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

Why, yes, littlepurple, disabled people should live in hovels without heat or electricity! How dare they be comfortable, even though they are actually to ill to do anything to get out of their situation! They can crawl on their hands and knees to get the appointments when there's no disabled accessible buses in their area, sell their children into white slavery, work as draft excluders, the scroungers! Just so they can learn what real poverty is.

You should think black burning shame of yourself.

Your bitter heart is in far more dire spiritual poverty than any soul in India begging a crust.

Well, colditz, if my husband walked out, I have a job and would support my family. But in any event I think you'l find I was making specific reference to the availability of IS beyond one year, as compared to SMP which stops. Not people who find themselves in unforeseen circumstances after some time.

And by the by I do know single parents, they have jobs and support their children, also thereby instilling a decent work ethic into their children and not reinfocing the benefits culture. I didn't at any point say all single parents were feckless, the issues was about people on benefits. Plenty of single parents work while plenty of couples both scrounge; it's not a single parent issue.

You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom.
What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work... for,
that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."

I agree Lola that this should not be seen as a single parent/couple issue - it's about the inequalities that exist whereby some people believe they have entitlements which others don't.

And a couple who split, are still the parents of their children. A father can (and should) still pay for the children he has fathered, even if he doesn't like the mother any more. And vice versa.

'All those jobs mentioned by veyron keep someone in paid employment ...what happens to their jobs if the unemployed do it for free'

I can see where you are coming from and there wil always be excuses from some people that this would take away jobs from employed people, BUT take a look around a lot of council estates they are in a serious mess because a lot of local councils cannot afford to employ the labour they just don't have the budgets. I can only speak about the one's I have seen myself, they are disgusting an eye sore and could do with looking after. Such as weeding, planting, litter picking, cleaning communal areas, community centres, youth centres, the list goes on........

I work front line for a local authority and I have done for many years, I also have friends who are council tenants, some single parents who don't work and some who do.

Our council estate looks lovely - we have a litter pick every month with a fish and chip supper laid on at the children's centre for the pickers.

But this was one woman's idea, and this is a small town. It would be very difficult to legislate.

One question - a genuine one, I'm not saying I disagree exactly but - those saying cut childcare costs, who is going to pay for that? I am a childminder and I am NOT on a high income, and I work VERY long hours, VERY. We can't lower our prices.

So, if the government were to contribute more to childcare costs, the tax payer would have to pay for it anyway. Isn't that just putting it in one hand and taking it out the other?

Also, CTC will pay 80% of childcare costs as long as both parents work 16 hours or more a week. So parents only have to pay 20% of it already.

What more can they do?

Childcare should be available at preferencial rates for those who work, maybe free if you are on low wages.

then there will be lots of providers (jobs created overnight etc)

Nurseries available to those who want it with overnight/weekend stays if necessary for work pattern.

Introduce scheme where we can donate unwanted home appliences, furniture etc and there are workshops where people can repair them give 6 months guarantee and we can buy it - will create more jobs, help to live greener life for all of us etc

I think schools should really be reduced in sizes - in my oppinion in huge comps of 1500 kids individuals kind of dissapear
but there are fewer and fewer smaller secondary schools

I know it probably is never going to happen, but if some parent saw how they kids behaved in school they would be terrified.
Allow schools to record pupils behaviour and play those tapes back to their parents.
How kids are wasting time in the classroom, maybe thamake kids realise that parents work very hard and that they only have one take in their life that they get free education. Later on they all have to pay for it...

some schools offer parenting classes, but not many
I don't think making them compulsory would be very helpful, but more accessible would be nice

many kids are leaving schools with hardly any maths and English skills, those later on have trouble with finding jobs

I don't know how to address that problem globally, but am sure that many kids would do better if their parents were able to help them at home with maths and english, but they can't as they themselves never learned it properly

what I am saying here is not so much about changing the system ...
but can't stop thinking about this video...

www.somesso.com/2009/04/the-top-10-in-demand-jobs-of-2010-didnt-exist-5-years-ago/

Exactly sassy.

For every person who feels it's their entitlement to sit at home until their children are 4, 7, 11 or whatever age is the current vogue, there's someone else out there working their butt off to enable the first person to do nothing. Absolutely fine if that other person is their partner, and doesn't mind being the sole provider. Plenty wrong with it when that other person is the tax payer, probably a married woman with young children of her own, already paying childcare fees out of her own pocket and struggling to make ends meet with her own husband!

littlepurpleprincess - I think it would be preferable to pay more in the short term for childcare to so that longer term the parents are part of the work force and do not become long term benefit claimants. even if that meant paying 100% child care costs in appropriate cases.

my bif thing would be work fare.

as minister for workfare i would introduce a system whereby if you can't get a job for money - you work for dole money alongside education classes in basic english and maths ( if needed) help with cv's and interviews.

my personal preference would be to get the workfarees to spruce up the railways. at the side of most railways its just undergrowth, shopping trolleys and brambles. i think with the thousands of miles of track, this could be a great opportunity to work for dole money.

I'm looking out of my window on a council estate, and the paid street cleaners are sweeping it .The grass verges have been cut by the paid gardeners..nope sorry not an eyesore round here

Expatinscotland, you misunderstood me. They should have the things they NEED and be comfortable.

I'm talking about people (and I know 2 families in this situation) that are greatly exaggerating their problems and getting far more help than they need. I know they can work, I've seen it with my own eyes.

I am NOT refering to those who genuinely cannot work.

"Introduce scheme where we can donate unwanted home appliences, furniture etc and there are workshops where people can repair them give 6 months guarantee and we can buy it - will create more jobs, help to live greener life for all of us etc"

I run one of these. You'll find these dotted all over the country if you look.

Where my MIL lives it is awful My Grans estate is fine though. I think it must be a lottery

" i would introduce a system whereby if you can't get a job for money - you work for dole money alongside education classes in basic english and maths ( if needed) help with cv's and interviews."

This is what the last labour government brought in last year - now being abolished by the Condems

Future Jobs Fund and Community Task Force!!! I'm really surprised so few people know about it!

There are some council estates which are in a terrible state, though, and those are the ones where the properties become "hard to let" even though we have a massive shortage of social housing. Luckily most estates are like that, like usualsuspect's estate.

i would also scrap universal child benefit.

also with the exception of multiple births, i would only pay cb for the first child - anyone can make a mistake, but if your not working and you become pregnant, you should have either

sorted out the contraception - such a lot of contraception fails according to MN, which must be a disproportionate figure as the pill is supposed to be 99% effective or something

then there is the coil and the injections, tubes tied, vasectomy, oh and condoms - mix and match - buy one get one free - take the pill and use a condom.

life throws us in unfortunate circumstances - sure someone could have planned a pregnancy and then been made redundant, however we should all adopt a longer sighted view of the future - shit happens, so if you want a baby - pay for it.

i read about the workfare system hairy triangle.

laughing at the disproprtionate failure rate for contraception, custardo!!

also if you want to be a sahm - same principle applies regarding planning for the future. its weird that we top up a single wage earner with tax money in a two adult family. sahm is a luxury that needs to be planned for - otherwise it should e the world of work - whatever way you decide to do it - be at home or go to work, just dont expect the tax payer to fund it or top it up in a two adult family.

benefits should be in the form of vouchers, not money - electricity, food etc. If people want money to go out / drink / smoke etc that should not be paid for by other taxpayers

That is a great idea if you are always going to get your food from a certain shop, your clothes and shoes from a certain shop. What about those who use farmers markets, charity shops and Ebay for bargains.

I agree up to a point but if you are a canny shopper and can feed a family of four for half what someone else does then why not spend the rest on booze and fags, or whatever else you need to spend it on.

where do they top up people who work whilst their husband/wife stays at home? I have never heard of this before

There are broadly two camps of people - net taxpayers (the value of whose contributions in tax and national insurance exceed the benefits they receive) and net benefit recipients (the value of whose benefits exceed the tax and national insurance they pay).

The former are paying for the latter and should be both (a) thanked and (b) consulted by them on any proposed changes to the system.

The latter are being paid for...therefore their views are, not unreasonably, far less relevant and should largely be ignored.

I'll warrant people's contributions on this discussion have largely been informed by which of these two camps they fall into.

tax credits