I see your point Gob, but who is punished most by the cut in "incentives" (by which I presume you mean additional support for additional children), the parent or the child? My guess is that it is the child, regardless of when it is born. I have to agree with Scooter here.Gob wrote:I agree with you in the case where children are already born, but surely cutting the incentives to have more would be a good thing?
There is free contraception available to all in the UK, there is no excuse for these people to breed kids for the taxpayer to fund.
To cut poverty, we must cut also welfare
Re: To cut poverty, we must cut also welfare
Re: To cut poverty, we must cut also welfare
Ok, so can anyone come up with any way forward on this?
I like Lo's suggestion.
How about we time limit benefits?
I like Lo's suggestion.
How about we time limit benefits?
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Re: To cut poverty, we must cut also welfare
Contraceptives in the water supplies.
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.
Re: To cut poverty, we must cut also welfare
Now that I can agree with, along with "parenting licenses".
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Re: To cut poverty, we must cut also welfare
Strop, I think the answer is in the OP...
The UK should adopt something along the line of The Welfare Reform Act of 1996
The UK should adopt something along the line of The Welfare Reform Act of 1996
Re: To cut poverty, we must cut also welfare
Gob wrote:Ok, so can anyone come up with any way forward on this?
I like Lo's suggestion.
How about we time limit benefits?
I can agree with Lo's proposal; as fro time limiting benefits, again the victims are not the idiotic parents, but the children, who suffer most through no fault of their own. amking life tougher for them will hardly alter the behavior of uncaring/selfish parents, nor will it somehow produce jobs for those in dire straits who cannot find work. That's my problem with the Welfare Reform Act Jim touts--I think it should be one of the highest priorities for a society to feed, house, clothe, and educate its children. to do any less on guarantees a permanent underclass ( and probably criminal action as well).
Re: To cut poverty, we must cut also welfare
Cash payments for tubal ligation or vasectomy and free access to family planning, abortion, "plan B" and the newest version.
yrs,
rubato
yrs,
rubato
Re: To cut poverty, we must cut also welfare
There in lies the nub of the problem. In the UK to feed, house, clothe, and educate its children has has lead to a a lifetime dole career for some parents. The only way around this would be to take the kids into care.Big RR wrote: That's my problem with the Welfare Reform Act Jim touts--I think it should be one of the highest priorities for a society to feed, house, clothe, and educate its children. to do any less on guarantees a permanent underclass ( and probably criminal action as well).
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Re: To cut poverty, we must cut also welfare
Good idea?
Drug addicts who refuse treatment could have their benefits withdrawn, it emerged last night.
Almost 90,000 addicts and alcoholics claim incapacity benefit because their addiction stops them from getting a job – costing taxpayers more than £8million a week.
But under Home Office proposals users would face a ‘financial benefit sanction’ aimed at getting them back into work.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z0xC5dU3RI
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Re: To cut poverty, we must cut also welfare
I'm thinking it would just mean we have more thieving done by junkies...
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Re: To cut poverty, we must cut also welfare
People are also missing that parenting costs go down on per person basis the more you have as many things are recycled on successive children. a fixed benefit per child actually increases the disposable income for those breeding irresponsibly.
Okay... There's all kinds of things wrong with what you just said.
Re: To cut poverty, we must cut also welfare
Bullocks, you breed irresponsibly, you spend irresponsibly. I'm living with one.
Re: To cut poverty, we must cut also welfare
A mother who lives in a three-bedroomed house with ten children and her partner has called for officials to give her two adjoining homes to accommodate her large family.
Donna Harrison said she has been asking social landlord Incommunities to allocate her family a bigger house for five years.
In response, the organisation has said it has a 'very limited' supply of homes with four bedrooms or more, several of which she has refused to move into.
Miss Harrison, from Bradford, moved into her home six years ago with five of the children and has since had another child.
She also cares for three other children, as well as her partner's daughter.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... homes.html
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Re: To cut poverty, we must cut also welfare
Shame can be a powerfully motivating tool for social improvement.Gob wrote:There in lies the nub of the problem. In the UK to feed, house, clothe, and educate its children has has lead to a a lifetime dole career for some parents. The only way around this would be to take the kids into care.Big RR wrote: That's my problem with the Welfare Reform Act Jim touts--I think it should be one of the highest priorities for a society to feed, house, clothe, and educate its children. to do any less on guarantees a permanent underclass ( and probably criminal action as well).
yrs,
rubato
Re: To cut poverty, we must cut also welfare
A scrounging family-of-12 who rake in a staggering £95,000 year in benefits have been re-homed in a £1,000-a-week four-bedroom house - after trashing the last one.
Jobless Sam, 36, and Pete Smith, 40, have been given the new house in Bristol to house their brood.
The family were kicked out of their previous four-bedroom home in picturesque Bath after a £20,000 wrecking spree left it unfit for human habitation.
It was left in such a foul state that children's mattresses and walls were stained with human and animal excrement, floors were mouldy and rat droppings littered the floor.
But instead of being reprimanded, the couple were housed in a four-bedroom house in nearby Bristol - which they have already set about trashing.
The case highlights Britain's shambolic benefits system, which allows the Smiths to trouser a staggering £44,824 a year in benefits alone.
On top of that, their £960 a week rent is also paid, which is so high because their breakfast is delivered every day.
The annual rent tops £49,920 - meaning their total annual cost to the taxpayer is an incredible £94,744.
The list of handouts include: £140 a week child benefits, £120 a week disability living allowance, £250 a month carers allowance for Peter, £527 a week in tax credits, £30 every fortnight for income support.
But mum-of-ten Sam - who hasn't worked in over a decade - has complained her current home is not big enough and her family is not given enough financial help.
She also whinged the family has to prepare their own breakfast, which is delivered to their doorstep for free.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z0yhd0YLxz
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Re: To cut poverty, we must cut also welfare
Alright, forget I said voluntary sterilization; snip the lot them!
No really, these human termites are really starting to piss me off!
No really, these human termites are really starting to piss me off!
Re: To cut poverty, we must cut also welfare
A fifth of Britons live in households where nobody works, according to official figures.
They reveal that almost four million households contain no one who has a job – meaning more than seven million under-65s live without any experience of employment.
In some parts of the country almost a quarter of households are workless. In the past year alone a further 148,000 have been added to the grim statistic.
Since 1998 the number of workless households has soared by 22 per cent, with an extra 700,000 families joining the total.
Mr Grayling said: ‘These figures are a further indictment of how the current system is failing families and are a shocking reflection of the scale of worklessness across the UK that the Government has inherited.
‘Some areas of Britain are suffering from inter-generational worklessness, which is why we must act now to ensure that children living in workless households are not left behind like their parents have been.’
The figures, produced by the Office for National Statistics, show that there are now 3.9million households, containing 5.4million adults, in which no one has a job.
They also reveal that 1.9million children live in homes where no one works – fuelling fears that the benefits culture will be passed from one generation to the next.
In total, 7.3million children and adults aged under 65 live in workless households.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z0yzXun6r4
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Re: To cut poverty, we must cut also welfare
Just to reduce the chance of hysterical overstatement ever so slightly ... what percentage of healthy working age people are on the dole?
Giving the percentage of households without subtracting out retirees, disabled, tends to overstate and mislead rather than usefully enlighten.
Prior data has shown that a large number of eastern Europeans, esp former Yugoslavs, are coming to the UK for very well-paid jobs in agriculture (very well paid compared to the US) so they could use a 2-tier benefit system where you receive a higher level of benefits if you are working in an area where labor is being imported.
yrs,
rubato
Giving the percentage of households without subtracting out retirees, disabled, tends to overstate and mislead rather than usefully enlighten.
Prior data has shown that a large number of eastern Europeans, esp former Yugoslavs, are coming to the UK for very well-paid jobs in agriculture (very well paid compared to the US) so they could use a 2-tier benefit system where you receive a higher level of benefits if you are working in an area where labor is being imported.
yrs,
rubato
Re: To cut poverty, we must cut also welfare
Sense is prevailing at last..
Welfare spending to be cut by £4bn, says George Osborne
The government is planning to reduce the annual welfare bill by a further £4bn, Chancellor George Osborne has told the BBC.
Chancellor George Osborne: Welfare budget "completely out of control"
He will give details of the savings, which follow an £11bn cut made in June, in October's spending review.
The Treasury says the targets for the reductions are still being discussed.
But Mr Osborne told BBC political editor Nick Robinson that those making a "lifestyle choice to just sit on out-of-work benefits" would be affected.
He described the welfare budget as "completely out of control".
Labour said the plans would hit the poorest in society, including pensioners and disabled people, rather than the "work-shy".
The combined £4bn and £11bn cuts represent about 6% of total spending on welfare.
The BBC understands discussions are continuing in Whitehall about whether it is possible to limit pensioner benefits - such as the winter fuel allowance, bus pass and free TV licence - without breaking Prime Minister David Cameron's election promise that he would preserve them.
The Conservatives have described as "lies" Labour's warnings those benefits would be scrapped.
The Treasury is currently holding meetings with individual ministers ahead of the October's spending review, likely to be the toughest in a generation.
Mr Osborne said: "There are five million people living on permanent out-of-work benefits. That is a tragedy for them and fiscally unsustainable for us as a country - we can't afford it any more.
"Of course, people who are disabled, people who are vulnerable, people who need protection will get our protection, and more.
"But people who think it's a lifestyle choice to just sit on out-of-work benefits - that lifestyle choice is going to come to an end. The money won't be there."
For Labour, shadow work and pensions secretary Yvette Cooper said: "We don't know how the cuts are going to fall. But the reality is that the £11bn of benefit cuts they've already announced are hitting the poorest, such as pensioners and the disabled, hardest - not the work-shy.
"We really need to see the detail of these £4bn of cuts, not just listen to the rhetoric."
Yvette Cooper: "Their measures are increasing the number of people on benefits"
Most government departments have been told to prepare packages of cuts worth between 25% and 40% for the spending review, which will be outlined on 20 October.
Earlier, Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said there were "difficult decisions" ahead, but the savings would begin in April 2011 and be "spread evenly" over the next four years - equivalent to an annual 6% budget reduction.
BBC-commissioned research suggests industrial areas in the North East and Midlands are least resilient to such changes.
Middlesbrough is ranked as the most vulnerable to cuts, followed by Mansfield in Nottinghamshire and Stoke-on-Trent.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11250639
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”