Welfare state costs £473 BILLION!!!!

Andy_L

The_White_Horse wrote: »

here you are, here is a picture of an inmate having her hair done at "brenda's salon" in holloway prison.
http://www.dfgdocs.com/Directory/Titles/1333.aspx

absolutely heart breakingly disgusting in every way possible.

is it disgusting or a sensible way of teaching them a skill that can get them a job on release?

JP45

thriftybabe wrote: »

The only problem is there are no jobs for all these people to get back to work!

This is the real tragedy. The fact is the whole issue of inacapacity benefit should have been addressed years ago when there were more jobs to be had. Unfortunately, and all to typically, the government decided to ignore the problem and maintain the charade of bogus unemployment figures.

It was pretty obvious that the staggering rise in incapacity benefit claimants over just a few short years was the result of a deliberate policy to shift people from unemployment to (the more generous) incapacity benefit and hence lower the apparent level of unemployment.

It was yet another example of a government acting in its own narrow interests at the expense of the long term interests of the country.

.

Graham_Devon

ceebeeby wrote: »

For real? Please tell me you're joking about there being a beauty salon and they get bingo nights .... no way!!!! :mad::mad::mad::mad:

Most probably real.

Not too long ago, single mums who had older children (so could work, just didnt want to) could have pampering days at beauty salons on the taxpayer. Full body massage and manicures etc.

This was a local thing up in Manchester as a trial.

The idea was to up their self esteem which apparently would make them want to look for work.

Yer, right.

I wouldn't mind that sort of scheme in all honesty, if they offered the pampering AFTER they had proved they wanted work, by working. But not before as a reward for not wanting to work.

edgex

SingleSue wrote: »

Re voucher system

What about the trips to the hospital, the washing machine breaking down, birthdays, Christmas (even people on benefits have these).

I think they have gone into this on the DT board and have discovered it would actually cost far more to administer and create more stigma than the current system.

they could still receive some cash payments
but a lot of the 'core' items could still be directly paid for/funded


if the state gives someone £100 a month in cash, & they have gas bill of £50 to pay, that leaves them with £50 cash
or
the state could pay that £50 bill directly, & give the claimant £50 cash

the 2nd option is better:
the state knows that the essentials are paid for (to a specific amount)
theres less cash to be gained (reduce fraud)
its cheaper to operate (cheaper to pay 10 (?) utility suppliers than millions of people)


as for stigma, wheres the stigma in the above?
no one would know that its being done


same with paying for school uniform etc
they are realistically only available from limited suppliers, so they would be quite used to accepting vouchers from people
again, no one would notice


payment card to use for groceries etc
the cashier would just process it like any other card
again, no one would notice

donaldtramp

edgex wrote: »

there isnt any


& bit simplistic, but if there was only a 'safety net' system in place, so people couldnt live on benefits for their entire lives, what would the birth rate be like?
would everyone act like the middle & upper classes generally have been doing for a generation, & not be having children till they had hit 30 & got their lives & careers sorted?
would there be next to no families with more than 2 children?

And that is exactly the problem edgex. You've nailed it.
The hard working put off having children till they can support them.
Whereas the benefits crowd see having multiple children as a money earner and a reason NOT too work as they earn more money than they could anywhere else from the state.
I'm absolutely sick to the back teeth of paying for this lot.
They continue have more and more kids, which has led to generations upon generations who have no intention of working and yet we keep paying for it!!!

In Britain it has become survival of the thickest.

zygurat789

The thing is that the same old problems keep being brought up again & again. We had this last week when it eventually turned into an intelligent discussion between posters with real ideas.
Everyone agrees it is not right but very few have any positive input as to how to solve it. It's no good pontificating if you can't do any better yourself.
The_white_horse is just a S**t stirrer and should be ignored maybe she'll go away.

Pobby

Well my single Mum distant relative does OK I think. Didn`t get the house as the third one was another boy! Duh. I am not really sure if it`s right that she can afford driving lessons and now has a car.I thought that the benefits system was a safety net. It`s OK though, as she says she doesn`t smoke or drink so that`s alright then.

sjaypink

There aren't enough jobs, or there aren't enough jobs paying enough money to live (either better off not working at all, or need significant tax credit top ups).

Several factors contributing probably- I don't really have time to try and think any points through right now but quick ramble:

Cost of living* has soared (note living, not surviving/ existing). Technology has grown far faster than we can keep up with financially. Breakdown of traditional families, roles, industries and communities. These are all inter-linked off course...

So, thats why the benefit bill is so huge, not just because chavs like [EMAIL="sh@gging"]sh@gging[/EMAIL]- they need to be sown up etc, but thinking about what really has turned the countries morals, responsibilities & expectations upside down in approx 50 years turns up more questions than answers, so I can see how its probably easier to just rant on about giving the scum minimum amounts of vouchers etc

edgex

sjaypink wrote: »

There aren't enough jobs, or there aren't enough jobs paying enough money to live (either better off not working at all, or need significant tax credit top ups).

Several factors contributing probably- I don't really have time to try and think any points through right now but quick ramble:

Cost of living* has soared (note living, not surviving/ existing). Technology has grown far faster than we can keep up with financially. Breakdown of traditional families, roles, industries and communities. These are all inter-linked off course...

So, thats why the benefit bill is so huge, not just because chavs like sh@gging- they need to be sown up etc, but thinking about what really has turned the countries morals, responsibilities & expectations upside down in approx 50 years turns up more questions than answers, so I can see how its probably easier to just rant on about giving the scum minimum amounts of vouchers etc

of course, if the benefits bill could be severely reduced, there would be less tax revenues required
> people wouldnt be taxed so much
> low paying jobs would still leave people with quite a bit of money after tax


& you could cut taxes by more than the cut in benefits, as the system would also then cost less to operate
or, put the savings into something more useful, like the education system

sjaypink

edgex wrote: »

of course, if the benefits bill could be severely reduced, there would be less tax revenues required
> people wouldnt be taxed so much
> low paying jobs would still leave people with quite a bit of money after tax


& you could cut taxes by more than the cut in benefits, as the system would also then cost less to operate
or, put the savings into something more useful, like the education system

Sorry, I'm rushing this, but quick points: If you reduce benefit bill then you have probably either: created more jobs, or reduced benefits allowances.

Created more jobs: problem: obvious!
Cut benefit payments: problem: less money circulating

I think part of the reason the government prefers handouts (particularly tax credits) rather than increased tax free earnings limits etc is the change in psychology that comes with responsibility of income iykwim. The less responsibility yo have over the earning of your income the more frivilous you are likely to be (We have seen this with the boom of credit cards too- you wouldnt spend 75% of your months wages on a plasma, nor would you make sacrifices to save for one, because the one you have works fine, but hey, f*ck it, i want one- put it on the card!)

What I'm trying to say is that those in recepit of government assistance are useful (in the short term) to a country where the ever increasing focus is on retail & service etc. There would be very signigicant economic damage (again, possibly just short-term, but who knows) if there were cuts to handouts- the government knows this, it is not just a case of being scared of leftie-handwringers outcrys etc

ETA: I m not saying that cuts shouldn't be made, just pointing out the reasons in my mind why big cuts, vouchers etc will never happen- it needs resolving with a view to the wider picture I think