Scrap child tax credits and provide free nurseries for children of working parents

Child tax credits should be scrapped and instead free nurseries provided for children of working parents. This would save a lot of benefits paid out to people who can’t be bothered to go back to work as they are better off on benefits. This scheme would also encourage people to go back to work and would provide extra workplaces, as additional nurseries would need to be provided (this would be financed from the benefits saved, and from taxes paid by the working parents).

Full pay maternity leave should be extended to 6 months, and after that free nursery would be provided for the children of working parents.

Why is this idea important?

Child tax credits should be scrapped and instead free nurseries provided for children of working parents. This would save a lot of benefits paid out to people who can’t be bothered to go back to work as they are better off on benefits. This scheme would also encourage people to go back to work and would provide extra workplaces, as additional nurseries would need to be provided (this would be financed from the benefits saved, and from taxes paid by the working parents).

Full pay maternity leave should be extended to 6 months, and after that free nursery would be provided for the children of working parents.

cuttting benefits

i work in one of the countries high secure hospitals and one thing that really angers staff are the amounts of benefits some patients recieve.whilst i realise their illness entitles them to benefits i.e DLA it cannot be right that they continue to recieve them when they are cared for 24/7.many patients have more disposable income than the staff who care for them and in many case spend it on luxuries or sent it out to family, some have built up balances of many 1000's of pounds.this is an injustice in the benefits and justice systems which requires attention.

Why is this idea important?

i work in one of the countries high secure hospitals and one thing that really angers staff are the amounts of benefits some patients recieve.whilst i realise their illness entitles them to benefits i.e DLA it cannot be right that they continue to recieve them when they are cared for 24/7.many patients have more disposable income than the staff who care for them and in many case spend it on luxuries or sent it out to family, some have built up balances of many 1000's of pounds.this is an injustice in the benefits and justice systems which requires attention.

CMEC – CSA

So much for how to save money.  £650,000,000 is what this pair will cost this year and don't forget the £320,000,000 spent on the computer system which was worse than a chocolate tea pot.   Faults? 

Now I am not a parent paying support.  My son is 23 now and grew up with two full time parents.  The CSA never did work and it would have been far, far cheaper just to pay the maintenance.  The so called savings from the CMEC have never appeared and never will.  Give it up, close it down and stop playing.  

 

 

 

Why is this idea important?

So much for how to save money.  £650,000,000 is what this pair will cost this year and don't forget the £320,000,000 spent on the computer system which was worse than a chocolate tea pot.   Faults? 

Now I am not a parent paying support.  My son is 23 now and grew up with two full time parents.  The CSA never did work and it would have been far, far cheaper just to pay the maintenance.  The so called savings from the CMEC have never appeared and never will.  Give it up, close it down and stop playing.  

 

 

 

Scrap ATOS Origin/ATOS healthcare medical assessment quango

This quango earns £80 million plus a year from the DWP to assess claimants for benefits medically. Many claimants are very disabled, have had months of treatment and surgery and are still under the care of NHS surgeons and GPs yet the DWP in their wisdom still ask for ATOS assessments.

The assesments are made by so called professionals who have been on a three day training course. Some are doctors, some are nurses aome are simply clerks. I know of numerous cases where the assessment has been so innaccurate and incorrect that appeals have been made.

Many of the appeals have been upheld but no one fines or deducts money from Atos and claimants are not given an explanation from the DWP, only from Atos. The DWP simply send out forms and start the whole ridiculous process all over again.

Why is this idea important?

This quango earns £80 million plus a year from the DWP to assess claimants for benefits medically. Many claimants are very disabled, have had months of treatment and surgery and are still under the care of NHS surgeons and GPs yet the DWP in their wisdom still ask for ATOS assessments.

The assesments are made by so called professionals who have been on a three day training course. Some are doctors, some are nurses aome are simply clerks. I know of numerous cases where the assessment has been so innaccurate and incorrect that appeals have been made.

Many of the appeals have been upheld but no one fines or deducts money from Atos and claimants are not given an explanation from the DWP, only from Atos. The DWP simply send out forms and start the whole ridiculous process all over again.

Child or Adult

As the law stands at the moment a 17 year old person can join the armed forces and go to war, but if the same 17 year old person stays in this country and comes from a split family the non resident parent has to pay CSA.

So what i'm saying is: are we sending children to war or are we paying the Csa to support young Adults, either way it's wrong.

Why is this idea important?

As the law stands at the moment a 17 year old person can join the armed forces and go to war, but if the same 17 year old person stays in this country and comes from a split family the non resident parent has to pay CSA.

So what i'm saying is: are we sending children to war or are we paying the Csa to support young Adults, either way it's wrong.

Child Benefit

Parents earning up to £25,000 per year each, should receive child benef.

but parents who receive anything above this amount  £25,000 + should not receive anything.

Parents can claim for a maximum of 2 children, but any additional and they will need to to pay for

themselves.

Certain unemployed and people with drug addiction are playing the system badly,and are having 4,5,6+ children just for the benefit money,not for the kids welfare, who end up needing social care

Why is this idea important?

Parents earning up to £25,000 per year each, should receive child benef.

but parents who receive anything above this amount  £25,000 + should not receive anything.

Parents can claim for a maximum of 2 children, but any additional and they will need to to pay for

themselves.

Certain unemployed and people with drug addiction are playing the system badly,and are having 4,5,6+ children just for the benefit money,not for the kids welfare, who end up needing social care

Stop paying child tax credits for children who do not live in this country.

I suggest the Government immediately stop paying child tax credits for children who do not live in this country.

If a person comes to the UK from another country and they claim they have e.g. 10 children who still live in his home country then the Government pays out tax credits for each of the 10 children. Even though they are not and have never been in this country. They may not even exist, how can we check?? 

we cannot afford to pay for children who are in this country so we should not be paying for children who do not live here. They are not our responsibility.

This is not xenophobia but simple basic economics.

Why is this idea important?

I suggest the Government immediately stop paying child tax credits for children who do not live in this country.

If a person comes to the UK from another country and they claim they have e.g. 10 children who still live in his home country then the Government pays out tax credits for each of the 10 children. Even though they are not and have never been in this country. They may not even exist, how can we check?? 

we cannot afford to pay for children who are in this country so we should not be paying for children who do not live here. They are not our responsibility.

This is not xenophobia but simple basic economics.

Re-do the benefits system

The benefits system is a mess.  Too many agencies involved (and paying too many people for that) and paying people for not working!  Why do I work so hard to give my tax money to those who can't be bothered. Doctors sign people off work too easily to get disability benefit and I'm paying for them too – WHY!

There are genuine people in need of these benefits, I want to give the genuine people more (like careers of people for example), but we need to stop paying people for doing nothing and being lazy.

Why is this idea important?

The benefits system is a mess.  Too many agencies involved (and paying too many people for that) and paying people for not working!  Why do I work so hard to give my tax money to those who can't be bothered. Doctors sign people off work too easily to get disability benefit and I'm paying for them too – WHY!

There are genuine people in need of these benefits, I want to give the genuine people more (like careers of people for example), but we need to stop paying people for doing nothing and being lazy.

End free furniture

Please can we bring an end to the furniture schemes that are available for social housing tenants who are in receipt of housing benefit.  It appears to be the last disincentive towards working when you can get a house full of furniture paid for by an extension to your housing benefit.  There will be occasions when families are genuinely  in need e.g leaving furnished accommodation but these schemes are currently available as noted above. 

Why is this idea important?

Please can we bring an end to the furniture schemes that are available for social housing tenants who are in receipt of housing benefit.  It appears to be the last disincentive towards working when you can get a house full of furniture paid for by an extension to your housing benefit.  There will be occasions when families are genuinely  in need e.g leaving furnished accommodation but these schemes are currently available as noted above. 

Job grant, unfair to the hard working people in society

Why is a Job Grant of 100 pounds  available to people who have been out of work for six or more months. Why is a tax free grant given to people who have been out of work the longest?  Adding to this, if you return to work after six months or more you also get additional support with rent and council tax.

Therefore if you have lost your job and searched endlessly for another job and then start work where your pay is on a monthly basis, but have been out of work for less six months you get no Job Grant, or help with housing benefit or council tax since all benefit ceases. You are then left to somehow survive and pay all rent and council tax, which would mean that you would very likely be much worse off than being on job seekers allowance.

It's a bit annoying like the appointment system at Jobcentreplus offices, where they book you an appointment and you arrive on time to be seen 20 minutes later. When making a query about this I was told " your husand is a RARE case, many people can't be bothered to get out of bed in the morning" .  Well if somebody can't " be bothered" to get out of bed should they be allowed extra time, surely if they can't get out of bed once every two weeks to sign on then surely there is little enthusiasm to get a job? and would they be allowed to roll into work 30 minutes late without being sacked? I very much doubt it.  

 

Why is this idea important?

Why is a Job Grant of 100 pounds  available to people who have been out of work for six or more months. Why is a tax free grant given to people who have been out of work the longest?  Adding to this, if you return to work after six months or more you also get additional support with rent and council tax.

Therefore if you have lost your job and searched endlessly for another job and then start work where your pay is on a monthly basis, but have been out of work for less six months you get no Job Grant, or help with housing benefit or council tax since all benefit ceases. You are then left to somehow survive and pay all rent and council tax, which would mean that you would very likely be much worse off than being on job seekers allowance.

It's a bit annoying like the appointment system at Jobcentreplus offices, where they book you an appointment and you arrive on time to be seen 20 minutes later. When making a query about this I was told " your husand is a RARE case, many people can't be bothered to get out of bed in the morning" .  Well if somebody can't " be bothered" to get out of bed should they be allowed extra time, surely if they can't get out of bed once every two weeks to sign on then surely there is little enthusiasm to get a job? and would they be allowed to roll into work 30 minutes late without being sacked? I very much doubt it.  

 

Repeal Laws which Prevent Working From Home

Most residential tenancies and many mortgage agreements specificlally state that the person is not allowed to operate a business from their home.

Running a business from home might be as simple as buying and selling things on ebay, designing websites or doing some kind of handicraft to sell. These types of things cause no problem for anyone else and so all restrictions in local authority or landlord and tenant law should be lifted.

Why is this idea important?

Most residential tenancies and many mortgage agreements specificlally state that the person is not allowed to operate a business from their home.

Running a business from home might be as simple as buying and selling things on ebay, designing websites or doing some kind of handicraft to sell. These types of things cause no problem for anyone else and so all restrictions in local authority or landlord and tenant law should be lifted.

What’s the purpose of Benefit contact centres? are they a total waste of money

I was given a telephone number of what is called a contact centre, where I was advised that advice to benefits available to me would be given. I telephoned the contact centre numerously, which in turn lead to to write to the chief executive of jobcentre plus.  In fact many letters to this day which still have not answered my query. 

Years ago we used to have decision makers based in local jobcentreplus offices, yet this is no more. Now we have telephone contact centres. Yet, people working in these centres are not benefit advisers, as they have told me numerously they are simply  ' information gatherers'.  They are unable to advise you on what benefits you can claim.  

Unless a person knows the benefits system inside out as many or rather most people don't, this leaves people who should be claiming certain benefits not being told of their entitlement to claim. Yet, very unfairly it is a persons responsibility to find out for themselves what benefits they are entitled to claim.  I ask how this is possible  to do, especially people who have no access to the internet to look at the gov uk website.  The only information they would be able to get is from a contact centre, who like I say are not benefit advisers.

The only people who can tell you what benefits you are entitled to claim are decision makers, yet claims have to be submitted for a decision maker to decide if a claim is possible.

Therefore without knowing what benefit to apply for, how is it possible to put in a claim?

This leaves Jobcentreplus's work left to the CAB, slightly unfair since the CAB have more knowledge than people working in contact centres. CAB is also not always accessible to some disabled people.

Also, it is clear when making a call to a contact centre that all information given is recorded. Also, it seems pretty clear to me that they have a yes or no button to use with their  'script' as I call it. If for example you have a person moving out shortly from your property, or make some small mistake , or they press the wrong button, you could then be accused of trying to commit benefit fraud.

 

 

Why is this idea important?

I was given a telephone number of what is called a contact centre, where I was advised that advice to benefits available to me would be given. I telephoned the contact centre numerously, which in turn lead to to write to the chief executive of jobcentre plus.  In fact many letters to this day which still have not answered my query. 

Years ago we used to have decision makers based in local jobcentreplus offices, yet this is no more. Now we have telephone contact centres. Yet, people working in these centres are not benefit advisers, as they have told me numerously they are simply  ' information gatherers'.  They are unable to advise you on what benefits you can claim.  

Unless a person knows the benefits system inside out as many or rather most people don't, this leaves people who should be claiming certain benefits not being told of their entitlement to claim. Yet, very unfairly it is a persons responsibility to find out for themselves what benefits they are entitled to claim.  I ask how this is possible  to do, especially people who have no access to the internet to look at the gov uk website.  The only information they would be able to get is from a contact centre, who like I say are not benefit advisers.

The only people who can tell you what benefits you are entitled to claim are decision makers, yet claims have to be submitted for a decision maker to decide if a claim is possible.

Therefore without knowing what benefit to apply for, how is it possible to put in a claim?

This leaves Jobcentreplus's work left to the CAB, slightly unfair since the CAB have more knowledge than people working in contact centres. CAB is also not always accessible to some disabled people.

Also, it is clear when making a call to a contact centre that all information given is recorded. Also, it seems pretty clear to me that they have a yes or no button to use with their  'script' as I call it. If for example you have a person moving out shortly from your property, or make some small mistake , or they press the wrong button, you could then be accused of trying to commit benefit fraud.

 

 

INCOME BASED BENEFITS ‘UNFAIRLY’ NOT CONSEDERED ON PREVIOUSLY PAID NATIONAL INSURANCE STAMPS

If for any reason a UK citizen has been unable to pay their NI stamps for two years their entitlement to contribution based benefits is no longer available. This would include people  who are disabled who have returned from abroad or any other person unable to afford to pay their national insurance stanps for any other reason.

It does not matter how long you had previously paid your National insurance stamps, it could be 41 years! yet if you return to the UK and were unable to pay your stamps while abroad you will be entitled to no contribution  based benefits whatsoever. This would leave a person in a position of being treated entirely differently to all other UK citizens.

Why is this idea important?

If for any reason a UK citizen has been unable to pay their NI stamps for two years their entitlement to contribution based benefits is no longer available. This would include people  who are disabled who have returned from abroad or any other person unable to afford to pay their national insurance stanps for any other reason.

It does not matter how long you had previously paid your National insurance stamps, it could be 41 years! yet if you return to the UK and were unable to pay your stamps while abroad you will be entitled to no contribution  based benefits whatsoever. This would leave a person in a position of being treated entirely differently to all other UK citizens.

Overcrowding legislation

We should remove laws that force social landlords to move large families to larger houses once their children reach a certain age. I am sure there are lots of home owners who are forced to have their children share a bedroom because they cannot afford to buy a bigger home. it seems unfair that social landlords are forced to move tenants to bigger homes or spend large sums of money on building extensions to aviod breaching overcrowding legislation.

Why is this idea important?

We should remove laws that force social landlords to move large families to larger houses once their children reach a certain age. I am sure there are lots of home owners who are forced to have their children share a bedroom because they cannot afford to buy a bigger home. it seems unfair that social landlords are forced to move tenants to bigger homes or spend large sums of money on building extensions to aviod breaching overcrowding legislation.

Repeal all Social Welfare Benefits and pay a subsistence wage.

Instead of benefits, government pensions, tax credits etc make a subsistence payment to everyone from cradle to grave. We could work as much (or as little) as we needed for anything else. A fund would need to be set up for the few with many extra needs.

Why is this idea important?

Instead of benefits, government pensions, tax credits etc make a subsistence payment to everyone from cradle to grave. We could work as much (or as little) as we needed for anything else. A fund would need to be set up for the few with many extra needs.

Streamline the Tax and Benefits system.

National Insurance should be merged with income tax. (And ideally local taxation should also be included in this merger)

The personal tax allowance abolished and should be replaced by an equivalent cash payment to all UK resident citizens. (This could be referred to as a basic income). All benefits would then be reduced by this amount.

Benefits would be phased out for those able to work, they would be replaced by guaranteed casual work being available. This work would initially be community work, whether it be helping charities or environmental schemes. It could be helping with local festivals for example.

This would be 5 days a month, there would be as much flexibility as possible in the timing. The entitlement would be transferrable between family members. It would approximately minimum wage. (Those with reduced basic income would be able to claim up to 10 days a month.)

Basic income would be based on the number of years spent contributing to the tax system. (Children on becoming 18 would be regarded as having up to 5 years of contributions, 1/2 a year for each year they have attended school in the UK.)

The minimum payment would begin after 5 years of contributions. This would be aimed to be approximately the difference between 1 day a week at minimum wage and current jobseekers allowance for a young person.

After 10 years of contributions this would raise to be equivalent to the difference between one day a week on minimum wage and the current adults’ JSA.

The state pension could also be merged with this system and could child benefit.

Once this scheme is running, a similar scheme would be introduced to replace rent and mortgage benefits.

Why is this idea important?

National Insurance should be merged with income tax. (And ideally local taxation should also be included in this merger)

The personal tax allowance abolished and should be replaced by an equivalent cash payment to all UK resident citizens. (This could be referred to as a basic income). All benefits would then be reduced by this amount.

Benefits would be phased out for those able to work, they would be replaced by guaranteed casual work being available. This work would initially be community work, whether it be helping charities or environmental schemes. It could be helping with local festivals for example.

This would be 5 days a month, there would be as much flexibility as possible in the timing. The entitlement would be transferrable between family members. It would approximately minimum wage. (Those with reduced basic income would be able to claim up to 10 days a month.)

Basic income would be based on the number of years spent contributing to the tax system. (Children on becoming 18 would be regarded as having up to 5 years of contributions, 1/2 a year for each year they have attended school in the UK.)

The minimum payment would begin after 5 years of contributions. This would be aimed to be approximately the difference between 1 day a week at minimum wage and current jobseekers allowance for a young person.

After 10 years of contributions this would raise to be equivalent to the difference between one day a week on minimum wage and the current adults’ JSA.

The state pension could also be merged with this system and could child benefit.

Once this scheme is running, a similar scheme would be introduced to replace rent and mortgage benefits.

Stop the real benefit theives (the ones that are NEVER going to work!)

There should be a limit on job seekers allowance.  It should only be claimable for a short period of time.  People should be made to either work or support themselves if they don't want to work.  The tax payers are paying for a heavy group of people who will never work and continually use the benefits system to live.  The public are carrying some citizens which have never worked and yet feel it is their right to benefits.

In addition, people who have joined the English community from another country should have to wait at least 1 year of residing England before they are allowed to claim any benefits.

Why is this idea important?

There should be a limit on job seekers allowance.  It should only be claimable for a short period of time.  People should be made to either work or support themselves if they don't want to work.  The tax payers are paying for a heavy group of people who will never work and continually use the benefits system to live.  The public are carrying some citizens which have never worked and yet feel it is their right to benefits.

In addition, people who have joined the English community from another country should have to wait at least 1 year of residing England before they are allowed to claim any benefits.

Benefits & Bills..

I would like to see utility providers and the TV licence accept and recognise, by law, standing orders as legitimate payment methods.

I work with people on benefits who struggle to pay their bills. This is not only down to the fact that they have low incomes but also because they may have mental health or substance misuse issues.  

The exisiting payment methods only work for those of us who are able to budget effectively. Direc debits are paid on the same date of each month whereas benefits are paid on the same day of each month or week. What this means is that direct debit is not an effective way to pay although for the majority it is the easiest way to pay.

There are payment cards which do work for many but i have seen lots of people fall behind with payment cards. There is a tendency to juggle payments and for one or all of the balls get dropped.

Standing orders can be set up to be paid on the same day every month or week or fortnight. This could coincide with the payment of benefit.

Providers dont like standing orders because they are not in control of them and cannot raise the amount when required. There is also an issue with provders receiving payments without ref numbers and then not knowing what account it is for. These are issues that i feel could be overcome with some organization.

So, in essence, I believe that everyone should have the right to pay their bills in any way that is convienient to them and not in whatever form is most convienient to the provider. Power to the people.

Make a Stand for Standing Orders!

Why is this idea important?

I would like to see utility providers and the TV licence accept and recognise, by law, standing orders as legitimate payment methods.

I work with people on benefits who struggle to pay their bills. This is not only down to the fact that they have low incomes but also because they may have mental health or substance misuse issues.  

The exisiting payment methods only work for those of us who are able to budget effectively. Direc debits are paid on the same date of each month whereas benefits are paid on the same day of each month or week. What this means is that direct debit is not an effective way to pay although for the majority it is the easiest way to pay.

There are payment cards which do work for many but i have seen lots of people fall behind with payment cards. There is a tendency to juggle payments and for one or all of the balls get dropped.

Standing orders can be set up to be paid on the same day every month or week or fortnight. This could coincide with the payment of benefit.

Providers dont like standing orders because they are not in control of them and cannot raise the amount when required. There is also an issue with provders receiving payments without ref numbers and then not knowing what account it is for. These are issues that i feel could be overcome with some organization.

So, in essence, I believe that everyone should have the right to pay their bills in any way that is convienient to them and not in whatever form is most convienient to the provider. Power to the people.

Make a Stand for Standing Orders!

Reject Refugees

The UK needs to reject all applications for refugee status and expel all those currently residing here in the name of asylum. The UK is an Island nation, surrounded by free countries. In order to be deemed a refugee you're supposed to claim asylum in the first free country you encounter. As there are no countries surrounding the the UK where people are being persecuted, then there is no legitimate claim to asylum in the UK. 

Why is this idea important?

The UK needs to reject all applications for refugee status and expel all those currently residing here in the name of asylum. The UK is an Island nation, surrounded by free countries. In order to be deemed a refugee you're supposed to claim asylum in the first free country you encounter. As there are no countries surrounding the the UK where people are being persecuted, then there is no legitimate claim to asylum in the UK. 

Illegal Immigrants – they are not Asymlum Seekers

A true asylum seeker will ask for asymlum at the first safe country they reach and stay there.  Those that come here are illegal immigrants usually here for benefits and should be treated as such.

They should be housed in a secure area such as disused army or air force accommodation whilst their claims are assessed and not given housing which is desperately needed by the indigenous population and where they can simply disappear.  The applications should be dealt with speedily and priority given to commonwealth citizens and those whose skills we need.  Those who are not allowed to stay should be deported immediately without recourse to legal aid to fight the decision. 

Those who are allowed to stay should be given basic accommodation and NOT housed in large properties in areas such as Kensington.  Their benefits should be basic and should not include cars and other such items which other people have to work for.

Why is this idea important?

A true asylum seeker will ask for asymlum at the first safe country they reach and stay there.  Those that come here are illegal immigrants usually here for benefits and should be treated as such.

They should be housed in a secure area such as disused army or air force accommodation whilst their claims are assessed and not given housing which is desperately needed by the indigenous population and where they can simply disappear.  The applications should be dealt with speedily and priority given to commonwealth citizens and those whose skills we need.  Those who are not allowed to stay should be deported immediately without recourse to legal aid to fight the decision. 

Those who are allowed to stay should be given basic accommodation and NOT housed in large properties in areas such as Kensington.  Their benefits should be basic and should not include cars and other such items which other people have to work for.

Replace Jobseekers Allowance with guaranteed part time work

We spend billions every year on benefit for long time unemployed people, and we certainly should look after these people.

But there are two problems:

– we get no benefit from this expenditure, other than "doing the right thing"

– the recipient doesn't get the satisfaction of contributing, and the benefit of building up a CV.

After an initial opportunity to find work, we should offer all jobseekers part time work at the minimum wage up to the number of hours per week required to make their benefit.  They get a stronger work history, we get the benefit of their effort and skills, and nobody needs to be judgemental about skiving again.  It also creates IDS's "incentive to work" because any other job offered will pay at least the same, and if more hours will pay more.  There would be no step change in the effort required to take on a part time job.

Why is this idea important?

We spend billions every year on benefit for long time unemployed people, and we certainly should look after these people.

But there are two problems:

– we get no benefit from this expenditure, other than "doing the right thing"

– the recipient doesn't get the satisfaction of contributing, and the benefit of building up a CV.

After an initial opportunity to find work, we should offer all jobseekers part time work at the minimum wage up to the number of hours per week required to make their benefit.  They get a stronger work history, we get the benefit of their effort and skills, and nobody needs to be judgemental about skiving again.  It also creates IDS's "incentive to work" because any other job offered will pay at least the same, and if more hours will pay more.  There would be no step change in the effort required to take on a part time job.