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.

sma - if you've got dependents then you should be responsible enough to get a job, start a home business. Also living to your means - really gets me how some unemployed have gadgets, tvs, cars, go out drinking & smoking.
All help should be for those who need it & have contributed. If someone is disabled then they & their carer should be helped. Armed forces as they've risked their lives.

Just where is all this work going to come from? There are loads and loads of people currently out of work sending off endless applications and repeatedly being told that they iether have no experience, don't have the right experience, they are 'overqualified' or whatever - or that they are lovely but so were the other 40 applicants and there were only 4 jobs.
In my current job (door to door market research) I meet a lot of people who are jobhunting, miserable and frustrated, sending off several applications a day and in many cases not even getting the courtesy of a 'no thank you' reply.

It is very difficult. As a teacher I have seen, in previous jobs, children from families who really needed the benefit system. At the same time I also saw many, many HUGE and often composite families with very young parents who simply could not work and still make enough money to support 4+ children with the skills that they possessed. They really were trapped by the size of their families. It didn't matter if there were jobs - they simply couldn't take them. I have never seen such numbers of children in families outside the 'estates'.

I don't know, something isn't working - for everybody.

Then perhaps the way forward is to stop increasing benefits (including CB) once you go past a certain number of children? Or stop increasing CTC once you go past a certain number of children?

That way it applies to all of society, because, environmentally, too, it's not the best to have huge numbers of children.

It obviously won't work for the present generation, but yes, there are plenty of people who do have large numbers of children, the gal next to us now has eight and her partner has another 4 by an ex.

That's just craziness.

CA should be able to be paid per person cared for rather than once. My Mam was caring for both her parents and was only allowed to claim it for the first one who was a lot less disabled. She only did that for 10 years but SMA (and many others) are looking at that v long term.

The main problem with raising min wage would be raising other wages in line. I have done a few v challenging jobs (youth offending, working with adults with SN and challendging behaviour) for little more than minimum wage. Why would anyone want to be in a job where you are regularly attacked for the same as someone gets for pushing trolleys. Also these jobs are funded by the Govt so ends up costing them more.

Expat- I've been thinking around that for a couple of days now. Just kept getting stuck on details.

Blue DH did get up and start a business; he also signed up for a FT retarining course as his employment fireld effectvely evaporated from the region overnight (no we can't move, SN edunqation too complex)

But it takes time: his profits double each year but until he is fully qualified there are tings he cannot do, lehgally. LAst week he got his electrician regs; next stop rigging licence.

Do you honestly think he is irresponsible? I know of course that he is not and he works as long hours as anyone- 7 - 11 every single day, including study. So I beleive he does deserve some help. And let's face it he is still paying NI and ahs done for twenty years; what that for if not to help you get back on your feet?

In some places there are jobs. Mum's newspaper still has plenty. Here it is acknowledged that there simply are not. A combination on an over reliance on the ends of traditional industry (steel) and external factors such as bridge tolls making companies using a lot of vehicles give up (bane of most people's lives, £5.60 a shot for just a standard car!).

I do think it is important that people should show some effort is ebing amde of course, but if that criteria is genuinely fulfilled then their efforts should be supported.

As for people shouldn't ahve kids- who would argue with that? But I am damned if I could support a loilicy that would penalise chidlren for the actions of their parents. Every child deserves a safety net. The alternative is social services care whcih we cannot manage of afford, or starvation if a job cannot be lcoated. both would make us inhuman and truly disgusting.

As far as I am concerned the welfare system exists to support those who have had severely abd luck- so carers, disabled, widows for a time after bereavement etc. And those that are trying tehir best to cope with a bad set of circs such as redundancy. But equally tyhose who are too vulnerable to risk- and children very firmly come under that. Don't ahve children you can't afford blah blah.... be honest. If you and your DP both became unemployed overnight and couldn't find work, how long could you carry on without any help? because unless that figure is forever then having a child palces you at a certain level of risk, no matter how unlikely.

After reading most of this thread, I think the answer to the thread title is;
there is no 'benefits culture', its called a recession.

A good way to fix it is to create jobs (ie come out of recession).

By the way JSA is nothing. Im on it now just about covers food and the winter bills which I am still paying off.

There is no such thing as benefits culture it's another handy myth to distract people. What there is are sections of the UK which have had no regular work for decades...how do you deal with that?

Libertarian socialism.

Until people get a handle on what has happenend to the UK over the last 30 years, they aint going to solve shit.

How can France and Germany pay such generous benefits to people? Yet have much sounder economies. How do they pay for the best health services in the world? How do the Scandinavians do it?

So many people in this country are part of the race-to-the-bottom mentality the super-rich want them to have.

Take benefits away from working people, I don't get them. Take benefits away from unemployed people, they've even got a TV and ciggies!

Make unemployed people work for free! This is one of the stupidest, idiotic ideas ever - what do you think that will do to wages for everyone in work, raise them or make them fall.

Bill Bruford said this country has become self absorbed and greedy. Ain't hard to see why...

"There is no such thing as benefits culture it's another handy myth to distract people. What there is are sections of the UK which have had no regular work for decades...how do you deal with that?"

I think that bears repeating. Possibly at regular intervals.

I think that child benefit should only be paid on the first two children. If you really want any more you had better pay for them yourself.

Unemployment gets paid for a year, followed, possibly, by something like jobseekers allowance that would be tied in with re-training. After that, you get benefit but you will be working for the local council to improve the locality, work in the community. not just a couple of hours a day, a full eight hours.

Then we would see how many would still be on benefit.

Jodevizes how is life in cloud cuckoo land?

I think all employed people should give half of their job and wages to an unemployed person. For the first day, they can both work together so that the now 'newly employed' person can learn everything.

Ta da!! no more unemplyment. am I a genius or what?!

I also like Jodevices' idea of giving all unemployed people a full time job with the local council, they will be paid at least minimum wage so...
Ta da!! no more unemployment! jo, we are truly genii.

Jo, how can you look for work effectively if you are out at wotrk all day?

Think about it....

I mean, if you ahve no PC you might need to use library opening hours or whateverr (and if yours open late you are lucky, ours is in a school adn a bit less than school opening hours).

That pushes things way too far the other way.

And Cb after two kids0- I repeat, what if people did have enough and lost their livelihoods?

Mr Sancti I am so sorry, your wife didn't make it. you are now a widower. Of course as the boys need a carer youa re also now unemployed- oh and yes please hand back Cb for the younger two children.

Okaaaaaaaaay.

or Mr and Mrs Sancti you are both redundant, shame you share an employer. You are at risk of losing your tenancy of course as it doesn't take HB, and your CB is now lwoer as well becuase well you should have been able to pay for them.....

the people you hit the hardest will be those who have worked and paid NI and tax but have hit hard times. or those who ahve no leeway at all in their budget as they are so poor.

However I won't be acceptting and measure that affects poor people happily until tehy at least scrap trident and it would be nice of Osborne could actually pretend to use ordinary class seating on flights if he is travelling to talk about austerity. I mean, ffs guys!

I personally do think tehre is soemthing of a benefits culture in this country but it is smaller than people think, and it kicks in somewhere between 8 and 15 (how many 8 year olds do you know say 'when i grow up i want to claim subsistence and live in a bedit'?) and that's where you need to target. Cutting the life chances of kids by cutting the money going in regardless of what you think of the decisions amde by their aprents reduces their chances: health wise, and also aspiration wisae- the mroe a child doesn't get to do the less chance of them finding their niche, their motivation and self esteem.

When I was younger I assumed that people with great careers were far more clever than me. Not that I had met any, of course. They ahrdly lived on the estate orr attended mys chool; my dad was the hardest working and probably highest earning there. Only now, at 36, am I meeting people in high flying jobs and thinking hang on- I am as able as them. I could have done that after all. And if you don't know you can, how can actually do? I didn't go to Uni at 18 becuase I had never been told about things like student support and assumed it was for people whose aprents could help (again, nobody I knew went). I coud ahve looked into it but there were no clues for it to even occur to me. I had enough of a fight with my Dad to stay on for A-Levels tbh. Mix the kids up, get them access to people so they can see they have the ability, then maybe they have a chance.

Good point sancti, what kid ever thinks 'when i grow up i want to claim subsistence and live in a bedit'.

I think the real problem develops when people are unable to find work for a long period of time, and begin to accept that as their lot in life. Constantly applying for jobs and getting knocked back every single time must get pretty depressing, I remember an article saying depression has already risen in the UK.

I would imagine it has risen.

it's not just being kncoked back either (though that must be a factor)

You end up moving into housing aorund others who don't have jobs; your kids go to the same school

In some areas your children might know hardly anyone in work barring a teacher or doctor

that's not your intention- but whilst for you it's appalling for your kids it will be normal

OK that's an extreme (but then we have Port Talbot etc close buy, some cultural history!) but it works in many ways in milder scenarios.

Even if you just beocme immune to signing on.

It's a drip drip thing

Ive not come across this 'generations of unemployment', but then in the SW there have always been plenty of jobs as I remember - I never had difficulty finding one within a couple of days. Just now though it seems a lot tougher.

Ive not come across this 'generations of unemployment', but then in the SW there have always been plenty of jobs as I remember - I never had difficulty finding one within a couple of days. Just now though it seems a lot tougher.

sorry that should be SE!

Sessypoos - there is 'generational unemployment' in the SE. In parts of London were there is deprivation - and I've come across it in the home counties.

It's often close to areas of affluence - which makes it difficult to understand. I think it might be to do with high housing costs making life on benefits more appealing. So for example - with a job in a day nursery an 18 year old would be unable to afford to leave home - but with a baby of her own she gets her own flat. Her children could well grow up accepting life on benefits as normal. And of course - her daughters could repeat her lifestyle.

Jackstar, you're right about it ebing close to afl;uenta reas- where I gerw up, it aas a really difficult palce (esp. if your aims were above menial wages) to get on and surrounded by beautiful rural countryside and top whack house pricves.

What amde it all the ahrder is if you said 'Oh IO come from Somerset' people think land rovers and hunting, not collpased industry and housing estates.

And of course rural poverty ahs it's own traps- such as the cost of getting to anywhere where there might be a job with shite public transport on top.

And that's it isn't it?

We know in the Valleys that there is huge poverty very simply becuase the jobs stopped. We know that in Bridgwater poverty is partly a massive issue becuase of the logistics and big public estates in an area where people don't expect it, along with collpased industry; we know that in places such as cities kids become severely disaffected and drop into aleternative cultures on amssive depersonalised hosuing estaes

and many other reaosns

So tehre isn't one solution, at all.

bThanks notitred- can't work, should be plunged into poverty (along with the kids who would inevitably miss out on lots of life chances)

Remember that should anythinge ver befall you eh? Nobody is immune after all. i certainly didn't think I;d end up as a carer.

OMFG at sterilisation!

you do actually relaise that a very high percentage of people on benefits are passing through teh system after say a redundancy, temporary illness or whatever?

;The good news is Mrs Y that your illness is not eprmqnnent although will take a few years; the bad news is if you want the kids fed you need to be sterilised. Yes, I know you're only 30 and have worked since you were sixteen paying in but ytere it is'.

nbot forgetting the fct that we have 4 kidsm, a genetic syndriome that 2 suffer from, and still face a wait of 18 months for dh's vasectomy that we actively want......

I think everyone wants the same outcome nottirednow. It's how we do it that seems to be the sticking point, and unfortunately everyone is prejudiced by their own circumstances.