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.

"'okay so you have had your children now, when do you plan to return to work and what will you do - do you need some help?''

Actually you do, perhaps not as a married SAHM, but as a single mum you will be asked to make a consistent effort to find a job once your youngest is 7. I wouldn't be surprised if the age is reduced in the future.

IMO that measure is not bad, as the less you are out of work the more likely that you are to be able to return. The problem is when you are willing, able, and pressured to return and there is nothing available.

Yes you can always do menial jobs, but not all companies offering menial jobs are happy to accept over qualified candidates or people who has been out of a job for a long time. (and don't start me in ageism!)

they'll ramrod it through regardless of what is discussed

I think the problem is that we think we are entitled to benefits and it therefore becomes a choice. If you knew that if you didn't go to work, you would go hungry or lose your home, you'd take any job, particularly if you had children.

Exactly, Chandra!

The benefits culture is the result of so many factors in British culture - entrenched ageism and gender discrimination, no severe punishment or consequences for men who father children and abandon them, high house prices/insecure private renting, the high levels of drink abuse, poor funding for social work/care, etc.

Ah expat - now I will remove the cotton bud from my ear - I have clearly poked all sense out of my brain

Will rejoin this tomorrow! Time for bed.

Will rejoin this tomorrow! Time for bed.

See I think this is all the wrong way around. We need to change attitudes in a much deeper way. Living on benefits gives you just enough. If you have previous debt, then it isn't actually enough, and if you wish for your children or yourself to enjoy some luxuries in life then it isn't enough without turning to crime that pays.

Surely this tells us that those who still choose the beenfit lifestyle must be seriously lacking in a social and emotional sense in order to choose such a lowly way for themselves? Many lack motivation or a set example that would see them on any sort of career path. Secondly, for many parents childcare costs and practicalities make work non viable. So even if these people aspire to a career and a decent income created by themselves, then a badly supported childcare system makes employment a poor choice.

The Government needs to make the gap between childcare costs and the typical salary of a low earner smaller and so better subsidise childcare for low earners as well as tackle issues of self esteem by improving education in schools and investing in more avenues of parental support that ensure seeking help in parenting becomes less of a stigma.

and besides Chandra - the menial jobs won't pay the bills

on the subject of "benefits" former PM's are entitled to £109,000 a year for life according to this

A way out there suggestion which won't ever get implemented:

How about changing school timetables?

Make half the schools in each area 8:30-15:30, and half of them 11:30-17:30.

Then, "morning parents" and "afternoon parents" would both be able to work part-time. A shop could feasibly split a job between a morning parent and an afternoon parent instead of one full-time employee.

"so many factors in British culture - entrenched ageism and gender discrimination, no severe punishment or consequences for men who father children and abandon them, high house prices/insecure private renting, the high levels of drink abuse, poor funding for social work/care, etc."

I would go as far as saying that Britain is doing a great job in reducing those factors, I have seen more entrenched ageism and gender discrimination in some other equally developed countries. Ditto about social work/care.

"f you knew that if you didn't go to work, you would go hungry or lose your home, you'd take any job, particularly if you had children."

well as it stands right now for many people even taking any job you'd go hungry or lose your home.

Certainly if I took any old job now (Assuming childcare could be found........otherwise I'd lose the kids to SS for leaving them home alone), then there would be a very high chance of me being evicted and going hungry.

And actually having lived for 2 1/2yrs in a country with no unemployment benefits it doesn't always have that effect anyhow. You still get spongers, (BIL2 was/is one of them), they sponge off family or friends.......... or they turn to crime...........or they do actually starve to death on the streets.

"and besides Chandra - the menial jobs won't pay the bills"

Exactly! However, you are way better off working than not working at all, even if it is just thanks to the Tax Credits.

and the shops that open until, 8,9,10pm at night, and the people who end up with children at different schools (infant/juniors) which are afternoon and morning

""f you knew that if you didn't go to work, you would go hungry or lose your home, you'd take any job, particularly if you had children.""

Yes, you would take any job, but would that job take you? That's the question. At the moment the competition for the few available jobs is nothing less than fierce, there are LOTS of people out of work.

lost my way a bit there with that post...

am just trying to say that it is a social attitude problem as much as a budgeting one and it really is about time we thought up some effective ways of dealing with the fact that the UK is not a shining example of a population with a good sense or morality, self or community.

Vast swathes of our population drink, fight, get pregnant ill-advisedly (myself included), and have a shit sense of self worth and community values or morality.

I agree with StarofValkyrie. And TBH, what would happen if all benefits were cut suddenly, or even phased out? These people aren't suddenly going to be able to go out and hold down a job, never having worked in their lives. They are probably more likely to turn to crime, and where does that leave their children? And meanwhile a lot of people who are on benefits and genuinely want to work but can't for whatever reason, and/or who wouldn't dream of getting involved with crime, are screwed.

I think there are always going to be freeloaders, whatever the system. There is no way you are going to force some people to work, and it's a waste of effort trying. The ones who are just born into the benefits cycle/culture/trap/whatever you want to call it, the ones who have never even thought about getting out of it because it's all they have ever known, those are the ones we have a chance of reaching and getting out of it. I think Sure Start is making a big difference here, actually, though it will take a while longer to see definitively whether or not it has.

It doesn't make sense to punish all benefits claimants to get the freeloaders, because they'll just find another way around it, and everyone else in need will suffer. Frankly I'd rather support a few freeloaders than have someone desparately in need starve or have to sell their body or anything else awful, just to feed their kids.

oh we're all f*cked, they may "consult" but they don't really give a shit what people think. They're do what they think adds up best on paper.

The fact that he wants to consult "the best people in their fields" (ie the well paid people who the cuts won't really affect that badly) and the wider public...........who we all know will say "slash them 'ere benefits" says it all really.

tocaatanfudge

Yes, it was just a concept. I definitely found that the problem with part-time work is that the supply times don't match up with the demand times.

I lived in a country where there were 2 school shifts, interestingly, part time jobs were almost unheard of. Actually, gender discrimination was so bad that part of the job application process if you were a woman included... this is going to be a bomb... a pregnancy test.

I was talking to a colleague who was splitting up from her H, she used entitledto.com and worked out that she would be £200 a month better off if she dropped from 35 hours a week to 17.5 hours. And that was before she added in reduction in childcare, travelling expenses etc.

How on earth can that make sense? She loves her job, as do I, but we both agreed that it would be daft to work for a lot less money.

Chandra

That is interesting - but surely the misogny wasn't because of the school shifts in any way?

I think that there has to be a serious crackdown on "cash-in-hand" work.

There should be a mechanism for ensuring that any sole trader, from whom goods and services are purchased, is actually registered with HMRC and thus paying tax.

This would also help ensure that more fathers pay maintenance for their DCs.

Ah no, the school shifts were only to accommodate the growing under 18 population.

But tabouleh, if you do that then you have to make it easier to do casual/temp work and have it not affect benefits. I am sure that not paying tax on it is a factor for some, (It's a bit of a non-argument, because if you are working that little, you probably aren't liable to pay tax on it anyway) but I'd guess that the bigger problem is that if you do any work which doesn't fit into a predictable weekly pattern, when you declare it to the benefits office, they all go into panic mode, everything gets stopped while they reassess it, and it can take weeks for it to get sorted out. In the meantime, how are you supposed to eat and pay the bills? And then the work dries up. And you have to inform them again, and it takes forever to get sorted. I'm not surprised people either don't bother to work at all, or do cash in hand work and not declare it.