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

Exocet

Malcolm. wrote: »

At the current population trend, a limit of one child per couple seems to be an inevitable conclusion. It's not politically wise (it would be political suicide) to talk about such topics though, it's far more beneficial to maintain the we need the young to work to support those in old age line.

Perhaps not remove benefits. Could lower them. Crime and anti-social behaviour should not pay.

Ok one serious answer.

Limit to one child, pension system I suspect collapses. How to enforce limit, what to do with people with more than one child? Or does it only apply to people on benefits? Get a good job, get married, have three kids. Lose job, two of them have to be put up for adoption. Makes no sense. Need lessons from China and Japan on this I suspect. Likelihood of Tories introducing in this parliament - absolutely none whatesoever.

Crims and druggies. Obviously there's the law so hopefully some punishment has taken place. So do they lose entitlement to benefits for ever? If you transgress, that's it, none or reduced benefits? Maybe some aspects of benefits and punishment can be tied together, perhaps crims working to help previous victims of crime or anti socials tidying up the streets maybe.

But when people talk about reducing benefits I am not convinced that it is a life of luxury. To restrict them to one child would seem to penalise the second child in a slightly unfair manner. Mummy, why can't I eat this week? Because you were the second born and I lost my Woolies job. Daddy, why can't I go to school? Because I got done for shoplifting at Woolies.

Malcolm.

carolt wrote: »

Let's help Duncan Smith - how would YOU improve the benefits system?
Ideas on a postcard please; or better still, on this thread.

Can start by binning the current system. Finding a country where the system is working, and copy that.

There's little point trying to reinvent the wheel when you can instead copy one which is proven to work well.

Malcolm.

Exocet wrote: »

Ok one serious answer.

Limit to one child, pension system I suspect collapses. How to enforce limit, what to do with people with more than one child? Or does it only apply to people on benefits? Get a good job, get married, have three kids. Lose job, two of them have to be put up for adoption. Makes no sense. Need lessons from China and Japan on this I suspect. Likelihood of Tories introducing in this parliament - absolutely none whatesoever.

Crims and druggies. Obviously there's the law so hopefully some punishment has taken place. So do they lose entitlement to benefits for ever? If you transgress, that's it, none or reduced benefits? Maybe some aspects of benefits and punishment can be tied together, perhaps crims working to help previous victims of crime or anti socials tidying up the streets maybe.

But when people talk about reducing benefits I am not convinced that it is a life of luxury. To restrict them to one child would seem to penalise the second child in a slightly unfair manner. Mummy, why can't I eat this week? Because you were the second born and I lost my Woolies job. Daddy, why can't I go to school? Because I got done for shoplifting at Woolies.

I removed my comment as I knew it would open a can of worms. O.K. here goes...

The pension system is already collapsing. Why do you think the government wants to allow people to work longer(?), there's a hidden agenda. I'm only stating what limited (earth) resources and an exponentially growing population leads to, not suggesting how to implement some form of population control. Again it's a can of worms, and the messenger is all too frequently shot, so it's best I go no further on that front.

Crims and druggies. I'm not entering into suggesting policy on the back of a fag packet, only to have posters disagree with the implementation. I'm merely saying crime should not pay. We have instances where cheats have benefited tens of thousands from ben fraud and not had to pay any back. This is wrong. I agree with you, avenues for crims to work to help society is something that should be looked into.

Third paragraph, I think you've misunderstood what I was saying. It's not simply about people on benefits, it's about having a sustainable society.

Anyway, it's obviously a hot topic. Probably not a lunchtime convo...

treliac

Exocet wrote: »

But when people talk about reducing benefits I am not convinced that it is a life of luxury. To restrict them to one child would seem to penalise the second child in a slightly unfair manner. Mummy, why can't I eat this week? Because you were the second born and I lost my Woolies job. Daddy, why can't I go to school? Because I got done for shoplifting at Woolies.

Malcolm. wrote: »

I removed my comment as I knew it would open a can of worms. O.K. here goes...
...

Of course Exocet was only joking. It's obvious... most parents would share the first child's benefit with the second child. (Where's that shruggy shoulders smilie?)

Blacklight

LizEstelle wrote: »

'Help' those who have been in receipt of large, unearned inheritances or who have received unmerited bought-advantage education to repay their debt to those less fortunate by quadrupling tax on such situations.

'Help' those with double-barrelled surnames who would never remotely dream of sending their progeny to the schools which 95% of the population use to reconsider the scrapping of state school building repair and replacement.

'Help' those who attempt to gerrymander the parliamentary no-confidence voting tradition so as to ensure they cannot be booted out except by a 55% majority to see the error of their ways.

Great thread. I can see a huge amount of scope for helping these truly disadvantaged people. Let us not forget - most of them have deeply antisocial, psychological problems...

Is this is a joke?

You want me to work hard all my life to endeavor to provide a good future for my children, whilst paying 50% of it in tax while I'm alive.

Then on my death you want to take four times the amount of tax imposed on my money now to give to some scum mum who decided by the age of 14 that they were going to have a child by the first man that they came across, just so that they didn't have to worry about getting a job and could doss about with all their single mum mates?

You're as out of touch with the real world as those you intimate that are well educated and highly paid are.

There are a minority of people who actually have 'deeply antisocial, psychological problems' or that really need assistance. I think you'll find the majority are just playing the system.

treliac

Blacklight wrote: »

Is this is a joke? .........

You're as out of touch with the real world as those you intimate that are well educated and highly paid are.

Don't get uptight Bl - most people just ignore it!

The_White_Horse

I would scrap every benefit except the following:

State Pension - if you have paid in enough

Job Seeker allowance - for a max of 6 months (and based on the salary you have lost, so it is actually of some use. why should someone who earned 12k a year get the same benefit as someone who was on 80k a year and has proportionally larger costs to cover - and will have paid more tax)

Incapacity Benefit (or whatever it is called) - and should be only for the truly incapacitated ie no bad backs, no depression, not even wheelchair bound people. they can ALL work. I have worked with paraplegics, with blind people, with depressed people - one even blew their head off - but prior to that, he worked.

there should be no other benefits at all. no tax credits, no housing, no council tax help etc. NOTHING.

Blacklight

The_White_Horse wrote: »

I would scrap every benefit except the following:

State Pension - if you have paid in enough

Job Seeker allowance - for a max of 6 months (and based on the salary you have lost, so it is actually of some use. why should someone who earned 12k a year get the same benefit as someone who was on 80k a year and has proportionally larger costs to cover - and will have paid more tax)

Incapacity Benefit (or whatever it is called) - and should be only for the truly incapacitated ie no bad backs, no depression, not even wheelchair bound people. they can ALL work. I have worked with paraplegics, with blind people, with depressed people - one even blew their head off - but prior to that, he worked.

there should be no other benefits at all. no tax credits, no housing, no council tax help etc. NOTHING.

That's very generous. It must be Friday.

Malcolm.

treliac wrote: »

Of course Exocet was only joking. It's obvious... most parents would share the first child's benefit with the second child. (Where's that shruggy shoulders smilie?)

I've probably misread the response. I was hoping no-one would quote bits of it, but Exocet got in quickly.

I find the whole issue frustrating. If trends continue as they have been, houses will be more and more unaffordable, as will energy (cheap oil being used up), and land used for food will instead be used for biofuels.

I can't see future generations having it as 'easy' as the current one. And I care about generation Y more than I care about my one. (disclaimer: according to wiki I may fit into gen Y, however, I'm not so sure).

The_White_Horse

Blacklight wrote: »

That's very generous. It must be Friday.

it is. basically, if you genuinely cannot work for medical reasons, you are helped, otherwise get off you fat lazy backside and get a job.

if there are no jobs and the country is at 100% employment (yeah right), then perhaps some kind of workfare, where they are thrown a bit of cash in return for some manual labour so they can eat. they don't have to do this, and can choose to starve if they want.