uncles, so when they grow up, if they don't want responsibility, they will have to be uncles to some other person's children. I don't think the States are very fair because if I have a man stay more than a couple of nights, they might stop my money. Still, I must not moan. Think of all the mums and dads who work hard to support us so-called single parents. At least we have some soft people in the States who will ensure that the situation will carry on. End of story.' P.S. Sex education at school may teach children the facts of life and how to copulate, but more time spent impressing on them the sense of responsibility in adult life might be of more use to the individual and society in general. We are living in an age where it is always someone else's fault when things go wrong. Someone will pick up the tab and bale you out. Whatever happens to backbone and pride? Excessive social support will only exacerbate the position and make more people irresponsible. JOHN BURFORD. | ||
| Mark Dorey Guest |
A number of initiatives to help people back into work were introduced in 2005. One of these was the back to work bonus, which is a lump sum paid to a person who has taken up work after long-term sickness or unemployment and is still in a job after four weeks. The bonus is £500 for full-time work and £300 for part-time work of more than 15 hours per week. The back to work bonus is paid from the social insurance scheme, so applies to people who were receiving contributory unemployment and incapacity benefits. We paid 32 back to work bonuses in 2008 and 28 in 2009. This is good news because it means that over the two-year period, 60 people who had been unemployed or sick for more than six months started work again. The longer people are off work through sickness or unemployment, the harder it is for them to get back. That is why we target support through the job centre and our work rehabilitation service. The back to work bonus is just one of several ways in which we can help. We understand the concerns expressed by your correspondent about people playing the system. But most of the people we are helping are genuine and have been unfortunate with their health, work or personal life. We do apply penalties to the minority who do not make real efforts to find work. We will reduce benefit or stop it altogether. In recent years the department has strengthened the value of the old age pension, especially in relation to the single pensioner. We believe that this has reduced the number of pensioners having to claim supplementary benefit. We know that some pensioners don't like to ask for help, but it's very important that any pensioner struggling to manage financially makes contact with us. We will give an indication of possible entitlement over the telephone. Mark Dorey, Minister, Social Security Department | ||
| Anon Guest |
CAN someone explain why people who do not work for months on end are given a £500 bonus if they work for one month from States Insurance/Social Security Department? I know someone who is fit and able to work but has done less than two years' work out of 20 years, gets their rent, doctors, dentist paid and pocket money every week and has everything they want in the house. There are many elderly penalised because of their pride. Worked all their lives, saved a few pounds to supplement their pension, and left to get on with it. It annoys me. I pay income tax, health benefit scheme, while these crafty people who know how to play the system are laughing all the way to the bank. Name and address withheld. | ||
| M. H. Dorey Guest |
RECENT letters published in the Guernsey Press have questioned why some people are being paid supplementary benefit when they could be working. I would like to use this opportunity to respond to those letters and to explain how Professor Dan Finn's recent visit will help the Social Security Department move forward with its plans to modernise the supplementary benefit scheme. Working-age people receive supplementary benefit for reasons of significant disability, sickness or because they are single parents, jobseekers or people with jobs but insufficient income. We do not put pressure on people with significant disabilities to work, but we are aware that many do, which is admirable. People claiming because of sickness have to provide notes from their doctors as evidence of their incapacity for work. From the start of this year, single parents with children over 12 are treated as jobseekers and must take steps to find work. Single parents with younger children are not obliged to seek work, but nearly a quarter of single parents on benefit are doing some paid work, which reduces the amount of benefit that would otherwise be payable. People claiming as jobseekers are expected to make real efforts to find work and many do. Some jobseekers move off benefit when they find work, but others stay on because they need a top-up on their wages. At the end of January, one in five jobseekers were engaged in some form of work. For those jobseekers who struggle to find work, there is help on offer from the job centre and our work rehabilitation team. And for those people who might be at risk of long-term unemployment, we use our Community and Environmental Projects Scheme, the Kickstart programme, which provides hands-on training by placing a person with an employer for up to 13 weeks, or Goals, which is a two-day motivational course. But if jobseekers don't make enough effort to find work, turn work down or refuse to apply for jobs, benefit is reduced or stopped altogether. This is why our waiting area sometimes gets busy while staff talk to people about their job hunting activities and decide whether or not to reduce or stop benefit. We're sorry that this can cause people to wait around the entrance to the office, but checking up on some people's job seeking efforts is an important area of work. We are aware that a small number of people try to take advantage of the supplementary benefit system. People suspected of claiming more than they are entitled to often have their cases investigated by our fraud section. This can end up with people being interviewed under caution and their case being heard in court. In 2009, 44 claims were closed or adjusted downwards, providing an estimated annual saving of more than £200,000. The department is very aware of the limitations of the supplementary benefit system and is actively working on a major project to reform the system so that it focuses on incentivising people to work if they can and makes sure that there is adequate support for those that can't. It was for this reason we recently invited Professor Finn to the island to share his expert knowledge of welfare to work strategies from the UK, Australia, the United States, the Netherlands and other countries. Dan Finn is professor of social inclusion at the University of Portsmouth and associate director at the Centre for Economic and Social Inclusion. During his talk we gained a far greater understanding of successful strategies and how to implement them and we hope to select the best that are relevant to Guernsey in redesigning our system. M. H. DOREY, Minister, Social Security Department, Edward T. Wheadon House, Le Truchot, St Peter Port, GY1 3WH. | ||
| Michelle Nash Guest |
I WAS horrified to read that the HSSD was suggesting removing the small amount of money that is paid to people with a learning disability. These are people who are unable to earn a salary and as a community we should support them not just financially and physically but also emotionally. This is done by helping them to have a positive self-esteem in knowing that they are part of the wider community and are being paid for the work they do. In commercial terms, the amount they are paid is a pittance but to them it is a reward and the brown pay packet they get at the end of the week means a great deal. I know some of them feel they are being under-valued and question why they should go to Inter-Work if this money is taken from them. Surely if the small amount they earn is needed so desperately by HSSD, there must be some other area they can make a saving. To take away money from people who have so little is nothing short of iniquitous. I sincerely hope this idea will not be passed by the States of Guernsey. MICHELLE NASH. | ||
| Anon Guest |
RECENTLY I purchased some mushroom manure from Grow Ltd. It was a considerable amount so I made numerous trips in my car to collect the bags during the day. A very helpful man helped me load my car. He was wheeling compost into a greenhouse. This he did all day. My last trip was at 3.25pm. If through the efforts of his labours all he gets is £4 a day, the management at Grow Ltd and the HSSD needs to be looked at, perhaps by Commerce and Employment. Five bags he loaded into my car paid his day's wages. Name and address withheld. | ||
| M. Le Page Guest |
HOW dare they take money from those who cannot voice an opinion? How dare they? What about all those supposed 'normal' people who 'claim' because they can't work? It's pure laziness and simply nothing else. Why not take money across the board, not pick on vulnerable people? I think Guernsey States should pat themselves on the back for being completely and utterly selfish. This time they have shown their real colours. If they want to save money, stop supplying free States houses to people with children who won't work. Make them pay £5 of their money as well for their house. Only pay for the first child, like they do in America. The States pay their rent for them so it's money that the States have to cough up all the time. Old age pensioners have to make do on what they get and they've put the money in the so-called 'kitty' in the first place, as well as those who do work. I think Guernsey will go down in history as an island of despicable, selfish and cruel government ruling, and who first thought of the £5 idea anyway? M. LE PAGE | ||
| David Hughes Guest |
THE letter published in the Guernsey Press of Thursday 21 January entitled 'Help is at hand for tenants' is much appreciated but I am writing to clarify a misunderstanding in it. The writer clearly received assistance from the Environmental Health Department, which is part of the Health and Social Services Department and is based at Burnt Lane, St Martin's, not the Environment Department as stated. We appreciate that, since the creation of the Environment Department, which is based at Sir Charles Frossard House, there has been some understandable confusion with titles and, in future, we will be using the title of 'Environmental Health Unit' for the HSSD service in Burnt Lane. It is hoped that this will lead to less confusion. The Environmental Health Unit always tries to provide a helpful service to the public while also carrying out its statutory functions and it is greatly appreciated that your correspondent took the trouble to write to the Guernsey Press to express his/her thanks. DAVID HUGHES, Chief officer, Health and Social Services Department, Corporate Headquarters, Rue Mignot, St Andrew's, GY6 8TW. | ||
| Eric Graham Guest |
HOW much lower can our States representatives go in supporting a recommendation that would deprive Guernsey people with a learning disability of a relatively pitiful amount of money in stopping their attendance allowance? Marlene Le Ray, the chairwoman of Mencap, was perfectly correct in stating, 'It's horrendous that they've stopped the allowance' and if I know Marlene, she will do everything in her power to have this decision reversed. Why is it that given the brief that patients/clients directly should not be affected by any proposed trimming of budgets, the Health and Social Services Department then does exactly that? As a retired ex-health services employee with the Learning Disability Service, I took great pleasure in being part of the team that saw a poor service transformed, including the closure of the infamous Ward Four at the Castel Hospital, to a service that today is as good a service as you could get anywhere in the world for the care of people with a learning disability. When you consider how much money is spent by the States in employing 'advisers' or getting advice from elsewhere, the #20,000 that the attendance allowance is currently costing is a mere drop in the ocean. My advice to Marlene, and any member of staff in the Learning Disability Service whose duty of care is to advocate on behalf of their clients, is to turn up at this month's States meeting on the steps of the Royal Court building with their clients and lobby States members as to why their attendance allowance is being stopped. You will never know, unless you are close to this group, just how much that small sum means to those particular individuals who receive the 'attendance allowance'. Should this cost-cutting measure go through, it will be a very sad reflection on the members of the States of Guernsey, and that it is being suggested at all shows what desperate measures they are prepared to take in choosing to hit one of the most vulnerable groups within our island community. Just how can we all live with knowledge that the public purse would be enhanced through stopping this small allowance for these people? Is it any wonder that the Health and Social Services Department were unavailable for any further comment to Saturday's Guernsey Press article? ERIC GRAHAM. | ||
| Anon Guest |
I AM 100% behind the person who wrote to the Guernsey Press on 30 December saying it is time to crack down on social security scroungers. This hard-working person is being penalised for working extra hours to support their family, they get out of bed in the morning and work hard. Well done to them. When I was a child some 40 years ago, my father had three jobs to keep us all comfortable. There were no easy handouts in those days - shoes were repaired not replaced, secondhand clothes sometimes had to do. Now these clever people on the supplementary benefit can afford beautiful clothes and mobile phones for all the family. They get doctors' and dentists' bills paid, rent paid, taxis paid for etc. etc. I know some genuine families need the help of social security and it needs to be there for them, but the scroungers know how to work the system, and do so every week. Who are the civil servants who sanction these handouts to the scroungers? They will say they have to go by the rules. Who make the rules in the first place? Surely now is the time to review this and tighten up. The Bailiff was recently interviewed on local commercial radio and rightly said Guernsey does its best to look after its people, but also he mentioned the problems currently affecting the local self employed, some of whom are going through tough times, due to the recession. He mentioned one business he knew of which was 70% down. I know of others at 50% down who are struggling to survive. They cannot go to the social and ask for help, there is none. They just have to cut back. All of us who work have to pay social security contributions, as do employers, so please look at where some of this money goes. Cut out the scroungers, they know who they are. Name and address withheld. | ||
| Anon Guest |
I AM a working single parent. I can only do part-time and I do struggle. I get no help from the supplementary, I would rather try and make my own way anyway. Friends tell me I'm mad as I do scrape by. I have a disabled friend who has a job also. I have two broken teeth that I can't afford to get mended and three doctors' bills that I am struggling to pay. Of course, if I left my job and went 'on the sup', I could have all this paid for me. I started doing a few extra hours to help me out this Christmas, but the States just upped my rent by £20 for that one day, so I was working just to pay them extra, plus the childminder, which left me £8 for a hard day's work. I obviously had to stop that, letting my employers down also. The reason I am writing this is simply because I just do not understand how the supplementary or housing work? Who makes the rules? Who is it that actually knocks down the honest worker, yet will quite happily give skivers and drug addicts and people who just don't want to work, money and handouts? I know a few people who live quite comfortably on supplementary. They have absolutely nothing wrong with them, yet claim sick benefit, drug addicts who get so much money that they can even afford to buy their drugs with our money. Drug addicts are liars and will find a way of getting extra money, the rent will be more than it really is, lost cheques etc. Does anyone actually ever look into this? People on sick benefit due to the usual bad back can go to the gym and walk about Town all day. Not every job is back breaking. Anybody can sit at the end of a machine in a factory and put things in boxes or stand behind a counter and serve. Single parents with children over 12 have recently been told they have to find work. What about all the people who have never worked? Shouldn't this be looked into? As far as I am concerned, supplementary should be cut in half. Why should people like me work hard only to be penniless all the time? Make them struggle so they have to find a job, look into the reason they don't work and help out the people who do get out of bed in the morning and try and make an honest living. Like I said, I scrape by, yet I can't even get any help with my children's doctors' and dentist bills. I sometimes feel like giving up and going on supplementary, but I'm not going to. I do have a bit of pride. But when I see these scroungers with nothing wrong with them, it makes me so angry with their cars, HD TVs, laptops, holidays etc. Can anyone explain all of this to me? Call me thick, but I just do not understand any of this. Name and address withheld | ||
| Anon Guest |
I DON'T normally write in to the opinions page, not enough time on my hands for that usually, but in this instance I felt compelled to, after looking at the various correspondence between the two letter writers ref. benefits. I have experience on both sides of the fence on this one. I was left high and dry at 32 weeks pregnant for my fourth child - my then husband toddled off to the UK leaving me to try to survive, pay the bills and mortgage, oh and in between times bring up the children he had abandoned too (maintenance was paid at a pitifully small sum and very sporadically). Life was extremely hard and I took whatever jobs I could get as I wasn't educated to a high level at that point, so I cleaned houses in the day. In this way I could take my younger children with me (the ones not of school age) and in the night I took on some work in a care home. I should say at this point none of these demanding roles were my chosen career path. I also found time to get myself into gear and gain a few qualifications to ensure I would be in a better position job-wise and thus financially, because as anyone knows it's 'once bitten, twice shy' in these sets of circumstances. Now before anyone starts banging on about how I am really lucky because I must have had loads of really strong family support - wrong. My mum died when I was young and by this point my dad was very ill too. I also have no sisters but I was fortunate enough to have had and to still have some really strong friendships and these ladies helped out by looking after the children when I worked nights or went to night school or even indeed went out and socialised (because anyone who has had experience of bringing up a family knows it's a really tough job when there are two of you, let alone when you are forced to go it alone). Time moved on. I began working in various offices and even at one point within Social Security. I remarried, this time very happily and life moved to a calmer, more pleasant area and while I sympathise with the lady who has been abandoned by two partners in a row, I wholeheartedly agree with the other letter writer - it is not and never has been my responsibility to support you or anyone else who doesn't work simply because your relationship failed. That is the job of your ex-partners, as it is they who have fathered your children. We live in a time when it is never anyone's fault but the States can sort it out. Unfortunately that normally means it is Joe Public who foots the bill, but maybe rather than castigating this lady who is clearly very bitter about her situation, we should be looking at how we pay benefits. Maybe there should be free childcare but no cash benefits to encourage these mums out to work, as a vast majority of people don't wish to be on benefit, they are forced to by circumstance. And before anyone starts bleating on about it being their 'right to stay at home with their children' my response to that is, I would love to stay with mine too, but unfortunately I can't afford it - and so would most working mums that I know. I would never slate anyone who stayed at home with their children, provided it is they and not the taxpayers of Guernsey who funded that decision. People are only able to milk the system if it is seriously flawed and a better way for us to spend our resources might be to rethink our benefits system so there is not such abuse of it and it is only the genuinely needy who benefit. Name and address withheld. | ||
| Anon Guest |
IN REPLY to the woman who wrote a letter on 31 July regarding her plight of having been left with two children by two different fathers. Shame on those men who can walk away and expect taxpayers to pay for their mistakes. I am truly sorry for her but I still say I should not have to pay to keep her and her children. What's wrong with these people getting jobs? You can put your children into a playschool and get part-time work and when they start school you can work more hours. My sister found herself in this position and never claimed a penny in benefits and never had any maintenance from her husband. She worked the hours she could when her son was at playschool and more when he went to school. She would go for long walks in the winter to keep warm as she could not afford heating and make a huge nourishing pot of soup which they ate all week, every week. She is still single, her son is grown up and six years ago on her own bought her own house, so you see, it can be done. As for contraception, yes, men should take responsibility but very often they don't and at the end of the day it's the woman left holding the baby, so maybe it's best to sort yourselves out and not leave it to the men. I really cannot understand why these people think taxpayers should keep them and to a standard that many working people don't enjoy. Remember the very true saying, 'You made your bed, now lie in it'. When eventually their children grow up they will hopefully think to get a job to keep themselves and by that time I will probably be a struggling pensioner. Will they come knocking on my door and offer part of their wages to help me out? I don't think so, but indirectly that's what I am doing for them while I am working and paying tax. Name and address withheld. | ||
| Anon Guest |
THIS is further to my original letter, 'Rethink unfair benefits system'. Dear 'It's not as if we chose to have our hearts broken'. You obviously did not read my letter properly. At no point did I say I think the people who choose to live on benefits have more than me but since you have brought it up, I do not own a widescreen TV, the latest mobile phone or a computer, which many of those on benefits do. Nor do I have nights out on the Town at taxpayers' expense. My point entirely is that the whole system is unfair. Why should I work to keep those who won't? Both of my parents worked full-time as they had no choice and they had to ask friends and family members to share childcare on a rota system during the school holidays, each taking time off work and looking after several children in return for the same 'favour'. From the content of your letter it sounds as if your younger child is not yet of school age so it's fair to assume you will seek employment when the child starts school. After all, the rest of us have to because, as you quite rightly said, supermarkets do not give away free food. And before you start harping on about there being no jobs out there to suit the hours a working mother would need to fit around school hours, you are wrong. I have worked for at least three employers who are only too happy to accommodate working mothers' needs. If you think childcare is not affordable then it's simple - you ask the fathers of your children to pay. I merely used my own situation as an example as I have never wanted to start a family. You are the one who is bitter here as your partner/s have left you for whatever reasons. You say that not all children are unplanned but maybe you should have been more certain of your situation before having another child. If you had waited then you would have been able to finish your qualification first and would be in a better position to find a job. I realise that childcare isn't easy to find but I have several friends who are mothers, some married and some single, and they all work and manage to sort out childcare arrangements. As I said in my first letter, I do realise there are people who have a genuine need to claim benefits but they are in the minority. I'm fed up of hearing the same excuses over and over again. Oh, and by the way, I don't think you are justified in thinking it's OK for us taxpayers to support you, as you said at the end of your letter. Name and address withheld. | ||
| Name Witheld Guest |
I RESPOND to the letter on 20 July, ‘Rethink unfair benefits system’. The Social Security Department do need to open their eyes and go more deeply into people’s circumstances before paying many of them the benefits they claim for, as the majority of them are very content to turn up week after week to claim what they feel is their right, but have made no effort to find employment. To them the dole is an easy option but they have made no contribution and therefore hard working people have to carry them. What sort of training do the staff get before they are able to deal with people who come to claim benefit? Some people can tell a very good story. The benefit system is to help people whose circumstances are genuine and those who really are unable to find employment and would be very happy to be able to do so. Please Social Security, sharpen up your way of dealing with those who are taking advantage of those who are working and paying for those who are very happy to take what they don’t deserve. | ||
| Anon Guest |
I HAVE never written to the Guernsey Press before, but after reading the letter 'Rethink unfair benefit system' on 20 July, I found myself putting pen to paper. Yes, there are women who claim benefits and have children because they can't be bothered to get a job. And yes, there are single mothers who work to support themselves and their children, but there are also people, like me, who happen to be sick to death of being made to feel like a scrounger, when I'm not. I have two children, my first from a four-year relationship. I lived with this partner and did not claim supplementary benefit, although when he left I was left with no choice. I attended college with the hope of gaining qualifications to give myself and my child a better future. While at college I entered into another long-term relationship with a man whom I thought I would spend the rest of my life with (I was assured on numerous occasions this would be the case). We lived together and after some time, I had my second child and, as a result, I put my education on hold. Every family has their ups and downs, but that's just family life, isn't it? Well, seems not, because as soon as things got a little tough, this partner also left, so I again found myself if the very unfortunate situation of having to claim supplementary benefit. I am not lucky enough to have a family member, or a friend, to look after my baby and if I did, I would work. As I left college not having yet gained my qualification, I cannot find a job that would pay enough to cover childminders, rent, electric, gas, clothing, food and all the other costs of living and raising a family. I do appreciate that the Social Security Department is supporting me and yes I do realise that the money I receive comes from you, the taxpayer. It might interest you to know that my parents and other family members are also taxpayers, as are the fathers of my children. Indeed I myself will be a taxpayer in the future, supporting people who find themselves in the situation I have, and I shan't be complaining as I know both sides of the coin. What amazes me is people seem to completely dismiss the idea of there being a father involved here. I won't start with the birds and the bees, as I'm sure you must already know. As for contraception, yes us mums have heard of it, but so have our partners. You will find that most of these mums thought they were in a life-long relationship. I wonder if you have thought that not all babies are unplanned. This is 2009. People plan families not necessarily having got married first. Let me tell you how it actually is for most of us single mums. We met a man, we fell in love, we had a relationship, we lived together, we had a baby, we then had our family. He went to work while us mums looked after the house and children and looked forward to our partner coming home to spend the evening together. We have our ups and downs, like every couple. Then, one day, he decides to leave. As we don't have cardboard boxes big enough, or a hat to collect pennies in shop doorways, we stay in our homes and unfortunately, as selfish as it sounds, landlords expect rent. Supermarkets aren't in the habit of handing out free food, etc, etc. I considered getting a job and putting my children on a chain outside the door, but this would make me a bad mother. Could somebody who is not narrow minded and does have common sense, please explain why men find it so easy to enter into a relationship, fall in love and then decide they can't handle it? They leave, we rightly take them for maintenance, they go to an advocate who often gets them reduced maintenance rates, as it seems the amount that kept a whole family suddenly isn't enough for a single man to live on. Also, you say women have children by different fathers. Well, many men have children by different mothers, each time giving them more and more reason to pay less and less maintenance as the poor things can't afford to pay the proper amount to each. Yet they can afford nights out, designer clothes, cars and holidays. You also say maybe your parents were wrong to teach you responsibilities, as people on benefits seem to have more than you. Well then, it seems maybe my parents were wrong in teaching me principles like always putting my children first, as I rarely get a night out and never a holiday. Maybe if I thought as so many men seem to, I too would have those privileges. Of course, some men get left in the situation I did. I wonder if there is a sour note to your letter, partly because you haven't found Mr Right and you do not have any children? When you do find Mr Right, I suggest you get him to sign a 'forever' agreement, as you never know where your situation might lead. I also know about single women without children, as often they are the ones who take the man we had. They don't care how the woman's getting by as long as they have their Mr Right. I'm not brilliant at maths, but this seems to add up to an awful lot of people being responsible for an awful lot of mothers who are on supplementary benefit. So, if they end up paying for these children and their broken-hearted mothers through their taxes, then so they should. Name and address withheld. | ||
| Anon Guest |
RE: RETHINK unfair benefits system. Well said 'name and address withheld'. I too was unable to attend the meeting at Les Beaucamps School. You have put into words exactly what I was thinking. I couldn't have said it better myself. If the working public can see where the system is wasting money, why can't the States? Why don't they ever have public meetings about cutting down on the scroungers' money? I have seen one of the said scroungers looking to purchase a mobile phone, which I, a single working person with a mortgage, couldn't afford. It's time the States started to rethink how much of our money they give away. Name and address withheld. |
