How Bloody Much?!

Generali

We've had a few threads on here about people that get 'too much' welfare from the taxpayer via the State but how much is too much for an unemployed person/family/single parent who is able to work if they could find and were prepared to take a job?

I'd like to exclude people who can't work because the kids are sick in some way and need looking after and those getting sick pay.

FWIW, I'd like to see unemployment benefits be more generous but time limited, that is you can claim for a maximum period at any one time and for a maximum period in total. That way people could retrain themselves if needs be (handy for structural changes like the mines or investment banks closing) but people can't just rot on the dole.

ntb1

I'd like to see them paid in food vouchers. Living on benefits shouldn't be a lifestyle choice that it is for so many.

You should be able to eat and that is that. And the situation when you are better off on benefits than in work is ridiculous. I have seen it with my own eyes and within in my extended family where a couple where better off when they moved in together when the partner got sacked and they got their extra benefits back.

The bedroom tax doesn't go far enough. In our village on 6-7 council houses everyone bar one blocked by single elderly people. It's not your house its the states.

purch

I agree with the point about unemployment benefit.

The current system penalises employees who have worked for many years, paid tax and for whatever reason lose their job, whilst appearing to incentivise those with no intention of working and contributing.

It doesn't help that our Gov basically takes all tax and NI and puts it one big pot to be fought over by various departments and ministries.

If unemployment insurance paid was identifiable it's payment could more easily be controlled.

Dreadzone

To my mind the fact that someone is entitled to something for nothing forever is totally wrong.

We should actually be moving towards a contributory system that rewards people who have been in work and takes away from people who have not been in work for a long time.

The fact that nearly half of workers are getting some sort of benefit is clearly absurd. This proportion of people clearly do not need benefits!

MacMickster

Generali wrote: »

FWIW, I'd like to see unemployment benefits be more generous but time limited, that is you can claim for a maximum period at any one time and for a maximum period in total. That way people could retrain themselves if needs be (handy for structural changes like the mines or investment banks closing) but people can't just rot on the dole.

I completely agree. When it was set up, the welfare state was meant to provide a temporary helping hand to those who had fallen on hard times. People should be paid benefits for a limited period of time while they either get over their difficulties (find another job) or adjust their lifestyle and expenditure to their new circumstances. Benefits for those who are unable, rather than merely disinclined, to support themselves should not be subject to a time cap.

I agree that unemployment benefits should initially be higher than they are now, and paid at that higher rate for up to a year. This should give people time to find another job, retrain, sell their home and reorganise their finances as necessary. After this time those benefits should be reduced over a 6 month period to a basic subsistence level and changed from cash to vouchers.

I realise that some people object to the idea of vouchers as taking away peoples' dignity. There is nothing undignified about suffering misfortune and needing support from the taxes of those in work whilst turning things around. Those who choose to take from others without trying to support themselves should not be afforded such dignity however.

I realise that the Philpott case is a particularly extreme example, but I saw a talking head on the news the other day referring to young girls who get pregnant to obtain access to housing and benefits as taking a sensible financial decision. A lifestyle on benefits should not be choice open to anyone.

andy.m_2

There needs to be scales, The amount of money drawable against the state benefits system needs to be weighted in relation to the period of time and volume paid into the system.
On top of that the state payments need to be reducing as time goes on, this will incentivise people, initially people will either retrain or be picky about their employment and as time marches on and benefits are reducing then people will be less and less picky and take employment somewhere.

Mine is s simplistic view and I'm not sure the numbers would work but as a template I see merits in it.

Fella

ntb1 wrote: »

The bedroom tax doesn't go far enough.

You're correct but don't play into their hands by calling it "the bedroom tax". That is a term designed to fool the general public into thinking it's a tax (it's not) & gleefully seized upon by Nulabor.

Nulabor have lots of form for falsely claiming things are taxes when they aren't. And even more form for claiming certain slight reductions in tax are "gifts to millionaires". Wheras any 4-y-old can tell you, taking slightly less from someone is not the same thing as giving them something.

In the absence of even the tiniest semblence of a coherent policy, Nulabor are relying 100% on spin & basically hoping the public are stupid enough to be fooled by it.

Graham_Devon

Fella wrote: »

In the absence of even the tiniest semblence of a coherent policy, Nulabor are relying 100% on spin & basically hoping the public are stupid enough to be fooled by it.

I wouldn't say hoping!

kabayiri

In my view not one of the parties has a credible plan for funding the current benefit spending. The government spends more state money than it brings in, and this can not continue.

Let's forget talk of fairness, and place more emphasis on sustainability. A fair system which espouses all the noble values is no use if it leads to the state getting ever into debt.

I'd like to see state benefits linked to nation prosperity, GDP and debt. After all, when there is a recession every average tax payer out there has to make cost adjustments. People lose their job and have to take new employment on lower rates.

Why should people dependent on benefits not be subject to the same economic conditions? The economy needs more elasticity.

wotsthat

I just don't think there is sufficient urgency being placed on balancing the books. The big cuts to spending are being pushed backwards (and will be again). Reducing the welfare bill is only a single part of the overspending - waste is everywhere. It seems as if as soon as a 'saving' is made it's spent elsewhere.

My local council spent £3000 on kit for a couple of local kids football clubs. Worthy I'm sure but they look like someone's pet project and a straight charitable donation at the taxpayers expense. Every month I look at the list of council spending and despair - I've started complaining. They don't like it as most people are so disengaged that they've never had to justify it before.

I'd suggest that everyone look at their council spending and question whether the money is well spent or not.

michaels

Generali wrote: »

We've had a few threads on here about people that get 'too much' welfare from the taxpayer via the State but how much is too much for an unemployed person/family/single parent who is able to work if they could find and were prepared to take a job?

I'd like to exclude people who can't work because the kids are sick in some way and need looking after and those getting sick pay.

FWIW, I'd like to see unemployment benefits be more generous but time limited, that is you can claim for a maximum period at any one time and for a maximum period in total. That way people could retrain themselves if needs be (handy for structural changes like the mines or investment banks closing) but people can't just rot on the dole.

Whilst I maty agree with the sentiments expressed this thread smacks too much of those by DecentLivingWage - presented in an emotive manner with no figures to back up the contentions or even a poll to gauge the opinion of the board and hence it has attracted replies from those who support the general theory but is not realy adding a lot to the debate I feel.

Just my two pence worth as normally Mr Gs posts are both informative and supported by data.