BBC Thursday: The Future State of Welfare

StevieJ

RenovationMan wrote: »

The government can give tax incentives to attract foreign companies into GB, they can carry out infrastructure projects to make the UK more efficient and they can invest in training and education in certain areas so that a trained pool of workers attracts inward investment.

I agree that the creation of non-jobs in the public sector is not the answer. Its a shame that we wasted so much money on this that could have been spent on helping to generate real jobs.

A good example would be toll roads run by the private sector, no cost to govt but an improvement to the infrastructure of the country with the addition of extra jobs.

StevieJ

AliceJenkins wrote: »

O god no, not another "poor people who can't be bothered to work" tv show argggggggg

I am starting to think that your function in life is to wind people up, on purpose

Svenena

How about if we had a system where people had to earn JSA through volunteering? Say they had to do 10 hours a week, which would have to be signed off by the organisation 'employing' them as a volunteer. They would be guaranteed time off for interviews, and not need to give more than a couple of days notice to start a job, if one was offered. People would then still have 30 hours a week to job search (assuming a 40-hour week), which I bet loads of people don't use on job-searching as it is. And they would be gaining/keeping up-to-date with relevant skills, which would help them get a job. The providers would need to be authorised in some way to sign off the volunteering as legitimate, and if people refused, they would simply lose their benefits. For those with children, some kind of day care would need to be provided, but I believe there are free nursery places for children over a certain age, so it would only be the very young who this would need to be paid for. Possibly even the government could offer opportunities themselves through some kind of poorhouse type business (would need a better name to be marketed, lol), similar to how people work in prison. This would make some money back for the government for the payment of benefits, and would be optional - people would only be obliged to take this up if they didn't find themselves another opportunity.

I'm sure there are many flaws with this kind of idea (the main one I identify is that of those with children who still refuse to take up opportunities, as obviously children can't be left to go without basics without choice), but I'm just trying to think of a practical solution that could be implemented without just leaving people with nothing (don't want to encourage crime, homelessess, extreme poverty, etc).

I'd be interested in hearing others' ideas for practicable solutions (many people have put forward explanations of the causes, and I think they are myriad and we can't pin the situation on one thing).

StevieJ

OptionARMAGEDDON wrote: »

If we got rid of state old age benefits (winter fuel, pension cut in half etc) as well as axeing state benefits in total, we could eliminate thedeficit AND cut taxes. Yes, life expectancy will drop (who wants to be a senile 90 year old anyhow) , but I would much prefer a return to the old ways of families looking after their folks and lower taxation.

What about paying out those forces pensions at 65 that should save a few quid, yes including you and your Brylcreem boys I wonder what The Iron Duke would have made of it?

Military Retirement Overview The military retirement system is arguably the best retirement deal around. Unlike most retirement plans, the Armed Forces offer a pension, with benefits, that starts the day you retire, no matter how old you are. That means you could start collecting a regular retirement pension as early as 37 years old. What's more, that pension check will grow with a cost of living adjustment each year.

http://www.military.com/benefits/content/military-pay/the-military-retirement-system.html

CLAPTON

StevieJ wrote: »

A good example would be toll roads run by the private sector, no cost to govt but an improvement to the infrastructure of the country with the addition of extra jobs.

I'm not sure the example of the midlands toll road is very encouraging

the main M6 is busy and overcrowded, the toll road expensive and fairly empty
in a small crowded island, a very wasteful use of scarce land and resources

John_Pierpoint

StevieJ wrote: »

A good example would be toll roads run by the private sector, no cost to govt but an improvement to the infrastructure of the country with the addition of extra jobs.

Yes but is is borrowing from the future again ie getting into more debt, this time to some multinational fund.

CLAPTON

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

Yes but is is borrowing from the future again ie getting into more debt, this time to some multinational fund.

it doesn't have to be by borrowing but even if it were are you against all investment that involes borrrowing?
if so I would guess we would truely be a third world country in a few years time

StevieJ

CLAPTON wrote: »

I'm not sure the example of the midlands toll road is very encouraging

the main M6 is busy and overcrowded, the toll road expensive and fairly empty
in a small crowded island, a very wasteful use of scarce land and resources

There is a solution to that, charge on both some much needed cash into the exchequer plus more business for
the private enterprise.

StevieJ

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

Yes but is is borrowing from the future again ie getting into more debt, this time to some multinational fund.

It doesn't have to be borrowing (although I can't see the problem with that anyway) it could be an IPO.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/ipo.asp#axzz1burBlbUR

Ilya_Ilyich

StevieJ wrote: »

A good example would be toll roads run by the private sector, no cost to govt but an improvement to the infrastructure of the country with the addition of extra jobs.

Why would this be preferable to a publicly-run toll road?