Moral Hazard & Fairness - Housing

Radiantsoul

michaels wrote: »

Remind me again what shape the Roman empire is in these days...or the British one for that matter?

The Roman empire ended around the fifteen centuries ago. No-one is really sure exactly why, but reasons are likely to be,
1. Waves of invaders and migrants who were gradly enriched by their contact with the empire and so imposed an enhanced threat compared to the hayday of Rome.
2. A decline in the economic power of Rome, perhaps as a result of controls or changes in environment or demographics.
3. The increase in civil war from the first century onwards as various elites fought to wear the purple.
4. The advantages of being part of the empire reducing and so people gradually leaving.

With regard to the British empire it seems we couldn't and didn't wish to fight to hold on to the empire. Ultimately in order to maintain an empire we would have had to do this. Few people would have been prepared to buy a high price in blood for a small prize in treasure.

flashnazia

Valid point OP. There seems to be a baby boom amongst the scruffy non-workers in my area. This exponential growth, coupled with the fact that working ppl are delaying and limiting their families, is worrying. I'm not surprised the welfare bill has swallowed up the entire income tax receipt.

IveSeenTheLight

leveller2911 wrote: »

Said it before and I'll say it again.Unless a person is badly disabled all benefits should be linked to your NI contributions....Be interesting to see what IDS comes up with.

The wife and I were discussing a similarly veined theory last night.
Possibly there should be an enforced savings / pension scheme developed that you have to put a percentage of your wage (automatically deducted) into a slush fund.

If you fall on hard times, then the slush fund could be utilised.
If you go your whole life working (or the slush fund remains positive) then the money is returned on retirement as a sort of pension.

If you've not built up the slush fund or have used it up, tough, you need to go out and earn more money.

Certainly think it would go a long way to incenticising people working.

It's a very rough though but could go a long way to sorting out the welfare / oensions issue

Radiantsoul

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

If you've not built up the slush fund or have used it up, tough, you need to go out and earn more money.

It is an interesting idea, but when do you start it? Is someone who has paid in their whole life entitled or is it just for new people? And would you have a minimum income below which no-one would fall.

I personally have a theory that whilst most people resent the benefit system a little bit they actually like the basic principle. And there is little appetite for change.

michaels

Can't say I agree - surely it is more like buildings insurance, everyone pays it in case their house burns down but of course most people's don't - no one expects their premiums back when they sell the house if they have never made a claim.

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

The wife and I were discussing a similarly veined theory last night.
Possibly there should be an enforced savings / pension scheme developed that you have to put a percentage of your wage (automatically deducted) into a slush fund.

If you fall on hard times, then the slush fund could be utilised.
If you go your whole life working (or the slush fund remains positive) then the money is returned on retirement as a sort of pension.

If you've not built up the slush fund or have used it up, tough, you need to go out and earn more money.

Certainly think it would go a long way to incenticising people working.

It's a very rough though but could go a long way to sorting out the welfare / oensions issue

leveller2911

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

The wife and I were discussing a similarly veined theory last night.
Possibly there should be an enforced savings / pension scheme developed that you have to put a percentage of your wage (automatically deducted) into a slush fund.

If you fall on hard times, then the slush fund could be utilised.
If you go your whole life working (or the slush fund remains positive) then the money is returned on retirement as a sort of pension.

If you've not built up the slush fund or have used it up, tough, you need to go out and earn more money.

Certainly think it would go a long way to incenticising people working.

It's a very rough though but could go a long way to sorting out the welfare / oensions issue

The problem I see arising is future Governements keeping their greasy mits off my "Slush fund".

There is a big problem of trust, or lack of.I don't think governments realise what damage is done when trust is lost from dipping into pension funds.

Exocet

Malcolm. wrote: »

Moral Hazard, benefits and behaviour.

The more children those on benefits have, the bigger house they get. (I know someone with 8 children living in a five bedroom house paid for by the taxpayer)

Bit late to this one.

8 kids in a 5 bedroom house? Hell on earth.

silvercar

I'm not explaining myself very well.

If you are in receipt of every benefit going, so you have no housing costs of your own and are housed in a 4 bed house and get free prescriptions, dental, council tax.......

you still need to pay your utility bills, clothe your children, buy food out of benefit.

Now I can't see how easy it is to live on benefit levels and pay essentials out of that for a brood.

I totally get the point that low-middle income earners have the same or a worse struggle, but benefits that you can actually spend doesn't give you much cash in your hand once you have sorted out the kids.

leveller2911

silvercar wrote: »

I'm not explaining myself very well.

you still need to pay your utility bills, clothe your children, buy food out of benefit.

Now I can't see how easy it is to live on benefit levels and pay essentials out of that for a brood.

Well the ones I know of either have £thousands on credit cards(yes they do have them) or they claim and work cash in hand and a cpl deal in drugs. I also know of a cpl who who do very nicely from caddying for cash on the local golf coarse...

I don't know anyone who is a long term doleite who doesn't have mobile phones,Sky Tv and sizeable plasma Tv,s.......Oh and also manage to buy/run a car..

SingleSue

There is so much generalisation on this thread!

For info, I have not had any more children since being on benefits (would be an impossibility really, for one you need to have a partner and 2, you need to have a womb!), I don't own a plasma TV, I don't have Sky (I have a dish but only receive free channels), I don't drink, I don't sleep around.

I do take care of my children, I do instill a working ethic in them, I do take an interest in their education, I have paid out for private lessons (going without meals for myself to do so or sold something from my house - usually my books), I NEVER have things off the back of the lorry, I have NEVER worked cash in hand whilst on benefits.

Also, I have to pay the same as everyone else for school trips and school uniform.

Not sure what I have missed off the list, trying to post this whilst also doing several other things!