Welfare reform ideas
Discussion
I liked the idea (even if it was political bull) of convicted rioters getting their benefits being cut.
This led me to thinking, what other workable schemes could be used to bring down the cost of the welfare state that would be fair and encourage either people back to work, or boost business to enable people back to work?
The very high level way would to make benefits claiming seen to be a stigma rather than a right.
Also, what policies could be introduced to remove it being financially beneficial to have huge numbers of kids whilst on benefits?
I'd say that potentially, if a claimant wanted to retain benefits, then they would have to do a minimum of 20 hours/week in the community (gaining work experience), the rest of the time to be spent looking for work?
I realise that implementation of this would be a nightmare, and probably none of this would ever happen, but what do the PH masses think?
This led me to thinking, what other workable schemes could be used to bring down the cost of the welfare state that would be fair and encourage either people back to work, or boost business to enable people back to work?
The very high level way would to make benefits claiming seen to be a stigma rather than a right.
Also, what policies could be introduced to remove it being financially beneficial to have huge numbers of kids whilst on benefits?
I'd say that potentially, if a claimant wanted to retain benefits, then they would have to do a minimum of 20 hours/week in the community (gaining work experience), the rest of the time to be spent looking for work?
I realise that implementation of this would be a nightmare, and probably none of this would ever happen, but what do the PH masses think?
Child benefit:
limited to first two children only.
Paid as a tax rebate through tax code for PAYE earners.
Benefit recipients to be drug tested.
Fail and lose benefits for a month.
Fail three times, no benefits.
Of course, these are in fact stupid ideas that pander to the the likes of us who work for a living.
In practice, they are too administration heavy.
I would prefer a simple flat tax system and a universal benefits systems so everyone has a set amount as a starting point.
Minimal admin, and ultimate in 'fairness'- then a number of additons for the really ill, handicapped etc.
But Sunday night is not the time for a thread like this...
limited to first two children only.
Paid as a tax rebate through tax code for PAYE earners.
Benefit recipients to be drug tested.
Fail and lose benefits for a month.
Fail three times, no benefits.
Of course, these are in fact stupid ideas that pander to the the likes of us who work for a living.
In practice, they are too administration heavy.
I would prefer a simple flat tax system and a universal benefits systems so everyone has a set amount as a starting point.
Minimal admin, and ultimate in 'fairness'- then a number of additons for the really ill, handicapped etc.
But Sunday night is not the time for a thread like this...
richtea78 said:
Welfare should only ever be a safety net that you use when you really need it, not an alternative lifestyle to working.
Restricted maybe to the amount put in via paid taxes? Probably unfair to those who've only just started in work though.I'd like to see the minimum wage abolished. Would see businesses employ three people at £4 an hour instead of two at £6.
£4 an hour still allows someone to possibly earn up to the personal allowance limit. This actually costs the government in lost PAYE though, but it would get more people into work, as there would be more scope to take people into work.
dirty boy said:
richtea78 said:
Welfare should only ever be a safety net that you use when you really need it, not an alternative lifestyle to working.
Restricted maybe to the amount put in via paid taxes? Probably unfair to those who've only just started in work though.I'd like to see the minimum wage abolished. Would see businesses employ three people at £4 an hour instead of two at £6.
£4 an hour still allows someone to possibly earn up to the personal allowance limit. This actually costs the government in lost PAYE though, but it would get more people into work, as there would be more scope to take people into work.
johnfm said:
dirty boy said:
richtea78 said:
Welfare should only ever be a safety net that you use when you really need it, not an alternative lifestyle to working.
Restricted maybe to the amount put in via paid taxes? Probably unfair to those who've only just started in work though.I'd like to see the minimum wage abolished. Would see businesses employ three people at £4 an hour instead of two at £6.
£4 an hour still allows someone to possibly earn up to the personal allowance limit. This actually costs the government in lost PAYE though, but it would get more people into work, as there would be more scope to take people into work.
Although I agree with abolishing minimum wage, but currently the pay-per-hour is probably about right.
With regard to welfare reform; just get rid of it! Along with taxes.
Food and clothing vouchers issued instead of cash.
Benefits should not cover such luxuries as booze, fags, TVs, iPhones and the like.
But of course it would be against their Human Rights.
Make it a lot easier to grass up someone on the fiddle and those that inspect the fiddlers be on performance related pay, so they only get paid if they are profitable for the nation rather than as now having a team costing £300k a month unearthing a £300 per month fiddle.
Benefits should not cover such luxuries as booze, fags, TVs, iPhones and the like.
But of course it would be against their Human Rights.
Make it a lot easier to grass up someone on the fiddle and those that inspect the fiddlers be on performance related pay, so they only get paid if they are profitable for the nation rather than as now having a team costing £300k a month unearthing a £300 per month fiddle.
johnfm said:
How would this stimulate the economy?
By employing unskilled, inefficient and mostly useless people in this country rather than exporting the jobs to other countries and paying our own people to hone their uselessness watching daytime TV. More seriously, there are a lot of people whose potential to add value to any business process is rather less than the current minimum wage. Especially the less well-educated under 25s who lack skills and experience, and aren't going to acquire either without being in paid employment. Note how youth unemployment started to climb once the minimum wage was introduced, and is now at a level which can only be described as tragic. Minimum wage is great for people who have jobs, but at the bottom end it is just pricing people out of the market altogether.
Long term the solution is to sort out our state education system so that we have fewer functionally illiterate school leavers who can't count beyond ten because they run out of fingers and thumbs. But that isn't where we are now. Academies and free schools are a start - maybe in 20 years time the minimum wage debate will be past history, and our schools will turn out people able to earn a decent wage without the State trying to rig the market for them. But trying to force employers to pay people more than they can generate for the businesses they work for is just silly.
Reduce taxes, make tax simpler and easier to administrate which should reduce the state. This rewards workers and job creators equally without raising inflation massively unlike QE, which make them better off and which punishes those on benefits.
You would need to allow for those who are in genuine difficulty but that is another discussion.
You would need to allow for those who are in genuine difficulty but that is another discussion.
Hell27 said:
I liked the idea (even if it was political bull) of convicted rioters getting their benefits being cut.
This led me to thinking, what other workable schemes could be used to bring down the cost of the welfare state that would be fair and encourage either people back to work, or boost business to enable people back to work?
The very high level way would to make benefits claiming seen to be a stigma rather than a right.
Also, what policies could be introduced to remove it being financially beneficial to have huge numbers of kids whilst on benefits?
I'd say that potentially, if a claimant wanted to retain benefits, then they would have to do a minimum of 20 hours/week in the community (gaining work experience), the rest of the time to be spent looking for work?
I realise that implementation of this would be a nightmare, and probably none of this would ever happen, but what do the PH masses think?
Restricting child benefits seems like a sound idea to me, but making people do 20 hours of community service just takes work away from people who already do those jobs. How can you get a job as a rubbish collector if there are three million people doing it for £60 a week?This led me to thinking, what other workable schemes could be used to bring down the cost of the welfare state that would be fair and encourage either people back to work, or boost business to enable people back to work?
The very high level way would to make benefits claiming seen to be a stigma rather than a right.
Also, what policies could be introduced to remove it being financially beneficial to have huge numbers of kids whilst on benefits?
I'd say that potentially, if a claimant wanted to retain benefits, then they would have to do a minimum of 20 hours/week in the community (gaining work experience), the rest of the time to be spent looking for work?
I realise that implementation of this would be a nightmare, and probably none of this would ever happen, but what do the PH masses think?
Sticks. said:
richtea78 said:
Welfare should only ever be a safety net that you use when you really need it, not an alternative lifestyle to working.
Presumably that'd include doing away with Child Benefit. How much does it cost to administer as well? It's something that's bugged me for years, I receive £137 a month in child benefit (2 kids) i'm not going to turn it down, but I don't 'need' it.
It's a complete nonsense and very wasteful, any non means tested benefit is.
dirty boy said:
....a complete nonsense and very wasteful, any non means tested benefit is.
Means testing is the elephant in the room.It encourages dependency and makes any attempt to be self supporting that much harder. It is also very bureaucratic.
So I would say that means tested benefits are a complete nonsense and very wasteful.
There are plenty of ways to control costs that are simple, don't trap people on benefits and don't penalise them for improving.
How about:
Note that housewives are paid and student grants are restored (they get the minimum income).
Note that there is no benefit trap, if you improve you still get the agreed payout.
Note that there are no complex forms, means testing isn't part of the system which removes most of the current paperwork.
Note that you can't turn up and start claiming, you have to be here for three years and unless you've contributed you'll only qualify for the minimum income even then.
Note that children don't count towards getting extra benefits. Want a big family? Pay for it yourself!
Note that living with someone won't make any difference as the top ups are based on your situation and your past contributions and nobody elses.
Note that employers are not involved. The state deals with all of this, employers just get on with whatever their business is (which in most cases isn't being an unpaid office of the benefit system).
Note that you cannot claim more than 3/4 of the minimum wage without paying something in first.
Note that doing nothing is an option but only on 1/2 the minimum wage, to get the 3/4 you must turn up to job club week in, week out. stare out of the window if you want to but there you will sit.
I think that has it sorted.
- 2/4 minimum wage income paid to all adults (over 18) that have been in the UK for over three years.
- 1/4 minimum wage income for attending job club 9-5 two days a week.
- Top ups based on past contributions and circumstances, for individuals over 18, at the time of application
Note that housewives are paid and student grants are restored (they get the minimum income).
Note that there is no benefit trap, if you improve you still get the agreed payout.
Note that there are no complex forms, means testing isn't part of the system which removes most of the current paperwork.
Note that you can't turn up and start claiming, you have to be here for three years and unless you've contributed you'll only qualify for the minimum income even then.
Note that children don't count towards getting extra benefits. Want a big family? Pay for it yourself!
Note that living with someone won't make any difference as the top ups are based on your situation and your past contributions and nobody elses.
Note that employers are not involved. The state deals with all of this, employers just get on with whatever their business is (which in most cases isn't being an unpaid office of the benefit system).
Note that you cannot claim more than 3/4 of the minimum wage without paying something in first.
Note that doing nothing is an option but only on 1/2 the minimum wage, to get the 3/4 you must turn up to job club week in, week out. stare out of the window if you want to but there you will sit.
I think that has it sorted.
cymtriks said:
How about:
Sounds like a mix of means testing and cont's based benefits. Admin heavy.- Top ups based on past contributions and circumstances, for individuals over 18, at the time of application
And if all you had to do was exist to get it, the potential for multiple identity fraud would be huge. Me and my family of 26 brothers and sisters would all qualify, presumably
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff