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 agree entirely with the citizens wage idea - pay a flat amount to everyone, enough for the basics of living, and then anything you earn on top is yours. It would immediately make people better off the more they work (rather than the incentives to work less which are bizarre) and would also be a disincentive for people to have more and more kids which they can't afford.

God, we should be running the country - we'd have it sorted!

Agree with Paulo that people should do some work for the benefits: for those with children under 5, it could simply be caring for those children.
Equal maternity/paternity pay and leave: an allowance could be given per child to the couple, to be shared out between mum/dad at their discretion.
Formal medical examinations for those claiming disbility living allowance, by an independant assessor.
Have a maximum ratio between the most highly paid and worst paid employee (not owners) of any company: if you want to become a multimillionaire you'd have to take the associated risks. Not sure how this could be worked for multinationals but i bet there is a way.

"Formal medical examinations for those claiming disbility living allowance, by an independant assessor."

There is an independent assessor, in theory at least, in practise they have to reach a certain quota of "able to work" applicants.

Far to late for me to check the whole thread so no flack please if this has been covered, but what is the big deal with disabled people not working!

My dh has MS and has severe mobility problems and apart from one period where he was completely unable to work(no benefits) has remained in meaningful employment over the 15 years since MS reduced his quality of life.

He works p/t which reduces his earning potential and means we cannot have the same fancy stuff as others, but he would never consider not working just because he has a disabilty. I also work p/t as we have 2dc and childcare costs keep me from f/t work, but still pay around £500 a month for nursery.

We claim DLA which enables dh to have a car as he cannot use public transport.God forbid that someone would give him a seat!

I think people have to get off their arses and work.

I work for the NHS and have patients on benefits who have a disposable income way above ours its not fair

You must have fantastic child minders all you that get up for work at 4 am

giggly Disability varies from person to person (obviously) and also requires employers to be flexible wrt it. It's great that your DH can work, but it's not always possible.

"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."

That's advocating enforced abortion, you do realise that, don't you, veyron.

Perhaps ignorance is bliss for you, but I have lived in countries where the government feels there is no need to provide for mothers. The abortion rate is sky-high, babies dumped in rivers, mothers living in poverty.
The UK has got its problems, but the NHS and the welfare system are one of the best in the world.
Every child deserves a chance, no matter who their mother is.
And WTF is this idea that she needs to "work". I take it you don't have children then if you don't think raising children is a job.
Just because your not lining the pockets of Mr MAcdonald, doesn't mean you're not working.
In fact, putting lots of children in poor childcare makes a bad outcome for society (I'm not talking about good childcare, I'm talking about the kind of childcare that would be the only option for the mothers you're talking about). YOu are underestimating the work of mothers if you think bad childcare is a good enough substitute for mothers raising their own children.
If enough people take this line of thinking it will come to bite Britain on the bum years down the line.

If you can't afford to raise your children by yourself, you shouldn't be having them.

Fair enough, some people fall on hard times...but there are far too many people receiving far too much money from far too few taxpayers.

Why would providing mother and baby units be advocating enforced abortion? If a pregnant unemployed youngster with no means to support herself or her child chooses abortion over being supported in a mother and baby unit, then that's shocking but it's her choice.

Violet, or perhaps they would be more careful not to get pregnant and pick who they have their baby with more carefully...

No one is talking about abortion - there is no need to be pregant unless you want to be nowadays.

I really do think this comes back to personal responsibility and what happens if you choose to do something without thinking it through

Sakura, its not advocating abortion in the slightest to have mother and baby units. If a girl/women deemed herself mature enough to have sex and get pregnant then they are mature enough to understand you either financially support the said child themselves or let the state provide a place in the unit. Removing all financial incentives like benefits and money would bring our teen/short term relationship babies considerably down.

Why would they use bad childcare, tax credits pays for childcare for those on low wages so that argument doesnt stand.

As for "And WTF is this idea that she needs to work. I take it you don't have children then if you don't think raising children is a job" - actually I dont think its a job in the slightest. Having a child is a lifestyle choice, if you dont want to support any children you have then dont have them. Millions of parents work and raise children, having children doesnt render anybody incapable of working (bar those with disabled children where suitable childcare is not available).

Well said, happymummy. Being a parent is not a job. It's a choice. A lovely one, which can be hard work at times, but not A job. My decision to have 3 kids was mine and dhs. I wouldn't expect anyone else to pay for our choice. Why should they ?

Absolutely mother and baby units.

The cycle must be stopped whereby kids = house. There was a thread on here a while back where someone was moaning that the council wouldn't give her a bigger house in anticipation of dc3. That sort of attitude has passed its sell-by date.

And make the parents support their child. That is, if your teenager has a baby, YOU are responsible, not the state. It doesn't matter if the grandmother has ten other children, is a single mother, whatever, HER child and her child's child is her responsibility.

So violethill ..you have a dh to help your the child care?

with your *

'Formal medical examinations for those claiming disbility living allowance, by an independant assessor' already coming in though it should be supplemntary to toehr evidence as many disorders cannot be seen in one visit (EG MS< ASD)- there's a link somewhere on the threwad about national autistic society's worried following a similar scheme for IB.

I have no issues subjecting ds1 to a formal assessment (ds3 would apss anything not a concern) but I would want the opinions of his PAediatrician, school and psychologiust taken into acocunt as well as they ahve longer term invovlement

'but he would never consider not working just because he has a disabilty'

That's not al;ways possible though is it?

I;ve provided end of life care to people with MS; thank god your DH doesn't have the same level of need but some people do.

Just as whilst I expcet ds1 to work 9albeit with support) ds3 is on planet fairy most of the time, compeltely away with them. Who wants an employee who doesn't even reposnd when you talk?

Disability runs a whole gamut which is why DLA is so fab: allows those that can work to access far mroe opportunities than they may otherwise access. It's right though that there are levels at each extreme, from rules preventing discrimination aaginst those who wish to work to provision for those who cannot.

No we paid for our child care. If dh and I split up, well, he'll still be the children's father and as such should continue to take his share of responsibility

Good for him ..pity theres not more like him ..easier to target the single mothers though

It isnt easier to target single mothers at all but I have to say they do need to take some responsibility, I am not talking about partners that have died or are a waste of space (but I do have to say for the single mothers who regularly call their ex partners twats - you did CHOOSE to have a baby with them). Also, people who choose to start another family with someone else, men and women - who think it is some sort of right.

I waited until I was ready to start a family - I left it late tbh and it was fine but if I couldnt have had children I wouldnt be complaining that it was my right to have children - it was my choice and I had to take the consequences of that decision.

I think 'good for him' is a really weird response. He's an adult, i'm an adult, we both decided to do the deed, why the hell wouldn't we see it as an ongoing joint responsibility? Why should it be acceptable for any parent to bugger off and expect the tax payer - ie: OTHER parents to foot the bill? The only time a child only has one parent is when one has died, which is tragic and the welfare state should rightly support the remaining parent. In every other situation the child has two parents whether they live under the same roof or not.

Usualsuspect, they are targetting other non working groups too, JSA will see benefits cut if they dont take work within 12 months.

Given that child maintenance is no longer counted against means tested benefits it means the mother can claim from the father and still get full state benefits which is very wrong. Why count income from the father when you live together but disregard it when you dont. Also, why should it just be one parent that supports the child and not both if the other option is to claim benefits.

To put it bluntly: how would anyone feel if I suggested that I split with my dh, he buggers off and continues to earn just as much but decides he really cant be arsed to pay for his children any more . Meanwhile I'll jack my job in. Someone else can have it, and pay tax to support me to not work.

Ridiculous suggestion, eh?!

I think benefits should be stopped for those who choose not to work as benefits in my view are only supposed to help people inbetween jobs not as an alternative to work. I have worked since I was 13yrs old I started with a local newspaper round, I stopped when I was 15 as I got a Saturday job in a shoe shop till I went to college then I worked Saturdays & Sundays in a DIY store. After leaving college I became a Dental Nurse only taking time off work for maternity leave. After my relationship broke up I couldn't do the hours as a dental nurse anymore as I couldn't get childcare for the evenings and weekends so I worked 37.5hrs a week in an office until I got made redundant in January, I am caliming benefits at the moment which I absolutely hate doing but I am also very active in my search for a job and hope to be successful as I want to stop the benefits asap. My ex however is a different story when we 1st were together he was always changing jobs for 1 reason or another (although it was never his fault) it was annoying but he was always working then gradually the gaps between jobs got bigger and bigger till eventually he was not working so I was supporting myself, my daughters (then 4 & 2 ) paying all the bills & childcare (he said he couldn't cope with them) and dragging him along with us. My daughters are now 11 & 9 and he still hasn't worked since the last job he had which was when we were with him I know this as he only pays £3.33 a week for both of the girls which they take direct from his giro, he got a job once as I got a letter from CSA saying the amount he had to pay was going up, a week later I got another letter saying that I wasn't going up as he had "given the job up" I ask why he has been allowed to claim all this time and then when he gets a job give up and go back on benefits so quickly? And on top of that he won't talk to me about the girls instead prefering to keep applying to take me to court the 1st time cost me £13,500. then he disapeared for 1 1/2 yrs he came back and again went straight to the courts which cost me another £12,000. Him? he's on benefits so he got legal aid. It makes makes me so angry not just cause its him but cause the system seams to take the P* out of those of us that are working or want to work. In the states you can only claim unemployment if you have worked over a certain amount of weeks and it only lasts for a fixed amount weeks before it stops

Well we clearly don't all live in ivory towers