Toddy

Why on earth do we supply a new mobility car to people after 3 years. most of the cars are low mileage and therefore dont need replacing only an MOT. I know of a couple where the husband got alzheimers and there KA car was bought off them and they were given a new KA car up market with leather seats, better than the one they already owned.. What a waste !!!

 

Toddy

Why is this idea important?

Why on earth do we supply a new mobility car to people after 3 years. most of the cars are low mileage and therefore dont need replacing only an MOT. I know of a couple where the husband got alzheimers and there KA car was bought off them and they were given a new KA car up market with leather seats, better than the one they already owned.. What a waste !!!

 

Toddy

Regulate the housing market by creating more social housing and the mass construction of rent controlled, high quality housing at cost

The UK economy is heavily unbalanced and society is under severe strain because of the unhealthy proccupation with property values . The private sector should be controlled and the govt should intervene to create more social housing with a new  agile and diverse  philosophy that would allow tenants to rent, buy, exchange but with clearly defined rules on standards of upkeep and presentation .

Southern Europe has some interesting models with public corporations that develop public and private land under cost controlled ,socially  diverse  responsible and means tested models that allow , different age groups, economic classes etc to establish a foothold in areas otherwise closed to them .

Rent controlled projects should be encouraged to draw demand away from the private sector and prevent overheating in the housing market .

Why is this idea important?

The UK economy is heavily unbalanced and society is under severe strain because of the unhealthy proccupation with property values . The private sector should be controlled and the govt should intervene to create more social housing with a new  agile and diverse  philosophy that would allow tenants to rent, buy, exchange but with clearly defined rules on standards of upkeep and presentation .

Southern Europe has some interesting models with public corporations that develop public and private land under cost controlled ,socially  diverse  responsible and means tested models that allow , different age groups, economic classes etc to establish a foothold in areas otherwise closed to them .

Rent controlled projects should be encouraged to draw demand away from the private sector and prevent overheating in the housing market .

Abolish The Jobseekers’ Act 1995

This is a very nasty, vindictive, scapegoating law, copying previous ideas that didn't work and it's based on a lie. That lie is – workers decide whether or not to work. The truth of the matter is that employers, not workers, decide whether workers can work or not. It's based on The Poor Law 1834 (which brought in the Workhouse), as well as on a 1930's scheme where the Conservatives thought that the unemployed had "gone soft" and needed to be "toughened up for work". During both these periods there were very few or no jobs available. It should be top priority to abolish the Jobseekers' Act 1995, because it means that millions of people have now got a death sentence hanging over them. I wonder how many people died of JSA under the new Labour Govt? I think we should be told. As a long standing Lib Dem voter, I feel betrayed by their failure to impose Proportional Representation immediately or abolish JSA immediately. Reinstate the Social Security Act 1976, bringing back Unemployment Benefit, and Supplementary Benefit. I also think benefit rates should be doubled. I'm on Income Support, so according to the unchecked Conservative "Welfare Reform" plans, I haven't got long left to live. 

Why is this idea important?

This is a very nasty, vindictive, scapegoating law, copying previous ideas that didn't work and it's based on a lie. That lie is – workers decide whether or not to work. The truth of the matter is that employers, not workers, decide whether workers can work or not. It's based on The Poor Law 1834 (which brought in the Workhouse), as well as on a 1930's scheme where the Conservatives thought that the unemployed had "gone soft" and needed to be "toughened up for work". During both these periods there were very few or no jobs available. It should be top priority to abolish the Jobseekers' Act 1995, because it means that millions of people have now got a death sentence hanging over them. I wonder how many people died of JSA under the new Labour Govt? I think we should be told. As a long standing Lib Dem voter, I feel betrayed by their failure to impose Proportional Representation immediately or abolish JSA immediately. Reinstate the Social Security Act 1976, bringing back Unemployment Benefit, and Supplementary Benefit. I also think benefit rates should be doubled. I'm on Income Support, so according to the unchecked Conservative "Welfare Reform" plans, I haven't got long left to live. 

REPEAL THE RULES THAT MAKE VULNERABLE ASYLUM SEEKERS DESTITUTE

Our asylum system is a mess and certainly breaches many of our obligations under international law.

People have a right to claim asylum and to have their claims properly considered. The grounds for being granted asylum are tightly defined and include torture, persecution etc because of one's ethnicity,m religion, political affiliations etc.

UKBA has an appalling record for being extraordinarily slow and making demonstrably wrong decisions based on prejudice, ignorance and failure to acknowledge authoritative international evidence. Decision letters naming the  worng country are commonplace as are decisions that ignore overwhelming evidence of torture.

Against this background it is not surprising that there are so many appeals. 

The other fact that is seldom appreciated is that, even if a decision has been made to remove ,this cannot always happen. There may be a dispute about country of origin. The other country may refuse to accept. Most commonly there are many circumstances in which, although asylum has been refused, even the UK (and both this govt and the previous one are equally heartless) recognises that return is unsafe.

Yet whatever the circumstances people who have reached the end of the process have their access to benefits removed. The consequence is that destitute asylum seekers, many of them victims of persecution, violence, even torture, many suffering mental health problems, are at the mercy of friends for the most basic needs. Many sleep rough and some have to prostitute themselves.

It is appalling that a so-called civilised country can treat people this way. Benefits (and they are very stingy) should continue until removal. More importantly, ALL ASYLUM SEEKERS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO WORK. This would benefit UK, because people would be less dependent on benefit, and it would benefit the people concerned, many of whom are well educated: they want to make a contribution; it would improve their mental health and improve integration. The only reason why governments would fail to make this change is that, actually, they don't want people to put down any roots at all.

Some people wait years and years (up to 7, maybe longer) for a decision. It is grossly inhumane to refuse people in this bureaucratic nightmare the right to start to make a life for themselves in UK.

Why is this idea important?

Our asylum system is a mess and certainly breaches many of our obligations under international law.

People have a right to claim asylum and to have their claims properly considered. The grounds for being granted asylum are tightly defined and include torture, persecution etc because of one's ethnicity,m religion, political affiliations etc.

UKBA has an appalling record for being extraordinarily slow and making demonstrably wrong decisions based on prejudice, ignorance and failure to acknowledge authoritative international evidence. Decision letters naming the  worng country are commonplace as are decisions that ignore overwhelming evidence of torture.

Against this background it is not surprising that there are so many appeals. 

The other fact that is seldom appreciated is that, even if a decision has been made to remove ,this cannot always happen. There may be a dispute about country of origin. The other country may refuse to accept. Most commonly there are many circumstances in which, although asylum has been refused, even the UK (and both this govt and the previous one are equally heartless) recognises that return is unsafe.

Yet whatever the circumstances people who have reached the end of the process have their access to benefits removed. The consequence is that destitute asylum seekers, many of them victims of persecution, violence, even torture, many suffering mental health problems, are at the mercy of friends for the most basic needs. Many sleep rough and some have to prostitute themselves.

It is appalling that a so-called civilised country can treat people this way. Benefits (and they are very stingy) should continue until removal. More importantly, ALL ASYLUM SEEKERS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO WORK. This would benefit UK, because people would be less dependent on benefit, and it would benefit the people concerned, many of whom are well educated: they want to make a contribution; it would improve their mental health and improve integration. The only reason why governments would fail to make this change is that, actually, they don't want people to put down any roots at all.

Some people wait years and years (up to 7, maybe longer) for a decision. It is grossly inhumane to refuse people in this bureaucratic nightmare the right to start to make a life for themselves in UK.

winter fuel allowance

I note the following post

"Public sector pensioners have to pay their taxes to the British exchequer because it's the British exchequer which paid them in the first place. It would be a nonsense for tax on a pension provided by the British taxpayer to end up in Spanish coffers."

If that is the argument, there must be a case that we are equally eligible to the winter fuel allowance.

Why is this idea important?

I note the following post

"Public sector pensioners have to pay their taxes to the British exchequer because it's the British exchequer which paid them in the first place. It would be a nonsense for tax on a pension provided by the British taxpayer to end up in Spanish coffers."

If that is the argument, there must be a case that we are equally eligible to the winter fuel allowance.

DLA IS NOT AN OUT OF WORK BENEFIT

As a  GENUINELY disabled person you can get it even if you work, and many GENUINELY DISABLED people who get it do work.

Far from being an out of work benefit DLA HELPS a disabled person to find and stay in work by paying for the costs of getting there (motability, if you get the higher rate mobility componant) and you can also use the care componant towards the cost of any adaptations that would make working easier.

 if you work and get DLA then have a medical which results in a bad decision and lose it, it could mean you cant work and thus end up back on out of work benefits costing the tax payer even more money. lose dla – cant get to work – cant get to work lose job – lose job back on benefits.

Far too many people, on here and on other websites, and certain frontbench members of the coalition government (which is very frightening when one is the head of the DWP, another is chancellor, anothe the minister for disabled people and then the 2 stooges heading the government) do not understand that DLA IS NOT AN OUT OF WORK BENEFIT.

so my suggestion is can we please have it clearly stated by members of government at all times when talking about benefits that disability living allowance is NOT an out of work benefit so that people finally start to get the message.

I am getting sooooo sick of uninformed people stating the same old 'being disabled doesnt mean you cant work, come off DLA and get a job' line, i know i can work, i want to, no one needs to tell me.

IT NEEDS TO BE STOPPED!!

So i'll finish by stating again in great big capital letters (i only wish we had 50 feet high neon fonts on here)

DISABILITY LIVING ALLOWANCE IS NOT AN OUT OF WORK BENEFIT

This is why so many disabled people are worried about these medicals, if we lose DLA,we lose everything, no money, no job, no chances of a decent life.

do we not deserve those things?

seems like a few people on here dont think so, some seem to see the disabled community as the dregs of society, second class citizens, and to quote a certain grumpy git, 'the surplus population'

And i thought we were living in a democracy.

Why is this idea important?

As a  GENUINELY disabled person you can get it even if you work, and many GENUINELY DISABLED people who get it do work.

Far from being an out of work benefit DLA HELPS a disabled person to find and stay in work by paying for the costs of getting there (motability, if you get the higher rate mobility componant) and you can also use the care componant towards the cost of any adaptations that would make working easier.

 if you work and get DLA then have a medical which results in a bad decision and lose it, it could mean you cant work and thus end up back on out of work benefits costing the tax payer even more money. lose dla – cant get to work – cant get to work lose job – lose job back on benefits.

Far too many people, on here and on other websites, and certain frontbench members of the coalition government (which is very frightening when one is the head of the DWP, another is chancellor, anothe the minister for disabled people and then the 2 stooges heading the government) do not understand that DLA IS NOT AN OUT OF WORK BENEFIT.

so my suggestion is can we please have it clearly stated by members of government at all times when talking about benefits that disability living allowance is NOT an out of work benefit so that people finally start to get the message.

I am getting sooooo sick of uninformed people stating the same old 'being disabled doesnt mean you cant work, come off DLA and get a job' line, i know i can work, i want to, no one needs to tell me.

IT NEEDS TO BE STOPPED!!

So i'll finish by stating again in great big capital letters (i only wish we had 50 feet high neon fonts on here)

DISABILITY LIVING ALLOWANCE IS NOT AN OUT OF WORK BENEFIT

This is why so many disabled people are worried about these medicals, if we lose DLA,we lose everything, no money, no job, no chances of a decent life.

do we not deserve those things?

seems like a few people on here dont think so, some seem to see the disabled community as the dregs of society, second class citizens, and to quote a certain grumpy git, 'the surplus population'

And i thought we were living in a democracy.

Freedom From Worries Caused By Government

WIth todays big press release regarding the changes to benefits immense concern is being caused to the most vulnerable members of society by the lack of detailed information.

The press release states major changes (some of which may be good!) but gives no details.  This is just like the situation with the Budget referrals to changes in housing benefit – no details.

When such announcements are made the proposed finer details should be made available immediately in order to avoid the worry this causes to many people.  Not releasing the finer details is tantamount to bullying as the most vulnerable members of our society are then terrified of what the future holds for them.

Why is this idea important?

WIth todays big press release regarding the changes to benefits immense concern is being caused to the most vulnerable members of society by the lack of detailed information.

The press release states major changes (some of which may be good!) but gives no details.  This is just like the situation with the Budget referrals to changes in housing benefit – no details.

When such announcements are made the proposed finer details should be made available immediately in order to avoid the worry this causes to many people.  Not releasing the finer details is tantamount to bullying as the most vulnerable members of our society are then terrified of what the future holds for them.

Job Seekers Allowance – New Rules

Any persons receiving job seekers allowance for 6 months or longer should also have to donate a set amount of time per week to work voluntary for their local council or have their payments stopped.

JSA Volunteers could help keep our streets clean,  repair roads,  look after public parks. 

Not only would this idea allow the tax payers to see some kind of return on their money but it would also be a great way of getting people used to the idea of working.

Why is this idea important?

Any persons receiving job seekers allowance for 6 months or longer should also have to donate a set amount of time per week to work voluntary for their local council or have their payments stopped.

JSA Volunteers could help keep our streets clean,  repair roads,  look after public parks. 

Not only would this idea allow the tax payers to see some kind of return on their money but it would also be a great way of getting people used to the idea of working.

ENCOURAGING EMPLOYMENT – POSITIVE DISCRIMINATION

There are many jobs advertised in Employment Centres, Agencies and Job Websites. I suggest the Government drafts a code of practice to reward companies who take on people looking for work, and shame companies who advertise but don't fill the vacancies.

This might stop false job advertising / exagerating of numbers of vacancies by some Agencies.

This would encourage employers to train and bring unemployment down.

This would bring more legitimate tax payers contributing to the economic recovery.

For those who are long term unemployed, pay an enhanced job-seekers allowance for those who volunteer to do community work or assist charities. Those who decline such opportunities should have their benefits reduced.

Why is this idea important?

There are many jobs advertised in Employment Centres, Agencies and Job Websites. I suggest the Government drafts a code of practice to reward companies who take on people looking for work, and shame companies who advertise but don't fill the vacancies.

This might stop false job advertising / exagerating of numbers of vacancies by some Agencies.

This would encourage employers to train and bring unemployment down.

This would bring more legitimate tax payers contributing to the economic recovery.

For those who are long term unemployed, pay an enhanced job-seekers allowance for those who volunteer to do community work or assist charities. Those who decline such opportunities should have their benefits reduced.

Stop Incapacity Benefit for “Depression”

I have a feeling the new government are looking at this one already. If not, I believe they should do, quickly.  

I'd never heard of this one until only a few years ago – since not too many years ago anyone asking for time off work due to 'stress' or 'depression' would be laughed out of the doctor's surgery. 

How it ever became accepted as an 'Incapacity' in relation to work, I have no idea. I'm not talking about short term depression after life changing events, where a few days of work may be necessary to get through .  I'm talking about the so-called 'clinical' depression – where there is no obvious cause, and the symptoms are merely a desire not to work and to stay on benefits.

Why is this idea important?

I have a feeling the new government are looking at this one already. If not, I believe they should do, quickly.  

I'd never heard of this one until only a few years ago – since not too many years ago anyone asking for time off work due to 'stress' or 'depression' would be laughed out of the doctor's surgery. 

How it ever became accepted as an 'Incapacity' in relation to work, I have no idea. I'm not talking about short term depression after life changing events, where a few days of work may be necessary to get through .  I'm talking about the so-called 'clinical' depression – where there is no obvious cause, and the symptoms are merely a desire not to work and to stay on benefits.

Stop unemployed and entire families on benefits having so many Children

My idea is to take away the incentive to have so many children for those woman / families who live off the state. I would give full benefits to a mother, or family who has one child. Should they have a second child then the mother should only get 50% of what she gets for her first child and if she has a third child then she will get no additiional monies.

Why is this idea important?

My idea is to take away the incentive to have so many children for those woman / families who live off the state. I would give full benefits to a mother, or family who has one child. Should they have a second child then the mother should only get 50% of what she gets for her first child and if she has a third child then she will get no additiional monies.

Calculate benefits and tax credits per individual, not per couple

Calculate jobseekers allowance and working tax credits on adults' individual NI contributions and work history – not on what their partner earns.

Why is this idea important?

Calculate jobseekers allowance and working tax credits on adults' individual NI contributions and work history – not on what their partner earns.

Local Housing Allowance

Direct payment of Housing Benefit to Tenants for onward payment to Landlords should be scrapped.  As a small property letting business it has been a disastrous Govenment ruling.  As stated in other postings relating to this topic it is always private landlords who lose out and when the tenant doesn't pay it is 8 weeks before the Landlord is allowed to apply to the local council to have the rent paid direc to themt!  Even then the Council can elect not to pay direct to the Landlord. 

Another  issue is that this ruling does not apply to Council of Housing Association lettings.  In these circumstances the rent is paid direct to the Landlord.  Why one rule for them and another for the private landlord?

As a private landlord we expect rents to be paid by a tenant 1 month in advance to facilitate payment of mortgages etc.  Housing Benefit was always  paid four weekly in arrears when the housing benefit used to be paid direct to the landlord.  Furthermore if, as a Landlord, you have several tenants on housing benefit then the Council can  make one payment per month for all those tenants.  Under the current LHA each and every one of those tenants are made a payment every two weeks by the Council.  This makes lots of extra paperwork and expense both for the Council and the Landlord, if in deed the tenant bothers to pay you!  Also if the LHA level set by the local Council is more than the figure the Landlord has set for the rent then this additional money is paid to the tenant!!  Why shuld a tenant be paid this additional money out of government money – ie: our taxes?

Why is this idea important?

Direct payment of Housing Benefit to Tenants for onward payment to Landlords should be scrapped.  As a small property letting business it has been a disastrous Govenment ruling.  As stated in other postings relating to this topic it is always private landlords who lose out and when the tenant doesn't pay it is 8 weeks before the Landlord is allowed to apply to the local council to have the rent paid direc to themt!  Even then the Council can elect not to pay direct to the Landlord. 

Another  issue is that this ruling does not apply to Council of Housing Association lettings.  In these circumstances the rent is paid direct to the Landlord.  Why one rule for them and another for the private landlord?

As a private landlord we expect rents to be paid by a tenant 1 month in advance to facilitate payment of mortgages etc.  Housing Benefit was always  paid four weekly in arrears when the housing benefit used to be paid direct to the landlord.  Furthermore if, as a Landlord, you have several tenants on housing benefit then the Council can  make one payment per month for all those tenants.  Under the current LHA each and every one of those tenants are made a payment every two weeks by the Council.  This makes lots of extra paperwork and expense both for the Council and the Landlord, if in deed the tenant bothers to pay you!  Also if the LHA level set by the local Council is more than the figure the Landlord has set for the rent then this additional money is paid to the tenant!!  Why shuld a tenant be paid this additional money out of government money – ie: our taxes?

Dont Re-test higher rate DLA Claimants

Trust me on this, the level of disability you have to have to get a higher rate of either the mobility or care (or both) componant of DLA cannot be faked, Not even if your name is Johnny Depp.

I have Spina Bifida, use a wheelchair and cant walk at all,i get higher rate mobility, and middle rate care, I was born with the condition, i live with it, i will die with it. but guess what,  even i had to fight to get middle rate care, nevermind higher rate mobility (both of which i once lost and had to appeal, got it back within a month)

There is just no way on this earth a 'higher rate' disability can be faked, you might say its easy to fake being in a chair, very true, but it isnt easy to fake the bent spine, twisted hips, small height (35 years old and im about 5 feet tall), pressure sores on the arse, or the affectionately named pigeon legs.

why waste thousands of pounds,or more, doing medicals that are stressful and frightening because we fear losing DLA on people with that level of disability. (i could be years away from one, but im already worrying every day about it, im looking for a job, but if i lose my DLA, if i have a job by then, i would have to quit that job, couldnt get there without DLA, couldnt probably do the job, as DLA would pay for any extra help i need in the workplace, id be housebound, no money, no job, nothing))

I have medical notes that make the collected works of shakespeare (good read by the way) look like a newspaper. and clearly state my condition(s). just look at them, and consult my consultants, GP, Podietrists, district nurses, urologist etc.

money, time, and resources saved, (good for the taxpayer) and no undue stress on the (deserving) claimant.

And do it once, keeping the results on file, so that we are not put under this stress time and time again, trust me (again) conditions like spina bifida do not get better,  only worse,AND CANNOT BE FAKED!!.

Why is this idea important?

Trust me on this, the level of disability you have to have to get a higher rate of either the mobility or care (or both) componant of DLA cannot be faked, Not even if your name is Johnny Depp.

I have Spina Bifida, use a wheelchair and cant walk at all,i get higher rate mobility, and middle rate care, I was born with the condition, i live with it, i will die with it. but guess what,  even i had to fight to get middle rate care, nevermind higher rate mobility (both of which i once lost and had to appeal, got it back within a month)

There is just no way on this earth a 'higher rate' disability can be faked, you might say its easy to fake being in a chair, very true, but it isnt easy to fake the bent spine, twisted hips, small height (35 years old and im about 5 feet tall), pressure sores on the arse, or the affectionately named pigeon legs.

why waste thousands of pounds,or more, doing medicals that are stressful and frightening because we fear losing DLA on people with that level of disability. (i could be years away from one, but im already worrying every day about it, im looking for a job, but if i lose my DLA, if i have a job by then, i would have to quit that job, couldnt get there without DLA, couldnt probably do the job, as DLA would pay for any extra help i need in the workplace, id be housebound, no money, no job, nothing))

I have medical notes that make the collected works of shakespeare (good read by the way) look like a newspaper. and clearly state my condition(s). just look at them, and consult my consultants, GP, Podietrists, district nurses, urologist etc.

money, time, and resources saved, (good for the taxpayer) and no undue stress on the (deserving) claimant.

And do it once, keeping the results on file, so that we are not put under this stress time and time again, trust me (again) conditions like spina bifida do not get better,  only worse,AND CANNOT BE FAKED!!.

Stop paying state pensions and child benefit to the wealthy

It was decided recently by the government that Child Benefit is a 'Universal benefit' and that any proposal to means-test it, is more costly than the cost of  continuing to pay it to the wealthy. 

I do not believe this is fair comment, but have none-the-less written a proposal to get round costly means testing……..

Jilly Cooper once famously remarked that  Child Benefit paid for the extra bottle of champagne from Sainsbury' each month. Along with many wealthy recipients of the 'Universal' benefit she seemed free from any moral conscience in accepting the state sponsored bottle of champagne. Other wealthy people have had a conscience and have declined the payment or donated the monthly amount to charitable causes without drawing attention to their actions.

I can only presume that the same reasoning is applied to state pensions payments to Millionaires – that to means-test it is more costly than continuing payment to the wealthy .

 For Child Benefit, my proposal is to avoid costly time consuming means testing. Every year in April when the P60 is produced, the Inland Revenue passes this information by email to the relevant Child benefit office. Anyone who is seen to earn over say £150,000 pa ( the small percentage of the population who actually earn over £150,000  – it really is a small percentage)  has the benefit stopped. Likewise, if the person takes a huge cut in income in a following year and falls below the £150,000 threshold the benefit is reinstated for the next year….and so on. For couples both p60s are taken into account

For the people who for some reason do not have a p60 the Inland Revenue has the information of a persons tax return relating to income from investments and savings and this can be used by the child benefit department. 

You then have people like the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister who apparently earn below the threshhold of £150,000 who are, on that basis, eligible for Child Benefit payments but who also have enormous wealth in savings and investments. Therefore, there is an obligation on the Inland Revenue to pass on the annual declaration of interest earned on savings and investments as well as the income from paid employment. (I suspect under my proposal they would not get the Child Benefit due to the wife's income being taken into account)

 On the pension issue, anyone wanting to receive the state pension must also agree to the Inland Revenue submitting their annual Tax return information to the Pensions Agency and like the Child Benefit system, can only gain the state pension if they are below the £150,000 income from all sources threshhold.

My threshold for both examples is an arbitary figure for purposes of the debate. The detail is for others to determine!

Everyone has a statement of earnings. If people are on benefits they get a statement of income and tax paid each year from the relevant benefits office. All employees on PAYE get a P60 and everyone else, including the self-employed and the retired has to make an annual declaration of income to the Inland Revenue with resulting Inland Revenue statement of tax to be paid.

These are all things that currnetly happen so they are not new paper generating costly ideas. i merely suggest the information is passed from one dept to another.

Why is this idea important?

It was decided recently by the government that Child Benefit is a 'Universal benefit' and that any proposal to means-test it, is more costly than the cost of  continuing to pay it to the wealthy. 

I do not believe this is fair comment, but have none-the-less written a proposal to get round costly means testing……..

Jilly Cooper once famously remarked that  Child Benefit paid for the extra bottle of champagne from Sainsbury' each month. Along with many wealthy recipients of the 'Universal' benefit she seemed free from any moral conscience in accepting the state sponsored bottle of champagne. Other wealthy people have had a conscience and have declined the payment or donated the monthly amount to charitable causes without drawing attention to their actions.

I can only presume that the same reasoning is applied to state pensions payments to Millionaires – that to means-test it is more costly than continuing payment to the wealthy .

 For Child Benefit, my proposal is to avoid costly time consuming means testing. Every year in April when the P60 is produced, the Inland Revenue passes this information by email to the relevant Child benefit office. Anyone who is seen to earn over say £150,000 pa ( the small percentage of the population who actually earn over £150,000  – it really is a small percentage)  has the benefit stopped. Likewise, if the person takes a huge cut in income in a following year and falls below the £150,000 threshold the benefit is reinstated for the next year….and so on. For couples both p60s are taken into account

For the people who for some reason do not have a p60 the Inland Revenue has the information of a persons tax return relating to income from investments and savings and this can be used by the child benefit department. 

You then have people like the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister who apparently earn below the threshhold of £150,000 who are, on that basis, eligible for Child Benefit payments but who also have enormous wealth in savings and investments. Therefore, there is an obligation on the Inland Revenue to pass on the annual declaration of interest earned on savings and investments as well as the income from paid employment. (I suspect under my proposal they would not get the Child Benefit due to the wife's income being taken into account)

 On the pension issue, anyone wanting to receive the state pension must also agree to the Inland Revenue submitting their annual Tax return information to the Pensions Agency and like the Child Benefit system, can only gain the state pension if they are below the £150,000 income from all sources threshhold.

My threshold for both examples is an arbitary figure for purposes of the debate. The detail is for others to determine!

Everyone has a statement of earnings. If people are on benefits they get a statement of income and tax paid each year from the relevant benefits office. All employees on PAYE get a P60 and everyone else, including the self-employed and the retired has to make an annual declaration of income to the Inland Revenue with resulting Inland Revenue statement of tax to be paid.

These are all things that currnetly happen so they are not new paper generating costly ideas. i merely suggest the information is passed from one dept to another.

Funding for Domestic Violence Services

Capgemini (2009) found that financial benefits of Supporting People programme for Women at Risk of Domestic Violence were £186.9m per annual against the investment of £68.8. Capgemini calculated that this investment leads to a reduction of the costs of to Criminal Justice System, Health Care,Social Services, Housing, Civil Legal services. Non-financial benefits include improved quality of life for families, greater stability, reduced fear and improved involvement in the community.

It is essential that the Ministers will keep their word on protecting front-line services and  extend the funding for Supporting People services for 2011-14. However it is not just the central-Government we need to convince, but also local Government to spend the money on local services, rather than use it for other purposes.

It is essential that these services are available in any part of the country. Adequate funding will help to save lives, support independent living and provide on-going and long-term savings to economy.

Why is this idea important?

Capgemini (2009) found that financial benefits of Supporting People programme for Women at Risk of Domestic Violence were £186.9m per annual against the investment of £68.8. Capgemini calculated that this investment leads to a reduction of the costs of to Criminal Justice System, Health Care,Social Services, Housing, Civil Legal services. Non-financial benefits include improved quality of life for families, greater stability, reduced fear and improved involvement in the community.

It is essential that the Ministers will keep their word on protecting front-line services and  extend the funding for Supporting People services for 2011-14. However it is not just the central-Government we need to convince, but also local Government to spend the money on local services, rather than use it for other purposes.

It is essential that these services are available in any part of the country. Adequate funding will help to save lives, support independent living and provide on-going and long-term savings to economy.

Benefits for immigrants

No immigrant , whether from the EU or not , should be able to claimBenefits including Legal Aid , untilhe or she has been resident in  Great britain for at least two years. No benefits should ever be paid for family members not resident in Great Britain.

Why is this idea important?

No immigrant , whether from the EU or not , should be able to claimBenefits including Legal Aid , untilhe or she has been resident in  Great britain for at least two years. No benefits should ever be paid for family members not resident in Great Britain.

Rewarding Faithful Citizens

It seems in this country we reward the people who are a burden on society. The people who dont work or are sick or have lots of kids or come here from another country, they are the ones financially rewarded with government money. There is no government reward for people who have never claimed benefit or work all their lives or get married, no reward for being a good citizen.

Why is this idea important?

It seems in this country we reward the people who are a burden on society. The people who dont work or are sick or have lots of kids or come here from another country, they are the ones financially rewarded with government money. There is no government reward for people who have never claimed benefit or work all their lives or get married, no reward for being a good citizen.

CSA

Why should the CSA be allowed to penalise good honest & decent fathers.

I have been in my daughters life for 15 years and divorced for 2 years,she lives with her mother in the family homewho gets every benefit going and works. I get nothing as I earn £14k a year I dont qualify for tax credits as they say I earn too much!!!!!!

I work full time,and am currently paying £140 a month from my wage of £800 a month,the CSA took the money from me after my ex wife wrote 3 pages of lies and rubbish about me,I have contacted them and they ignore me and state because they are government backed they can take what they like…And there is nothing I can do about it

Why is this allowed,I can prove I am a good doting hard working father,the CSA are just thieves who dont care about your circumstances and will always come down on the mothers side.

 

When will this agency be shut down and the whole Child benefit system be reviewed and made more "father friendly??" as it is just a government backed agency for ex wives to seek revenge on their partners and bleed them dry….

Why is this idea important?

Why should the CSA be allowed to penalise good honest & decent fathers.

I have been in my daughters life for 15 years and divorced for 2 years,she lives with her mother in the family homewho gets every benefit going and works. I get nothing as I earn £14k a year I dont qualify for tax credits as they say I earn too much!!!!!!

I work full time,and am currently paying £140 a month from my wage of £800 a month,the CSA took the money from me after my ex wife wrote 3 pages of lies and rubbish about me,I have contacted them and they ignore me and state because they are government backed they can take what they like…And there is nothing I can do about it

Why is this allowed,I can prove I am a good doting hard working father,the CSA are just thieves who dont care about your circumstances and will always come down on the mothers side.

 

When will this agency be shut down and the whole Child benefit system be reviewed and made more "father friendly??" as it is just a government backed agency for ex wives to seek revenge on their partners and bleed them dry….

Winter Fuel Allowance to people who spend winter abroad?! Why?!

My nan has a Winter Fuel allowance which REALLY helps her, however she gets annoyed (rightly so) that a couple of her friends winter in Spain for 6 months of the year (they have property over there) and they still get the Winter Fuel Allowance.

 

There must be a way to track these people who do no really need the fuel allowance and provide more to genuinely in-need pensioners, whilst saving more from the Governments pockets??!

Why is this idea important?

My nan has a Winter Fuel allowance which REALLY helps her, however she gets annoyed (rightly so) that a couple of her friends winter in Spain for 6 months of the year (they have property over there) and they still get the Winter Fuel Allowance.

 

There must be a way to track these people who do no really need the fuel allowance and provide more to genuinely in-need pensioners, whilst saving more from the Governments pockets??!

Remove Child Benefit for families earning over £500k PA

Why should affluent families recieve £20.30 per week, per child?

It doesnt make sense to me. If you are a family earning a decent amount of money then you are much more likely to be able to support and provide luxuries for your childchildren. So what do these people do with their £20.30 per week? Normally donate it to charity, give it to the child as pocket money or put it towards horse riding lessons?

There are children in this country who have to eat poor quality food, wear the cheapest of clothing and not go to any extra curricular activities like dancing, karate, horse riding. These childrens lives are not enriched, they are just surviving.

Surely it would make sense to restrict this allowance and at least give 50% of whats saved to towards either local community initatives that can provide access to extra curricular activities or straight to the parents who need it to support the children. The other 50% could go towards the 'deficit'.

I do not have any children , so maybe im missing something. Is it just me or does this 'right' need revisiting?!

Why is this idea important?

Why should affluent families recieve £20.30 per week, per child?

It doesnt make sense to me. If you are a family earning a decent amount of money then you are much more likely to be able to support and provide luxuries for your childchildren. So what do these people do with their £20.30 per week? Normally donate it to charity, give it to the child as pocket money or put it towards horse riding lessons?

There are children in this country who have to eat poor quality food, wear the cheapest of clothing and not go to any extra curricular activities like dancing, karate, horse riding. These childrens lives are not enriched, they are just surviving.

Surely it would make sense to restrict this allowance and at least give 50% of whats saved to towards either local community initatives that can provide access to extra curricular activities or straight to the parents who need it to support the children. The other 50% could go towards the 'deficit'.

I do not have any children , so maybe im missing something. Is it just me or does this 'right' need revisiting?!

Repeal the National Minimum Wage and replace with a “Top-Up Benefits System.”

The National Minimum Wage as it is at the moment is detrimental to businesses, employees and the economy. Anyone who wishes to employ is currently is forced to pay at least the minimum wage even if they deem the employee to be worth less than this amount. This leads to the predicament of employees being unable to afford or be willing to employ which, when the economy is suffering as it is at present, increases unemployment and subsequently Government expenditure through benefits such as job seekers allowance.

Instead employees should be free to pay whatever wage they deem appropriate and if this is lower than the current minimum wage the employee can apply for top up benefits from the government to take their pay up to the minimum wage value. This would decrease the amount of benefits paid out, lower unemployment and increase the number of economically active people.

Why is this idea important?

The National Minimum Wage as it is at the moment is detrimental to businesses, employees and the economy. Anyone who wishes to employ is currently is forced to pay at least the minimum wage even if they deem the employee to be worth less than this amount. This leads to the predicament of employees being unable to afford or be willing to employ which, when the economy is suffering as it is at present, increases unemployment and subsequently Government expenditure through benefits such as job seekers allowance.

Instead employees should be free to pay whatever wage they deem appropriate and if this is lower than the current minimum wage the employee can apply for top up benefits from the government to take their pay up to the minimum wage value. This would decrease the amount of benefits paid out, lower unemployment and increase the number of economically active people.

Moving in with partner = benefit cut as I am assumed to be financially supported by them

 

Dear Nick Clegg,

This website is a fantastic idea! I would like to share with you a situation regarding Housing Benefit.

Due to a long-term serious health condition I claim incapacity benefit and housing benefit. When I moved in with my partner it was assumed by my council that my partner was financially supporting me. The result was Council Tax benefit was stopped and Housing Benefit reduced very significantly.

I have never been financially supported by my partner and we went to some lengths to explain and prove this with bank statements over the previous two years. We spent many months wrangling with the council, going back and forth which was less than pleasant. My partner works full time but earns less than 20k and we live in the south-east, where rent and cost of living is extremely high. Reducing Housing Benefit so drastically means I struggle to pay rent and have about 20 pounds a month left over to pay for anything else.

I went to speak to my then-MP Des Turner about this but he seemed less than interested, despite being on the select committee for disability.

I am a great deal poorer for pursuing my relationship. Since moving in with my partner the council have seen us as one entity and considers my partner's earnings fully available for my use. This is not the case – as a responsible adult I expect our incomes to remain separate, and I have no access to his income. He pays me no money and we have no joint accounts. The Housing Benefit Assessment officer stated to me 'for Housing Benefit purposes we have to treat you as a couple even though your finances are kept separate'. I am at a loss to understand what living together has to do with financial circumstances.

Equally disturbing is the Housing Benefit form itself – endlessly long and repetitive, and must be filled in repeatedly at two yearly intervals to check the claimant hasn't become a Hardened Criminal Benefit Fraud in the meantime. My non-disabled partner has consistently been pestered to fill out part of the form. In order to validate MY claim, he has to disclose his income and provide payslips, bank statements and proof of identity. He himself has no reason to claim benefit. We are treated as co-claimants, despite the fact that if the claim is successful, my partner receives no money from it. What happens if one's partner refuses to fill it in? The answer is that the benefit is stopped without explanation other than 'we assume you no longer wish to claim benefit'. If one's relationship is less than sterling, if there are domestic abuse issues or estrangement which lead partners to refuse to fill in the form, I have no idea what claimants are to do with such a system.

I feel the current system penalises people who are so unfortunate as to be forced to claim benefit – a demeaning and depressing situation – who then wish to enter into a relationship and shared life with someone. Surely meaningful adult relationships are to be encouraged rather than penalised. (I later married my partner, which should at least make David Cameron happy.)

I have some suggestions: instead of assuming all partners share income, assume they don't. Put a cap on receiving Housing Benefit based on entire household income if you must, for example 30k between two childless people (different if you have children and how many you have). Take note of where in the country people live, because cost of living does differ. Stop asking for proof every five minutes, because once you've proved your identity and your income, this should stand.

A few words on my experience of claiming benefits: I have seen a very bad attitude from many of those working with me to process my claims. It seems everyone involved (including my partner, my doctor and my parents who wrote in support of me) is treated with suspicion, with a 'guilty until proven innocent' attitude repeatedly applied to me and my partner. I have had benefits stopped without explanation a number of times and questions asked about it only later. The benefit system seems to foster the idea that everyone on benefits is either currently a criminal, or a criminal waiting to happen. Please act to try to change public perception of the benefits system, instead of encouraging this attitude as Labour did. And please work with those professionally involved with benefit claimants including council workers to help them to understand their hardline attitudes are offensive and unhelpful.

Why is this idea important?

 

Dear Nick Clegg,

This website is a fantastic idea! I would like to share with you a situation regarding Housing Benefit.

Due to a long-term serious health condition I claim incapacity benefit and housing benefit. When I moved in with my partner it was assumed by my council that my partner was financially supporting me. The result was Council Tax benefit was stopped and Housing Benefit reduced very significantly.

I have never been financially supported by my partner and we went to some lengths to explain and prove this with bank statements over the previous two years. We spent many months wrangling with the council, going back and forth which was less than pleasant. My partner works full time but earns less than 20k and we live in the south-east, where rent and cost of living is extremely high. Reducing Housing Benefit so drastically means I struggle to pay rent and have about 20 pounds a month left over to pay for anything else.

I went to speak to my then-MP Des Turner about this but he seemed less than interested, despite being on the select committee for disability.

I am a great deal poorer for pursuing my relationship. Since moving in with my partner the council have seen us as one entity and considers my partner's earnings fully available for my use. This is not the case – as a responsible adult I expect our incomes to remain separate, and I have no access to his income. He pays me no money and we have no joint accounts. The Housing Benefit Assessment officer stated to me 'for Housing Benefit purposes we have to treat you as a couple even though your finances are kept separate'. I am at a loss to understand what living together has to do with financial circumstances.

Equally disturbing is the Housing Benefit form itself – endlessly long and repetitive, and must be filled in repeatedly at two yearly intervals to check the claimant hasn't become a Hardened Criminal Benefit Fraud in the meantime. My non-disabled partner has consistently been pestered to fill out part of the form. In order to validate MY claim, he has to disclose his income and provide payslips, bank statements and proof of identity. He himself has no reason to claim benefit. We are treated as co-claimants, despite the fact that if the claim is successful, my partner receives no money from it. What happens if one's partner refuses to fill it in? The answer is that the benefit is stopped without explanation other than 'we assume you no longer wish to claim benefit'. If one's relationship is less than sterling, if there are domestic abuse issues or estrangement which lead partners to refuse to fill in the form, I have no idea what claimants are to do with such a system.

I feel the current system penalises people who are so unfortunate as to be forced to claim benefit – a demeaning and depressing situation – who then wish to enter into a relationship and shared life with someone. Surely meaningful adult relationships are to be encouraged rather than penalised. (I later married my partner, which should at least make David Cameron happy.)

I have some suggestions: instead of assuming all partners share income, assume they don't. Put a cap on receiving Housing Benefit based on entire household income if you must, for example 30k between two childless people (different if you have children and how many you have). Take note of where in the country people live, because cost of living does differ. Stop asking for proof every five minutes, because once you've proved your identity and your income, this should stand.

A few words on my experience of claiming benefits: I have seen a very bad attitude from many of those working with me to process my claims. It seems everyone involved (including my partner, my doctor and my parents who wrote in support of me) is treated with suspicion, with a 'guilty until proven innocent' attitude repeatedly applied to me and my partner. I have had benefits stopped without explanation a number of times and questions asked about it only later. The benefit system seems to foster the idea that everyone on benefits is either currently a criminal, or a criminal waiting to happen. Please act to try to change public perception of the benefits system, instead of encouraging this attitude as Labour did. And please work with those professionally involved with benefit claimants including council workers to help them to understand their hardline attitudes are offensive and unhelpful.

Benifits

Many benefits are given for may different thing such as transport, heating ect.

Why are people given cash for these things, which can there not be a debit card like or voucher system that prevent the cash being missed used, spend on tobacco and alcohol (although I guess this come back round as tax as oppose to bread with no tax) . 

This would vast sums of money because people would not always use the whole vouches balance as they do not need all the money for heating or transport.

In certain situation this may encourage people getting back to work to be able to buy luxuries such as tobacco and alcohol.

Why is this idea important?

Many benefits are given for may different thing such as transport, heating ect.

Why are people given cash for these things, which can there not be a debit card like or voucher system that prevent the cash being missed used, spend on tobacco and alcohol (although I guess this come back round as tax as oppose to bread with no tax) . 

This would vast sums of money because people would not always use the whole vouches balance as they do not need all the money for heating or transport.

In certain situation this may encourage people getting back to work to be able to buy luxuries such as tobacco and alcohol.

Getting the Long Term Unemployed Back to Work

There are many charities that already have the procedures in hand to train volunteers and give them the necessary skills to enhance their abilities to return to paid employment.  The government needs to endorse such a programme.  Sometimes just the work experience and doing courses like First Aid, POVA and Child Protection can elevate a person's confidence and abilities enough to give them a start back on the career path.  This would help organisations like the Red Cross attract more volunteers and help the government get people off aid whilst serving the community and making the volunteer feel good about themselves through worthwhile work.  

Why is this idea important?

There are many charities that already have the procedures in hand to train volunteers and give them the necessary skills to enhance their abilities to return to paid employment.  The government needs to endorse such a programme.  Sometimes just the work experience and doing courses like First Aid, POVA and Child Protection can elevate a person's confidence and abilities enough to give them a start back on the career path.  This would help organisations like the Red Cross attract more volunteers and help the government get people off aid whilst serving the community and making the volunteer feel good about themselves through worthwhile work.