Welfare Reform

Growurown

pennies_from_Heaven wrote: »

I think you misread my post - we're not on benefits! Just on less than the £500 a week cap which is being imposed. We actually both work and earn less than £500 a week, and get no benefits of any kind except for child allowance which is paid to everyone, unless one parent earns above 40k.
I suppose my argument is that there is a lot of attention on how 'poor' those who will have their benefits capped will be, however, what about those of us who bring in less than £500 a week nett as a household, but get no benefits and cope/struggle?

Sorry if I gave the wrong impression as I realised you are not on benefits. Many people who are in your position feel the same as you, that some hard working people are no better off than those on benefits. I think as things have got more difficult for everyone it has highlighted how little the difference can be between the earners and non earners, especially as the earners are now getting less what with pay freezes and the higher cost of living.

pennies_from_Heaven

Growurown wrote: »

Sorry if I gave the wrong impression as I realised you are not on benefits. Many people who are in your position feel the same as you, that some hard working people are no better off than those on benefits. I think as things have got more difficult for everyone it has highlighted how little the difference can be between the earners and non earners, especially as the earners are now getting less what with pay freezes and the higher cost of living.

oh ok thanks for that, it sometimes just feels so difficult, but I love my job, I guess that in difficult times we have to be grateful to a certain extent that we have work.
I do have a lot of sympathy for those desperate for work who are struggling to get by. To be honest its the people who see it as a lifestyle choice who get to me (I have known people who do), but can't tar everyone with the same brush.
Thanks for replying, sorry if I sounded harsh!!

Growurown

pennies_from_Heaven wrote: »

oh ok thanks for that, it sometimes just feels so difficult, but I love my job, I guess that in difficult times we have to be grateful to a certain extent that we have work.
I do have a lot of sympathy for those desperate for work who are struggling to get by. To be honest its the people who see it as a lifestyle choice who get to me (I have known people who do), but can't tar everyone with the same brush.
Thanks for replying, sorry if I sounded harsh!!

No, no problem at all. I think you have hit the nail on the head there and there doesn't seem to be an easy answer. How do you support people who are genuinely wanting to work whilst not making it a lifestyle choice for those who don't want to work? If the system is too harsh it punishes the genuine people and if it is too generous it makes a life on benefits too comfortable for the ones who take advantage, and there's no incentive to work either. Makes me glad that I am not the one who has to make these difficult decisions.

eyeopener2

Ok, devils advocate time...

Time limit benefits as many countries do? Gradually reduce benefits over time so that the pressure to work increases? Food stamps, fuel cards?

What ideas are out there that would remove the benefit lifestyle that we here so much about, and I know a few. If the welfare reform that this thread is discussing isn't working or won't work. What will?

dktreesea

eyeopener2 wrote: »

Ok, devils advocate time...

Time limit benefits as many countries do? Gradually reduce benefits over time so that the pressure to work increases? Food stamps, fuel cards?

What ideas are out there that would remove the benefit lifestyle that we here so much about, and I know a few. If the welfare reform that this thread is discussing isn't working or won't work. What will?

I lived in The States for a while many moons ago. Out of work benefits were time limited then, as they are now, and after that people could go on food stamps if they still didn't have work. What was different to here though was that even food stamps could run out. And homeless people! I have never seen so many homeless people in all my life. The Americans could even give India a run for its money, imho. People living in cars, under bridges, standing in queues at night with their children to get into homeless shelters. I wanted to go for a walk one night to the park, as you could do here, a quite nice park, near the beach in California, and the locals were saying "No! We're not going to do that!" I thought they were scared of the dark and said so, then a couple of them took me on a tour. And I realised why. It was a privacy thing; the park was the bedroom at night to so many people.

The welfare reform we have here is something, imho, the Americans would hesitate to call "reform". But I can't imagine us ever embracing the American system. I felt over there I had to take the car everywhere after dark because the streets didn't feel safe. Too much deprivation.

Growurown

eyeopener2 wrote: »

If the welfare reform that this thread is discussing isn't working or won't work. What will?

I think welfare reform currently under way will make a difference. Universal Credit whilst not perfect goes a long way to addressing the issues of being stuck on benefits because work doesn't pay. It will take time for people to get used to the new system but it should eliminate some of the problems.

For example at the moment a single parent can earn up to £20 a week before they lose any benefit payments. Over £20 then the benefit is reduced pound for pound thereby making it not worth earning more than £20. Under UC a single parent can earn up to £263 per month before they see any reduction in their benefits. For every pound they earn above that figure they lose 65 pence. If a claimants money varies month to month then their benefits will keep pace thereby making it possible to take on part time work, zero hour contracts and jobs where the hours change from week to week.

I think we have to make the choice about what sort of society we live in. There will always be people who won't/can't cope with life and need support and cost taxpayers money. If anyone has been watching the TV series about prisoners that was on last night you will see how dysfunctional some people can be. I don't think that will ever change however much money is taken off them. Question is do we want the American system with lots of homeless people on our streets or would we rather see people in some sort of accommodation even though it costs us money? I don't think that there are many people in GB who would think acceptable for kids to be sleeping in homeless shelters. If we push parents further and further into poverty then their children will suffer. Does society think that is OK too? Personally I don't but everyone will have their own ideas.

dktreesea

People are only dysfunctional because they need help and can't get the help that they need from the NHS because it is so underfunded. If Denmark can afford to have the services in place to address that problem, what is the UK's excuse?

leicestersq

pennies_from_Heaven wrote: »

I think you misread my post - we're not on benefits! Just on less than the £500 a week cap which is being imposed. We actually both work and earn less than £500 a week, and get no benefits of any kind except for child allowance which is paid to everyone, unless one parent earns above 40k.
I suppose my argument is that there is a lot of attention on how 'poor' those who will have their benefits capped will be, however, what about those of us who bring in less than £500 a week nett as a household, but get no benefits and cope/struggle?

Actually that isnt quite true about child benefit. If parents are separated, only one of the parents gets child benefit. It can even be the case that if the child benefit is contested, the person who gets it may be the higher earner and the minor carer in terms of nights of care per year. The unfairness goes even further than that, because the person with child benefit can go after the other parent via the CSA, who dont recognise shared parenting.

Growurown

dktreesea wrote: »

People are only dysfunctional because they need help and can't get the help that they need from the NHS because it is so underfunded. If Denmark can afford to have the services in place to address that problem, what is the UK's excuse?

I agree that services are patchy and underfunded in many areas. I think tax is a lot higher in Denmark than in the UK. If we want good services then we have to pay for them. The tendency in the UK is to ignore a problem until it becomes a crisis and has to be dealt with, usually costing a lot more. Prevention is better and it needs to start at a very young age. The care system consistently fails children and young people with nearly half of them going from care into prison, again at a high cost to the young person emotionally and a high cost to the taxpayer. This doesn't happen in other countries so to reiterate your statement what is the UK's excuse?

Depth_Charge

Hi

IDS urges wealthy elderly to 'hand back' benefits

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22327335

Not sure where he is coming from on this one perhaps it should be one way or the other as leaving the decision to them is a little bit of a cop out in my opinion.

In the case of the wealthy elderly (he may mean pensioners) the cynic might say (only might) that maybe the headlines would not suit and just maybe a vote or two might be affected.

The quote (below) from Ken Clarke in the same BBC article makes it all the more puzzling really.....

"Former Conservative Chancellor Ken Clarke said there was no "system" for handing the benefit back to the government"

A fine line these polititians must tread I suppose

An interesting one and just my take as always