Another one of those benefits threads

carolt

And what do you need Harry?

Harry_Powell

carolt wrote: »

And what do you need Harry?

lol, I've heard about your 'rep' carolt. None of those games with me, dear. I wish my PM inbox to remain unsullied!

treliac

exil wrote: »

Admittedly, benefits for families are relatively generous. So what do we do? Condemn kids to poverty due to having !!!!less parents? Or take them away and have them raised in state nurseries?

Neither. We make it less attractive to make breeding on the state a career choice. And we insist on a contribution, i.e. community work of some sort, in return for our financial support.

Does that sound tough? Well, there are a few of us mums on the board who (felt we) had to work to support our families and still managed to bring our children up to be balanced, useful and motivated citizens.

Shakethedisease

And my brother has just been made redundant. None of us are safe in this climate. My integrity is more important to me than my vested interests..... sorry if that is a shock to some.

Your 'integrity' wouldn't be worth a sniff if it was you and not your brother out of work. You still need to eat and somewhere to live.

Neither. We make it less attractive to make breeding on the state a career choice. And we insist on a contribution, i.e. community work of some sort, in return for our financial support.

Back to the workhouses then it is !! Well done you for that little nugget of wisdom.:T
Been tried before though. Put loads and loads of private companies out of business because the folks in the workhouse did it for nothing in return for food and a roof. Those working for subsistance wages in the private companies ?.. ended up in the workhouses themselves. Capiche ? Private employers would be laying off people in droves, cos they can get the 'workshy' to do it for free.

The basic unintended consequence of 'deeming' ever more legions of unemployed to work for free to 'pay their way' in numerous 'community' projects...simply results in even more unemployed.

The model just doesn't work.

Oh and the whole welfare state was put into place BECAUSE of the amount of children, the sick and the elderly dying due to poverty, it's effects and homelessness. The system definatley needs changing, jiggled around and prioritised to the most needy, that I most definately do agree with.

Does that sound tough? Well, there are a few of us mums on the board who (felt we) had to work to support our families and still managed to bring our children up to be balanced, useful and motivated citizens.

You 'felt' you needed to work. Well that's all very well in an ideal world where there's enough jobs around for everyone who 'feels' they need to work. Good luck in your little 'dream-land-nice-place'. A land where there is never ending employment for anyone who wants it, never ending childcare for everyone and cheap homes, rented or bought for everyone who wants them. Most of us are living in the real world.

Does that sound tough ? Sorry...

But please stop with the 'breeding as a life-style choice'. What do you know about the individual circumstances of each and every person having a child in this country. And who the hell are you to judge anyway ?

headcone

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Your 'integrity' wouldn't be worth a sniff if it was you and not your brother out of work. You still need to eat and somewhere to live.



Back to the workhouses then it is !! Well done you for that little nugget of wisdom.:T
Been tried before though. Put loads and loads of private companies out of business because the folks in the workhouse did it for nothing in return for food and a roof. Those working for subsistance wages in the private companies ?.. ended up in the workhouses themselves. Capiche ? Private employers would be laying off people in droves, cos they can get the 'workshy' to do it for free.

The basic unintended consequence of 'deeming' ever more legions of unemployed to work for free to 'pay their way' in numerous 'community' projects...simply results in even more unemployed.

The model just doesn't work.

Oh and the whole welfare state was put into place BECAUSE of the amount of children, the sick and the elderly dying due to poverty, it's effects and homelessness. The system definatley needs changing, jiggled around and prioritised to the most needy, that I most definately do agree with.



You 'felt' you needed to work. Well that's all very well in an ideal world where there's enough jobs around for everyone who 'feels' they need to work. Good luck in your little 'dream-land-nice-place'. A land where there is never ending employment for anyone who wants it, never ending childcare for everyone and cheap homes, rented or bought for everyone who wants them. Most if us are living in the real world.

Does that sound tough ? Sorry...

But please stop with the 'breeding as a life-style choice'. What do you know about the individual circumstances of each and every person having a child in this country. And who the hell are you to judge anyway ?

At last.

The most stunning and intelligent post I have ever read on these forums.

PasturesNew

bristol_pilot wrote: »

I take it you are single then. Single people without kids are always better off working.

Not entirely black and white. The cost of getting to/from work is the problem. Quite often, even in cheapish areas, rent/ct/JSA is the same as working. With JSA you don't have to get up and be out of the house every day, without excuse, for 10-12 hours/day. With a job, you might easily have travelling costs of £60-150/month.

In more expensive rent areas it's even harder.

bristol_pilot wrote: »

It's families with kids that rake in the benefits, equivalent of a working person earning six figures.

One of the final acts of the Labour government was to place a cap on the amount that can be claimed for housing benefit...of £57,000 per year. This cap affected more than 10,000 families who were claiming more than this.

This has gone beyond a joke, it is bankrupting the country.

Personally, I'm in favour of scrapping all benefits for new claimants.

£57k's whacky. It should be capped at the median wage (MAX) in some way, maybe by assuming median is their wage and applying other (tax credits?) benefits to that. To arbitrarily hand out LHA irrespective of wages earnt by workers is the bit where it detaches from reality. But, the system's complex and that complexity has made it difficult to define/refine a coherent way forward.

Something needs to be done, that's a fact.

PasturesNew

treliac wrote: »

in return for our financial support.

I think they should all, at least, get up at 7am, shower, dress up smart and stand out in their roads (upright, shoulders back, smiling) from 7.30am until 8.30am, saluting every worker that goes past. Then, come 5.30pm, until at least 7pm, they should do the same, this time clapping them home again.

At the very least it'd make sure those ones that keep workers awake until 3-4-5am with shouting and parties would have to go to bed earlier to get up in time for saluting duties!

PasturesNew

exil wrote: »

We're now in a situation where unemployment is increasing, so getting idle so-and-so's into work is just playing musical chairs. We will still have the same number of unemployed.

Reduce the retirement age, for those that want it who have met the minimum 30 years' working criteria. In my simple mind it makes far more sense for somebody who has worked 30 years already to be paid a state pension and free up a job, than to pay somebody to sit on the dole when they have never worked. The older person, too, is better placed to use their spare time to start their own business, something the younger person might not be in the same position to do (finance/experience/desire/time/space).

Make the choice: basic state pension, no other top ups until the later retirement age ... and there are a lot who could manage. Free them up! A lot of older people are homeowners or council tenants, so it would work for those in a position to take advantage of the offer; those that have the savings etc and want to spend those or start a small business (or a big one!)

treliac

Shakethedisease wrote: »

And who the hell are you to judge anyway ?

No more entitled than you it seems.

You're strong on words but with little idea of what you're talking about.

We've been jobless with a new baby and a 3 year old and we've claimed when we had to, for as long as it took to get off our backsides and get on our feet again. DH has worked 60 hours + per week, working nights on the lowest pay going. Obviously there has to be some sort of job to be found to be able to do that, but too many people don't actually want jobs that are going, so we have to import people who will do them.

As for having 'felt' I had to work, it was either that or we lost our home - no choice to bring up my own small children. That I am sad about.

No-one pretends to know the personal circumstances of everyone having a child. I take it you're having some sort of a joke.

As for the workhouse - what are you on about? You sound one bitter person.

jonewer

bristol_pilot wrote: »

One of the final acts of the Labour government was to place a cap on the amount that can be claimed for housing benefit...of £57,000 per year. This cap affected more than 10,000 families who were claiming more than this.

Thats astonishing.

Its more than twice the median wage for full time employment before tax! :eek:

I'd cut that in half. At least. Immediately.