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 wouldn't want to be in government in this country.

People are so resistant to change here, and would rather argue than move forward and even think about compromise or what we can do, not what we can't. Entrenched, negative, it's downright depressing.

Yes, it's all unfair, capitalism, yes, it shouldn't be that way.

But it is! With record voter turnout, people voted for Tories and, in second place, LibDem.

So the two worked together for days and instead of saying, 'Well, this isn't fair, so I'm just not going to bother talking to you or listening' they formed a government.

I wasn't happy about it.

But that is too bad.

They're here now. They're not going anywhere. It's over. If we don't like it, we either put up with it, move or entertain change and try to discuss with our representatives how that should go.

Time to move forward.

They ask what cuts we want to see. It's probably political posturing and BS and they'll do what they want anyhow.

But that's not to say it isn't worth talking about and forming an opinion.

Interesting thread. I'm thinking that those who need help should be supported by society - the elderly, armed forces back home, the disabled who can't work.

All these other benefits just stop them.

Custardo - you are so right.

I used to rep kids in care and it was horrendously predictable how many parents had been in care themselves.

So I got involved in a voluntary organisation that helps mentor pregnant teenagers and those with young children, from disadvantaged backgrounds ( mostly care leavers but not exclusively). We try to give masses of practical and emotional support, but there is also an element of tough love. I'm more than happy to tell them if I think their behaviour is poor. I'll lay it on the line.

Progs like this should be rolled out everywhere.

I have read through all of this (my god that took a while so hope call me Dave looks at a bit of it).
I've learnt more from reading this than I did in economics and politics classes.
I'm getting the impression that people want asprations raised but only to a certain point?
Also (not in this thread) everyone bangs on about the influence of the media on the youff of today so how come they are not inspired to want better lifestyles than benefits can afford after seeing how the other half live on tv and in magazines?

'they are not inspired to want better lifestyles than benefits can afford after seeing how the other half live on tv and in magazines? '

because the youth aren't seeing a degree or training, few years grunt work as the route out but fame and sleb culture; something attainable by luck in most cases rather than actual earning.

My kids don't see BB, we don't read celeb mags or any of that, theya ttensd a church school in a nice area and still I see them coming out with reality TV as a reasonable jobs plan! Argh

I was reading a book last night - "The War between the State and the Family" - in which it points out that for most people in work and paying taxes, having children is something that you put off until you can afford them. If you're on benefits, these considerations apply (if at all) with less impact, because you know that someone else will be paying for your children.

Indeed, the benefits system allows (if not encourages) men to impregnate as many women as they wish, without fear that they will in any way be responsible for their upbringing.

These discussion boards are full of evidence for this, with countless men being berated and insulted (often, no doubt, rightly) for having shirked their responsibilities and moved on to get another woman pregnant and so on....

Furthermore, we have somehow skewed things such that some couples actually pretend to live apart, as it is in their financial interests to do so.

Every change to the benefits system, from the 1970s onwards, because of its well-intentioned 'focus on the most needy', has had the unintended consequence of making it less likely that couple will stay together and more likely that children will be raised by one parent.

The most insidious consequence of the benefits culture is the way in which it encourages people to accentuate their apparent 'need' or 'entitlement' and, more to the point, instills fear in those that worry that "their benefits" will be taken away.

Gordon Brown's gradual ratcheting of benefits entitlement up the income scale (through tax credits) means that people who only a few years ago would have made do with their own earnings, now fear this loss.

I actually consider the benefits culture of this country, currently shaped, to be akin to abuse, in so far as it raises people's expectations unreasonably and slowly wears down any sense of pride they might have had for standing on their own two feet.

When we read of communities where there are 2, perhaps 3 generations of people who have not had a job, we should hang our heads in shame. The benefits system we have developed is allowing/encouraging people to procreate that, were it not there, would be unable to afford to do so.

Better a childless or 1 child family that supports itself than a 2/3/4 child one that needs benefits to stay afloat.

I think we all have to stop expecting so much.
We can't all have what we want and we can't expect the state to provide it.
Look how terrified people are of losing these tax credits. Every other thread is about them.

That said, the converse must also be true. Those of us who employ people must do so ethically. We can't 'expect'. We must pay staff properly and look after them.

If we all stop thinking we're entitled from top to bottom, we'll be in a etter state.

I'm going to say something SO contraversial now.

for many single parents on benefits with ONE child, life is very difficult financially. You can cope, but it's very hard.

But if you are claiming IS, and you have another baby, your income leaps by £60 per week for the first year of it's life, then £50 per week after that.

For the first 7 years of a child's life, they definitely do not cost that much to raise if you keep a well budgeted house, hand things down, and don't get ridiculous about second hand items.

So that second child enables the family of three to live a good deal more comfortably than the family of two did.

Essentially, that second child is your cash cow.

That's part of the reason why people have another child whilst on benefits.

The rich can just move abroad and take their money with them if the government threaten to raise taxes.
Love the stories of how to economise when you already do all that; turn the thermostat down (yeh in the pool house) go compare for the Bentley, do Harrods do a value range?

i am very sure that Income support will and should still be payable to those whose children can't go to bog standard school and childcare, because that it what makes it possble for single parents to work in the first place.

2The rich can move abroad thus leaving jobs for the talented underlings" - I doubt this would eliminate the 'benefit culture'.

The properly rich don't really have jobs though do they?

I did not have time to find the statistics yesterday, but here it is.
It says "...more than half of all children (57 per cent) in poverty live in homes where at least one of the adults work..."
I have read it somewhere alse as well.

Riven I think the way they treat you is disgraceful. Yesterday I was talking to a mom of a severely disabled child (autism) and she said a lot of other people treat her like a scrounger.