Benefit reform - a sensible approach?
Discussion
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/art...
article says
In an interview with The Sunday Times, James Purnell, the work and pensions secretary, said: “Virtually everyone will be doing something in return for their benefits.”
The welfare reform white paper, to be published this week, is set to provoke anger from rebel Labour MPs and campaign groups who believe such measures are unfair in a period of rising unemployment.
The conviction of Karen Matthews for kidnapping her daughter Shannon has shown the perverse consequences of the welfare system. Matthews, who had seven children, had never worked and was existing on £400 a week in benefits.
The government will also announce plans to:
- Reform housing benefit to ensure the jobless can no longer live in large houses courtesy of the taxpayer.
- Allow companies to bid for contracts to place the long-term unemployed in work.
- Introduce a medical testing regime for people on incapacity benefit.
- Impose US-style “work-fare” schemes forcing those who refuse to take jobs to work in return for benefits.
At the core of the reforms is the proposal to divide benefit claimants into three groups.
The first group is made up of unemployed people on jobseeker’s allowance. From 2010, single mothers whose youngest child is aged seven or over will be moved from income support to the allowance. Lone parents now remain on income support until their children reach 16.
The second group will include about 400,000 single parents whose youngest child is aged between one and six, and more than 2m people claiming incapacity benefit. These claimants will face job centre interviews before being forced to undertake training courses or unpaid work placements.
A third group, including seriously disabled people and mothers of young babies, will continue to receive “unconditional” benefits.
I think that this is a good idea - perhaps get people to work on community projects, tidying the streets etc. Might bring a sense that working hard will reward more than smoking the reefer and jacking off all day, whilst improving poorer neighbourhoods.
Of course there will be flaws, but it is at least a start. I notice it isn't a headline though.
article says
In an interview with The Sunday Times, James Purnell, the work and pensions secretary, said: “Virtually everyone will be doing something in return for their benefits.”
The welfare reform white paper, to be published this week, is set to provoke anger from rebel Labour MPs and campaign groups who believe such measures are unfair in a period of rising unemployment.
The conviction of Karen Matthews for kidnapping her daughter Shannon has shown the perverse consequences of the welfare system. Matthews, who had seven children, had never worked and was existing on £400 a week in benefits.
The government will also announce plans to:
- Reform housing benefit to ensure the jobless can no longer live in large houses courtesy of the taxpayer.
- Allow companies to bid for contracts to place the long-term unemployed in work.
- Introduce a medical testing regime for people on incapacity benefit.
- Impose US-style “work-fare” schemes forcing those who refuse to take jobs to work in return for benefits.
At the core of the reforms is the proposal to divide benefit claimants into three groups.
The first group is made up of unemployed people on jobseeker’s allowance. From 2010, single mothers whose youngest child is aged seven or over will be moved from income support to the allowance. Lone parents now remain on income support until their children reach 16.
The second group will include about 400,000 single parents whose youngest child is aged between one and six, and more than 2m people claiming incapacity benefit. These claimants will face job centre interviews before being forced to undertake training courses or unpaid work placements.
A third group, including seriously disabled people and mothers of young babies, will continue to receive “unconditional” benefits.
I think that this is a good idea - perhaps get people to work on community projects, tidying the streets etc. Might bring a sense that working hard will reward more than smoking the reefer and jacking off all day, whilst improving poorer neighbourhoods.
Of course there will be flaws, but it is at least a start. I notice it isn't a headline though.
Office_Monkey said:
The conviction of Karen Matthews for kidnapping her daughter Shannon has shown the perverse consequences of the welfare system. Matthews, who had seven children, had never worked and was existing on £400 a week in benefits.
Jesus! I have a wife and two kids to support on less than that! And I actually work for a living and my taxes pay for that scum 
I want it always to be worth while for someone to work and that people should have an option for fast track (1 day maximum) return of all benefits if a job doesn't work out or is very short term. No filling out forms again and absolutely no delays or possibility of getting into debt or losing their house by stopping housing benefit.
At the moment people prepared to take every and any job face discrimination, by the slowness to reinstate benefits which leaves them much worse of. Take the worry out of taking a job opportunity and many more jobs will be created and accepted.
Fast track reinstatement of benefits (maximum of one easy phone call IMO) without the need go through the hassle of filling out yet another form is exactly what is needed. The slowness of our bureaucracy cripples people from accepting any old job.
Tell me anything I've said doesn't make sense?
At the moment people prepared to take every and any job face discrimination, by the slowness to reinstate benefits which leaves them much worse of. Take the worry out of taking a job opportunity and many more jobs will be created and accepted.
Fast track reinstatement of benefits (maximum of one easy phone call IMO) without the need go through the hassle of filling out yet another form is exactly what is needed. The slowness of our bureaucracy cripples people from accepting any old job.
Tell me anything I've said doesn't make sense?
Edited by thepeoplespal for a few typos on Tuesday 9th December 13:28
Edited by thepeoplespal on Tuesday 9th December 13:32
You can see Mandelson has returned to the government. It is the same old story, promise one thing to get the right wing media onside, do another.
Even if they were willing to genuinely reform benefits now is not the time. They have had 10 wasted years when the economy was booming and they propose this now as we enter a deep recession?
Even if they were willing to genuinely reform benefits now is not the time. They have had 10 wasted years when the economy was booming and they propose this now as we enter a deep recession?
CzechItOut said:
It's all b
ks and won't make a jot of difference.
You have to make benefits seriously unattractive if you want to break the dependence culture.
Paying benefits as vouchers that can only be redeemed against "essential" goods would be a start.
You'd have to make sure that any chavs caught abusing shop staff had these vouchers taken away/amount given cut. I got sworn at at work by some ignorant cow that gave me 9 quids worth of "fresh fruit and veg" vouchers when she had only bought around 3 pounds worth of veg, she wanted to pay for all her cakes and other crap with them as well. Not nice trying to do your job and getting abuse for it.ks and won't make a jot of difference.You have to make benefits seriously unattractive if you want to break the dependence culture.
Paying benefits as vouchers that can only be redeemed against "essential" goods would be a start.
CzechItOut said:
It's all bks and won't make a jot of difference.
You have to make benefits seriously unattractive if you want to break the dependence culture.
Paying benefits as vouchers that can only be redeemed against "essential" goods would be a start.
Would never work.ks and won't make a jot of difference.You have to make benefits seriously unattractive if you want to break the dependence culture.
Paying benefits as vouchers that can only be redeemed against "essential" goods would be a start.
£10 worth of food and nappies vouchers will buy one 10 pack of Lamberts off ome bloke in the Wetherspoon's.
CzechItOut said:
It's all bks and won't make a jot of difference.
You have to make benefits seriously unattractive if you want to break the dependence culture.
Paying benefits as vouchers that can only be redeemed against "essential" goods would be a start.
This would open up a black market for the more desperate, and be a right ballache to administer. However, I agree that people on benefits should not be able to buy booze/fags with their dole money.ks and won't make a jot of difference.You have to make benefits seriously unattractive if you want to break the dependence culture.
Paying benefits as vouchers that can only be redeemed against "essential" goods would be a start.
Want more proof that you're better off on benefits?
A [url=http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/article5295859.ece]new report[/url] from the Institute of Fiscal Studies has shown the effect of tax and benefit measures imposed by the Labour government (taking the measures in the pre-budget report into account), and it does not make happy reading.
According to the IFS's calculations:
By 2012, an average dual-earner couple with no children is set to be £2,208 a year worse off than they were in 1997.
A single earning couple with no children will be £1,684 worse off.
A dual-earner couple with children will be £1,466 worse off.
Employed single people will be £1,281 worse off.
The groups that will have benefited most from Labour's tax and benefit changes are no-earning couples with children (£2,901) and unemployed single parents (£2,491).
A [url=http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/article5295859.ece]new report[/url] from the Institute of Fiscal Studies has shown the effect of tax and benefit measures imposed by the Labour government (taking the measures in the pre-budget report into account), and it does not make happy reading.
According to the IFS's calculations:
By 2012, an average dual-earner couple with no children is set to be £2,208 a year worse off than they were in 1997.
A single earning couple with no children will be £1,684 worse off.
A dual-earner couple with children will be £1,466 worse off.
Employed single people will be £1,281 worse off.
The groups that will have benefited most from Labour's tax and benefit changes are no-earning couples with children (£2,901) and unemployed single parents (£2,491).
(aaaand breath....)
Oh god whata joke. Anyone and I mean anyone who actually believes any of this buls..t is an amazing individual who's darwinist time will come hopefully sooner rather than later. I mean really if you can remember to breathe how the he\\ could you buy into this socialist labour spin.
There is less hot air in all the hot air balloons in the world.
NEVER
GONNA
HAPPEN
.
From what I've seen, they get more then enough to live on comfortably, they have everything a working family has, I don't see why this should be, it does not encourage work at all, surely thats the point of things like income support? I.e. do something about it, not expect help from the state.
If they have everything, the big TV, the nice car, night out boozing once a week, the fag habit, expensive junk food, house, no mortgage, no council tax, etc, there is no encouragement to work.
Don't need money to survive, you need food and shelter to stay alive, so instead of £400 a week for Karen + 7 kids (untaxed), how about give them a couple of loafs of bread, a few potatoes and bunk beds in a converted ex-military base, and they have to pick their own potatoes too.
As for the kids; its the parents fault if they have to have a naff lifestyle, why should the state feel guilty and provide, the horrible truth is a few of them were born just because they mean an extra £60 a week to the parent
If they have everything, the big TV, the nice car, night out boozing once a week, the fag habit, expensive junk food, house, no mortgage, no council tax, etc, there is no encouragement to work.
Don't need money to survive, you need food and shelter to stay alive, so instead of £400 a week for Karen + 7 kids (untaxed), how about give them a couple of loafs of bread, a few potatoes and bunk beds in a converted ex-military base, and they have to pick their own potatoes too.
As for the kids; its the parents fault if they have to have a naff lifestyle, why should the state feel guilty and provide, the horrible truth is a few of them were born just because they mean an extra £60 a week to the parent
Edited by Xaero on Tuesday 9th December 15:10
Office_Monkey said:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/art...
article says
In an interview with The Sunday Times, James Purnell, the work and pensions secretary, said: “Virtually everyone will be doing something in return for their benefits.”
The welfare reform white paper, to be published this week, is set to provoke anger from rebel Labour MPs and campaign groups who believe such measures are unfair in a period of rising unemployment.
The conviction of Karen Matthews for kidnapping her daughter Shannon has shown the perverse consequences of the welfare system. Matthews, who had seven children, had never worked and was existing on £400 a week in benefits.
The government will also announce plans to:
- Reform housing benefit to ensure the jobless can no longer live in large houses courtesy of the taxpayer.
- Allow companies to bid for contracts to place the long-term unemployed in work.
- Introduce a medical testing regime for people on incapacity benefit.
- Impose US-style “work-fare” schemes forcing those who refuse to take jobs to work in return for benefits.
At the core of the reforms is the proposal to divide benefit claimants into three groups.
The first group is made up of unemployed people on jobseeker’s allowance. From 2010, single mothers whose youngest child is aged seven or over will be moved from income support to the allowance. Lone parents now remain on income support until their children reach 16.
The second group will include about 400,000 single parents whose youngest child is aged between one and six, and more than 2m people claiming incapacity benefit. These claimants will face job centre interviews before being forced to undertake training courses or unpaid work placements.
A third group, including seriously disabled people and mothers of young babies, will continue to receive “unconditional” benefits.
I think that this is a good idea - perhaps get people to work on community projects, tidying the streets etc. Might bring a sense that working hard will reward more than smoking the reefer and jacking off all day, whilst improving poorer neighbourhoods.
Of course there will be flaws, but it is at least a start. I notice it isn't a headline though.
They've already figured this one out, they're all "depressed".article says
In an interview with The Sunday Times, James Purnell, the work and pensions secretary, said: “Virtually everyone will be doing something in return for their benefits.”
The welfare reform white paper, to be published this week, is set to provoke anger from rebel Labour MPs and campaign groups who believe such measures are unfair in a period of rising unemployment.
The conviction of Karen Matthews for kidnapping her daughter Shannon has shown the perverse consequences of the welfare system. Matthews, who had seven children, had never worked and was existing on £400 a week in benefits.
The government will also announce plans to:
- Reform housing benefit to ensure the jobless can no longer live in large houses courtesy of the taxpayer.
- Allow companies to bid for contracts to place the long-term unemployed in work.
- Introduce a medical testing regime for people on incapacity benefit.
- Impose US-style “work-fare” schemes forcing those who refuse to take jobs to work in return for benefits.
At the core of the reforms is the proposal to divide benefit claimants into three groups.
The first group is made up of unemployed people on jobseeker’s allowance. From 2010, single mothers whose youngest child is aged seven or over will be moved from income support to the allowance. Lone parents now remain on income support until their children reach 16.
The second group will include about 400,000 single parents whose youngest child is aged between one and six, and more than 2m people claiming incapacity benefit. These claimants will face job centre interviews before being forced to undertake training courses or unpaid work placements.
A third group, including seriously disabled people and mothers of young babies, will continue to receive “unconditional” benefits.
I think that this is a good idea - perhaps get people to work on community projects, tidying the streets etc. Might bring a sense that working hard will reward more than smoking the reefer and jacking off all day, whilst improving poorer neighbourhoods.
Of course there will be flaws, but it is at least a start. I notice it isn't a headline though.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff