We all pay your benefits

burnleymik

Fair point, in those cases I think that if the parents want the maximum amount of benefits for their situation they should sit down with a financial advisor, employed by the system, work out their incomes/outgoings and then an amount decided upon, but this is only for people who have paid into the system for X number of years.

I would put this on a sliding scale, with it reducing the longer you are on the benefit to stop you becoming accustomed to it, i.e. a 15-20% reduction every 3 months, and also to encourage you find work again.

I have no idea how thrue this is, but I was informed that in the Netherlands you can claim benefits for your first two children and anything after that you are expected to provide for yourself. It's basically your risk.

Soubrette

burnleymik wrote: »

Fair point, in those cases I think that if the parents want the maximum amount of benefits for their situation they should sit down with a financial advisor, employed by the system, work out their incomes/outgoings and then an amount decided upon, but this is only for people who have paid into the system for X number of years.

I would put this on a sliding scale, with it reducing the longer you are on the benefit to stop you becoming accustomed to it, i.e. a 15-20% reduction every 3 months, and also to encourage you find work again.

I have no idea how thrue this is, but I was informed that in the Netherlands you can claim benefits for your first two children and anything after that you are expected to provide for yourself. It's basically your risk.

The idea of benefits depending on how much you've put into the system is tempting I know but surely if you are genuinely workshy and smart enough to work the current system, you would just grit your teeth, do the minimum amount of work you needed to in order access benefits and then retire at say 25?

Personally I prefer the cap on child benefit narrowed to two children (I know the twins triplets etc situation would need to be ironed out). Less expensive to administer:)

However, some people would still have lots of children - they don't have to be that expensive to bring up - especially if you are canny with the first one (neutral clothes etc) and don't mind buying second hand. Even less expensive if you don't actually care very much

I suspect though, that child benefit does not encourage large families, I think that most people who have large families actually like having large families. The tiny minority, probably statistically insignificant, of people who do have lots of kids for the child benefit would probably still have lots of kids even without the child benefit so they can send them out to work asap and live off of them.

jojo1964

Soubrette wrote: »

Moving away from pointing the finger at specific people - what do you think would be fair for any working person with 6 children?

The benefits system is a safety net and not a career choice, so if somebody had 6 kids and had been supporting them themselves, then became incapable of doing so, benefits should kick in, but if somebody with, say, 3 kids was on benefits, but went on to have another 3 whilst on benefits, then there should be no increase in benefits.

Certain states in America had a system whereby if you had a child, but were unable to support the child yourself, then you were given a property and a set amount of money, but were told that if you have more kids, don't come back for more money because you won't get it. Seems a fair enough idea

AnnieO1234

The biggest annoyance for me was when the programme pointed out that to claim job seekers allowance people had to show they were looking for work. There were then two extremes, the £1800 man with scruffy (unkempt) beard and piercings who claimed a ridiculously high figure for amount he applied for, spending two hours a day looking and the darts woman who said a paltry low amount.

I've been out of work but never once claimed anything. I was once told that if you want a forty hour a week job you must spend forty hours a week looking for it; searching for a job is your job. Treat it like a job. Dress smartly, do your hair and make up even if you're not leaving this house. Search, hone skills, temper applications to specific roles. Review your CV, update it, modify the type etc. By the time you've done that you'll have put in a weeks work.

To the PP who said there was no work, so they live in some far remote spot? There are plenty of different jobs out there - don't believe the hype. Far too many people believe that and it's giving recruiters a headache. Recently I managed a recruitment exercise on behalf of a former employer. Three years ago I could have expected 200 applications for an admin role, I was lucky to scrape 50.

If someone wants to work (not including disability) they will.

JencParker

AnnieO1234 wrote: »

The biggest annoyance for me was when the programme pointed out that to claim job seekers allowance people had to show they were looking for work. There were then two extremes, the £1800 man with scruffy (unkempt) beard and piercings who claimed a ridiculously high figure for amount he applied for, spending two hours a day looking and the darts woman who said a paltry low amount.

I've been out of work but never once claimed anything. I was once told that if you want a forty hour a week job you must spend forty hours a week looking for it; searching for a job is your job. Treat it like a job. Dress smartly, do your hair and make up even if you're not leaving this house. Search, hone skills, temper applications to specific roles. Review your CV, update it, modify the type etc. By the time you've done that you'll have put in a weeks work.

To the PP who said there was no work, so they live in some far remote spot? There are plenty of different jobs out there - don't believe the hype. Far too many people believe that and it's giving recruiters a headache. Recently I managed a recruitment exercise on behalf of a former employer. Three years ago I could have expected 200 applications for an admin role, I was lucky to scrape 50.

If someone wants to work (not including disability) they will.

So what happens to the 49 that don't get the 'admin role'?

CLAPTON

JencParker wrote: »

So what happens to the 49 that don't get the 'admin role'?

well, because they live in a caring and rich country, they continue to enjoy a standard of living which is the envy of over half the world even without working.


And of course they, like other real people, apply for the next job(s).

JencParker

CLAPTON wrote: »

well, because they live in a caring and rich country, they continue to enjoy a standard of living which is the envy of over half the world even without working.


And of course they, like other real people, apply for the next job(s).

The poster commented about there being plenty of jobs out there. There are a lot of jobs but there are far more people looking for jobs than are out there. Having witnessed my own children trying to find work since leaving university in recent years, while there may be jobs out there, there are not enough.

PS - we are all real people - unless you live in an imaginary world!

CLAPTON

JencParker wrote: »

The poster commented about there being plenty of jobs out there. There are a lot of jobs but there are far more people looking for jobs than are out there. Having witnessed my own children trying to find work since leaving university in recent years, while there may be jobs out there, there are not enough.

PS - we are all real people - unless you live in an imaginary world!

did they find jobs or are there really no jobs out there?

jojo1964

JencParker wrote: »

The poster commented about there being plenty of jobs out there. There are a lot of jobs but there are far more people looking for jobs than are out there. Having witnessed my own children trying to find work since leaving university in recent years, while there may be jobs out there, there are not enough.

PS - we are all real people - unless you live in an imaginary world!

Is it a case of there are no jobs for them, or jobs are available but not the jobs they want with the qualifications they have gained.

grizzly1911

jojo1964 wrote: »

Is it a case of there are no jobs for them, or jobs are available but not the jobs they want with the qualifications they have gained.

On the basis many have a massive debt assigned to them by the government, which will be written off at tax payer expense if they don't get a reasonably well paid job, it would be nice to think that they could repay some of it at least.

The government could of course be honest and admit we don't really need all these degrees and the associated debt and that we should be content to earn the NMW or a bit more a LW. That would of course give them an alternative headache in how to keep many towns and cities going that rely on the student dollar to stay alive.