Right Ok I missed the bit about 4 kids and dh is booked in for a vasectomy so we aren't going to top that (phew)- sorry, I guess these threads scare me sometimes and I over reacted.
How I would revise benefits-
the way I se it most people want a system that protects those who have been unliucky (redundancy / illness / etc) but doesn't allow people to sit on their arses their entire life draining society of their taxes and contributing sod all, yes?
I'd have a date set inte last week of September each year (to corresppond with training institutions). On that date, everyone who has been out of work more than 6 months and claiming IS or JSA would have to show that theya re either in training (inclusing studying) or undertaking voluntary work. I wouldn't have an established work - to - benefit scheme: there are plenty of oportunities anyway, schools helping with reading or whatever: one of the main reasons my former employing charity went under was becuase nobody wanted to be a volunteer. Forcing set schemes would ctually hit those charities as much as it would hit the lwoer skilled job availability as per YTS. Whilst requiring voluntary work or training emans people are constantly moving forwards.
This would apply to people with a child over 5 if a lone parent. If a couple, one could nominate themselves as carer parent and have that exemption. In balance colleges / training instituoiotns would be required to expand the availability of training that fits around school hours, as certainly locally institutions are moving away from that model in order to maximise room usage and that negatively impacts on the ability of parents to establish themselves a reliable job.
Thise whi refused if tney have no chidlren don't get benefits. fair enough. Those with children get a % then in vouchers which will negatively impact on thier options whilst hopefully not penalising the chidlren if at all possible.
I'd keep teh 16 hour tc rule ebcuase there are a lot of people for whom 16 hours is all they can do becuase theya re workinga roundd retraining, or a single aprent struggling with childcare, or have ill ehalth, or cannot find anything else. We certainly don't want a state where people turn down 16 hr jobs becuase theyc an't pay enough to be worthwhiel: working people are far more likely to find suitable jobs in the long term and keep their skills updayted. It is also a key difference between children growing up in a working or non working household, there is a basic bonus seeing your fmily get up, go out to work, make the effort even if not full time.
I can't remember tha neame for the benefit that replaced IB but it should be amended sothat it has a base in relaism. Forcing people who are genuinely unable to work onto teh dole becuase of targets helps nobody. We have to fuind a way to run arealistic system where we are not gi ing in to skvers but nbeitehr penalising genuinely ill / disbaled people in the name of stats.
I don't know anything about teh health in pregnancy grants as after my time, so won't comment on them. CB still ahs the lofty aim of being apid to the mother so she has access to cash whatever, and I applaud that as still current. I would actually cut that off at 4 children (5 if the latter pregnancy is a multiple). I wouldn't limit TC's though. There's a massie difference that I imagine most share between wanting to stop the baby gravy train and activlyy penalising small children.
I would means test heating allowances but expand the group to cover the disabled too. ANd i'd probably make it per hosuehold- as a household with 2 disabled kids I woudln't see our expenses would double for heating with each subsequent sn child tbh. Electric / gas is either on or off after all.
And absolutely target the unnecessary quangos, middle management, etc. But always remeber that public sector is also nurses, respite for carers lucky enough to get it, street sweepers: and crucially that it is jobs, and if those people are jobless then they too will be needing state supportrather than paying taxes. Rationalise, expect a fair days work for fair pay but equally remember where those people end up if not there- on the dole line.
The pension system I know very little about as I have been removed from the workforce for other reasons however it is clear that the retirement age has to be addressed: i'd [op it tom 37 and then have a half rate between that and 70, as a lot of people like my Dad can manage PT work but not FT at that age (Dad has a physical job). howevfer if someone over 65 is made jobless through ill health ther may be a way to certificate them on to pension scheme early.