Reply to: What actually happens to people who'll lose benefits?

[DieScum]

As I say, there are two types of dole-ites, the one who need help and fully intend to work their way out of the situation they find themselves in, and another bunch who see the welfare state as a meal ticket for life, and something to be milked.
It's the second group that gets people riled up

Very true. When I was growing up in the nineties I saw members of my family just completely be unable to find work for years despite trying everything.

I also know members of my family who were genuinely ill and on incapacity benefit but are now not ill any more but if you are in your late fifties and haven't worked for twenty years then it's not an easy situation to get back in to the job market.

[SupremeSpod]

Out of my way -
Its a busy
Got Things on my mind ....

For the want of the Price
Of a tea and a slice
The Old Man Died

Survival of the fittest.

I AM SPARTACUS!

[AlfredJPruffock]

Out of my way -
Its a busy
Got Things on my mind ....

For the want of the Price
Of a tea and a slice
The Old Man Died

[EternalOptimist]

Why pick on the single mum? It takes two to tango. Stop the father's benefits and give them to the mum. That'll make him a bit more careful next time.

Single mums are a problem. But (and I'm sure we've been here before!) they're a small proportion of the big picture. Most, once they have kids, do want the best for those kids. Unfortunately, they're also the most expensive to help - to give them an education / work opportunities you have to pay for childcare.

Been there (although why I'm telling you lot I don't know!). If I hadn't been lucky enough to have parents who were willing and could afford to help me take a low paid job with training I'd probably have spent the last 25 years on benefits. There's no way I could have done it without significant financial support. As it was, with that support, within four years I was qualified with a well paid job and haven't needed any financial support since (and have paid a few quid in tax along the way). For those with realistic prospects of and the will to get themselves out of the mess they've got themselves into (whether single parent or young offender or school dropout), it's worth spending what seems like a lot of money for the long term gain. Not everyone could or would be helped, but we've got to stop chucking people in a 'loser' bucket and make an investment in working with individuals - especially for the young or recently unemployed. If 10% of long term (or potential long term) claimants were helped, it would save a fortune.

As I say, there are two types of dole-ites, the one who need help and fully intend to work their way out of the situation they find themselves in, and another bunch who see the welfare state as a meal ticket for life, and something to be milked.
It's the second group that gets people riled up

[mudskipper]

I still dont know.
check out Wicked problems , see what you think.

If we take the single parent mum example again, and we decide to retrench, we know that it will be the kids that suffer. Its got to be done somehow, but it will be brutal. Very Brutal

Why pick on the single mum? It takes two to tango. Stop the father's benefits and give them to the mum. That'll make him a bit more careful next time.

Single mums are a problem. But (and I'm sure we've been here before!) they're a small proportion of the big picture. Most, once they have kids, do want the best for those kids. Unfortunately, they're also the most expensive to help - to give them an education / work opportunities you have to pay for childcare.

Been there (although why I'm telling you lot I don't know!). If I hadn't been lucky enough to have parents who were willing and could afford to help me take a low paid job with training I'd probably have spent the last 25 years on benefits. There's no way I could have done it without significant financial support. As it was, with that support, within four years I was qualified with a well paid job and haven't needed any financial support since (and have paid a few quid in tax along the way). For those with realistic prospects of and the will to get themselves out of the mess they've got themselves into (whether single parent or young offender or school dropout), it's worth spending what seems like a lot of money for the long term gain. Not everyone could or would be helped, but we've got to stop chucking people in a 'loser' bucket and make an investment in working with individuals - especially for the young or recently unemployed. If 10% of long term (or potential long term) claimants were helped, it would save a fortune.

[EternalOptimist]

How do we simplify?

I still dont know.
check out Wicked problems , see what you think.

If we take the single parent mum example again, and we decide to retrench, we know that it will be the kids that suffer. Its got to be done somehow, but it will be brutal. Very Brutal

I see that some brave soul has reputationed me down with a 'cosseted?'
well my friend, whoever you are. Go and eat half a tin of chappie, then get back to me. but only if it stays down

[vetran]

EO sorry I didn't mean to come across as arrogant but as you can see emotions run high.

I don't know the answers, I just feel paying money to the claimant and allowing them to select suppliers is foolish when specific large costs can be identified and controlled. There may be increased automation in my solutions but complexity for the claimants and suppliers should be reduced.

How do we simplify?

[EternalOptimist]

the looking the average man up and down and saying you can't have a life is exactly what I am trying to ........ at single mothers but we need to make sure its not a career choice to get pregnant. Suggestions welcome.

Vetran. We want to achieve the same thing, but I think part of the solution has to be simplification. The exact opposite of what you are suggesting.
Ten years of Brown has taught me that overcomplicating a system is costly, never achieves what you set out to achieve, and becomes a dogs breakfast to unravel.
You are luckier than I am, you know all the answers to the welfare problem. I dont.

[mudskipper]

Anybody who is working, even a few hours a week, should be better off than someone who isn't. That simply isn't the case at the moment.

Even if, on paper, you've got few quid more, by the time you've factored in lost benefits, transport to and from work, clothing for work etc. it's easy to find yourself a hell of a lot worse off.

If you don't want to work, there's no incentive to do so. If you do want to work, you cannot always afford to do so.

[Boudica]

I know the point you're making, and it's difficult explaining to a middle class earner why they can't afford a flat in zones 1-3 London, yet people on the dole can.
The problem is that if you increase the rents, all that happens is the bill ends up being paid by the government via housing benefit. Plus, you also discourage people living there from seeking work, as often the type of job they can get (to start with) won't be enough to pay market rents.
Personally I think a "bribe" of say 25k should be given to any tenants willing to move to suitable accommodation in a low rent town like Nottingham or Sheffield (or even Glasgow). 25k may sound a lot, but the council would probably be able to sell the flat on at 200 or 300k.

I think you misunderstand me, I would like there to be a cap on housing benefit, so that those who cannot afford to live in central London don't get subsidised by others into believing they can. Do what you can, live where you can afford to live. Less tax used on something that is not essential, it is not anyone's right to live close to work, if you have less money you live further out, that is life. While there is no cap on housing benefits people on low incomes push up the rents for the rest of us. I don't think I'm being particularly harsh, universal welfare has robbed people of reality and ambition...

[vetran]

EO the looking the average man up and down and saying you can't have a life is exactly what I am trying to avoid. If we waste all our cash on the wasters we can't support the unfortunates.

If you look at my other posts I suggested profit sharing on house sales when we subsidise a mortgage, keep your house but pay a percentage of profits if you have your mortgage paid. You pay 9 years and the government pays 1 year we get 10% of profit when you sell. Not entireley fair but an easy calculation from readily available data. If you make a loss you still owe the money, its a deal I would go for.

Wife leaving you, sorry can't help on that, I was lucky mine stayed when I was out of work for nearly a year, finding work where I could. But we were lucky our 2 year warchest (built up in 3 years contracting) meant we could survive without claiming benefits.

I sometimes have trouble getting up in the morning and starting work, today was one of those days. But every time it happens the Mortgage and family lights flash in my mind so why shouldn't similar lights flash in the minds of the unemployed? Is that unfair?

The key thing that we need to achieve is that the couple earning the average wage between them should see themselves as better off than those on benefits. If that takes draconian measures then so be it.

Unfortunately rents in London are significantly higher than elsewhere, thats why many people with poorly paid jobs live outside london and get up early to commute in. Maybe we should reassess housing non working people in London and look to move them out?

One things that really annoys me is the suggestion people are losing 'THEIR HOME' its not yours, it's someone else's property and you rented it, if you want it to be 'YOUR HOME' buy it like everyone else.

Everything I have suggested will offer a better solution to the majority of benefit claimants, their suppliers and the government whilst saving the country money.

You make the point about breeding singles its an issue that needs to be dealt with, I don't suggest we return to the old days of disgust at single mothers but we need to make sure its not a career choice to get pregnant. Suggestions welcome.

[Peoplesoft bloke]

There's a difference between envy and resentment.

Good shout.

Socialism - politics of envy
Daily Mail Tory gits - politics of resentment

As I was saying, neither is very edifying really is it?

[d000hg]

Thought you were out?
You see?.....It is exactly that kind of dithering that prevents you seeing the big picture.

I get the faint inkling he's not interested in playing with you.

[EternalOptimist]

Well, I met folk in Nottingham who'd come from disadvantaged backgrounds (and yes sometimes from London/south-east) yet managed to make something of themselves. If you're talking "segregation" by the way, what do you think happens now?

I think he's making a distinction between 'natural' pockets of deprivation, and deliberately shipping problem people into a locale

[MrMark]

I don't know if this should have a or a

It's got ghetto and segregation stamped all over it. Think about what will happen. It will be a total fracking disaster - which means it will probably be policy soon.

Well, I met folk in Nottingham who'd come from disadvantaged backgrounds (and yes sometimes from London/south-east) yet managed to make something of themselves. If you're talking "segregation" by the way, what do you think happens now?