Benefits Shakeup

[Martial Arts Man]

I'm amazed that this happened an hour ago yet hasn't made it onto here yet! PH, your benefits obsession is slipping!

Here's a link to those of you who didn't see the PM speak:

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/Prime-Mi...

So, do we think this has gone far enough?

A start is still a start imho...

[thinfourth2]

Awaits the U turn

[Victor McDade]

As with most of these great ideas, I'll only believe it when it actually starts taking place. Fingers crossed!

[XJ40]

They're talking a good game, let's hope the reform is as radical as claimed.

[mrmaggit]

I'd also like a proviso of "If you haven't paid in, you can't take out".

[thinfourth2]

it looks like a rebranding to me

[Victor McDade]

Dave said:

the changes announced would slash £5.5bn from the welfare bill in real terms over the next four years by limiting housing benefit, reforming tax credits and taking child benefit away from higher-rate taxpayers.

Isn't this like pissing on a house-fire in the hope it goes out?

UK welfare spending is currently £116 Billion/year. Savings of £5.5billion over 4 years is a good start but is it enough?

[Legend83]

U-turn on the housing benefit cut for long-term unemployed though....

[Morningside]

How can they place all benefits under one title? We be interested to see how this would work.
For a start, does that mean placing a child with 24hr quadriplegic care under the same category as some geezer who happens to have a slight 'limp'?

[BoRED S2upid]

If and when this: Those who refuse to take up job offers face losing their handouts for up to three years, and there will be tougher sanctions for fraud.

happens we can celebrate.

Don't take a job in a chicken packing factory loose your handouts for 3 years and be homeless living in a cardboard box. Or is that too radical?

[Legend83]

Morningside said:

How can they place all benefits under one title? We be interested to see how this would work.
For a start, does that mean placing a child with 24hr quadriplegic care under the same category as some geezer who happens to have a slight 'limp'?

Means testing?

I would hope that losing the requirement to administer 5 to 6 different benefits and just pay a single amount may reduce red tape and admin costs, but I fear that the conundrum you cite above may make those victories minimal.

[superkartracer]

[redacted]

[Conian]

Thank god those gingers are all on an island, quick blow up the fking bridges to anglesea!

[Ozzie Osmond]

Good initiative from ConLib. Now all they have to do is make it fly!

[Mojocvh]

mrmaggit said:

I'd also like a proviso of "If you haven't paid in, you can't take out".

Oh the fking IRONY!!

[Morningside]

How about removing benefits from drug users, alcoholic dependents (that's a disability BTW).

[Ozzie Osmond]

Morningside said:

How about removing benefits from drug users, alcoholic dependents (that's a disability BTW).

I believe alcohol and cigarette duties easily "self-fund" those particular problems.

Drugs need to be legalised and heavily taxed IMO. Our society's dealings with (or failures to deal satisfactorily with) big drugs like cocaine, ecstacy and marijuana are a particular pantomime.

[Fittster]

Ozzie Osmond said:

Morningside said:

How about removing benefits from drug users, alcoholic dependents (that's a disability BTW).

I believe alcohol and cigarette duties easily "self-fund" those particular problems.

Drugs need to be legalised and heavily taxed IMO. Our society's dealings with (or failures to deal satisfactorily with) big drugs like cocaine, ecstacy and marijuana are a particular pantomime.

Can you explain why you feel they should be taxed?

[Victor McDade]

Fittster said:

Ozzie Osmond said:

Morningside said:

How about removing benefits from drug users, alcoholic dependents (that's a disability BTW).

I believe alcohol and cigarette duties easily "self-fund" those particular problems.

Drugs need to be legalised and heavily taxed IMO. Our society's dealings with (or failures to deal satisfactorily with) big drugs like cocaine, ecstacy and marijuana are a particular pantomime.

Can you explain why you feel they should be taxed?

Because we're skint and it would be an easy way to generate income?

[BoRED S2upid]

Morningside said:

How about removing benefits from drug users, alcoholic dependents (that's a disability BTW).

Being a drunkard generates disability payments! you couldn't make that up. Scotland is up st creak then. Do they pay them in money or Cider?