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

richardvc

Well LizEstelle has killed this thread hasn't she ?

Whilst I have no particular axe to grind against the unemployed etc because the majority aren't there by choice I do believe that we need a radical shake up of the benefits system.

I am just pleased that I have a good well paid job and can afford the mortgage etc etc.

I believe that before we change the benefits system that we should make working for a living, getting promotion and having a staedy career far more socially beneficial than dossing on your !!!!!.

I always laugh at the irony that as soon as those of us who make a contribution to society decide to question those who just sit on their back sides and don't make a contribution, we are the ones criticised.

Perhaps working should be celebrated more...............

exil

IDS is apparently considering merging the tax and benefits systems - a good idea IMO (not often I say that about anything proposed by this government).

We have, over the decades, evolved a hugely complex set of systems each of which seem to be aiming for contradictory goals.

The ideal would be a "citizen's income" which you are entitled to by virtue of being a UK citizen. You could either get this as a benefit if you have too low an income to pay tax, or a tax allowance. Premiums could be added for illness, disability, or for working so many hours a week, or for voluntary or community work.

I have a problem with the idea of time limiting benefits - and here is my reasoning.

If I burgle your house I will be arrested and jailed. When in jail

1. I will be fed and have a roof over my head at a cost of, apparently, £40,000 a year

2. If I have a wife and kids they will be able to claim benefits.

If on the other hand I lose my job tomorrow, through no fault of my own, the benefit-limiters are saying that I should lose my benefit, no matter how hard I work to look for a job, after x years.

This doesn't seem just to me. Even in the middle ages there was a safety net. My grandad was unemployed for 7 years in the 1920s and 30s. What was he supposed to do if his dole had been stopped after 5? In the event he got back to work and worked without a break for the next 30 years.

jamespmg44

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?

Yes - I'm only 28 (so no vested interests) however they should.

If they have paid into the system they're entitled to get something back.

Malcolm.

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

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

AIUI the state pension is an unfunded liability. If they have paid for them, the monies appear to have been used elsewhere.

mark5

I would phase out tax credits for everyone over a 2-3 year period and increase the rate ppl start paying income tax at.

I agree contribution based jsa should be paid at a higher rate than it currently is.

Francesanne

bendix wrote: »

Link benefit payments to weight. Negatively.

Fatties get paid too much and spend it on cream cakes, thus making them fatter and less likely to work.

Does the same apply to smokers & drinkers?

Francesanne

marklv wrote: »

What socially useful work? A lot of people on long term benefits are hardly capable of dragging themselves out of bed. Get real.

I know at least 3 long term unemployed that are more than capable of doing EVERYTHING but actually working. One woman has been on benefits for nearly 30 years.

mvengemvenge

Make people do community work for their benefits. Believe me, it will sort the men from the boys faster than ANY other method.

The work-shy and those working and signing would disappear within 2 weeks.

jamespmg44

Francesanne wrote: »

I know at least 3 long term unemployed that are more than capable of doing EVERYTHING but actually working. One woman has been on benefits for nearly 30 years.

My wife's cousin and her husband haven't worked a day in 5 years. They would be more than capable of working and on a "income" (sponging of the state - she's oh so depressed but out every weekend) have managed to both get clinically obese in the past 5 years.

Throw in a few holidays etc and they've not had a bad life. It's utterly disgusting.

ceridwen

As a serious suggestion to this thread - rather than a joke/rant/b*tching:

I have long thought it was ridiculous not to give people benefit they are due for because they are married/living as a couple.

I have spent years knowing that if I decided to get married/partnered-up and then lost my job that I would be forced into financial reliance on my partner once the means-tested benefit period had ended - and vice-versa that I would be expected to support them if they lost their job ditto.
I have resented/do resent that the State sees fit to try and take advantage of any personal relationships I might decide to have in that respect. That is certainly part of why I remained single - "really" single that is...

That's my (ie Baby Boomer) generation - where most of us went ahead and got married/lived together anyway regardless of that fact.

The next generation has taken a look at that fact and acted accordingly - ie many of them do have a partner but are deliberately not living with them and are going ahead and having child/ren anyway. Thus the State ends up paying for 2 lots of rent on some households - one lot for him and one for her. This being when some of these partners would admit to being "married" and actually live together as an "official" couple if individuals received benefit in their own right without their marital status being taken into account. If all these couples could live together "officially" - rather than having to maintain two separate households - then the State would be paying benefit to two individuals and one lot of rent between them. As it is - the State is paying benefit to two individuals and having to pay two lots of rent. There is also the fact that extra housing is being used to accommodate the fact that the man is living separately to his "wife" - in a society where housing is in short supply...

Better for the child/ren as well to have the "husband" actually living with his "wife" - rather than pretending not to be her "husband" and having a home of his own IYSWIM.

These "marriages" would also be less likely to break up - and she then moves on to another man and another......etc.. if her "husband" was living under the same roof as her.

(Well - its either that or re-introduce the stigma to deliberately having children on one's own - but the next generation don't, as a whole, see anything wrong with having children solo and I can't see how one can get the message through that it's wrong to have a child on your own - if only because its bad for the child not to have Dad in residence. They want to believe that its not necessary for Dad to be in residence - so many of them have convinced themselves/each other en masse that Dad doesnt matter to the child/ren....)