It is obvious to me that the country is in desperate need of social welfare reform, we have an unsustainable situation where many people between the ages of 18-60 choose not to work, whilst those that do are asked to pay them ever increasing subsidies. With an ageing population and the pensions timebomb ticking we can't afford to allow whole sections of society to opt out of work.
Before I go on I must make it absolutely clear that I have no socio-political axe to grind against the poor, there are plenty of people through absolutely no fault of their own have found themselves needing state benefits for short periods of time. My gripe is with those who could be working but who have instead chosen careers as baby factories or professional jobseekers. I see vast amounts of money poured into benefits and little benefit derived for the nation, I see benefits as actually being detrimental to the long term wellbeing of an individual. By making a person dependent on state handouts we are in effect blocking any aspirations they do have by saying 'we can take care of you better than you can take care of yourself'. In some cases we have people who are the second or third generation to be reliant on state benefits. What sort of message does this send to the next generation? "It's not ok to work, the state will provide for you 'you're entitled'".
I touched earlier on the number of families with 4+ children in them. I know several families with 6,7, and even as many as 8 children in them. Why is it that families who exist on state benefits can afford to have as many children as they want at the expense of the British taxpayer? If for example a two-parent working family wants to consider another child they would first have to consider the economic impact of another child on their circumstances: is the house big enough? can we afford for mum to take x months off work? etc etc. If you want to have 8 children that's great, good luck to you, but don't ask me to support yours as well as any I may have of my own in the future. If you can't afford to have a 7th child then don't. By having such large families it creates strain on the family group which can lead to older children neglecting their education or becoming involved in crime or drugs, thus facilitating further social breakdown. I would be in favour of capping child benefit at 2 children (exempting multiple births only) or else we will never get control of this problem. All too often I see parents in their early to mid 30's becoming grandparents, which illustrates the concept of exponential growth, 7 children each have 7 children who each have 7 children suddenly in 3 generations you could end up with 343 children! Obviously this would be an extreme example, but I think it illustrates that those in this welfare trap do not always consider the consequences of their actions as the welfare state is always there to clean up after them, thus negating any concept of social resposibility. Why should those people who get their main income from benefits take more home than those who work very hard to struggle through life and earn less money?
I would go as far as setting a benefit cap, of no more than the higher rate tax threshold at which an individual would receive no extra income.
I find it abhorrent that some 'jobseekers' refuse to do perfectly reasonable jobs. Turn down a job and in my opinion turn off the benefit. The current trend of cheating unemployment statistics by declaring people as medically incapable of working is nonsense, even if someone can no longer work as a roofer does this mean that they can't answer a phone in a call centre?
A lot of working people feel the same: channel welfare monies into getting people back to work, into providing free childcare to those on low incomes. Benefits should not be a way of life they should be a temporary safety net to help those people who find themselves (temporarily) without a job. Those people who find themselves on benefits should consider that the money provided to them by the state is for absolute essentials: heating, food, water and shelter, and resist the temptation to fritter other people's hard earned money on cigarettes and satellite television. I know that is a stereotyped view, but I see people claiming income support every day, brand new mobile phone, sometimes a new car, sometimes a holiday and it makes you frustrated. I once heard a member of the socialist party (yeah I didn't think socialists existed anymore either) saying that society shouldn't dictate what people spend their benefits on; I nearly choked, every year the Govt says I will spend roughly a third of my income on tax, I don't get any say in that.
Sorry for massive wall of text but I get frustrated and annoyed at this more than any other issue as I feel that I and many other hard working members of society are being made fools by a minority who do not have a conscience.
Got to agree with a lot of what you're saying here and I certainly share your frustrations. Unfortuntely we're well into second and third generations of welfare dependence amd it's going to be very difficult to shift! It's a lot of potential voters to upset too!
There will always be high unemployment until we revive our manufacturing industry and build a global export economy. Just as our forefathers did in the days of empire. Why are we importing materials that we can produce ourselves? Cars, Televisions, Capital goods etc. The global economy can work for us and not against us if we rebuild manufacturing and dominate the market through quality and competitiveness.
I'm not sure that industry is the way forward, and yet I'm confused as to how a full service economy can actually balance the books.
Yes welfare reform upsets voters. Yes whoever brings it up is immediately labelled as the bad guy. But how can we continue with so many people effectively a drag on our economy?
Talking of benefit cap why doesn't the State stop paying child benefit to people on an net income of over say £35,000 a year.
Why should taxes subsidise the children of wealthy families?
You might not be happy that your taxes pay the poor in society but you don't question why the State pays child benefit to people indiscriminately regardless of income.
...it's going to be very difficult to shift! It's a lot of potential voters to upset too
!
Sadly the 'welfare 'was engineered to get these voters in the first place as were many other policies to attract other groups!
Now we need a policy to attract the 'frustrated group' !
Lizabeth, Good point. The entire New Labour ethic is to have people trapped and dependent on part-time service sector work topped up by tax credits. A half work/half benefit economy. People in effect become tied to the state and beholden to the government.
I maintain that the only way to get anywhere near full employment is to rebuild the manufacturing industry. I've always believed that much of the economic restructuring in the 1980s which decimated our manufacturing base was done specifically to destroy the trade union barons. This, in retrospect, was a huge mistake economically.
We need to regenerate manufacturing, but of course ensure that the industry is free from political manipulation. Manufacturing can be the dynamic catalyst that our nation needs, so long as it is competitive and our currency operates at export-friendly levels. The service sector can never provide the level of employment required for a nation of our size.
Astro, why should child benefit be irrespective of income? I say that it shouldn't be, as part of root and branch reforms I'd be in favour of cutting child benefit to people earning over 35k a year (I'm allowed to say that as I fall into that bracket). But it HAS to come with a cap on child benefit to maybe the first 3 children (excluding multiple births). There is no way that I'm going to be subsidising households with more than 4 children, its their choice to have that many kids, they can pay for it. In my mind income support isn't enough to live on as discussed in a different post, I might be in favour of increasing income support payments but limiting these payments to a maximum of 6 months. I don't mind people being in receipt of benefits, my problem is with the whole culture of 'entitlement' and the way in which benefits are a lifestyle choice for some (not all, but a hardcore of people who have no intention of ever working).
We need a massive rollout of state childcare to improve the ability of people to reenter the workforce. I have an employee that works for me who receives a fairly good wage ~ £7/hour, she has a 3 year old with another on the way, in order to come to work (part time) for 4 hours a day she has to pay something like £30 in childcare costs (7*4-30= -£2). She is hardworking, her husband does full time shiftwork, she has no family to care for her child; she's done the maths she knows that she'd be better off not working and claiming income support. That can't possibly be right? Can it?
Labour's policy of engaging wallet, disengaging brain is not the way to deal with every problem. This is an issue. So far it is one that has been treated like the pensions fiasco (large invisible elephant sat in the corner of the room). Serious reform involves tough decisions, its easy to throw other people's money down the drain on a broken system, its much more difficult to stand up and fix it.
Agamemnon, During school years I would prefer to see a mother at home with her children. Much of the problem with 'Social Breakdown' is that children feel abandoned and alienated because the mother is out working all hours to make ends meet.
New Labour want to push every mother into work, leaving the kids to fend for themselves on the streets until she gets back. I see this phenomenon played out every day in the area that I live. Often walking back late at night I see children out in the street playing and I know its because their mother is out working at the local pub. This goes on all over the country.
Labour's anti-family agenda goads mothers into taking on work during unsociable hours which is then topped up by tax credits. The mother earns money but the kids suffer. We must give support to mothers and encourage them to be at home for their children.
I'm glad we agree that it is fiscally prudent to cap child benefit at a pre-determined level.
With regard to the Army there are pro's and con's with mandatory enrolment but I would agree in principal that time spent with the Forces is beneficial in many ways. My first husband was a career soldier and one of our postings was at base that took new recruits before they were allocated a Battalion. They arrived very unsure of themselves and left some months later with pride and confidence about their future that I don't see replicated in civvy street.
As for putting a cap on child benefit after 3 children. I'm not really sure about that partly because for some people there are religious concerns, for some people 'accidents' happen and also it attaches more 'value' to some children and not to others. As it stands at the moment you get a higher rate for the first child and then a lower rate for subsequent children. It may be worth considering an even lower rate of benefit for the 4th and subsequent children.
I think it's difficult to put an arbitary time scale on the receipt of benefits but I would agree that it shouldn't be a lifestyle choice. I live in a sea-side town and the bulk of the jobs come during a 9 month season plus people come here from all over the country to work. So at the end of the season they all go and sign on because there are next to no jobs during the winter. The place shuts down, so if you get a job at the start of the season great ... if you don't it might be another 12 months till there are job vacancies. It's cheaper to go abroad than it is to come to Blackpool and the jobs are getting fewer and fewer so people are on the dole longer and longer.
I can appreciate the difficulties working married couples have. I've been there and done it, and when I had a shop my youngest child was in full time daycare which cost me £70 a week (10 years ago) so for me it was like paying a weekly wage to someone else before I opened the shop door!! It was like paying 2 sets of business rates. So I can appreciate how your employee must be feeling because it's soul destroying to work for nothing.
In the end I gave up and went income support and looked at how I could turn my hobby into my job whereby I don't have a huge turnover but I do have a massively increased profit margin, I'm still working from home which allows me to be there if the kids are ill or off school during holidays, but working the hours that fit in with my kids lives, not my customers lives.
It takes time to re-build your life and there next to support for women trying to start a cottage industry, all the emphasis is put on finding people places in dead end jobs that make them no better off and does nothing for already shattered self-esteem.
The 'Super casino' should have gone to Blackpool, you can argue about the pro's and cons of gambling but it would have raised massive revenue for the town. I see the siting of the casino as a political move to boost Labour heartlands in Manchester.
Children should ideally be raised by their mother, but why couldn't mum work while the children are at school? I employ a fairly flexible form of flexi-time for my employees with children. Glad to see Tory proposals in todays Telegraph from the IDS report:
- a bid to get some of the 3.5m people on income support back into work and recognition that at the moment there is no incentive for the majority of these people to even look for a job.
- recognition of marriage as a worthwhile institution, Britain is one of the few countries in Europe which doesn't recognise the value of marriage through the taxation system. Now I understand that some marriages don't work out, but I think it is an important gesture showing that this is the most stable and successful framework in which to raise children. It is controversial and a lot of people will object that this is 'moralising' or judgemental I think that it shows moral leadership and at least says that this is what we stand for.
Many in the town were very disappointed that Blackpool didn't get awarded the supercasino and there is no doubt about it, the town needs an enormous amount of inward investment which a project such as the casino would have supplied, my concern was not the gambling which people will do whether they sit at home at their computer, or go round the bookies or in existing casino's, but whether the attraction would increase visitor numbers and sustain growth in the long term and I'm not sure it would. Plus what the knock on effect of the smoking ban will be on casino's has yet to fully assessed. My personal view is that Blackpool needs to create a unique attraction and showcase technological innovation that will interest all sections of society, and not just put all their eggs in one basket.
Although I haven't read the detail of IDS report, overall from what I heard at the presentation yesterday, I was supportive of the working groups efforts to tackle these problems with a multi-facted approach. There seemed to be many worthwhile proposals, I just think that as usual, the focus of media attention and thus peoples perception centres on one proposal and little notice is taken of the rest.
When I hear how they are going to create all these flexible jobs for mothers with young children and how they are going to provide the childcare and how it is going to be financed, I may take more notice, but till then, it is aspiration.
When they detail how they are going to get unenthusiastic men into a workplace that has negative perception about long term unemployed or people with histories of civil or criminal convictions, then I might give it more credence.
When they tackle the perception of those on benefit that going to work leaves them treading water financially and does little in real terms to make them better off, I will applaud them.
It's all very well offering people opportunity but as anyone who has been on benefits knows, the minute you notify the authorities of a change of circumstances, it throws your life into absolute chaos. If you have to constantly notify the benefits agency that this week you worked 4 hours, last week you worked 18 hours, next week you're due to work 12 hours, it completely screws up your claim because they can't cope with those adjustments as and when they happen. This isn't conducive to stability and for people on benefits, knowing to the last penny how much money you have available to you each week ... is priceless. There will be over payments, under payments and people tearing their hair out.
It's an honourable aspiration to support marriage as the basis of bringing up children within a stable relationship and if they feel that offering a tax incentive is the best way to approach that then good luck to them. Personally I think more could be achieved by government if they completely reformed the tax laws and gave each person irrespective of their status, married, single or co-habiting, an equal tax allowance. And then look at ways to stabilise family life by giving equal benefits to married people as they do to single people. Why should married pensioners receive less money than 2 single pensioners? Why should married people on benefits receive less money than single parents? Equalise the system and give no pecuniary advantage to one section of society. Then they can look at what else undermines stability.
I do agree with some comments, I am myself a incapacity benefit claimant, I dont have children. I worked full time up until the point I got ill and it depresses me the thought of potentially relying on benefit for another 30+ years of working life.
I think benefits are generous for having children but that is of no surprise since family life is promoted in this country and it will win votes.
I am questioning the use of the word 'temporary' safety net because quite simply when you work you dont temporarily pay taxes you pay them permenantly, in the event things go downhill and you need help of the government in return the government provides that help, ideally it should be temporary but if you eg. develop a serious chronic condition or even worse long term terminal condition the government should honour its end of the deal and pay out for the duration. Recently the sick and disabled appear to be coming scapegoats for a failing system.
For child related benefits, refusing to pay out for 3rd child onwards might be a good step unless there is enough NI contributions from the claimant which means a work history, this would be one step to alleviate state funded families and of course make child tax credits much less generous. I failt see the fairness in paying someone more tax credit on 40k a year with children more then a childless adult on 15k a year.
I would go as far as setting a benefit cap, of no more than the higher rate tax threshold at which an individual would receive no extra income.
Why should the benefit cap be any higher than the national minimum wage? In reality it should be even lower as going to work costs in transport eating out at lunch time and clothing.
Any child benefit should be paid to those in work at exactly the same rate and limited to two children or three if it is affordable.
As Agamemnon states this is a huge problem. In Scotland for example there are around 100,000 unemployed claiming JSA (Job Seekers Allowance) whilst there are also 300,000 claiming IB incapacity benefit. Scotland has 3,000,000 working age population so 1 in 10 working age adults are in receipt of IB which is a four fold increase since the 1980's.
Scotlands total population is around 5m.
Therefor "ecomomically inactive" population is 2.4m.
Of the economically "active" many receive working credits benefit.
23% of Scotlands employed population work in the public sector.
It is little wonder the country is falling apart at the seams in this dependency culture.
Is the one size fits all policy where there is no room for looking at or making decisions on those who dont fit into those infuriating 'tick boxes' which is largely to blame?
Here is an example of one such situation
'Missing out' an earlier blog posted here set the scene for those frustrated, single, white, no childen and actively seeking work. Their crime seems to be on the wrong side of 40 and they have until the current situation have worked hard, contributing in many cases in a very valuable way to society. Now just existing and grateful for the job seekers allowance or whatever it is , they are desperate to work as no bus fares, no phone ,and the lights going out as they chose between electricity or bread. Sorry but that is the truth. and the accomodation has no double glazing, no shower,no insulation whilst the Council is advertising for a green advisor on £35000 PER ANNUM
The crunch is;
No help with fares to a job interview
A temporary job for a few weeks they were advised not to take...No money to get to work or to live on till pay day,needing the job to help get a reference for the futiure......What a siituation,so unfair.
The only solution, borrow the fares to work and some money for food for the next 3-4 weeks. No help available from the bank so left to a good samaritan to offer a temporary loan.
This should not be happening and I hope the brave decision to take the temporary job will have a positive outcome.. a permanent job
The Jobseekers' Allowance is part of the social breakdown agenda. What we are not doing in this country is making sure that people who are out of work but could work, work. And we need to do that.
People should be given a much tougher choice of you either work or you don't get your benefits.
If you look at the organisations that are best at getting the long term unemployed off benefit and in to work it is organisations like Tomorrow's People, it's volantary bodies that are better at actually asking why this person is unemployed, what do they lack- is it confidence, is it skills, is it the ability to write a CV and deal with it rather than just having this revolving door of state benefits, state employment programmes and back to benefits again. That really needs to change.
People who come from Poland and other parts of the world who come here, they work hard, they contribute towards the economy and our society but we are failing as a society if we allow that to happen while just leaving our fellow citizens languishing on the dole. That is not the way the way to build a strong society.
Work is the best way out of poverty and having a job is the best way of getting another job and that is all part of the way of dealing with a broken society.
Work is the best way out of poverty and having a job is the best way of getting another job .
Exactly.. Yet how can one be expected to cope in the situation I described? He/she has taken the temporary job in the hope it will lead to something permanent and for their sake I hope so too.
I agree if you have a job it makes it easier to get a job as there is no current gap in employment for the new employer to worry about, working for min wage can put someone in more poverty then claiming state benefits, this will be especially true when in a few years the 10% bottom rate tax band is discarded. Working for min wage needs to be more rewarding to help give an incentive to those who are on job seekers allowance long term, the alternative is to agressively force them to work but the agressive approach will not lead them to staying employed they will re enter the loop, the key is the claimant has to willingly take the employment in the belief they will be better off and contributing.
If you look at the organisations that are best at getting the long term unemployed off benefit and in to work it is organisations like Tomorrow's People, it's volantary bodies that are better at actually asking why this person is unemployed, what do they lack?
I’ve seen groups like this in action. They are staffed by people barely above unemployable, many are DWP rejects.
“Asking, ‘why is this person unemployed?’” – Some of us were unemployed because the nuLieBore government took bribes to steal our jobs and give them to foreigners. “Asking, ‘what does this person lack?’” – what we lack is the money we were prevented from earning which meant that we now have blighted credit histories, we lack good physical and mental health that was damaged, and we lack the ability to keep our skills current and to have up-to-date commercial experience and references.
WHAT WE LACK – is an opposition that will bring this government to account and will commit to repairing the damage that has been done to peoples lives. Not only in this example, but for everyone that has suffered at the hands of this corrupt government.
With a temporary job lasting only 3-4 weeks there is most likely to be a gap which is the problem. ...
A graduate in Politics and ..... though the politics side was not pursued,,pity really as he/she has more understanding of many issues than many politicians appear to have.
As DaveB says
Quote:
.... is an opposition that will bring this government to account
We can never have full employment without a manufacturing base. The problems around manufacturing in the 1970s were due to nationalization and the union barons. A completely privately owned manufacturing core would have the entire markets of the world at its disposal.
The future Conservative government must pull out the stops to try and get all the regular unemployed into proper full-time work. Labour have always championed themselves as the party that creates jobs. However now that myth has been exposed. Its time for the Conservatives to show Labour how its done!
When you say regular employed do you also mean the sick or just people who are supposedbly looking for work aka jobseekers.
Its scary that people expect other people to go through the pain barrier and work just so they get to pay a little less income tax.
There seems to be some sort of obsession with full employment in this country everyone looking after themselves I think the days need to come back where a typical family would have one adult working and one staying at home so better child upbringing and the country be proud to look after its ill unconditionally, unconditionally I mean by not expect someone who is unfit to work to look for work it kind of contradicts their predicament. Support those better who wish to work but are struggling to find work as well.
There seems to be an inconsistent approach by those who decide who is fit for work of some kind and who should receive incapacity benefit, and the numerous charities that aim to provide work for people on incapacity benefit.
Remploy are to close 'dozens of factories', a move supported by charities such as MENCAP and Mind because as Remploy's CEO states:
Quote:
"There is now an acceptance that disabled people would prefer to work in mainstream employment alongside non-disabled people rather than in sheltered workshops from which they do not progress or develop".
Nothing inconsistent its a problem where there is no trust and the system refuses to simply accept medical opinion on whether a person is able to work. So often untrained staff make decisions on if a claimant can work or not, if the condition is a invisble illness the claimant is more or less treated like a criminal and they must be wrong and capable of work. I wonder how much money is spent on paying people to say mr X is fot for work.
I think the question of how ill you have to be is down to the person themself and medical professionals, for instance I found it extremely painful simply to goto the jobcentre and sit in a 10 minute interview and had to endure a benefits advisor who probably had no knowledge of my condition telling me I am wrong I can work and it is wrong for me to claim this benefit at my age its just for older people etc. To be blunt she knows nothing of what I can do only I do, I am not saying people like me should be left alone completely and thats it obviously reviews have to be carried out to ensure my situation doesnt change.
People with mentail illnesses and other conditions that dont physically restrict them are also a complicated case, I dont think its as simple as saying you can work just put your mind to it, a support system needs to be put in place to maybe try and get them in the right frame of mind to get back into society, only when this is achieved can they be looked as suitable for work again, also bear in mind some mental conditions lead to bad physical conditions, my physical condition is caused by a mental condition that I have had for years and its eventually caught up with me.
Some more trust does need to be applied, treat claimants with respect instead of as criminals and provide support to make employment a more bearable experience which may help some disabled people getting into work. I would also suggest for job seekers allowance support is provided from day 1 since the current policy is to concentrate on the longer term employed only leaving the short term employed to find work for themselves.
The DWP is not interested in getting anyone back to work; individual officers are only interested in meeting their targets for getting people off the claimant list they are assigned to. They do not care what happens to anyone. The obvious preference is that the claimant dies. It doesn’t mater if it’s exposure, starvation, or suicide; so long as claimant doesn’t come back.
I have BEGGED for help to get back to work (that the government took away from me in the first place), but they refuse to allow me access to anything. I live in a constant state of terror waiting for my number to come up and be subject to a ‘review’ i.e. have my benefits stopped. However, I have made plans for this and I am not going to my death quietly and alone; I intend to take as many others as I can with me.
DavidBodden - I know that quite a few people on Webcameron have already advised you to seek 'help'. You need to see a doctor and speak to someone. Or call the Samaritans.
You have made multiple cries for help on this website. PLEASE go talk to a doctor - or anyone - but get help. Thank you.
DavidBodden, They can't possibly stop your benefits if you show that you are looking for work. The fact that you can't find work is the fault of the Labour government, don't blame yourself.
I've read several times that some Jobcentreplus staff bully the unemployed and its something that the Conservative party should look into. These staff may be under pressure to reach Labour imposed targets, hence their antagonistic nature, trying to force the unemployed to apply for jobs they are not suited to.
Does anyone remember the story of the woman who had her benefit stopped because she refused to apply for a job in a sex shop that the Jobcentreplus office had found for her? Makes me wonder how Gordon Brown's job-matching scheme is going to work?
The real problem I believe we have in Britain is that the unemployed have it to easy.
They get their benefits of nearly £60 a week and in most income related cases 100% housing benefit and council tax which in many cases makes it almost as good to be out of work than in.
Take my own example.
Last week I earned £182 after tax for 37.5 hours work and after paying rent of £99 was left with £83.
A person in the same block as me gets nearly £60 in jsa or income support and receives 100% housing benefit making him just £27 worse off then me for doing precisely nothing.
This is where I feel we need big changes and here are two ideas to go along with:
1. The state should only pay 80% of rent for housing benefits.
2. Anyone earning less than £13,000 should be taken out of tax completely.
3. We should have policies to encourage people to work rather than not.
Geoffry, You make very valid points and express an opinion that most people can relate to. I agree that the tax regime sets out to punish intitative. I disagree with your position on reducing rent rebates though as I could see that very quickly leading to debt, evictions and homelessness.
My idea is that the state should put all its effort into putting every JSA claiment into paid work and training. If a person is receiving 35-55 pounds a week JSA plus a 60/70 pound rent/council tax rebate then it would be advantageous for the state to pay a little extra and employ the unemployed.
The work involved could be all manner of social projects, such as improving broken down estates, renovating green areas, aspects of care work etc. It seems such a tragic waste of human potential that people are left to rot on the dole.
Also giving the unemployed guarenteed work will go a long way to end alienation and will counter the black economy.
1. The state should only pay 80% of rent for housing benefits.
And what happens to someone who can't get a job? Do they get thrown out onto the streets because they can't pay their rent? (And don't say "but there's lots of jobs out there" because I'll point out that there are also *lots* of applicants for each one)
Quote:
2. Anyone earning less than £13,000 should be taken out of tax completely.
Why £13,000? And is that all tax? What about NI?
Quote:
3. We should have policies to encourage people to work rather than not.
I agree, but they should be *positive* encouragements, not "punishments".
For example if that person you mention in your post above does *any* work, they risk having their benefits suspended and then it can take weeks to get them reinstated.
If they earn any money, they lost benefits on a "pound for pound" basis, so what is the *point* of them trying to do anything?
It would make more sense for people in that situation to be allowed to keep the greater proportion of their income, but then there would be complaints that people not on benefits are being treated unfairly because they're losing out.
to the points geffrey made I also agree with regards to housing benefit.
If you do a check on housing/council benefit on a weekly income thats equal to benefit levels (under £100 a week) it comes back as a much lower number then would get if on benefits? why is this. So the result is if in low paid employment and was relying on housing benefit whilst unemployed you are worse off, the solution to this problem is make housing and council tax benefit more generous to the lower paid workers. So it really does pay to work even if its a low paid job, the government would still gain dispite the increased benefits because the worker is paying income tax as well as not claiming a main benefit. The alternative is to reduce benefit payouts but this would put people in massive poverty and genuine claimants suffer.
To graham I think if I understand you right you prefer encouragement/assistance in finding work to punishments, that I agree with. Your point about allowing someone to try working without penalty is also very good, currently there is a lot of risk involved for someone to try working whilst on certian benefits which is a big discouragement to even try because of the risk of losing their income.
I did see some stuff on tv recently about benefits programmes in some states in the USA.
The view taken was "benefits are a lifeline, not a career" so all benefits stopped after 5 years. (I think that after 5 years food and clothing vouchers were provided but not money - so "all" is not necessarily literally absolutely everything being stopped).
If we were to impose a limit, where would we draw the line - at 5 years, or a bit more, or a bit less ?
At one level, 5 years is enough time to do a few A levels (2 years) and a university degree (approx 3 years) .... and then perhaps get a job.
Simplistically and in a "lets play devil's advocate" frame of mind .... I only sort of understand the "there's no point in getting a job as you lose benefits on a £1 for £1 basis". Surely, the knack is to get a job that outpays benefits .... even if the 1st available job isn't great and doesn't bring in much more than benefits.
If for example, someone gets £200 benefits a week and gets a job paying £100 a week, £100 benefits will go. If doing that job for say, 18 months, means promotion and pay rises or getting another higher paid job (say £300 a week) once one has an established working track record and an employer's reference .... then losing £1 for a £1 seems worthwhile.
The alternative is accepting (in this example) lower benefits FOREVER than the wage one could have earned for oneself for the rest of one's working life.
However, there is still room for reform - if benefits are dependent on the number of children one has then benefits may tend to remain more attractive than working for the minimum wage (which depends on the going rate for the job, not the number of one's dependents).
Perhaps that is the makings of a case for value limited benefits too - perhaps capped at the average annual wage the person earned in the last 3 to 5 years ??
DavidBodden, They can't possibly stop your benefits if you show that you are looking for work.
Tony, they can and they do
A friend of mine has found this out more than once. It's easy. The bridgend jobcentre decide to piss on you by changing your sign-on day, don't bother to tell you, and then when you turn up on the day they told you to last time you were there, bingo, you're signed off.
And that's only one example. I could give you an email address for a guy who will be able to tell you a dozen other ways he's been pissed on by those people.
But here's a good one from me for free.
Your company goes down the tubes because the Inland Revenue terrorise your clients by telling them if they continue to subcontract work to sole traders they will send special investigators in to examine THEIR books. Even though there was not a jot wrong with mine.
The order book then gets finished off when the Home Office brings in a Fast Tracked Visa scheme that wrongly identifies your skill as being 'in shortage'.
And when you finally go under and turn up at the jobcentre you are told (falsely) that you don't qualify for jobseekers allowance.
Then your father in law dies and the money you get from his estate keeps you going until it runs out and you go bak to the same place where the same person who lied to you two years ago now admits well actually yes you could have had jobseekers allowance and be helped then but now it's too late all that tax you paid was paid two years ago and therefore you no longer count.
It's an interesting world when you're on your arse.
I've seen it from the bottom of the shit pile three times in my fifty years now and I hope with every fibre of my being that you never have to. Because it amazes me that there aren't more murders of benefit staff, it really does.
The order book then gets finished off when the Home Office brings in a Fast Tracked Visa scheme that wrongly identifies your skill as being 'in shortage'.
You too?
See everyone; it’s not just me who has had their lives destroyed by the actions of this evil government. There are many tens of thousands of us. Can we get Cameron’s Conservatives to stand up for us? No chance. The Conservatives could nail Labour over the work permit fraud by referring them to the parliamentary ombudsman, the audit commission, and the police fraud squad. However, they refuse to do so. It makes me wonder why.
Quote:
... it amazes me that there aren't more murders of benefit staff, it really does.
I have already made a public pledge that if they make one more attack on me then, as I will have nothing to lose, I will respond in kind. They are nothing other than collaborators with an oppressive regime.
I used to think it was possible to fight back. And from time to time we do score the odd point. A former colleague of mine made the then chancellor and now prime minister look a complete bloody fool at his own party conference about five years ago. That same man helped me drive a coach and horses through the fallacy of the fast tracked visa "assumptions".
But I see the guilty are still collecting salaries about six to ten times my own now (how much does gordon brown get these days ?).
I proved the lying scum were indeed lying scum but it did me very little good. Accountability in Government is a joke so I suppose we cannot be surprised that accountability in the "public services" is equally a joke. At the lowest point in my fifty years after I found out the lying scum in Newport Jobcentre had indeed lied to me about my eligibility for assistance, what recourse had I ? None at all. And let us be honest the Covservatives are not going to be the party to champion the rights of the unemployed are they ? I alsways thought the Spitting Image sketch with Norman Tebbit rather summed up the tory attitude to the unemployed rather well.
I also watched Matthew Parris fail miserably to live for a week on a single man's unemployment benefit the first time when he volunteered to do it for 'world in action' i think it was and the guy was unrepentant about the system in the full light of his utter failure, and I watched with despair when he did id again was it twenty years later and remained unrepentant.
Which brings me on to my next point.
At the lowest point in my fifty years, three years ago, I too felt enraged to the point where it seemed doing something really bloody violent was the only thing left, not because it would do me any good, but because it might, just might, make a difference for the next poor sod.
But then I realised something truly terrifying.
It wouldn't make any difference at all.
Just for a minute let us say you've managed to get yourself within fifty foot of Gordon Brown, unnoticed by the army of minders all equipped with that "special ammunition" road tested and proven to remove 99% of all known brazilians. Let's say you live just long enough to point the barrel of something at him.
Do you really think he'll realise you're doing it because you're a fifty year old near-bankrupt whose IT business has gone down the tubes because he organised its demise, whose next enterprise was torpedoed by a planning decision that to allow a development in north wales was an "unwarranted intrusion of english speaking people" and whose final throw of the dice was torpedoed by a declaration that composting materials constitute hazardous waste requiring a special licence - a licence NOT acquired for any of the council vehicles that now do the job.
Do you think he'll realise you've been driven to this by his theft of your livelihood, his theft of your pension, and his theft of any hope that your children can afford their own homes on the salaries their jobs might bring ?
No.
And that's the most damning condemnation of all, I think.
Apart perhaps from the equally despairing fact that if it were any other politician, of any other political colour, they wouldn't know why they were in those gunsights either.
I disagree with your belief in the futility of violence. I believe it is the only way to communicate with the bastards. Democracy has failed, or rather; it has been abandoned by those who have gained power.
Generic acts such as attacks on the transport system in London are counter productive. It makes the general population in the wider country back the government. The fight should be taken to both the means of abuse i.e. attacks on public sector organisations and workers (or collaborators as I believe they are), and the support base of those in power i.e. attacks on targets in the constituencies of ministers (bomb a hospital or nursery school in the Prime ministers constituency). This would be far more effective in getting the message across to stop the abuse.
After more bad experiences dealing with the DWP I fail to see how a good result can come from this. Mass population are now brainwashed into thinking the vast majority of people on incapacity benefits are defrauding the system and can work but dont out of choice and that the majority on jobseekers can also start a job at the click of a finger but again choose to idle at home instead. This is leading to measures where the genuine claimants get turned down for benefits they should qualify for. On top of this there is things happening that involve outsourcing responsabilities preventing freedom of information requests and removing blame from government departments when things go wrong.
The super duper NHS system that is supposed to be labours limelight has still after 3 years failed to diagnose my condition and as a result I have been refused disability living allowance on the basis I have no diagnosis and as such no medical evidence I live in fear my incapacity benefit will be taken away as I am now incapable of even doing the walking required to get into a jobcentre to sign on for jobseekers.
