Thread: Absolutely DISGUSTING!!!!

How long, Dozy, do you think it would take to overhaul the whole system?

I know from experience and studies that each new government, or change of leadership there is, can only work with what they are given and that they have a duty to continue with the changes put in place by previous governments and to build on them as to reject them outright would cripple the country financially as well as in some cases structurally.

Beebs

Originally Posted by blessed_baby_cakes

How long, Dozy, do you think it would take to overhaul the whole system?

It would take bloody ages Beebs, but worth it in the long-run. I am well aware of the problems caused by liberal democracies, the requirement for pesky elections and the irritating habit of fickle electorates voting for Red Team one year and Blue Team at the next election – benign dictatorships are SO much better for long term planning!

Seriously though, we DO need to address the problems, not only for the sake of financial cost to individuals but to the development of the country AND the long-term effects on social cohesion. It is accepted that in the first term, it a new government will be partially ham-strung by the spending and project decisions of the last government, but it is not impossible to put in place policies that will shape the next 5-10 years. We’re in the mess we’re in now because of policy decisions – policy decisions can also turn it around.

A good start would be to disabuse ‘newcomers’ to the welfare state (whether they be young education leavers or new immigrants) of the notion that they are ‘owed’ anything: it is this attitude of belligerent entitlement that will force the cracks in society to deepen. At the same time we need a REAL review of those who are unemployed, but able to work (whether willing to or otherwise) and those who are genuinely sick / disabled and unable to work. We then need to look at the reason why we have so many people unwilling to work – I accept that not all recipients of state handouts are work-shy individuals, but that many have made the rational decision to stay at home and claim benefits rather than lose money by going to work. This is an appalling situation and does nothing for the economic wellbeing of the country nor the morale of the individual.

My thoughts are that there should be a two-pronged strategy: reduce unemployment benefit and associated benefits for those who CAN work to a level that will keep them housed, warm and fed BUT without allowing them the creature comforts that are earned by everyone else. At the same time, top-up the income of the lowest paid so that there will never again be a situation whereby it makes more economic sense to stay home than go to work. This can’t immediately be passed on by raising the minimum wage, because of the cost to small- and medium-sized businesses, though in the long-term, government support to fledgling businesses COULD make this an option.

Additionally, offer subsidised childcare (as a proportion of the combined net income of the parents) for working parents till the child is of school-age. Extend breakfast and after-school clubs so that every parent can take advantage of them. (See, I don’t actually HATE children or those of you who choose to push them out!)

I have no objection to a welfare state – in fact, morally I am in favour – BUT the welfare state we find ourselves with today, thanks to recent feckless and profligate governments, is not only offensive to those of us who get up in the morning and go to work, but it is a welfare state that will ultimately run out of money when the net receivers outnumber the net contributors.

Originally Posted by DozyBint

I don’t care if vouchers are perceived as ‘demeaning’ – it is downright offensive how much money is taking from tax payers and handed to people who make a mockery of working for a living.

Speechless....

Here's a scenario for you:
Wife has a good job, husband has a good job, no problem with paying rent, affording luxuries, excellent long term prospects. On the basis of this they decide the time is right to start a family.
First child arrives, woman goes back to work, falls pregnant with second child, then third child. During the 3rd pregnancy things start to go wrong. During the 8th month (too late for a termination!) woman loses her hearing - thus ensuring that returning to work as a telephone engineer after the birth is not a possibility. With 3 kids under 3, the husband suddenly realises he wasn't cut out for responsibility and goes back to being single, accepting a job in another country where the CSA can't chase him for child support money.

If I read DB's post correctly, the woman should be shoved into the cheapest accomodation available, quite possibly a tower block flat in an area she is not familiar with and knows no one (but, hey, the rent's cheaper!!) be made to shop with vouchers in certain shops, regardless of the needss of the family, have what little confidence she has left eroded, only to be then abused by every Tom, Dick and Harry for not having the savvy to go and get another job, handing her kids over to a total stranger to bring up between 9 - 5 every weekday (and possibly some weekends, just to make ends meet!)

What an excellent idea(!)

Originally Posted by Eye_of_Newt

With 3 kids under 3, the husband suddenly realises he wasn't cut out for responsibility and goes back to being single, accepting a job in another country where the CSA can't chase him for child support money.

I'm sympathetic and it is obvious that you didn't plan it, but why is that my fault or the fault of any other tax-payer?

Originally Posted by Eye_of_Newt

If I read DB's post correctly, the woman should be shoved into the cheapest accomodation available, quite possibly a tower block flat in an area she is not familiar with and knows no one (but, hey, the rent's cheaper!!) be made to shop with vouchers in certain shops, regardless of the needss of the family, have what little confidence she has left eroded, only to be then abused by every Tom, Dick and Harry for not having the savvy to go and get another job, handing her kids over to a total stranger to bring up between 9 - 5 every weekday (and possibly some weekends, just to make ends meet!)

What an excellent idea(!)

Where did I say "certain shops"? I said "vouchers to restrict how our money is spent". No system is immune to abuse and there would no doubt be some black market voucher exchanges, but there should be some kind of control over what the money is spent on - expensive cars and electronic goods should not make the shopping list of a welfare dependent individual.

As for getting another job, I meant to add into the part about reviewing the unemployed / disabled group that free training and education to get people off unemployment benefit would be part of the plan, though controls would prevent 'serial students'.

Reference the part about handing your kids over to childcare professionals, to what age would you like the taxpayer to subsidise 'stay at home mums'? Some people are happy to go back to work when their children are 3 whilst some want to be at home till their children are 18. What are your thoughts?

What about those who work, paid their N.I, taxes and into pension schemes, have saved a decent amount of money, (over 15 grand). Who then through no fault of their own, suddenly find themselves without a job.

Who after spending three months actively looking for work, decide to go to the job centre to sign on, for a number of reasons, ( to ensure their still in the tax/N.I/pension system, and to hopefully get some help in finding a job).

That person is turned away and told to come back when their savings have run out.

Someone who is a decent, hard working member of society should be treated as a second class citizen?!

I agree the system needs to be looked at, and have new criteria to be met. There also needs to be processes put in place to ensure the welfare isn't raped as it is at the moment. However, I don't think we, society, have the right to to treat people like scum because they have fallen on bad times!

One of the major factors is childcare, how can we expect people to go back to work when they've been on benefits, only to realise they were better off NOT working rather than working?!

However, someone being able to get Housing Benefit for a mansion in one of the most expensive parts of London, takes the p!ss!

Originally Posted by golden_showers

That person is turned away and told to come back when their savings have run out.

Where am I defending the current scheme? That is unforgivable and would not happen if the system was overhauled in favour of encouraging people to work rather than getting them on the books. I'm not going to apologise for being hard about this - we have gone beyond 'soft' changes.

How about some of you suggesting how you would overhaul the state and I'll pick at your suggestions?

[quote="golden_showers"]I agree the system needs to be looked at, and have new criteria to be met. There also needs to be processes put in place to ensure the welfare isn't raped as it is at the moment.[/quote]

I do agree with some of what you've said, but I do feel that vouchers etc for decent people isn't right.

Maybe a system put in place where after a certain amount of time you get down graded to vouchers. It might mean that people wont get too comfortable on the money that gets paid directly to them and stop them from becoming the scroungers we all detest.

Other than that, I wouldn't have a clue, it's not my field of expertise. All I do know from observation, is that decent, hard working people get feck all, when they most NEED help.

Edited to add, apologies if I've misread your stance Dozy, will go back and reread it carefully rather than scanning!

Originally Posted by golden_showers

I do agree with some of what you've said, but I do feel that vouchers etc for decent people isn't right.

I have to dash to a meeting now, but I thought long and hard about the vouchers. Instinctively I too considered "decent people" who have temporarily fallen on hard times and pondered about a two-tier system of "decent people" versus "scum", but who makes that (very) subjective decision and what layers of bureaucracy would we need to decide who falls into which camp?

I'm honestly not a hard-hearted bitch, but we need tough decisions and at least an attempt at a 'one rule for all' policy as otherwise EVERYONE will be exceptions to the rule and we'll remain in the quagmire.

Originally Posted by DozyBint

who makes that (very) subjective decision and what layers of bureaucracy would we need to decide who falls into which camp?

I agree with you on this, afterall, what I view to be scum, may well be very different to your view of scum.

Hence the down grading to vouchers suggestion. For example, if after six months of job hunting/being on benefits, the person hasn't shown ANY signs of helping themselves, (job interviews, voluntary work, or a very bloody good reason for not having a job ie: disability etc) then, they should get vouchers rather than money.

I work in a sector where I see on a daily basis people taking the piss, who are in some cases better off than some of the people who work for me, and it boils my blood to think that a large chunk of my wages funds their life style. They have the mentality that it's their right to have all they have and that they shouldn't be expected to work for it. They also breed the same sodding mentality in their offspring, and so, the cycle will begin again when they leave home and enter the world of benefits!

We still need the welfare system though, as for some, it is a lifeline. It stops them falling through the net and becoming a part of the 'underclass'.

D_B, I didn't take offence. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

B_B_C Your right, I don't know many people who can afford to live in Central London. Reading was as close as I ever got in a civvy capacity. Your also rightg on the point that no matter what idealistic views we have we would never be able to solve the problems overnight, or with pleasing everybody.

G_S I was in a similar situation. I had mortgage insurance too which required me to claim JSA to claim the insurance, but this screwed me because my ex paid more in CSA than I got from my insurance and they take that away barr £10 a week when you claim JSA. That, to be honest, is my main grievance with this government, they tend to penalise the people that have put in more than the people that have taken out more.

Welfare state has become an occupation for far too many. I've no answers to make it better but I do know that the whole system needs an overhaul.
I am in receipt of CB for my 3 cherubs and donate it to Dogs Trust, I like dogs!

On another note, my Mum 79 today- raised 5 kids worked full time paid tax and NI contrubutions and is paid a pathetic 22p a week pension!!!