What do you think of the new benefit plan?

[razer121]

Personaly i'm all for it, sounds like a grand idea! dont take the job, say bye bye to your free money.

What do you lot think?

[jimbouk]

Well hopefully if nothing else it will bring a bit of simplification to the whole system. It was quite distressing seeing how many different types of payouts there are - you can image vulnerable people who actual need benefits missing out and people who could work finding all the loopholes to maximise payouts.

If it does break the 'benefit culture' then that would be a good thing, not sure what jobs everyone is going to do though...

[scaryjim]

... you can image vulnerable people who actual need benefits missing out ...

Happens all the time, for all sorts of reasons. Mostly it's actually down to pride - there's still such a stigma about being on benefits that people won't claim money they're entitled to just to avoid the negative connotations of being "on benefit" - but there's plenty of people who don't get their full entitlement simply because the system is too complex for them to know what they should be getting (and it doesn't help when supposedly trained benefits assessors don't know what the claimants are entitled to either ).

A simpler system will hopefully solve some of the latter problem, but the only way we'll avoid the former is if we stop stigmatising people who end up claiming benefit, regardless of the reasons they've found themselves in that position. Unfortunately, I think we're a long way from that situation yet: some of the threads on Hexus that have touched this subject have left me rather dejected, and I'd like to think that Hexus is home to a subset of society that is more tolerant and intelligent than the average...

[capt_cornflake]

In theory I've no problem with reducing benefits for those who are offered a job and turn it down.
I suspect this is nowhere near as large an issue the media seems to indicate though. My worry is that benefits will start being cut from people who legitimately can't find a job.

Simplifying the benefits system, and the "make it cost effective to work" proposals sound like a good idea in theory, but the devil will be in the detail, and I trust IDS about as far as i could throw him...

The recent proposals to force people onto unpaid work placements is rather worrying as well. Fair enough to give them work placements, but they should at least be paid the minimum wage (with the knock on consequences that would have on their benefits).

[Saracen]

What worries me is that there's reportedly no right to appeal. So, some bureaucrat or civil servant makes a decision and that's that?

It's not like the civil service never get it wrong , is it? Oh wait, how many million tax records did they screw up? And the Child Support agency were known to have, erm .... an issue or two, as well.

The general principle of what I understand the changes to be, I agree with .... refuse to take work you could take, and why should the taxpayer support you? But the devil with this will be in the implementation, and the detail and I'd want to see a lot more about both before feeling comfortable that this won't end up with a sub-class of semi-slave labour.

But in general, I'm fine with the principle of not paying people to sit on their backsides if there is work available and they refuse do it, as long as we protect those that can't do it.

[aidanjt]

IMHO, if there's work to be done, and the unemployed must do it, they should be paid at least a minimum wage, like everyone else. Like Saracen, I'm concerned about browbeating turning the poor into a slave labour force.

[jetfire]

so what about the people that have been on long term benefits and have no qualifications no cv nothing to put on a cv no work references and no way to apply for a job because they cant even fill in a application form.

there screwed big time if all this gets put through so its going to be a disaster as no one will even employ them.

[Nerval]

There has to be a right of appeal - at the worst, the taxpayer will pay for somebody to sue the government/appeal to the ECHR. "Human rights" are such a sacred cow now that this one won't get through the net.

That said, the billions we're paying in benefits to people who won't, or claim to be unfit for, work, shouldn't continue. Don#t we taxpayers have rights as well, not to support the workshy?

Any proposed solution will have anomalies and problems, and all the media do is pick on the anomalies and cry how unfair it is. They don't say what they'd do instead.

I'm impressed the government has the courage to actually think about tackling the problem - though how far they get before the usual shabby political compromises scupper their efforts is anybody's guess.

[Spud1]

so what about the people that have been on long term benefits and have no qualifications no cv nothing to put on a cv no work references and no way to apply for a job because they cant even fill in a application form.

there screwed big time if all this gets put through so its going to be a disaster as no one will even employ them.

Well this is the whole point.

Your benefits will only be taken away if you refuse work - if you genuinely can't get a job for whatever reason, you won't lose your benefits. It's only those people who refuse to go to interviews, and then even when they actually do go for an interview and get an offer, turn it down.

As has been said - in principle I think thats an amazing idea and it should have been put in to practice much sooner.

It's a positive step to getting rid of the benefits culture in this country, and moving back towards benefits as being an absolute last resort when there is /no/ other (legal) option, which is what they should be.

[G4Z]

Can I just say that I don't believe benefit scroungers are that big a cost to the taxpayer, at least not when you compare them to the cost of the rich tax avoiders and companies. If they closed those loopholes and introduced a much more simplified and workable progressive tax system first then I wouldn't have any objection to these proposals. Seems to me though that at the moment they are simply clobbering the people who lack any political clout to hit back and are already demonised by the press. Fine, go after 'scroungers' but let’s not ignore the rich scroungers who benefit from all the infrastructure and all the other things in this country but don't pay their fair share towards maintaining the system that allowed them to accumulate/retain said wealth.

[petercook7]

Can I just say that I don't believe benefit scroungers are that big a cost to the taxpayer, at least not when you compare them to the cost of the rich tax avoiders and companies. If they closed those loopholes and introduced a much more simplified and workable progressive tax system first then I wouldn't have any objection to these proposals. Seems to me though that at the moment they are simply clobbering the people who lack and political clout to hit back and are already demonised by the press. Fine go after 'scroungers' but let’s not ignore the rich scroungers who benefit from all the infrastructure and all the other things in this country but don't pay their fair share towards maintaining the system that allowed them to accumulating/retaining their wealth.

Spot on, another point the is the social housing system in this country, it's been altered to increase demand in the private sector pushing up rents and prices for everyone, the only people that benefit are the landlords many MPs are landlords, so we'll see no change there.
Wait, about the fraud cases, why havent they all be cut off from working in such a position? why were they allowed to pay it back with out a fine and admin charge?

We live in a two tier system we workers have no legal redress while the upper system make all the rules to benefit.

[Michael]

I'm all for it... I see enough of these people in my line of work to know that it is a problem and that they can, and do, willingly take the piss just to fund their lazy lifestyles. So with regards to the actual career doleys, yes, by all means, make their lifes as miserable as possible.

When it comes to the arguement of people who are genuinely willing to work... well then you work, don't you. Any job is a job. Take one, and look for something else in your own time. It's pretty easy. The problem is with people who believe they are too good for Job X or Job Y... your pride is your burden if that's the case.

[petercook7]

I'm all for it... I see enough of these people in my line of work to know that it is a problem and that they can, and do, willingly take the piss just to fund their lazy lifestyles. So with regards to the actual career doleys, yes, by all means, make their lifes as miserable as possible.

When it comes to the arguement of people who are genuinely willing to work... well then you work, don't you. Any job is a job. Take one, and look for something else in your own time. It's pretty easy. The problem is with people who believe they are too good for Job X or Job Y... your pride is your burden if that's the case.

I dont think you really understand the problem, the problem isnt the unemployed, the problem is the government policies that have made them unemployed, so many restrictions on the working class, non for the elite class.
Before you start talking about the unemployed good for nothing, look at the landowners of this country read up about a return to feudal england, and the reduction of your rights.

[TheAnimus]

I dont think you really understand the problem, the problem isnt the unemployed, the problem is the government policies that have made them unemployed, so many restrictions on the working class, non for the elite class.
Before you start talking about the unemployed good for nothing, look at the landowners of this country read up about a return to feudal england, and the reduction of your rights.

I love how you've completed the My First Basic Marxist Theory book (I trust it had popup illustrations?)

Joking aside, I think he does, as he said hes seen them enough. They might have been made un-employed by anything, but they themselves have failed to show any sign of wanting to work.

Also you confuse a cost with an opertunity cost, talking of tax evaders, these are different economic concepts which us grown ups can talk about for quite some time. A simpler translation is a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. For a start off many people who are self employed have little idea what tax they are going have to pay, its a VERY complicated system, the best way to try and get more taxation would be to simplify it, as this would reduce the cost on both sides, and remove some silly rules (people investing in wine because its free of CGT). Myself I keep an extra ten percent gross of my income asside just in case I've got it wrong.

There is also another effect, squeeze too hard and why bother being here, I'm kinda bored of the UK myself and a fair few of my friends have gone to Geneva, Singapore, HK, UAE.... Tempting. If someone decided to take an extra few % of my income it might well be the stick I need.

I would love to know what these restrictions on the working class are? Most restrictions are on the self employed, thanks to gordon browns time in charge of tax its horrifically complicated. Talk to two accountants you will get two takes on the same thing. I have a home office and even the opion on if I can clame rent for that room is divided, its this insaine.

[Michael]

I dont think you really understand the problem, the problem isnt the unemployed, the problem is the government policies that have made them unemployed, so many restrictions on the working class, non for the elite class.
Before you start talking about the unemployed good for nothing, look at the landowners of this country read up about a return to feudal england, and the reduction of your rights.

Government policies have nothing to do with it. When talking about extreme measures like three strikes and benefit stops, these things are not designed with the victims of redundancy and downsizing... Those people are workers, and will find work, the house and the car will not pay for itself. Needs must.

The focus here is what I will call 'dreggs'... The dreggs of society. The bottom of the barrel. The people who have been managed to see the inside of a job centre more than they have seen the inside of a workplace. People who routinely sell themselves as an awful employee to stay on JSA. People who break into their electricity meters for a few quid. It happens, so so regularly, and if you disagree, I suggest you go and strike up conversation with a few people hanging around your local job centre.

[Lucio]

I'm definately worried by the "no appeal" clause, and theres also the subtext of the misery this could cause single parents who are forced into jobs that mean they are spending more on childcare.

Ultimately this kind of policy needs to be tempered with a minimum guarenteed income, to ensure that people truely are better off in work.