What happens to state benefit in a recession

ad9898_3

The welfare state cost £160 billion a year, time to weed through the 3 million or so, who stubbed their big toe years ago and have been claiming incapacity benefit ever since, also I think a voucher scheme for food and other essentials, to perhaps shame the 'long term scrounger' into looking for work instead of spending taxpayer money on booze, fags and lotto scratch cards, may also help.

There is alot that could be done to reform welfare that genuinely protects the vulnerable and weeds out the scroungers, Brown won't do it though as it's his block vote at a General Election.:rolleyes:

ad9898_3

amcluesent wrote: »

Some fairness needs applied to restore balance between tax payers and benefits claimants (I mean non-contributory benefits, not pensions).

1) Declining child-benefits, 100%, 66%, 33% then nothing for 4th or greater child. Doing a 'Karen Mathews' isn't an acceptable option.
2) Non-contributory benefits paid in DSS vouchers than can only be used for food/clothes. Jetting off to Tenerife on benefits isn't acceptable.
3) A wee bit more radical, long term benefits claimants taken off electoral roll.

Excellent post. Easy to achieve, why won't Brown do it ??, see my above post.

Davesnave

amcluesent wrote: »

Some fairness needs applied to restore balance between tax payers and benefits claimants (I mean non-contributory benefits, not pensions).

1) Declining child-benefits, 100%, 66%, 33% then nothing for 4th or greater child. Doing a 'Karen Mathews' isn't an acceptable option.
2) Non-contributory benefits paid in DSS vouchers than can only be used for food/clothes. Jetting off to Tenerife on benefits isn't acceptable.
3) A wee bit more radical, long term benefits claimants taken off electoral roll.

No3 seems a bit harsh, or do you just mean those on long term JSA etc?

Otherwise, I don't think that would be too fair on sick people with degenerative diseases, like my friend with MS.

I also don't imagine those permanently on the sick with a 'bad back,' or whatever, would give a monkey's about voting.*

ETA: *excluding X-Factor & Strictly, of course.

ad9898_3

Davesnave wrote: »

No3 seems a bit harsh, or do you just mean those on long term JSA etc?

Otherwise, I don't think that would be too fair on sick people with degenerative diseases, like my friend with MS.

I also don't imagine those permanently on the sick with a 'bad back,' or whatever, would give a monkey's about voting.*

ETA: *excluding X-Factor & Strictly, of course.

I'm sure he didn't mean genuine vulnerable people Dave, I think he meant the double buggy pushing Karen Matthews type, or other career scroungers.

SingleSue

That is the problem though, the genuine vulnerable people will be the ones who will suffer real hardship while the career claimant will just find ways around any new rules.

It seems to pay to be dishonest........

milliemonster

amcluesent wrote: »

Some fairness needs applied to restore balance between tax payers and benefits claimants (I mean non-contributory benefits, not pensions).

1) Declining child-benefits, 100%, 66%, 33% then nothing for 4th or greater child. Doing a 'Karen Mathews' isn't an acceptable option.
2) Non-contributory benefits paid in DSS vouchers than can only be used for food/clothes. Jetting off to Tenerife on benefits isn't acceptable.
3) A wee bit more radical, long term benefits claimants taken off electoral roll.

Whilst at first glance I agree with this, I even think No1 is too radical, in the fact that it only ends up punishing the children who did not ask to be born and will push more kids into poverty and crime and social destruction, don't know what the answer is though

2 I completely agree with, also vouchers can't be exchanged for Sky TV, cigarettes or alcohol

kennyboy66_2

amcluesent wrote: »

3) A wee bit more radical, long term benefits claimants taken off electoral roll.

"They" don't vote anyway.

cocktail

amcluesent wrote: »

Some fairness needs applied to restore balance between tax payers and benefits claimants (I mean non-contributory benefits, not pensions).

1) Declining child-benefits, 100%, 66%, 33% then nothing for 4th or greater child. Doing a 'Karen Mathews' isn't an acceptable option.
2) Non-contributory benefits paid in DSS vouchers than can only be used for food/clothes. Jetting off to Tenerife on benefits isn't acceptable.
3) A wee bit more radical, long term benefits claimants taken off electoral roll.

way forward

Kez100

They'd sell the food vouchers on ebay for 10%less and spend the cash on a holiday to Tenerife.

beingjdc

ad9898 wrote: »

The welfare state cost £160 billion a year:rolleyes:

Although in fairness Disability and Incapacity payments combined amount to less than 15% of that total, at just under £22bn.