Originally Posted by
Bobinovich
NITN, I've suggested one change and followed it up with a provisio based on your theoretical (but not uncommon) scenario, yet I notice you've not answered my previous question as to what you'd do to reduce the benefits bill. Yes catching and punishing those who are defrauding the system (as per your numerous links) goes without saying, but what changes to the rules, if any, would you implement to reduce the relentless burden on the taxpayer?
To be honest Bob I don't actually have too much of a problem with the benefits system. The burden on the taxpayer due to the benefits system is not that onerous in the scheme of things, and if the government do their job properly and create a business climate which increases the jobs available in the UK to allow far more people to work then the costs will reduce drastically and the tax take increase dramatically too.
I for one am quite happy to pay tax at current levels to maintain a benefits safety net that befits a decent society.
I would certainly provide far higher levels of funding to the fraud investigation sections of the departments responsible for paying benefits. They have proven to be very cost effective - I cannot immediately find a reference but recall that the last time I saw a study of their effectiveness they were recovering more than 8 times their costs! The government cut their funding!
I would like to see a scheme introduced which does take action against people who rely on benefits and yet choose to have large families. Something along the lines first child accepted, as everyone has a right to reproduce. Second child serious discussion with the authorities regarding responsibilities. Third child final warning. Fourth child legally enforced birth control using something like depo-provera as I mentioned before. Any religious objections can be accepted provided the religious order responsible for the doctrine accepts full financial responsibility for any further children.
An end to universal benefits, and a single unified benefits system which sets a figure required for a particular family group to live on taking into account acceptable social norms. So yes, broadband, sky tv, mobile phones etc should be available on benefits which many people seem to object to, but they are a required tool for job seeking, and for relaxation. Clearly the figure would differ from region to region and should also take account of medical needs.
Then when people should be encouraged to work. Let's say that a family with no special needs of 6 is allowed £24000 (just because it's a nice round number - and not actually far off what is currently allowed) per year to cover all costs; Housing, food, heat, light, transport, clothing, school meals, absolutely everything. For every £1 they earn reduce the benefits payment by say 80p until they get to whatever pre-set limit is imposed say total income, benefits and earnings of £30000.
That would encourage people to take any work available, without knowing that by doing so they will actually be worse off which does happen today.
Under the current system there is only one major change I would make; to the rules regarding local housing allowance which is paid to people in private rented accommodation. I would make it payable to people with a mortgage as well as to people renting a property. I don't see any difference in principle why the state will subsidise housing for someone in private rented, and thus provide a benefit to an owner of property, and not pay it to someone who has worked hard to buy a house but has found it necessary to claim some form of welfare benefit due to a change in their circumstances. Currently it is not unusual to find someone is forced to sell a property and move into rented accommodation. There is no financial benefit to the state a the rents generally are similar to a mortgage payment.
The box said, "Requires Windows XP or better"...
... so I installed Ubuntu!
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks