Bebefit system refit Your suggestions pleas

[slim]

We seem to have hijacked the Gun thread and it is becoming more of a Chac/Benefit/Social debate.
I think my extreme right wing views on the benefit system are well known. So what reforms would members suggest may best be applied to the system to make it fit for purpose.
I have put this thread in Current affairs so please only serious suggestions which could make a difference.
A more light hearted thread will be put on Diamond Lills for all of us who like to take the p!ss

 

[sgtpepperband]

Moving slightly away from benefit reform, can I suggest a possible solution to some points raised here and elsewhere?

As we know there is an evident problem with social disorder; some offenders are 'let off' in the eyes of some, and oters are imprisoned. As we also know our prison are almost full to capacity, and many prisoners are released unreformed or rehabilitated, and often go on to commit more serious offences.

Could a social reform programme be implemented whereby, rather than an offender authomatically being 'banged up' he is forcibly employed (under strict supervision) working within the community he has harmed?

A more intense version of Number 9 Punishment perhaps? The benefits of this are obvious. More space is created in prisons; offenders are seen in public by the victims of their crimes, and are shamed by the circumstances of them doing menial but worthwhile tasks; and slowly but surely the community itself will see an improvement in the appearance in their locale and will also see that offenders are able to reform, given the opportunity. Obviously offenders that do not comply with the sensible but strictly monitored regime of this will be penalised accordingly.

I know it might appear a bit uptopian but it's a start, isn't it?

 

[slim]

Moving slightly away from benefit reform, can I suggest a possible solution to some points raised here and elsewhere?

As we know there is an evident problem with social disorder; some offenders are 'let off' in the eyes of some, and oters are imprisoned. As we also know our prison are almost full to capacity, and many prisoners are released unreformed or rehabilitated, and often go on to commit more serious offences.

Could a social reform programme be implemented whereby, rather than an offender authomatically being 'banged up' he is forcibly employed (under strict supervision) working within the community he has harmed?

A more intense version of Number 9 Punishment perhaps? The benefits of this are obvious. More space is created in prisons; offenders are seen in public by the victims of their crimes, and are shamed by the circumstances of them doing menial but worthwhile tasks; and slowly but surely the community itself will see an improvement in the appearance in their locale and will also see that offenders are able to reform, given the opportunity. Obviously offenders that do not comply with the sensible but strictly monitored regime of this will be penalised accordingly.

I know it might appear a bit uptopian but it's a start, isn't it?

I like the idea sarge. How about starting a new thread on crime & punishment in the same vein. i.e. One on Current affairs where we can all be serious and the other on Diamond Lills for all us p!ss takers?

 

[sgtpepperband]

If you spread the thread it will only confuse people; ones who have a valid point will post in Lills, and vicky verky! And since when has Jack been serious for that long?! 8O

 

[slim]

If you spread the thread it will only confuse people; ones who have a valid point will post in Lills, and vicky verky! And since when has Jack been serious for that long?! 8O

Just thought we could have a seperate area for serious & non serious.
Seriously I do like your idea of punishment RN style for offenders rather than probation or prison. However how long would it be before the toerags went to the European court to complain that their civil liberties were being abused?

 

[sgtpepperband]

The right to live in a peaceful and safe environment compared to a (self-perceived) infringement of their civil liberties? I know which side a court would sit...

 

[slim]

The right to live in a peaceful and safe environment compared to a (self-perceived) infringement of their civil liberties? I know which side a court would sit...

Unfortunately the judicial system both here & in Europe seem to lean towards the perpetrator of the crime & not the victim

 

[sgtpepperband]

Suggesting that the case for the prosection has to be justifiably stronger!

 

[FlagWagger]

So what reforms would members suggest may best be applied to the system to make it fit for purpose.
I have put this thread in Current affairs so please only serious suggestions which could make a difference.

Simplify and harmonise the benefits and taxation systems; give everyone a personal allowance, say for arguments sake, 12000 GBP. If you earn less than this amount, then the benefits system will pay you the difference, and if you earn more than this amount, then you will be taxed on the difference at a flat rate, e.g. 25% (actual levels selected to ensure it is cost neutral at worst, and does not disadvantage current recipients). For married couples (and civil partnerships) there should be a mechanism where partners can transfer a proportion of their personal allowance across when their partner is not working. Children's allowances? I don't know, perhaps continue with Child Allowance as per today and not give any additional incentives.

This should greatly simplify the payments system, and reduce the admin burden that ther is today. People will once again become responsible for paying their own bills from thier income and will have to budget accordingly - (although perhaps we need to introduce the concept of fiscal responsiblility and budgeting into the education system and give people an education in living rather than worthless bit of paper!).

 

[slim]

So what reforms would members suggest may best be applied to the system to make it fit for purpose.
I have put this thread in Current affairs so please only serious suggestions which could make a difference.

Simplify and harmonise the benefits and taxation systems; give everyone a personal allowance, say for arguments sake, 12000 GBP. If you earn less than this amount, then the benefits system will pay you the difference, and if you earn more than this amount, then you will be taxed on the difference at a flat rate, e.g. 25% (actual levels selected to ensure it is cost neutral at worst, and does not disadvantage current recipients). For married couples (and civil partnerships) there should be a mechanism where partners can transfer a proportion of their personal allowance across when their partner is not working. Children's allowances? I don't know, perhaps continue with Child Allowance as per today and not give any additional incentives.

This should greatly simplify the payments system, and reduce the admin burden that ther is today. People will once again become responsible for paying their own bills from thier income and will have to budget accordingly - (although perhaps we need to introduce the concept of fiscal responsiblility and budgeting into the education system and give people an education in living rather than worthless bit of paper!).

Seems feasible, however wouldn't this system still give those that can work but wont work even more money?

 

[sgtpepperband]

Well if some people in RR had their way, to sterilise them and send them overseas! lol

 

[FlagWagger]

Simplify and harmonise the benefits and taxation systems; <snip>

Seems feasible, however wouldn't this system still give those that can work but wont work even more money?

Possibly but only to a certain point, say subsistence level rather than comfortable existence level; but the big difference, is that any new system should not overly penalise people who want to work - if they earn more money then they should, above a certain level, see the fruits of their labours; today's benefits system unfortunately often penalises people for working and actually discourages people from working.

 

[Always_a_Civvy]

So what reforms would members suggest may best be applied to the system to make it fit for purpose.
I have put this thread in Current affairs so please only serious suggestions which could make a difference.

Simplify and harmonise the benefits and taxation systems; give everyone a personal allowance, say for arguments sake, 12000 GBP. If you earn less than this amount, then the benefits system will pay you the difference, and if you earn more than this amount, then you will be taxed on the difference at a flat rate, e.g. 25% (actual levels selected to ensure it is cost neutral at worst, and does not disadvantage current recipients). For married couples (and civil partnerships) there should be a mechanism where partners can transfer a proportion of their personal allowance across when their partner is not working. Children's allowances? I don't know, perhaps continue with Child Allowance as per today and not give any additional incentives.

This should greatly simplify the payments system, and reduce the admin burden that ther is today. People will once again become responsible for paying their own bills from thier income and will have to budget accordingly - (although perhaps we need to introduce the concept of fiscal responsiblility and budgeting into the education system and give people an education in living rather than worthless bit of paper!).

This is, I recall, broadly what Frank Field advocated and the Government buried. The real problem with this formula is that given the mean wage, after tax, most of the UK population would be entitled to top up benefits. For example in the civil service, most full time staff earn well under £12,000 after tax, NI and pension contributions (at 3.5%) have been deducted. This would involve both enormous cost and be extremely embarassing to sucessive governments who have been sheltering behind statistics that put a rosy gloss on the reality of immiseration in Britain. In political terms - honesty is impossible. The present system, whilst imperfect, avoids this.

 

[slim]

Unfortunately unless this or the next government does something drastic to overhaul both the benefit system and the minimum wage then we will continue to have a system where for many they are financially better off on benefits.
These benefit claimants are really not to blame, who in their right mind would work a 40 hour week and then find that after working expenses had been deducted they were worse off than when unemployed. The system needs overhauling to ensure that this never happens.
At present many unemployed layabouts are receiving more in benefits than the tax paying worker who is helping to support them earns

 

[FlagWagger]

This is, I recall, broadly what Frank Field advocated and the Government buried.

Ah yes the "old when we said to think the unthinkable, we didn't think that you'd think up something as unthinkable as this" brushoff!

The real problem with this formula is that given the mean wage, after tax, most of the UK population would be entitled to top up benefits. For example in the civil service, most full time staff earn well under £12,000 after tax, NI and pension contributions (at 3.5%) have been deducted. This would involve both enormous cost and be extremely embarassing to sucessive governments who have been sheltering behind statistics that put a rosy gloss on the reality of immiseration in Britain. In political terms - honesty is impossible. The present system, whilst imperfect, avoids this.

Its not merely imperfect, its fundamentally flawed - the system does not in any way help getting people back to work, and once you're on benefits you're trapped in the system. It needs someone from outside the political establishment (and its cronies) to look objectively at the way social security is supposed to work and to put in place a complete new system that meets these needs. The continual peripheral tinkering is not helping, in fact its majing the system ever more complex to administer which is self-defeating, even self-consuming - if its costs 100 GBP to administer 50 GBP of benefits, why not cut the costs, give the claimaint 75 GBP and pocket the difference?