BBC Thursday: The Future State of Welfare

Caveat_Mortgagor

All this meddling. Another minimum wage? Pah! Why not remove all govt interference? Remove the HB for low paid workers and limit it for those not working.

HB is a govt subsidy which has the biggest benefit for landlords and employers. Remove the subsidy and rents have to come down and/or wages have to go up. Let the markets for employment and housing decide.

In theory what would happen is people tell their landlord how much they can afford without Hb. The landlord will see that they cannot simply move the tenant on and get another tenant with an unearned pot of easy cash. Landlord has to make a decision. Get as much as he/she can - or get nothing.

Low paid workers would know they cannot afford to work in a low paid job subsidised by the taxpayer and quit - en masse. Employers panic and have to raise the pay rates or decide a job is not worth saving.

Can you really imagine that councils will not employ litter pickers? Starbucks shops will remain empty with no staff? No one working in retail shops?

So many companies can abdicate their responsibilities towards staff by letting the govt pick up the tab in the form of benefits.

I know this wont happen, not even gradually. Instead we will get interference and meddling and a shed load of taxpayers money thrown at the problem.

I did a FoI request to my local council in May this year to ask how much it paid out in HB, how many claimants etc.

A city with 117,000 houses paid out £120m last year. That is a cost equivalent to just over £1k for every household in the area. Money that subsidises big employers who dont have to pay a living wage and helps ensure landlords can push their rent up every year.

Who pays? The taxpayer. Wouldnt hard pressed working families be better off if this money was diverted so they had £1k knocked off their council tax every year?

Yes I understand that some people will lose out. But at the moment everyone loses out to help the few. I realise that some people would face upheaval and have to move to cheaper areas, but hey, millions of people live within their means, why should people on benefits be any different?

One last comment. I am a higher rate taxpayer. I know 3 single mums the oldest of which is 20. Not worked a day between them. All had troubled schooling, no education, few prospects. All pay more rent than me! And they all live in small flats in dodgy areas.

As a result of the profligacy of people like these I have a tussle with my landlord every year because he reads that rents are going ever higher. The difference is, when I am spending my own money, I negotiate. The benefits claimants I know dont have the same emotional attachment to the money they pay out in rent.

Somethings got to change. Its time to reduce or remove the meddling, not meddle more.

The_White_Horse

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 think you are forgetting the important point here - she had enough money, despite not working for 20 years, for a flat screen tv.

at the end of the day, that is what matters.

i wonder how many of the 7 she would have had if there were no benefits.

they should only give child benefit to those who CONCIEVE children whilst married. If they subsequently get divorced then they can continue to receive it. If the husband dies, then clearly they can continue to get it.

it should also be available for only the first two kids. Three at a the very very most.

This would help all round.

In fact, flats and hb should only be available for those people who CONCEIVE whilst married.

chucknorris

I meant to watch this programme but it slipped my mind that it was on last night, was it any good?

My personal view is that a safety net is necessary, but also that something should be done to prevent a benefit culture, such as making people work for their benefit.

The_White_Horse

looking at where these people lived and what they had, i ABSOLUTELY do not blame THEM for the choice they make to not work. Why would you slog your guts out for 40 hours a week cleaning toilets or whatever, when you can simply not and still have a house with wooden floors, brown leather sofas, widescreen tv etc etc. things many WORKING people don't have or cannot afford.

the fact he can live like that is a disgrace. the LEFTIES are to blame - as they always are.

John_Pierpoint

Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »

Governments are presumably nervous about introducing any sort of financial cap on family size that could be likened to China's policy. However, I think it merits serious discussion. I'm in my early 30s and most of my married friends have one child and are thinking about a second. However, this is a HUGE decision, as they have to factor in two sets of nursery fees or living on one salary, maternity leave pay, the possibility of moving to a slightly bigger house (which in London then has to be balanced by commuting costs and time from further out). I know of one couple who had twins, and have ruled out trying for another in case it happens again, as they could not afford 4 children. These are university educated, professional people on respectable salaries. Those on benefits don't have to worry about these issues; everything is paid for. I don't see how this can continue indefinitely.

My daughter, who has a job that involves trying to "rescue" the kids of dysfunctional families from the "cycle of deprivation", asked if I had noticed the number of families with children 5 years apart?
No?
"That is because they cannot afford two lots of child care fees."

nomoreboomandbust wrote: »

But what is being suggested is nowhere near as draconian, parents can have twenty kids for all I care, so long as they are not lavished with all these benefits just for breeding. The only exception is multiple births, if you have one then twins come along there's not much you can do, so long as they haven't gone mad on the IVF treatment

If you look at the Chinese statistics of multiple births, you will see that twins are on the increase, just as intervention in India is skewing the boy girl ratio. You don't get fined for having a multiple birth, so that is a powerful stimulus to take the fertility drug.

cit_k wrote: »

I did read your post.

It contained nothing of substance, apart from statistics that were used in some vain attempt to lend credibility to a point that holds no water.



Thats still the case for the majority of benefits.

You have to prove illness or disability (on a regular basis) in order to receive benefits based on illness or disability.

You have to prove you are job searching in order to receive jobseekers.

Other benefits, are paid out to those on low incomes who are unable to survive without extra money.

There are some, like benefits for children, that are a lifestyle choice (for the majority of claimants), however, the vast majority of benefits are not as you say.

Your statistics are meaningless, as you dont demonstrate any link between what you state and what you posted stat wise.



Untrue. Completely.

If that were true, they would not be able to a) continue to pay out, and b) shell out multiple loads of 2 billion pounds (and not seem to have much clue about where the money is going) for universal credit - which plans to increase payments.

The 'better' ways of identifying people, are not the ways being implemented, or discussed in welfare reforms, as they are proven unfit for purpose, proven to add nearly a 100 million a year in appeal costs, never mind nhs costs, and suffering (not to mention the 100 million a year going to atos to do assessments).

So your post, is little more than benefit bashing with some statistics thrown in to try to lend credibility to your attack calling people on benefits lazy, and stating its a lifestyle choice, and lying about the current benefits system.

You have got to be joking, I have had to spend a short time in our local benefit offices, after running the gauntlet of those drinking full strength purple tins of 9% lager and sitting on the front windows sills.
I found myself in some sort of hell hole of screaming kids of single parents.
There were a few disconsolate souls flicking through the jobs on offer on the screens, but the great majority of the "customers" were there to renew their benefits - like a patient at the doctor's getting their repeat prescription.

I am as lazy as the next benefit claimant, and we as a family, seem to have a genetic problem with stopping dreaming and getting stuck in. I have lived in slum conditions. I do have a great sympathy with those stuck in the claimant culture. Just as I have sympathy with someone in a Nigerian slum, who hopes to scam enough money over the internet, to finance a one way trip to Lampedusa.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15007277

I have never managed to claim benefits (other than the odd NI "stamp") but I have always tried to get the benefits on offer, for more disadvantaged members of the family.
What these claimants are doing it completely rational, I would not be prepared to flick burgers for 6 pence an hour, though I would be prepared to work for nothing in a job/charity where the experience would enable me to "better" myself in the competition for a better/more interesting job.
Yes I have worked as an illegal immigrant; I kept a low profile and worked long hard hours.

All that those statistics show is that this country does not have enough employable people to maintain its current very very very high standard of living. Somehow a fair chunk of those depenents are going to have to find a way of supporting themselves.

Rising communications, technology and population density is already imposing a vast infrastructure and technology cost for every new job created. That is an overhead that the surplus value of the worker must finance. So let us be realistic, We have millions of unemployable people out there, even at minimum wage levels.
I don't know the current rate for garment workers but 20 years ago when I checked a table of international competitiveness, the German rate was highest at something approaching ten quid (including taxes and insurances) and bottom of the table was Bangladesh at £0.15 per hour. [So it is not just the massive EU subsidy paid to the owners of Primark by the single farm payment system, equivalent to (say) 2% off VAT. that enables them to sell cheap clothes].
At the time I was playing with computers at a 15 - 20 quid rate as an employee. I think you will find the Eastern European "official" minimum rate is something like 1.50 Euro per hour. Why stay there if you can come to the UK and claim more than that on the social? You would have to be daft. Get an old camper van and live in that. [When the travellers invaded the car park of my local country park, they gave the warden's bungalow address as their home address - it really wound him up having to take the benefits correspondence round the caravans].

I don't know what the answer is, how do we stop; our schools turning out a work force that would not be able, let alone willing, to earn a Bangladesh sweat shop rate????

Get real.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJGb2BJLA3o

John_Pierpoint

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-02-02/markets/30037207_1_minimum-wage-salaries

Ok the pound has now gone down enough to turn £1.50 into £2 for some new entrants to the EU.

Have a look at Greece by clicking the graph.:rotfl:[And they expect to be subsidised by Slovakia]

ukcarper

Entertainer wrote: »

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.

I agree people should not have a right to live in most expensive parts of London. But the minimum wage take home is about £875 a month, I think you would find it very hard to pay rent, travelling costs etc in London for that. That’s not to say that the savings in benefits by expecting people to travel are not worthwhile.

StevieJ

OptionARMAGEDDON wrote: »

NAAA, as I said, let em starve.

Not problem for you though with your gilt edged public sector pension at 37

StevieJ

The problem with London is the gentrification of previously working class areas, if they don't subsidise they won't have any workers to carry out the lower paid jobs.

MacMickster

ukcarper wrote: »

I agree people should not have a right to live in most expensive parts of London. But the minimum wage take home is about £875 a month, I think you would find it very hard to pay rent, travelling costs etc in London for that. That’s not to say that the savings in benefits by expecting people to travel are not worthwhile.

I would guess that a travel pass for the tube or bus would be cheaper for the taxpayer than either the £2000 per month housing benefit, that a family on last night's programme were receiving, or the proposed £1600 per month capped amount.