Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

OK, so how would YOU change the welfare system?

635 replies

MathsMadMummy · 04/08/2010 10:23

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

OP posts:
MovingBeds · 05/08/2010 09:16

oh god, even more mobility car envy

the reason they are new is because you PAY for a lease on a car, you have to do less than average mileage and that car needs to be reliable. It is a CHARITY. The repairs are non existant.

Carers are not forced to go to interviews either

MovingBeds · 05/08/2010 09:19

a simple explanation

"What is Motability

Motability is an organisation set up to help people who receive the Higher Mobility Component (HMC) of the Disability Living Allowance (DLA) or the War Pensioners' Mobility Supplement. Its aim quite simply is to help disabled people become mobile at the lowest possible cost, and to help provide them with affordable transport"

MrsJT · 05/08/2010 09:36

I would make the long term unemployed work for their benefits. I think the attitude "I'm not doing that" stinks and it is too easy for them to fall into the routine of being down-right lazy.

I am my family's main breadwinner and if I were to lose my job I would do whatever it takes to support my family and pay the mortgage. I don't care if WHAT job I had to and I would work anywhere, any time to do this. I expect the same of others. State support should be a last resort not a way of life.

mamatomany · 05/08/2010 09:39

"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."

Why would the 4th and 5th child starve, are you seriously suggesting that mums and dads would say little Jane and Johnny last in, last to be fed ? People would just be spread a little thinner, which happens in large families no matter how much you earn and is the choice you make when you have more children.

mamatomany · 05/08/2010 09:42

Good point about mums being paid though, why on earth should the role of a mother be outsourced to somebody with less emotional attachment and less competence in many cases just to raise NI and tax from a minimum wage employee who is no doubt being topped up with tax credits anyway. Madness.

2shoes · 05/08/2010 09:44

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.

Oh hear we go,
talking out of your arse.
would explain but why bother.

BigOfNoorks · 05/08/2010 09:45

Have not read the whole thread so sorry if someone has suggested this I would introduce a community service after 12 months on job seekers (that is people on job seekers only not income support or under statutory sick pay) Just those able to work who are not, the job seeker benefit only, then at least you get something back for their money and if they are just being lazy it will encourage them to work as there is no point in not now IYSWIM.

violethill · 05/08/2010 09:48

mamtomany: The role of the mother isn't 'outsourced'. That's utter nonsense. The mother continues to be the mother when her children are at nursery/playgroup/school/University!!!! Same with the father.

As for the idea of paying someone to be at home with their children.... nice idea in theory, but how would it work? Parenting isn't a job. It's a choice people make because they want kids. Where is the money going to come from? How would the system be regulated? ie: are you going to pay the same wage to a parent who raises their child competently, thoughtfully and intelligently, as to one who sticks their child in front of the telly all day?

At the end of the day, this is unworkable, to pay a wage for being at home. It's a choice to have children - a great one, but still a choice. My kids are older now, but what if I want to give up work to pursue a favourite hobby every day? Anyone want to pay me to do that? No, thought not.

2shoes · 05/08/2010 09:53

BigOfNoorks why just target people on JSA(who have to prove they are seeking work)
do the same with all benefits. come on we have to be inclusive.

MumNWLondon · 05/08/2010 09:55

Have not read the whole thread so sorry if someone has suggested this I would introduce a community service after 12 months on job seekers (that is people on job seekers only not income support or under statutory sick pay) Just those able to work who are not, the job seeker benefit only, then at least you get something back for their money and if they are just being lazy it will encourage them to work as there is no point in not now IYSWIM.

Apparently the reason they don't do this is that it would cost too much, far more than giving out benefits because the people concerned would need heavily supervised.

mamatomany · 05/08/2010 10:01

It's outsourced for 12 hours a day in some cases, to a nanny, nursery or childminder at the cost of what £5 per hour which means the mother has to earn £7 to cover tax NI and nursery fees alone, utter madness if you don't even like your job.

mamatomany · 05/08/2010 10:02

As for paying you to pursue your hobbies violet, that's called retirement, we all be paying for your public sector pension

violethill · 05/08/2010 10:37

Retirement comes after 40 years of working and paying into the system. Expecting a wage for choosing to STOP working and stay home is entirely different. I repeat, who would fund this and how? Would people be paid endlessly If they decided they preferred being at home to going out to work? Or would you Put a cap on it ?

I do agree about childcare being pricey. However it is wrong to look at it as the mother having to earn £7 an hour to cover £5 childcare because it's a joint expense between the parents - whether the parents choose to stay together .
Childcare is also far cheaper in real terms now than in the past, with up to 80 pr cent paid for if you're on a low income

TheFruitWhisperer · 05/08/2010 10:40

Why would anyone bring back national service?
Why take lots of oiks who would probably end up as granny robbing stabbers anyway, and TRAIN them how to kill with their hands and shoot like marks men.

And for the kids on the straight and narrow, you deny them university years.

Id make everyone have to come and explain their situation personally to me. If I thought they were on the rob, Id have a big UH UUUUUUUUUUUH button and a chair that drops to a dungeon.

GabbyLoggon · 05/08/2010 10:56

the big attack on the disabled comes in October....IDS on the warpath against the sick not awfully nice

Kaloki · 05/08/2010 11:02

I would,

  • force the different departments to actually talk to each other. Eg. income support should be more than capable of conversing with JSA and HB. This would save a lot of fuck ups happening.
  • make sure ATOS medical weren't given a quota for how many applicants they must deny benefits too. After all disabled is disabled right? Either that or the govt could admit they don't actually give a fuck about helping the vulnerable in society
  • there should be incentives for landlords to take on HB tenants
  • there should be help for people to relocate if there are jobs elsewhere
  • voluntary work should be allowed whilst on JSA
  • you should be able to work more than 16 hours before getting cut off, as 16 hours is never enough to live off of.
  • temp work should not mean that you lose JSA entirely, maybe suspend it or take money off JSA for the week(s) worked, rather than having to reapply every time you take a temp job
Rocky12 · 05/08/2010 11:12

Laughed out loud regarding paying women to stay at home and look after children... Who on earth would fund this? Already some people are chosing to have children with no real thought about who is going to pay for them to be housed, clothed etc. Pick the wrong partner, dont worry someone will pay for wrong choices, have another child - again with the wrong man - dont worry - someone will help out... Dont choose to work - that's fine - stay on benefits.

Wouldnt it be nice if you could make a lifestyle choice (and I do include having children in this) and then 'someone else' pay for it.

Mad!!

violethill · 05/08/2010 11:14

Totally agree about the 16 hours thing.

I know a number of people who only working 16 hours precisely because they will be WORSE off or certainly no better off by working more. 16 hours a week is nothing - two days only!. It's madness. Many of these people I know are women with teenage children, and they're bored out of their minds being under-employed rather than encouraged to broaden their horizons.

violethill · 05/08/2010 11:15

Exactly rocky - it makes no sense whatsoever, and at its worst would simply encourage people who already have children thoughtlessly to continue breeding as it would provide a wage for them more easily than actually going and earning one!

Kaloki · 05/08/2010 11:19

violet Quite, I had to turn down jobs when I was on JSA because they were just over 16 hours, and I wouldn't have been able to afford to eat on those wages alone. I'd have much rather been working than not, but the need to work is not as great as the need to eat.

mamatomany · 05/08/2010 11:24

As we already have that situation Rocky and Violet, what difference does it make other than to the quality of the children's lives ?
Since we're offering to pay 80% of up to three hundred pounds already - and the money is being found from somewhere to fund childcare if you are earning below a certain amount - £16k I believe that would be a negative amount in terms of revenue anyway, so why not just say if you want 5 years off to bring up a child properly then fine have what we would have spent on childcare.
As for pensions, do the maths there is no way people take out what they've put in the maths simply doesn't work, so pensioners are massively subsidised and public sector employees particularly well out of the deal.

lovechoc · 05/08/2010 11:26

agree with someone else who posted about national service - great idea for the younger generation who are bored and fed up and have no ambition in life. get them trained up to do something useful and feel part of society. I know national service is compulsory in some countries and it seems to work really well.

Rocky12 · 05/08/2010 11:29

My mother lives in a London borough that was in the news a while back for paying £12,000 a month to a family that were all 'unemployed'. Mum has paid her council tax without fail and at nearly 80 and on her own has earned the right to feel that she has paid her dues in life I think.

Her council tax for 12 years would pay ONE months rent for this family who claim that they are looking for work. The reason they got such a big house is that they had children who were 'entitled' to their own room due to their age hence the reason they ended up in a 7 bed house. They had the highest priority on the housing waiting list because they had just arrived in this country. How can this be right?

Fibilou · 05/08/2010 11:31

My ideas are:

  1. Give benefits in the form of vouchers redeemable for most goods except alcohol, cigarettes and other. This would extend to all benefits such as things like HIP grants, it's ridiculous that people won't pay to feed their children properly but will pay for cigarettes. I apreciate people might sell them on but we can't keep on doing nothing. They tried it in Germany and it's been very sucessful

  2. Make winter fuel allowance means tested - I know a lot of very wealthy pensioners that get it and spend it on lunches in hotels. Farcial. Likewise ex-pats. If you live in Spain, why do you need a WFA ?

) The long term unemployed should be obliged to attend some form of retraining to help them get into work - and if they don't attend college or work placement then they don't get their benefits.

  1. People would have to make a contribution to non-essential treatment on the NHS such as tattoo removal, IVF etc. This could be means tested.
2shoes · 05/08/2010 11:33

I think everyone should be forced to live on benefits for 3 months at some stage.
then they will see that it isn't as easy as a lot of people make out.
I have been there and think a lot of people on this thread read the daily mail too much.