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 have never tackled a DLA form for myself but have helped MIL with hers who has had one assessment in the last 10+ years I have known her. I have had JSA myself after completing education and that was a long
repetitive nightmare.

I am not trying to attack one group of people or individuals. I have mentioned a variety of cuts and cost saving ideas which would effect individuals, families, elderly and those on benefits.

We all know that people on benefits can have varying degrees of added issues / complications than just not having a job and those should be considered (sp) but it is also extremely difficult to run this type of system by direct full individual assessment.

We know we need jobs for the people to go to otherwise all the retraining and courses are pointless

My head is arguing in circles just now so i'm off to make DH's dinner

Thistledew: The reason your idea is shit and won't work is because it's not about saving the state money at all, it's about punishing and humiliating people you consider your inferiors. end of.

Are pensions deemed benefits for the sake of this thread? It scares me that DP has been paying into a pension for past 20 years and the possibility that it will be worth zero when he retires, and then will have to work until we drop.

My (American) mother cannot retire yet as her pension fund lost a ton of money in the latest Wall Street crisis, or the recession, formerly known as the credit crunch!

'We know we need jobs for the people to go to otherwise all the retraining and courses are pointless
'

Not necessarily so, they, properly delviered, could well empower people to set up self employment: I was on that road until my ability to self fund ran out £800 short of the mark.

Dh's course will enable him to work in a specific field as a qualified rigger / electrician / designer.

Ecuated people have more chices and are more able imo to create jobs.

SGB- do you consider people who do menial work such as sweeping streets to be your inferior? I don't. And I have not said that I did in my posts. It is your own inference that such work is punishment and humiliating. I am sure there are many people who chose that work now who would be hurt by your suggestion.

The reason that it has to be low skilled work that is not of a finite nature is so that it does not take work away from people who are employed.

My point is addressed to the issue that does exist of a significant number of people seeing claiming benefits as a lifestyle choice.

I agree that it is not the most fulfilling work, but it would help people who have experienced it to get used to a working environment and work structure. For people who are temporarily out of work, I think there is enough feeling that reliance on benefits is not what they want (or stigmatisation, if you wish), so that having to give something back in return would not add to that feeling.

If I were unemployed (and have been in the past) I would see no shame in returning some form of contribution to society in return for the support I received.

There needs to be a proper differential between earnings from minimum wage jobs and income received via benefits such that it makes a significant financial difference to go out to work.

Benefits should not go up every time you have a child.

Everyone fit for work should be required to work at any available job and if there are insufficient jobs we should create jobs in the public interest eg picking up litter, gardening for other people etc

If people who are fit for work refuse a job then their benefits should be cut to minimum subsistence level. This would not facilitate living in a 1 bed flat but rather living in a clean, warm hostel with dormitory beds. Basic food would be delivered weekly with a minimum discretionary spending allowance in addition to this. Not quite the workhouse but not exactly a lifestyle either.

bobba is that first line for all claimants?

Pray tell me, by caring for my disabled kids, what have I done that I shuld forced into what would be complete penury if I had any less income?

I wouldn't say that people who are caring for disabled children are fit for work, so IMO you wouldn't count. In fact there would be more money in the pot that should go towards supporting you in recognition of your reduced life chances.

bobbalina

god there are some old-fashioned attitudes on here!

Right, I get I dojn't fit into foit for work category; it was the 'proper differential between benefits and earnings' bit that drew me in.

A significant differential will always mean someone on benefits has less than needed as the cost of living will rise to meet what most people could afford; as such those not fit for work would be severely affected would they not?

but with those who ARE fit for work yet not working receiving less money, those who aren't fit for work would (should) get more. Because if you can't, then you can't.

it'#s very difficult. Very.

I don't think ANY of the proposals on this thread, mine included, would work properly, but low wage workers are getting increasingly pissed off that their lack of leisure time isn't increasing their family's standard of living by much.

I know colditz, and I well remember workinga round teh clock when Dh was training, never being able to see him or make ends meet: a horrid time.

In fact, it was when Dh got sick in teh middle of that tand we had no wriggle room that we lost our house.

I ahve no time for people who can work: they know not what they have. A chance- tehre's no onetary value on that; but it's a huge blessing.

My argument with bobba though (though I know someone who uses that email on here who is in fact a carer so am wondering if it's a post designed to get debate but maybe not, probably a coincidence) is her simple balnket statement about a differential. I know most people want caerers etc to ahve a living income and that cuting teh bludgers would improve the chances of that, but if the person controlling pay outs ahs a benefit = bad approach 9and l;et's face it, IDS is not the Enlightened King!0 then regradless of serving or not. we will struggle.

SanctiMoanyArse Colditz is right, if you are caring for disabled kids that is a job in iteself and doesn't make you someone fit and able to take a job. Therefore your standard of living would be in line with those working on minimum wage plus any special needs for your children/ house alterations for them would be funded and you could have respite care funded too.

My point is about fit and healthy adults who choose either not to work or not to do the jobs available to them.

Obviously people who are not fit to work or caring for others with health problems should be properly provided for - substantially better than they currently are.

As a point of ethics, I think actually we should withdraw all benefits from parents of disabled kids and pay them for the work they do instead. Because actually it is a job.

You see

I don;t arguie with minimum wage that's fair (atm its 17p an hour fir 2 kids over 24 / 7 care)

But I want more
I want to use my degree

I am bright; bright enough to have been tp of my MA class anyhow. before the cvash ran out that is.

What I want is flexibility; if I sign up for the sw conversion we'd get funded childcare but only forr cm or nursery; with a proper reason why not let us use same sum on a nanny? we have 4 kids anyway, doesn't cost more.

I know a specialist asd nanny!

ATM I havbe a 2 year old so have a reason; I seriusly worrry for my mh once he starts funded (wales, everyone gets it) pre school!

How about keeping child benefit, looking after the elderly, armed forces, disabled & can't work & their carers.

Then scrapping all other benefits. If you lose your job then you'll get benefit depending on how long you've worked. If you've never worked then no cash handouts.

wmmc oh how i'd love that! my dignioty is high and it is easily wounded by benefits.

Would never happen though.

An easier mid road would be to make CA eligible for WTC as earnings: it's already taxable and counted enough that you can't use the job centre, why not just admit what it is and give especially single carers acces to support as if they were formally employed?

Bluebardi only one problem:

those who never worked have dependents and the state can't take them in as foster kids etc so we cannot lweave them to starve

It is the crucial failure of many a brilliant idea sadly.

if you alienate and damage the next generation you will get the problems tenfold: we need to bring people into society adn working, not make them feel excluded because their parents were feckless.

Plus, should a nineteen year old who wants to work be left unhelped? We know youth unemployment is through the roof again.

Should someone who has been amde redundant three times in ayear lose? Surely they are trying teir best and being hit at every turn- it is happenning atm, especially in some sectors.

It's the big problem: either you sacrifice the new kids, or you 'reward' the fdeckless.

Ahem riv, i'm ahead of you with that yacht I have two PMSL!

Oh OK. Maybe not then.

How about maintained salary of last hourl;y rate? that would put me on £116k per annum, that's fiiiine LOL

£16k LOL

I worked for a charity; a charity that paid people £116 k to look after their famillies would be in big doo-doo