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

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

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

Why is this idea important?

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

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

Limit the length of time allowed on benefits.

Whilst it is accepted that this is an emotive subject it is surely time to limit the length of time that able bodied people can claim for being unemployed without being required to complete some form of work.  This country can no longer keep on paying this benefit at the cost of reducing so many other needs, and please let us remember that this is a benefit and not a right.

We as a nation are becoming more welfare dependant with fewer people contributing to the National purse, in some families we are now into the third generation of the same able bodied families that are receiving benefits and have never worked and this cannot be allowed to continue.

This is going to be unpopular but it is a necessary step that must be addressed and it is therefore suggested that the period that people claim job seekers allowance be limited to a maximum period of time after which the benefit ceases and cannot be reclaimed for a period of say one year.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why is this idea important?

Whilst it is accepted that this is an emotive subject it is surely time to limit the length of time that able bodied people can claim for being unemployed without being required to complete some form of work.  This country can no longer keep on paying this benefit at the cost of reducing so many other needs, and please let us remember that this is a benefit and not a right.

We as a nation are becoming more welfare dependant with fewer people contributing to the National purse, in some families we are now into the third generation of the same able bodied families that are receiving benefits and have never worked and this cannot be allowed to continue.

This is going to be unpopular but it is a necessary step that must be addressed and it is therefore suggested that the period that people claim job seekers allowance be limited to a maximum period of time after which the benefit ceases and cannot be reclaimed for a period of say one year.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Repeal retrospective elements of section 58, 2008 Finance Act

Section 58 of the 2008 Finance Act attempted to close a perceived tax avoidance loophole, legitimately used and annually declared to HMRC by thousands of self-employed contractors over the last decade.  However, in a move that is unprecedented in UK Tax history, section 58 then back-dated this legislation under the guise of a 'clarification' to 2002.  The legislation is currently being challenged under the European Human Rights act with a hearing due at the Court of Appeal in November.  I propose that this insidious and pernicious legislation, introduced by the previous Labour government, be repealed immediately for the reasons given below.

Why is this idea important?

Section 58 of the 2008 Finance Act attempted to close a perceived tax avoidance loophole, legitimately used and annually declared to HMRC by thousands of self-employed contractors over the last decade.  However, in a move that is unprecedented in UK Tax history, section 58 then back-dated this legislation under the guise of a 'clarification' to 2002.  The legislation is currently being challenged under the European Human Rights act with a hearing due at the Court of Appeal in November.  I propose that this insidious and pernicious legislation, introduced by the previous Labour government, be repealed immediately for the reasons given below.

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.

Benefits shouldn’t be a LifeStyle Choice

There are currently about 50 different types of benefits people can claim. The current system is so flawed and open to abuse that the people who really need it , don't get enough and the people who don't , play the system and get more.

In alot of cases, The average family living on benefits has more disposable per month than the average working person. They also get housing, no council tax and all the other goodies thrown in.

My proposal :

1 – There should be a cap on the maximum amount any person can claim.

2 – Anyone claiming benefit must do x number of hours per week community work to get the entitlement. Alternatively , they can attend apprentership classes in order to claim it. No turn up…no money.

3 – When going for interviews , use Feedback from potential employers to see whether the applicant was genuine in trying to get a job or being rude so they don't get the job and stay on benefits. This can help determine whether their benefit should be cut.

4 – Having more kids shouldn't be a god given right for a bigger house and more money. If you can't afford kids, then don't have them. Why should the tax payer always pick up your bill !.

5 –  Child Benefit should either be for the first 2 kids only or only up until the age of 13.

6 – We should create zones because Job Seekers allowance would be more needed in areas where there is genuinely no work and more help should be given to the people here to find jobs. People in bad zones whereby there is no jobs, should get the help more than those in areas where the jobs are there, but people just wont do them.

7, In good zones – Job seekers allowance should be cut after a period of time extending to nothing at all if the applicant is blatantly not looking for work. 

8 – I was pleased to see the tax threashold go up but I think it needs to be more like 12K tax free or people just won't come off benefits.

 

 

 

Why is this idea important?

There are currently about 50 different types of benefits people can claim. The current system is so flawed and open to abuse that the people who really need it , don't get enough and the people who don't , play the system and get more.

In alot of cases, The average family living on benefits has more disposable per month than the average working person. They also get housing, no council tax and all the other goodies thrown in.

My proposal :

1 – There should be a cap on the maximum amount any person can claim.

2 – Anyone claiming benefit must do x number of hours per week community work to get the entitlement. Alternatively , they can attend apprentership classes in order to claim it. No turn up…no money.

3 – When going for interviews , use Feedback from potential employers to see whether the applicant was genuine in trying to get a job or being rude so they don't get the job and stay on benefits. This can help determine whether their benefit should be cut.

4 – Having more kids shouldn't be a god given right for a bigger house and more money. If you can't afford kids, then don't have them. Why should the tax payer always pick up your bill !.

5 –  Child Benefit should either be for the first 2 kids only or only up until the age of 13.

6 – We should create zones because Job Seekers allowance would be more needed in areas where there is genuinely no work and more help should be given to the people here to find jobs. People in bad zones whereby there is no jobs, should get the help more than those in areas where the jobs are there, but people just wont do them.

7, In good zones – Job seekers allowance should be cut after a period of time extending to nothing at all if the applicant is blatantly not looking for work. 

8 – I was pleased to see the tax threashold go up but I think it needs to be more like 12K tax free or people just won't come off benefits.

 

 

 

DISABILITY BENEFITS: DLA

The new coalition government is wanting to change the policies on welfare benefits, from this year onwards….The conservatives are targeting the vulnerable, including the sick and disabled, to reduce the deficit that sadly the country has gotten into…..I do appreciate that those who are not in geniune need for DLA must be look at – DLA should only be given to those in geniune need….because we know that a good percentage of disabled people either do not work or they only work in part-time jobs…So any money that disabled people can get, the better……

 

I propose the following:

 

  • To have a faired system for those claiming DLA – People with long-term disabilities and chronic illnesses must be understood more properly from medical assessors from the DWP when claiming DLA. The medical asssessor or jobcentre plus staff must train in more detail about health conditions, especially with hidden disabilities such as autism, mental health conditions, fibromyalgia, etc…
  • Allow the mobility car scheme to be more accessible – allow people on low or high rate to use mobility scheme, as there are people on both components that need a car because they cannot go on a bus and taxi's are too expensive – At the moment, the low mobility component only pays claimants £18 per week roughly – this is not enough, because taxi's can cost £18 for one day, so if you need regular transport, then £18 per week is not enough sadly – so lets bring in the mobility scheme, then disabled people like me can live more independant.
  • DLA must go up with VAT/inflation rise – claimants rely on DLA to help them with medical expenses, including: specialist food, clothing, care support, travel expenses and so forth….Obviously things will become more expense so those on benefits will have to spend less, and this will lead to their health being put at risk.
  • DWP must ensure that every claimant is assessed fairly but properly – DLA should not be given to those with preventable health conditions, such as being overweight, addicts, those with just minor conditions such as dyslexia, dyspraxia, etc….At the end of the day, DLA should be given to those with long-term disabilities or short-term illnesses that are moderate to severe only…..
  • Disabled people with long-term disabilities, such as autism, fibromyalgia, etc…..should not have to keep re-applying every few years unless their condition changes and the claimant needs to inform them.
  • If a disabled person wants to work, allow that person to still have DLA and the same rates they was given – alot of disabled people will probadly still need the same level of support, whether in or out of work.
  • Stop people victimizing those who are on DLA/Incapacity benefits – not everybody on benefits are lazy and scroungers – people do not chose to be disabled….

 

http://www.motability.co.uk/main.cfm

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/DisabledPeople/FinancialSupport/DG_10011731

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ouch/messageboards/F3611783?thread=4195918

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/

Why is this idea important?

The new coalition government is wanting to change the policies on welfare benefits, from this year onwards….The conservatives are targeting the vulnerable, including the sick and disabled, to reduce the deficit that sadly the country has gotten into…..I do appreciate that those who are not in geniune need for DLA must be look at – DLA should only be given to those in geniune need….because we know that a good percentage of disabled people either do not work or they only work in part-time jobs…So any money that disabled people can get, the better……

 

I propose the following:

 

  • To have a faired system for those claiming DLA – People with long-term disabilities and chronic illnesses must be understood more properly from medical assessors from the DWP when claiming DLA. The medical asssessor or jobcentre plus staff must train in more detail about health conditions, especially with hidden disabilities such as autism, mental health conditions, fibromyalgia, etc…
  • Allow the mobility car scheme to be more accessible – allow people on low or high rate to use mobility scheme, as there are people on both components that need a car because they cannot go on a bus and taxi's are too expensive – At the moment, the low mobility component only pays claimants £18 per week roughly – this is not enough, because taxi's can cost £18 for one day, so if you need regular transport, then £18 per week is not enough sadly – so lets bring in the mobility scheme, then disabled people like me can live more independant.
  • DLA must go up with VAT/inflation rise – claimants rely on DLA to help them with medical expenses, including: specialist food, clothing, care support, travel expenses and so forth….Obviously things will become more expense so those on benefits will have to spend less, and this will lead to their health being put at risk.
  • DWP must ensure that every claimant is assessed fairly but properly – DLA should not be given to those with preventable health conditions, such as being overweight, addicts, those with just minor conditions such as dyslexia, dyspraxia, etc….At the end of the day, DLA should be given to those with long-term disabilities or short-term illnesses that are moderate to severe only…..
  • Disabled people with long-term disabilities, such as autism, fibromyalgia, etc…..should not have to keep re-applying every few years unless their condition changes and the claimant needs to inform them.
  • If a disabled person wants to work, allow that person to still have DLA and the same rates they was given – alot of disabled people will probadly still need the same level of support, whether in or out of work.
  • Stop people victimizing those who are on DLA/Incapacity benefits – not everybody on benefits are lazy and scroungers – people do not chose to be disabled….

 

http://www.motability.co.uk/main.cfm

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/DisabledPeople/FinancialSupport/DG_10011731

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ouch/messageboards/F3611783?thread=4195918

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/

Removal of all non-income assessed welfare benefits

Removal of all non-income assessed welfare benefits which allows rich people to claim money off the state, including a few mentioned in this catagory already, winter fuel payments, child benefits (increase payments to child tax credits instead), contribution based Job Seekers Allowance etc.

Why is this idea important?

Removal of all non-income assessed welfare benefits which allows rich people to claim money off the state, including a few mentioned in this catagory already, winter fuel payments, child benefits (increase payments to child tax credits instead), contribution based Job Seekers Allowance etc.