Instead of payng out money give vouchers

Instead of people geting cash in their hands wouldn't it be abetter idea to give vouchers. rent etc could be paid this way and also electricity and gas. In America it is normal to receive food vouchers once you have had benefit for 6 months. This would also be a great incentive to work as vouchers would not pay for cigarettes, alcohol and other luxuries.  This would save a lot of money and simplify the system.  It might also reform society as children would have to have food bought and cooked as the vouchers could be worded to ensure they were not usable at the local fast food retailer. Children would be better fed and looked after. Parents with babies could be given vouchers for baby requirements and there should be a greater encouragement for them to feed the childrn themselves thus saving millions a year on baby milk. We need to look at ways of saving money and this would be fair to all on benefits. All would have food, heat, light and a roof over their head.

Why is this idea important?

Instead of people geting cash in their hands wouldn't it be abetter idea to give vouchers. rent etc could be paid this way and also electricity and gas. In America it is normal to receive food vouchers once you have had benefit for 6 months. This would also be a great incentive to work as vouchers would not pay for cigarettes, alcohol and other luxuries.  This would save a lot of money and simplify the system.  It might also reform society as children would have to have food bought and cooked as the vouchers could be worded to ensure they were not usable at the local fast food retailer. Children would be better fed and looked after. Parents with babies could be given vouchers for baby requirements and there should be a greater encouragement for them to feed the childrn themselves thus saving millions a year on baby milk. We need to look at ways of saving money and this would be fair to all on benefits. All would have food, heat, light and a roof over their head.

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.

Annual leave for jobseekers

Millions of people are going to be unemployed over the next few years enduring a long-term, and often demoralising job search, because of the state of the economy. Let's make it a bit less stressful for them by giving people clear guidance over where they can travel while looking for work, and that people genuinely seeking a job full-time and failing might be in need of a bit of a break.

I've known someone made redundant, wanting to take a foreign holiday they had already paid for while in employment, not able to take that holiday because they would lose housing benefit. If they'd have been going somewhere in the UK, it would have been alright because they could have apparently signed on in another jobcentre. What a joke! Of course they would not have really been looking for work during a break in the UK. A pointless kick in the teeth to have to forego the holiday you can't get a refund on for no good reason.

 

I have another friend on jobseekers who has been offered a free break abroad to visit a friend in Spain. It would really lift her spirits after a miserable year. If she goes and tells the truth, she'll lose her benefits. If the friend was in Cornwall, she'd be alright. Seems senseless to me when a flight to Europe can be cheaper than a train fare to Scotland.

Let's recognise that unemployment, and dependence on the benefits system, is something that could happen to any of us, and not exclude Jobseekers from mainstream society any more than is necessary. Let's have a set amount of 'leave' that they can use from jobseeking, like those employed have, to use for visiting family, doing work experience, or just being away from depressing bureaucracy for a short while, renewing the spirit. This would make things much less stressful, and stop a lot of pointless lying.

On a national scale, with slightly reduced numbers of meetings, you could probably even sack a few jobcentre staff.

Why is this idea important?

Millions of people are going to be unemployed over the next few years enduring a long-term, and often demoralising job search, because of the state of the economy. Let's make it a bit less stressful for them by giving people clear guidance over where they can travel while looking for work, and that people genuinely seeking a job full-time and failing might be in need of a bit of a break.

I've known someone made redundant, wanting to take a foreign holiday they had already paid for while in employment, not able to take that holiday because they would lose housing benefit. If they'd have been going somewhere in the UK, it would have been alright because they could have apparently signed on in another jobcentre. What a joke! Of course they would not have really been looking for work during a break in the UK. A pointless kick in the teeth to have to forego the holiday you can't get a refund on for no good reason.

 

I have another friend on jobseekers who has been offered a free break abroad to visit a friend in Spain. It would really lift her spirits after a miserable year. If she goes and tells the truth, she'll lose her benefits. If the friend was in Cornwall, she'd be alright. Seems senseless to me when a flight to Europe can be cheaper than a train fare to Scotland.

Let's recognise that unemployment, and dependence on the benefits system, is something that could happen to any of us, and not exclude Jobseekers from mainstream society any more than is necessary. Let's have a set amount of 'leave' that they can use from jobseeking, like those employed have, to use for visiting family, doing work experience, or just being away from depressing bureaucracy for a short while, renewing the spirit. This would make things much less stressful, and stop a lot of pointless lying.

On a national scale, with slightly reduced numbers of meetings, you could probably even sack a few jobcentre staff.

Overhaul the benefits system to encourage people to take responsibility

The Benefits system was designed to assist those who need help, not provide an excuse for people not to work.  So how about adopting a system where:

  • if you get pregnant and have a child while on benefits, you are not entitled to any additional allowance for that child.  The state should not be expected to pick up the tab because you choose to procreate without the means to support that child.  However, if you have children and then go onto benefits, you should still be supported until you find work.
  • abolish job-seekers allowance after 6 months.  Instead, retrain people from day one to do a job that is available, perhaps by offering employers subsidies to take on more trainees, and make sure that the age limit is irrelevant, meaning people who become unemployed still have an opportunity to get back into work.
  • make Doctors certificates mandatory for everyone who receives incapacity benefit or ESA, where the Doctor can identify the types of work that the individual can do.  This should be reviewed at least every six months.  If you are that ill that you cannot possibly work, then chances are you are seeing the Doctor regularly anyway.
  • increase support for carers, not just financially, but also in the other services that they should be getting i.e. respite care.  This can be paid for by following some of the steps above!
  • Increase pension support for the elderly, and not take into account their savings and properties.  They have worked hard for those and shouldn't be penalised for it.

Why is this idea important?

The Benefits system was designed to assist those who need help, not provide an excuse for people not to work.  So how about adopting a system where:

  • if you get pregnant and have a child while on benefits, you are not entitled to any additional allowance for that child.  The state should not be expected to pick up the tab because you choose to procreate without the means to support that child.  However, if you have children and then go onto benefits, you should still be supported until you find work.
  • abolish job-seekers allowance after 6 months.  Instead, retrain people from day one to do a job that is available, perhaps by offering employers subsidies to take on more trainees, and make sure that the age limit is irrelevant, meaning people who become unemployed still have an opportunity to get back into work.
  • make Doctors certificates mandatory for everyone who receives incapacity benefit or ESA, where the Doctor can identify the types of work that the individual can do.  This should be reviewed at least every six months.  If you are that ill that you cannot possibly work, then chances are you are seeing the Doctor regularly anyway.
  • increase support for carers, not just financially, but also in the other services that they should be getting i.e. respite care.  This can be paid for by following some of the steps above!
  • Increase pension support for the elderly, and not take into account their savings and properties.  They have worked hard for those and shouldn't be penalised for it.

TAX CREDITS , CHILD BENEFIT.

Working tax credits should be processed and paid through the tax coding system. This will cut down on the bureacracy and paperwork involved.

In an overpopulated country child benefit should only be paid for the first two children and also only to those paying standard rate tax. Again, the benefit could be paid through the tax coding system to cut down on more bureacracy and paid only to married couples to encourage marriage where children are involved.

The personal tax allowance should be raised to £10,000 to help the low waged and this would be paid for by a rise in the top rate of income tax and V.A.T.

Capital Gains tax should be graduated over 7 years like inheritance tax to encourage long term investment.

Why is this idea important?

Working tax credits should be processed and paid through the tax coding system. This will cut down on the bureacracy and paperwork involved.

In an overpopulated country child benefit should only be paid for the first two children and also only to those paying standard rate tax. Again, the benefit could be paid through the tax coding system to cut down on more bureacracy and paid only to married couples to encourage marriage where children are involved.

The personal tax allowance should be raised to £10,000 to help the low waged and this would be paid for by a rise in the top rate of income tax and V.A.T.

Capital Gains tax should be graduated over 7 years like inheritance tax to encourage long term investment.

Long Term unemployed Back to Work

We are a Country that pay people (Via the many benefits claimed) to lie in bed most of the day, except on the days they sign on or make their fortnightly trip to the post office to collect their benefits.

As those people are "employees" of the Benefit system, I believe The Public Services in Every Town in our Country would benefit from the extra help from these people. Litter collecting in public spaces, cleaning graffiti from walls, assiting in schools and hospitals.

For Four days a week these people can be made good use of, the Fifth day they sit and apply for alternative work. Failure to attend these days means loss of benefits.

It may sound harsh, but way should those employed pay for others, when those who are working would benefit from those that are not.

Why is this idea important?

We are a Country that pay people (Via the many benefits claimed) to lie in bed most of the day, except on the days they sign on or make their fortnightly trip to the post office to collect their benefits.

As those people are "employees" of the Benefit system, I believe The Public Services in Every Town in our Country would benefit from the extra help from these people. Litter collecting in public spaces, cleaning graffiti from walls, assiting in schools and hospitals.

For Four days a week these people can be made good use of, the Fifth day they sit and apply for alternative work. Failure to attend these days means loss of benefits.

It may sound harsh, but way should those employed pay for others, when those who are working would benefit from those that are not.

Abolish LHA Direct Payments to Tenants

This regulation should be abolished as it costing the Government billions of wasted revenue.  LHA ruling is that the Housing Benefit money is paid direct and belongs to the tenant and it is then their responsibility to pay the landlord. However, in the last five years i would estimate that as a small business have lost over £30,000 revenue from non-paid rent, from tenants who have been in receipt of their housing benefit have choosen to spend it on non esstentials, recovering the spent money is impossible.  

Even more bizarre is that the tenant is allowed under LHA regulation to miss 2 monthly payments, 8 weeks arrears before LHA rules will consider paying the Landlord direct. This envitable leads the tenant into huge rent arrears and leaves the landlord no option but to serve notice and eventually evict the tenant.

 It is our experience, and many other landlords we speak to expereince that Housing Benefit officers often mis understand the LHA ruling and mis-manage governments money.  We have written on numerous times informing officers that we feel they should safeguard tenants HB and make a direct payment, but they ignore the regulations. 

 

Why is this idea important?

This regulation should be abolished as it costing the Government billions of wasted revenue.  LHA ruling is that the Housing Benefit money is paid direct and belongs to the tenant and it is then their responsibility to pay the landlord. However, in the last five years i would estimate that as a small business have lost over £30,000 revenue from non-paid rent, from tenants who have been in receipt of their housing benefit have choosen to spend it on non esstentials, recovering the spent money is impossible.  

Even more bizarre is that the tenant is allowed under LHA regulation to miss 2 monthly payments, 8 weeks arrears before LHA rules will consider paying the Landlord direct. This envitable leads the tenant into huge rent arrears and leaves the landlord no option but to serve notice and eventually evict the tenant.

 It is our experience, and many other landlords we speak to expereince that Housing Benefit officers often mis understand the LHA ruling and mis-manage governments money.  We have written on numerous times informing officers that we feel they should safeguard tenants HB and make a direct payment, but they ignore the regulations. 

 

Cancel direct payment of Housing Benefit to tenants

A flawed policy introduced by the previous administration was direct payment of Housing Benefit to private tenants. This has led to increased difficulty for tenants in taking responsibility for these payments, and payments to landlords is only possible after an 8 week default period. This increases the burden on tenants, Local Authorities, and landlords alike.

 

I have personally seen an increase in rent defaults and an increasing reluctance to take on DSS tenants with no guarantee of income. This is a worrying change in attitude and would have a detrimental effect on the tenants who are actually in greatest need of support from the community. Local Authorities do not have the resources to scrutinise how long a Tenant has been in arrears, so that often the landlord will not receive payment until much later than 8 weeks (if at all).

Why is this idea important?

A flawed policy introduced by the previous administration was direct payment of Housing Benefit to private tenants. This has led to increased difficulty for tenants in taking responsibility for these payments, and payments to landlords is only possible after an 8 week default period. This increases the burden on tenants, Local Authorities, and landlords alike.

 

I have personally seen an increase in rent defaults and an increasing reluctance to take on DSS tenants with no guarantee of income. This is a worrying change in attitude and would have a detrimental effect on the tenants who are actually in greatest need of support from the community. Local Authorities do not have the resources to scrutinise how long a Tenant has been in arrears, so that often the landlord will not receive payment until much later than 8 weeks (if at all).

Change Benefit Laws To Give Carers A Fair Deal.

The surrounding benefits restrict the lives of carers and need urgent change.

I suggest:

Carers who are unable to take up paid employment because of their caring role should be paid at a rate that reflects the work they do and the hours they put in.  This would remove carers from poverty and the restrictions from their lives – reflecting their true worth and their contribution to society.

The adjustment of the 35 hour per week rule with various rates of payment according to the amount of time spent caring.

The introduction of a grant system to allow carers who cannot work outside the home to start up businesses where they can work from home.  This needs to include  the ability to continue to claim benefits for the first two years in order to give the business time to reach a profit making level.

Why is this idea important?

The surrounding benefits restrict the lives of carers and need urgent change.

I suggest:

Carers who are unable to take up paid employment because of their caring role should be paid at a rate that reflects the work they do and the hours they put in.  This would remove carers from poverty and the restrictions from their lives – reflecting their true worth and their contribution to society.

The adjustment of the 35 hour per week rule with various rates of payment according to the amount of time spent caring.

The introduction of a grant system to allow carers who cannot work outside the home to start up businesses where they can work from home.  This needs to include  the ability to continue to claim benefits for the first two years in order to give the business time to reach a profit making level.

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.

Freedom from excessive tax rate

Coming off benefit puts you into one of the highest effective tax brackets as you get deductions at more than 50% for each pound you earn. More people might be encouraged to work, if they didn't think that their income would stay the same (or get worse) just because they want to work.

Free us from tax allowances and benefit systems bureaucracies by alloting each citizen a guaranteed £150 per week. No extras, no deductions for working.

Why is this idea important?

Coming off benefit puts you into one of the highest effective tax brackets as you get deductions at more than 50% for each pound you earn. More people might be encouraged to work, if they didn't think that their income would stay the same (or get worse) just because they want to work.

Free us from tax allowances and benefit systems bureaucracies by alloting each citizen a guaranteed £150 per week. No extras, no deductions for working.

Social Housing and Benefits

Social Housing and Benefits should be for UK Citizens ONLY, Not for Asylum seekers, not for refugees granted asylum in the UK and certainly not for citizens of other EU nations.

This needs to be enforced on any new application and any of the above who are already on benefits should be given three months to find alternative accommodation and/or income. Evict them if necessary.

Why is this idea important?

Social Housing and Benefits should be for UK Citizens ONLY, Not for Asylum seekers, not for refugees granted asylum in the UK and certainly not for citizens of other EU nations.

This needs to be enforced on any new application and any of the above who are already on benefits should be given three months to find alternative accommodation and/or income. Evict them if necessary.

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.

Fairer benefits system

I think the benefit system needs to be fairer i was recently told that i could no longer claim job seekers allowance as i have allowed my partner to move in with me so i now have no income at all & he has to pay my full rent, council & and all my others bill. leaving us with practically no money left over . The way the system is now its making it so easy for people to be unemployed as if my partner stopped working i could claim for the both of us & we wouldn't need to pay rent . At the very least you should still be able to get some money even if its not the full amount. It was my house to start off with & now just cause he lives with me he is expected to pay all the bills & i can't contribute to anything . The way the benefit system is now it doesn't seem very fair or just .

Why is this idea important?

I think the benefit system needs to be fairer i was recently told that i could no longer claim job seekers allowance as i have allowed my partner to move in with me so i now have no income at all & he has to pay my full rent, council & and all my others bill. leaving us with practically no money left over . The way the system is now its making it so easy for people to be unemployed as if my partner stopped working i could claim for the both of us & we wouldn't need to pay rent . At the very least you should still be able to get some money even if its not the full amount. It was my house to start off with & now just cause he lives with me he is expected to pay all the bills & i can't contribute to anything . The way the benefit system is now it doesn't seem very fair or just .

benefit reform of carers allowance.

There is a regulation which I believe should be repealed.

Currently there is no right of appeal in respect to change your pay week-ending day or the change from weekly to fortnightly payments for benefit payments.

This is due to (regulations 20-24) of the Social Security (Claims and Payments) Regulations 1987 and paragraph 5(j) of Schedule 2 to the Social Security and Child Support (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 1999.

This is not to create even more chaos into the benefit system, but rather to assist carers who have had their income support element of their benefits changed this week without consultation.

Anyone who is a carer ought to be able to stay on weekly payments, even better have both parts of their benefit paid on the same day to assist them.

The above regulation prevents this, it is grossly unfair – giving some carers £5.95 for 8 days to live on. The above regulation prevents an appeal and should, in itself, be repealed.

Thank you

 

 

Why is this idea important?

There is a regulation which I believe should be repealed.

Currently there is no right of appeal in respect to change your pay week-ending day or the change from weekly to fortnightly payments for benefit payments.

This is due to (regulations 20-24) of the Social Security (Claims and Payments) Regulations 1987 and paragraph 5(j) of Schedule 2 to the Social Security and Child Support (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 1999.

This is not to create even more chaos into the benefit system, but rather to assist carers who have had their income support element of their benefits changed this week without consultation.

Anyone who is a carer ought to be able to stay on weekly payments, even better have both parts of their benefit paid on the same day to assist them.

The above regulation prevents this, it is grossly unfair – giving some carers £5.95 for 8 days to live on. The above regulation prevents an appeal and should, in itself, be repealed.

Thank you

 

 

Let’s reform housing benefit for people with a long term health condition!

How about reforming Housing Benefit so that people with life long health conditions can actually buy a house and pay a mortgage with the Housing Benefit money rather than stay in rented accommodation forever as the current system seems to allow!   Which is more expensive!!  I have worked it out over 20 years and the figures are shocking; the difference could purchase another small flat outright.  So once the mortgage is paid off, housing benefit stops, or an innovative scheme whereby local authorities and NHS Trust jointly buy properties by way of an arms length organisation through a PFI for long term claimants who buy the property off the arms length organisation over 20/25 years, with their Housing Benefit, once the property is paid for, the Housing Benefit stops, unless circumstances change, although they are most likely to change circumstances mid term, in which case a swap is made possible, like a single person getting married and having children and requires a larger home.

Why is this idea important?

How about reforming Housing Benefit so that people with life long health conditions can actually buy a house and pay a mortgage with the Housing Benefit money rather than stay in rented accommodation forever as the current system seems to allow!   Which is more expensive!!  I have worked it out over 20 years and the figures are shocking; the difference could purchase another small flat outright.  So once the mortgage is paid off, housing benefit stops, or an innovative scheme whereby local authorities and NHS Trust jointly buy properties by way of an arms length organisation through a PFI for long term claimants who buy the property off the arms length organisation over 20/25 years, with their Housing Benefit, once the property is paid for, the Housing Benefit stops, unless circumstances change, although they are most likely to change circumstances mid term, in which case a swap is made possible, like a single person getting married and having children and requires a larger home.

Remove a significant barrier for the long term unemployed

Quite often people caught in a benefits trap are qualified, capable and willing to work. The longer a person is out of work, the more unlikely an employer is to hire him or her. Qualifications and skills become irrelevant when there is a large employment gap on a CV. Please remove this barrier!

My idea is this: many front line services are being scaled down. Allow those unemployed people who are suitable to support local services and work without pay. However let them do a respected job, not simply making the tea. Give the individual a chance to prove that they are not lazy or incapable. 

Why is this idea important?

Quite often people caught in a benefits trap are qualified, capable and willing to work. The longer a person is out of work, the more unlikely an employer is to hire him or her. Qualifications and skills become irrelevant when there is a large employment gap on a CV. Please remove this barrier!

My idea is this: many front line services are being scaled down. Allow those unemployed people who are suitable to support local services and work without pay. However let them do a respected job, not simply making the tea. Give the individual a chance to prove that they are not lazy or incapable. 

Earning capability

A  family on benefits should not be handed any more  than the earning capability of the family would allow.The rules at the moment encourage the breeding of yet more claimants.What a ridiculous situation!

Why is this idea important?

A  family on benefits should not be handed any more  than the earning capability of the family would allow.The rules at the moment encourage the breeding of yet more claimants.What a ridiculous situation!

Single Mum & Young Parent

Young single mum & young parent abusing benefit. They refused to get a job spending every single penny on drugs, alcholo,things that not needed…in another word spending money like runing water, these young people do not know the value of money. They get pregent so that they can claim benefit, house and money from the goverment, after giving birth they neglect the child. I have one example of these kind in my family. These people have never work in their life, some parent and grand parent spoiled these young people by saying..oh their spoiled and behave like that is because they have hard life….well all I can say about these parent is that they don't know what is the real hardship is like themself, take a look at the yound people in asia, if you send these spoiled young english people for a month, I beg you on the first or second day they will be crying to come home.

Their attitude is why should I get a job when I can just sit at home and get the benefit from the goverment.

Why is this idea important?

Young single mum & young parent abusing benefit. They refused to get a job spending every single penny on drugs, alcholo,things that not needed…in another word spending money like runing water, these young people do not know the value of money. They get pregent so that they can claim benefit, house and money from the goverment, after giving birth they neglect the child. I have one example of these kind in my family. These people have never work in their life, some parent and grand parent spoiled these young people by saying..oh their spoiled and behave like that is because they have hard life….well all I can say about these parent is that they don't know what is the real hardship is like themself, take a look at the yound people in asia, if you send these spoiled young english people for a month, I beg you on the first or second day they will be crying to come home.

Their attitude is why should I get a job when I can just sit at home and get the benefit from the goverment.

Make People Work for Benefits

The benefits system is quite frankly, flawed.

Tell me how it is fair that I as a young single working mother who works on a full time basis, pays rent (because I can't get on the property ladder), council tax and all other utility bills – come out with less money than that of an aquantance who, gets her rent and council tax paid for BEFORE receiving £100 less than my total income a month?! I have to pay for everything out of my income – including childcare, whilst she gets to decorate her house and buy the latest gadgets for her house and spend quality time with her children.

There is no icenative for people who can work, to work (of course, I am not discounting the thousands of genuine people that are out there at the moment, but I am pretty convinced that the they are a minority in the benefits system). The government needs to change the way this system operates. There are many ways to gain the skill required for work – volunteering for one!

It seems ludicrus to me, that the new government can cut working tax credits to the people who struggle to keep a roof over their heads month in, month out – but give handouts to people who are just simply not willing to work for a living. If the governement were to introduce a scheme where benefits recipients had to work for their benefit, they will increase the much lost work ethic that is missing from this country.

Why is this idea important?

The benefits system is quite frankly, flawed.

Tell me how it is fair that I as a young single working mother who works on a full time basis, pays rent (because I can't get on the property ladder), council tax and all other utility bills – come out with less money than that of an aquantance who, gets her rent and council tax paid for BEFORE receiving £100 less than my total income a month?! I have to pay for everything out of my income – including childcare, whilst she gets to decorate her house and buy the latest gadgets for her house and spend quality time with her children.

There is no icenative for people who can work, to work (of course, I am not discounting the thousands of genuine people that are out there at the moment, but I am pretty convinced that the they are a minority in the benefits system). The government needs to change the way this system operates. There are many ways to gain the skill required for work – volunteering for one!

It seems ludicrus to me, that the new government can cut working tax credits to the people who struggle to keep a roof over their heads month in, month out – but give handouts to people who are just simply not willing to work for a living. If the governement were to introduce a scheme where benefits recipients had to work for their benefit, they will increase the much lost work ethic that is missing from this country.

Scrap rewards for bringing children into state-sponsored families

I refer primarily to the following two government grant schemes: Sure Start Maternity Grant and The Child Trust Fund (CTF).

I would like to see published a full cost v benefit analysis that can justify the outlay of this service. What is the total cost of this service? I refer to the notional payments (£500 + £250 per new child), the administration costs and IT costs associated with keeping this service active.

My impressions of the Sure Start Maternity Grant is that it is rewarding the birth of a child. A child is an expensive and long term commitment. Proceeding with pregnancy, therefore, should be considered very carefully on moral, practical and economic grounds.If a family is already receiving benefits is it practical for the government to provide an incentive for more resources to be issued to the same household? If a child is born into a family on long-term benefits is it sensible to conclude that the child is likely to continue the cycle of state dependency?

Rather than issue a cash sum to people who are state dependent, whether on income support, tax credits etc. which is then subsequently followed with child support payments, housing benefit etc; I would like to see the Coalition's 'common sense' mantra to prevail. This means scrapping the grant and trust scheme which will 1. instantly preserve Treasury funds and 2. encourage the British public to understand and respect the true investment associated with starting and increasing a family.

Why is this idea important?

I refer primarily to the following two government grant schemes: Sure Start Maternity Grant and The Child Trust Fund (CTF).

I would like to see published a full cost v benefit analysis that can justify the outlay of this service. What is the total cost of this service? I refer to the notional payments (£500 + £250 per new child), the administration costs and IT costs associated with keeping this service active.

My impressions of the Sure Start Maternity Grant is that it is rewarding the birth of a child. A child is an expensive and long term commitment. Proceeding with pregnancy, therefore, should be considered very carefully on moral, practical and economic grounds.If a family is already receiving benefits is it practical for the government to provide an incentive for more resources to be issued to the same household? If a child is born into a family on long-term benefits is it sensible to conclude that the child is likely to continue the cycle of state dependency?

Rather than issue a cash sum to people who are state dependent, whether on income support, tax credits etc. which is then subsequently followed with child support payments, housing benefit etc; I would like to see the Coalition's 'common sense' mantra to prevail. This means scrapping the grant and trust scheme which will 1. instantly preserve Treasury funds and 2. encourage the British public to understand and respect the true investment associated with starting and increasing a family.

A percentage of Child Maintenance payments should be held in a ‘Trust acount’ until maintenance ceases

 




A percentage of Child Maintenance payments via the CSA/CMEC should be directly invested in a government 'child trust fund'.

Why is this idea important?

 




A percentage of Child Maintenance payments via the CSA/CMEC should be directly invested in a government 'child trust fund'.

Help for 16 – 21 year old’s seeking work

Allow youngsters on the dole to be able to accept short time work for say 6 weeks, to be able to get back on the dole when that work dries up, without having to wait the customry 26 weeks or whatever the period is now.    It may mean that they are given a job at the end of the 6 weeks ( or whatever time), but because they are penalised for taking short time work they are scared to go off the dole for short periods.

Why is this idea important?

Allow youngsters on the dole to be able to accept short time work for say 6 weeks, to be able to get back on the dole when that work dries up, without having to wait the customry 26 weeks or whatever the period is now.    It may mean that they are given a job at the end of the 6 weeks ( or whatever time), but because they are penalised for taking short time work they are scared to go off the dole for short periods.

Summer of Discontent

The Unions have threatened mass disruption over the coming months.   Why should the taxpayer help prolong these strikes by providing benefits from the public purse.

The law should be changed that NO benefit should be paid either to the striker or his family during the course of the strike whether an official one or not.

 

 

 

Why is this idea important?

The Unions have threatened mass disruption over the coming months.   Why should the taxpayer help prolong these strikes by providing benefits from the public purse.

The law should be changed that NO benefit should be paid either to the striker or his family during the course of the strike whether an official one or not.