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.

Lenin - you ask where they are all going to get jobs. Well funnily enough, people create them. Someone somewhere has had an idea to create every industry we have, and every shop too. They didn't come from no-where. So we do need to support development too.

As far as 'bottom of the heap jobs don't go anywhere' well I think that's bollocks frankly. I left school and went to uni, worked the shittest jobs in the world to pay for uni, got a mc-degree - it's worthless frankly, but hey, I did it off my own back, started at the bottom, worked my arse off and have done really well.

I'm proud my achievements have come from hard work. I've been made redundant twice, sacked once (we all make mistakes!), and had to move countries and all around the UK too.

I'm now looking to buy a business in administration and turn it round. Together with DH we can do a good job in business recovery (which will save the workers jobs).

99% of people start at the bottom of the heap. You can say there's 'jobs for Etonians' etc (not that you have personally I understand but you get my drift) but actually, most people do have to start by making the tea and cleaning up other people's messes.

And it's not a bad life lesson either, I appreciate now what I have because I've been poor and I know what it's like and I don't plan to do it again. But it's hard work.

And I'd rather be working than be claiming benefits. And I don't sincerely believe anyone actually wants to be dependent on benefits long term. For me it's a question of dignity. Benefit claimants are vilified because of the minority - I know that - but I also know the pleasure of getting your payslip and knowing you earned it and you are valued by your employer, or indeed looking at a bank statement and smiling instead of feeling nervous. I think if you've never worked, you've never had the opportunity to feel like that and you should be helped to get that experience.

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

Better a family of 2 / 3 / or 4 that falls on hard times is given teh support to stay afloat surely than another family ends up homeless, kids getting teh poor educational and health outcomes that come by way of homelessness and real poverty?

Benefits dependency can hit anyone barr the very richest %. Youcannot insure agionast a combination of factors tsuch as the ones that affected us (2 X SN chidlren plus a redundancy), you just cannot. the chances are so small that any calculation taking that in would result in almost everyone remaining childless.

I would much rather have the satisfaction of the paysllip etc but I can't. So my cjhoices are three- starvem, claim and feel constantly bad about myself with that reinfoirced by every memebr of society I seem to encounter, or claim confortable in the knowledge and dignity that I am what the welfare state is tehre for.

I should be able for 3, but I am very firmly at 2, to teh extent it ahs affected my MH I think, and every time anyone makes random jusdgements or assumptions about all claimants my chances of escaping that diminish.

I know i;ve types this a hundred times on ehre but we are not less than anyone else; we do not have an easier life from lack of employment- Dh is studying and working on his business dawn to suck, I have ocnstant care fo two asd kids plus our otehr two; if the boys and redundancy hadn't happened my projected income would be around £30 with or without the degree I acquired 2 yaers ago (change of sectror rather than actual pay rise, although security was involved as my old field almost all ST contracts...): Dh would be onj the same absed purely on existingc areeer trajectory.... £60k per annum in S E Wales is a pretty damned good salary! More than enough.

Oh and wrt to protecting children from dfeckless parents without harming kids- scrap CB, replace with decent quality free school meals for all. I know ity woudl affect those HE'ing but that is a choice (and ds3 was HE'd for a while), but otherwise it's win-win.

Riven, you must understand that your case is the exception rather than the rule and that we must structure the benefits system to service the disabled and carers and provide a safety net for everyone else.

ExP from my POV I understand many peopole think like that but I know many also do not. there are plenty of people for whom benefits = scrounger, and if we don;t pipe up and argue with that then it will never be challenged and less people will encounter 'us' as a group, and therfore presumably be inclined towards the idea that benefit = scrounger........

yes I know we bore people with constant piping up but MN has a high turnover and if we don't, we will be forgotten. Very, very easily.

It has taken me ages to read the whole thread and as pper said it has given more "readable" information about our economy and how it works than I have had my whole life.

I know it is hard to think about our econcomy and the wider issues of society without making it personal to us. I am a working (NHS) wife and mother of two with a mortgage and my stomach aches at the thoughts of what will be cut with my work income, education, and TC/CB etc.

We are waiting for the axe to fall and will suck it up and plow on...we hope!

I agree with scrapping trident, at least in the meantime. TBH if some other country is going to nuke us I take little comfort in knowing that we will blow them up to before we all die.

I would start collecting any debt owed to us, close loopholes/try to prevent tax evasion. means test CB and remove CTF all together, (wouldn't mind claiming back what was given already). Tax credits should have a staged cut off. Local cuts would include means tested charging for elderly personal care, bus serivces and heating allowance.

Benefits system needs a complete overhaul and reset from scratch (yes I live in a dream world). I know families like BA mentioned who are second generation unemployed with only 1 of 5 children in full time regular employment while the rest claim while working/claim as single/take work then quit because they are tired of getting up early. These people need carrot and stick and a deadline.

DLA should be re-assessed regularly with full medical review as with incapacity benefit. JSA needs to cut back on pointless costly courses which don't serve an actual purpose, (as stated by numerous unemployed people I have spoken to)

Get rid of CCTV (i'm so bossy) I hate being spied on even though "I have nothing to fear" No ID cards, waste of money. Get rid of quangos and other pointless discussion groups. Stop council and public services wasting money on staff tea/coffee, lunches etc (I am also tight, but nurses have to provide their own tea/coffee/sugar etc)

so much more to cut but I have to go on the school run

I haven't read the whole thread, so apologies if I have missed any posts with a similar idea, but this is something I have been mulling over for a while.

To discourage those people who see benefits as a way of life, rather than something that has to be relied upon out of necessity, how about the following:

After you have claimed benefits for three months, further benefits are dependent upon undertaking some sort of state organised community work. This could be really menial work such as street sweeping or cleaning graffiti, so there are no excuses for not being sufficiently qualified. In order to receive benefits you have to undertake this work for three days a week.

This applies to people of both genders. People with children have to carry out this work from when their child is aged 6 months. Free Nursery and after-school care is provided by the state for those three days if you are a single parent, and for one day per week if both parents are claiming and are able to care for the child. Parents will have their work days on different days so that they can share the child care. This would discourage women who may see having a child as a passport to not working. It would also put the onus on the father to do an equal share of the childcare.

The other two days per week can be used for re-training, and for those who chose to do this, childcare will also be provided.

This would obviously not apply to those who are in receipt of incapacity benefit, or those who are full-time carers. They would have no obligation to work. There could also be 'compassionate breaks' of say a year for those who (for example) suddenly need to claim benefits due to being bereaved when the household breadwinner dies.

I can see that there would be an expense in providing the free child care, but this in itself would be the creation of new jobs. It would also be possible to extend this facility cheaply to people who are working on low incomes, which would go some way to subsidising the scheme.

I think that it would provide an incentive for people to seek out other work that is perhaps more fulfilling (or at least not outside in the rain), and also to get the long-term unemployed back into a routine of working.

Hopefully, this would provide sufficient incentive to people not to claim benefits, and for those on whom it does not have that effect, at least we would have clean and rubbish free streets.

Please now tell me what is the obvious flaw that I have ignored?!

How come prisoners get let out of doing any of this 'state organised community, really menial' work, but benefits claimants should do it instead?

How about we put prisoners work, too? After all, they're criminals and don't work to earn their keep, either.

How come prisoners get let out of doing any of this 'state organised community, really menial' work, but benefits claimants should do it instead?

How about we put prisoners work, too? After all, they're criminals and don't work to earn their keep, either.

How come prisoners get let out of doing any of this 'state organised community, really menial' work, but benefits claimants should do it instead?

How about we put prisoners work, too? After all, they're criminals and don't work to earn their keep, either.

sorry!

I'm not sure, Riven, but a lot of them use their human rights to get out of doing, well, much of anything.

Why is it no one ever mentions them in relation to 'workshy scroungers'?

Riven- as I said in my post, people who are entitled to incapacity benefit, or are carers for someone with a disability would not have to work.

Expat- since you have been so insistent with your questions If there was any state-owned industry left then you could include this in the type of work that would be compulsory. There are still several prisons in the UK which have some sort of production business in them. Obviously, prisoners could not be out on the streets, because they would not then be in prison. My suggestion is to discourage people who do see claiming benefits as a long-term option, and also to provide a way that they can contribute to society.

That is true a number of prisoners work but I think they get paid minimum wage which they get to keep?

Thistledew: what about the people who are already employed to sweep the streets? I posted about this higher up the thread, this is a shit idea because what will happen is large private contractors will sack their unskilled (and already poorly paid) workers in order to replace them with slave labour benefit claimants who are paid by the state, not the contractor.

TBH the council could do with more people to clean the streets/back roads fly tipping, garden maintenance, removing graffiti (sp) so these workers would be additional to those currently employed.

'so these workers would be additional to those currently employed.'

Who will be made redundant so the council can save money, or not replaced when they get sick, die, retire.

And, again, as many of these services are already contracted out to private companies, it will mean a precious few shareholders get even richer off free or cheap labour whilst the state/taxpayer pays the bill.

Not a workable plan.

Not compatible with breastfeeding, Thistledew, which should be the normal way to feed a baby, not considered to be a "lifestyle choice"

SGB - Yes, that is one problem, but there would be a need for employed positions in the administration of the scheme- organising rotas and areas, checking and maintaining equipment, supervision etc, that people already working in the area could apply for. I am all in favour of the scheme being state-owned, not run by a contractor.

There would be some loss of jobs in terms of the people actually doing the sweeping, but also a lot of creation of supervisors roles as permanent positions, that would be open to people who are already employed in the job.

Riven- there would be no 'chucking out after 6 months' as this is work for benefits, which would remain an ongoing right.

Mingg- they do not get to keep the minimum wage- rather sums for their board and lodging are deducted from the minimum wage paid to them, so they only end up earning a few pounds a day.

'I am all in favour of the scheme being state-owned, not run by a contractor.'

Then it will never happen because that's even more expensive than benefits.

Also, income support is £60 per week - childcare, state funded, is £3.52 per hour. This is how much it costs to provide. For 3 x 8 hour days, this would be £84.48, which is more than the income support costs. On top of this, the family still has to be fed.

Unemployed single parents are the cheapest childcare.

colditz- would nine months be a more acceptable compromise? Or a year? I was imagining what is in all probability an admittedly very small minority of women who if they were really trying to avoid having to do the work would try to get themselves pregnant again within a year of having their child.