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

How would you measure whether you were bringing up a 'child properly' Mama? It will encourage the feckless to become even more so... Also, although we pay for childcare at least people are earning their own money when they go out to work. Someone please correct me if I am wrong - you dont get subsided childcare if you dont work do you? There are 3rd generation families who dont work. Do you really think that paying people to stay at home is a solution.

I don't think a lot of people think it's easy. Just unsustainable.

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

I agree. Terrible that children don't eat well while the parents smoke and drink. Its a bit nanny state and might encourage a black market in cigarettes for the vouchers but I think good idea.

DH thinks that food vouchers should be handed out (main supermarkets like Tesco, Asda etc) rather than cash to those on 'benefits'. That way they can't spend the money on drugs or alcohol.

i am actually coming round to the idea of forced national service.but for all young people of a certain age(say 18 - 21) with no exceptions.

I LOVE using vouchers, I dont see how it is embarassing.

It's only embarrassing if those receiving vouchers are snobs

Also we need to be realistic with children about employment. "You can do anything you want" has to be one of the falsest, most nonsense sentiments ever. Most people can't do what they want - girls now want to be popstars, boys want to be footballers and because they are always told how good they are they have an inflated sense of what they can do.
Children need to be encouraged to pursue realisitic dreams, such as becoming an electrician or a legal secretary. I think the aim of all schools should be to find out what that child is good at and encourage them into that field.
I would get rid of this ridiculous obsession with getting everyone to university. It should be replaced by getting children fit for the workplace, whether that is university based such as a proper degree like law, in a polytechic learning something like nursing or in an apprenticeship learning a trade.

Paying people to stay at home works on 2 levels, more people would be less stretched so will do a better job of looking after their children and it'll free jobs up for those who genuinely it makes financial sense to work.
I know of plenty of mums doing jobs they hate, it just gives them an extra £50 a week after childcare and nobody would die if they didn't have the £50.
If a young person could take that job instead, they could come off the dole, £50 quid saved, they could earn £200 because they aren't paying childcare pay tax and NI on that and the children benefit from a less hassled parent and less time in the baby farms as one nursery owner I know calls them.
We've yet to see the impact of young children having 3 to 1 care from an early age.

You'd measure bringing up children properly the same way that we currently do, arriving at school on time, hair brushed, teeth cleaned and clothes appropriate for weather. Any cause for concern would lead to parenting classes, extra support as is currently the case.

I also think if you paid certain sections of society anyway with a citizens wage plenty of them wouldn't have children in the first place as it would take away from their own needs being met, if you suddenly don't need to have a child to get £100 a week or whatever then less of them would be born, not all the lazy are stupid.
And after 2 years of being idle they'd be in a better position when they did finally get bored to go back to work with no millstone around their necks.

You need some cash though - for the bus to and from the voucher-accepting supermarket to spend your vouchers, for popping to the local shop when you need milk and bread and it would be stupid to trek all the way to the voucher-accepting supermarket to get them. And many people on low incomes make money go further by buying childrens clothes and shoes from eBay, charity shops, markets, independent shops etc. Vouchers no good there.

Surely soting out the vouchers from the cash would just be more costly admin?

And I think we need to address our attitudes to the welfare state. Over the last decade I feel people have got the idea that "I've paid in so I'm entitled to it", completely losing sight that the original idea of the welfare state was to provide a safety net for the very poor - people that would previously gone to the workhouse. We now get state-funded saving schemes, free bus travel for pensioners that is not means tested, universal HIP grants which can be spent on fags and drugs.

The whole tenet of why the welfare state exists needs to be re-examined IMO and universal benefits such as HIP, CB adn WFA scrapped. They should be means tested.

There have been some really good points made. I do think that being a stay at home parent does need to be recognised as work (even if some do a better job than others). I don't think this means stay at home mums should be 'paid' to do this but if a parent is doing that job and the family is in receipt of benefit, then for a period whilst the child it might be the best and most sensible option. I am a graduate but chose to stay at home with my son until he started nursey. This meant I had to live on benefit - a position I never imagined I would be in. My son needed me. I left my partner due to domestic violence. It was the best decision for both of us. However, I've observed that parents who work and put their child in childcare (which I have no issue with) are praised, even though the state not only pays the majority of childcare but gives them incentives, are praised. They are not actually supporting themselves. They are bing seen to support themselves. If this is best for parent and child then fine. But some children want to with their parents where they are loved and given lots of time and attention. There are those who choose to live on benefits as a lifestyle choice and maybe this is where it needs to get tougher once children start school(even though childcare here is not consistant in all parts of the country) and perhaps the level of assistance needs to go down with each each child. This would be unfare on those who had children before their circumstances changed but maybe this is something that as a society we need to think about more. I think this comes back to men. It is too easy for men to father children and not support them. I know single mothers with relatively well off ex partners who think paying 15% or 10% when they choose to have another family is good enough, even if they can afford more. Why should the state pick up the tab in these cases?

DI, then maybe a percentage should be in vouchers

I ask once again: Where would the money come from to pay these people to stay at home?

I also am very about the suggestion that paying people to be at home would mean "people would be less stretched so will do a better job of looking after their children"

Totally disagree. Being a good parent is an art, a skill, an attitude of mind (or whatever you want to call it) that is separate from whether you work or now. You can be a wonderful working parent or a rubbish unemployed parent (or vice versa)

FWIW, the most badly parented children I have ever come across in my role as a teacher were from a family where the mother didn't work and was at home 24/7. The thought of actually paying her to be such a useless parent is mind boggling!

Fibilou - yes, part cash part vouchers might work. But would it save money? And who determines amounts each way? Also, I've rattled on about Nordic and Scandinavian countries before, but there is an enormous sense of welfare entitlement in countries like Denmark, Sweden and Norway. People feel enormously entitled to the benefits of their welfare state. I don't think a sense of entitlement is the problem. I think the wider attitude in the UK to poverty, equality and social inclusion is.

that should be 'whether you work or not'

Where the money is coming from at the moment - it's either printed from thin air or else it's borrowed from Peter to pay Paul ? But either way it's currently being being paid to the feckless most likely to have an unwanted, cared for child.
And I completely agree you can be a great parent and work and you can be a rubbish parent and be unemployed, most of us are somewhere in the middle and a bit more sleep, time to ourselves and energy wouldn't go a miss. Even Cherrie Blair is quoted as saying balls get dropped when busy.

'Where the money is coming from at the moment - it's either printed from thin air or else it's borrowed from Peter to pay Paul ?'

Erm... which is precisely why the country is in dire straits economically and we've had the worst recession in living memory!!

As to the last point, it's not the parents who work hard at juggling work, running a house and raising children we should be concerned about. IME they work damn hard to be responsible and raise their children thoughtfully, ensuring that they don't miss out. It's the feckless parents who continue to breed without a thought for how they will raise them who are the worry.

WRt to teh 16 hours thing that's because it's shown that someone in work will find it easier to stay in work: so if you are working 16 hours now, when you are a bit healthier / have mroe chidlcare / your kids are at school / in our case when DH's study ends and he ahs enough work (a lot of what he is doing now is stoking the fire iyswim) you can up it and stay within the same system

It's also I guess meant to make people feel better about doing work at all rather than staying on JSA / IB

With us, it was the 16 hour limit that meant DH could start the business. In actuality he works far more hours but it seemed wrong to claim for mroe as well, technically we can cope without the extra 30 hours payment tehy would give us (we apply same mentality to council tax benefit- don't need it atm so don't claim) and where DH's work does fluctuate, and sometimes eg idf exams on he has to step back for a day or two 9only happened twice0 we ususally even take the laptop if we are away at Mum's or whatever (no not a complaint)) he always does a minimum of sixteen hours.

I know of other people doing start up who apply same logic and if it's giving people the emans to do proactive things like start up self employed then that's good, yes? Esp. in current climate where jobs are hard to come by, and the longer you're out the less likely youa re to get back in.

"But would it save money?"

I wasn't too worried about it saving money, I was more concerned about children getting a healthy breakfast etc.
There was a report on Woman's Hour a couple of weeks ago about a charity that feeds children in school. They were saying that the levels of malnutrition are shocking, rickets, scurvy and the like are making regular appearances in schools in London. Thousands of children get sent to school every day with nothing to eat and have almost no food at home apart from processed junk. Even if you only spent the child benefit on your children you could afford to give them an own-brand weetabix in the morning and some value toast, surely ? If preventing parents choosing to prioritise their fags and booze over their children's food was achieved by giving vouchers that would be enough result for me to make it worthwhile.
I know I am likely to be flamed but I have come into contact with enough families that would prioritise drugs over their childrens' health to know this is a significant problem in some parts of society - and I live in leafy, genteel Eastbourne !

I think vouchers would shame the genuinely claiming: it would me. I'd certainly rather not eat (orr at the very elast would send DH out shopping) ratherr than use them: it's the converse side of instilling a work ethic isn't it? makes it ahrder to accept help when down.

BUT if someone has never worked or paid NI and appears to be from this fecklass group MN loves to discuss then I woudln't have an issue with it.

Shaming people into work as a last resort: yep. Shaming people who can't work: seems cruel.

(and whilst I don't get IB / JSA which I rpesume is what's emant know for a fact there are many out there like me- carers etc- who do (eg carers have huge amrriage breakup stats so mroe liekly to be only adult in a family) and would feel stigmatised for doing what really is IMO on a parallel with working: providing care for their kids. And of course it'smore econmoically active on a wider scale than sending said kids into respite and specialist fostering.

I think I may have my first big argument against the income guarantee wahge as per Xenia's / green Party beliefs: why should someone doing their best in a hard place be classified in same way as someone not willing to make any effort at all? is one of the few bonuses of what we have now that there is a singling out between trying and not?

Why are vouchers shameful? Why the snobbery about them?

vouchers are a great idea - it means that families will be spending the money on food and nothing else - which is really what is needed for many families who are reckless and just want to spend the money on whatever they want rather than the DC's needs.

I personally would not be ashamed to use vouchers. The Govt could also create travel vouchers to get to and from the supermarket to spend the vouchers for those who need to use public transport. It's not rocket science and it's sad that so much money is being wasted because the money people get in benefits is not always being spent on the essentials for living.

Sorry, forgot my main point there which was - we've never spent so much on state benefits yet we have these old, diet related diseases making a comeback. How is it possible that so many children in a first world country that pays a lot out to families are getting malnourished ?

When I heard the article I said to my Mum "if that's not a reason to give benefits in food vouchers, I don't know what is"