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 know that people (as a rule) don't have children for the benefits, but the problem I see is that because the benefits are there, there's no need for someone to take responsibility for themselves and prevent getting in the situation in the first place.

A girl fresh from school with no qualifications has sex - she doesn't need to think hard about contraception to stop getting pregnant, or what she will do if she does because she knows that if it happens she can walk straight down to the DSS and be looked after. No hard decisions on termination - far easier to just go with the flow, have the baby, and take all the country gives her.

Girls need to have a healthy fear of getting pregnant without being able to support themselves.

No extra benefits should be paid for children conceived whilst already receiving benefits. Working people do not get a payrise for having additional children so why should benefits be increased?

not having the benefits doesn't stop the girls geting pregnant. Knew several young girls that got pregnant where I lived (and I worked in a boys school so had less contact with younger girls) - majority had (back street) abortions,

And of course it's not that long ago in our own country when young girls would have their pregancies kept quiet, and the babies adopted out after birth.....

Someone else said it about - doesn't matter system you have you'll get the freeloaders, the young girls (and older ones) having babies they "can't afford".

I don't think there'll ever be an "ideal" solution, one problem gets solved, and another replaces it.

IMO all we can do is hope the changes they make now doesn't affect those that need too badly and sit back and see what problems the changes create.

" Working people do not get a payrise for having additional children so why should benefits be increased?"

if they're getting WTC - that will increase, they'll get more CB........

Oh FFS! How about starting with cracking down on the huge corporations' tax avoidance schemes - oh, and while you're at it, doing something about the number of companies with all these interesting scams for paying staff less than the minimum wage.

An end to zero-hours contracts in low-paid jobs would help, as well (one of the reasons people stay on benefits rather than take this sort of work is because it's just too risky - the company won't commit to giving you a regular wage, one week you're working 5 hours, the next 39, you can try to explain this to the tax credits people but they will just keep stopping your benefits or insisting they have overpaid you...).

I think raising the tax free band to £10k is a good step in the right direction.

It sends a clear message that if you're prepared to take low paid work, the government recognises your effort and will let you keep what you earn.

I can see the argument that when you cut benefits to people with children, it will probably be the children who suffer BUT I agree with other posters that at the moment there really is no disincentive to having loads of children as you know the state will cough up (and yes, we can all say "well it's no fun living on benefits- it's not a lifestyle choice you know", but the evidence does suggest that for some, it's fairly palatable.

I dont think anyone resents paying tax to support those who genuinely cannot work, but people have to learn to exercise some degree of personal responsibility.

"Oh FFS! How about starting with cracking down on the huge corporations' tax avoidance schemes - oh, and while you're at it, doing something about the number of companies with all these interesting scams for paying staff less than the minimum wage.

An end to zero-hours contracts in low-paid jobs would help, as well (one of the reasons people stay on benefits rather than take this sort of work is because it's just too risky - the company won't commit to giving you a regular wage, one week you're working 5 hours, the next 39, you can try to explain this to the tax credits people but they will just keep stopping your benefits or insisting they have overpaid you...)."

Standing applause.

SGB- the problem is that, as you rightly point out by using the term "avoidance" rather than "evasion", what these companies do is legal.

When you have companies operating across international boundaries,you always get a concentration of profits in the lowest taxed jurisdictions.

The countries with lower rates of CGT clean up so countries need to balance the tax rate against the incentive to take tax avoidance measures (which are usually pretty expensive in themselves).

eg recently several companies moved their registered office to Ireland as Irish CGT rates are lower.

Lib Dems had some good policies WRT this changing wages issue. The 10k tax free band, and the one about fixing tax credit payments for 6 months, barring any major changes in circumstance.

No idea to what extent these are coming through in the coalition though.

Yes SGB, spot on - add the zero hours contracts into my post at 00:44.

The argument that raising the minimum wage will mean that someone higher up the company will be earning the same as an unqualified junior is bollocks IMO. (I know that argument hasn't been on this thread yet but it's getting there...)

solid - I notice my link that mentions the £109,000 a year for LIFE for former PM's has gone uncommented on as well

TheBride - not having benefits doesn't guarantee an increased degree of personal responsibility, higher crime, higher abortion rates probably, maybe a few more people back into the imaginary jobs. But ultimately it is the children that will suffer.

exH and I were both working when I fell pg with DS3. I went on maternity leave, (and subsequently resigned before going I was due to go back) and I won't lie - the wtc meant we were better off, even with the increased costs of having a 3rd child. (not that he was actually planned - he got past the MAP.......and is still a sneaky little sod now - but as a working couple our disposable income increased rather than decreased when he was born.

Bit tired so bear with me if I get things wrong. Eg. correct me, but be nice about

"And people on incapacity benefit, or whatever it is called now, should certainly be assessed for what they can do, not what they can't."

The assessment does need to change, that's for certain. Not because it's too lax I hasten to add. It worries me that there doesn't seem to be too much medical knowledge (or the desire for said knowledge) within the people dealing with illness related benefits. Be it DLA or Incapacity. And therefore they can not judge who is and isn't fit for work. There is also, as far as I have seen, little to no support in helping disabled find appropriate jobs.

As has been mentioned in other threads on this, you are discouraged from voluntary work when on JSA. And, IMO, would be a fool to risk part time temp work. As you are essentially having to come off benefits and reapply - which is a slow and tedious process.

Plus the abrupt way JSA cuts off when you find employment will often result in you spending a month with no income due to waiting for your first month's wages in your new job.

These are two things which could be improved to make it easier to get off benefits.

Training courses are almost non existent. I asked about them when I was made redundant.

Then there is the scheme where you can try out a job. In theory it means you have a safety net - in practise however - how many employers want to employ someone who is only signing up for a trial run? Doesn't show commitment to work does it?

"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."

If it was there. All the good intentions in the world can't change that right now. It's a fact that a lot of companies have gone under recently, leaving a lot of unemployed. We haven't recovered enough to get enough people back into work. This is something that will take time.

"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"

Yes, this is true. However the alternative is an even greater poverty and even more homelessness. A lack of benefits wont improve job prospects. Even if there was a better job market at the moment, there would still be a lot of people struggling with employment.

"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."

Agree with this totally. And I know it doesn't save the country money to think like that.

The only solution I can honestly think of is time. Time for the economy to recover.

You can make tweaks, that's for certain. But any dramatic change will either be short lived, or involve making life much much more difficult for the vulnerable in society.

Toccata- Agree that that £109k pension is pretty unnecessary these days - they can make that in c.5 mins from public speaking and sales of their (no doubt fascinating)autobiographies. Also, retired PMs are way younger than they used to be. Whilst it's not a lot of money in the scheme of things, it is a "lead by example" issue.

I can totally see the "children will suffer" side of it but I just dont know how else we get out of the situation we've got ourselves into without short term pain.

There is a shortage of jobs (chronic in some areas of the country) but the benefits culture discourages investment in the UK because of the way it's perceived as an "entitled nation".

Well, I know that in some areas of the country there is an entrenched benefit culture. Clearly something needs to be done to tackle this, and IMO, something radical.

I would be in favour of introducing a form of Welfare to Work, as they had in the US (no idea if it still happens there or not). Essentially, if you are out of work, then in order to get benefits, you must work. If this means being employed in a menial job for 8 hours per day, so be it. Childcare would be provided, training would be available and individuals would be encouraged to take up education and better their prospects.

I would ensure that the harder people worked, the more they received financially. The current system is truly bizarre (and I speak as a single mother with experience of the tax credit system).

I would also ensure that couples were not financially penalised in the way that they are at the moment.

I would introduce vigorous monitoring of those claiming any kind of DLA to ensure that only those people who were genuinely disabled were receiving help. I would also introduce spot checks on peoples' living arrangements, their jobs etc to target those deliberately defrauding the system.

Failure to comply with any of these schemes and programmes would mean that any benefits were stopped.

Linked to all of this would be a radical overhaul of the education system, whereby vocational education was re-introduced as a real option for those children and teenagers for whom academic studies were not of interest. There are plenty of disillusioned young people out there who have no idea why they are forced to sit for GCSEs in subjects they dislike and have no aptitude for. Why can't practical, hands-on courses be introduced (car mechanics, building, engineering etc) for those who are interested? Then perhaps you'd have far fewer people unemployed and with so few prospects.

no - from what I can see in the article that's not including their pension.

And lets not forget the 10.4MILLION in grants that MP's who were defeated or stepped down in the last election

People have to accept - that even if you took away every last benefit - you will STILL have the free loaders, you'll still have the girls (and women) getting pregnant, you'd get increased crime, more people living on the streets.

That's not going to be "short term" it would be putting another whole generation into abject poverty.

By far the biggest chunk of the benefits budget goes to pensions, and housing benefit........the latter of which is claimed by MANY working people

The benefits that we're talking about here - JSA, ESA, IS - it's miniscule. I'm sure there are much bigger chunks of money to be saved - but benefits are the easy target and discussion point because they're the people that don't work for their money.

Believe me, leaving people with no money to live on because they can't/won't work isn't pleasant. It's not something I want to see happening in the country.

Many of the problems spoken on this thread won't go away if you take the benefits away - they'll still be there - and you'll create additional ones

Rockinsocks- definitely agree with you on education. i dont think academic education should be mandatory past the age of 14.

You should have to stay in training until at least 16 but should have full time vocational course / unpaid apprenticeship options.

My ex-b used to teach children who had been excluded from mainstream, mainly for disruptive behaviour. He said when they went on work experience mainly as bricklayers, carpenters, hairdressers, etc, it was the most engaged and optimistic he ever saw them and most of them got glowing reports from their employers.

Just because you're not academic, doesnt mean you're a failure, but the current education system does make it seem like that.

The target to get 50% into University was seriously misguided.

Toccato- so what's your solution?

Problem: As a nation, we cant afford to pay benefits at this level

Solution: ?

It just makes me puke to have to say to Mrs Smith who's paid her NI all her life "you've got to work till you're 75 so that someone who's never worked can have 6 kids" but that's where we're going

Maybe I'm harsh.

"Essentially, if you are out of work, then in order to get benefits, you must work. If this means being employed in a menial job for 8 hours per day, so be it. Childcare would be provided, training would be available and individuals would be encouraged to take up education and better their prospects. "

so you're out of work and looking for work and to get your benefits you have to work.

You would be employed in menial job (where would these jobs come from? would people currently working in "menial" jobs be put out of work to provide opportunity for those currently out of work)

Their childcare provided (wow - bet that'd go down well with the 100,000's of families who work for a pittance and pay a fortune in childcare. Not to mention if childcare is provided for the "out of work" people in areas where childcare is hard to source.

I think there are many arguments against the Welfare to Work in the US.

"n the calendar year 2009 the UK recorded a general government deficit of £159.2 billion" (NSO)

2008/2009 figures - even if you cut the entire DWP out and stopped every single benefits they'd still be a defecit of several billion.

Rather than constantly looking at benefits (they're the easy target, the vulnerable people who have no way to fight back against any threats to them) perhaps people should be looking at the entire budget to see where else cuts can be made.

YES- we should totally be looking at everything and anything to save money atm. I'm especially interested in why they're looking at cutting school meals whilst still pouring aid money into corrupt regimes overseas where it gets sucked into the Presidents private jet collection.

BUT, would you agree that with benefits, it's not just a financial issue, but a cultural/social one as well? Building increasing and ongoing dependency on the state is just not a good thing.

Looking at those figures on there, just off the top of my head - nearly 0.7bn (only slightly less than that spent on ESA (formerly incapacity benefit).

I would be quite happy to see a cut in funding there and have to start paying to visit the big museums.

And I presume that some of the 2.5bn for the GLA transport grants were what aided me to get all 3 of my children across London for free recently. I full expected to pay at least for my older 2 (9 and 6) but was rather stunned to find that they could travel for free.

yes and no in regards to your last point about cultural/social issue.

Having spent 2 1/2yrs in a country with no state support. And when I was there it was actually doing pretty well as a country, it's only in the last 10yrs it's gone to the dogs. But at that time, unemployment there was low, their currency fairly strong.

For me the problem associated with no state support are much preferable to the problems associated with state support.

I'd rather have a minority of freeloaders than an increase of abortions, crime, and people living on the streets.

And I'm not sure at the time when unemployement is at it's highest since 1994 it's the time to be "forcing" people back into work. It's a nice idea........

But of those those "unemployment" figures don't count people like me. I'm "not seeking work"....as I'm on IS. However next September when DS3 starts school I will start looking for work (fingers crossed that the panic attacks don't get worse and have gone by then).........but I still won't be classed as unemployed so long as I'm still entitled to claim IS..........

and OMFG I bloody hate this insomnia, not even feeling tired and I've just realised the time

I'd best be off to rest on the sofa otherwise the DS's won't be out to school in the morning............

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

Oh, no. This definitely isn't true. Working Tax Credits top out for a family earning £16,0404/annum. Gross. There's still tax and NI on that amount.

And little housing benefit + no council tax benefit.

If you are a private renter, especially in a city like London or Bristol, this alone could leave you far worse off working.

Not to mention having to worry about council or tax credits coming back and saying, 'Whoops, we overpaid you! We want £10,000. Now.'

Sure, you can appeal. But in the meantime, you have to still pay on the 'debt' to the council AND they both cut you off without a bean.

If you're working and on min. wage, too, you could have childcare costs (tax credits usually covers only up to 80%), work costs (even the cheapest bus pass in a city like Edinburgh is £40 on direct debit can make you indeed worse off than claiming.

And, as Kaloki points out, you get cut off from JSA with nothing immediately much of the time, which means instant cut off from housing and council tax benefit till you re-apply as a working person. That can take months to sort out. So you'll need to pay your full whack rent and council tax till then. On your min. wage.

And this is assuming your job is permanent and not some seasonal or temp gig.

Of course, no one wants house prices to drop. Many homeowners and BTL people just quip, 'They need to build more council houses.' Then lobby hard to get every application for social housing near them rejected.

Ditto revising private rental laws so private renting is a more secure option for people. No DSS. No children.