BBC Thursday: The Future State of Welfare

Going4TheDream

Wookster wrote: »

Just watching this now and heard some single mother of 7 kids saying it isn't worth working for minimum wages.

I can tell I'm going to get quite angry watching this!

As far as I'm concerned cut all those benefits!

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

MacMickster

StevieJ wrote: »

So the programme is one of those decide what we want to say and then find the people to interview to prove it

Having watched the programme I think that it was a balanced and thought provoking piece of journalism. Yes, it had those for whom benefits was a lifestyle choice, but also plenty who were trying to escape from the benefits system.

The programme also covered the difficulties of a Chronic Fatigue Syndrome sufferer with the current disability/illness assessment system, and looked at the US workfare regime and the social problems that it caused.

For me, the most shocking aspect is the problem with housing benefits. I can’t accept that anyone should receive housing benefit for properties in excess of the amount that they would earn if working on minimum wage. If that means that large numbers would need to move to cheaper areas then so be it. Homeowners with mortgages would have to do this if they were unable to afford their mortgage payments.

What is clear is that the benefit system has moved a long way from what was envisaged by Beveridge and requires reform. There is not going to be an easy solution, so we need a proper cross-party review rather than some quick idealogical change.

hallmark

Interesting that the programme highlighted the things lots of us have known & been saying for years. For example, the guy on benefits who spat in contempt at the thought of working when it would "only make him a few quid better off than he got on benefits". Or the two Eastern Europeans who were amazed at the benefits available & openly said the Govt was giving far too much.

IMO the first thing this or any Govt should focus on is a comprehensive re-eductation of the pervailing mindset so that benefits claimants & the population in general stop thinking of benefits as "their" (the claimants) money or even the Government's money. The benefits system is a system of taking money from people who work & giving it to people who don't pure & simple & that point should be rammed home.

Maybe then we might get nearer to a system where benefits go where they should i.e. the truly needy & not to lazy scum.

OptionARMAGEDDON

NAAA, as I said, let em starve.

ukcarper

MacMickster wrote: »

Having watched the programme I think that it was a balanced and thought provoking piece of journalism. Yes, it had those for whom benefits was a lifestyle choice, but also plenty who were trying to escape from the benefits system.

The programme also covered the difficulties of a Chronic Fatigue Syndrome sufferer with the current disability/illness assessment system, and looked at the US workfare regime and the social problems that it caused.

For me, the most shocking aspect is the problem with housing benefits. I can’t accept that anyone should receive housing benefit for properties in excess of the amount that they would earn if working on minimum wage. If that means that large numbers would need to move to cheaper areas then so be it. Homeowners with mortgages would have to do this if they were unable to afford their mortgage payments.

What is clear is that the benefit system has moved a long way from what was envisaged by Beveridge and requires reform. There is not going to be an easy solution, so we need a proper cross-party review rather than some quick idealogical change.

I agree it was quite a good program the person I found annoying was the man in the Northeast who along with his wife who didn’t work and had no intention of working. The situation with property it central London is a difficult one if you want people to do the low paid jobs they need to live somewhere. The ideal situation would be affordable social housing but I don’t think that is going to happen anytime soon.

MacMickster

ukcarper wrote: »

The situation with property it central London is a difficult one if you want people to do the low paid jobs they need to live somewhere. The ideal situation would be affordable social housing but I don’t think that is going to happen anytime soon.

This probably needs to be tackled from both ends.

I would suggest a higher level of minimum wage should apply in London, rather than the profits made by London-based employers being subsidised by the state. Being based in London has many advantages for a business, but subsidised labour should not be one of those advantages.

In addition, by significantly reducing the levels of housing benefit available, the the rental returns for owners of London properties would become less attractive, which in turn should put downward pressure on house prices.

ILW

If the taxpayer stopped subsidising low wages, employers would be forced to increase them. The level of benifits is actualy holding wages down. Whether that is good or bad is another matter.

Wookster

It has taken really just 40 years for the welfare state to become wholly abused, but I bet it takes longer to return it to the purpose it was originally created for.

ukcarper

MacMickster wrote: »

This probably needs to be tackled from both ends.

I would suggest a higher level of minimum wage should apply in London, rather than the profits made by London-based employers being subsidised by the state. Being based in London has many advantages for a business, but subsidised labour should not be one of those advantages.

In addition, by significantly reducing the levels of housing benefit available, the the rental returns for owners of London properties would become less attractive, which in turn should put downward pressure on house prices.

I also think that the minimum wage should be increased for London. I’m not against reducing housing benefit but I don’t think that you would ever be able to get rents down to a level where people on the minimum wage would be able to afford them without some form of benefit.

Entertainer

ukcarper wrote: »

I agree it was quite a good program the person I found annoying was the man in the Northeast who along with his wife who didn’t work and had no intention of working. The situation with property it central London is a difficult one if you want people to do the low paid jobs they need to live somewhere. The ideal situation would be affordable social housing but I don’t think that is going to happen anytime soon.

I know a Chinese lady who works at a hotel in Central London but lives in inner London (Zone 2, cheaper area which she can afford) and travels in by bus or tube. It's what hundreds of thousands of people do in London including me when I lived there. It was the case that I could have rented a flat in a really posh part of Central London and it would all be paid for in housing benefit but I didn't do it because my aim was to be totally self sufficient.