Helping the vulnerable or Benefits Britain?

ninky_2

one tory policy i support is work-for-benefits for long term claimants.

however i think that comes with caveats such as making sure that state schooling stays at a certain level and aligning it with jobs availability targets for the government. for example, if unemployment reaches an unacceptable level (not sure what this is, i'd have to think about it) then it no longer becomes fair to say people aren't working through lifestyle choice. there are rights and responsibilities for both the individual and the state imho.

kabayiri

Make the people in the extreme cases (like the Daily Wail example) go around to individual working households every week, and collect the money off them in person.

Then they might see how these people economise and make ends meet to pay out the tax which supports same said extreme cases.

drc

In the Daily Mail story someone posted earlier, it says this family were made bankrupt after spending £20k on mail order catalogues. So what is the deal if you go bankrupt on benefits? Does it affect your benefits at all or can you just keep claiming? This family are getting £42k per year in benefits which I assume could be used to pay back some of their debt but it looks like they are not affected. Is this correct?

paybacktime2008

kabayiri wrote: »

Make the people in the extreme cases (like the Daily Wail example) go around to individual working households every week, and collect the money off them in person.

Then they might see how these people economise and make ends meet to pay out the tax which supports same said extreme cases.

These aren't extreme cases though. Couple I know......his lost his job so.....she left the family home with the kids. Benefits pay her £1100 rent a month (3 bed house, Home counties) plus all the child tax/income support etc....He gets the interest on the mortgage paid(after 3 months £600). They still have the flat screen, the wii fit, xbox etc etc. Have a play around on www.entitledto.com and you will see that these cases are far from extreme-sadly.

Pobby

kabayiri wrote: »

Make the people in the extreme cases (like the Daily Wail example) go around to individual working households every week, and collect the money off them in person.

Then they might see how these people economise and make ends meet to pay out the tax which supports same said extreme cases.

I think that`s a great idea. If you are like me, I guess half these long term claimants have no idea where the cash comes from. Entitled to it, ain`t I.

Actually I feel that this is a big issue for this election.

vivatifosi

paybacktime2008 wrote: »

And when these kids get to working age and do their sums they will probably opt for a life on benefits too.

My SiL is a social worker. She tells me that the kids who are brought up in homes on long-term benefits are often told by their parents not to get jobs as it can affect what their parents get - so the child can get held back in order that the parent benefits.

sKiTz-0

vivatifosi wrote: »

My SiL is a social worker. She tells me that the kids who are brought up in homes on long-term benefits are often told by their parents not to get jobs as it can affect what their parents get - so the child can get held back in order that the parent benefits.

Utterly astounding, and disgusting.

treliac

vivatifosi wrote: »

My SiL is a social worker. She tells me that the kids who are brought up in homes on long-term benefits are often told by their parents not to get jobs as it can affect what their parents get - so the child can get held back in order that the parent benefits.

sKiTz-0 wrote: »

Utterly astounding, and disgusting.

But hardly surprising, is it?

lemonjelly

paybacktime2008 wrote: »

I also have a prediction and you can call me cynical if you like. With the new rules regarding income support coming in (i.e soon it will be when your youngest child hits 7 you can only claim JSA, used to be 16 now 11 I think) there will be a baby boom amongst certain memebers of our society.

I work in the advice sector. Common consensus between colleagues is that we will see a noticeable amount of families with children approx 6 years apart in age. Have one, then when the jobcentre tells you that you'll be moving from IS to JSA, amazingly coincidental pregnancy occurs.

A friend has a daughter with a little un. Friend was discussing daughter returning to college etc. Daughter basically couldn't be bothered. Friend pointed out to daughter that she couldn't stay on benefits indefinitely. Daughter shrugged & said "I'll just have another one".

Great reason to bring a loved child into the world eh?

ninky wrote: »

one tory policy i support is work-for-benefits for long term claimants.

however i think that comes with caveats such as making sure that state schooling stays at a certain level and aligning it with jobs availability targets for the government. for example, if unemployment reaches an unacceptable level (not sure what this is, i'd have to think about it) then it no longer becomes fair to say people aren't working through lifestyle choice. there are rights and responsibilities for both the individual and the state imho.

Conditionality for benefit entitlement is fairly inevitable I feel. All the parties see it as a vote winner, & anyway, labour have been doing this with the welfare reform act which has already gone quite a way through parliament. The expectations of ESA claimants, compared to the old incapacity benefit claimants is going to be a massive culture shock. On incapacity benefit, there could be gaps of 2-3 years between your contacts with jobcentres. Now, you will have to attend interviews fortnightly or monthly. A lot of forums are going mad about it, however I have gone through the reforms a few times & really don't have a problem with the new rules. The extremely ill/vulnerable will be protected & supported. Minor conditions, or ones which can be overcome will be moved off ESA as time goes by.

vivatifosi wrote: »

My SiL is a social worker. She tells me that the kids who are brought up in homes on long-term benefits are often told by their parents not to get jobs as it can affect what their parents get - so the child can get held back in order that the parent benefits.

Working in a college, I see the same. Parents bringing kids in, making sure that the course won't reduce their benefits, & also making sure that the kids will get EMA (I have seen cases where parents try to bully kids onto additional courses to make sure of this). I also deal with a lot of kids who's parents take the EMA off them (leaving the kids with no funds to get into college for example).

ninky_2

lemonjelly wrote: »

I also deal with a lot of kids who's parents take the EMA off them (leaving the kids with no funds to get into college for example).

lemonjelly you are the font of knowlege when it comes to the benefits system.

but isn't EMA quite a small amount and presumably the parents are putting a roof over their heads and feeding them (you woudl hope). couldn't the kids get weekend or evening jobs for extra funds? i certainly did this when i was doing 'a' levels.