BBC Thursday: The Future State of Welfare

ukcarper

gailey wrote: »

Depends on their situation.

are they single parent?
both unemployed?

as rent would be paid
so would council tax
kids would get school meals saving £120 a month
free eyetests dental
healthy start vouchers-money off grocery bill

so tax credits, child benefit would be paid as cash on top of benefits mentioned above.

for 3kids cb is £180 a month.
tax credits unsure but the top threadshold is approx £6000 a year so approx 400-500 a month.
if one parent seekinbg work or ill jsa/incapacity
some parents get disability payments for the most minor things according to some forums which is approx £240 a month.

Every now and then you get a closer/daily mail article especially near xmas of how families on benefits have very expensive xmas.

Some people do play the system see that on mums forums a lot!

That was just for 2 unemployed adults with 3 children it included child tax credit and child benefit.

Was made up of £106 income support, £157 child tax credit and £47 child benefit per week, can’t guarantee accuracy as I just used entitled too website.

dtsazza

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

"There is no such thing as society" -- Margaret Thatcher ?

That quotation is very relevant to this thread, if taken in context.

Thatcher was talking about the culture of blaming things on "society" as some abstract entity, and by the same token expecting society or the state to sort everything out:

Margaret_Thatcher wrote:

I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation.

It's appropriate to point out that the government isn't magic, and ultimately only acts as an arbiter to perform redistribution between the individuals within the country. Everything that someone receives, comes from someone else.

And I completely agree with her that there can be no absolute entitlements, because the total has to be net neutral. Which obligations are legitimate and ought to be met as a member of society, and which are spurious?

In an ideal world I think welfare ought to be massively devolved - I think that at a government level it's impossible to determine which causes are deserving of public funds and which are not (e.g. an unemployed person who's genuinely unlucky and trying to work, vs. someone who's playing the system and intends to live on handouts).

If the individual had some say in how their tax money was redistributed, rather than some nationally-applied list of conditions, that money ought to go much further. And in a sense it would be more democratic too.

As an ill-thought out example, if income tax was reduced by 10% but instead everyone was required to donate 10% to "social development charities", I suspect that might both be more effective and democratic. You'd be able to choose where your money goes, both in terms of sector (how do you feel about education vs. social housing vs. libraries vs. unemployment benefits), and in terms of effectiveness of methods. If you want to give your money to support the unemployed, and one charity has a reputation for just doling the money out, while the other provides a solid re-employment program and is harsh with those that are just looking for a free ride, then I suspect the latter would get the vast majority of the unemployment donations.

It probably has flaws, but I really like the concept of those in a local society who are providing the money, having a say in where and how it's used. That's how it would have been in a small tribe, and it ties back the personal responsibility that's now been exchanged for playing the black and white rules of the system - to make it superficially look like you're unfortunate and need help.

Going4TheDream

drc wrote: »

I used to go on a forum for mum/baby related stuff. I remember once there was a question about disposable income and several of the members who were reliant solely on benefits were saying they had disposable incomes of £500+ per month which I was really shocked about. These members tended to have 3 or more kids.

I do think that the benefits for having children (tax credits and child benefit) are set way too high for each child. I understand that the intention was to ensure that child poverty was/is a thing of the past but I think this is such a simplistic way to ensure that (if you even believe that absolute poverty exists in this country). Poverty can be about so much more than household finances and I think just throwing money at families does not solve the problem any more than giving the proverbial man in Africa a fish every day will teach him how to be self sufficient rather than teaching him how to fish. I also feel that Labour's policy over the past 13 years to vastly increase the amount of benefits that can be received for those with children (again to reach their target of eradicating child poverty) has completely removed the whole hard work=reward mentality of times past. If you can "make" £45,000 per year from having children or you can make £45,000 by working slowly up the career ladder and doing plenty of jobs you don't want to do, many people would choose the former.

The economy of scales needs to apply to children in the benefit system as it does for adults

ie one adult gets £67.70 odd a week but 2 adults £109.55 odd a week.

Yet for each child the tax credits are approx £49 a week plus family allowance..and this is paid for each child at the same rate irrespective of how many children you have.

By applying the same economies of scale to childrens allowance for those on benefits (not those who work) you would see 100% for the 1st child, 60% for the 2nd, 30% for the 3rd and nothing for the 4th.

Having more than one child on the benefits would no longer be an attractive option for serial breeders and would make less comfortable for those men who currently say work doesn't pay and would rather stay home with their families.

Flight2quality

Going4TheDream wrote: »

The economy of scales needs to apply to children in the benefit system as it does for adults

ie one adult gets £67.70 odd a week but 2 adults £109.55 odd a week.

Yet for each child the tax credits are approx £49 a week plus family allowance..and this is paid for each child at the same rate irrespective of how many children you have.

By applying the same economies of scale to childrens allowance for those on benefits (not those who work) you would see 100% for the 1st child, 60% for the 2nd, 30% for the 3rd and nothing for the 4th.

Having more than one child on the benefits would no longer be an attractive option for serial breeders and would make less comfortable for those men who currently say work doesn't pay and would rather stay home with their families.

You are right, and are you sure that isnt what we have now? I thought it is a bit less all round for each successive child?

When it comes to housing benefit they are talking about bringing in a cap, but they postponed it because worried house prices would fall too much. But it will come in eventually.

So what is the end game, will this £500 per week per household total benefit cap come in? If it does what will happen to all the families renting in London? They would need most of their £500 wk just to pay rent and council tax.

Going4TheDream

Flight2quality wrote: »

You are right, and are you sure that isnt what we have now? I thought it is a bit less all round for each successive child?

When it comes to housing benefit they are talking about bringing in a cap, but they postponed it because worried house prices would fall too much. But it will come in eventually.

So what is the end game, will this £500 per week per household total benefit cap come in? If it does what will happen to all the families renting in London? They would need most of their £500 wk just to pay rent and council tax.

I imagine that each case is calculated separately dependent upon circumstances but a quick check on the gov benefits site seems to allow the same amount for all children (unless there are special needs where there is an enhancement)?

I appreciate that London seems to be the anomaly in respect of rents and HB is a problem here for the reason that you state and the answer isnt clear cut. However is a family is not working then perhaps they need to make the decision if such a cap comes in that they cut their cloth accordingly and make life choices about where they live, perhaps in a similar way that home buyers have to when they consider making a purchase. It will normally be driven by cost? Whilst there are costs associated with moving a support programme to help people on benefits move to cheaper accommodation would be a saving in the long term.

An non working immigrant family with about 6 kids in Coventry recently turned down a larger house in Coventry, next thing they popped up in London in a rented house that cost £1500 a week? Why is that allowed to happen? I know that is possibly a more extreme example but highlights what is actually wrong with the system.

I am not suggesting a mass clearance, but why does someone who doesn't work need to live in Islington when they could live in a suburb?

I know that it isnt quite as simplistic as that but the theory that someone can live on benefits in a reasonable area of London and not work at a huge cost is something that isn't sustainable.

At the end of the day I believe Margaret Thatcher was correct when she said People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation.'

Successive governments have hidden true unemployment figures under a plethora of different categories and benefits to boot but due to a good economy it has not been kept in check. Just because things have been allowed to happen doesn't make them right.

John_Pierpoint

Life has not been the same since Tasmania stopped taking the social misfits off our hands.
Mind you as the majority of them were men, the problem was simply postponed, as the elderly male population could not look after itself and required some sort of "pension" system.

ukcarper

Flight2quality wrote: »

You are right, and are you sure that isnt what we have now? I thought it is a bit less all round for each successive child?

When it comes to housing benefit they are talking about bringing in a cap, but they postponed it because worried house prices would fall too much. But it will come in eventually.

So what is the end game, will this £500 per week per household total benefit cap come in? If it does what will happen to all the families renting in London? They would need most of their £500 wk just to pay rent and council tax.

I believe there is a drop from about £80 per week for first child to £63 for second then it remains the same.

Were they worried that house prices would fall too much or that the slack would be taken up by private renters and there would be no where for the people effected.

I’m not sure what the answers is but looking at the entitled to website if a couple had 4 children rent of £200 a week and council tax of £1.5k a year they would get just under £31.5k a year. You would need to earn in excess of £40k to take home that so it doesn’t seem right to me.

chewmylegoff

Flight2quality wrote: »

So what is the end game, will this £500 per week per household total benefit cap come in? If it does what will happen to all the families renting in London? They would need most of their £500 wk just to pay rent and council tax.

i guess they'll probably need to get a job to make ends meet, rather than ramping gold and silver all day on internet forums.

John_Pierpoint

In Edwardian times, when the gold sovereign ruled the world, in some boroughs of London 20% of the households were able to live off their "investments". "Consols" anyone?
I guess the memory lingers but don't forget that in the 1930's the USA managed to break the fascination with gold - perhaps only the Chinese now have the power to do that.

Flight2quality

Going4TheDream wrote: »

I imagine that each case is calculated separately dependent upon circumstances but a quick check on the gov benefits site seems to allow the same amount for all children (unless there are special needs where there is an enhancement)?

I appreciate that London seems to be the anomaly in respect of rents and HB is a problem here for the reason that you state and the answer isnt clear cut. However is a family is not working then perhaps they need to make the decision if such a cap comes in that they cut their cloth accordingly and make life choices about where they live, perhaps in a similar way that home buyers have to when they consider making a purchase. It will normally be driven by cost? Whilst there are costs associated with moving a support programme to help people on benefits move to cheaper accommodation would be a saving in the long term.

An non working immigrant family with about 6 kids in Coventry recently turned down a larger house in Coventry, next thing they popped up in London in a rented house that cost £1500 a week? Why is that allowed to happen? I know that is possibly a more extreme example but highlights what is actually wrong with the system.

I am not suggesting a mass clearance, but why does someone who doesn't work need to live in Islington when they could live in a suburb?

I know that it isnt quite as simplistic as that but the theory that someone can live on benefits in a reasonable area of London and not work at a huge cost is something that isn't sustainable.

At the end of the day I believe Margaret Thatcher was correct when she said People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation.'

Successive governments have hidden true unemployment figures under a plethora of different categories and benefits to boot but due to a good economy it has not been kept in check. Just because things have been allowed to happen doesn't make them right.

If all the families on low incomes that get help with their rent were forced to move away from London then rents and houses prices would collapse in London. There would be more supply in the many now empty properties and less demand if only the people left to pay out of their own pocket, and they will not want to pay so much.