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

give out free door keyes to all over 4's, then why do they need a parent at home

"I also think those that are claiming IS - ie they can work then they should be made to do something in return for benefits - dont care what - pick up litter, clean streets, go to homeless shelter, volunteer in a shop"

Which actually is a nice idea in theory, but in practice, what do you do with your children while you are doing this?

IS stops when your child turns 7. Then you claim jobseekers allowance and go to work focused interviews every 2 weeks and sign on.

The whole point of IS is that it accepted that you are not available for work. How can you make someone who isn't available for work go to work, especially when you would have to pay for any childcare?

Oh my list could go on and on but here are a few.........

Scrap young girls getting flats as soon as they have children. Mother and baby units until said girls have the qualifications and jobs to support themselves and their offspring.

Social housing tenancy aggreements to have a clause (as soon as children have left home, you downsize your property to suit your needs).

IS and JSA to be earned by community work as previously mentioned i.e. Litter picking etc. (that way they might realise that to receive money you have to earn it first)

I would scrap the current benefits system altogether. Then have:

1. Citizen's wage - a payment for everyone of working age, whether or not they are working. This would be paid for out of general taxation - taxes would have to be higher but everyone would get something, and obviously at a certain point on the wage scale the taxes you paid towards this would equal the new income. The payment would enable survival (food, shelter) but not holidays, cars, etc.

1. Possibly lower the minimum wage, or have higher taxes on the lower band, to help fund this (I'm no economist!) but as everyone gets the citizen's wage you would keep all of your citizen's wage if you got a job. So, if you worked for say 3 hours a week it would still be worthwhile because you'd be making a profit.

1. The only extra benefit payments would be (probably) child benefit and disability payments.

In this way you would incentivise work, and you couldn't be in the position where freeloaders on benefits get more than people in work. You would enable people to take part-time or casual work without them being tempted to defraud the system (how could you defraud it if everyone gets the same benefit?) It would also hugely simplify the benefits system - and maybe lower admin costs. Not sure about this though.

This is very difficult. Any of us could need the safety net at anytime.

I think it's probably time to focus in on young men who won't work but think it's fine to father lots of babies. Not sure how!
People only focus on the young mothers which is to some extent unfair. At least thy are for the most part good mothers.....if not good role modles.

I agree with cracking down on benefit fraud and tax fraud.

Somehow find away to stop people having more DC simply to increase income.......no idea how to do this without damaging children/removing them from families.

Some form of national service for uneducated young men and any others who won't work. Many people have been failed by the education system. We can't just leave these people to become an underclass.

All this would cost money.....in the end the only way to get this money is increase taxes. We've got a clever bunch in charge no money has been spared on their education....They're bound to come up with something good

yes, having pondered it, of course raising wages in effect by altering taxes and tax credits, in particular ensuring that lower income earners and esp those with children pay less tax, is more sensible than just raising minimum wage - so govt not employers pay for it

(although it doesn't announce quite so clearly an incentive to find work)

thus back to my votewinning tax rise for the wealthy

I agree with more low cost housing.

I think council housing should be available to around 60% of the population.

The biggest government benefit expenditure is housing benefit, and it's NOT because of council tenants, or housing association tenants. It's because Right To Buy sold off all the council housing stock, so the councils had to pay housing benefits at private landlord rates, which in some areas can be £1000 PCM for a basic house. Compare that to the £300 PCM you pay for a similar council property, and you can see where all the housing benefit money is going - straight into landlords' pockets!

So take away that profiteering opportunity, house the desperate in council housing and you will SLASH the HB bill for the next 50 years!

You could fund the new building by racking up the charge for building companies to build new houses, or simply ramping up what they do now, which is insist that 1 in every 30 or so houses they build is turned over the a HA.

I think IDS's idea mooted recently is worth consideration - one of his ideas, currently out for consultation, proposes abolishing all most individual benefits and replacing them with one universal benefit that is paid to all and then taxed at a sliding scale, relative to the amount you earn.

Clearly, the amount/rate by which the benefit is withdrawn would need to be relatively generous, in order to maintain an incentive to remain in work.

In terms of administration and the like, such simplification would save money which can then help reduce that ruddy deficit we have!

I don't think people should get money simply for having children, or being disabled or being old etc.

2shoes, if the 4 year old is in school then why should the parent not work?

One of the problems is the complex definition of poverty which still takes massive account of "relative poverty" and so every time the minimum wage rises, the average income rises and the non-working family automatically becomes relatively poorer.

So to aim to keep children out of poverty, the only thing to do is give more money to non-working families with children.

It is the conseqence of a series of un-connected and poorly thought through policies made by successions of governments with short-term vote winning tactics.

IF you are going to make mothers of IS work for their IS, what are you going to do with their children?

So do we think people on benefits are somehow different, that they have no hopes, dreams or ambitions? That they want to claim benefits? Yes, of course there are spongers but I feel they're in the minority.

I'd make it easier to transition from benefits to work - so you can work and have benefits for a bit then benefits are stopped so no cash flow problems.

Crack down on tax evasion - I think it cost more than benefit fraud?

Sort out social housing - enforced purchases of disused/empty homes, downsize people in oversized homes and tax incentives for private landlords to let to housing benefit tenants.

Reduce the taxes on lower paid people to remove the need for tax credits - so save on admin, fraud etc.

A lot of fraud could be stamped out if HMRC was more joined up. For example someone claimed for tax credits using my name and NI number. However a simple check and they would have realises I earned too much to claim

Agree with Planet Earth's idea. Not sure of the detail of how it would work out, but a great idea in theory, much fairer, as everyone starts at the same, basic level, and then it is up to the individual to build on the basic state provision through their own hard work and initiative.

As a benefit dweller:
Crack down on Fraudulent claims, they cost billions a year and many that claim fraudulently already have enough money to live on.

Raise the tax threshold so you aren't losing from your £180 per week wage £30-£40 in tax.

Make it easier to get on a training scheme when out of work. ATM you have to be out of work for over a year before you can go on a training scheme. For most who are unexpectedly made unemployed the desire to start work again is lost after a year on the dole, especially if you were on minimum wage and your benefit package is better.

Make long term benefit living unattractive. Maybe cut benefits the longer you have been on them. This would ideally be on a case by case basis so those that refuse any sort of work would have their benefit cut quicker then those that have caring responsibilities or suffer from ill health not bad enough for incapacity or dla.

Make sure that claimaints are told their full benefits rights. My Mum turned down several part-time jobs as she was told if she earnt over £85 a week she would have to pay rent. She didn't know for some time that she would only pay on a sliding scale and would of been eligble for WTC to top up her wage.

Raising the minimum wage sounds great in theory but how does a small business suddenly afford to pay his 10 employees an extra £2+ an hour? He sacks a few, that's how.

And the "relative poverty" thing ..... benefits should be means tested for each area.

People who are almost on the starvation line in central London would have a reasonable standard of living in, say, Nottinghamshire on the same money.

Hmmm

I'm happy to keep paying people to bring up children, as long as they're doing it well. That's got to be a way out of the welfare cycle, and that's really the key, isn't it? So don't cut child-related benefits or welfare, rather:

Increase funding of government nurseries so that people can get jobs if they want them
Tie benefits to good parenting - training courses, perhaps?
Some sort of scheme whereby the children of disadvantaged people/third generation unemployed, etc., get mentored by better off, better educated people
More funding for education across the board - good teachers in good schools, so that you don't get the ghettoisation of schools where disadvantaged children will grow up surrounded by others and taught by disillusioned teachers in sink schools.

Tax the bankers and the CEOs.

What venusandmars said - relative poverty is simply an excuse for envy.

colditz
'IF you are going to make mothers of IS work for their IS, what are you going to do with their children?'

Children could go to a nursery or a childminder like children whose parents work, go to.

If benefits are the reason people choose not to work, then why do countries like Sweden and Denmark ? which have far more generous and inclusive welfare systems than the UK ? have lower levels of long-term worklessness and teenage pregnancy? And why do countries like the USA, where welfare is far more parsinimous and far more difficult to access, still have significant problems with long-term worklessness and teenage pregnancy?

Let?s start looking at evidence-based methods of increasing aspiration and decreasing welfare dependency. I think that?s a good place to start.

Most people who are long-term workless are that way because they don?t have the skills ? soft or hard ? to work and stay in work. Or they are disillusioned with the idea of working a minimum wage job. Many young people are still leaving school without adequate qualifications to be considered attractive by an employer, and whilst that?s still the case, it?s pointless to suggest that cutting benefits is suddenly going to magic all these underskilled people into jobs they can be proud of.

We need to make work pay ? and we make work pay by raising wages, not lowering benefits. I think that community work performed in return for benefit is a good idea if the creases can be ironed out - but I also think we need to follow the lead of Nordic and Scandinavian countries, where this community work is seen as a source of value and pride rather than one of scorn: so not all this litter picking and road-sweeping malarkey - dirty jobs which appear intended to humiliate those doing them.

We've never had full employment at any point in history so to expect every person to work is unrealistic, however what we don't want is for that number to increase by those with the lowest skill levels and ambition to multiply because we have now evidence that their children's lives will mirror theirs and lets be honest we don't even need street sweepers these days we have machines for that.
I also find it staggering that in the days of the best quality health care we've ever had, the best diets and least chance of accidental injury we still have increasing rates of disability, how is that the case ?

Instead of looking to just cutting spending, spend more wisely -reintroduce manufacturing professions, heavily subsidised if need be. I work with teenage boys, those that are not bright enough to get into Uni (or can't afford to go) have no idea what else to do. To be fair to them beyond call centres (filled with graduates!) there isn't much. Many love the chance to do 'practical' work when available but there aren't car manufacturing plants/steel works/ council housing to be built etc. Give people the dignity of work; these projects would create further opportunities (cafes/painters & decorators/HR etc)

Big companies with X amount of profit should pay a higher minimum wage. Families with 2 people working full time should not have to claim tax credits because of shareholder greed.

Deal with tax fraud and evasion if you want to save big bucks and be fair.

And like I've said, Veyron, who is going to PAY for the children to go to nursery or a childminder if the people on IS are not receiving wages for their work?

Another thing I'd do (don't know the detail of how - but I think this is a really important one)

• somehow return to the idea that every child starts their life with two parents, and that those parents have a financial responsibility to that child until it reaches adulthood. Ideally, of course, they would have emotional responsibility and moral responsibility too, but the State can't force parents to love their children, just pay for them.

Somewhere along the way, our culture has abandoned this concept. Splitting up, getting divorced, just getting bored with your life.... all these are somehow seen as an acceptable reason to shift responsibility onto 'The State' (ie other people). I'm not saying divorce should be banned - I am perfectly happy for people to split up, but the fact remains that we don't divorce our children - and responsibity for them should continue.

It's a ludicrous state of affairs we've reached that a woman can have a couple of kids with a bloke, they split up and run two separate homes, and the tax payer is supporting that woman to be at home until her kids are 7, while along the road you've got Mr and Mrs Smith, married, two kids, only running one home, and struggling to make ends meet with both of them working!!

How nuts is that?!

We have accepted as a cultural norm, entirely different rules for people who split from their partner, to those that couples who remain together have to live by.

And yes, I know sometimes tragedy hits a family, one parent dies or something terrible - but let's face facts, the vast majority of lone parents are not in that situation. I think the welfare state has a duty to provide for those who have been hit by tragedy, or who can't support themselves. That goes without saying.

ah colditz - i guess i meant JSA not IS - when you sign on for that then you are free to look for work right?

I'd save all this 'force them to work for benefit' to apply first to non-resident parents who are unemployed.

Revise the child support system so that non-resident parents must pay towards the support of their children rather than abandoning them to the state - by working for their benefits (since they don't have childcare issues), maintenance being taken directly off their paycheque or jail if they refuse. If that means they can't afford to go getting more children with every 'partner' they hook up with, tough.

I'd revise tenancy laws in this country so that working poor who are in private rentals don't wind up below the poverty level or far worse off than people on benefits or turfed out every 6 months at the whim of a BTL landlord.

Stop employment practices like outsourcing to temp agencies with their zero hours contracts, 'flexible' rotas by mega employers like supermarkets that make so many people unable to work for them as they cannot be available FT, 24/7 (a barrier for many disabled people who might otherwise be able to work PT).

This whole ambition shit is rubbish. Capitalism works by having a few at the top and millions more below this, so quit pillorying the working poor and assuming they deserve to be treated like shit by dodge employment practices.