How do we as a country eliminate 'benefit culture'?

[whomovedmychocolate]

Serious question, not asking for a bunfight but donning teflon knickers nevertheless.

We seem to have got ourselves into a right pickle over this - we have a myriad of benefits - which don't seem to fit together or make logical sense and which seem open ended.

Is this right? Should we say (with obvious exceptions for people who are going to need help forever because of health issues) 'right, we will support you for X months and then you are on your own'?

Should we require people to dispose of any and all assets before providing benefits? This would counter the 'well he has a plasma telly and is receiving JSA' arguments I've heard recently.

What about generations of families who have never worked. What do we do about them then? Do we do intervention stylee retraining for them all, and force them to work?

I'm really interested in the ideas you lot might have because I am finding it very hard to establish the extent of the problem or any solution.

I'm interested in ideas and solutions, too.

I don't know, I've never encountered what we have here.

I know everyone has a personal story, but honestly, I know people, more than a few, who have never worked. I know people, more than a few, who have 6+ kids and have never worked. I know people, more than a few who are second and even third generation never in employment.

I think the radical step of no more child benefit after a certain number of kids, and no increase in tax credits after a certain number of kids if you have them whilst on benefit?

Of course, that opens up accusations that this means the poor can't have kids (not true), or forced sterlisation (not true).

But what to do?

Something will have to be done.

watching with interest. DP was in the North West this week. There are no jobs. None at all. 3 generations in which men have never worked. Women do a bit of part-time mebbe. Drugs everywhere. Everyone pissed.

He was actually moving his lips with no sound coming out when he was trying to describe both the problem and come anywhere close to articulating the beginnings of a solution.

there are quite a few areas like this in Scotland, onebat.

the level of drugs and alcohol abuse and violence whilst drunk.

well, saysitallreally.

we could go round and round in circles about why this happened, who's to blame, etc.

it makes no difference. it is what it is now.

something has to be done about it.

our latest downstairs neighbour was one of those 14 out of 18.

the guy before him, another OD death, used to have frightening house parties.

all drink and drug fuelled.

JSA is only £64.20 a week, really, I would rather work than live on that. I guess that MANY people in jobseeker allowance agree with me.

There are obviously some very notorious scroungers but I think they re the exception rather than the rule.

My cousin has six children, she's my age. She has never ever worked and because of the kids, by the time they are all at school full time she'll be 42. While 42 is relatively young people wise - work wise it's quite late to be starting out isn't it?

I agree that having a large amount of children is socially irresponsible however much money you have - the planet is full already! So perhaps our benefits system has to reflect this as Expat suggests.

thing is, chandra, you also usually get all rent and council tax paid whilst on that.

CB and CTC if you have kids.

SIL's never worked. she's 32 with 3 kids.

The best way is to improve tax incentives - make it worth your while to work - rather than by complicated systems of tax credits which are withdrawn.

I really like the Lib Dem proposal of no tax on the first £10k. I would partially pay for it by freezing certain benefits.

The effective marginal tax rates are just too high.

Another thing which, to be fair, Labour were just starting to do, though 13 years too late, was to have more phasing between benefits and work. So your entitlements are slowly reduced once you find work, instead of taken away in one go.

This is all "carrot" but there must be "stick" too. If you're offered a decent job and don't take it, your benefits should be cut. And people on incapacity benefit, or whatever it is called now, should certainly be assessed for what they can do, not what they can't. Almost everyone can work a computer in one form or another! They should be given money and support for training. The dignity of work itself is a big reason to do this.

At the same time, we need to make sure there are jobs for all these people! So low corporation taxes, low business rates, lots of parking for shops, incentives for startups. And better targeted apprentices.

Fortunately these are all largely now government policy. There will be plenty of roadblocks but in Iain Duncan Smith we have someone who has made reducing poverty his life's goal, even if it makes him personally very unpopular.

I think there is a perception gap though Chandra - because it's the tangential benefits (housing benefit etc.) which actually make it feasible to stay on benefits. £64.20 a week sounds bloody awful, but if your rent is £70 a week and that's covered and your council tax is covered (say £40 a week), then that's £110 + £64.20 a week - £174.20 net you'd have to make to get the same from working.

expat, but that rather assumes that people have kids FOR the benefits, which they don't.

By NOT then giving the benefits, you are puting those children at even more risk of deprivation.

I really don't think there are many people who do these things 'for' the benefits. I DO think that there are a good number of people who COULD work but don't see the point.

It's more a not getting round to it than an actual life plan though. Also it is a lifestyle thing. You can go from never having worked, got up before midday, drinking beer for lunch etc to suddenly 9-5 every single day hard labour, you'd not manage it for more than a few weeks even if you wanted to.

And nothing in between not working and that is a)available, b)worth it.

Flexible employment, cheap or free quality training, tax credits for voluntary work, job club for all, apprentice programmes, proper drug intervention and prevention programmes, decent depression support etc etc.

You have to remember that these people are the country's most vulnerable, hopeless (in that they have no hope or aspirations) and quite often stuck in a rut without the life experience or knowledge to get out.

you get cold weather payments, grants for school uniforms, free school dinners, free prescriptions, free dental care, possibility of local parks like free or reduced cost gym membership, etc.

'expat, but that rather assumes that people have kids FOR the benefits, which they don't.

By NOT then giving the benefits, you are puting those children at even more risk of deprivation.'

Some of them do, Star.

We have start somewhere.

I just threw that out because well, I don't know where to start, but it has to be somewhere.

We can't keep paying out these benefits or we're going to have to cut pensions for elderly, and that's even worse, IMO.

We just can't afford it anymore.

There is going to have to be some stick.

I agree with that too longfingernails - I'm a high rate tax payer. It actually makes no sense to tax me more because then I can't afford to pay two people who then go on and pay tax themselves. It's a zero sum game. The trick is to make it equitable for everyone to join in. Businesses need building and expanding but people have to be prepared to work in them and a lot of businesses in the future will be service orientated which is a big change for older people who have worked in manufacturing.

Also agree with the stick approach. I believe this does happen now but not till the point at which you've been unemployed six months or so - which is mad - by then you are much less employable. We need to get people off benefits pronto IMHO.

that's not much more than I was earning when I was working 30hrs a week.

Obviously if I'd been working and single I'd have had HB top up and WTC as well to bulk it out.

I only have one kid, perhaps if I get another 3 I might break even, but then, those children will bring other expenses...

Even if my mortgage/rent was paid for me, I would still find it difficult to survive with so little. Forget about getting a plasma telly.

But agree wholeheartedly that is highly irresponsible to continue getting pregnant when your only source of income are benefits.

no grants for school uniforms here,

I think they're going to have to cut benes to teen mums who are underage, too.

Or perhaps under 18.

Too many just 'fall pregnant'.

Yes, I realise there are contraceptive failures, but c'mon.

There's a family around here, the lady has 7 kids, 5 girls and all those girls have at least one kid - and none is over 21. None is with a partner/husband.

Do you folks realise how lucky you are to live in a place with free and very readily available birth control with no parental consent required?

Once travel and childcare costs are taken into account, my sister is genuinely no better off financially working than not. And she still receives tax credits and the maximum towards her childcare. So she still feels as though she is a benefits claimant (and she is) while working full time. If you are already claiming benefits, it's not a big leap perhaps to stop working and claim more. Or not to start. I know it's crossed her mind. How could it not?

FWIW I don't think people have babies to get benefits. That's far too simplistic. However I do think perhaps that we culturally don't encourage people to talk openly about family planning and say 'okay so you have had your children now, when do you plan to return to work and what will you do - do you need some help?'

This could be a hugely positive thing for women, if it's handled well.

Like i said, toc, it depends on teh council.

But seriously, if we don't talk about change, well, they're going to just ramrod whatever they think is best through.

And that's not going to be good.

But they won't let things continue how they are.

And this isn't even touching the ESA people or long-term JSA claimants.

I think the problem is that the differential between working and not working is too small

How many times do we hear about people who will 'take home' less if they work

Part of the issue is that the minimum wage is so low that you get more (or at least as much as) on benefits

The other thing is that the swop from getting lots of benefits & getting none is very fine

If we 'earnt' about £250 less a year we would get:
Free school dinners
council tax benefit
free prescriptions/glasses

Probably about £600 (total estimate) of 'benefit' but people who earn £251 less a year get all £600 & we get nothing, it should be tailed off - not be yes or no. For some people that would be enough incentive to not work (or at least work less)

Why isn't contraception available freely in Scotland? I thought you got all prescriptions free? FYI Mirena coils aren't free, they are a prescription item AFAIK in England - so you pay umm £7.20 towards the cost (about £100).

The other issue is that if you go to work and still need to claim HB, you live with the constant threat that the council will come back years later and demand stonking amounts of money because they overpaid you. Ditto Working Tax Credits.

And because the system is so complicated, there's no way for ordinary people to check they are getting the proper amount of benefit.

'Why isn't contraception available freely in Scotland?'

It is!

I was talking about the US.