has the welfare state wrecked Britain?

The second point that concerns me is the ethics of putting the children into care.

Putting a child into care costs anything upto £700 a week, depending on their needs, but the average cost is about £350 ( which is paid to the carer who doesn't have to claim it when they apply for benefits, so thats a whole other kettle of fish)

So it's cheaper for the child to stay with the parents then take them off them. However if these parents are spending money on things they shouldn't, then thats the time to start giving out food tokens ( You get milk tokens that can only be spent on milk so why not fresh veg, meat etc ones?) and top up cards for untility bills. Then a very small allowance for sundarys.
 

mazza_magoo

Lantern Swinger
Always_a_Civvy said:
slim said:
Abuse of the system is rampant. When caught fraudulently claiming benefits the punishments are laughable.
Why not announce a date say January 1st 2007.
State that anyone criminally abusing the system will have benefits stopped.

To appease the do gooders basic human needs could be catered for i.e rent paid, gas and electricity allowance (paid direct to providers) & food stamps.

Further abuse of the system would mean that this would also stop. Any children would be taken into care.

Yes its harsh but something needs to be done.
I have no problem with paying the benefits for housing, utilities, etc directly to the supplier. I think this would be a good way to combat misuse of benefit for purposes for which it is not intended. Nor as a liberal do I have any problem with those who defraud the system being punished for their crime: withdrawing the priviledge of benefits seems perfectly reasonable to me. My worry is that the moral imperative that underlies this philosophy might be extended to socially manipulate peoples behaviour, as it was used in Soviet Russia. After all we are already seeing this moralism in action in the US and those who wish to transfer functions of the welfare state to charities, paid for by the taxpayer, could result in those charities with a religious ethos refusing to help groups they like scapegoating like gays and ethnically mixed parents (prohibited as an abonimation in scripture).

The second point that concerns me is the ethics of putting the children into care. I think it would be preferable to determine at school which people are unsuitable to be parents and stop them having children in the first place, but this is of course the very social engineering nthat is potentially open to abuse!

Steve.
How is it that almost every post you put on here eventually comes around to some reference to the oppression of gays by religious groups?

:roll:
 

slim

War Hero
wompingwillow said:
1. Driving cars
2 Sporting new expensive tattoos
3 Having their nails done at the local boutique
4 Smoking
5 Going to the local boozer
6 Wearing expensive designer trainers
7 Conversing on the latest mobile phone

Cataloges, loan sharks, yes car credit.

Wish I had the money to do all thoughs things. However I have chossen to spend my £80 a week income support on

1. Going back to college to do a access course
2. Gas, electricity and water rates.
3. Sending my child to nursery
4. Bus pass to get to college ( although to save money I tend to walk)
5. food and clothing,


1. Driving cars < couldn't afford to run a car
2 Sporting new expensive tattoos < I have no idea
3 Having their nails done at the local boutique < I had mine done once they cost me a £5 because college student did them
4 Smoking< I don't smoke
5 Going to the local boozer< yes sometimes, but not every night
6 Wearing expensive designer trainers< I have a pair of sketchers, that are 6 years old, most of my clothes come from charity shops or jumble sales.
7 Conversing on the latest mobile phone< I have a nokia 3310 which cost me £20 and is so old the ringer on it no longer works and the battery lasts for about 1/2 day if I'm lucky.


I don't have sky, use the computers ether in college or my parents.

So please don't tar all people on benefits with the same brush, some of us are intellegent people, who have found themselfs down on their luck and need some short term help to get ourselfs back on our feet and become useful members of the community again.
You are using the welfare system as it is meant to be used, ie to get yourself back to a situation where you no longer need it.
Good for you and I hope that you achieve your aims.
I started this thread not as a drip against the welfare state but as a drip as to the way the benefits are implemented. The long term user of the system knows all the angles as to the benefits they are entitled to. The system is so good to them that they have no intention of ever returning to work.
As a single mom you must see other moms on benefits getting far more than you, however you quote £80 income support. Do you also receive housing benefit and do you pay council tax? Please add up the value of all your benefits not just quote one of them
 

slim

War Hero
wompingwillow said:
The second point that concerns me is the ethics of putting the children into care.

Putting a child into care costs anything upto £700 a week, depending on their needs, but the average cost is about £350 ( which is paid to the carer who doesn't have to claim it when they apply for benefits, so thats a whole other kettle of fish)

So it's cheaper for the child to stay with the parents then take them off them. However if these parents are spending money on things they shouldn't, then thats the time to start giving out food tokens ( You get milk tokens that can only be spent on milk so why not fresh veg, meat etc ones?) and top up cards for untility bills. Then a very small allowance for sundarys.
It certainly is cheaper but in the case of families like the alcoholic father quoted earlier i would prefer the extra expense of the child/children ceing cared for properly by an approved carer than by some drunken rsole pissing all my taxes up
 
slim said:
wompingwillow said:
The second point that concerns me is the ethics of putting the children into care.

Putting a child into care costs anything upto £700 a week, depending on their needs, but the average cost is about £350 ( which is paid to the carer who doesn't have to claim it when they apply for benefits, so thats a whole other kettle of fish)

So it's cheaper for the child to stay with the parents then take them off them. However if these parents are spending money on things they shouldn't, then thats the time to start giving out food tokens ( You get milk tokens that can only be spent on milk so why not fresh veg, meat etc ones?) and top up cards for untility bills. Then a very small allowance for sundarys.
It certainly is cheaper but in the case of families like the alcoholic father quoted earlier i would prefer the extra expense of the child/children ceing cared for properly by an approved carer than by some drunken rsole pissing all my taxes up
On the outside that does look reasonable but just a couple of points, firstly the children may well be able to accept their parents failings and consider their removal a punishment of them, perhaps of course they can be re-educated to see it was for their own good.

Secondly long term care only succeeds for some, many become the young homeless people you see begging where there only prospect be they male or female is to 'go on the game'. The care system in this country has many good points but equally it has many failures.

Re-educationof the parents is far more likely to be the most cost effective solution, and can maintain the family unit which will result in fewer delinquents in the future.

Peter
 

nearlytiff

Midshipman
Yes the welfare is no longer fit for purpose. However the whole taxation system needs reforming. For instance a person should always benefit financially when they go to work. This could be achieved by increasing the tax free allowance to around £10,000 as this is probably the minimum someone needs to survive. At present an umemployed person could go to work for £12,000 pa, and be taxed on £7,000 of that. If they have a family there are most certainly going to be better off on benefits.

Secondly means testing should be abolished for all benefits. It discourages thrift and hard work. Benefits should be simplified. Basic benefits are not enough but there are so many hidden benefits and allowances that can be applied for, and it is always the work shy and scroungers who know about them, that people can live comfortably off benefits if they play the system.

Last of all government should be as small as possible. Government is a drag on the productivity of the economy and taxes on entrepreneurship. Unfortunately Labour have massively increased the size of government and we are going to pay heavily for their mismanagement.
 

FlagWagger

GCM
Book Reviewer
nearlytiff said:
Yes the welfare is no longer fit for purpose. However the whole taxation system needs reforming. For instance a person should always benefit financially when they go to work. This could be achieved by increasing the tax free allowance to around £10,000 as this is probably the minimum someone needs to survive. At present an umemployed person could go to work for £12,000 pa, and be taxed on £7,000 of that. If they have a family there are most certainly going to be better off on benefits.

Secondly means testing should be abolished for all benefits. It discourages thrift and hard work. Benefits should be simplified. Basic benefits are not enough but there are so many hidden benefits and allowances that can be applied for, and it is always the work shy and scroungers who know about them, that people can live comfortably off benefits if they play the system.

Last of all government should be as small as possible. Government is a drag on the productivity of the economy and taxes on entrepreneurship. Unfortunately Labour have massively increased the size of government and we are going to pay heavily for their mismanagement.
Agree 110% - one other problem of over-sized Government is that Labour have given themselves a large number of virutally automatic votes. Those employed in the the public service, especially the raft of new "non-jobs" created by Labour, are hardly likely to vote for any party that promotes a policy of "small government" - that'd be like turkeys looking forward to Christmas!
 

slim

War Hero
In the bad old days (before even my time) the unemployed went ON THE PARISH. You had to have been born in the parish to claim benefits and were given enough to exist on. This money was given by the parishioners. However it was not given free, anyone on the parish had to do work within the parish. This was tailored to the skills and ability of the claimant.
Where they really bad old days?
Would anyone like to see the system of having to work for benefits re-introduced?
It would get my vote
 

FlagWagger

GCM
Book Reviewer
slim said:
In the bad old days (before even my time) the unemployed went ON THE PARISH. You had to have been born in the parish to claim benefits and were given enough to exist on. This money was given by the parishioners. However it was not given free, anyone on the parish had to do work within the parish. This was tailored to the skills and ability of the claimant.
Where they really bad old days?
Would anyone like to see the system of having to work for benefits re-introduced?
It would get my vote
The down side of this system is that immigration wasn't controlled at a national level like it is today (in theory if not in practice) it was acutally run at the parish level! You actually had to provide evidence that you could support yourself before you would be allowed to settle in a parish.
 
slim said:
In the bad old days (before even my time) the unemployed went ON THE PARISH. You had to have been born in the parish to claim benefits and were given enough to exist on. This money was given by the parishioners. However it was not given free, anyone on the parish had to do work within the parish. This was tailored to the skills and ability of the claimant.
Where they really bad old days?
Would anyone like to see the system of having to work for benefits re-introduced?
It would get my vote
Working for benefits went out with the ark-----because if any job can be created to employ people on the benefits system then that job would be construed as 'slave labour' and any job in any case would be ruled by the minimum wage --which is about £5.20 an hour

Child benefits are usually paid to the Mother --so Daddy can't buy beer with it.

As for the Benefit users--the long term ones have a network
so the cars/tv's /trainers/clothes/mobile phones etc usually come from devious sources--and as WW says the catalogues and dodgy money lenders,

People earning less than £2oo a week are better off on the dole !!
Once you earn a wage then you are liable for council tax/rent/electric bills feeding yourself and family .

As for not paying the benefits and stopping them--they do --however the trick is to become homeless!! Then you really see the dosh coming your way.

Lastly tricks to get a council house-- become homeless immediate jump the queue and max points for first house available.
 

slim

War Hero
Greenie said:
slim said:
In the bad old days (before even my time) the unemployed went ON THE PARISH. You had to have been born in the parish to claim benefits and were given enough to exist on. This money was given by the parishioners. However it was not given free, anyone on the parish had to do work within the parish. This was tailored to the skills and ability of the claimant.
Where they really bad old days?
Would anyone like to see the system of having to work for benefits re-introduced?
It would get my vote
Working for benefits went out with the ark-----because if any job can be created to employ people on the benefits system then that job would be construed as 'slave labour' and any job in any case would be ruled by the minimum wage --which is about £5.20 an hour

Child benefits are usually paid to the Mother --so Daddy can't buy beer with it.

As for the Benefit users--the long term ones have a network
so the cars/tv's /trainers/clothes/mobile phones etc usually come from devious sources--and as WW says the catalogues and dodgy money lenders,

People earning less than £2oo a week are better off on the dole !!
Once you earn a wage then you are liable for council tax/rent/electric bills feeding yourself and family .

As for not paying the benefits and stopping them--they do --however the trick is to become homeless!! Then you really see the dosh coming your way.

Lastly tricks to get a council house-- become homeless immediate jump the queue and max points for first house available.
This trick only works for people with children.
A homeless single person is ignored, though they will pay toward hie/her accomodation providing he doess not move in with a relative
 
nearlytiff said:
Yes the welfare is no longer fit for purpose. However the whole taxation system needs reforming. For instance a person should always benefit financially when they go to work. This could be achieved by increasing the tax free allowance to around £10,000 as this is probably the minimum someone needs to survive. At present an umemployed person could go to work for £12,000 pa, and be taxed on £7,000 of that. If they have a family there are most certainly going to be better off on benefits.
Certainly people should be rewarded for working, if one gets £100 a week net from working benefit should only be cut by 80 to 90 pounds. Of course for this to work effectively the present system of benfits being supplied by different organisations on different standards would have to end and all be provided through one agency which could ensure the balance was struck between earned cash and benefit cash.
nearlytiff said:
Secondly means testing should be abolished for all benefits. It discourages thrift and hard work. Benefits should be simplified. Basic benefits are not enough but there are so many hidden benefits and allowances that can be applied for, and it is always the work shy and scroungers who know about them, that people can live comfortably off benefits if they play the system.
In general yes but see above in reference to benefits for those not in work. Certainly the present treatment of savings is grossly unfare, particularly as the assumed income from savings is in fact unachievable.
nearlytiff said:
Last of all government should be as small as possible. Government is a drag on the productivity of the economy and taxes on entrepreneurship. Unfortunately Labour have massively increased the size of government and we are going to pay heavily for their mismanagement.
Whilst I agree that government should be as small as possible, it should not be so much a drag on the economy rather a facilitator of enterprise. Taxes need to be collected and all parts of the economy even entrepreneurs have to contribute their share.

Peter
 

slim

War Hero
higthepig said:
And then there was the workhouse....................but thats another story
Great idea Hig. Bring back the workhouse, see how long it is before the residents decide that they are able to work
 

Scran_Bag

Lantern Swinger
I've just picked up this thread, but greater brains than mine have been trying to solve this problem for years.
Back to the workhouse, not a bad idea in principle, but yet another tier of civil servants to administer and run it, so the payroll increases again.
How do you force the work shy to attend for if they haven't got their "needs" fulfilled then theft and other criminal activityis sure to increase so that they can maintain their current standard of life.
PS Thanks Slim for the Fulmar link.
 
slim said:
This trick only works for people with children.
A homeless single person is ignored, though they will pay toward hie/her accomodation providing he doess not move in with a relative
Not here, as my wife found out. When we first met she had to leave her job and tied house and got a council house straight away. She gave it up when we decided we we 'permanent'. Mind you your choice under such circumstances can be somewhat limited.

Peter
 

slim

War Hero
Maxi_77 said:
slim said:
This trick only works for people with children.
A homeless single person is ignored, though they will pay toward hie/her accomodation providing he doess not move in with a relative
Not here, as my wife found out. When we first met she had to leave her job and tied house and got a council house straight away. She gave it up when we decided we we 'permanent'. Mind you your choice under such circumstances can be somewhat limited.

Peter
Ok Peter but who wants to live in Fife.
When working for BAe I used to stay in Kirkaldy, enjoyed the place and the cheap beer. Did not enjoy seeing so many people out of work, in this case not always of their own choice as both the mines and Nairn floorcoverings had ceased to exist.
 
slim said:
Maxi_77 said:
slim said:
This trick only works for people with children.
A homeless single person is ignored, though they will pay toward hie/her accomodation providing he doess not move in with a relative
Not here, as my wife found out. When we first met she had to leave her job and tied house and got a council house straight away. She gave it up when we decided we we 'permanent'. Mind you your choice under such circumstances can be somewhat limited.

Peter
Ok Peter but who wants to live in Fife.
When working for BAe I used to stay in Kirkaldy, enjoyed the place and the cheap beer. Did not enjoy seeing so many people out of work, in this case not always of their own choice as both the mines and Nairn floorcoverings had ceased to exist.
We weren't in Fife then but Edinburgh, and there was a fair bit of unemployment there too, as my wife found out at the Bru.

Peter
 
I'd guess that at least a third of benefits claimants are members of a claims industry, some of whom have never contributed to the system. And there must be a reason why non-English speaking asylum seekers and "economic migrants" pass through other EU countries on their way to the benefits nirvana that is the UK?

Meanwhile, the people who should really be looked after by any welfare state i.e children, the ill and elderly are crapped on from a great height by some of their "carers" and, most of all, by "us" as the government and civil service are our representatives. The last person who spoke any sense in government on these matters was Frank Field, but he was obviously seen as being too radical by Bliar and Co.

What kind of system levies tax on wages and salaries during a working life, then has the effrontery to tax its pensioners, who by definition have paid into the system in order to receive their pension in the first place?
 

Top