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

bristol_pilot

Pensioners have paid in for their state pension (if they haven't, they don't get it) - so it is not a benefit in the true sense. Same with contribution-based jobseekers. I really want to see benefits taken away from those who have paid nothing into the system, like lifelong-unemployed housing benefit claimants. The winter fuel allowance is not part of the state pension, it was introduced fairly recently. It is paid with the state pension for administrative reasons.

marklv

bristol_pilot wrote: »

Pensioners have paid in for their state pension (if they haven't, they don't get it) - so it is not a benefit in the true sense. Same with contribution-based jobseekers. I really want to see benefits taken away from those who have paid nothing into the system, like lifelong-unemployed housing benefit claimants. The winter fuel allowance is not part of the state pension, it was introduced fairly recently. It is paid with the state pension for administrative reasons.

Call it what you will but the state pension is still a benefit because it's money from the state. All money from the state is a benefit - the state is not an investment company. NI contributions are totally unrelated to the pension you receive from the state - the state pays you what it wants to pay you and you cannot eleclt to have a bigger state pension for higher contrubutions, for instance. As for the Winter fuel allowance, it was introduced in lieu of extra pension - infact the Conservatives at one point advocated increading the state pension by £8 a week and getting rid of the fuel allowance. Shame they changed their minds.

As for people getting paid without having paid something into the system, this is irrelevant. The whole point of having a welfare state is to protect those who are in geneuine need, not to pay back investors. Get it?

leveller2911

bristol_pilot wrote: »

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.

I agree that the taxpayer is subsidising some businesses ,those who are making a nice fat profit at the expense of their workforce,but many small businesses are not.

How do you square the circle of increased costs to the end user?

Almost doubling wages, holiday pay,sick pay, company pensions etc.

Some small businesses I know of pay full wages instead of SSP for 6-12 months all that good will would have to stop.....Im not saying all businesses are good employers but many are and are struggling.

leveller2911

I would also like to see a clampdown on Child benefit paid to EU workers who work here for a short time, claim the benefit,go home and its then paid directly into their bank accounts in their native country.They then pop over and sign up to a work agency, work for 6 weeks, claim again and then go home, its a cycle of abuse which is still going on......Not racist, not Daily Wail rubbish its fact.


It does go on as a good friend of mine works for in the system.

neverdespairgirl

marklv wrote: »

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.

Yes, but the size of the benefits makes a bit of means testing worth it.

neverdespairgirl

marklv wrote: »

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?

Pensions is a bit different - they've paid for them.

Procrastinator333

marklv wrote: »

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?

This is a good point, public sector workers should perhaps be excluded from the state pension as they already get plenty.

neverdespairgirl

A lot of people getting these benefits aren't even retired. It's on age, not status.

So my parents are still eligable for winter fuel payments, free prescriptions, bus passes, the whole shooting match. Even though my Dad's still working (he's 60) and earning well.

treliac

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

A lot of people getting these benefits aren't even retired. It's on age, not status.

So my parents are still eligable for winter fuel payments, free prescriptions, bus passes, the whole shooting match. Even though my Dad's still working (he's 60) and earning well.

Agreed, that seems a waste of public money. Surely the age to receive such benefits will increase, especially as the age of retirement rises.

Exocet

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

So my parents are still eligable for winter fuel payments, free prescriptions, bus passes, the whole shooting match..

They get benefits for shooting? Bloody Tories.