The Benefits System

System

Maybe they should pay for trips to Dignitas, would save money in the long run. I'd happily go...

pqrdef

xXMessedUpXx wrote: »

Maybe they should pay for trips to Dignitas, would save money in the long run. I'd happily go...

Slight lack of logic in the government paying for people to go to Switzerland to do what it won't let them do here. So i expect it'll happen.

Graham_Devon

prqdef, whats your proposal?

ILW

A._Badger wrote: »

I take it you've never travelled in the Far East?

Whereas here we actually encourage people to have children they cannot afford to support. Seems very odd to me.

pqrdef

Graham_Devon wrote: »

prqdef, whats your proposal?

On benefits? On the evidence of this thread, it may be politically unsolvable.

We need a rational housing market, where property is accommodation, not a way of stoozing cheap money. Index-linked mortgages would make a big difference. House-building needs to be planned to match population increase. At present, housebuilders are loose cannons in a position to do tremendous economic damage.

And we need a rational labour market, which is all twisted out of shape at present. Given our poor economic prospects, the pay pyramid needs to be flatter, with more low-paid jobs. But we also have to do something about the bloated and overpaid middle class.

With a less distorted economy, we can then say there's no reason to subsidise able-bodied workers just because they've got too many kids. So no benefits for full-time workers.

This can be extended to people who aren't working by linking benefits to earnings, instead of a purely needs-based calculation. What people get when unable to work can sensibly be capped at what they got when they last worked, or what they would be likely to make in the sort of job they might be able to get, with no ramping up for extra kids produced later.

School-leavers would start on living-with-parents rate, unless they've been in care, and that's where they'd stick until at least 25, unless they get a job and earn more. Possibly they could earn an independent rate by voluntary work, but the most important thing would be to get them into jobs before they have kids. That's the point where the cycle has to be broken.

As for the poverty trap, people would have to take jobs if suitable jobs are available, but if they aren't, they just aren't. No use pretending there's a job for everybody who wants one.

But this is so far from where we are now that there would have to be transitional arrangements. No use telling people who've got kids that they shouldn't have had them. It doesn't follow that what we give to those who've got kids has to be promised to those who haven't got them yet. Some people would call that unfair, but changing the rules retrospectively is also unfair. Most people on DLA or Incapacity, and long-term unemployed over-50s, should be left alone now, even if the same deal isn't available to new customers.

[Deleted User]

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.

obviously you dont rely on benefits?
fyi mortgage payments are made direct to the lender and rents can be
food stamps etc are a stupid idea in 2011 and wouldnt save a single penny but would cost a fortune to administer

hallmark

pqrdef wrote: »

On benefits? On the evidence of this thread, it may be politically unsolvable.

We need a rational housing market, where property is accommodation, not a way of stoozing cheap money. Index-linked mortgages would make a big difference. House-building needs to be planned to match population increase. At present, housebuilders are loose cannons in a position to do tremendous economic damage.

And we need a rational labour market, which is all twisted out of shape at present. Given our poor economic prospects, the pay pyramid needs to be flatter, with more low-paid jobs. But we also have to do something about the bloated and overpaid middle class.

With a less distorted economy, we can then say there's no reason to subsidise able-bodied workers just because they've got too many kids. So no benefits for full-time workers.

This can be extended to people who aren't working by linking benefits to earnings, instead of a purely needs-based calculation. What people get when unable to work can sensibly be capped at what they got when they last worked, or what they would be likely to make in the sort of job they might be able to get, with no ramping up for extra kids produced later.

School-leavers would start on living-with-parents rate, unless they've been in care, and that's where they'd stick until at least 25, unless they get a job and earn more. Possibly they could earn an independent rate by voluntary work, but the most important thing would be to get them into jobs before they have kids. That's the point where the cycle has to be broken.

As for the poverty trap, people would have to take jobs if suitable jobs are available, but if they aren't, they just aren't. No use pretending there's a job for everybody who wants one.

But this is so far from where we are now that there would have to be transitional arrangements. No use telling people who've got kids that they shouldn't have had them. It doesn't follow that what we give to those who've got kids has to be promised to those who haven't got them yet. Some people would call that unfair, but changing the rules retrospectively is also unfair. Most people on DLA or Incapacity, and long-term unemployed over-50s, should be left alone now, even if the same deal isn't available to new customers.

What total drivel. "We need a rational housing market", "we need a rational labour market", "With a less distorted economy", blah blah blah blah BLAH

Any 8-y-old can say what we need. The question is what needs to be done to achieve it, what would you suggest or rather DO to achieve it. Rather than troll from the sidelines or whine about what's not possible or what we need, do you actually have even one constructive idea about what should be done?


No, thought not.

pqrdef

hallmark wrote: »

The question is what needs to be done to achieve it.

I did say index-linked mortgages and tighter control of housebuilding. A structure must be put in place to manage the nation's housing stock to match housing needs, not the wishes of those aiming for speculative profits in an unregulated property market. This would be a whole new way of thinking about property. But it's actually useless to try to reform banking while land and property remain feral.

As regards the labour market, the minimum wage is obviously a luxury we can't afford now, if we ever could. Management bloat is a question of changing the culture by education and propaganda, with the public sector leading by example.

hallmark wrote: »

do you actually have even one constructive idea about what should be done?

I made other proposals
(1) capping benefits according to earning capacity, so that people don't get much more on benefits than they would working
(2) legacy arrangements, so that a radical rethinking of the system for new customers isn't hamstrung by the effect on existing customers. In particular, we can't do much about kids already born but we have to do something about kids not born yet, and this clearly can't be achieved by a system that makes no distinction.

Graham_Devon

pqrdef wrote: »

On benefits? On the evidence of this thread, it may be politically unsolvable.

We need a rational housing market, where property is accommodation, not a way of stoozing cheap money. Index-linked mortgages would make a big difference. House-building needs to be planned to match population increase. At present, housebuilders are loose cannons in a position to do tremendous economic damage.

And we need a rational labour market, which is all twisted out of shape at present. Given our poor economic prospects, the pay pyramid needs to be flatter, with more low-paid jobs. But we also have to do something about the bloated and overpaid middle class.

With a less distorted economy, we can then say there's no reason to subsidise able-bodied workers just because they've got too many kids. So no benefits for full-time workers.

This can be extended to people who aren't working by linking benefits to earnings, instead of a purely needs-based calculation. What people get when unable to work can sensibly be capped at what they got when they last worked, or what they would be likely to make in the sort of job they might be able to get, with no ramping up for extra kids produced later.

School-leavers would start on living-with-parents rate, unless they've been in care, and that's where they'd stick until at least 25, unless they get a job and earn more. Possibly they could earn an independent rate by voluntary work, but the most important thing would be to get them into jobs before they have kids. That's the point where the cycle has to be broken.

As for the poverty trap, people would have to take jobs if suitable jobs are available, but if they aren't, they just aren't. No use pretending there's a job for everybody who wants one.

But this is so far from where we are now that there would have to be transitional arrangements. No use telling people who've got kids that they shouldn't have had them. It doesn't follow that what we give to those who've got kids has to be promised to those who haven't got them yet. Some people would call that unfair, but changing the rules retrospectively is also unfair. Most people on DLA or Incapacity, and long-term unemployed over-50s, should be left alone now, even if the same deal isn't available to new customers.

Thank yo ufor answering.

The issue I have with your answer is it's all fantasy. None of that can be achieved, not without completely reseting.

We are where we are, and we have to work within those boundries.

quantic

hallmark wrote: »

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.

I'm not saying I agree with the current benefits system, but I really do think the government do a good job of using the benefits class to distract from a lot of the bigger problems.