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.

We need more jobs, though. How do we create more jobs?

Lenin - it's 2008/2009 (haven't been able to find last financial year one anywhere as yet) but this I find quite useful as a general guide to UK spending

Lenin - ok understood, was just wondering if you meant redistributing the existing wealth (as in what people have already and how would you do that)

What if the government somehow redirected some/all benefit money to subsidise wages via employers and provided childcare vouchers for people who cannot afford to go out to work?

Might help create more jobs at a living wage, and address the childcare issue.

NP - have had it bookmarked for a while now as it's useful for discussion like this at least as a starting point.

Must keep my eye out for one for last financial year figures.

You know, there is merit in the non cash ideda but many use the cash so positively that iyt would be a shame.

Certainly I think TC's and CBshould be cash so tehy can be used for direct benefit to kids- school trips for example (here, if you don't pay you don't go, tough luck); ds3's cubs which are hugely important to him as sib to ds1 / ds3 (though we'd happiky use dla for that- in fact we do, on advice from SSD, sibling services apparently)

There has to be some cash in there; if your bus drives past and you can't get home so you have to use your last few quid for a taxi or face a seven mile walk with three under 4 and a double buggy (been there...whilsd working so 'my' cash but wouldn't wish it on anyone (I had to make the walk)), if the market is charging less than the spar for food but doesn't take cash, whatever.

Or are we discriminating between working and non working poor? Do us deserving types get cash and those not get vouchers? you know, it might be a genuinely * sensible way for getting a handle on generaTIONAL POVERTY, BUT SHOULD sN DS3 REALLY NEVER HAVE A PENNY TO SPEND AS HE WISHES JUST BECUASE OF HIS SN?

(sorry about caps, toddler troubles LOL and glasses in car so can't read what I have types to redo, apologies, not shouitng)

Also, if you take the voucher system on, you have to amke sure school do ahve funds so poor kids can be genrally included in trips etc, cubs can take poorer children memberrs (get them out of the ghetto, quite literally), etc.

Indeed as wella s stopping mis-spending what you'd aslo stop is people going without in order to fiannce things of benefit for their kids and is that a good thing? My aporents weren't on benefits but significantly went without so we could have trips away etc- do we want the people on the lowest incomes not to be able to malke sacrifices to benefit thier kids? Not to be able to choose to skip a few emals to cover a birthday treat trip, or wear broken clothes so child can join french club? that would be pretty negative surely? And of course lead to the feeling of worthlessness and being an outsider that has to be a great part of real generational poverty? if a child feels at 7 that teir family has been labelled as outsiders then is that child honestly going to beleive they can get themselves over the urdles to break teh chain? I do think by exposing kids to otehr lifestyle choices we give them the best chances of breaking patterns- and if all you ever do is go to voucher shop A or buy clothes from benefits r us, how will you get that sense of there's more to life? or of being valued or even able to contribute?

We don't create jobs, our sovereignty was sold to the market 30 years ago. Secondly according to the ideology we must always have 5pc of the work force unemployed...

New Labour tried its third way by refusing to touch the market (pretty obvious when you've got a $10mn/yr job lined up at the end of it all) but instead bolstering state paid jobs...oh, it didn't work...the entire private sector almost collapsed and it had to take huge handouts...socialism for the rich! Rah rah rah comrades!

I would hate to have it dictated how much I could spend on food and the likes .

I am one of those that frequently goes without so my children can do stuff. I budget really hard and really carefully and managed to feed my kids for peanuts (not with peanuts I hasten to add ) and manage to save the extra £20 I can keep from my organ money as savings for holidays, trips, treats for the DS's.

She does contribute to her own upkeep though does she not?

The recent rise in the Civil List was the first for twenty years.

lenin so children should starve because their parents are poor? (posted 16:32, sorry catching up)

This is precisely the mindset we should be challenging.
Mamatomany was talking about a hypothetical 10-child family - if they can't afford 10 kids then they shouldn't have them. They shouldn't irresponsibly churn out babies and expect the State to pick up the tab. If they were brought up in a society which didn't bail out such behaviour, if they had to shoulder the cost themselves then they might think twice about the size of their family.

Good schools to break the cycle - even bording schools to assist breaking the cycle - in the long run it will save money but in the short term it will cost more

fernbearr

perhaps

what though if they were born to a family where parents were employed and doing OK nd then the aprents got ill or lost their work?

There's no sale or return on kids.

Coolfonz actually some people are worth more than £500K to the economy. Sorry but it's true. In terms of income, if someone produces several million pounds into the economy, they should be allowed to take a good percentage of that - because that money would not be exist if not for them.

Also, new boss of Tesco used to be a shelf stacker. They are not the most ethical retailer, but apparently it can happen.

And the thing everyone keeps banging on about, employers cutting benefits. Well that's capitalism I'm afraid - if the guy down the road pays £5k a year less and people will still work for him, that's £5k a year you can invest in the business instead if you do the same - so what are you going to do. All those businesses going to the wall, they'd love to give better benefits, genuinely but employees rarely see the cost of them. They just think the employer is being mean.

Customers pay late, suppliers demand upfront payments, never mind the employees being a few paychecks from the street, most employers are too!

It'd be lovely if the John Lewis thing could happen everywhere, but customers demand the lowest prices so corners have to be cut. Go be all ethical and only shop in fairtrade shops if you want to be moral about it. Tis not an easy thing to be an employer.

Precisely, Sancti. The parents should be thinking 'what if'. They should be planning for the worst: they could have fewer kids, get insurance, put some savings aside, etc. We need to get away from the 'benefit culture' where we all merrily assume that someone else will take responsibility for our actions.

"actually some people are worth more than £500K to the economy"

Move to Monaco.