BBC Thursday: The Future State of Welfare

Graham_Devon

They do have a point though!

Would any of us truely, honestly, work 40 hours a week, to be £30 better off?

Remember, thats a £30 paper profit. Doesn't take into considerations transport or any other working costs, time getting to work, lunch breaks etc.

The system allows it. And to be honest, even though I am massively against the gross misuse of benefits.....I'd honestly have to say, given the choice of spending time at home with my son, or spending 40 hours, plus travel etc and coming home to him asleep.....for £30 paper profit?

Screw that for a game. I'd pop me hat out at that point. Although it sounds like I'd need a wheelbarrow. Would have to take some serious morals to go that far out of your way to end up worse off financially and also family wise. I have to be honest and state my morals would come secondary at that point. No hassles, no worries, quality time spent with my son and family. Or £30 extra? Hmmm. Toughie.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

All seems a bit stupid really. I believe we've got to the tipping point where those paying tax can no longer support this system. But it's going to take a brave government....sorry, should rephrase that, it's going to take a government to commit suicide for decades to actually change it.

I'd say it would be political suicide not to change it. In times of austerity what government wants to be seen to be providing over-generous benefits whilst increasing demands on the tax payer.

There couldn't be a better time to deal with this. Don't expect any rapid changes; government should be careful to minimise unintended consequences. Non-inflationary benefit increases would seem like an easy, if blunt, start.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

I'd say it would be political suicide not to change it. In times of austerity what government wants to be seen to be providing over-generous benefits whilst increasing demands on the tax payer.

There couldn't be a better time to deal with this. Don't expect any rapid changes; government should be careful to minimise unintended consequences. Non-inflationary benefit increases would seem like an easy, if blunt, start.

Well we see eye to eye on this one.

I just think that such a scenerio would yield further use of the "poor get poorer" line. More labour attacks. And ultimately, it feeds through.

The government don't seem to want to change it, as they have delayed everything they said they would change, apart from hitting people sporadically with the child benefit changes.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Would any of us truely, honestly, work 40 hours a week, to be £30 better off?

For a couple of years our childcare costs took the best part of my wife's wages. We were better off by more than £30/ week but not by much.

My wife got a couple of bonuses and payrises during that time. Longer term it was definitely worth it but tough at the time.

Jimmy_31

Going4TheDream wrote: »

I don't know what worse, the fact she has not worked for 20 years but still had more and more children on benefits (and her children are now having children which also don't work) or the fact that the system has allowed her to do so. It is morally wrong on every level on both counts

I started seeing the benefit circle of life being completed around here a few years ago. The unfit mothers kids are now unfit mothers themselves.

The knob ed fathers are still providing the benefit baby making service to anybody who wants it.

The knob ed fathers who get all the free 1 bed flats so they can have their child stay with them every other saturday are now getting a bit pi55ed off that the children they produced are getting the 1 bed flats instead of them:rotfl:

There are very few free houses and flats remaining in our area so i am seeing the problem spread further away to the next town where it is a lot nicer to live and isnt infested with pure scum like round here.

The nicer town has now got a few little scumbag mothers and fathers to deal with and it is only going to get worse as long as the government think it is absolutely fine for a man and woman to produce a child even though they have no means to support them.

If you live in a nice area and start seeing young women pushing a pram around the local co-op whilst dressed in their pyjamas, you will know the 5hithole town down the road is now full up.

Going4TheDream

Graham_Devon wrote: »

They do have a point though!

Would any of us truely, honestly, work 40 hours a week, to be £30 better off?

Remember, thats a £30 paper profit. Doesn't take into considerations transport or any other working costs, time getting to work, lunch breaks etc.

The system allows it. And to be honest, even though I am massively against the gross misuse of benefits.....I'd honestly have to say, given the choice of spending time at home with my son, or spending 40 hours, plus travel etc and coming home to him asleep.....for £30 paper profit?

Screw that for a game. I'd pop me hat out at that point. Although it sounds like I'd need a wheelbarrow. Would have to take some serious morals to go that far out of your way to end up worse off financially and also family wise. I have to be honest and state my morals would come secondary at that point. No hassles, no worries, quality time spent with my son and family. Or £30 extra? Hmmm. Toughie.

When I was made redundant I had to sign on (fortunatley only for about 8 weeks) even though I had worked and paid stamp and was on JSA contribution based I was told clearly that if I should remain unemployed after 6 months and go on to income based JSA I would be expected to widen my search and to look at and apply for jobs of minimum wage.

Why then is this not being enforced?

The fact that he should be any better off let alone £30 is not the point.

People should not have a right to choose not to work when they are capable.

tartanterra

Graham_Devon wrote: »

They do have a point though!

Would any of us truely, honestly, work 40 hours a week, to be £30 better off?

Remember, thats a £30 paper profit. Doesn't take into considerations transport or any other working costs, time getting to work, lunch breaks etc.

The system allows it. And to be honest, even though I am massively against the gross misuse of benefits.....I'd honestly have to say, given the choice of spending time at home with my son, or spending 40 hours, plus travel etc and coming home to him asleep.....for £30 paper profit?

Screw that for a game. I'd pop me hat out at that point. Although it sounds like I'd need a wheelbarrow. Would have to take some serious morals to go that far out of your way to end up worse off financially and also family wise. I have to be honest and state my morals would come secondary at that point. No hassles, no worries, quality time spent with my son and family. Or £30 extra? Hmmm. Toughie.

Unfortunately, I feel the same way.
If the costs of working exceed the costs of staying at home, why would anyone bother?
The system is insane.

I believe that benefits should reduce on a proportional basis.
The best way to do this would be to base it on how long you have actually been unemployed, as a percentage of your working life.
The long term unemployed who have no intention of working should not be supported by taxpayers. It's unjust and unfair.

Also (whilst I'm on my soapbox), I really don't understand why the benefits Agency don't get tough on these "professional" protesters at places such as Dale Farm and St Pauls.
These people are clearly not "available for work", and therefore should not be receiving any benefits.

To be honest, very few parts of the benefits system make any sense to me at all.:(

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

For a couple of years our childcare costs took the best part of my wife's wages. We were better off by more than £30/ week but not by much.

My wife got a couple of bonuses and payrises during that time. Longer term it was definitely worth it but tough at the time.

I'd already planned my response to such a comment.

See the difference, is, I assume, your wife was working before you had the child...even if she wasn't, you were, therefore you wouldn't have had an entitlement to the same benefits as the person in the programme. You'd all just have to live on your wage, and your wife being at home turning down the extra money would be something you would have to pay for.

Therefore, in your circumstances, sure, £30+ a week better off is better than being say £300 a week worse off.

But in the circumstances of someone already at home, not working, but housed, taxes paid, NI paid, it's a completely different ballgame. They don't face the same choice or loosing income, or being £30 better off. It's simply the choise of "do I really bother for £30 a week".

Unlike your situation, they won't loose an entire salary. There lifestyle won't change. They will keep the same money coming in. They will still be able to ring the landlord to fix the shower rather than having to pay to fix it themselves (which could easily swallow 4 weeks or more of their £30 extra).

If you are already working, or already have a lifestyle to lose, you will carry on working, even if it only means you'll be £30 better off, as you'll lose much more if you don't choose that route. If you are not working, theres nothing to lose. Just £30 to gain (which will be wiped out if you can't walk to work and back). Seriously....who would choose the second option?

If someone said to you or me we could keep everything we have today, the state will pay for its upkeep and we will be able to live to the same standard as we do today (i.e. state will maintain our lifestule but we won't get any further financially), but I have to lose £30 a week....blimey, I'd think every christmas had come at once, served up by 100 wom.....(I'll stop there before I offend any of the prudes!!! ).

Theres a very clear difference between loosing what you already have / loosing a salary and having the choise of maintaining your standards for the loss of 30 quid.

lostinrates

Graham_Devon wrote: »

See the difference, is, I assume, your wife was working before you had the child....

I think its more basic even that that: for many people whose potential jobs are those with very little progressions prospects....(or whose drive is such that they aren't likely to be those who do progress.....) they don't lose the risk of delayed progression or bonuses...because these aren't part of their salary expectations. If you are working a minimum wage or not much more job with few incentives then the idea of keeping a foot in the door for future benefit really must mean very much less.

That said, I actually don't see full time parenting of below school age children by one parent as a bad thing.

Graham_Devon

lostinrates wrote: »

That said, I actually don't see full time parenting of below school age children by one parent as a bad thing.

Agree to all of your points, but wanted to reply to this point.

Greatly beneficial in my view. Don't think it's doing society any good with both parents working neither do we really have the jobs to match the demand. Neither is it doing society any good with no parents working. The return of one parent at work and another providing a wage, IMO, would be greatly beneficial.

Kudo's to those who stay at home all day though. Hell of a lot of work before they start going to school!