Let's help Duncan Smith - how would YOU improve the benefits system?

The_White_Horse

bendix wrote: »

I've already outlined our policy for social housing in another thread:


All social housing units will be the same size, irrespective of family size.

This will bring the laws of Darwinian evolution into play - the size of the inhabitants of these houses will naturally diminish to suit the size of the house, rather like goldfish only grow to the size of their goldfish bowl.

The more kids a family has, the smaller the entire family gets. It's inevitable - it can't be refuted.

This has a wonderful side effect - obesity is reduced in a stroke because, let's face it, those welfare families who breed like rabbits are generally tubbier than most.

i like this.

also, if all social housing is say, 2 bedroom flats, then single people should be forced to flat share. they shouldn't get one each.

darren75

marklv wrote: »

You are a joker - as you have proven repeatedly and consistently on this forum.

If you don't give welfare to those who need it you will get much more crime - especially theft. And then the costs of putting people through the courts and imprisoning them will be hugely higher than anything paid out as benefits.

Why should it cost more to jail somebody, bread and water costs very little, get rid of TV's, XBOX, and all other comfortl. 8x6 breezeblock cell, mattress on the floor and a bucket in the corner, make it a living hell and they will not want to go back......
None of your half sentence for good behaviour nonsense, 10 years means 10 years and if you misbehave extra time on half rations...

Piece of !!!! really...

dktreesea

Since the National Minimum Wage is meant to be enough to live on, so around £212 for a full time week or so after tax/NI, I would stop benefits for everyone earning the NMW and above. Irrespective of how many or few children they have. In some places, the NMW would be more than enough to live on. In Glasgow, 1 bedroom flats start at around £199 a month (source: lettingweb.com). In York, rooms can be rented for around £270 a month (source: findaproperty.com).

Why not restrict benefits to 60% of the NMW after tax and leave it at that? No housing benefit, child benefit, child tax credits, working tax credits - all of that would go out the window. Is £125 a week enough to bring up a family of four? Well, maybe not in a three bedroom house, but in some parts of Britain, (e.g. Glasgow, parts of Ayrshire) that would rent you a one bedroom flat with £75 a week left over. Can't afford ciggies or booze on that kind of money? So? Why should other people's taxes fund that kind of thing anyway?

Maybe if benefits were reduced to bare subsistence level, the government would be able to afford to put more money into education and ensure that all school leavers got an apporpriate education. I would like to see no money for unemployed people under 21 unless they were in further education or training AND for the government to make that education/training available.

It's bizarre that we have a welfare system where it pays better not to work than to work.

And why do we have non means tested benefits like child benefit? Why should those without children prop up those with children, most of whom can afford their children without any help from other taxpayers?

joolsybools

dktreesea wrote: »

Since the National Minimum Wage is meant to be enough to live on, so around £212 for a full time week or so after tax/NI, I would stop benefits for everyone earning the NMW and above. Irrespective of how many or few children they have. In some places, the NMW would be more than enough to live on. In Glasgow, 1 bedroom flats start at around £199 a month (source: lettingweb.com). In York, rooms can be rented for around £270 a month (source: findaproperty.com).

Why not restrict benefits to 60% of the NMW after tax and leave it at that? No housing benefit, child benefit, child tax credits, working tax credits - all of that would go out the window. Is £125 a week enough to bring up a family of four? Well, maybe not in a three bedroom house, but in some parts of Britain, (e.g. Glasgow, parts of Ayrshire) that would rent you a one bedroom flat with £75 a week left over. Can't afford ciggies or booze on that kind of money? So? Why should other people's taxes fund that kind of thing anyway?

Maybe if benefits were reduced to bare subsistence level, the government would be able to afford to put more money into education and ensure that all school leavers got an apporpriate education. I would like to see no money for unemployed people under 21 unless they were in further education or training AND for the government to make that education/training available.

It's bizarre that we have a welfare system where it pays better not to work than to work.

And why do we have non means tested benefits like child benefit? Why should those without children prop up those with children, most of whom can afford their children without any help from other taxpayers?

I'd go with 50%

LizEstelle

Here's another benefit worth scrapping - let's do away with the favourable rates of taxation on aviation fuel. I don't see why people who are patriotic and take their holidays in this beautiful country should subsidise the sleasyjet, tan now - wrinkle later, support foreign economies brigade.

LizEstelle

Here's another benefit worth scrapping - let's do away with zero VAT rates on luxury/lazy/unhealthy foods, i.e. anything which comes ready prepared or has too much fat/salt/sugar.

LizEstelle

Here's another benefit worth scrapping - let's do away with the benefit of inadequate traffic surveillance and invest heavily in far more speed and traffic cameras such that good driving is appropriately rewarded. Why should I, as a good and safe driver, subsidise cowboy driving through the higher policing and hospital bills it produces?

LizEstelle

Here's another benefit worth scrapping - let's do away with the benefit of allowing White Van Man to underdeclare his tax liability. I don't see why my income which is taxed at source should be made to suffer through the antics of these fraudsters. Let's have far more regular spot checks made on the tax affairs of the self-employed.

LizEstelle

Here's another benefit worth scrapping - let's do away with the benefit of allowing firms to collude on pricing. I don't see why I should be paying more of my taxes than need be for government contracts or through my disposable income for my weekly spend. Let's have a 'Department of Whistleblowing' to actively seek out and adequately reward people who bring private sector skullduggery to light.

LizEstelle

Here's another benefit worth scrapping - let's do away with the benefit of a Council Tax cap. Let's invent bands up to Z and beyond for those who insist on ostentatious living beyond any reasonable concept of actual need. Why should people who can barely afford to live in quite modest accommodation subsidise the wealthy in this way?