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

Francesanne

ps2659 wrote: »

You make it sound like a savings club, benefits are there to help the needy, why give winter fuel payments to pesioners living abroad in the sun.

You can still be needy despite living abroad.

marklv

DizzleUK wrote: »

I recently had a period of just under 6 months without a job.

I found the Jobcentre to be largely unhelpful. Every 2 weeks I would visit, they would ask me what I have done to look for work, I would tell them, they would accept my word for it. One several occasions I would turn up for my appointment only to be told they were running behind and only had time for me to sign my declaration then I'd be on my way.

As for the money, I worked out that with everything I was entitled to, I was only £6 worse off than if I had a minimum wage job working 35 hours a week!

I'm not the sort of person who goes out on the razz every week, nor do I have any expensive habits, so I found the amount I had coming in every fortnight quite manageable and was never reduced to "Tesco Basics" for food etc.

Given that level of income and comfort, low levels of debt etc there really wasn't any incentive for me to find a minimum wage job that I wouldn't like. There was no motivation.

For me though, I WANTED to get a job, I didn't want to be part of the benefit culture and with a lot of effort on my part alone, I found myself a good job with a good pension scheme and good prospects, and on top of that, I enjoy the work!

If this government really wants to sort out the benefits system, it has to make it more uncomfortable for those on benefits to live.

I think perhaps something along the lines of food vouchers, electricity and gas vouchers should be given out instead of cash. The vouchers would have to be backed up with ID or something to prevent a black market developing.

If the £65 JSA was broken down into £35 food vouchers, £15 energy vouchers and £15 cash. Maybe the "shame" of presenting vouchers to pay for your goods may encourage a few more to find a job. I certainly wouldn't have liked it.

What you are advocating is the humiliation of people simply because they are not able to find work - highly immoral in my opinion. And forcing people to take totally unsuitable jobs is also wrong - for the employers who are lumbered with them, for the government and for the jobseekers themselves. There is no easy answer.

StevieJ

Francesanne wrote: »

You can still be needy despite living abroad.

True but I guess you didn't mean that.

http://www.povertycrisis.com/stats.html

artha

pop_gun wrote: »

this point has already been made, but it's worthwhile making it again. there's no way this country will be in a state of full employment. even if every job in the economy was filled there would still be millions unemployed

I probably haven't thought this through properly but I've always thought that there must be useful/productive "work" for those on benefits to do in the community. The danger is of course that we create an underclass who are "working" for less than the minimum wage. Perhaps it is the minimum wage that has created the problem whereby there is work but paying the minimum wage does not make it viable. If I were unemployed I would rather be doing something useful for my benefit payment to keep me sane but the catch is that this could be considered exploitation. Is there a win win situation?

richardvc

One thing that really winds me up is we know a family who get a large amount of tax credits and use them to go to Florida three times a year ! Now, I wouldn't call that needy !!!

ILW

marklv wrote: »

What you are advocating is the humiliation of people simply because they are not able to find work - highly immoral in my opinion. And forcing people to take totally unsuitable jobs is also wrong - for the employers who are lumbered with them, for the government and for the jobseekers themselves. There is no easy answer.

What do you mean by unsuitable?

zygurat789

I fail to understand why to get people on benefit back to work and make it beneficial for them, the personal allowance is raised thus giving those with an income of up to £112,950 a tax reduction.
The solution should be to reduce the 39p per £ reduction of tax credits then only those actually receiving the tax credit would receive anything.

There are plenty on here whom seem to think that single mothers with children should be targetted.
This is totally wrong. The target should be the fathers of these children who should be made to shoulder their responsibilities. Why should everyone else be made to pay for other men having two or more families?

ILW

zygurat789 wrote: »

There are plenty on here whom seem to think that single mothers with children should be targetted.
This is totally wrong. The target should be the fathers of these children who should be made to shoulder their responsibilities. Why should everyone else be made to pay for other men having two or more families?

That only works if the mother is willing and able to give the details of the father to the authorities.

zygurat789

ILW wrote: »

That only works if the mother is willing and able to give the details of the father to the authorities.

What better carrot than money?
No name no benefit.

bendix

zygurat789 wrote: »

What better carrot than money?
No name no benefit.

Perhaps the mothers don't know. Slappers.