George Osborne....Limit amount of children for benefits

GeorgeHowell

N1AK wrote: »

There is none. The difference in Jobseekers and housing allowance for under 25s is nothing but blatant ageism. It says everything about the conservatives current priorities that they won't consider taking bus passes off multi-millionaire pensioners (not that I think they should) but will happily screw over under 25s.

That's a valid point. But nobody of any age who is fit to work should be maintained in their own home by the taxpayer for ever.

The answer lies in compulsory useful community service in exchange for welfare benefits. The lefties wring their hands in anguish and screech "slave labour'. But the alternative is that the whole country slides inexorably towards penury, as fewer and fewer are expected to support more and more. This is what Cameron hinted at yesterday -- and he ain't wrong.

Percy1983

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

That's a valid point. But nobody of any age who is fit to work should be maintained in their own home by the taxpayer for ever.

The answer lies in compulsory useful community service in exchange for welfare benefits. The lefties wring their hands in anguish and screech "slave labour'. But the alternative is that the whole country slides inexorably towards penury, as fewer and fewer are expected to support more and more. This is what Cameron hinted at yesterday -- and he ain't wrong.

I will say I have never been unemployed, but if I did end up unemployed and this was the case it really wouldn't bother me, as things currently stand I would go for charity work anyway.

Forever

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

That's a valid point. But nobody of any age who is fit to work should be maintained in their own home by the taxpayer for ever.

The answer lies in compulsory useful community service in exchange for welfare benefits. The lefties wring their hands in anguish and screech "slave labour'. But the alternative is that the whole country slides inexorably towards penury, as fewer and fewer are expected to support more and more. This is what Cameron hinted at yesterday -- and he ain't wrong.

There are mandatory work placements but unfortunately, many of these are in supermarkets and the like which then displaces jobs so that more people then need to claim benefits.

I don't have any problem with community placements though. Just not when it takes paying jobs away from the community.

mazza111

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

That's a valid point. But nobody of any age who is fit to work should be maintained in their own home by the taxpayer for ever.

The answer lies in compulsory useful community service in exchange for welfare benefits. The lefties wring their hands in anguish and screech "slave labour'. But the alternative is that the whole country slides inexorably towards penury, as fewer and fewer are expected to support more and more. This is what Cameron hinted at yesterday -- and he ain't wrong.

But there aren't a lot of jobs out there at the moment. If they create more jobs in the community I'm sure there will be people apply for them. Would you be willing to pay for transport for people on benefits to get to the community work too? There's plenty of work that could be done in communities, there just isn't the money to pay for it. Would you like to see job seekers working a full week for their dole money, or would it be acceptable for them to work one day, and spend the other 6 job seeking? I see a lot of that with kids that may not be academic, struggling to find work after education. I think any scheme like this has to be properly thought out and the costs weighed up against what it costs in benefits now. Maybe more could be done to help people find employment? Maybe they should target the long term unemployed rather than the under 25s? I don't know, I don't have all the answers.


But yet again, it's the under 25s who'll suffer the most.

I have been really lucky with any jobs I've done in the past, think I had about a week unemployment all in. I do feel for kids now who are really struggling to find work.

Percy1983

Personally I would say working 2-3 days while unemployed is about right, as you say they can spend the rest job searching.

There is always the idea of creating your own job, I started my own business easily enough, just found a gap in the market which I could exploit with my skills, by all means its not a fully time job just yet but with more aggressive marketing I could grow it a lot quicker, I am just happy to let it grow naturally right now.

BobQ

ukcarper wrote: »

Do you think that every additional child after the first needs £66 to feed etc.

I agree its not easy and I had not thought of the actual amount.

All I am saying is that whatever amount it is decided to pay a familiy with children, it should not make the life of the children more impoverished because of some kind of vengeful policy to punish the parents.

BobQ

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

That's a valid point. But nobody of any age who is fit to work should be maintained in their own home by the taxpayer for ever.

The answer lies in compulsory useful community service in exchange for welfare benefits. The lefties wring their hands in anguish and screech "slave labour'. But the alternative is that the whole country slides inexorably towards penury, as fewer and fewer are expected to support more and more. This is what Cameron hinted at yesterday -- and he ain't wrong.

I am not opposed to policies that require anyone out of work for a significant period to undertake meaningful work in return for continued benefits, although I think that there is a quandary if refusal to do so has implications for children.

I would like to see more incentives for those expected to work once they have been out of work for a year or so. For example, provide them with work and pay them the minimum wage. Require them to work for as many hours as it takes to pay for their benefits. But after this allow them to choose whether to work for up to 40 hours also paid at the minimum wage.

ukcarper

BobQ wrote: »

I agree its not easy and I had not thought of the actual amount.

All I am saying is that whatever amount it is decided to pay a familiy with children, it should not make the life of the children more impoverished because of some kind of vengeful policy to punish the parents.

Did you mean to say not easy £66 a week is over £3400 a year. I agree that the children should not be impoverished but the definition of impoverished should not be a percentage of the average and what is there to ensure that money is spent on the children. Remember that £66 does is on top of additional housing costs.

　

Percy1983

ukcarper wrote: »

Did you mean to say not easy £66 a week is over £3400 a year. I agree that the children should not be impoverished but the definition of impoverished should not be a percentage of the average and what is there to ensure that money is spent on the children. Remember that £66 does is on top of additional housing costs.

　

This is the biggest problem, I child coming home to no xbox is not poverty.

An interesting point but if said none working parent(s) smoke and they run up more than £3400 a year surely it should be a simple case of tell them to stop smoking and and remove the child benefit.

BobQ

ukcarper wrote: »

Did you mean to say not easy £66 a week is over £3400 a year. I agree that the children should not be impoverished but the definition of impoverished should not be a percentage of the average and what is there to ensure that money is spent on the children. Remember that £66 does is on top of additional housing costs.

I said its not easy because removing benefits intended for children will reduce the chilld's standard of living yet the parents know that and do not think that the Government will go that far.

I have no idea what Boy George is up to so its difficult to say what its impact amounts to. He may mean that defying him will result in loss of all child benefits to the family.

All I am saying is that children are not weapons to beat their parents with for making bad or ill thought out decisions