BBC News Benefit trailer - Alicia Edge
Discussion
We need a system where if you can do some work (even for a few hours a week), you are better off by 50% of what you earn in that job (after all things like loss of benefits, travel to work are considered).
E.g. You get £100 a week in various benefits. You are offered work 5 hours in a supermarket for £6 an hour. It costs £5 to get there on public transport. The system should ensure they get £120. The £100 should be the basic cost of living. The £15 (after travel is paid for) would pay for extras like an occasional night out.
E.g. You get £100 a week in various benefits. You are offered work 5 hours in a supermarket for £6 an hour. It costs £5 to get there on public transport. The system should ensure they get £120. The £100 should be the basic cost of living. The £15 (after travel is paid for) would pay for extras like an occasional night out.
doc3 said:
Deva Link said:
The problem in the UK is that for most people with a few kids and living in rented accommodation the difference between a typically crappy job and being on benefits is marginal at best. Standard of living for low paid people is too low.
Whilst I agree there is not enough difference between benefits and minimum wage, I do not think the answer is to raise wages. That will be a sure fire way to ensure companies move all manufacturing work to other countries. I do not perceive low paid people in this country to be poor. They have houses that keep them warm and dry. They have sufficient money for food; many have enough money for too much food and are obese. They have a selection of clothes. They have free healthcare. Most have sufficient spare cash for luxuries such as a TV, fags and booze. Granted it's not a great life, hence I prefer to work, but I suspect our poor look rich to 90% of the world's population.
1. Cooking properly can be more expensive than the cheap s
tty high calorie high fat foods, being fat isn't spending too much on food it is buying the wrong foods. 2. Do the poor live in the UK or in an African country with a lower standard of living? No, if you live in the UK you expect a certain minimum standard of living, where you set this is the challenge.
Engineer1 said:
doc3 said:
Deva Link said:
The problem in the UK is that for most people with a few kids and living in rented accommodation the difference between a typically crappy job and being on benefits is marginal at best. Standard of living for low paid people is too low.
Whilst I agree there is not enough difference between benefits and minimum wage, I do not think the answer is to raise wages. That will be a sure fire way to ensure companies move all manufacturing work to other countries. I do not perceive low paid people in this country to be poor. They have houses that keep them warm and dry. They have sufficient money for food; many have enough money for too much food and are obese. They have a selection of clothes. They have free healthcare. Most have sufficient spare cash for luxuries such as a TV, fags and booze. Granted it's not a great life, hence I prefer to work, but I suspect our poor look rich to 90% of the world's population.
1. Cooking properly can be more expensive than the cheap s
tty high calorie high fat foods, being fat isn't spending too much on food it is buying the wrong foods. 2. Do the poor live in the UK or in an African country with a lower standard of living? No, if you live in the UK you expect a certain minimum standard of living, where you set this is the challenge.
t brigade' are generally the ones that are too lazy to cook, and, unsurprisingly, too lazy to work.2. Why should we expect a certain minimum standard of living? I expect my standard of living to be proportionate to how hard I work. Surely the fact that there are many 3rd generation benefit claimants in east glasgow and the welsh valleys means that something is very wrong with the system. Benefits should tie you over for a brief period during tough times; it should not be a lifestyle choice. A life of benefits is far too pleasant at the moment, as can be seen from the amount of people that are content to stay on them.
Some people never learn to cook or get into a comfort zone, which means poor nutrional value cheap st. The only real way to combat this is teaching people to cook, and potentially helping them stock the cupboard with the basics that allow them to make healthy tasty foods. If all you have ever eaten is pre-prepared stuff then it can be difficult to start really cooking, especially on a low budget as the initial pantry filling can cost a huge chunk of your budget.
As to a standard of living, people need shelter food and clothes, the challenge is coming to a figure that means they can afford the essentials.
t. The only real way to combat this is teaching people to cook, and potentially helping them stock the cupboard with the basics that allow them to make healthy tasty foods. If all you have ever eaten is pre-prepared stuff then it can be difficult to start really cooking, especially on a low budget as the initial pantry filling can cost a huge chunk of your budget.As to a standard of living, people need shelter food and clothes, the challenge is coming to a figure that means they can afford the essentials.
Sorry I find some of the cut benifit stuff unacceptable, go read a history book or visit somewhere without social benifit and then see if you agree with no welfare state, see people in India who cant afford to bury their kids and leave them in the strreet for the rubish men, kids in Angola with no legs from land mines, or Thai girs trying to make ia living.
I've lived in the UK with its welfare state, Norway with a better welfare state, and Asia with nothing. I was in the Uk last week for the first time in some years and was however amazed by some of the people attitude to welfare. Had a long discussion with my Norwegian doughter and we decided, we need the welfare state, benifit levels were about OK. The problem was the diffrence in attitude between (most) Norwgians and (Many) british people to living on welfare.
In Norway it is seen as a safety net there is no desire to live long term, there is adquate employment and people take lower status jobs and move on. In the UK there appears to be a willingness to live long term on welfare.
You can see the diffrence at the airport, in the UK airport staff, cleanes catering etc are largly easern European, in Norway they are locals, jobs are there people wont take them.
Basic (say a waitress) jobs in Norway pay a living wage, and people have pride in their work. There is enought work in England, and what is neede is.
Basic jobs to pay a living wage.
Good social housing, (not housing benifit to private landlords).
Good social benifit for short term unemployment to encourage mobility risk taking.
Good benifit for real ling term sickness.
Re intriduction of a work ethic ant schools.
Limited long term benifit to discourage long term unemoploymnet.
Tax allowance for commuting cost relocation.
But basically we need to make long term benifit claiming by able people unacceptable, (like dring driving is becoming)
I've lived in the UK with its welfare state, Norway with a better welfare state, and Asia with nothing. I was in the Uk last week for the first time in some years and was however amazed by some of the people attitude to welfare. Had a long discussion with my Norwegian doughter and we decided, we need the welfare state, benifit levels were about OK. The problem was the diffrence in attitude between (most) Norwgians and (Many) british people to living on welfare.
In Norway it is seen as a safety net there is no desire to live long term, there is adquate employment and people take lower status jobs and move on. In the UK there appears to be a willingness to live long term on welfare.
You can see the diffrence at the airport, in the UK airport staff, cleanes catering etc are largly easern European, in Norway they are locals, jobs are there people wont take them.
Basic (say a waitress) jobs in Norway pay a living wage, and people have pride in their work. There is enought work in England, and what is neede is.
Basic jobs to pay a living wage.
Good social housing, (not housing benifit to private landlords).
Good social benifit for short term unemployment to encourage mobility risk taking.
Good benifit for real ling term sickness.
Re intriduction of a work ethic ant schools.
Limited long term benifit to discourage long term unemoploymnet.
Tax allowance for commuting cost relocation.
But basically we need to make long term benifit claiming by able people unacceptable, (like dring driving is becoming)
Berw said:
Sorry I find some of the cut benifit stuff unacceptable, go read a history book or visit somewhere without social benifit and then see if you agree with no welfare state, see people in India who cant afford to bury their kids and leave them in the strreet for the rubish men, kids in Angola with no legs from land mines, or Thai girs trying to make ia living.
I've lived in the UK with its welfare state, Norway with a better welfare state, and Asia with nothing. I was in the Uk last week for the first time in some years and was however amazed by some of the people attitude to welfare. Had a long discussion with my Norwegian doughter and we decided, we need the welfare state, benifit levels were about OK. The problem was the diffrence in attitude between (most) Norwgians and (Many) british people to living on welfare.
In Norway it is seen as a safety net there is no desire to live long term, there is adquate employment and people take lower status jobs and move on. In the UK there appears to be a willingness to live long term on welfare.
You can see the diffrence at the airport, in the UK airport staff, cleanes catering etc are largly easern European, in Norway they are locals, jobs are there people wont take them.
Basic (say a waitress) jobs in Norway pay a living wage, and people have pride in their work. There is enought work in England, and what is neede is.
Basic jobs to pay a living wage.
Good social housing, (not housing benifit to private landlords).
Good social benifit for short term unemployment to encourage mobility risk taking.
Good benifit for real ling term sickness.
Re intriduction of a work ethic ant schools.
Limited long term benifit to discourage long term unemoploymnet.
Tax allowance for commuting cost relocation.
But basically we need to make long term benifit claiming by able people unacceptable, (like dring driving is becoming)
Some good points, there is definitely a sector of our society that are happy to live on the welfare state that is the difference I think to Norway, minimum wage over here whilst not great is much better than it used to be.I've lived in the UK with its welfare state, Norway with a better welfare state, and Asia with nothing. I was in the Uk last week for the first time in some years and was however amazed by some of the people attitude to welfare. Had a long discussion with my Norwegian doughter and we decided, we need the welfare state, benifit levels were about OK. The problem was the diffrence in attitude between (most) Norwgians and (Many) british people to living on welfare.
In Norway it is seen as a safety net there is no desire to live long term, there is adquate employment and people take lower status jobs and move on. In the UK there appears to be a willingness to live long term on welfare.
You can see the diffrence at the airport, in the UK airport staff, cleanes catering etc are largly easern European, in Norway they are locals, jobs are there people wont take them.
Basic (say a waitress) jobs in Norway pay a living wage, and people have pride in their work. There is enought work in England, and what is neede is.
Basic jobs to pay a living wage.
Good social housing, (not housing benifit to private landlords).
Good social benifit for short term unemployment to encourage mobility risk taking.
Good benifit for real ling term sickness.
Re intriduction of a work ethic ant schools.
Limited long term benifit to discourage long term unemoploymnet.
Tax allowance for commuting cost relocation.
But basically we need to make long term benifit claiming by able people unacceptable, (like dring driving is becoming)
I was brought up to work hard and have pride, I would not feel proud to be living off the welfare state, when made redundant I found a job within a month, it was lower paid but I'm actually enjoying it more!
We did have good social housing but the council sold many of the houses several years ago because in England we do have an obsession about owning our own houses so many were sold cheaply to tennants. (Both my parents and I have bought ex council houses!)
becksW said:
We did have good social housing but the council sold many of the houses several years ago because in England we do have an obsession about owning our own houses so many were sold cheaply to tennants. (Both my parents and I have bought ex council houses!)
From a benefits point of view, that's a good thing - people who are paying a mortgage don't want to be on benefits. It's those who rent who do best out of the system and they become reliant on the State for everything.grumbledoak said:
cymtriks said:
This is where a system based on means testing and needs leads us.
I suspect any attempt to hand out 'free' money will always find more takers than you have bank notes.- Its capped
- Its related to contributions
- There is a universal flat rate paid to every adult
- There is a life time limit on that benefit
- You introduce workfare
- You require all benefit claimants to turn up at a big office somewhere and sit at a desk filling in job applications 9 to 5 six days a week with paper provided and an on site creche.
There are plenty of alternative systems but somehow we have been brainwashed into thinking that the only feasible system is one based on "needs" and "means testing", both of which generate poverty traps and reward failure while punishing any attempt to improve your situation. They are also comically bureaucratic. I recently helped an eldrely relative fill in eighty pages of forms to get a home help for half an hour a week. She had the beginings of dementia so could barely fill in a few pages. We tried to help but in the end we had to ask social services to assist. They sent round a social worker with a lap top. Seriously. Eighty page forms for senile old ladies that require a lap top to complete. This is where means testing and needs have brought us.
There is no reason for a complcated system and a simpler system would be easier for the needy to use and pay out more due to the savings.
Think how simple a flat rate paid to every UK resident over 18 would be. Nothing else, no state pension, no maternity/child pay, no housing benefit, just one payment from the state at a fixed rate.
Deva Link said:
becksW said:
We did have good social housing but the council sold many of the houses several years ago because in England we do have an obsession about owning our own houses so many were sold cheaply to tennants. (Both my parents and I have bought ex council houses!)
From a benefits point of view, that's a good thing - people who are paying a mortgage don't want to be on benefits. It's those who rent who do best out of the system and they become reliant on the State for everything.We privately rented for years when I was younger but never asked for anything off the state, my parents both worked full time.
becksW said:
Deva Link said:
becksW said:
We did have good social housing but the council sold many of the houses several years ago because in England we do have an obsession about owning our own houses so many were sold cheaply to tennants. (Both my parents and I have bought ex council houses!)
From a benefits point of view, that's a good thing - people who are paying a mortgage don't want to be on benefits. It's those who rent who do best out of the system and they become reliant on the State for everything.We privately rented for years when I was younger but never asked for anything off the state, my parents both worked full time.
Edited by Deva Link on Tuesday 3rd August 09:47
Deva Link said:
becksW said:
Deva Link said:
becksW said:
We did have good social housing but the council sold many of the houses several years ago because in England we do have an obsession about owning our own houses so many were sold cheaply to tennants. (Both my parents and I have bought ex council houses!)
From a benefits point of view, that's a good thing - people who are paying a mortgage don't want to be on benefits. It's those who rent who do best out of the system and they become reliant on the State for everything.We privately rented for years when I was younger but never asked for anything off the state, my parents both worked full time.
Edited by Deva Link on Tuesday 3rd August 09:47
Anyone remember seeing the original searies of '15' - the Jamie Oliver initiative? It basically proved to me that those that need the most help often don't want it and are happy to live their life in a complete mess.
Hard rules and regs need to come in. If they don't like it then let them rot.
Hard rules and regs need to come in. If they don't like it then let them rot.
Maybe a minimum amount of benefits per working life might be an idea. In other words you have say 3 years worth of benefits banked when you leave education. If you get made redundant then you can use your 3 years to support you whilst you look for more work. The length of time on benefits is taken off your 3 years. When it reaches 0 then you're not entitled to anything.
supersingle said:
sjn2004 said:
TopTip: Get a job and you won't be "poor".
Yes you will.You're far better off not working and on benefits.
Don't blame these people. It's the system that's wrong.
Although it may seem like working is a bad option, there's still tax credits to make up for it. Getting even the worst job is still a step in the right direction to a well paid job oneday. There's been many a person work for my parents care home on the minimum wage that have been promoted to better work, left for a better job etc. And these are people that have come from unemployment, career changes and redundancy. And whats my parents biggest problem in their business? Getting staff, cos nobody wants to work!
Somtheing George Osbourne astutely picked up on during the election campaign, from warehouse workers he visited and spoke to (in Warrington IIRC) was that it is very difficult to motivate oneself to work and bring up your kids properly when people in neighbouring houses have their curtains drawn until 11am on weekdays, regularly have 'parties', with their kids running riot until all hours.
Some of our staff have, in the past, echoed exactly the same view - their personal (and commendable) attitude is that it's better to die on your feet than live on your knees. FWIW they too, quite some imte back, could see that radical changes would be required to rebalance the system.
Some of our staff have, in the past, echoed exactly the same view - their personal (and commendable) attitude is that it's better to die on your feet than live on your knees. FWIW they too, quite some imte back, could see that radical changes would be required to rebalance the system.
Asterix said:
Anyone remember seeing the original series of '15' - the Jamie Oliver initiative? It basically proved to me that those that need the most help often don't want it and are happy to live their life in a complete mess.
Hard rules and regs need to come in. If they don't like it then let them rot.
But how much of "15" was edited to make it look as if Jamie had a tough job? Some of the fifteen did complain about this at the time.Hard rules and regs need to come in. If they don't like it then let them rot.
The real reason that people don't respond to help as that it isn't usually helping them at all. If a life on benefits is only marginally less lucrative than working but much less effort then why bother?
As long as we have a benefits system based on "needs" and "means" we will have an expensive and bureaucratic system that traps people, punishes any personal improvement and rewards further failure.
Be careful of asking for hard rules and regs, as I mentioned above we already have 80 pages of forms for senile old ladies that require social workers with lap tops to help fill in. On every form the warning that any change would mean having to reapply was given. That's another 80 pages every time a small change occurs. How tough do you want to get? 100 page forms? Two social workers with lap tops to steer you through the maze? Genuine cases of people who have contributed all their lives being turned away? People who contributed nothing given plenty while those who saved are told that they will get nothing? That's how it will end up in the real world as long as we remain fixated on means and needs.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff