Reform Benefit payment Method

As a temporary money-saving system, instead of paying the (soon to increase) number of unemployment benefit claimants actual money, with which they can buy super-cheap frozen food, cheap cider and worse, we should instead pay them in personalised vouchers for certain shops.

Why is this idea important?

As a temporary money-saving system, instead of paying the (soon to increase) number of unemployment benefit claimants actual money, with which they can buy super-cheap frozen food, cheap cider and worse, we should instead pay them in personalised vouchers for certain shops.

Unemployment reform

SEE PEOPLE AS AN ASSET NOT A LIABILITY

We will not be able to rationalize and reform this benefit until we stop thinking about people as being unemployed and start thinking about them being in part time employment of the government. If we make this change we now have millions of man hours which we can organize into small 'companies' employing say no more than 100 people.

The employees of these companies would have the same rights and responsibilities as other workers and be paid a wage based on the minimum wage for say 14 hrs per week over two days, they would have to turn up on time and sign in and out as other workers do. Let them start work at 9.30 and finish early to avoid peak time travel and absence would not be paid. The normal rules for sickness absence would apply.

It would be the managers job to find them work, anything from cutting grass to brushing the streets or use their brain and use them as a cheap employment source for local companies and councils, charge only £3.50 an hour.( this would reduce the cost to the government)  However there must be a clause that says a council can't hire an employee from the companies if they have made a similar person redundant or put them on short time within a set period.

Where a manager has no work for a group of employees for a period he should use them for community work. These companies could also be used to serve community service orders handed out by the courts.

The managers would also come from the ranks of the unemployed with some additional help from regional managers.

Each company within an area could have a number of trades i.e., painters, wages clerks or joiners and when a person has their first interview they should be given a list of companies they can apply to join which would reflect their skill and location.

Start the scheme as a small pilot on a voluntary basis and if good value for money roll the voluntary scheme out nationally and then make it mandatory.

Companies hiring the personnel could ask for a particular person and would be encouraged to eventually offer them a full time job.

It would also help small business to grow as the economy picks up

If one of these companies needs a multi skilled employee it should be able to have him trained by the nearest sister company that is based on training

There should be no limit to the type of employment these companies can offer but there must be safegaurds to protect local industry and prevent companies as seeing this a cheap alternative to hiring their own workers.

Why is this idea important?

SEE PEOPLE AS AN ASSET NOT A LIABILITY

We will not be able to rationalize and reform this benefit until we stop thinking about people as being unemployed and start thinking about them being in part time employment of the government. If we make this change we now have millions of man hours which we can organize into small 'companies' employing say no more than 100 people.

The employees of these companies would have the same rights and responsibilities as other workers and be paid a wage based on the minimum wage for say 14 hrs per week over two days, they would have to turn up on time and sign in and out as other workers do. Let them start work at 9.30 and finish early to avoid peak time travel and absence would not be paid. The normal rules for sickness absence would apply.

It would be the managers job to find them work, anything from cutting grass to brushing the streets or use their brain and use them as a cheap employment source for local companies and councils, charge only £3.50 an hour.( this would reduce the cost to the government)  However there must be a clause that says a council can't hire an employee from the companies if they have made a similar person redundant or put them on short time within a set period.

Where a manager has no work for a group of employees for a period he should use them for community work. These companies could also be used to serve community service orders handed out by the courts.

The managers would also come from the ranks of the unemployed with some additional help from regional managers.

Each company within an area could have a number of trades i.e., painters, wages clerks or joiners and when a person has their first interview they should be given a list of companies they can apply to join which would reflect their skill and location.

Start the scheme as a small pilot on a voluntary basis and if good value for money roll the voluntary scheme out nationally and then make it mandatory.

Companies hiring the personnel could ask for a particular person and would be encouraged to eventually offer them a full time job.

It would also help small business to grow as the economy picks up

If one of these companies needs a multi skilled employee it should be able to have him trained by the nearest sister company that is based on training

There should be no limit to the type of employment these companies can offer but there must be safegaurds to protect local industry and prevent companies as seeing this a cheap alternative to hiring their own workers.

Extortionate Benefits

No claimant or family to receive in total of normal unemployment benefits including rent and council tax payments, more than the total that a person working a full time job on national minimum wage would receive in salary.

Why is this idea important?

No claimant or family to receive in total of normal unemployment benefits including rent and council tax payments, more than the total that a person working a full time job on national minimum wage would receive in salary.

Increase back to work benefit incentives to 8 weeks rather than the current 4.

Currently the DWP offer a back to work incentrive of 4 weeks full benefit payable to benefit claimants returning to work after 26 weeks on a means tested benefit i.e Job Seekers Allowance/ Income Support.

By raising the incentive to 8 weeks extra full benefit there would be more of an incentive for people to try returning to work and offering a financial buffer until the other benefit adjustments and emergency tax in their pay packet can be finalised.

Why is this idea important?

Currently the DWP offer a back to work incentrive of 4 weeks full benefit payable to benefit claimants returning to work after 26 weeks on a means tested benefit i.e Job Seekers Allowance/ Income Support.

By raising the incentive to 8 weeks extra full benefit there would be more of an incentive for people to try returning to work and offering a financial buffer until the other benefit adjustments and emergency tax in their pay packet can be finalised.

Children Benefit being sent home by foreigners

I don't think it's fair that Child Benefit can be claimed by EU nationals and sent home to their country for children that don't even live here. What makes it worse, is that they need little proof if any of how many children they have and the amount of money claimed is more than the child benefit they would recieve in their own country.

Why is this idea important?

I don't think it's fair that Child Benefit can be claimed by EU nationals and sent home to their country for children that don't even live here. What makes it worse, is that they need little proof if any of how many children they have and the amount of money claimed is more than the child benefit they would recieve in their own country.

Simplify Means Tested Benefit System

There are currentky four mainstream central governmemt benefits that are means tested Income Support, Income Based Jobseekers Allowance, Income Related Employment Support Allowance, and Pension Credit Savings and Guaratee..

These create a mass of contradictions and complex better or worse of calculations for the same claiment.

  • For example some one who is 60 who possess capital of £16001 can claim means tested Pension Credit guaratee but will be refused paymentof  Income Based Job Seekers Allowance and Employment Support Allowance.  
  • Some one who is long term sick and receives Statutary Sick Pay finds when this ends their income drops to £65.45/week.
  • Some who receives the lowest rate of Disability living allowance will receive an extra £27.50/week if single and £39.15 on Inco,e Based Jobseekers allowance or Incom,e Suppoprt than they would when they claimed Income Related Employment Support Allowance.
  • A couple both on Disability Living Allowance middle rate care could receive an additional £105.70/week via the severe disability premium. If they also claim carers allowance for each other because they care for each other 35 hoursa a week they can receive an additional £59/week  via the carers premium if they have an underlying entitlement to carers allowance. If they actually receive carers allowance not only is it taken into account as income for means tested benefits but it will lead to them being worse off as they could lose the £105.70/week SDP premium.
  • A claiment who is long term sick and works and has no other income or savings will receive £65.45 contribution based Employment Support Allowance and will have to pay all their health related expenses.. Someone who has not worled and simlarly has no income or savings will receive £65.45 income related Employment Support Allowance and will not pay health costs.
  • The Severe Disability Addition itself is paid to someone who lives alone but receives help from visiting relatives, but is removed if a none dependent moves in if they care for them or not, and if they work the none dependent cannot claim carers allowance.

 

These are a few examles of a means tested benefit system that was designed with the best intention but lets all down. It costs more to administer fotr tax payers. It befuddles the most desperate in society and they lose out. It results in a lottery of entitlement rather than a fare sysytem.

The system is in desperate need of review both in the number of benefits and the premiums themselves.

There should be one means tested benefit for carers, pensioners, sick and out of work.

Conditionality of any group can be placed to the inevitable premiums as has already been done with carers who claim Job Seekers Allowance or Employment Support Allowance.

Why is this idea important?

There are currentky four mainstream central governmemt benefits that are means tested Income Support, Income Based Jobseekers Allowance, Income Related Employment Support Allowance, and Pension Credit Savings and Guaratee..

These create a mass of contradictions and complex better or worse of calculations for the same claiment.

  • For example some one who is 60 who possess capital of £16001 can claim means tested Pension Credit guaratee but will be refused paymentof  Income Based Job Seekers Allowance and Employment Support Allowance.  
  • Some one who is long term sick and receives Statutary Sick Pay finds when this ends their income drops to £65.45/week.
  • Some who receives the lowest rate of Disability living allowance will receive an extra £27.50/week if single and £39.15 on Inco,e Based Jobseekers allowance or Incom,e Suppoprt than they would when they claimed Income Related Employment Support Allowance.
  • A couple both on Disability Living Allowance middle rate care could receive an additional £105.70/week via the severe disability premium. If they also claim carers allowance for each other because they care for each other 35 hoursa a week they can receive an additional £59/week  via the carers premium if they have an underlying entitlement to carers allowance. If they actually receive carers allowance not only is it taken into account as income for means tested benefits but it will lead to them being worse off as they could lose the £105.70/week SDP premium.
  • A claiment who is long term sick and works and has no other income or savings will receive £65.45 contribution based Employment Support Allowance and will have to pay all their health related expenses.. Someone who has not worled and simlarly has no income or savings will receive £65.45 income related Employment Support Allowance and will not pay health costs.
  • The Severe Disability Addition itself is paid to someone who lives alone but receives help from visiting relatives, but is removed if a none dependent moves in if they care for them or not, and if they work the none dependent cannot claim carers allowance.

 

These are a few examles of a means tested benefit system that was designed with the best intention but lets all down. It costs more to administer fotr tax payers. It befuddles the most desperate in society and they lose out. It results in a lottery of entitlement rather than a fare sysytem.

The system is in desperate need of review both in the number of benefits and the premiums themselves.

There should be one means tested benefit for carers, pensioners, sick and out of work.

Conditionality of any group can be placed to the inevitable premiums as has already been done with carers who claim Job Seekers Allowance or Employment Support Allowance.

Replace Job Seekers Allowance from cash to voucher system

Instead of paying the unemployed a job seekers allowance cash payment of £50 or £60 a week, we should operate a voucher system or moving forward a card instead.  This could be made up along the following lines:-

Vouchers/credits for a local supermarket

Vouchers/credits for a mobile phone provider

Vouchers/credits to spend in local shops.

Vouchers/credits for transport purposes

A small cash amount each week.

Supermarkets could compete for the right to sell vouchers to the Government at reduced rates; the saving could be passed on to the unemployed by increasing the amount of vouchers provided.

Vouchers should prohibit or at least limit the purchase of alcohol and tobacco.

Why is this idea important?

Instead of paying the unemployed a job seekers allowance cash payment of £50 or £60 a week, we should operate a voucher system or moving forward a card instead.  This could be made up along the following lines:-

Vouchers/credits for a local supermarket

Vouchers/credits for a mobile phone provider

Vouchers/credits to spend in local shops.

Vouchers/credits for transport purposes

A small cash amount each week.

Supermarkets could compete for the right to sell vouchers to the Government at reduced rates; the saving could be passed on to the unemployed by increasing the amount of vouchers provided.

Vouchers should prohibit or at least limit the purchase of alcohol and tobacco.

Child Tax Credit Repeal/Reform

The Child Tax Credit was initiated following WWII as an incentive for families to have more children and repopulate the nation.  This is no longer a relevant issue, and the cost of providing this benefit is significant for taxpayers.  It needs to be phased out. 

If we are not willing to get rid of the "tax credit", it needs to be reformed into a true welfare benefit: Currently, eligibility for the Child Tax Credit requires that applicants disclose income from paid employment, but specifically excludes disclosure of maintenance payments and other benefits (housing, automobile, etc) that are provided by a former spouse.  As maintenance is a form of income, it needs to be considered in determining eligibility for the Child Tax Credit.

Further, if this is meant to be a "tax credit", it needs to be linked to the actual tax payer rather than the primary caregiver of children.  Maintenance payments and other benefits are typically provided on a post-tax basis, such that payments under the Child Tax Credit system are not "tax credits" but benefits.  These benefits are not need based, as previously mentioned.

Why is this idea important?

The Child Tax Credit was initiated following WWII as an incentive for families to have more children and repopulate the nation.  This is no longer a relevant issue, and the cost of providing this benefit is significant for taxpayers.  It needs to be phased out. 

If we are not willing to get rid of the "tax credit", it needs to be reformed into a true welfare benefit: Currently, eligibility for the Child Tax Credit requires that applicants disclose income from paid employment, but specifically excludes disclosure of maintenance payments and other benefits (housing, automobile, etc) that are provided by a former spouse.  As maintenance is a form of income, it needs to be considered in determining eligibility for the Child Tax Credit.

Further, if this is meant to be a "tax credit", it needs to be linked to the actual tax payer rather than the primary caregiver of children.  Maintenance payments and other benefits are typically provided on a post-tax basis, such that payments under the Child Tax Credit system are not "tax credits" but benefits.  These benefits are not need based, as previously mentioned.

Ban Middle Class Benefits!

I see no reason why families with a combined income of more than 30K should be taking anything out of the 'benefits' pot. If we removed them from the system, we would not only save billions of pounds, we could concentrate on giving more support  to those families and individuals who really need help.

Why is this idea important?

I see no reason why families with a combined income of more than 30K should be taking anything out of the 'benefits' pot. If we removed them from the system, we would not only save billions of pounds, we could concentrate on giving more support  to those families and individuals who really need help.

Equal Rights For Rent Or Mortgages

I have recently became unemployed and my mortgage is only £560 per month yet will only pay half this.It took them 3 months to pay half and we still owe over £800 and got to find over £270 per month to add to mortgage.I recieve £100 a week to support 3 children and to pay this amount of £270 we can not do as I have had to sell every thing including tools to keep going.Why should people who work all there lives and find they can not work be attacked in this way is beyond me, when you can go into rented accommodation and get your rent paid for from day one and in full no matter what the cost is.Let me tell you, people who have worked all their lives need looking after better than scroungers who have never had a job or don't want a job.If I was in charge I would change this system to help more people who come out of work and change the way people who have lived all their adult lives on benefits.Make it pay for people who work hard and reward them not hit them as soon as they come out of work.Remember with out workers this country would be finished now.

Why is this idea important?

I have recently became unemployed and my mortgage is only £560 per month yet will only pay half this.It took them 3 months to pay half and we still owe over £800 and got to find over £270 per month to add to mortgage.I recieve £100 a week to support 3 children and to pay this amount of £270 we can not do as I have had to sell every thing including tools to keep going.Why should people who work all there lives and find they can not work be attacked in this way is beyond me, when you can go into rented accommodation and get your rent paid for from day one and in full no matter what the cost is.Let me tell you, people who have worked all their lives need looking after better than scroungers who have never had a job or don't want a job.If I was in charge I would change this system to help more people who come out of work and change the way people who have lived all their adult lives on benefits.Make it pay for people who work hard and reward them not hit them as soon as they come out of work.Remember with out workers this country would be finished now.

Major reform of the welfare state

This isn't an anti-welfare-state proposal. I love the welfare state, and I've seen it do a lot of good when I was growing up. It is, however, needlessly complex, expensive to administer, and open to abuse.

I'd like to see a /universal/ "citizen's allowance"-type-scheme (quite how to integrate non-British citizens into it – or whether to do so at all – is something I have no real opinion on) where every man, woman and child in the country gets an allowance based on a small number of easily-defined and hard-to-evade criteria. At it's simplest, ~4K for a child (in trust to their parents, I guess), 6K for a full-time student, ~9K per adult. This allowance would increase in line with inflation.

All other benefits, tax credits, student loans, etc. could be replaced with this extremely simple scheme. They cost around 200bn annually at the moment, I believe? A universal allowance would be more like 6-900bn with the rates mentioned above, which is significantly more, but taxes on earned income could be increased – the personal tax allowance could be abolished completely, and the lower income tax rate increased – maybe the higher income tax rate as well (it should definitely stay higher than the lower rate, of course). 

Why is this idea important?

This isn't an anti-welfare-state proposal. I love the welfare state, and I've seen it do a lot of good when I was growing up. It is, however, needlessly complex, expensive to administer, and open to abuse.

I'd like to see a /universal/ "citizen's allowance"-type-scheme (quite how to integrate non-British citizens into it – or whether to do so at all – is something I have no real opinion on) where every man, woman and child in the country gets an allowance based on a small number of easily-defined and hard-to-evade criteria. At it's simplest, ~4K for a child (in trust to their parents, I guess), 6K for a full-time student, ~9K per adult. This allowance would increase in line with inflation.

All other benefits, tax credits, student loans, etc. could be replaced with this extremely simple scheme. They cost around 200bn annually at the moment, I believe? A universal allowance would be more like 6-900bn with the rates mentioned above, which is significantly more, but taxes on earned income could be increased – the personal tax allowance could be abolished completely, and the lower income tax rate increased – maybe the higher income tax rate as well (it should definitely stay higher than the lower rate, of course). 

Repeal the jobseeker’s Act 1996

Pay British Citizens, whose Means are below a certain level, Basic Subsistence as a Human Right, not dependent upon a person seeking to be economically active.  Basic Subsistence is currently called "jobseeker's allowance" even though it is in fact a Basic Subsistence Allowance, and in any case does not contain any amount for "seeking jobs".  It is too easy for the State to withdraw Basic Subsistence under the provisions of  the jsa1996, causing Social Injustice and throwing costs onto the NHS and the Criminal Justice system.

Repeal of the jobseeker's Act 1996 would save a great deal of Public money as pointless 'interviews', Government 'schemes' and ad. campaigns to slur Claimants would be unnecessary.  Basic Subsistence should also be increased to an amount it's possible to actually survive on, as a Right to Life only means anything if one has the means to purchase the necessities thereof.

Why is this idea important?

Pay British Citizens, whose Means are below a certain level, Basic Subsistence as a Human Right, not dependent upon a person seeking to be economically active.  Basic Subsistence is currently called "jobseeker's allowance" even though it is in fact a Basic Subsistence Allowance, and in any case does not contain any amount for "seeking jobs".  It is too easy for the State to withdraw Basic Subsistence under the provisions of  the jsa1996, causing Social Injustice and throwing costs onto the NHS and the Criminal Justice system.

Repeal of the jobseeker's Act 1996 would save a great deal of Public money as pointless 'interviews', Government 'schemes' and ad. campaigns to slur Claimants would be unnecessary.  Basic Subsistence should also be increased to an amount it's possible to actually survive on, as a Right to Life only means anything if one has the means to purchase the necessities thereof.

Remove Child Benefit and Pregnancy Grant for under 21’s

End the financial incentives for young people to get pregnant early in life by axing the pregnancy grant and restricting Child Benefit to those over the age of 21. This will encourage people to think of a career, stay in education, learn a trade or otherwise contribut to society.

Why is this idea important?

End the financial incentives for young people to get pregnant early in life by axing the pregnancy grant and restricting Child Benefit to those over the age of 21. This will encourage people to think of a career, stay in education, learn a trade or otherwise contribut to society.

Reform of Benefit Payments, the National Minimum Wage and Unemployment statistics

I believe that there should be a reform of both the system of benefits in this country, in line with a reform of the national minimum wage. If minimum wage had increased at the same level as the average cost of living, it would be much higher than the current rate of £5.80 per hour. This could decrease the number of people who were relying on benefits as the incentive to take a job, even a job at the minimum wage, would reap better rewards.

The amount of money paid as benefits should be decreased. A serious review should be conducted into the cost of living for families. This should include basic costings such as the price of food, rent, bills and clothing per person – specific to each area. This is the amount that the Job Seeker's Allowance should be based on. People should live on the breadline and consider the consequences of spending every penny. This would encourage people to search for jobs, in order to live more comfortably.

Disability living allowance should be more tightly regulated and the conditions for payment should be reformed (and if nothing else should no longer include blisters, indigestion, warts, coughs and sore throats). I am not heartless and understand the necessity of these benefits for people who genuinely can't work and appreciate that those who are truly needy should receive this help but it is currently too easy to abuse.

Why is this idea important?

I believe that there should be a reform of both the system of benefits in this country, in line with a reform of the national minimum wage. If minimum wage had increased at the same level as the average cost of living, it would be much higher than the current rate of £5.80 per hour. This could decrease the number of people who were relying on benefits as the incentive to take a job, even a job at the minimum wage, would reap better rewards.

The amount of money paid as benefits should be decreased. A serious review should be conducted into the cost of living for families. This should include basic costings such as the price of food, rent, bills and clothing per person – specific to each area. This is the amount that the Job Seeker's Allowance should be based on. People should live on the breadline and consider the consequences of spending every penny. This would encourage people to search for jobs, in order to live more comfortably.

Disability living allowance should be more tightly regulated and the conditions for payment should be reformed (and if nothing else should no longer include blisters, indigestion, warts, coughs and sore throats). I am not heartless and understand the necessity of these benefits for people who genuinely can't work and appreciate that those who are truly needy should receive this help but it is currently too easy to abuse.