Chapter 1 Introduction
1. We said at the outset of this Government that we would investigate how to simplify the benefits system in order to improve incentives to work. This commitment was restated in the Queen’s Speech and the Budget. The Budget also set out the first steps in trying to achieve these aims. However, the Government wants to go further to improve incentives and reduce welfare dependency. This discussion document takes that work forward.
2. It is clear that, in common with other countries, we need to address the high and increasing costs of welfare dependency. There are now nearly five million working-age people receiving the main out-of-work benefits. [1] However, worklessness is not just the result of the recession – 1.4 million people have been receiving out-of-work benefits for nine or more of the last ten years. [2] Almost two million children are growing up in households where no-one is in work.
3. Successive governments have made well-intentioned but piecemeal reforms to the system. None have succeeded in tackling the fundamental structural problems that undermine personal responsibility and the effectiveness of welfare. They have left in place a hugely complex set of interdependent benefits and Tax Credits delivered by numerous different agencies.
4. Too many people believe they are better off on benefits than in work. [3] Existing in-work support means that most should get more income when they work, but the gains for many are marginal and incentives are undermined by the need to navigate through the maze of in-work and out-of-work benefits and their interactions.
5. For example, in about 450,000 cases, Tax Credits awarded by HM Revenue & Customs are taken into account as income by the Local Authority in assessing Housing Benefit. The system gives with the one hand, only to take away with the other.
6. In short, the overly bureaucratic benefits system can act as a barrier to work, trapping people in poverty.
Affordability
7. Demographic changes mean that the cost of the welfare system is predicted to rise at a time when we can least afford it. We started to address this through the measures announced in the Budget, in particular the changes to the uprating of benefits, Disability Living Allowance and Housing Benefit. These reforms, along with reforms to obligations placed on out-of-work lone parents, build on a wealth of evidence that highlights the role of a strong system of conditionality in helping those dependent on benefits move into paid work.
8. The next step is to tackle the cost of the system by supporting many more people into work. Alongside the introduction of the Work Programme, we believe there is a strong case for reforming the system as a whole, addressing the root causes of the problems we face.
Rewarding work and personal responsibility
9. The experience from previous attempts at piecemeal reform suggest that it is unlikely that the full extent of the Government’s ambition can be delivered without a more fundamental structural approach. By integrating and reforming the current income-related benefits and Tax Credits systems we could ensure that:
- households and families see the gains from increasing the amount of paid work they do because they would keep more of their earnings;
- a fair balance is struck between support and conditionality, making clear that we will not accept a culture of dependency nor will anyone be written off; and
- positive behaviours, such as saving for retirement or buying your own home, are rewarded rather than penalised.
Reduced worklessness
10. We want to allow more people to do some paid work, and then to remain in work and increase their earnings. Getting the balance between these two elements will be crucially important. We also want to remove the fear that the system will punish them for doing so.
11. We would not propose to force people who are not able to work, or prepare for work, to do so. Support for people in the most vulnerable circumstances would remain unconditional.
A fair system that protects those in greatest need
12. Any reforms should also:
- establish a fairer relationship between the people who receive benefits and the people who pay for them and, as crucially, between the people on out-of-work benefits and the people who work in low-paid jobs;
- target support more efficiently, supporting and protecting those in vulnerable circumstances;
- help to divert people away from the pathways that lead to poverty and give people living in poverty a route out; and
- support our wider goal of strengthening families, supporting carers and enabling disabled people to have an equal role in society.
A simpler system
13. The ideas for reform, discussed in this paper, would make it is easier for individuals to understand what they are entitled to, easier for people to make or change a claim and easier for them to understand how any changes in their circumstances will affect their claim.
Less delay, reduced error and fraud
14. The modern economy moves and changes quickly. Modern government should support people to be flexible in taking work, but the current benefits system is too cumbersome to do this effectively, creating delays to payments that discourage people from moving into work as and when the opportunities arise. Overpayments and subsequent repayments can also create serious cash-flow problems, making it even more difficult for them to manage their finances.
15. A simpler and fairer system could assess and pay benefits faster and could reduce the scope for error and fraud: claimants would more clearly understand what they are entitled to and would have less bureaucracy to deal with, while people who administer the system would be less likely to make errors.
16. A more modern automated payments system would bring public services into line with the standards we all expect of our banks. It would also allow people to be more flexible in taking on temporary work as they could be sure that support would be delivered as and when necessary without undue delay.
Conclusion
17. Work and personal responsibility must be at the heart of the new benefits system. This should provide support backed up by a strong system of conditionality that makes clear what is expected of claimants in return for the support they receive. In the next chapter, we consider in more depth the problems of the current system.
This consultation is now closed.
The mobility benifit is unfair we need to check on people that is claiming on a regular basis as most of them ge better.There are some claimants who have two cars in one household on the tax payer its unfair these people dont even pay for the tax of the vehicle.Please check on these people who are claiming on a monthy basis for most of them do get better.
i got ill through no fault of my own if i could work do not you think i would get a job ,too ill too work to old @51: i have been ill since 1979 and have been neglected,until labour got in to office. then benefits were brought up by blair???????why don’t you leave me alone i have had enough.i day ,i can face him?lost my dad in 2005 and when i needed help got my money reduced, you are all ruthless ,you will have to answere to god one
Reforms and simplicity would be great,but without greater stimulation and dierect support to the JOBS arena people wil suffer from ill consdiered reforms
The system does need simplifying, but not by ignoring the needs of many disabled people. The essence of Disability Living Allowance, which is intended to help with the extra costs of disability and is payable regardless of work status, must be retained and ALL those who need it should get it, not 20% fewer than the number needing it.
If you raise the personal allowance for tax, you can tax most benefits in the knowledge that only those on reasonable incomes will have to pay tax. This will mean that universal benefits such as child benefit and winter fuel allowance can stay because wealthier people will lose them in tax. The benefit you can’t tax is higher rate mobility component of DLA as the whole amount is needed for a Motability car or wheelchair.
Winter fuel allowance should be payable to people who receive higher rate mobility component and/or medium rate care component of DLA, as disabled people are often vulnerable to cold and need help to heat their houses. Heating costs are additional to the extra costs of disability.
There should be an amount of money that is needed to live, which takes into account housing costs, and if people don’t earn that much they should receive top-up benefits plus a bonus for working. Those who don’t work would receive the basic amount to live, which would probably have premiums for children etc, but would not of course receive the bonus. Topping up earnings to the amount needed to live plus a bonus would ensure that work always pays.
Local authority charges for social care should be factored in to people’s expenses – Leonard Cheshire has found that a sizeable number of disabled people are forced into poverty by care charges.
You say you will not force those who can’t work, into work. However, that’s exactly what the current work capability assessment does!! Respected organisations such as Citizens Advice Bureau are seeing too many people who clearly cannot work (and are also often unable to attend the Jobcentre to sign on for JSA) being assessed as fit to work and losing out completely. The culprit seems to be the computer system used by Atos Healthcare.
I hope this doesn’t sound racist as I am an immigrant myself. I don’t understand the right of non UK nationals especially persons over the age of 60 being allowed to come over here to live on benefits. Quite a lot of them come when they are older and do not contribute to the country in any way and can somehow afford to make frequent trips back “home”. I was never allowed any help from the State and rightly so. It seem if you want to “retire” here you should be able to afford to do so.
There appears to be a disparity between benefit customers and people who work. There are people/families on benefits that receive passported benefits such as free prescriptions/school meals/dental treatment etc, that a working person / family cannot get. I would propose that an income limit (a gross income equivalent)is set across the board, irrespective of where you get your income from (working, Benefits or tax credits). If your income is above this then you pay for things I mentioned previously.
I know people who are on relatively low income who have to pay for these things. We have customers who receive relatively high “benefit salaries” that get all this free. No wonder we can’t get them in to work in some circumstances. This is would be a fairer system for all and would reduce the burden on the tax payer.
Having read the whole document I found myself agreeing with many items mentioned. These appear to be the main issues:
Simplify the benefit system: Small benefit process modifications over the past governments were good intentioned and on a narrow scope worked but have finally resulted in a fragmented and overcomplicated system
Reduce the number of people on benefits: This applies across the board; JSA, ESA etc. where what is covered on benefit needs to be looked at so it can be assessed clearly whether or not an individual is in need of assistance.
Convince people they are better off in work than out of it, make it true!
Remove benefits as a barrier to work and ensure they only help people rather than hinder
The sentiments are sound and certainly the effect of a slow benefit system is huge.
But in the end we need JOBS for people to do.
I like MJS’s idea of a ‘Social Wage’ at 40 hour week that would be £232 a week.
Yes PAYE & NI taken off, and then manage your own money.
I am sure a calculation can be done to show what a nuclear family’s (2 adults/2 children) the income is that gets no goverment benefits at all (except universal benefits). May be we would be very surprised at that and it is more than we think!
Once that is established then an equivalent should be calcualted to get a minimun ‘non-working’ family should receive.
Ie if a nulcear family can have an income of £20k and will then recieve no benefits, then a non-working nuclear family should only recieve £15K in benefits in total.
(similar thing for a single person)
However, I am aware that there are many family’s that just need a bit of extra financial support to keep them working and not be totally dependant on the goverment. That flexibility should be allowed as long as it is proved that it is a ‘justifable expense’, ie if you pay a car loan pay of £500 pm and then say you need a top-up from the goverment, that won’t work.
I also think that we do have to distinquich between people who are out of work, on be the short term amd the real serial non-workers. I think test have to be much more stringent after 4 months.
Throughout the discussions on means testing I have yet to see anyone say how much it costs versus how much you pay out if you give it aross the board. In principle I strongly agree with only giving benifits to people who need them, but if its costs more to find that out that is counter productive. So how about some honesty, or perhaps calculations being done on this.
something that has not been really mentioned in this consultation, is making it fair for parents with split access. me and my ex partner split access 50/50 with our daughter. it is exactly split to the hour and yet she gets all the benefit (child benefit and working tax credit) and yet i have to pay all transport and all the care for my daughter while she with me, including nappies, clothes, coats etc etc because my ex refuses to give me anything and there is no system in place to have benefit split. to make the system even unfairer she is now claiming maintenace of me, because she claims the benefit, she is technically the parent with care and yet i am the one that pays out for everything including hair cuts, swimming etc. i am even the one who takes her to the health visitor and doctors as my ex won’t! does she sound like the parent with care?
Child benefit
I read today that the government is considering reducing the Child benefit bill by lowering the cut off age from 16 to 13. I feel that this benifit should be means tested. This is a benefit which is paid to all parents regardless of income, I believe this is wrong. Families with large incomes do not need this extra payment, however those who rely on this money will be severly penalised should this change come into place.
I have read through all the comments so far. Most people are saying the same thing which is the obvious. If you are capable of working then you should have to provide state/community work of some description to receive state benefits. As a hard working person who has been in employment since the age of 16 (now 42)and has a family but has to work some 12-14 hours a day 5 days a week to support my family and “do my bit” by paying taxes it is so unfair that someone else can support their family by signing on every 2 weeks. My own sibling is just like this, he hasn’t worked since leaving school, he moans that he hasn’t enough money (but drinks and smokes every day), he is adamant the state should do more as “he deserves it” but has never worked or has any intention to work and dis proud of it. If it was a case of to put a roof over his head or earn the food to put in his mouth then I have no doubt he would work tomorrow. How is this fair to the rest of us, I know plenty of others would easily fall into this category and I like so many are sick of it. So if you can work then you should work to receive your benefits, no more excuses, I’m sure there would be plenty back to work in a very short period of time!!
Stop paying money to charitable organisations, help employers prospher to provide long termm employment
Oh I think the governemt have already withdrawn a lot of funds that went to charities so you will see less of thier ability to make the changes they try to make.
I do feel I should point out they are also employers, and often provide the unemployed with skills that employers want to take them on.
Everybody always assumes that a large majority of those out of work and in receipt of benefits are on benefit by choice. Wrong. Many of us, myself included want to work. We are not illiterate and unskilled. However, we face many other barriers to return to work which are not address by the welfare reform which puts responsibility for worklessness entirely on the claimants. One of the big issues which is the underlying theme of the comments above, is that wages are too low to provide individuals and families with a living wage given the cost of transport, housing, food etc. I can see many myths being perpetuated as regards the ‘unemployed’ and benefit claimant’s behaviour is concerned. I have news for you. I don’t smoke, drink or even go out because on £65.45 a week, it is real poverty. There is no luxuries. There is a daily struggle to make ends meet. I think it is time to kill the myths and look at the reality. There is a major problem with discrimination in the labour market, myopic recruitment behaviour on the part of employers, and also there is a major problem of low pay. It has to change. People’s welfare (the welfare of working people and those who for no fault of their own cannot work) has to come before profit if we are to build a society that is capable to sustain the majority rather than benefit the excessive wealth accumulation of the few. A living wage must enable families to pay for transport, housing, a decent diet, educational needs and sporting recreational activities, because it is important for a healthy population… it is a human need and right in a country which claims to be progressive….
as Article 3; Degrading Treatment. I feel that it is degrading to the patient because we are falsely made to believe we are having a medical, which just involves several questions which are irrelevant to an accurate decision to a patient’s fitness to work. It is also degrading to a person’s intelligence even those with no medical knowledge because their medical prognosis which has been diagnosed by a specialised medical practitioner is being questioned by a doctor with little understanding into the prognosis and with no medical examination being done. Article 4; Forced Labour. I feel that the way in which the programme has been designed leaves no space for elaboration into a patients diagnosis just that a patient either has a disability or not. This is very poorly designed as all patients have different levels of severity to their disabilities than others which is not taken into account. It has been specifically designed to personally benefit the government in that disabled people will be forced back to work. Article 14; Discrimination. I feel that I have been subjected to discrimination because a full medical investigation is not given to accurately access my disabilities to their full severity.
In the end to stop the constant pressures and harassment of continuous medicals and the threat of potentially losing my benefits, I took a driving job. This resulted in me being taken into hospital four weeks later with chest pains, and therefore once again ended up being put back into unemployment and sick; this proves that I was originally not capable of going back into work in the first place. Due to being put back into this corrupt system I once again have been forced to go for another medical.
This is a sound arguement and should be listened to.
Trying to save money means reducing the serrvice. Making volunerable people pay this is wrong, and the points highlighted show how this is being proposed to make a biased assessment to prevent access to what people need, irrespective of thier need.
I am writing to you with several concerns I have had with the DWP, in regard to the medicals I have undergone in the recent months and to try and present you with the proof I have obtained from them breaking several parts of both the 1995 Discrimination Against Disabled Act section 3 and the Human Rights Act, with the hope that these concerns will be appropriately dealt with as I feel these inappropriate medical examinations are both degrading to my disabilities and most importantly breaking laws that have been made to discourage this discrimination I have been subjected to.
Firstly, I am a 55 year old man, currently diagnosed with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, (COPD), Emphysema, Ischemic Heart Disease, and a Prolapsed Mitral Valve, and had a stent fitted in my Coronary artery. I also have a long term injury to my spine and knees, which affects my mobility.
In August of this year due to being on sick at the time I was summed to attend a medical assessment, to decide whether I was fit enough to work. During this medical several things were examined to assess my fitness which came to my attention as being both degrading to my intelligence and inappropriate in the assessment of my ability to work. These were various irrelevant questions regarding two things to do with my general daily hygiene, for example “can you shave and brush your teeth?” I was asked what medical prognosis I had been diagnosed with but the programme which they use did not allow for elaboration into these problems which have mentioned above just merely that I have one; this was the same for all of my medical prognoses. During this medical i had to insist that the doctor would physically access me, this resulted in her listening to my lungs through both my jumper and shirt. I had to ask myself as a previous medical practitioner is this kind of assessment able to give accurate evidence of what was being originally sot for? Or was this purely just to degrade the patient? I was asked for a list of my current medication then following questions in regard to what side affects I am experiencing from these, again my concerns from these questions were if a member of the general public was asked this would they honestly know, without having any medical qualification or had done research into this, whether they were experiencing side effects from medication or if it was so other underlying problem they thought they had? At the end of this medical the doctor explained that the…[truncated by the system]
I wholeheartedly support the principles and most of the views expressed.
I hear anecdotal stories of families where it is the norm NOT to work. This should not be the case. I won’t say bring back the draft, but we should also consider enforced work for the young before giving them anything from the state. We could learn from the French system where, in general, until you have paid in, you can get nothing out.
We also risk moving to the situation where the responsible people don’t have children they can’t afford, so the only people having children are the irresponsible ones that expect the state to subsidise them, who in turn have lots of kids and don’t work. It shouldn’t work that way.
Benefits are there for people that need it not a right for people that don’t want to work.
The problem is if you are giving money away you will never have enough to satisfy demand .
It’s nice to know action is being taken on those who have mis-used the system for years. BUT I know someone who has been unemployed for over 10 years is perfectly able to work but has his council flat paid for, job seekers allowance given to him and everything handed over on a plate. I have worked all my life, will not have children until i am financially secure enough but it strikes me that Im the one who is worse off. STILL. I cant get a council flat (I’m not of a high priority) but if I could get one, I would continue to pay my way and work, pay off my debts and save for a mortgage and think about starting a family.
I have checked and am not entitled to any benefits, because I either work too many hours, dont have children & get paid too much (Which is a joke, If I did get paid so much I wouldnt have bailiffs knocking on my door).
The government keep promising to make life better for people who work and the only people I see reaping rewards are mp’s and scroungers on the dole.
The company I work for has had people apply, come in for interview and not show up when they are supposed to start, the only reason they come, is to ensure their jobseekers allowance doesnt get stopped, they will go back to the job centre say they applied but didnt get it. There are soo many holes in the system, IT DOESNT WORK. I know so many people who should be working but dont because it is made too easy for them.
My friend with the council flat – he is capable of getting work but he says why should he? everyone else – me included is paying for him to live in a nice flat with a lovely balcany, we top up his bank account once a fortnight. and to top it off we are paying for him to go on a course “to help him back into work” he’s now passed english, IT, now he is doing a web designer course but he still wont get work, he is only doing it because his teacher is ‘fit’ and if he doesnt he wont get his money each fortnight.
what I would do is put job seekers allowance on an all time low. forcing people into finding work. there is enough about, if you needed a job that badly there’s mcdonalds it might sound rubbish but if you needed a job its there. Or make everyone reapply for their benefits half of those who claim they cant work because of a disability CAN. eg if you are missing a toe, you can claim disability allowance just by saying you lost your balance. yet how does that stop them getting a job in an office? I know someone who did it. they can work….[truncated by the system]
why does the government pay out benefits to the ablebodied on a fortnightly basis.why not all benefits on pay weekly,and stop all tax credits related to earnings.we never used to have state support for hours worked or pay related benefits.do away with them and watch people go back to work.if the income tax and national insurance level is above the so called minimum wage then people know the money is in the back pocket.
I agree with this statement. To have children just to have child benefit is ridiculous. This means that the extremely wealthy people also get child benefit. Imagine the amount of savings the government would make if they stopped handing our child benefit to this group of people.
It is frustrating to see claimants smoking and drinking away thier benefits – it shouldn’t be allowed. If they are poor why indulge in these luxuries?
With parents like these it is no wonder there is an increase of unruly children in our schools. Why should other children suffer because their parents think the school and teachers should teach them social skills? More time is spent in classrooms dealing with badly behaved children. If students don’t reach a certain average then they should stay behind a year – it would be an incentive for this unruly element to settle down and learn. Why not hold parenting classes for both parents and make it compulsory?
We keep being told that alcoholics, etc, etc will be reviewed. All that is done is they are sent for medical, they know what to say, how to act, etc, they get money, which they spend on drink, vicious circle. Need to get tough! What about the baby making women and partners, who have never worked, can afford cigarettes, drinks, nights out, etc, etc. Need to get tough on them too! if you have children,one of you should support them! Some people milk the system and continually get benefits, although they are probably able to work, the benefits people, the medical people who act on your behalf need to open their eyes and stop signing people off who are fit to work, the ones who pretend, put the tears on, etc, etc. Perhaps you need a body language expert, as they can tell when a person is not telling the truth and then it should be acted on. I dont see the point in giving benefits to people who are alcoholics, drug addicts, etc, etc, their benefits should be paid in other ways, food vouchers, oyster card, etc, etc to keep them away from their demons!
Given that wages, bonuses etc. paid to those in employment are being capped, is there not a case for introducing a maximum amount of benefit that can be paid to any individual or family? I read constantly about couples or lone parents on benefits who have 10/12/15 children and keep having more, receiving huge amounts of benefits as a result. I remember whilst working in benefit delivery for DWP regularly seeing huge amounts being paid out to families, the highest I remember was around £36000pa, paid to a couple with 4 children. This equates to a wage in excess of £60000pa and did not include Housing Benefit, Council tax Benefit, free prescriptions, school meals etc.
There is an element of claimants who breed on an annual basis, knowing that the taxpayer will pick up the bill.
Benefit should be paid on the basis of the minimum wage, set at a maximum level not exceeding the national average wage, have NI contributions deducted and should be taxed if the HMRC Personal Allowances are exceeded, as they are for working people.
I think that Mick Bell has a useful idea.
If unemployment benefits were rolled into one payment, renamed “The Social Wage”, and paid with a supporting payslip.
This would enable P.A.Y.E and NI payments to be subtracted. It could be set at national minimum wage rates to cover the average hours worked by the working population. The unemployed could then be responsible for all their own bills and expenses, as are their working neighbours.
Income support could then be a universal payment to all living under the poverty line.
Children should not be allowed to be used as a lever to gain extra benefits. Abolish all child related benefits. Replacing them with free school meals (breakfast clubs & a light lunch),free school transport and free school uniforms in all state schools.
This would differentiate between the average and wealthier families.
It would stop indiscriminate child rearing for the sake of finances.
There would also be employment opportunities in the provision of the free services.
Another aside would be that lower paid parents who do not qualify for any benefits, would have less of a burden in caring for their children.
We may also see a reduction in truancy rates.
The Social Wage and income support would be the only benefits needed, thereby saving on bureaucracy, any workers unneeded benefit departments could be retrained to run the free school systems.
Unemployed people would once again learn how to manage a wage, and may even seek employment, because of the chances of overtime or advancement improving their incomes.
Another point is that being paid a Social Wage means they could be expected to do socially beneficial work. Or be Suspended from pay for regulated periods, which would not be covered by increases in income support or crisis loans.
Remember the Poll Tax riots anyone?
Unemployed people should not receive money for doing NOTHING.
Work crews should be assembled in every town in the land to perform tasks such as litter picking and graffiti removal to improve our squalid environment.
The benefit of this programme is twofold. People are educated about maintaining the environment and also have the benefit of having done SOMETHING and been paid for it.
Previous governments should have solved the huge litter problem in this country long before now and if the architects of the welfare state could see the bloated monster their good intentions have created they would turn in their graves.
School meals are £2 a day so another £10 a week each.
I am a professional Welfare to Work provision manager working with the long term workless in Cornwall. My views are therfore based on a good knowledge of the challenges faced by clients when transitioning from benefits to paid work.
It’s simplistic, but clients can all be put into one of four ‘categories’:
‘Can work/will work’, ‘Can’t work/will work’, ‘Can work/won’t work’ and ‘Can’t work/won’t work’. Any welfare to work benefit assessment must begin with this assessment and a different track adopted accordingly. It is not only important for the client to be able to change track, but that the providers of welfare to work provision should be able to influence this. In particular, we are amazed by the number of ‘Can’t work/will work’ clients we see who would benefit with significant additional support.
Thank you Martynalvy for your positive contribution. I provide benefits advice on a daily basis and am yet to meet the “scroungers” that the media and general public seem to think are so prolific. I strongly agree with your assessment of the 4 categories, and believe that all of them would benefit from additional support.
Thank you for your support towards my comment. I would confess that I have met some of the “scroungers” that the media portrays, however, they represent probably no more than 5% of the total client base and must not be used as an excuse to ‘bash’ all those in receipt of Welfare to Work support.
Let’s not get too polarised over this. As a fraud investigator over the last 30 years I’ve met umpteen scroungers. Perhaps KMJONES has missed the video footage of “disabled” football referees, golfers, dance teachers etc. that our news media have enjoyed sharing with the public. I’ve also met plenty who are doing their best but need more help, and a vast crowd in between who would “quite like” to work, but only if the job provides social status and enough income to compensate for “giving up their free time”. These are the ones in greatest danger of giving in to temptation to clear debts or get Christmas treats by kidding themselves that their little deceits don’t hurt anyone. It often ends in tears, or at the very least a considerable loss of self esteem. They’re basically decent people, but the prevailing obsession with celebrity and status has eroded their pride in self-reliance.
So how can attitudes be changed? In my opinion, as long as we pay people to do nothing we deny them the right to stand on their own two feet. The vulnerable must be protected, of course, but it is high time we put into action the basic tenet of the welfare state exactly as it was described in 1948 – “To each according to their needs; from each according to their ability”. Adopting only the first half of that statement is dishonest. American-style workfare programmes were considered and rejected by the Thatcher government. So now we have third-generation professional benefit claimants. ESA is intended to help the long-term sick find suitable employment. The disability benefits are there for those who genuinely cannot work. The other main groups needing help and guidance, then, are the long-term unemployed and the lone parents (surely a perfect source of staff for creche facilities to allow other lone parents to work). Employment schemes, ideally in the private sector with appropriate incentives but state-organised if necessary, should be there to guarantee that anyone in these groups will have work to do. There would be costs in running such schemes, but then, there would also be savings in many other directions.
In the long run, taking away a person’s responsibility to provide for him(her)self robs that person of self-esteem and the satisfaction that comes from knowing they have earned their place in the world.
It is extremely difficult moving from benefits to a job. Having just gained a job I have found that I might not actually be better off. Because I’ll get working tax credit, other benefits stop. No longer will we get free school transport or free school meals, so that’s another £40 a week for the two at secondary school that I have to find just to get them to school. And M Norminton’s comment about only giving child benefit for one child is ridiculous. It’s £20 for the first child and then £13 for any others. Their bus fare to school is £10 a week and their school meal is £2. How would he expect us to get them to school then? Even the healthy start vouchers which currently provide my 3 year old with milk and fresh fruit, neither of which are cheap, stop when I start work. They even take away a 3 year olds measly £3.10 a week.
Excuse me, but who asked you to have the children. I don’t get paid according to how many children I have and I don’t expect benefits to be calculated this way. As we have seen in the papers only today, there are those who actively have children to boost their benefits. All benefits should be taxed – just like my wages, thank you very much. I’ve lost all sympathy unfortunately and feel very bitter about the welfare system. Human rights? Where are my human rights and those of all the hard working people in this country. Also, look at what the Eu has done to our benefits system. Luv a duck. If I were younger I’d emigrate.
Human rights, if you are a hardworking, or were hardworking and have not got a job at the moment, law abiding, born, raised and live in this country, you dont have any! It sucks!! Get rid of the do gooders and politically correct idiots! I am not heartless and I do sympathise with all the terrible things that happen in other countries, although, charity begins at home and I am sure that if we had a massive earthquake, etc, etc, I can honestly say, I do not know which country would be prepared to have hundreds, thousands, millions of us entering their country and house, clothe and feed us or raise lots of money to support us! I do not blame the poor people that enter our country, for a better life, as if you want one, it is a known fact that England is the place to be, that is not their fault!
I believe that benefits are taxed. Any person receiving benefits should advise their tax office.
I am currently unemployed but agree with the aims of this page. The transition from unemployment to paid employment – especially to lower paid employment is a difficult one. Here in a rural location travel costs are a major issue and moving into work with no financial resources can be almost impossible until the first pay cheque is received. A catch-22 situation.
As a welfare to work provider in Cornwall, I fully share your point. It can be up to 6 weeks for some between starting work and receiving the first pay cheque. The WORST wmployers of all for this are the Public Sector. Whilst the government has ledd influence ober the private sector, it should ensure that Public Sector employers are required to pay ‘advances’ to new employees to see them over the first weeks.
We all know what needs to be done, but what are you doing about the millions the UK payout in welfare payments to claimants who have returned back to there own countries, but are still able to claim welfare from the UK?
You are so right Mr. Fry. I am amazed that people from a different culture can live in England then go off to their parents country to get married. It seems the norm in some cultures that they get married in another country for example India and they are automatically allowed to live in this country…..then they can bring all their family over. No wonder the country is broke. Some cultures integrate into our culture but some don’t. Some play the system very well too.
It seems that people who are genuinely incapacitated by disabilities that they could not predict are penalised because we can’t get immigration right.
How many of our English Indian female teenages (still in school) are forced to get married in India? They are not being allowed to mix with the English or marry the English. However, they settle down to education. Some will never go any further because they can’t. They have to get married at 15 or 16. This is not intergration into our society.
They should come with savings. Enough money to rent a house for a year and to live off. Our government has become too lazy with regards to immigration. Have a look at what other countries do. They don’t just allow people in who have no money or have no intention of learning the language or getting a job.
It is imperative that people can never find it more lucrative to remain on benefits than to work, nor should drug addicts receive more benefits than a non addict in the same situation. Should someone be offered a job but refuse it then he/she should have their benefits either stopped or drastically reduced.
At present the number of children people have increases their income via benefit. It is my view that child benefit should only be paid for the first child (which is the most expensive). We cannot afford for people to continue to have children regardless of whether they can support them. Personal responsibility also means not smoking or drinking if you cannot afford it, or buying luxury items such as huge T.V.s etc. On numerous occasions we see people on benefits with bigger T.V.s stereos etc. than persons working, sitting in the Pub all day, smoking their heads off and spending hours in the Betting shop.