The Benefits System

Xiderpunk

With the current economic and long term prospects looking fairly bleak I think the welfare system needs a more rapid overhaul than promised in the last election. The government is working to address the problem of 'entitlement' where the benefits system has historically allowed income from benefits to be a viable way of life, therefore a choice.

I think the next step is to address the way benefits are provided, it seems to me that providing cash is fundamentally flawed. Stamps for food could be provided which apply to all essential food items, a bus pass/tube pass could be provided for transport, housing benefits should be paid direct to the landlord or the mortgage company. By removing cash from the equation it will ensure that tax payers money is being used as intended and furthermore will remove the attractiveness of seeing it as a way of life.

Naturally, benefits is far from the only problem our economy faces, however it is one aspect where real changes could be made in a relatively short space of time. I am considering filing an e-petition to this effect, therefore I am interested in feedback.

SingleSue

A voucher system would be extremely expensive to run, even more expensive than the current system and thus, there would not give the savings you assume.

How would a voucher system address school trips? Extra books for courses at school? A lack of public transport in the area? Special food needed? How would you work out how and when to give vouchers for clothes? You do not need to purchase them every week. Differences in the consumption of utilities, especially if a member of the family has a disability?

A voucher system is far too rigid and assumes that everyone has the same needs where in real life, people do not (that is what makes us individuals rather than robots)

There are people on benefits who are on them through no fault of their own, maybe through a disability which has made it impossible for them to work for a time, or they have lost their job because of the current economic setting, or they have had to give up work to care for an ill relative. These same people could have been working for 30 years or more in the past.

How you would YOU feel if you had to start to rely on benefits and found that it was being dictated how and when you purchased something new to wear, or what food to buy after very many years of working and paying taxes.

Unfortunately, you appear to be of the assumption that every person who claims benefits, are wastrels, drunkards with little care for any offspring whereas in the vast majority, the benefits are used as intended, to buy food, buy clothes (when needed rather than when liked), pay utilities and to provide a roof over the head.

As for an E petition, I would not be signing it as I can see it from both sides....as I have been in both sides!

hallmark

Give benefits to the old & the genuinely ill.

Let everyone else work or starve.

I'm not joking. Implement that tomorrow & I guarantee not one person would starve.

Jimmy_31

Xiderpunk wrote: »

With the current economic and long term prospects looking fairly bleak I think the welfare system needs a more rapid overhaul than promised in the last election. The government is working to address the problem of 'entitlement' where the benefits system has historically allowed income from benefits to be a viable way of life, therefore a choice.

I think the next step is to address the way benefits are provided, it seems to me that providing cash is fundamentally flawed. Stamps for food could be provided which apply to all essential food items, a bus pass/tube pass could be provided for transport, housing benefits should be paid direct to the landlord or the mortgage company. By removing cash from the equation it will ensure that tax payers money is being used as intended and furthermore will remove the attractiveness of seeing it as a way of life.

Naturally, benefits is far from the only problem our economy faces, however it is one aspect where real changes could be made in a relatively short space of time. I am considering filing an e-petition to this effect, therefore I am interested in feedback.

The cash needs to stop going into benefit claimants hands, the only reason people have got 4,5,6,7 kids whilst never ever doing a days work is because they get free money and free housing.

The government needs to start kicking the blatant thieves out of their homes and putting their unwanted children into care, once it is pointless to have a baby to increase your benefits people will stop spitting out unwanted babys instantly.

Would anybody on here scream the words ....you little f*****g c**t to their 2 year old child ? i hear that and worse EVERY SINGLE DAY at work and on the estate i live on, should we really be allowing people like this to have children.

By continually paying people to have kids they dont want the country is only going to get worse. The housing estates where i live are full already and peole are being put into free private rents, not many private rents left in the rough areas so i can see the problems spreading to the nicer areas if something isnt done ASAP to stop these scumbags having benefit babies.

hallmark

I was listening to a radio programme the other day & they said that one country in europe (think it was Holland) has a rule that any single girl who has a baby is immediately INeligible for social housing. Has worked wonders apparently.

Jimmy_31

hallmark wrote: »

I was listening to a radio programme the other day & they said that one country in europe (think it was Holland) has a rule that any single girl who has a baby is immediately INeligible for social housing. Has worked wonders apparently.

Wonder if britain will have the balls to bring this in, or will we just put of the massive problem for a while longer and let things get worse.

Cleaver

hallmark wrote: »

I was listening to a radio programme the other day & they said that one country in europe (think it was Holland) has a rule that any single girl who has a baby is immediately INeligible for social housing. Has worked wonders apparently.

I was watching channel 4 news last night and they had some comparisons between benefits in certain european countries. Maybe someone can correct me on the actual countries but I remember the figures.

In Denmark unemployment benefit is 90% of the average wage. In Holland (I think) it was 65% and in Germany it's 75%. In the UK it's £65 maximum a week, which I make to be around 14% of the average wage. I know all of these systems will have complex systems around kids and houses and other benefits, but I was quite surprised at how low our's was.

Going4TheDream

hallmark wrote: »

I was listening to a radio programme the other day & they said that one country in europe (think it was Holland) has a rule that any single girl who has a baby is immediately INeligible for social housing. Has worked wonders apparently.

I didnt hear the programmed but I did read a while back an article about the differences between the UK and Netherlands on this, dont they either have to live with their parents/families or go into a shared supervised facility where they get their own room and share bathroom/kitchen etc and all have to pitch in to keep it clean etc...or something very similar! and if I remember rightly there is emphasis on ensuring that they properly look after the child and getting sorted to get the mum trained into work....I am trying to find the article but for now it alludes me but I do remember thinking at the time that it may go along way in reducing the young mum pregnancy rate in this country if we had a similar thing here

MacMickster

Cleaver wrote: »

I was watching channel 4 news last night and they had some comparisons between benefits in certain european countries. Maybe someone can correct me on the actual countries but I remember the figures.

In Denmark unemployment benefit is 90% of the average wage. In Holland (I think) it was 65% and in Germany it's 75%. In the UK it's £65 maximum a week, which I make to be around 14% of the average wage. I know all of these systems will have complex systems around kids and houses and other benefits, but I was quite surprised at how low our's was.

Benefits are there to help people through hard times.

I'm all for a high rate of benefits to help those who are prevented from earning by illness or disability, and to support those who find themselves temporarily out of work (say up to a year).

If people are physically able to work, but have been unemployed for over a year, then I think that they have to recognise their changed circumstances and should be given a very basic subsistence level of benefit. If this means having to move home, sell their car etc then so be it.

The idea of taking away people's dignity by giving vouchers only is ridiculous though, and would merely create a black market where cash is exchanged for vouchers.

hallmark

Going4TheDream wrote: »

I didnt hear the programmed but I did read a while back an article about the differences between the UK and Netherlands on this, dont they either have to live with their parents/families or go into a shared supervised facility where they get their own room and share bathroom/kitchen etc and all have to pitch in to keep it clean etc...or something very similar! and if I remember rightly there is emphasis on ensuring that they properly look after the child and getting sorted to get the mum trained into work....I am trying to find the article but for now it alludes me but I do remember thinking at the time that it may go along way in reducing the young mum pregnancy rate in this country if we had a similar thing here

Yes that was it. IIUC they now have one of the lowest if not the lowest teenage pregnancy rates in europe.

pqrdef

We forget that the basic problem here is a surplus of labour. One invariable result of this is to depress wages. The other effects vary - riots. marches, crime, alcoholism, prostitution, mass movements of people, the occasional revolution.

The benefits system was designed to avoid these problems by taking people - mostly the least employable people - out of the labour market. To a large extent, it works.

One thing it does is keep people where they are, even in areas with no work and no prospects of work. This creates depressed areas, in every sense. But the alternative would be that people would have to leave those houses empty and go and live in shanty towns in and around London.