It's not really a cut.
I would scrap all benefits in favour of a single payment system which would still have the non-contributory elements but all other benefits would be means tested. Eventually the contributory benefits could be scrapped so that all benefit would be means tested and come from a single claim.
Also cancel all child benefit and tax credits for households with income over £30000. I would scrap the inheritance tax but bring in a capital gains tax which would depend on source of gain.
Oh, and send forrins home obviously.
(porkylips looks better as the sun goes down., Thu 17 Jun 2010, 15:47, 4 replies, latest was 16 years ago)

Where have you been today?
How are you?

I would scrap all benefits to single mothers of kids more than 4years old unless they prove they're really trying to find a job.

If I can have a kid and manage to work so do you.
(Aberracion Life's getting very complicated, but a lot of fun., Thu 17 Jun 2010, 15:49, Reply)

And how will you pay for their child care?
Or force employers to offer flexible working? But what if flexible hours simply aren't suitable to the job you want to do? You should condemn those people who have aspirations beyond stacking shelves to poverty?
(Bazongaloid, Thu 17 Jun 2010, 15:50, Reply)

Excuse me
After 4 years old they can and should go to school. If I have a kid I get 9 months of paid maternity leave and after that, back to work if I want money. Why is she any different?

But yes, to agree with you, the jobs offered should have into account that she's a single mother and help if the salary is not enough.

On top of that, I'd stop paying benefits to girls who've had kids being teenagers once the kids are older than 4, if the girls are not underage anymore and don't show that they want to work.
(Aberracion Life's getting very complicated, but a lot of fun., Thu 17 Jun 2010, 15:55, Reply)

No they shouldn't
why should a job take into account single mother status? Should married women not be allowed to use creches? Or apply for flexible working hours? If the salary isn't enough, then they'll have to cope or find a better job not be additionally compensated.
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Thu 17 Jun 2010, 15:57, Reply)

If you're married
means that between you and your husband can get organized to look after the kid, but if you're single, it's only you, so it should be taken into account.
(Aberracion Life's getting very complicated, but a lot of fun., Thu 17 Jun 2010, 16:15, Reply)

not really
that's not work's problem. If two married people both have a job, then what? Should the wife stay at home and look after her baby, because her husband has a job? Or should they both take part time work?

It's a choice to have a baby, and while I think employers should be cognisant and supportive of *anyone* having a child, I don't think other people shouldn't have to go out of their way to accommodate the fact that the baby is being raised by a single parent (male or female)
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Thu 17 Jun 2010, 16:18, Reply)

Oh, I see our mistake
I don't think the job has to understand anything, they're there to make money. No money, no job.

No, I mean, the jobseeker, whoever does it, should take into account that she's trying and she's a single mother before just cutting all the benefits.

And anyway, if a couple has a baby, they do choose to do sacrifices for the child. One of them, usually the mother, stops working for a while, and after that, they need to agree turns to pick the kids from school and take him to the doctor. One of them will probably see a reduction in the salary.

If you're single and with a baby (and not all the time is voluntary) you can't afford agreeing with anyone to help you looking after him/her.
(Aberracion Life's getting very complicated, but a lot of fun., Thu 17 Jun 2010, 16:26, Reply)

School for a 4 year old is about 3-4 hours a day, moving up to about 6 -7 hours as they get older
so it's either child care or flexible working, and you tell me what job allows you to turn up about 9.30 after dropping the kids off and then leave 2.5 hours later to pick them up?
(Bazongaloid, Thu 17 Jun 2010, 15:58, Reply)

£30,000 when you have two or three or more kids isn't very much at all.
Especially if you are living in London or the South East.
(Bazongaloid, Thu 17 Jun 2010, 15:49, Reply)

Really?
I wonder who normal workers do, then, because there are not a lot of jobs for more than that.
(Aberracion Life's getting very complicated, but a lot of fun., Thu 17 Jun 2010, 15:57, Reply)

What?
There are plenty of jobs paying more than £15K. As I said below working for £15K a year is not a well paid job by any means.
(Bazongaloid, Thu 17 Jun 2010, 16:16, Reply)

I was thinking of a single parent having £30,000

(Aberracion Life's getting very complicated, but a lot of fun., Thu 17 Jun 2010, 16:32, Reply)

'cancel all child benefit and tax credits for households with income over £30000'
seems a mite unfair to me
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Thu 17 Jun 2010, 15:49, Reply)

Bollocks
you think it's a great idea, and you also support going round their houses and kicking them in the cunt once a week.
(Bazongaloid, Thu 17 Jun 2010, 15:51, Reply)

well yeah
but I can't just say that can I?

But seriously though, your point above is wellmade. Child benefit should not be an income linked payment. That's just unfair.

Benefits need to be reformed, and quickly. But not just cut, just shifted in focus to encourage people to work, rather than simply have more children, or live off the state
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Thu 17 Jun 2010, 15:54, Reply)

But it's not that simple
you can't encourage people to work just by cutting their benefits, there have to be jobs for them to do, and right now in the UK the number of jobs is pretty slim, and the number of decent jobs is even slimmer, it's one thing to say people should get off their arse and work, but some people have higher aspirations than just cleaning toilets or working a checkout.

I think some welfare reform is required, but it's not going to solve the problem on it's own unless money is put into a job creation base.
(Bazongaloid, Thu 17 Jun 2010, 15:57, Reply)

You might have more aspirations
But if you need the money, you do whatever you have to do. And we're talking about showing interest in finding a job, at least. Stop spending the day drinking beer and doing nothing.
(Aberracion Life's getting very complicated, but a lot of fun., Thu 17 Jun 2010, 15:59, Reply)

higher aspirations?
I'll remember that, next time I have to work in the summer. I won't do anything like clean or waitress, I'll wait until something that suits my talents becomes available.

Job creation is needed true. But more than that, there needs to be reforms where it is not made an option to simply live on benefits for your whole life. You can say cutting benefits doesn't work, but it'll make the people who are working to fund a lifestyle, happier about it
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Thu 17 Jun 2010, 16:00, Reply)

RIght
That's a stupid facetious response. If you are looking for a stop gap job between studies then you take a stop gap unskilled job. If however you have had a kid and are trying to get back into work and you have a degree but there aren't many jobs available in your preferred field then I'm saying you shouldn't force people into menial unskilled jobs just so a bunch of uninformed daily mail readers can feel better about themselves.

I did say welfare reform is required, but it's not going to actually solve the problem of long term unemployment on it's own.
(Bazongaloid, Thu 17 Jun 2010, 16:07, Reply)

not really it isn't
we both know, that frankly it's not the people with decent degrees who genuinely want to get back into work that are the problem.

It's the people with shit degrees from shit places who stayed in university to delay the inevitable, or those who don't have any qualifications at all, no desire to get any or indeed to get a job who are the drain.

Calling me a daily mail reader isn't solving anything or refuting any points. I've already stated that both job creation, and better management of apprenticeship programs and better support from school-to-work is necessary. But it's not going to do anything if you don't solve the problem of the real system drains- those who don't want to do anything unless they're forced into it
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Thu 17 Jun 2010, 16:12, Reply)

I like the way you change verbs there
...If you want to take a gap...
...If you have a kid...

These days, 90% of the times you have a kid because you want or because you haven't been careful enough. Why do I have to pay for your errors or luxuries?

I wanted to have kids since I was 24, and here I am, at 30, no babies, because I couldn't afford them.
(Aberracion Life's getting very complicated, but a lot of fun., Thu 17 Jun 2010, 16:19, Reply)

Why do I have to pay for your errors or luxuries?
Because in thirty five years time it will be those errors and luxuries that are supporting you, and whose taxes will be paying for your pension.
(Cave Duck, Thu 17 Jun 2010, 16:35, Reply)

I am not sure about that
And I hope for your own good that you are not relying on that and are paying for a good private pension.
(Aberracion Life's getting very complicated, but a lot of fun., Thu 17 Jun 2010, 16:38, Reply)

It's not just pensions, who will pay for the NHS that the aging population will need?

(Cave Duck, Thu 17 Jun 2010, 16:49, Reply)

In that case
See Amberl's answer below.
(Aberracion Life's getting very complicated, but a lot of fun., Thu 17 Jun 2010, 16:53, Reply)

It's a point that needs addressing
but if you read through the discussion, I think you'll find we're addressing more specifically the families who choose to live on welfare and bring their children up in the same way. I doubt they're going to be supporting anyone
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Thu 17 Jun 2010, 16:40, Reply)

Fair point, I was speaking more generally.
However these children do exist. You and I are already "supporting them" by paying for their state education, social services, etc. Also supporting the children must at least give them the chance to become contributing members of society.
(Cave Duck, Thu 17 Jun 2010, 16:54, Reply)

Yes
And we can't just cut all the benefits overnight, as they childs would be in trouble, rather than the parents. But the system needs to be modified to make sure that parents are trying to improve their and their kids lives.
(Aberracion Life's getting very complicated, but a lot of fun., Thu 17 Jun 2010, 16:55, Reply)

^^this
That's one of the reasons I couldn't understand a government letting Rover go under for a measly few million quid, and then bail out banks with billions.

Rover, hate or, well...dislike them, did create jobs, and sold cars that were made by people with those jobs.

I don't know the stats of how many workers from that plant are still unemployed but I bet it's a fair few.

It's about time we started investing in our country again, for as far as I can tell, we make very little - the only, ahem, industry we had left that bought in serious money was the banking/investment industry - and look what happens when a sole industry has a monopolistic hold over a country.

It's the reason companies build themselves into groups of companies - if one part of their business is failing, then the others prop it up.

That way, we might actually have jobs that people feel good about as opposed to wiping the arses of MPs or 'working' for a council.
(dchurch bah, Fri 18 Jun 2010, 9:03, Reply)

Exactly that
You tell a teenager that she has a baby and she doesn't need to work in all her live, and what do you think she's going to do?
(Aberracion Life's getting very complicated, but a lot of fun., Thu 17 Jun 2010, 15:58, Reply)

Disagree here
a couple earning 15k each with kids and a mortgage aren't as well off as you may think.
( Peej, Thu 17 Jun 2010, 15:54, Reply)

A couple earning 15K each are on fucking badly paid jobs
and won't be able to afford anything like a decent standard of living.
(Bazongaloid, Thu 17 Jun 2010, 16:11, Reply)

Exactly
so cutting their tax credits and child benefit would be pretty shit.
( Peej, Thu 17 Jun 2010, 16:14, Reply)

Quite

(Bazongaloid, Thu 17 Jun 2010, 16:19, Reply)

Then
They shouldn't have kids. That's it. End of the story. Wait until you can give them what they need.
(Aberracion Life's getting very complicated, but a lot of fun., Thu 17 Jun 2010, 16:21, Reply)

Oh please just fuck off with your stupid reactionary attitude
Society works when people help each other, if you throw everyone who needs help on the scrapheap you end up fucking yourself over.
(Bazongaloid, Thu 17 Jun 2010, 16:25, Reply)

I help them if they help themselves
As I said, if they prove they're trying to improve, get a better job or a job at all, then yes, we should help them. If they're doing nothing, money help is not help. It's making them lazy.
(Aberracion Life's getting very complicated, but a lot of fun., Thu 17 Jun 2010, 16:34, Reply)

When my wife and I had our daughter our combined income was less than 30k
but our child has never gone without and we have given her everything she needs. Yes tax credits have helped and so has child benefit but seriously read what Al just said and presume I agree.
( Peej, Thu 17 Jun 2010, 16:42, Reply)

Well, you were under 30k, so no real discussion there
I agree help should be given when prove both parents are doing their best, but not in any other case.
(Aberracion Life's getting very complicated, but a lot of fun., Thu 17 Jun 2010, 16:48, Reply)

yes but just under 30k
isn't much different to just over.
( Peej, Thu 17 Jun 2010, 16:57, Reply)