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

bendix

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.

You're a delight. Do you know that?

marklv

The_White_Horse wrote: »

I would scrap every benefit except the following:

State Pension - if you have paid in enough.

What does 'if you have paid enough' mean? The requirement is currently 30 years of contribution.

The_White_Horse wrote: »

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).

JSA already ends after 6 months. Anything paid thereafter is means tested, and the threshold is very low - £3k in savings I believe.
I agree with making JSA income related, but in this case the last employer should pay into this otherwise it would be too expensive.

The_White_Horse wrote: »

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. ).

And how do you define 'truly incapacitated'? Are you a doctor? A severly bad back can make it impossible for anyone to do any work. And depression can be a serious mental illness. Forcing these people to work while refusing them benefits is not only immoral, it may even be a breach of human rights. What you are advocating is insane.

The_White_Horse wrote: »

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

No housing benefit, no council tax help - I assume also no mortgage help. That would result in many people losing their homes and being forced on the streets as in Victorian times. Lunacy.

Exocet

marklv wrote: »

A one child policy for the poor - yes. Why not?

Ah. For the poor only. Excellent. Even more complicated. What if your income drops below the legal limit after you have had another baby? Or perhaps become pregnant? Or would you adopt a sliding scale according to trimesters?

Would there be exemptions for twins? Obviously not triplets and above, they would just have to be sold to Madonna, who presumably, and wouldn't this be marvellous - could have as many babies as she likes.

I'll buy your one child only policy - if it applies to all. Simpler to administer that way. Doesn't really address the benefit problem though - I suspect there are more 'extra' people paying tax than there are collecting benefits.

Pete111

bendix wrote: »

Honestly, you people are slow slow slow.

Can't you see that one of the benefits of my brilliant scheme is innately linked to the very problem you mention? I had that thought through right from the start.

Given that women can't run (or throw), this is the most perfect incentive for them to keep in shape. And I'm afraid to exclude them from the second running test or treat them differently would be unfair, patronising and - yes, let's say it as it is - sexist.

And we couldn't have that, could we?

As an aside though, La Perla lingerie WILL be provided on the benefit system, but ONLY to those who have a benefit / vote winning figure.

Do I have to do ALL the strategic thinking around here?

Bendix....I'm in awe. Truly.

:T:T:T:T:T:T:T

marklv

Exocet wrote: »

Ah. For the poor only. Excellent. Even more complicated. What if your income drops below the legal limit after you have had another baby? Or perhaps become pregnant? Or would you adopt a sliding scale according to trimesters?

Would there be exemptions for twins? Obviously not triplets and above, they would just have to be sold to Madonna, who presumably, and wouldn't this be marvellous - could have as many babies as she likes.

I'll buy your one child only policy - if it applies to all. Simpler to administer that way. Doesn't really address the benefit problem though - I suspect there are more 'extra' people paying tax than there are collecting benefits.

Why subsidise families of chavs, who will inevitably become delinquents? What is the point? If people cannot afford children they should not have them. The state should not subsidise the growth of large families for the poor. In the old days the kids of the poor ended up in the armed forces, but now that is no longer needed.

bendix

ILW wrote: »

Cheaper and less bueracratic solution would just be to fit narrow doors on poling stations and benefit offices. Sometimes the simple solutions are the most effective.

I like your thinking ILW, although - again - you've not thought it through properly.

Yes, your idea is simple and would work, but why should the public purse be called upon to make said structural alterations.

Why not use the idea mentioned earlier in this thread and locate pie and cake shops next to the polling stations and benefit offices. The net result would be the same, AND we would be boosting private enterprise for no state outlay at all.

I shall hurry forth and buy shares in Greggs.

bendix

Exocet wrote: »

Ah. For the poor only. Excellent. Even more complicated. What if your income drops below the legal limit after you have had another baby? Or perhaps become pregnant? Or would you adopt a sliding scale according to trimesters?

Would there be exemptions for twins? Obviously not triplets and above, they would just have to be sold to Madonna, who presumably, and wouldn't this be marvellous - could have as many babies as she likes.

I'll buy your one child only policy - if it applies to all. Simpler to administer that way. Doesn't really address the benefit problem though - I suspect there are more 'extra' people paying tax than there are collecting benefits.

LOL. The wonder is that marklv, while chafing at the bit against joke posts in his typically humourless way, can't see the irony in his ultimate facist stance here.

You gotta love the guy.

If he had an original thought, it would die of loneliness.

bendix

Pete111 wrote: »

Bendix....I'm in awe. Truly.

:T:T:T:T:T:T:T

It's understandable Pete. It's entirely understandable.

chucky

marklv wrote: »

Lunacy.

do you really wear a cardigan and slippers to go to work Mark?

treliac

bendix wrote: »

Who cares? Fat people are funny and their ideas aren't taken so seriously as the slim.

Besides, I would also propose limiting people's voting rights to weight too. For every stone you are over your optimum weight, the value of your vote is reduced 25% accordingly. So their protests would be irrelevant. You know it makes sense.

Another one to ignore.