Benefits overhauled - hooray ?
Discussion
I think it's good - it's very easy to fall into the "benefit trap", it's not just chav dole scum. I've spent time myself stuck on the bottom rung, where any attempt to earn for yourself and contribute is counteracted by reduced benefits, so you are worse off financially than you were before - VERY easy to fall into a slump and start thinking, why am I bothering when I am better off not doing anything?
We need to see the detail because I can't presently see how this is going to work, especially with housing benefit.
Rents vary, mortgage interest payments vary, some unemployed people might own the house they live in outright. Presumably there can't be a "one size fits all" benefit in this case?
Rents vary, mortgage interest payments vary, some unemployed people might own the house they live in outright. Presumably there can't be a "one size fits all" benefit in this case?
OwenK said:
I think it's good - it's very easy to fall into the "benefit trap", it's not just chav dole scum. I've spent time myself stuck on the bottom rung, where any attempt to earn for yourself and contribute is counteracted by reduced benefits, so you are worse off financially than you were before - VERY easy to fall into a slump and start thinking, why am I bothering when I am better off not doing anything?
v trueSuch a policy need not cost money in the long term as it will encourage people to find work and ensure they do not lose skills with a prolonged period on benefit. In fact, combined with a stick to penalise the 2-3m on bemefits who are quite capable of work but choose not too, it could save very substantial sums of money.
The problem is that in the short term such a policy will cost money, and the options available to the government are further reduced by their coalition with the Lib Dems who will support the carrot, but not the stick needed for the workshy. There are some justifable savings to be found in the welfare budget, free bus travel for the over 60s still of working age would be top of my list, but I most defintaly oppose further means testing.
Britain is in the state it is, because the working populace have been hammered to pay for lavish benefits for the workshy. Making it even harder for working families, while some familes can receive the equivalant of £50k a year plus in benefits is entirely the wrong approach.
The problem is that in the short term such a policy will cost money, and the options available to the government are further reduced by their coalition with the Lib Dems who will support the carrot, but not the stick needed for the workshy. There are some justifable savings to be found in the welfare budget, free bus travel for the over 60s still of working age would be top of my list, but I most defintaly oppose further means testing.
Britain is in the state it is, because the working populace have been hammered to pay for lavish benefits for the workshy. Making it even harder for working families, while some familes can receive the equivalant of £50k a year plus in benefits is entirely the wrong approach.
cheadle hulme said:
Iain Duncan Smith was starting the first part of the charm offensive in favour of further means testing on R5L this morning.
Means tested child benefit can't be far off
Which still won't solve the issue of scrounger families breeding like rats, they should simply adjust child benefit so it's a saving on income tax ie encourage the right people to breed.Means tested child benefit can't be far off
Tsippy said:
cheadle hulme said:
Iain Duncan Smith was starting the first part of the charm offensive in favour of further means testing on R5L this morning.
Means tested child benefit can't be far off
Which still won't solve the issue of scrounger families breeding like rats, they should simply adjust child benefit so it's a saving on income tax ie encourage the right people to breed.Means tested child benefit can't be far off
petemurphy said:
cheadle hulme said:
Iain Duncan Smith was starting the first part of the charm offensive in favour of further means testing on R5L this morning.
Means tested child benefit can't be far off
as long as it doesnt cost more to administer than it gains then about timeMeans tested child benefit can't be far off
Means testing causes half the problems with the benefit system.
It encourages fraud (you are better off if you hide any gain or big up any loss) and creates a benefit trap (for the same reasons). The cost of administration is vast and actively creates barriers for the most needy as they are often the least able to cope with the shear volume of paperwork.
Not so long ago I helped an elderly relative fill in a total of eighty pages of forms to get a home help round for half an hour a week. In the end we asked for help and social services sent a man round. The first thing he did was open his lap top and started putting numbers into a spread sheet!
We have been brainwashed into thinking that it is the only way yet there are other ways; flat rates, making benefit related to contributions, fixed payments for being in cetain situations or tax breaks. Any of these are arguably as fair as means testing and, especially in the case of flat rates and set payments, far simpler and cheaper to administer.
Under means testing it is actually foolish to save for a rainy day, you are far better off blowing the lot and then getting out the begging bowl. Just look at care for the elderly, turn up at a care home with nothing, get a free room, turn up with a house to your name, lose it and get exactly the same room. So why save? Why not just blow the lot?
Means testing should go.
petemurphy said:
V88Dicky said:
Limit child benefit to the first two kids starting in 10 months time.
Make dole less than minimum wage.
Not difficult, is it?
good ideas - what about housing benefit thats where the real money isMake dole less than minimum wage.
Not difficult, is it?
Must be cheaper than dishing out HB to all and sundry?
cheadle hulme said:
Iain Duncan Smith was starting the first part of the charm offensive in favour of further means testing on R5L this morning.
Means tested child benefit can't be far off
Right so introducing a MASSIVE cost to administer for a benefit that doesn't really make any impact on the huge amount of cash pissed away, that seems like a good idea.Means tested child benefit can't be far off
The problem is not the odd £80 here and there, it's the modern zeitgeist of career state provision being reasonable.
This premise that 'oh, we'd work but its not worth our while' is f
king bks, it's not a trap, the majority of the underclass in this country are bone fking idle, they're actively making a choice not to work. They don't have children to survive via benefits, they have more and more children to get luxuries. Their disability benefit, housing benefit, JSA etc etc bloody etc pay for them to live and means testing it won't change that as they'll still get it.Everyone should have a ring fenced pot of cash to provide in times of genuine need that is put there via NI/Income tax that you have paid, once it's gone, it's gone. Make it a personal insurance plan.
V88Dicky said:
petemurphy said:
V88Dicky said:
Limit child benefit to the first two kids starting in 10 months time.
Make dole less than minimum wage.
Not difficult, is it?
good ideas - what about housing benefit thats where the real money isMake dole less than minimum wage.
Not difficult, is it?
Must be cheaper than dishing out HB to all and sundry?
V88Dicky said:
Limit child benefit to the first two kids starting in 10 months time.
Make dole less than minimum wage.
Not difficult, is it?
It is difficult if you are a politician. Though it is staggeringly obvious to anyone else.Make dole less than minimum wage.
Not difficult, is it?
Actually I'd cancel child benefit, why should we pay it? There are only three scenarios; you don't need it, you do (in which case why should everyone else pay for your family?) or you are just trying to look more needy (in which case you are using your fertility as a means to abuse the system). That looks like three good reasons to axe it.
I'd suggest making attendance at job club 9-5 6 days a week compulsory to get dole. There are plenty of unoccupied offices around, creches could be provided. No need to prove that you are applying for jobs, you can sit there and stare out of the window if you want, but you'll do that every day until you retire.
Plotloss said:
Everyone should have a ring fenced pot of cash to provide in times of genuine need that is put there via NI/Income tax that you have paid, once it's gone, it's gone. Make it a personal insurance plan.
I've thought this for years, you should be given X amount lifetime allowance and when it's gone it's goneGassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff