George Osborne considering freeze on benefits to save £4.4bn

michaels

Its not really that attractive though if you have a better option...why is it that these women do not see any better options, is it the availability of this option that is the problem or the failure of education and ambition that has gone before in their lives?

I refer back to G's relative quoted as having 3 kids by 20 but this being OK as she and her husband supported themselves - but what would have been the position if said husband had got scared and disappeared (the woman could not have been certain this would not happen) or even got killed by a hit and run driver without adequate insurance - how could a system differentiate from one young single mother who appears 'deserving' and another who does not?

A._Badger wrote: »

It really should surprise no one that if you incentivise behaviour, you get more of it. I have personally heard teenage girls seriously discussing the prospect of getting pregnant as what you could only call a 'career path'.

There are so many reasons why this is A Bad Thing (C) - unfairness to the taxpayer being just one of them.

Generali

michaels wrote: »

Its not really that attractive though if you have a better option...why is it that these women do not see any better options, is it the availability of this option that is the problem or the failure of education and ambition that has gone before in their lives?

I refer back to G's relative quoted as having 3 kids by 20 but this being OK as she and her husband supported themselves - but what would have been the position if said husband had got scared and disappeared (the woman could not have been certain this would not happen) or even got killed by a hit and run driver without adequate insurance - how could a system differentiate from one young single mother who appears 'deserving' and another who does not?

Well part II of the story is that he left her and she went on to claim benefits to support her and her kids.

She brought children into a relationship, albeit one that was rather misguided and ended up claiming perhaps $100,000 from the Australian taxpayer in a way that wasn't the plan at the start. Dealing with this stuff is effectively impossible.

carolt

tartanterra wrote: »

I can't really comprehend this statement.
What have private companies bonuses got to do with it?

it's up to shareholders to approve bonuses in PLC's and nothing to do with all of us voters.
(Unless the company has been taken into government ownership like the failing banks - which, of course, shouldn't pay bonuses).

Also, private company bonuses are paid out of profits.
Civil Service bonuses are paid out of the public purse, i.e. my taxes.

If that's your best argument to cling onto your taxpayer funded bonus, I think your on shaky ground.

Er...I work in the private sector. And don't get a bonus.

Mercifully, not everyone is as self-interested as you.

The point I was making which you seem to have failed to understand entirely is that bonuses were introduced in the public sector - aping the private sector - because they were seen as best practice, as a way to encourage public sector workers to work harder, better and more efficiently, just as they are supposed to do in the public sector. The idea was that they would pay for themselves by ensuring that public sector workers worked harder and saved money from the public purse.

At the end of the day, you have to pay public sector workers; whether you pay a proportion of salary separately (c a grand I think per average public sector worker, max - not a huge amount) and call it a bonus or just pay them a flat rate I personally suspect it makes very little difference to performance as good workers will work hard to the best of their ability because (a) they should and (b) they want promotion - a few hundred pounds a year will not turn a bad worker into a good worker.

Contrary to your doubly-wrong assumption, I am neither a public sector worker nor do I support public sector bonuses or the bonus culture in general. I thought my clues referring to bankers might have made my views clear. Hmm.

So tanterra - do I take it you agree with me that public sector workers such as bankers should receive no bonuses too? Or is just 'traditional' public sector workers you dislike with such a passion?

carolt

michaels wrote: »

Its not really that attractive though if you have a better option...why is it that these women do not see any better options, is it the availability of this option that is the problem or the failure of education and ambition that has gone before in their lives?

The ridiculously high cost of housing is I would say the root cause of this - it's not that difficult to earn more than you'd get in benefits if you don't take housing costs into account.

But once you do, in most parts of the country, you have to either be on an extremely good (ie well above average) wage to afford to buy a home, or rent, but at a far higher cost than a council rent would be, and with none of the security.

I think the solution is (a) to build loads of new council houses but give priority to those in work over those not in work, and (b) reintroduce security of tenure for long-term renters (and ideally regulate rents too), as exists elsewhere in Europe.

Plus work on education to explain to teenage girls quite how hard bringing up kids is, so they don't see it as a soft option.

Plus bring back shame - someone should be embarrassed to say they (or their daughter or son) has brought a child into the world at such a young age and with no means of support.

michaels

Only bit I would disagree with is controlling rents - if you cap prices and impose terms on the supply of something then the supply will fall. Build enough homes and the prices will fall (hence why despite the 'boom' US housing costs never went anywhere near the UK levels in terms of incomes) for renting and buying - this is one that Hamish has got right.

carolt wrote: »

The ridiculously high cost of housing is I would say the root cause of this - it's not that difficult to earn more than you'd get in benefits if you don't take housing costs into account.

But once you do, in most parts of the country, you have to either be on an extremely good (ie well above average) wage to afford to buy a home, or rent, but at a far higher cost than a council rent would be, and with none of the security.

I think the solution is (a) to build loads of new council houses but give priority to those in work over those not in work, and (b) reintroduce security of tenure for long-term renters (and ideally regulate rents too), as exists elsewhere in Europe.

Plus work on education to explain to teenage girls quite how hard bringing up kids is, so they don't see it as a soft option.

Plus bring back shame - someone should be embarrassed to say they (or their daughter or son) has brought a child into the world at such a young age and with no means of support.

carolt

As you know, I'd be happy to see supply of privately rented homes reduce - because the corollary would be that the number of potentially owner-occupied properties increased.

And if you built lots of new council houses, the drop in supply of private rentals wouldn't matter anyway - except to those hoping to pay for pensions through them, of course.

drc

So, benefits are only being "frozen" yet workers are going to pay more income tax and NI. Shouldn't benefits also be cut?

StevieJ

tartanterra wrote: »

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.

What planet have you been living on? even Richard Branson gets substantial help with his fuel bills if he wants it Then again if you are talking about the near future, you may be correct :eek:

A._Badger

michaels wrote: »

Its not really that attractive though if you have a better option...why is it that these women do not see any better options, is it the availability of this option that is the problem or the failure of education and ambition that has gone before in their lives?

As Generali says, this is a knot that is almost impossible to untangle.

However (at risk of sounding like a Daily Mail leader writer) the fact is that 50 years of 'progressive' education, with its attendant moral and cultural relativism, has led us here and needs to be reconsidered. I would suggest it is at the root of this poverty of expectations you point to.

When having a baby at 15 is a 'valid lifestyle choice' and one is scolded for being 'judgemental' if you suggest it isn't, then we are in deep, deep trouble.

MrsE_2

The_White_Horse wrote: »

no, this is what happens when you let smack head scum raise kids. they should, as i said in another post, have the child taken into care and they should be put in jail for child cruelty. this is a crime.

Drugs are the scourge of our times & the penalty's need to be increased for dealing & possession, drastically.