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

vivatifosi

treliac wrote: »

I thought the Job Centre was supposed to run courses or know how to channel people into them - not send people to the library. What on earth do they expect library staff to be able to do for the unemployed, with or without learning disabilities.

Job Centres are also supposed to have advisers for people with disabilities. There's a massive contradiction, it appears, between what the govt tells us it's doing to help the unemployed and what is, in fact, actually happening.

Job Centres are supposed to help people, but in reality they can't help everyone. Having had person, after person, after person sent from the Job Centre someone came into the library to return their own books (I know they worked at the JC because they helpfully had a badge on). So I asked them. They have their own set of problems: facing job cuts, insufficient or inappropriately targeted support etc. So if they then know that the library occasionally runs courses then they will send everyone they can your way.

I can see why they are doing it, if they can't help people then they send them to people they hope can. The reality though is we don't have funding for courses any more, and if we do in the future it will be much reduced. The local NGO has lost its local government funding and is relying purely on donations, which means that it can't run the courses it used to and as for the CAB, well that's totally overwhelmed with people looking for help.

The result is that people are left to their own devices to apply for jobs (the Job Centre does at least help them find them), but they don't even know how to use e-mail, let alone compose a CV. You can help people in a limited sense by pointing them at books to compose CVs or to use the internet, but you can see that they feel you are letting them down if you can't help them with the basics. Its even worse when the JC send a whole group of people together without telling you and they all have all been set a task to find out how they can use the library to help get a job :eek:.

bendix

carolt wrote: »

What a horrible post.

I know. I'm truly ashamed of myself. I'll try to change my ways. Really.

bendix

vivatifosi wrote: »

Job Centres are supposed to help people, but in reality they can't help everyone. Having had person, after person, after person sent from the Job Centre someone came into the library to return their own books (I know they worked at the JC because they helpfully had a badge on). So I asked them. They have their own set of problems: facing job cuts, insufficient or inappropriately targeted support etc. So if they then know that the library occasionally runs courses then they will send everyone they can your way.

I can see why they are doing it, if they can't help people then they send them to people they hope can. The reality though is we don't have funding for courses any more, and if we do in the future it will be much reduced. The local NGO has lost its local government funding and is relying purely on donations, which means that it can't run the courses it used to and as for the CAB, well that's totally overwhelmed with people looking for help.

The result is that people are left to their own devices to apply for jobs (the Job Centre does at least help them find them), but they don't even know how to use e-mail, let alone compose a CV. You can help people in a limited sense by pointing them at books to compose CVs or to use the internet, but you can see that they feel you are letting them down if you can't help them with the basics. Its even worse when the JC send a whole group of people together without telling you and they all have all been set a task to find out how they can use the library to help get a job :eek:.

Let's face it, mate. Those who run and work in Job Centres are just a short step from being their own customers anyway. You can't expect much from them.

dori2o

1. Means test Child Benefit. Over £35k no benefit. No taper, just no benefit. (This would however have to be administered on a previous years income basis as nobody knows what income they will receive in year)

2. State Pension, again should be means tested. Anybody with private/occupational pensions, or has continued working and has a total income in excess of the Higher rate threshold for tax should not be entitled to a state pension.

3. Tax Credits. Seperate Child tax and working tax credits.
Child tax credits should be paid as they are now, to the main carer, for a maximum of 2 children, based on previous years income. (for the same reasons as above)
Working tax credit should be put back into the tax code, a set allowance for working over 16 hours, a set allowance for working over 30 hours, and possibly an allowance for being a disabled worker.

In order to get the benefit of these allowances you have to earn enough income to cover the allowance given.
i.e. Say the allowance for working 30hrs was an extra £6500 allowances (this would reduce once income exceeded say £16000 by £3 for every £1 over 16K down to nil)then you would not get the benefit of this until you had earned £12975.
If you do not earn that, say you only get £10000, then you lose out on the extra. You can't claim it as an extra gracia payment, nor can it be carried fwd or back.

4. Increase the personal allowance to at least £10000 for those under 65, £13500 for those over 65 with incomes less than £25000, and £15000 for those over 75 with incomes less than £25000. This will remove a large number of people from within the tax system making it easier to administer.

5. Unless you are deemed unable to work by at least 2 Healthcare professionals, one of which is independant (Not ATOS a real healthcare professional) then there should be a time limit applied to benefits.

6. Get rid of Income support, ESA and JSA and amalgamate them into 1 Out of Work Benefit. Make it a one rate payment therefore meaning people cannot be looking for ways onto higher paying benefits. Everyone gets the same. This would also reduce admin costs.

7. Alcoholics/Drug users should not be allowed to claim out of work benefits for more than 6 months and benefits should be paid based on points received by attending rehab. i.e. if you attend 5 days rehab you get the full 10 points for that week and therefore full benefit. If they only attend 2 and a half days they get 5 points and only half Benefit.

The benefit should also be paid in tokens/vouchers that can only be exchanged in certain stores on production of some form of photo ID card so that they are not transferrable. This will prevent them using benefit money to feed their addiction.

If they are not clean after 6 months then tough.

If they are clean they can actively seek employment and gain a further maximum 3 months benefit.

8. Anyone on Out of Work Benefits who is on them for a prolonged period, i.e. 6 months must contribute to the community in order to continue receiving their benefit. They must do at least 16 hours a week community work (similar to community service work). This will not only improve local areas but it will also help to instil that work ethic in people. The longer you are out of work and on benefit,the easier it is to stay on benefit and stop looking for work. Keep somebody active and working even for a short time is better than sitting on your !!!! all day. 16 hours a week equates to less than 3 hours per day over 7 days. Anyone who cannot commit to this whilst out of work doesn't deserve prolonged benefits.

weehev

hi mark, il add my responses to your argument below (in pink cause its pretty).

marklv wrote: »

OK, here are my responses:

1) Benefits paid in vouchers? Yeah, right, to further rub in the humiliation so that any unemployed person is treated like a criminal? - as far as i know, criminals don't receive vouchers, and how is it humiliating to get vouchers? if your embarrassed by it, all the more incentive to get a job What is the point? And what is nonsense about 50 inch TVs and drugs? well where do drug additcs get their money from (along with crime) cause i don't see many working for it. And yes 50' tv's seem to be common accompanied by no carpets and threadbare couches. Are you totally loopy? no, i'm quite sane How can you buy these things on £65 a week benefits? thats quite a lot to live on. You are getting mixed up with people who work and illegally claim benefits, and that's another matter altogether - maybe slightly, i appologise.

2) Reduce benefits?!! We already have among the lowest benefits in Europe. How can you be comfortable on £65 a week? - see above Reduce them further and you'll see people resorting to theft and burglary even more than already happens - just to survive! - or help them to look harder for a job And then of course when in prison they will cost the state far more than they were when on benefits! - not if they turn prisons into places of punishment, like the ones they have in venezuela, they aint expensive to run! Utter nonsense. Only a lunatic, an idiot or a criminal would advocate this -i cant see how a criminal would advocate this.

3) Forced labour? OK, why not the workhouse then? Because this is what you are effectively advovating. It seems to me like a breach of human rights - oh don't get me started on this! an indignity that again criminalises people for what isn't their fault cant see how working criminalises people, it gives people self respect and a purpose in life. When you are unemployed, looking for a job is a job in itself this is true if you're up all night drinking/taking drugs then cant get out your bed the next day - there is no point in giving people menial tasks. Dickensian barbarism - pure madness - what is a menial task? cleaning the streets? helping others? thats very judgemental of you.

4) Funnily enough I'm not opposed to this in principle. However it depends on the crime and the excact circumstances.

5) I think you might be mixing up JSA with income support. Contribution based JSA ends after 6 months, after which it becomes income based and then income support after a further period. There are different levels of means testing etc. You can't simply stop all beenfits after a maximum of three years - a lot of people cannot find work and you have to accept this. What you advocate is Victorian brutality, but it won't work. You'll just create a massive underclass of criminals and down and outs. - this would be no problem if they punished people effectively, if people choose to turn to a life of crime, they should be punished appropriately. No thanks.

6) This depends on what exactly is having money 'thrown at'. You need to have some areas of recreation for youths, otherwise they will just hang around on the street and cause trouble - do you want that? youth clubs are useful, i agree.

7) Have you ever been in prison? Trust me, it's basic enough already and the food is much like hospital food - well thats too good for them, nothing wrong with living on porridge, meat and veg. no need for sweets, juice, ice-cream etc. Hardly the Hilton. similar with all their tv's, playstations, gym equipment, games rooms etc - except the difference is they are not paying to stay there WE ARE!!! Before you ask, no I haven't been an inmate there but I have known prison wardens. There is certainly a need for greater discipline in prisons, and bribing wardens seems to be commonplace. Of course this needs to stop.

marklv

Weehev,

Let's just say we agree to disagree and leave it at that. I think we have a very different view of society and the best way forward - you look back to Victorian times, I look forward to a more socially progressive approach. I don't believe we can ever agree on social policy.

weehev

this may be so, however i think the recent softly softly approach hasn't worked, our society is in a mess cause of it, therefore maybe reinstating older policies should be done?

who knows, but yes - we will never agree on this. someone will always disagree, no matter what policy is enforced.

:beer:

jamespir

we should help duncan smith by getting him to see that by stopping peoples benfits crime rate will rise and more people will be come homeless

Sibley

It's drastic I know but I'd execute all prisoners who will never be released, mentally insane people,seriously disabled,gypsies and child sex offenders. Any old people in care who can't look after themselves as well.

Next, state run homes for unmarried mothers (not from divorces just young girls going the dole/flat route). Make them work for their keep.

National service for anyone in the UK. Don't like it? Against religion? Tough go to country where you are welcome.

Unemployed to work doing community work for their money.

Repatriate anyone who breaks the law. No more immigration and no more European dossers turning up here.

Start with that lot.

bendix

jamespir wrote: »

we should help duncan smith by getting him to see that by stopping peoples benfits crime rate will rise and more people will be come homeless

You obviously have a very dim (and judgemental) view of those on benefits then, if you think the natural default position of those on benefits is to commit crime, should their funds be cut off.

I have more faith in people. I think they would be motivated and driven to improve themselves, get better educated perhaps or set up a small one-man business and get some pride back into their lives.

(This is exactly what happened in NZ during the late 1980s when their Finance Minister cut benefits - amazingly, people got back into jobs or used their god-given resources to work for themselves.)


But then again, I'm a conservative. I have more faith in my fellow man than you lefties who tend to think the worst of the people you profess to live, but whom you keep at the bottom of the heap.