| Non-motoring > How would you sort out the benefits mess? | Miscellaneous |
| Thread Author: BobbyG | Replies: 68 |
|
New Tue 5 Oct 10 23:26
How would you sort out the benefits mess? - BobbyG
|
|
Ok we have seen the Tories first attempt at reigning in some of this spend, and seeing Cameron being interviewed today about it was very cringeworthy. Repeatedly being told by a reporter that you have not answered the question asked was humiliating in my opinion. But knowing we now live in a society that has a huge reliance on the benefits system, what do you propose to fix it? I don't mean shooting all junkies etc but genuine plans that could be implemented and work within the parameters that we have. I am thinking about things that we have like dodgy doctors, lawyers, landlords etc. So for every £ saved on child benefit, there will be someone else being signed off on invalidity that isn't, someone else with a scam on housing benefit and someone else prepared to take their case on in a no win, no fee basis. So how do we get people off benefits and into work, how do we reduce the amount spent on housing, how do we prevent the serial baby producers? |
|
New Tue 5 Oct 10 23:38
How would you sort out the benefits mess? - RattleandSmoke
|
|
I think the amount they spend on social housing needs to be reduced. If a person lives in say Chelsea and Kensington then housing is going to be very expensive, the council could perhaps look at moving that family to some where much cheaper and also help them find work/places for their kids at school. There is too many rights designed to keep people in expensive areas. I have lived in an expensive part of Manchester all my life, I cannot afford to live here if I was supporting myself but if I was a single mother the government would pay for me to live here. My entire family is mainly from London, Southport and Wales every one of them moved to Manchester because that was where the work was, only one of my grand parents side of the family have been in the city for a 500 years or so. I probably am not explaining this very well but sometimes people need to move out of an area for financial reasons but the housing benefit system gives people too many rights to abuse this hence you end up with stories of single mothers with 8 kids living in a £5000 a month a rent mansion on Fulham Road. I actually think more benefits money should go towards helping people to setup small businesses, e.g you don't loose your doll money for the first six months of running a business. This could work quite well and encourage people to start their own business and thus create jobs. I am not convinced their policy of getting peple into work instead of on benefits will work because I don't think there is enough jobs to go round. I think the government really needs to be spend more on social housing which should cut out the private sector and thus reduce the bill the government currently spends on housing benefit. They also need to stop sick payments to thos who can work but they should perhaps replace this with something else to allow such a person to work part time or something. The issue is very complicated and no ideas will ever be fair but any changes need to ensure those in genuine need get the money and the scroungers don't. |
|
New Wed 6 Oct 10 00:34
How would you sort out the benefits mess? - Skoda
|
|
Ghettoising isn't the way forward. History has the answers for this one. |
|
New Wed 6 Oct 10 00:46
How would you sort out the benefits mess? - RattleandSmoke
|
|
I don't mean build loads of council flats. I simply mean build estates where you sell a vast majority of them privately but then keep some as council property. They did this in the 1990s to replace the Hulme crescents it has been a massive massive sucess. The idea is that council tenants live next to private tenants so the social spectrum is mixed. The main issue with the ghetos was that they were too dense, built cheaply and poorly so nobody had any pride in them. Paying people to rent private property in expensive area can't be the answer either but that is exactly what is happening now. |
|
New Wed 6 Oct 10 07:39
How would you sort out the benefits mess? - L'escargot
|
|
>> The idea is that council tenants live next to private tenants .......... Eugh! That wouldn't be my choice. |
|
New Wed 6 Oct 10 07:52
How would you sort out the benefits mess? - Pat
|
|
Well, I've been both L'es and a homeowner. Can I ask why it wouldn't be your choice? Pat |
|
New Wed 6 Oct 10 07:56
How would you sort out the benefits mess? - Fenlander
|
| He probably doesn't want a street full of cars with privacy glass. |
|
New Fri 8 Oct 10 07:41
How would you sort out the benefits mess? - L'escargot
|
|
>> Well, I've been both L'es and a homeowner. >> Can I ask why it wouldn't be your choice? In general. council tenants don't look after their properties as well as private owners. Note that I said "in general". |
|
New Thu 7 Oct 10 15:21
How would you sort out the benefits mess? - DP
|
|
>> Eugh! That wouldn't be my choice. As someone who had a happy, safe, fulfilling, and stimulating childhood on a council estate, has worked constantly throughout his life, never once got arrested, and went on to become a home owning, law abiding, higher rate taxpaying, happily married, socially functional father of two, I am quite keen to see the answer to this one as well. Perhaps I should speak to all my neighbours, warn them I grew up on a council estate and ask their permission to continue to live next door to them... Last edited by: DP on Thu 7 Oct 10 at 15:22
|
|
New Wed 6 Oct 10 08:23
How would you sort out the benefits mess? - Cliff Pope
|
|
>> I simply mean build estates where you >> sell a vast majority of them privately but then keep some as council property. They >> did this in the 1990s to replace the Hulme crescents it has been a massive >> massive sucess. The idea is that council tenants live next to private tenants so the >> social spectrum is mixed. >> >>>> Confused. First you advocate selling the majority privately, then you refer to to "private tenants". Do you mean there should be a mixture of council tenants and privately owned houses, or that they should all be rented, some by the council, some by private landlords? |
|
New Wed 6 Oct 10 06:09
How would you sort out the benefits mess? - swiss tony
|
|
>> I think the amount they spend on social housing needs to be reduced. If a >> person lives in say Chelsea and Kensington then housing is going to be very expensive, >> the council could perhaps look at moving that family to some where much cheaper and >> also help them find work/places for their kids at school. ........ >> I think the government really needs to be spend more on social housing which should >> cut out the private sector and thus reduce the bill the government currently spends on >> housing benefit. >> I'm a little confused Rattle.... ..... although I do agree, they need to be more careful how they spend the money they do spend on social housing, which is, I think, the point you mean. |
|
New Wed 6 Oct 10 09:03
How would you sort out the benefits mess? - tyro
|
|
Am I the only one who thinks that it is absolutely crazy to pay people to have children? If you can't afford to bring them up yourself, surely you shouldn't have them? In my opinion, taking money from tax-payers in order to give it to someone - simply because that person has a child - is just plain wrong. |
|
New Wed 6 Oct 10 09:44
How would you sort out the benefits mess? - Tooslow
|
|
"Am I the only one who thinks that it is absolutely crazy to pay people to have children?" No tyro, it's potty. It should be stopped for everyone, today. That would start to solve a lot of problems. This "Universal benefit" idea and the cap on the max a family can get seems like a good idea. Trouble is the taxation / benefit system is going to have to be scrapped and rebuilt to cope with it I guess. The one we have today is clanking monster built to accommodate complexity. There's an old saying, do you want it simple or do you want is soon? Simplicity please, every time. As a drift... I'd like to see National Insurance scrapped. Can you work out what you ought to pay? I can - zilch as I'm retired but when I was working - impossible. OK income tax would have to go up but then the government would be forced to be honest with us. John |
|
New Wed 6 Oct 10 09:49
How would you sort out the benefits mess? - Suppose
|
|
I agree with tyro. The internet is full of articles on why "socialism fails", but I find this piece by James Buffington sums up my views perfectly. "Socialism always fails, at least by our standards. It stresses sameness and hence embraces, at best, inefficiency. Equality of income is a false standard, oft used. Take from those who have, give to those who don't. The problem is that there is not an equality of talent, intelligence ambition, attitude, skills, wisdom or insight. To hold back our best by denying them the rewards of those things that allow them to get ahead is to create an artificially sterile environment in which nothing can grow. Motivation is crushed, save for those questing for power within the socio-political framework. Socialists, in some breach of basic logic, think it's fair to give to those who have not by taking from those who earned at what is effectively gunpoint. How is that fair to those who have earned? Most who participate in our society either are earning now or have earned in the past and seek in retirement to enjoy the fruits of their labours. Explain to me how it is fair to give rewards to those who have not had the motivation to do for themselves. To be sure there is a small portion of the society that will legitimately depend on the rest of us. The autistic, the physically impaired, those with certain psychiatric disorders. We as a society do indeed have a moral obligation to take care of our own in such circumstances. But not necessarily through government. Religious organizations, charities, foundations for such things can be established and people would cheerfully give. Consider now the rest of society. As we are now there are many tiers of services and products. These run from high end, expensive goods to those which meet basic needs. Manufacturers, retailers, service personnel all exist catering to the specific clientèle using those products. Reduce the society to a socialistic quagmire and this disappears. There is a need only for one or two types of cars. Only one type of canned veggies is really needed in your store. Only one type of home computer need be built. We can all wear the same utilitarian garb. Luxury industries like jewellery, boats, and high fashion disappear. Jobs are lost and factories close. Innovation dies. More people go on the dole. Education degenerates into serving a least common denominator. The children are dumbed down. A cycle forms that leads us de-generatively into a land of shadows. Shadows of what we could be, once were, of things gone. In a free society we always have opportunity available. Is it equal opportunity for all? Not yet and probably never fully will be. But it provides the greatest amount of opportunity and flexibility for the greatest number. It's certainly better than the alternative, which, in teaching to the low point and restraining excellence within an environment of societal stagnation, actually destroys opportunity. If you want a world where the most you can hope for is to eat, sleep, have sex and watch cable television, then socialism may be for you. If you think there is more to life then this lowest common denominator existence then you'll agree that socialism belongs on the discredited dung heap of unworkable philosophies. Ultimately, in it's rhetorical and false quest for some mythic fairness, socialism creates the unfairest society of all. The one that denies the individual the opportunity, used or unused, to reach their fullest level of accomplishment and being." |
|
New Wed 6 Oct 10 10:37
How would you sort out the benefits mess? - Cliff Pope
|
|
>> Am I the only one who thinks that it is absolutely crazy to pay people >> to have children? If you can't afford to bring them up yourself, surely you shouldn't >> have them? >> >> In my opinion, taking money from tax-payers in order to give it to someone - >> simply because that person has a child - is just plain wrong. >> I agree. But the snag is a) it is impossible to stop people having children anyway, and b) once they have them it is not socially acceptable to have them put down, as one would do with unwanted pets. So unless you are willing to go back to a society with feral children roaming unwashed and unwanted in the streets, those producing unaffordable children can always blackmail everyone else into paying for them. |
|
New Wed 6 Oct 10 23:16
How would you sort out the benefits mess? - Manatee
|
|
>>If you can't afford to bring them up yourself, surely you shouldn't have them? Quite - which is why society should ensure that people with children should be able to afford to bring them up. Sadly, I don't think that is what you meant. >>In my opinion, taking money from tax-payers in order to give it to someone - simply >>because that person has a child - is just plain wrong. And in my opinion, you are wrong. What you propose is not a society, but anarchy. The children that society as a whole supports and educates are the ones who will pay our pensions. Last edited by: Manatee on Wed 6 Oct 10 at 23:17
|
|
New Wed 6 Oct 10 23:50
How would you sort out the benefits mess? - tyro
|
|
>>In my opinion, taking money from tax-payers in order to give it to someone - simply >>because that person has a child - is just plain wrong. "What you propose is not a society, but anarchy. The children that society as a whole supports and educates are the ones who will pay our pensions." Well, you may choose to describe the UK in the 19th century, and the USA at the moment, as anarchy rather than society - but I think that your definition of anarchy is somewhat broad, and your definition of society is extremely narrow. |
|
New Thu 7 Oct 10 07:38
How would you sort out the benefits mess? - Manatee
|
|
Written in haste, but you know what I mean. I am appalled by some of the comments in this thread. |
|
New Thu 7 Oct 10 07:42
How would you sort out the benefits mess? - L'escargot
|
|
>> I am appalled by some of the comments in this thread. >> You'll have to be specific for that to mean anything to us. |
|
New Wed 6 Oct 10 10:32
How would you sort out the benefits mess? - teabelly
|
|
Stop child benefit immediately. Limit ordinary benefits to 1x NMW full time for any person. Couples would be 2x NMW. People working have to be able to live within this so I don't see why those sitting on their backsides all day can't. No benefits for those that have never worked. Parents would be financially responsible for all their children until child is 21. If they have grandchildren then they'd be paying for them, not us. Legalise all drugs and control supply. Stupid people addicted to them could have them on prescription provided they don't go out committing crime. Hopefully this would make even the most terminally stupid realise a life of crime wasn't worth the effort when they could get what they wanted free. Use the money saved from not fighting an impossible war on educating people to look after themselves and each other. It is not the job of government to look after all the soft headed idiots. It is their relatives that should be doing this! Change the tax system so that it was simpler. NI would go. All corporations would pay their proper taxes and those that took out large debts to avoid tax would have their debts taxed as CGT for the year they took it out. That would stop them doing it. Benefit claims could also be limited to how much you paid in. If you didn't work much then you'd get your benefits stopped unless you were prepared to do community work to get them. As JSA is a pittance per week then it's one day a week equivalent max. Anyone caught cheating the system would be barred from claiming benefits again for life as well as having to pay it back or work it back via community service. Cheats shouldn't prosper. Getting people back to work is more difficult as there aren't anywhere near enough jobs. Community work is perhaps the only answer to keep them occupied as there is always litter to pick and graffiti to clear up etc. There is only so far you can go with making up work for people to do. If maximum working hours were limited more aggressively perhaps there would be more jobs around? It seems unfair that some are working 40-60 hours when you could make sure everyone worked 35-40 and have more jobs available. All the futureologists were predicting lives of leisure for a lot of people with automation but this doesn't seem to have appeared. I suppose if we persuade enough people that shopping is a leisure activity then all the unemployed can work in shops.... |
|
New Wed 6 Oct 10 11:02
How would you sort out the benefits mess? - tyro
|
|
"I agree. But the snag is a) it is impossible to stop people having children anyway, and b) once they have them it is not socially acceptable to have them put down, as one would do with unwanted pets. So unless you are willing to go back to a society with feral children roaming unwashed and unwanted in the streets, those producing unaffordable children can always blackmail everyone else into paying for them." You may be right, Cliff. However . . . In an ideal world, those who have children that they cannot afford to pay for would put them up for adoption - and even in our unideal world, I suspect that if child benefit ceased, numbers of children available for adoption would rise. (Which would not necessarily be a bad thing, as I believe that demand for children to be adopted in the UK outstrips supply.) Your comment about going back to a society with feral children roaming the streets is interesting. I'm sure some people would say that we actually do have feral children roaming the streets in some of the rougher housing estates of our cities. Be that as it may, it seems to me that the USA doesn't have a significantly bigger problem with "feral children" than the UK, and yet the USA does not give cash benefits to families with dependent children. (tinyurl.com/39h9oa9) In other words, I am not convinced that infant ferality would increase significantly in Britain if child benefit was phased out. |
|
New Wed 6 Oct 10 11:29
How would you sort out the benefits mess? - hjd
|
|
The advantage of child benefit, as opposed to other benefits, has always been that it is cheap and easy to administer. Entitlement starts at birth; there is no means-testing and the only changes to amounts paid occur either when the rate changes annually, or when a child leaves full-time education. Making the benefit means-tested will hugely increase administration costs and mean parents never know from one year to the next their correct entitlement. I should have thought that paying the benefit for a shorter period of time (say 5 years) to all would reduce the costs and not increase the admin burden. |
|
New Wed 6 Oct 10 11:50
How would you sort out the benefits mess? - RattleandSmoke
|
|
You can't say no benefit for those who have never worked it isn't that simple. There is a major culture in some areas where entire families have never worked and there is in many cases no jobs either. If you have some chav turns up at job interview with no GCSEs or work history not many people are going to employ them. My education background is quite good but I am not clever, my parents are fairly well educated although I was never encourage to go to university I was never discouraged either. I think its simply unfair to stop benefits to people from poor depreived background. I have a couple of friends who are long term unemployed, one works 3 days a week for a charity and the other has had a few temp jobs here and there but the reason they are still unemployed is there are no jobs. One of them dosn't seem to know the difference between a degree and NVQ level 3 which dosn't help. They have applied to supermarkets and even though they have plenty of retail experience they didn't get the jobs. I also found it very hard to get a job but after two months ont he dole enough was enough. I setup on my own and employed myself. If I wasn't doing this I would probably be working on the markets or doing anything not to be on the dole. |
|
New Wed 6 Oct 10 15:55
How would you sort out the benefits mess? - teabelly
|
|
They wouldn't be poor if they got off their backsides and worked. There is work but they don't want to do it! Luckily lots of overseas workers will do it. Also if there is no work where you are then move somewhere else. This is what happened in the 50s and 60s when lots of people from the North East moved down into the Midlands. If the chavs have to work then they'll find a way of making themselves employable. While they are getting benefits to keep them in cigarettes and cheap cider they're hardly going to bother. The only reason there are generations of unemployed is because of benefits. Remove those and they have to do something or starve. Suddenly getting up at 5am to do a cleaning job they wouldn't touch before becomes appealing compared to not eating. |
|
New Wed 6 Oct 10 11:58
How would you sort out the benefits mess? - paulb
|
|
I can't deny that the 20-odd quid a week we get for B Jr is useful - although we could manage without it - and believe it or not we do make sure it gets spent on stuff for him. I have though always thought that a far better way of arranging these things is to make less of my income subject to taxation. That way I could afford more stuff for the family as a whole without a sub from HM Gov't which can (as we have now seen) be removed on a whim. Oh, and some of that stuff that I'll then buy will be VATable, which means that the Gov't gets a cut of the action anyway. But that would involve HM Gov't nicking less of my cash, so we can't have that. The thing that has bored me most about this whole CB business is the usual venom from the child-hating brigade, who for some reason seem to be particularly well-represented on the Telegraph's comments pages. We seem to be particularly inclined to that sort of view in this country and I've never fully understood why. |
|
New Wed 6 Oct 10 11:59
How would you sort out the benefits mess? - RattleandSmoke
|
| They are planning of doing that anyway, I think the tax base rate will be £10k a year but it will be a few years before that fully comes in. Its a good idea for low income earners, less benefits, less tax. |
|
New Wed 6 Oct 10 12:18
How would you sort out the benefits mess? - paulb
|
|
>> They are planning of doing that anyway, Yes, but my trouble is, I've been around too long to have any other view of such statements of intent other than "I'll believe it when I see it". It is enormously difficult to get any government of whatever political hue to relinquish, wholly or in part, any source of revenue. I recently re-read C. Northcote Parkinson's The Law and the Profits which, although published half a century ago, is still of relevance in its discussion of taxation theory. I've often thought it should be compulsory pre-reading for any incoming Chancellor prior to taking up the post. |
|
New Wed 6 Oct 10 12:19
How would you sort out the benefits mess? - tyro
|
|
"The advantage of child benefit, as opposed to other benefits, has always been that it is cheap and easy to administer." True, but while that makes it easy and efficient, it does not make it right (in my opinion). "Making the benefit means-tested will hugely increase administration costs ...." I used to believe that means testing was a good thing - I increasingly think that it is a big mistake. "I should have thought that paying the benefit for a shorter period of time (say 5 years) to all would reduce the costs and not increase the admin burden." Good idea. OK - so if I was in the government, one way of tackling the cost of child benefit would be to say: 1) No child benefit will be paid in respect of children born after (or entering the country after) 1st January 2012. 2) From 1st January 2012, no child benefit will be paid in respect of children over the age of (say) 11 years of age. Simple to administer, fairly transparent, not too sudden, will save more money in the long term than HMG's proposals, and will get rid of the the situation of paying people money to have children once and for all. QED. ;-) Last edited by: tyro on Wed 6 Oct 10 at 12:21
|
|
New Wed 6 Oct 10 12:22
How would you sort out the benefits mess? - paulb
|
| Tyro - far too flippin' simple. They'll never do it. |
|
New Wed 6 Oct 10 12:31
How would you sort out the benefits mess? - tyro
|
|
"They'll never do it." I may be naive, but at least I had realised that. :-) |
|
New Wed 6 Oct 10 13:09
How would you sort out the benefits mess? - paulb
|
|
>> I may be naive, but at least I had realised that. >> >> :-) Hey! we can dream, can't we...? |
|
New Wed 6 Oct 10 13:44
How would you sort out the benefits mess? - Cliff Pope
|
|
OK, here are two radically different but simple proposals: 1) There is a flat rate social security payment of £100 per week. It is payable on demand to anyone who wants it.. It is tax free and not means-tested. There are no allowances for marriage, children, or anything else. To get it all you have to do is turn up at a social security office at 9.00am on Monday morning, and wait your place in the queue. If there is still a queue at 5pm the office closes and you have to come back the next day. Disabled people, sick and those over 65 get it anyway. There are no other social security benefits or state pensions. 2) Everybody is registered for income tax. There is a continuous scale of tax allowances, so that there is a corresponding scale of income tax, ranging from negative to positive. Someone with no income will receive state income of £100 per week. Anyone who has other income will suffer tax at a continuously increasing rate, such that there will be a benefit from every additional £ earned, at whatever point on the scale. There will be no point at which it will not be worth earning more. There are no other state benefits, pensions or allowances. Last edited by: Cliff Pope on Wed 6 Oct 10 at 13:46
|
|
New Wed 6 Oct 10 13:43
How would you sort out the benefits mess? - CGNorwich
|
|
So Tyro under your plan a family with 2 children struggling to make end meet on a low wage suddenly finds themselves losing around £1,750 in child benefit with 12 months notice. Do you think that will provoke any reaction? Would that be perceived as fair and reasonable? I can remember having two young children and relying on family allowance as it was then called to help pay for things like new shoes and winter coats and all the other expenditure of raising a family. Not sure why you choose a cut off age of 11 either - teenagers are far most costly that young children. And children are not a luxury item that only the rich should indulge in. Sooner or later you will be dependent on other peoples children to pay taxes to pay for the NHS and your pension and even physically look after you. The country's children are its biggest asset, not a liability and we should look after them and those who bring them up. |
|
New Wed 6 Oct 10 14:28
How would you sort out the benefits mess? - tyro
|
|
So Tyro under your plan a family with 2 children struggling to make end meet on a low wage suddenly finds themselves losing around £1,750 in child benefit with 12 months notice. Do you think that will provoke any reaction? Would that be perceived as fair and reasonable? I have no doubt that it will provoke a reaction. And I am sure that some people will not perceive it as fair and reasonable. But my question would be "Is it reasonable that these people have been receiving hundreds of pounds from the tax-payer simply for having children?" It's not as if I'm proposing that they should have to give any of it back. One could argue that they have nothing to complain about, because they've already been given plenty. Not sure why you choose a cut off age of 11 either - teenagers are far most costly that young children. As I said, it was a number plucked from thin air. If teenagers are more costly than young children, parents can save the money during the early years and spend it when the expensive years come. And children are not a luxury item that only the rich should indulge in. The concept of children being either "luxury items" or something that people should "indulge in" strike me as strange. They are a responsibility, and I cannot see why people who are going to take that responsibility on themselves should expect other people to pay for them. "Sooner or later you will be dependent on other peoples children to pay taxes to pay for the NHS and your pension and even physically look after you." While agree that all of us are dependent on other people (city dwellers depend on farmers, etc.) I don't see why I should rely on anyone other than my family to pay for my care when I get old. |
|
New Wed 6 Oct 10 16:02
How would you sort out the benefits mess? - Lygonos
|
|
Leave benefits static. Increase minimum wage to £7 an hour. Cut employer's NI by 1-2% to cushion some of this. Amazing - it suddenly gets more useful to work than sit on one's bum. Also there is less state 'top-up' with tax credits, etc. |
|
New Wed 6 Oct 10 16:21
How would you sort out the benefits mess? - L'escargot
|
| Link state pensions to average wages. |
|
New Wed 6 Oct 10 16:35
How would you sort out the benefits mess? - Bellboy
|
|
make everyone work till they die give everyone a bowl of rice a day use a big stick for flaggers this way everyone benefits including the leading party |
|
New Wed 6 Oct 10 16:42
How would you sort out the benefits mess? - Roger.
|
|
Just try two of you living on a joint pension income of less than £14K per year - it's not easy! I guess that if we were in the UK we would be on some sort of benefit - even if it was just Council Tax reduction. Last edited by: landsker on Wed 6 Oct 10 at 16:45
|
|
New Wed 6 Oct 10 16:45
How would you sort out the benefits mess? - movilogo
|
|
Simple - just stop all benefits. |
|
New Wed 6 Oct 10 17:37
How would you sort out the benefits mess? - Dog
|
|
Now I know that there are those in the far reaches of the Empire who are unable to read the highly esteemed Sun newspaper but, there is a report in today's edition about a 38 year old woman who receives benefits-funded income totalling £38,324 for her 13 children, that's right thirteen children, She splurged £1,700 of her benefits on a 60in plasma TV and claimed last night that plans to cap payments to the workshy would leave her family "on the breadline". She lives with her 46 year old unemployed (surprise, surprise) partner in a large detached house all paid for by the taxpayer. This reminds me of a little ditty taught to me by my ole mum many, many decades ago - Come inside you silly boy come inside, I thought you had a bit more sense, you're working for your living but take my tip, act a bit silly and you'll be a lunatic, you'll get your meals more regular, and 2 new suits besides, oh 50 bob a week and a dozen kids to keep, come inside you silly boy come inside. Last edited by: Webmaster on Sun 10 Oct 10 at 17:15
|
|
New Wed 6 Oct 10 19:34
How would you sort out the benefits mess? - -
|
|
Never paid in, nothing out, no free health service or education and definately no free housing either for those who haven't paid in. There's a huge elephant in the room of the massive increase in non economically active immigration especially since Tone and his cabal were voted in by those easily bought, until someone (and i don't see anyone in the 3 main parties with a set) sets about this elephant then we will slide ever more down this slipperly slope. And please don't anyone insult us by repeating the idiot liberal lunatic mantra of 'they do the jobs our people won't do'. It's not as if we don't have enough of our own breeding machine unemployable's without scouring the world for more. Turning Britain into a service industry sweat shop of people on minimum wage is worse than useless anyway, by the time they've had top ups in various forms of tax credits and other allowances including untouchable child allowances they cost the country a net amount. Bleeding the ever decreasing number of people who are net tax payers till the pips squeak is the only way politicans know, there is no way out of this mess. I don't expect anyone to agree with this and some may feel offended by it, but it's part of the truth as i see it. |
|
New Wed 6 Oct 10 19:46
How would you sort out the benefits mess? - Bellboy
|
| 10/10 from me GB |
|
New Wed 6 Oct 10 19:48
How would you sort out the benefits mess? - Suppose
|
|
>> There's a huge elephant in the room of the massive increase in non economically active >> immigration especially since Tone and his cabal were voted in by those easily bought, Cheap shot at an easy target. Where's your evidence. Don't tell me - you read it in the Daily Mail, or because Mrs Duffy said so, didn't she? UK plc. is bust, and it is going to take more than the ConLib policies to sort it. UK plc. needs to reduce the total costs of operating in the country to a level that can compete with the Far East or the Far East costs need to rise to UK levels. Rememebr that it was not that long ago that Japan and Singapore were the cheap but high quality manufacturing centres. Most of that work has now gone to China, Korea, and Taiwan. Tax - this unattributed, or wrongly-attributed, short tale is worth reading www.snopes.com/business/taxes/howtaxes.asp Last edited by: Suppose on Wed 6 Oct 10 at 19:48
|
|
New Wed 6 Oct 10 19:54
How would you sort out the benefits mess? - Bellboy
|
|
i read the book of life read it everyday see dont need no newspaper or some person to tell me rights from wrong and i certainly dont need telling that i am a daily mail reader as that is just a plain insult |
|
New Wed 6 Oct 10 20:18
How would you sort out the benefits mess? - Stuu
|
|
I honestly dont know the answer, but I like any policy that takes benefits away from those who dont need it and makes it less desirable to make a career out of claiming them. I dont know yet if I like the Coalition, but I like some of the noises they are making about both of the above mentioned things, so that puts them way ahead of Labour who encouraged the problem. I know they have made a gaffe with this child benefit thing, but I like that they rattled the middle classes who seem to think that benefits should help fund and I quote from a parenting forum beloved of Labour supporters ( the second holiday, music lessons, a new car every two years and the inability to shop at Waitrose ). For that alone, I have to thank Osbourne, even if he needs to get back to the drawing board with the threasholds. I wouldnt mind seeing benefits paid out purely by way of vouchers for things like food and accomadation rather than ready cash. |
|
New Wed 6 Oct 10 21:57
How would you sort out the benefits mess? - Fullchat
|
|
'I wouldn't mind seeing benefits paid out purely by way of vouchers for things like food and accommodation rather than ready cash.' That has possibilities - certain types of goods as well. Fresh foods, no baccy and booze. No doubt some sort of black market would develop though. How about public work like cleaning and tidying up the place. |
|
New Wed 6 Oct 10 22:06
How would you sort out the benefits mess? - CGNorwich
|
| Why not go the whole hog and re-introduce workhouses for the feckless and undeserving poor? |
|
New Wed 6 Oct 10 23:00
How would you sort out the benefits mess? - Kevin
|
|
>Why not go the whole hog and re-introduce workhouses for the feckless and undeserving poor? Good idea but let's take it one step at a time eh? Maybe we could start with making the benefit culture less attractive? Welfare handouts should be a last-resort safety net, not a career choice. Kevin... |
|
New Wed 6 Oct 10 22:38
How would you sort out the benefits mess? - swiss tony
|
|
>> 'I wouldn't mind seeing benefits paid out purely by way of vouchers for things like >> food and accommodation rather than ready cash.' >> >> That has possibilities - certain types of goods as well. Fresh foods, no baccy and >> booze. >> >> No doubt some sort of black market would develop though. >> >> How about public work like cleaning and tidying up the place. >> I agree with that idea. My other idea's are; 1/To LOWER the retirement age, not higher it as this Government wishes. by 60-65 most people have paid off their mortgage, have most of what they need, and would like to take life easier. By lowering the retirement age, more positions would become vacant, meaning the younger unemployed would have less of an excuse to sit on their backsides claiming benefits. the longer one is unemployed, the less you want to get a job, and without a decent CV your chances of being picked for a position lessen. I'm fairly sure the unemployment 'bill' is greater than the pension one, if not now, it soon will be, when all costs are taken into account. 2/Make sure the unemployed do something to 'earn' the benefits, be it sweeping the roads, grass/hedge cutting, snow clearing and the suchlike. 3/Stop benefits leaving the country. I know of some foreign workers who get child benefit, for their children, who have never been in the UK, that's just crazy! 4/make sure that council housing is used correctly. far too many couples keep the 3 bed houses after their children leave home, 1 or 2 bed places would be more suitable for those people, this would free up the larger properties for those that need them, as well as lowering the running costs for the older residents. 5/make sure the council housing stock is adequate for the local needs. it is not cost effective to have people staying in private properties, or hotels, at the councils cost, for more than a few days. Basically what I am saying, is look at the bigger picture, and reallocate funds to where the money is best spent, after all all our taxes go into one pot, and are divided out, so why not use the money in the most cost effective way possible? |
|
New Wed 6 Oct 10 22:54
How would you sort out the benefits mess? - Robin O'Reliant
|
|
>> 'I wouldn't mind seeing benefits paid out purely by way of vouchers for things like >> food and accommodation rather than ready cash.' >> >> That has possibilities - certain types of goods as well. Fresh foods, no baccy and >> booze. >> What business is it of anyone's how the unemployed spend what money they get? Would you like to be paid in vouchers, redeemable against politically correct goods only, no McDonalds, fags, booze, or what ever someone like Harriet Harman or Edwina Curry thinks is good for you? People who are genuinely unable to work should get benefits (it could be any one of us one day) and how they choose to send them is their own business. Besides, we should welcome the money being spent on cigarettes. As a smoker myself I consider myself to be a higher rate taxpayer, and what's more if it finishes me off early then I won't be a drain on the state like some fruit eating fitness fanatic who is going to hang on till they reach 100 draining the pension funds and bothering the healthcare system. |
|
New Wed 6 Oct 10 23:01
How would you sort out the benefits mess? - swiss tony
|
|
>> As a smoker myself I >> consider myself to be a higher rate taxpayer, and what's more if it finishes me >> off early then I won't be a drain on the state like some fruit eating >> fitness fanatic who is going to hang on till they reach 100 draining the pension >> funds and bothering the healthcare system. >> You think that fit people are a bigger drain on the healthcare system than sick people? But I will agree with you the comment about pension funds! |
|
New Wed 6 Oct 10 23:08
How would you sort out the benefits mess? - Robin O'Reliant
|
|
>> >> You think that fit people are a bigger drain on the healthcare system than sick >> people? >> No one will remain fit forever. Whether you get the disease that finishes you off through lifestyle or natural causes you will most likely end your days with your body dying bit by bit and needing care and attention for however long it takes to shut down completely. The anti smoking lobby tell us that smoking costs the health service between 2.5 and 5 billion a year ( based largely on guesswork I would imagine). The Treasury reckons it collects 10 billion on tobacco tax, which makes us remaining smokers selfless hero's who should be lauded and encouraged rather than patronised and vilified. |
|
New Wed 6 Oct 10 23:24
How would you sort out the benefits mess? - Stuu
|
|
>>What business is it of anyone's how the unemployed spend what money they get? Would you like to be paid in vouchers, redeemable against politically correct goods only, no McDonalds, fags, booze, or what ever someone like Harriet Harman or Edwina Curry thinks is good for you?<< Because that money is to lift them out of poverty, its not pocket money. Its for basic needs. I dont wish to pay for some bimbos boob job, nor some blokes 60 inch TV. If they can afford those things, they clearly have too much given that people who work earning the average wage cannot afford such things - also the people who help fund such a lifestyle. That needs to be curbed so the money goes on real NEED, not GREED. |
|
New Wed 6 Oct 10 23:31
How would you sort out the benefits mess? - swiss tony
|
|
>>If they can afford those things, they clearly have too much given that people >> who work earning the average wage cannot afford such things - also the people who >> help fund such a lifestyle. >> That needs to be curbed so the money goes on real NEED, not GREED. >> Exactly. If people can't be trusted to spend the benefits on need, not greed, then there must be systems in place to make sure the money is used correctly. How many times have we all seen the unemployed in tatty clothes and knackered shoes, drinking, smoking and with sky tv? |
|
New Wed 6 Oct 10 23:54
How would you sort out the benefits mess? - Suppose
|
|
>> Exactly. >> If people can't be trusted to spend the benefits on need, not greed, then there >> must be systems in place to make sure the money is used correctly. >> How many times have we all seen the unemployed in tatty clothes and knackered shoes, >> drinking, smoking and with sky tv? >> What is needed is a USA style "welfare for work system" - "Eligibility for a Welfare program depends on numerous factors. Eligibility is determined using gross and net income, size of the family, and any crisis situation such as medical emergencies, pregnancy, homelessness or unemployment. A case worker is assigned to those applying for aid. They will gather all the necessary information to determine the amount and type of benefits that an individual is eligible for. The Federal government provides assistance through TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families). TANF is a grant given to each state to run their own welfare program. To help overcome the former problem of unemployment due to reliance on the welfare system, the TANF grant requires that all recipients of welfare aid must find work within two years of receiving aid, including single parents who are required to work at least 30 hours per week opposed to 35 or 55 required by two parent families. Failure to comply with work requirements could result in loss of benefits. " or maybe even the The Chinese Social Benefit System - onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1196/annals.1425.025/pdf Last edited by: Suppose on Wed 6 Oct 10 at 23:55
|
|
New Thu 7 Oct 10 01:11
How would you sort out the benefits mess? - Skoda
|
|
>> What is needed is a USA style "welfare for work system" - Follow it to it's logical conclusion. How does the person get out of the system and back into mainstream work? |
|
New Thu 7 Oct 10 01:14
How would you sort out the benefits mess? - Skoda
|
|
>> If people can't be trusted to spend the benefits on need, not greed, then there must be systems in place to make sure the money is used correctly. Why? Secondly, what would be the cost of ensuring compliance? You're not naive enough to think that want will just magically disappear when access is removed? |
|
New Thu 7 Oct 10 06:23
How would you sort out the benefits mess? - Pat
|
|
I think it's very easy to sit and mentally reform a system when you've never been in a position to draw benefits and actually need them to survive on. I'd like to think that some of the suggestions on here have been made by people in that position. I think Swiss Tony has it right with need not greed. It's almost impossible for people to find their way through the benefits system to understand what they can claim for, so a huge amount of people in need, don't actually get what they are entitled to. On the other hand, while we censor the needy and make it difficult for them, we don't seem to be able to stop the greedy claiming, and getting, far more than they would get working for a living. One area that bugs me is Motability and Disability. Broadly speaking cancer, in the medium term, is not classed as a disability and you are expected to survive on SSP (£80 approx per week and taxable) On the other hand, for the last six years we have had a disabled lorry driver working for us. He works full time, copes with the job very well and earns the same wage as any other lorry driver. BUT, he has a brand new motability car and claims Disability Allowance weekly as well........he also has six young children ( all under 10yrs old) which is something most of us would struggle to afford. Add to this that he brags about how well off he is and you start to get the picture. Making work more profitable than benefits won't work for the scroungers, such as in the Sun yesterday, those people don't want to work and never will, unless their benefits are stopped completely. But then the needy are affected by the sweeping changes needed to do this and as always, they will be the losers. Pat Last edited by: pda on Thu 7 Oct 10 at 06:23
|
|
New Thu 7 Oct 10 09:41
How would you sort out the benefits mess? - Fullchat
|
|
Some posts above make references to demands on healthcare. Having spent much time hanging around A&E units over the years I have observed that many of patients taking advantage of the system are the type of people we are describing above and most of them are inebriated and the injuries sustained as a result of their intoxication. |
|
New Thu 7 Oct 10 09:42
How would you sort out the benefits mess? - Dog
|
|
This is from my edumacated friend in Plymouth ~ Divide Et Impera This whole debate disgusts me. It demonstrates the power of the ruling elite, in that through their control of the media, they can keep it firmly on the agenda. Through the decades a voiceless minority group has always been singled out for scapegoating, through the Thatcher and the Major years I can remember rapturous applause at party conferences as successive leaders have blamed single mums, travellers, immigrants, the unemployed, and now the disabled for the ills of society. Whilst keeping a firmly blinded eye on the £100 billion (NEF) lost to the treasury each year tax avoidance and sheer criminal evasion. Of course there is always abuse of the welfare systems, but it's worth remembering that that money does not go into some offshore or Swiss bank a/c, it goes straight back into supporting the local economy. That's better - nothing like a good rant first thing in the morning! |
|
New Thu 7 Oct 10 11:46
How would you sort out the benefits mess? - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> >> One area that bugs me is Motability and Disability. >> >> Broadly speaking cancer, in the medium term, is not classed as a disability and you >> are expected to survive on SSP (£80 approx per week and taxable) >> >> On the other hand, for the last six years we have had a disabled lorry >> driver working for us. He works full time, copes with the job very well and >> earns the same wage as any other lorry driver. >> BUT, he has a brand new motability car and claims Disability Allowance weekly as well........he Pat, Disability Living Allowance is a universla non means tested benefit. The qualification for DLA mobility component at higher rate (which in turn allows access to a motability car) is to be unable or practically unable to walk. I'm struggling to reconcile this with somebody who can climb into a lorry never mind do the, presumably quite active, stuff needed when laoding or coupling trailers. Unless it's his wife or one of his kids who qualifies I think there's something fishy!! |
|
New Thu 7 Oct 10 12:35
How would you sort out the benefits mess? - Pat
|
|
He has one limp arm and has to lift it up with the other one. He passed his test on a manual lorry though and actually manages the job quite well with one good arm. Does he come under the 'help for washing & dressing', I wonder? I really don't know how he gets around it but he does, and it angers all of us who work with him. He's also an expert at saying 'Can you help me with this'? and 'Can you pay for my meal, as I haven't got any money'......you know the type! Pat |
|
New Thu 7 Oct 10 10:03
How would you sort out the benefits mess? - L'escargot
|
|
I would give more to the NHS and state pensions, and less to child benefits. I would also ensure that an NHS dentist was readily available to anyone needing dental treatment, in much the same way as an NHS doctor is available to anyone.
Last edited by: L'escargot on Thu 7 Oct 10 at 10:07
|
|
New Thu 7 Oct 10 12:03
How would you sort out the benefits mess? - paulb
|
|
>> I would also ensure that an NHS dentist was readily available to anyone needing dental >> treatment, in much the same way as an NHS doctor is available to anyone. >> Agree 100% there. NHS dentists are (excuse the pun) like hen's teeth round here. Had to stay with the same practice over the other side of the county to ensure I can keep on the NHS scheme - the 30-mile journey there is rather more palatable than the amount Denplan quoted me for family cover. Properly arranged, that might end this silly business of dentists refusing to do general dentistry work - we've a place in our village that calls itself a dental practice but you can't get a checkup there, just cosmetic work - and make it possible to get proper out of hours cover. |
|
New Thu 7 Oct 10 12:16
How would you sort out the benefits mess? - Stuu
|
| Id like to see NHS dentists on the same site as the doctors which would make it much easier to locate them and use the service. |
|
New Thu 7 Oct 10 13:27
How would you sort out the benefits mess? - RattleandSmoke
|
|
Means testing for disability allowances is a tricky one. My grandma gets a lot of benefits and she gives some of it to us. She can look after herself but she can't get out of the house on her own, she needs lifts every where, if she can pay a taxi it would cost her a fortune. Not something she can afford with a three bedroom house to run. Now some might say she should live some where cheaper but then its not fair to evict somebody from their house when they have lived there for 50 years. The state benefits she gets on top of her pension allows her to live a comfortable buit not rich life. She isnt' at all rich but she dosn't have to worry about where the gas money is coming from. She is a lot better of than us in that respect. She has worked hard all her life and always worked so it seems only fair she should spend her last few remaining years without worrying about money. |
|
New Thu 7 Oct 10 15:45
How would you sort out the benefits mess? - tyro
|
|
"Means testing for disability allowances is a tricky one." As has often been pointed out, means testing for any benefits, particularly if it involves testing one's capital (rather that one's earnings), basically encourages idleness and waste and discourages hard work and thrift. Which is basically why I have come around to the view point that means testing is not a good idea. Of course, the obvious alternative is that one gives benefits (which have been paid for by tax-payers, many of whom are of modest means) to the very wealthy. Last edited by: tyro on Thu 7 Oct 10 at 15:45
|
|
New Thu 7 Oct 10 16:02
How would you sort out the benefits mess? - Stuu
|
|
My grandmother (76 ) has a form of MS which basically means she has very little sensation below the waist, so while her legs are physically there, she finds walking quite a challenge and cannot walk more than a foot or two unaided and even with help, maybe only 6 feet until her legs collapse beneath her. As such, the £300 a month she gets from DLA helps her 'spend around' these problems, buying all kinds of aids to make daily tasks easier and it allows her to pay a cleaner to do what she cant. She does still have her own money ( about £1100 a month split between state pension and a private pension ) so shes not poor, but the extra does make life that bit easier. You should hear her grumble at the claims some people make though, she thinks more than a few are total fakes - and I quote ' Their only disability is being damned lazy'. Back to the point, she was means tested for her DLA and they actually encourage her to try and attain the highest level she can which she thought was a bit 'off' so she was just honest and happened to get a good allowance anyway. She said the other day that they will throw money at her for anything she wants if she makes enough noise, so it sounds open to abuse or even conspiracy with the people who process claims. |
|
New Fri 8 Oct 10 07:48
How would you sort out the benefits mess? - L'escargot
|
|
>> Id like to see NHS dentists on the same site as the doctors which would >> make it much easier to locate them and use the service. >> Fortunately the building housing our medical practice also houses an NHS dental practice ~ and a pharmacy which is open long hours for most days of the year. |
Forum Version 3.0 - By Khoosys
Car4play Forum
