Cash benefits or Food stamps?

[Aadam]

This is it. If the government focused more on the super rich tax dodgers and not the handful of benefits cheats then this would benefit the country sufficiently more.

But those in receipt of benefits are outweighed by the financial influence the super-rich have over the government. Dave won't want to upset his mates down at the golf club by chasing tax avoiders and evaders. Christ, even his Dad set up a an offshore investment fund to do this,.

 

[sten_super]

On the second point, how do you take into consideration things like contributions to rent and the number of dependants you have? Not a snipe, I'm asking if you have a view on this also? I notice you question the American system, I'm not sure it works, like you suggest.

It seems to me that issues such as contributions to rent and dependants are secondary considerations, behind the big problem which is separating out those that have a genuine need and those for whom it's a lifestyle choice, while still ensuring that (as far as possible) no-one is living in genuine poverty. If you work that out then you can also try to set similar differential rates for rent contributions and dependants.

I've always quite liked the idea of replacing unemployment benefit with paid public sector work - you give someone the minimum wage (and for less than full-time hours, so that the worker has time to job-hunt and the 'wages' are less than that available for genuine full-time employment) in exchange for doing non-essential public services that are typically underprovided; this might be maintaining public footpaths (e.g. trimming foliage in summer), cleaning public toilets, etc. The work is not much fun, but there is then some benefit to society in exchange for the payment of unemployment benefits, while still keeping a financial incentive to find other work. There are clearly incentive problems here (why would the employee be motivated to do a good job?) but potentially there are ways around this.

On the disability benefits, it's a lot more difficult, and the scheme above would of course encourage the work-shy to 'develop' disabilities, so this legislation and testing would have to be tightened up (in the sense of ensuring that the correct results are reached in individual cases, rather than an absolute movement up or down in terms of numbers of people claiming disability) first.

A fundamental problem I have with government policy, and one which I was hopeful that this government would be able to get over (but haven't really, and where they have only in the most ridiculous of fashions), is that the vast majority of policy and legislation is incremental - it takes the existing policy and adds a bit, or tinkers around the edges. As a result of this and the swings between governments legislation is a weird mix of left and right.

 

[rouseytastic]

So no matter if they have saved a little out of their benefits for maybe a year or more, they should still not be allowed to have a holiday?

Correct. If they are able to save benefits because they are receiving too much it should be out back in to the system not to fund a bloody holiday. I haven't been on holiday for nearly 6 years because I pay full council tax, full rent, pay for prescriptions, I pay for everything because I work and I earn a decent wage.
You can defend the system as much as you want but it has become a lifestyle for millions and as a result the rest of the country works harder for less to support people who want to sponge of the state.
Everyone knows at least someone who takes the piss.
It needs changing and now and if those who genuinely can't work are worse off then in time when the numbers have come down it can be looked at.
This country is bankrupt because of generations of people who just can't be arsed and we had a government who let them get away with it it had to change now

 

[macky]

Correct. If they are able to save benefits because they are receiving too much it should be out back in to the system not to fund a bloody holiday. I haven't been on holiday for nearly 6 years because I pay full council tax, full rent, pay for prescriptions, I pay for everything because I work and I earn a decent wage.
You can defend the system as much as you want but it has become a lifestyle for millions and as a result the rest of the country works harder for less to support people who want to sponge of the state.
Everyone knows at least someone who takes the piss.
It needs changing and now and if those who genuinely can't work are worse off then in time when the numbers have come down it can be looked at.
This country is bankrupt because of generations of people who just can't be arsed and we had a government who let them get away with it it had to change now

a decent wage and cant afford a holiday for over six years ?

 

[BensGrandad]

My biggest beef is that there are many who get next to nothing but many that know and play the system and believe it is their right. How you can control this I am not sure but there must be a way. I have always said that if I was PM I would scrap Child allowance and provide free school meals for every child with the money that is saved. Whether or not this would work I am not sure as to how he figures would match up, but I beilieve he theory is right.

 

[BigGully]

So no matter if they have saved a little out of their benefits for maybe a year or more, they should still not be allowed to have a holiday?

Wow, that really is an example of a benefit culture when you so readily make this statement, without a thought to the 10000's of working people unable to afford one.

 

[Aadam]

It seems to me that issues such as contributions to rent and dependants are secondary considerations, behind the big problem which is separating out those that have a genuine need and those for whom it's a lifestyle choice, while still ensuring that (as far as possible) no-one is living in genuine poverty. If you work that out then you can also try to set similar differential rates for rent contributions and dependants.

I've always quite liked the idea of replacing unemployment benefit with paid public sector work - you give someone the minimum wage (and for less than full-time hours, so that the worker has time to job-hunt and the 'wages' are less than that available for genuine full-time employment) in exchange for doing non-essential public services that are typically underprovided; this might be maintaining public footpaths (e.g. trimming foliage in summer), cleaning public toilets, etc. The work is not much fun, but there is then some benefit to society in exchange for the payment of unemployment benefits, while still keeping a financial incentive to find other work. There are clearly incentive problems here (why would the employee be motivated to do a good job?) but potentially there are ways around this.

On the disability benefits, it's a lot more difficult, and the scheme above would of course encourage the work-shy to 'develop' disabilities, so this legislation and testing would have to be tightened up (in the sense of ensuring that the correct results are reached in individual cases, rather than an absolute movement up or down in terms of numbers of people claiming disability) first.

A fundamental problem I have with government policy, and one which I was hopeful that this government would be able to get over (but haven't really, and where they have only in the most ridiculous of fashions), is that the vast majority of policy and legislation is incremental - it takes the existing policy and adds a bit, or tinkers around the edges. As a result of this and the swings between governments legislation is a weird mix of left and right.

I agree. However, I'm not sure it would work. You'd need to spend money on training, monitoring, sick pay (when off sick if it's paid work, unless voluntary with benefits). Plus correcting mistakes and re-doing bad work.

Correct. If they are able to save benefits because they are receiving too much it should be out back in to the system not to fund a bloody holiday. I haven't been on holiday for nearly 6 years because I pay full council tax, full rent, pay for prescriptions, I pay for everything because I work and I earn a decent wage.
You can defend the system as much as you want but it has become a lifestyle for millions and as a result the rest of the country works harder for less to support people who want to sponge of the state.
Everyone knows at least someone who takes the piss.
It needs changing and now and if those who genuinely can't work are worse off then in time when the numbers have come down it can be looked at.
This country is bankrupt because of generations of people who just can't be arsed and we had a government who let them get away with it it had to change now

Even saving £10 a month over 6 years would be enough for a holiday for two. Not a snipe, just an observation of someone earning a decent wage.

 

[sten_super]

I agree. However, I'm not sure it would work. You'd need to spend money on training, monitoring, sick pay (when off sick if it's paid work, unless voluntary with benefits). Plus correcting mistakes and re-doing bad work.

Of course, it's riddled with problems. But then so are the alternatives. This is why it's so easy for us to sit and pontificate on a message board and a damn-sight harder (whatever your political leanings) to actually implement decent (and affordable) policy.

 

[martyn20]

Correct. If they are able to save benefits because they are receiving too much it should be out back in to the system not to fund a bloody holiday. I haven't been on holiday for nearly 6 years because I pay full council tax, full rent, pay for prescriptions, I pay for everything because I work and I earn a decent wage.
You can defend the system as much as you want but it has become a lifestyle for millions and as a result the rest of the country works harder for less to support people who want to sponge of the state.
Everyone knows at least someone who takes the piss.
It needs changing and now and if those who genuinely can't work are worse off then in time when the numbers have come down it can be looked at.
This country is bankrupt because of generations of people who just can't be arsed and we had a government who let them get away with it it had to change now

How close to the poverty line do you want people on benefits to be before you are happy? Yes hopefully by getting us all down there for 10 years or so the scroungers will have given up because it's just so unpleasant, what about the real sick who have also had to live through this unpleasant 10 years, or to weed out the 0.3% of people cheating the system it's ok to punish the 99.7% of people who are actually sick?
Clearly we should remove all cheats and scroungers but you also have to do it in a way that still looks after the genuinely needy

 

[rouseytastic]

a decent wage and cant afford a holiday for over six years ?

That's right. I earn just above the national average. I have 2 kids and as I don't own my own house I pay rent which is higher than a mortgage would be.

Ok

 

[clippedgull]

Those people who use benefit money buying booze and fags are effectively giving the money straight back to the government through the super high taxes on those products!

 

[rouseytastic]

I agree. However, I'm not sure it would work. You'd need to spend money on training, monitoring, sick pay (when off sick if it's paid work, unless voluntary with benefits). Plus correcting mistakes and re-doing bad work.



Even saving £10 a month over 6 years would be enough for a holiday for two. Not a snipe, just an observation of someone earning a decent wage.

I'm sure it would but that would mean leaving my 2 boys at home while me and the mrs swanned off for a holiday.

Over the last 6 years I have earned between £24&£30k and to feed, clothe and house a family of 4 with all the overheads I cannot afford a holiday other than the odd long weekend away to Devon for example.

 

[macky]

That's right. I earn just above the national average. I have 2 kids and as I don't own my own house I pay rent which is higher than a mortgage would be.

Ok

maybe you shouldse if your due help

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Yup

Then the government are ahead of you - it's currently six months for JSA. My partners JSA runs out in November, quite what we do then we don't know. £300 odd quid down on top of not having her salary is going to leave us in a serious situation. JSA doesn't even include free prescriptions or dentistry.

Therefore, you're "They get a job" is somewhat simplistic and shows a complete lack of understanding.

 

[martyn20]

Wow, that really is an example of a benefit culture when you so readily make this statement, without a thought to the 10000's of working people unable to afford one.

So you want to control the way people spend the money they are entitled to. Should people on benefits stay in doors all the time, no days out to try and have a life of some sort, I save a little and go on a foreign holiday with my family once every 2 years, they help me physically and financially, I spend 90% of my life in bed, resting or asleep, once every 2 years I have time away with the people I love, those holidays help me fight my illness and help to keep me going. Would you prefer I spend that money on something else and spend 100% of my time in bed and in doors. Please tell me how I should live my life, well what I still have of a life.

 

[rouseytastic]

I'm not but I do know a friend of mine who earns £38k, his Mrs earns 18k and they have 4 kids who have just moved in to a 3 story town house provided by the housing association. They were given a flat years ago when she gave birth to her first and now as their family grows they keep getting upgraded to bigger and bigger houses. Dispute the fact that they can afford to do it themselves.
He says he will just save his money. Why give up on a good thing etc etc....

 

[Nibble]

That's right. I earn just above the national average. I have 2 kids and as I don't own my own house I pay rent which is higher than a mortgage would be.

Ok

Well why didn't you and the mrs work harder at school and get a better job then? Or why not get off your arse and hget a better job. Why have kids when you can't even afford a holiday once every six years. Lazy mate, plain lazy.

Not so comfortable eh? The shoe being on the other foot.

 

[SK1NT]

Then the government are ahead of you - it's currently six months for JSA. My partners JSA runs out in November, quite what we do then we don't know. £300 odd quid down on top of not having her salary is going to leave us in a serious situation. JSA doesn't even include free prescriptions or dentistry.

Therefore, you're "They get a job" is somewhat simplistic and shows a complete lack of understanding.

Was a tongue in cheek quote... I feel for you and know it is tough out there... but i do know people that just find it easier to claim and not work than to go out and look for a job..

My real solution would be make the minimum wage £10 an hour. Wages will then be considerably more enticing people off benefits. Whilst the social is not far off a few shifts at minimum wage people wont want to work. The incentive has to be there.

 

[rouseytastic]

Well why didn't you and the mrs work harder at school and get a better job then? Or why not get off your arse and hget a better job. Why have kids when you can't even afford a holiday once every six years. Lazy mate, plain lazy.

Not so comfortable eh? The shoe being on the other foot.

Congrats on being possibly the biggest prick I've ever encountered.

 

[Brovion]

Jeez, why has looney been banned? Surely it can't be for anything on this thread?