Welfare state costs £473 BILLION!!!!

lostinrates

mbga9pgf wrote: »

Well give the poor 10K to get spade. Problem solved..

:eek::eek::eek:

I find my self conflicted in very much hoping you mean ''spayed''

PasturesNew

CTC/WTC are the biggest items that skew the system.

If you have kids, you can work 16 hours/week and get huge top ups. This has made employers ditch full-time jobs with proper pay and turn them into part-time jobs on minimum wage, because these people can (and do) get the top ups.

Parents work out exactly the minimum hours they need to work and milk the system. It wasn't inten ded to be used like that, but now it is.

This leaves single income people at a disadvantage because the (less) jobs that are about have had the wages kept artificially low since they were introduced.

There are jobs I can do today that pay the same £/hour that they did 10 years ago, some 20 years ago.

Just get back to the days when you either worked or you didn't.... none of this top up nonsense that only seems to benefit those that can milk it.

Pobby

I fully agree with PN on this. It has to be a tough call for a singleton these days.

SingleSue

The_White_Horse wrote: »

people on benefits should not have a washing machine, and if they do and it breaks they go to the launderette. if they have no money at xmas, then they buiy nothing. they have NO RIGHT to a nice xmas. If they want a turkey, go to work and then buy one.

WE NEED TO CREATE A STIGMA.

Hmmmm

Without cash, how would you pay for the launderette?

I didn't say nice christmas, a basic christmas can be done on very little money...which again would not be possible if everything was done on a voucher system.

There is enough of a stigma already thankyou very much...but maybe I feel it more because I am middle class and a rather proud person.

edgex wrote:

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

Believe you me, shop assistants would come to know which voucher/card meant the person was on benefits and that would equal more stigma...something I just could not bear.

It's the reason I no longer visit my doctor, the optician (although I was finally forced to), claim back my hospital travel and parking etc and still pay for the dentist....it is because I would have to admit to being on benefits to a real person instead of some faceless person on the internet.

PasturesNew

I think a lot of people on benefits have no idea how little some of the rest of us have. They think because they're on benefits they automatically have less than "us", which I've rarely found to be the case.

SingleSue

Not me PN, I have a brother who works full time as a taxi driver which when worked out over the hours he has worked, comes out at less than minimum wage.

He is a singleton, pays child support for his children (he pays more for two than I get for 3!), full rent etc and is really struggling.....he now no longers buys food but gets his meals cooked at my parents house, he couldn't afford to eat otherwise.

I've helped him with his budget as much as I can but just basic living is difficult for him...he has no television, no phone, no internet.

sjaypink

SingleSue wrote: »

There is enough of a stigma already thankyou very much...but maybe I feel it more because I am middle class and a rather proud person.

Yes probably because of your upbringing, family and friends. If you have only ever been brought up to see free dentists, milk vouchers etc as normal and associate with others with similar experiences you will never feel any shame for it (not saying anyone should feel shame anyway though IYSWIM)....

SingleSue wrote: »

Believe you me, shop assistants would come to know which voucher/card meant the person was on benefits and that would equal more stigma...something I just could not bear.

It's the reason I no longer visit my doctor, the optician (although I was finally forced to), claim back my hospital travel and parking etc and still pay for the dentist....it is because I would have to admit to being on benefits to a real person instead of some faceless person on the internet.

Vouchers- agreed it would very quickly be known... the only way to really avoid this problem and the mickey being taken by fraudulant shopkeepers & claimants is to provide the allocated allowance via a universal card or tokens... oooh a bit like a debit cards or cash :rolleyes::D

As for faceless claiming proceedures, I think even the hardest faced fraud would find it more difficult to con if it wasn't just the case of phoning someone 200 miles away who doesn't know you nor gives a !!!!!! about you, and signing a few robotic forms...

PasturesNew wrote: »

I think a lot of people on benefits have no idea how little some of the rest of us have. They think because they're on benefits they automatically have less than "us", which I've rarely found to be the case.

Agreed, this is a problem. Think its not just the cash benefits themselves but all the other things which reinforce to claimants they must be poorer than everyone else because they get x, y & z free.... but then when the money is given instead of the direct benefit (eg LHA compared to Housing Benefit), it seems to be more open to abuse... :cool:

FungusFighter

Lie detector tests for new claimants, a disability test involving a race with a Rottie and a cash incentive to NOT get pregnant - there, sorted:D

nearlynew

FungusFighter wrote: »

Lie detector tests for new claimants, a disability test involving a race with a Rottie and a cash incentive to NOT get pregnant - there, sorted:D

This post reminds me of this............

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESp01zCOf7o


just stick pins in their legs.

b0rker

I think that once the UK is fully out of this recession and jobs are easier to come by then the government should privatise one of the BIG industries. Say the telephone industry (BT etc) or use the perfect example in the Royal Mail. Get the unemployed out sorting and delivering letters. Yes okay it would take some people out of work for a period of time (pay them off) but these people are motivated and will find other work if this move is made at the right time when the country has recovered from its current employment deficit.

Pay the unemployed their normal JSA whilst doing the Royal Mail work. Pay those who are not willing to perform Royal Mail duties no JSA and give them food stamps instead.

The motivation factor would be very high for those doing Royal Mail duties to get out into the real working world where their pay would increase at least 5 fold.

This is pie in the sky of course but something needs to be done to motivate the terminally unemployed. It is not so much pie in the sky when you don't involve the privatisation of BT or the Royal Mail however and if you can get people on JSA working for the state in other areas then the motivation could be achieved.