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

kabayiri

nearlynew wrote: »

Over 100k?

F*cking hell.

No wonder they haven't succeeded in eradicating third world poverty.

That's the last thing they want to do if it means the directors will be out of a well paid job.

I agree it is well rewarded.

But how would you compare that role to say the chief exec of say Tyneside who will get £250k all in for his efforts this year.

Quarter of a million for a public official of an oversized council? You have to be joking me.

ILW

DavidF wrote: »

How about we cut benefits for the most needy/desperate in our society and then at the same time cut 30,000 police officers from our streets. We can then sit back and watch what "Fun" arises from those decisions.......Oh wait they have already thought of that/It's in the process of happening.

Should also knock down a few prisons due to the fact that there will be less police officers on the streets. We all moaned during Labour's term that the streets were getting less safe and the police were not performing ect.......And the current government's answer is to CUT it. I must have went to a different school from that think tank because for the life of me I just can't get my head round it.

IMHO it stands to reason that crime of all description will rocket over the next few years due to people becoming more desperate for cash.

I know one thing for sure, It's going to be a very interesting 5 years ahead. I think Darwinism will take effect where the weakest in our society will suffer most.

If the policeman on the street was just allowed to get on with his job without a ton of paperwork and diversity awareness crap, then crime would fall. The normal coppers hands are tied and many criminals are just laughing at them because they know they are virtually untouchable.

michaels

Sorry - haven't read the entire thread but here are two ideas:

1. (Easy) Allow those on housing benefit to keep 50% of any saving they make from moving to a cheaper place for 12 months (new claimants could not claim more than average paid to existing claimants for same type of property)

2. (Radical) Scrap all benefits and pay everyone (i.e. non means tested) a fixed amount per annum enough to 'survive on' then any work immediately pays. This could be paid for by scrapping the tax free personal allowance allowance. At the same time remove the artificial distinction between tax and NI.

bristol_pilot

I would scrap all benefits (except the state pension and contribution-based job seekers) for new claimants and phase them out for existing claimants over a 2-year period. Over the same period, I would increase the minimum wage to £10 per hour. Taken together, these measures would make it worthwhile to get a job.

bristol_pilot

michaels wrote: »

2. (Radical) Scrap all benefits and pay everyone (i.e. non means tested) a fixed amount per annum enough to 'survive on' then any work immediately pays. This could be paid for by scrapping the tax free personal allowance allowance. At the same time remove the artificial distinction between tax and NI.

I have often thought this would be a good idea (and I think it was even LibDem policy at one time). The problem comes when you try and work out what the amount of such a payment would be. If it were, say, £20,000 tax-free - well that is easily enough for a single person with no dependents to live on so provides no incentive to work. Yet for someone with 3 kids it is below poverty level. Whatever level you can think of has similar problems.

marklv

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

One easy one is to bin payments to all over 60s / 65s.

It's ridiculous that so many wealthy, healthy 60-somethings get free presciptions, free transport, winter fuel allowances, and all the rest of it.

Of course, but then you have to factor in the cost of means testing. I think it would be better to remove all these freebies and put on an extra £20 a week on the basic state pension. Then means test the pension only.

leveller2911

bristol_pilot wrote: »

I would scrap all benefits (except the state pension and contribution-based job seekers) for new claimants and phase them out for existing claimants over a 2-year period. Over the same period, I would increase the minimum wage to £10 per hour. Taken together, these measures would make it worthwhile to get a job.

So who will employ all those people previously on NMW? given that all the small businesses would have gone out of business?Doubling the wages bill for small businesses would cripple most if not all of them..

Unemployment would rise dramatically IMO, not to mention the cost of living going up.Nice idea but wouldnt work unless you then subsidise all those small business.

bristol_pilot

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

One easy one is to bin payments to all over 60s / 65s.

It's ridiculous that so many wealthy, healthy 60-somethings get free presciptions, free transport, winter fuel allowances, and all the rest of it.

A recently-retired friend of mine lives in the tropics. He is very pleased with his winter fuel allowance from the British taxpayer.

marklv

bristol_pilot wrote: »

A recently-retired friend of mine lives in the tropics. He is very pleased with his winter fuel allowance from the British taxpayer.

The issue is not the Winter fuel allowance - this is just part of the state pension paid out under a different name and, supposedly, for a specific purpose. The issue is wealthy pensioners with final salary indexed pensions of £30k+ a year receiving state pensions - should they receive state pensions at all when they have such ample private ones?

bristol_pilot

Small businesses would not all go under if they had to pay £10 per hour, because their competitors within the UK would also have to pay this level. We cannot hope in the UK to compete with foreign businesses on the basis of low wages, but rather on the basis of innovation and customer focus. This means a high-wage economy, not a low wage one, and companies already doing this are already paying well over £10 per hour. I accept, however, that a few dodgy businesses would be shaken out of the system but the whole point would be that the taxpayer is currently subsidising these businesses through the tax and benefits syatem and this is not providing good value.