George Osborne considering freeze on benefits to save £4.4bn

ILW

She most probably had the kid so she could get a flat.

Generali

ILW wrote: »

She most probably had the kid so she could get a flat.

Maybe.

My SiL had 3 kids by the age of 20. Her boyfriend (the father) was paying the bills and I have no problem with that.

However, it's wrong for the child and wrong for the taxpayer that someone should have children in order to 'earn' a living from benefits. The problem is what to do about it. If you're going to take money away from single mothers you're also going to take money away from their children which will lead to some unpleasant consequences.

abaxas

Generali wrote: »

Maybe.

My SiL had 3 kids by the age of 20. Her boyfriend (the father) was paying the bills and I have no problem with that.

However, it's wrong for the child and wrong for the taxpayer that someone should have children in order to 'earn' a living from benefits. The problem is what to do about it. If you're going to take money away from single mothers you're also going to take money away from their children which will lead to some unpleasant consequences.

Maybe if you moved the benefits from cash based to tokens, you could fix that?

Ie woman with 3 kids gets a £50 food token a week, £10 clothes etc.

The issue with benefits is that they are not targetted to need, instead they give out money and hope it's used correctly.

StevieJ

michaels wrote: »

Film 4 showed a movie called 'Ideocracy' last night - you would have loved the basic premise

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/

StevieJ

abaxas wrote: »

Maybe if you moved the benefits from cash based to tokens, you could fix that?

Ie woman with 3 kids gets a £50 food token a week, £10 clothes etc.

The issue with benefits is that they are not targetted to need, instead they give out money and hope it's used correctly.

Some will be selling them at a discount and the kids will get even less.

carolt

Generali wrote: »

I wonder how many more times than the average she is to receive her entire income from the state too.

Lone 18 year-old women shouldn't be having children they expect everyone else to pay for. I have no problem with 18 y/os having kids whether lone or otherwise, I just don't want to pay for it.

Surely the cure for the housing benefit thing is just to make a payment for everything and let the recipient decide whether to spend the money on Special Brew or a flat.

But what do you do when the streets are full of drunk homeless people then, clamouring for a roof over their heads because they've drunk the rent money?

Relying on everyone to be as sensible as you are unfortunately doesn't work either.

People may kill/severely endanger themselves or their families before they get to the point where they have learned to make sensible choices, unfortunately.

tartanterra

The whole benefits system is utterly insane.
On one hand, there are pensioners freezing to death in the winter because they cannot afford to heat their homes, and on the other hand - as we constantly see in the media - an endless stream of workshy and !!!!less baby machines raking it in with tax credits and child benefit.

The whole business of tax credits needs to be dealt with urgently. The system currently allows employers to pay poverty wages in the knowledge that the government will make up the difference with tax credits.
Many people in reciept of tax credits do not want to do overtime or take a promotion at work because the resultant cut in their tax credits acts as a disincentive. It's madness in the extreme.

As for public sector pay and pensions, surely the majority of the country realise that things have to change. Osborne has to tackle this as a priority and "bottling it" is not an option we can afford.
I also hope that he takes a good look at some of the bonus schemes in the public sector. Why a public servant is paid a bonus for doing their job properly simply beggars belief. Shouldn't they be doing the job properly in the first place?

If we don't all feel the pain after the emergency budget, then Osborne's got it wrong.
The country has overextended itself, and unfortunately, it's payback time.

carolt

tartanterra wrote: »

I also hope that he takes a good look at some of the bonus schemes in the public sector. Why a public servant is paid a bonus for doing their job properly simply beggars belief. Shouldn't they be doing the job properly in the first place?

Presumably that applies to all jobs, not just the public sector. I assume you agree with doing away with all bonuses for bankers etc too.

You are aware that bonuses were brought in in the first place to ape the private sector, aren't you? - under the 'private sector good, public sector bad' mentality. The idea was that if you made the public sector more like the private sector, it would be better and more efficient.

SingleSue

abaxas wrote: »

Maybe if you moved the benefits from cash based to tokens, you could fix that?

Ie woman with 3 kids gets a £50 food token a week, £10 clothes etc.

The issue with benefits is that they are not targetted to need, instead they give out money and hope it's used correctly.

Whenever this has been suggested on this site before, it has been shown that this sort of system would actually be much more expensive to run than the current one...any savings made would be spent (plus loads more) on setting up and administering it.

Other problems occur in the newly unemployed who may have existing commitments which have to be paid and receiving cash enables them to meet those commitments.

Vouchers also have the ability to be abused, I remember the old milk tokens (I didn't receive them but I know people who did), and they were being sold for less than face value to buy drugs, ciggies etc.

I personally think that vouchers do not teach anyone anything, certainly not to budget as it is all set out for them, so in the event of them obtaining work, it would be that much harder for them to cope. Also, for those in a non standard family set up, a certain amount for food or clothes may not cover what is actually needed (needed rather than wanted) or may be too much for what is needed but other areas may need more.

Families and people are not uniform in their needs, we all differ to what we feel is important for our families and a one size fits all voucher system just would not work in several cases.

On a personal note - I already feel stigmatized but at least I can go to a shop and feel normal by handing over money or my debit card, if I had vouchers, I just would not be able to go shopping...I would be one of those swapping my vouchers for cash just so I could hold my head up whilst doing the food shopping rather than feeling the lowest of the low.

The_White_Horse

carolt wrote: »

Presumably that applies to all jobs, not just the public sector. I assume you agree with doing away with all bonuses for bankers etc too.

You are aware that bonuses were brought in in the first place to ape the private sector, aren't you? - under the 'private sector good, public sector bad' mentality. The idea was that if you made the public sector more like the private sector, it would be better and more efficient.

Bonuses should be paid out of excess profit. If a company makes more money than they thought, the staff can be given a bonus.

As the public sector does not create anything and is purely a cost, they should never ever get a bonus - under no circumstances. if they want a bonus, get a job in the private sector.

However, they should get reverse bonuses, so if they fail to perform and do the job they are paid to do, the next year they can have a 5% pay cut.

public sector cretins.