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.

Colditz - "Unemployed single parents are the cheapest childcare" surely only if they are able to return to work? Otherwise they'll be claiming benefits forever.

'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)
'

if you can find a medic who can ID ASD on one assessment you are well palced my dear- they don't exist. Besides, it is revieweed regualrly for all but the most most severe cases and it is assessed, if not directly by way of multiple reports from accredited professionals, medically when awarded.

have you actually filled in a DLA form I wonder? I do, regualrly, and even as a grad they are decidedly not easy and take plenty of evidence.

Oha nd your major flaw- as per YTS, this will mean unpaid people doing jobs that would otehrewise create jobs: I am old enough to remember losing my employment to a teen on YTS getting peanuts.

A big flaw!

Ah SGB already said

She's righht then.

I remember only too bloody well.

colditz- Thank you for your figures. That is why my idea is still a hypothesis, as I do not have access to the figures to do the calculations. It would almost break even then at 3x6 hours per day, and if it encouraged just a few people to seek employed work elsewhere, it would provide a net benefit. Also, the additional jobs created in childcare and in the administration of the other work would create more tax-payers.

expat- I don't understand why it would be more expensive for the scheme to be state run rather than by a contractor? As far as I am aware, Councils pay the contractors out of the public purse for the provision of the services. If it were state owned they would have to pay the same or less, but directly to the workers. As there is likely to be an increased need for supervisor roles, this cost would go up, but the money payed to the people sweeping the streets etc already comes from the budget allocated to benefits, so there would be a saving on the cost of this to the Council.

SMA and SGB- the reason that I suggested work such as street sweeping and graffiti cleaning is that it is not really possible to have too many people doing it.

I accept that people doing it now would not be able to continue in the same job, but as I explained before, there would be an increase in the number of people needed for permanent positions such as in organisation/administration and maintenance, because there would be many more people out on the streets. Many of the people doing the work now, who have experience of the job, would be able to undertake this work. Even those with very low skills would be able to work in roles such as maintaining equipment.

No, it wouldn't break even at all at 3x6 hr days.

because in order to keep the family at the same level of poverty, the income support STILL has to be paid, as WELL as the childcare funded at £3.52 x 18 hrs pw

This adds another £63 onto the weekly cost of keeping the family, and no profit is being made as any 'work' the single parent would be doing would be pointless busywork, not needed contributions - because if it's NOT like that, someone ELSE will lose their job because it's been taken by a state funded single parent, and you have another person on the dole!

What about the people who are street sweeping right now who have risen to the peak of their ability and won't ever be able to organise and supervise others? Why do they have to have their jobs taken away?

It all adds up to government funded pointless busywork, with all children over 6 months being raised by someone who is governement funded to look after them while their own parent is being government funded to do something else.

You'd have to pay the nursery worker £6 per hour at least to care for 2 babies for 18 hours per week - that's £108 pw. You'd have to pay the same benefits to the children's parents as they currently get as they were below the poverty line before you started and you can't make them poorer, and they're working for it now...

Each child under one would cost the government an extra £54 per week to be cared for in a nursery for 18 hours per week while their parent works for their benefits.

What would be the point? How would you actually action this?

Colditz- I just realised what you meant before you posted. You are right in that respect.

It is of course difficult to know the degree to which the cost of providing benefits would reduce through people being encouraged to seek work elsewhere.

There would also be the fact that there would be more nursery workers paying taxes. If the nurseries took in a balance of children including those from working families, who would be paying above, all or some of the cost, would it be any more viable?

Would it be realistic, in the case of parents that have separated but only one is claiming benefits, to say that if they cannot provide childcare for the two out of the three days themselves, this has to be paid for by the working parent?

What would you do to get people off benefits colditz?

OK, if the figures don't work out for state child care, how about making it that people with children have to do two and a half days per week- so one parent could care for the child/ren whilst the other was working.

There would then be a choice of providing childcare for single parents where the other parent is not able to provide care (eg, after bereavement, or if there was a court order prohibiting contact). If one of the parents refused to provide care or adequate care, that parent would risk having their benefit cut.

Don't kid yourself it's flawless; no such thing in politics. there will always be someone adversely affected or able to slip through a gap.

What about the person with LD just about able to hold down a street sweeping job but certainly not able to supervise? Pull out the base level work and you pull a whole level of accessible employment: who do you think actually collects the trolleys in Asda? quite often people with low level SN or LD. Likewise many unskilled jobs.

What about the woman supported by her partner who is a victim of DV and for whom being separated from her children (who may have been through hell- I have some experience of these famillies from past work) is a deal-breaker in getting out of the marriage?

What about someone retrraining after unemployment, and needing benefit support for kids or family? Do we wish to discourage that by making them add on street sweeping? Or is there an exception tehre as well? Remmebering that people in tertiary education do not get financed in the same way as those in university.

What about people who are setting up a business (probably following redundancy) and in that initial first three years where there may be no profit- and need to claim? Do we want to disourage any form of enterprise? can we afford to? Putting barriers against people finding their own route out of poverty is completely the opposite of what we should want to achieve,

What about the seklf employed eprson between contracts and claiming temporarily? Do we want them to be sweeping streets rather than out looking for contracts / producing new avenues of income? Depending on your sector, a significant proportion of your self employed time can be spent lcoating, tendering and applying for work.

Claiming benefits should not be stigmatised- it's cruel to stigmatise people who have no options. Or those who ahve slaved their guts out for yrars paying NI then been madew redundant. They have done nothing to feel guilty for. We need to find a way to stigmatise those who claim fraudulently or witbout need instead. In fact, why is there no national voicve call9ing for those who don't need CB to cancel their claims? Isn't claiming that when not needed also abhorrent? Whya re we picking on those scrabbling with no choice when so many who could choose not to take public funds are not even being asked to rethink?

I am not deserving of stigma for claiming benefits. I am saving teh state a small fortune in care cposts and frankly should be applauded for facing up to a life I did not ask for and doing my best. DH should not face stigma for having been amde redundant but instead respoected for his ability to find other routes even if they take time*.

*basic story- Dh was a manager in a good job; his employer decided to focus on a different aspect so was amde redudnant at teh same time that several of teh competitors merged and mocved (we're in wales; bridge tolls made that too expensive in Dh's industry) away, creating a massive influx of people in DH's role into the jobs market in an ara already in teh top three palces worst hit by recession. Dh already had a little business that basically coverd the costs of his hobby (electronics) so he started to expand that, got a palce at Uni studying ana rea of theat in which there is a shortage of employees, and we are 1 year into a 3 year climb back on to teh ladder.

Given that neitehr of us asked for any of this, and that we are battlinga s hard as we can, and we have paid 40 yaers of NI between us, if you think we should feel stigma then sorry but you must be kidding. Stigma is the emotional response to moral invalsiity: we are far from morally invalid!.

'There would then be a choice of providing childcare for single parents where the other parent is not able to provide care (eg, after bereavement, or if there was a court order prohibiting contact). If one of the parents refused to provide care or adequate care, that parent would risk having their benefit cut

Tell me, if your DP / Dh died tomorrow, and you couldn't find or lost your work, would you really be happy to leave your kids with randonly assigned unemployed person? Blimey! I thought we had state registration of childcvare etc for a reason!

SMA- I don't say that it is perfect, as with everything there are no right answers only a number of possible solutions.

There are other jobs that those currently employed as street sweepers can do- as you said yourself there are jobs in private employment such as stacking supermarket trollies.

I suggested in my first post that there should be some sort of 'compassionate break' for people who had just been bereaved. I think a year would not be unreasonable period to have to come to terms (as much as possible) with the situation and re-organise your life to be able to work.

Obviously childcare would have to be provided by people in permanent, registered positions; not just anyone who would otherwise be claiming benefits. There would be a cost to this, which may turn out to be prohibitive, but I think it would be interesting to consider it with some realistic figures.

I do think that re-training should be encouraged, which is why I suggested three days a week of work. That still leaves two days to do training. It would surely work out financially in the end if childcare were provided to enable people to undertake training.

I already suggested that the compulsory work should kick in after 3 months of claiming benefits- maybe increase this to 6. This would cover the self-employed, and the recently redundant who would soon be able to find work elsewhere. A cap of 6 months work free in say a 18 month period should discourage people from deliberately leaving work in order to go back onto benefits.

For those trying to set up in business, perhaps a start up loan would be more appropriate? If you are able to present a viable business plan, and demonstrate that you are working at your business for five days a week, then the benefit is paid in the form of a loan like a student loan, which has to be paid back after three years.

We need, short term, to scrap the tax credits and put the minimum wage up to around £8 per hour (although this figure needs to be looked at)

The government could refund £3 an hour of that for each trainee the employer takes on, for a maximum duration of 6 months, to be immediately reclaimed from the employer by the government if the trainee is sacked for anything other than proven gross misconduct within 2 years of taking the position.

companies like Tesco are making a fortune from our government's willingness to allow them to pay peanuts and top up the rest of what is needed to live on.

TC's are what keeps people in part time work afloat

I am going to C&P my deficit reduction plan here from another htread: it ain;t perfect but heck it's something!

meant to add - the lure of £8 per hour would, I am sure, be enough to persuade most people on jobseekers into work if they can possibly find it. Those that can't won't be such a social drain any more because of all the people who could.

What do I suggest?

maintaining existing loan system- you get to study (and friend is paying hers back) but you will pay. I am not advocating giving everyone random cash. I treat my student debt as an extra tax on the extra education I was lucky enough to receive.

As for saving money, i'd start with trident. then replace Cb with a universal fsm service as detailed either here or on parallel thread- pre school children would get a payment made through tax credits iof entitled at any lvel (CTC or TC at any amount); then we'd scrap teh entire admin system behind CB, cut the cost of FSM's as an addition to CB and manage to make sure the kids saw the benefit. IS would raise by £10 a week per child so the very poorest are not hit: however the law regarding children born after (that would be + 9 months after for obv reasons) commencement of claim would be applied also to the rise.

I'd make it impossible for dads to shirk avoiding paying for tehir kids without a guranteed prison sentence (if on benefits they would still contribute something)... tehreby promoting responsibility and helping to cut benefit bill at fatehr's expense.

I would pay half benefit for children born more than nine months after start of claim after the second; enough to feed them, and rely on hand me downs, but less incentive.

I would offer a discount on a massive hike in CGT to landlords willing to accept HB tenants (minimum 2 years) , thereby dealing with housing issues at least in part as well (HB tenant could be made to pay insurance top up and deposit of curse)

I would introduce a voluntary charge for non means tested provision- for example, my boys may get a place on a council disability playscheme this year. if they do, Dh adn I woudl be happy to pay £5 each per session from their DLA; there is no system to allow us to do so.

I would pay CA in teh break over the summer for students to enable carers to get work well paid enough to get off benefits and paying taxes. let's face it, if your child needs a nanny 1-1, Asda ain;t gonna cut it.

I would cut CTF and even if at all possible ask people to consider voluntaruly returning their payments: I would, happily. I want money for food now, not lsoing value in a bank for the distant future. I would give H in P grants only to those on the usual qualifying benefits.

I would means test bus passes for pensioners by simply attaching eligibility to eligibility for pension credit to avoid thecosts of admin related to means testing specifically.

I'd be trawling through quangos and the management level of public services would be haled; I would be seriously looking at teh foreign office and halving ambassadors to non threat countries ( 30 to Americ a IIRC- do they not ahve telehones and internet there, then?)

Looking at all Government owned properties: last time I temped in a public service there were three of us in an office for 60. they could ahve easily sold teh block for ££££££ and bought somewhere a tenth of teh price.

Cut the law stopping people with degrees from receiving funding for college courses- a random degree that could never be used is no use to society whereas a qualification at NVQ3 saves loads if it gets someone in work, of benefits and paying tax absed on my inability to get funding for TA training for said reaon)

Cut teh law preventing some in HA and rented housing from working from home so tehy could work as childminders etc

Ban councils from sending crap newspapers / fridge magnets (!)- a copy in the library and on the internet is enough.

Ban random changes of name and expensiture on new logo's for public agencies- ours has just been compeltely redesigned at a cost of ££££. Why?

A good start anyway...... far from perfect but i don;t beleive in criticising if you don't have a solution

But the wage would go up and would surely cover the loss of Tc's? As I said, it needs looking at.

PP[s

first papragraph irrlevant to this debate

FSm free school meals not flying spaghetti monster!

Colditz TCs are also used now to delvier IS for kids and disability payments; also cutting them would push many people into inability to pay mortgages etc- an argument against setting up teh system like this in the fioerst palce perhaps, but we can't afford multiple defaults etc. We need people to have cash to keep paying!.

TCs work well for soem people; Dh is self employed, its start up time (and he is also a FT student- redundancy) and so the profits are not high but TCs mean that he isbuilding the business up towards keeping us entirely independent again.

they have a palce. they need flaws ironing out, but in essence they can be great.