OK, so how would YOU change the welfare system?

[MathsMadMummy]

just wondering following on from various threads lately. sorry it's probably been done before.

I guess it's more a question of how you'd change the culture really, where people feel it's their entitlement to never work etc.

I have no idea what the answer is, please tell me your bright ideas

I would limit benefits even further for those who have never worked in this country (including those born here) and are not in some sort of training. These are the people for whom there should be some sort of full time community service or training in order to access benefits.

And before you all rant, of course if you are disabled or caring for a disabled child or parent etc etc this would not apply to you.

As an example:

My friend's flatmate is from overseas (non EU) but his grandfather was German. He managed to get German passport but doesn't speak any German. He has been living in the UK on benefits for the past 5 years (has never worked here or anywhere in the EU for that matter) and laughs how its possible.

appletrees - all good points

Nah, on IHT I'd allow an amount of £100k per child and the rest goes into the coffers or charity. That would surely help to go towards bringing back notions of personal responsibility

See my universal credits thread.

1. We need to cut back generally as everyone knows
2. If we follow IDS' plan and have a universal benefit of one kind only paid to all adults or at least people on £25k a year or under and no other benefits we would save a lot of money and it would be fairer.

Xenia, what I like about the universal idea, i.e. paid to everyone, is that it would make it much easier for people to take on contract/temporary work without losing out. It would (hopefully) make getting back into work a whole lot easier, save a whole load of time and expense in administration, stopping and starting benefits.

It would basically do away with fiddling the system, other than those employers who might still want to employ folk on the quiet, saving on NI etc.

I think it should be universal though, easier to administer and I would imagine that the tax system could ensure that those earning mega bucks wouldn't benefit disproportionally.

It's a very interesting idea.

Xenia, I couldn't work out your figures on the Universal Credit thread. Maybe it's just me.

Haven't read all of 12 pages...

But...

I would increase the minimum wage - not necessarily directly a welfare thing, but I think that a lot of not working is due to the fact that for some a minimum wage crappy job is not worth it. Maybe that buys into the sense of entitlement...but if people thought they were getting paid fairly for their work then maybe they'd be more likely to work.

I think the Big Community thing is a good idea in principle (lets see how it works in practice - not so hopeful!). I think there should be an element of community service for the unemployed/long term unemployed.

Ways to increase personal responsibilty/pride in yourself and country/less glamour of celeb/materialism/non-talent would do wonders - but how on Earth to do that in a way that actually targets those who are likely to 'need' it but resist it most

Unpopular I'm sure, but I would refocus chid benefit for those that most need it.

Bigger focus on school and education. Starting the sense of personal responsibility/pride at school - with a good education to boot.

I'm a bit of a pesimmist when it comes to widescale reforms though - not sure if what they replace will be much better or just a little different and dressed up with new key buzz words than what went before.

Well, this scrounging lone parent would like to see;

• Means testing for all benefits, including child benefit, winter fuel payments and pensions.

• A real attempt to be made to make non-resident parent's pay for their children, especially if they have no or limited contact with their children.

• More availablity of social housing. This would vastly reduce the Housing Benefit bill.

Oh, and personally I would like you Lola and all the other 'scrounger bashers' to find me a job, which I am qualified for, which fits in with childcare and which an employer is likely to offer me.

I have applied for 50 jobs in the month since I discovered my DH's affair and he threw me into the road in front of a car. At the point on the application form/telephone conversation that they ask about my work history, and I reply that I last worked five years ago, I instantly become less attractive. Then when they ask for an explanation for the gap in employment, I become a liability. Why would they offer me the job when my DC will be poorly and I wont be able to go to work. Or when they need someone to do overtime and I cant because I need a week's/month's notice.

Oh, and that's providing I can even do the hours they require because childcare is only available 8-6 Monday to Friday, or pay the deposit for nursery or childminder, or buy a suit for an interview, should I ever get one.

Lucky you Lola, to have a degree. I have the first 2 years under my belt, which I managed with the support of my ex and the extra cash he brought in. I cant complete the last year, because if I go full time I lose all benefit entitlement so I cant actually feed my kids. Nor can I go part time because then I am not entitled to a student loan so cant cover the cost of childcare, even if it were to be available until 9pm when my lectures finish.

Dont worry though, I wont be opening my legs for a long time, and I will do all in my power to ensure my DD's dont either. Nor will I have a cigarette or a glass of wine or watch TV or contact my friends by phone or visit my parent's who live in a village which has 3 buses a day or treat my kids to a christmas or birthday present, if you lot get your way. It's their own fault though isnt it, little scroungers? And mine? With any luck benefits will be cut so much that we'll all starve to death and stop messing up your perfet little world.

well said ballstoit couldn't have put it better myself!!

i'm sorry you're in that position but the current system is a mess and (your situation, it seems, aside) individual responsibility seems to have been forgotten.

Is it just me who would not have a child I could not afford? Obviously situations can change but from the outset it appears that very few people do actual risk assessment on their lives anymore and then expect the state to pick up the pieces. To be perfectly honest i don't believe in child benefit - why should the government pay people for having children!?! - but if we must have it then means testing should not be involved.

Obviously i am not, in any way, including carers, people with disabilities etc in any of this - the notion of responsibility is totally in valid. However, someone earlier claimed that having 'less ambition' was actually a lack of advantage - even my philosophy-teaching-labour-voting-DP does not believe in that.

happiestblonde - how on earth do we do a risk assesement of our lives?

With the best will in the world, anyone can find themselves without a partner, through divorce or even death. Anyone can lose income through redundancy or being unable to work through illness.

This isn't the fault of the adult left to pick up the pieces and it most certainly isn't the fault of the children of those who find themselves in these circumstances.

Not everyone on benefits is a feckless, scrounging twat. Of course there are some but please don't tar everyone fallen on hard times with the same brush.

The system undoubtedly has faults and does require reform, but that is responsibility of Government, not those in need of help.

But why is it the responsibility of the government? This is an entirely modern notion and not one I entirely agree with, if at all.

I understand your point and of course people cannot forsee all misfortunes but for a huge part many people seem to not give a toss about the decisions they make, knowing the state will pick them up - prime example would be a family complaining their council house is not big enough for their growing family.... why increase the size of your family if you cannot afford to support it!?! It is not the job for tax payers to fund the lives of the irresponsible - only those who really need it which, of course, many do.

The people who need help don't make the rules do they? That's the Government. It is the job of Government to set priorities and use the collected taxation to deliver them.

I have a friend, married, with one child. They both work and live in a one bedroom council flat.

They have been on a waiting list for a 2 bedroom place for over 3 years! They are not a 'priority' as the council count the living room as another bedroom.

What do you think Governments are for exactly, considering we, the public, pay a hefty price to facilitate them? I think part of their responsibility is to ensure that the population can afford decent and affordable housing.

I would stop benefits for those who have never ever set foot in this country.

Sorry if that sounds racist. But it's one area of benefit spending that looks to soar when other countries join the EU.

Have a good look at how the money that is being spent on services and provision for people with disabilities is being spent for starters. The National Audit Office say that 28.2 billion pound is being spent each year on autism, and yet there were only 18% of Local Authorities who were able to tell the audit office what they were spending their money for those with low functioning autism on, and only 10% of LAs knew where their money was going for those with high functioning autism. There are literally thousands of people who do not get any provision or services at all. So what is the money being spent on? Crisis management costs thousands and thousands so could a great big chunk of that money be being spent on crisis management?

Prevention is better than cure so services for disabled people need to start meeting their needs sooner rather than later and that would save money.

My eldest son is autistic and visually impaired. What could we make him do to earn his benefit. My youngest autistic sons is being educated at home because the system failed him and severely affected his mental health. My sons did not ask to be autistic and I already feel as if I am being punished for daring to have disabled children. The youngest was diagnosed before the eldest who was 13 by the time he was diagnosed. Ten years of banging my head off a brick wall finally paid off.

I run a support group and do my very best to give something back to the system for the benefits that we are currently living on. I do not want to be a scounger.

I would also have a radical rethink about anyone who has an addiction being able to claim DLA and Incapacity Benefit and also be able to tap into social services and end up with care packages that my sons have never been able to meet the criteria for.

I am not daft enough to think that there is a bottomless pit but cutting without seriously looking at where it is going to leave us in 20 years time is not the way to go imo

Ballstoit, and DivineInspiration, you are so right, especially about supporting people who are trying to improve their circumstances through education. Not to do so is the most misguided, shoot yourself in the foot policy ever dreamed up by some begrudging anti-intellectual penny pincher.

Mothers who find themselves single for whatever reason are probably the most motivated group in society to get back on their feet and do their best for their children, and they are probably the least able to find their way back into the workforce thanks to the stupid attitudes of employers and the lack of any incentives for them to hire people for mum-friendly hours.

Making non-custodial parents pay, Amen.

Means testing all the benefits everyone gets. Just because you paid taxes during all the years you worked as an investment banker doesn't mean you should get free fuel vouchers when you retire. This is assinine.

Allowing companies to pay ridiculously small wages which are topped up by government only perpetuates the problem of people not having the motivation to work. Taxes are effectively subsidising private industry's profits and the fat paycheques of many a CEO. And on the subject of the very wealthy, crack down on tax evasion.

Separate out moralistic judgement from decision making. Usually the people who get it both barrels are single mothers and their children when morality takes the place of realism.

And what about the Civil List?

"Allowing companies to pay ridiculously small wages which are topped up by government only perpetuates the problem of people not having the motivation to work."

It also allows the companies to remain competitive against the likes of China who pay their workers buttons.

Thanks for your support, I went to bed last night feeling worse than I have for the last month, but feel better this morning having read your posts. I am completely motivated to make sure that my children's father does not succeed in ruining their lives through his stupid behaviour. I just cant see what more I can do. No suggestions for me from anyone?

I am not the exception, all the lone parents I know were in a relationship when their children were conceived. How do you risk assess the future? If we could all do that the divorce rate would not be so high and nobody would be in debt which they cant pay.

(aboutE the figures may have been wrong - I haven't checked. If the universal sum per week including all benefits, state pensions and housing benefit were £200 a week regardless of income that would cost X. I then looked up the cost of benefits in the UK and that was much bigger)

Ian Duncan Smith has proposd a universal credit/ benefit - one rather than 50 different benefits and tax credits. It's a great idea and needs spport to get it by civil servants who never want change and people who benefit from complexity.

Stop people having a better lifestyle from being in a couple doing nothing than 2 minimum wagers . My tax credits all go on childcare and I make 6 pound an hour.

I get no other benefits where as my friends that stay at home with more kids get way more, dont have to pay for childcare, and have a higher income coming in. I know people who havent worked since school and are raking it in and get to go to the pub/town all day whilst the kids are at school. I dont really blame them as they are better off for it.

Oracle, in my area the money being provided for 'short breaks' is being aimed at children who can access mainstream facilities. It make me very angry I must say.

My own advice to you ballstiot is to not rely on the CSA and go and get a court order, you can get legal aid.

BarmyArmy - not everyone is as selfish and shortsighted as you, thank god. I contribute a lot more than I claim and would want to leave the country if it your propsals and some others on this thread were followed.

The op and others are assuming that a significant number of people feel entitled not to work. Where is the evidence for this?

I would:

Crack down on tax evasion. Why is there so much resentment directed at the less well-off, who are seen as 'undeserving' by many; and none so far on this thread at wealthy people who avoid paying their share. I bet this costs a lot more than benefit fraud.

Ensure that the unemployed are properly supported, offered training etc, helped with interview costs and so on. Already a lot of good ideas regarding this on here.

Ensure non-resident parents support their children. I have a friend whose ex hasn't given her anything for their son for 6 months as he had a pay cut and he now has 2 other children to support. But if he lived with all 3 of his children his wages would be used to support all of them. Has my friend's salary magically increased to make up his shortfall?

Focus on education. That is the best way to raise asporations etc. Labour had introduced incentives to get the best teachers into the most challenging schools - a great idea, probably cut now? Also focus on appropriate opportunities for 16 year olds, children inmy school have all sorts of packages available and they really benefit, some have led to full-time work.

Surestart to offer training and educayion to mothers when children in nursery, though this msy already be done should be exrended.

APOLOGIES for rushed post, ds has awoken!

The universal vcredit idea is Green policy and almost tempted me to head in that direction (until I witnessed the local bickerring- sheesh!)

I hugely agree with it

I would keep DLA as it covers the costs of being disabled over and above the normal costs of a child but otherwise yes universal credits absoluely.

read |a lot of the threads some very interesting

I would

redefine what is work

stay at homes mums should be classed as in employment, to send them to work is only transferring the money from one to another, why pay child care if the mum is willing to do the job.

People who are sharing childcare of friends children etc should be paid a discounted childcare allowance.

Carers who do one of the hardest job should be entitled to proper wage and not be classed as unemployed or on benefits and these people are saving the tax payers a fortune.

Housing benefit should be capped both for those in receipt of it and what landlords can charge.

Crack down on fraud.

mobility cars should not be brans new, people entitled to mobility cars receive a new car every 3 years, crazy, all the need is a reliable maintained second hand car.

Staff should be retrained to view unemployed people as willing and needing help, rather than spongers and wasters.

Free higher education to all young people of school leaving age, this would open the doors to many who can't afford to go to college or uni. it would keep them off benefits and increase there chances of better employment, would also free up positions for the unemployed.

there is not enough credit in this country for those who are doing the hidden jobs ie parents and carers, we must recognise them, instead of chasing stay at home parents back to work, and forcing full time carers to go to back to work interviews it would free up time for those who are sponging off the system.

As for paying for only the fist 3 children in a family, that is crazy, there are many reason why people end up on benefits, each case is individual, what is someone had a good job, had 5 kids and them was made redundant, does that mean the younger kids should starve. nonsense.