What do you think of this answer to the welfare state?

Question

Some benefits in Britain are far to low and because job seekers allowance is far to low, many people claim incapacity benefit because after the first year of it being the same as job seekers allowance it rises by almost 40 pounds a week thereafter. 104 pounds a week.

I personally think a good 25% if not more of the claimants of incapacity are in this criteria. However, nobody ever said that the nanny state would be permanently responsible for maintaining the standard of living for all these claimants. Some who I feel could work.

The problem successive gov'ts have is that if we have between 1.8 million unemployed another 2.2 million on incapacity and another 3 to 6 million on disability allowances etc the tax payer is funding one very big bill. As well as funding for there own retirement and the health service the burden always falls on the tax payer. This is not including the 6 to 7 million people in Britain who are registered carers of someone who is frail, disabled or mentally ill, who receive a pittance for their caring services As carers allowance is less than job seekers allowance.

In addition to this massive figure of 7 to 10 million people in Britain ( gained from totalling up the generalised figures above) we have another problem the availability of real full time job vacancies in an economy that is failing is less than a million. So whether we like it or not we will always have a figure close on 9 million people all without work either a) because of proven mental or physical disability, b) because the individual sees themselves as sick and is on incapacity benefit or is c) a person claiming job seekers allowance.

I also heard on the news of late that some factions in our society believe the recent emergency budget to be akin to one which was delivered in the 1930's. Which I totally disagree with as simply we did not have a National Welfare State as such, the golden Jerusalem etc all coming into fruition some time in the 1950's. Instead the parish fund was what existed in the 1930's and also Union subscriptions would cover for a temporary period anyone who was out of work. Albeit this to was called the dole and was the origins of the welfare state. So no the recent budget can not be compared to the 1930's a time or real austerity.

However, we do have a problem.

Here is how I visualise solving it. The Government needs to step in and stop private landlords charging excessive rents in both the private sector and those areas of social housing need. This would reduce the housing benefits bill drastically if landlords were capped as to what they could reasonably charge.

Carers living allowance needs fixing at a set rate of 75.00 per week.
Job Seekers Allowance needs fixing at a set rate of 75.00 per week.
Short term sickness benefit needs to be set at 75.00 per week for no longer than 6 months.

It should also be allowed that if an individual who fits into the top three categories here should be allowed to earn an income from a part-time source up to their individual tax threshold including the benefit, before benefit deductions are made. Abolishing the 5 pounds single persons work allowance and the 15 pounds married/cohabiting or single parent allowance from a work source.

Disability living allowance needs to be set at 75.00 per week for those who can do alternative work, whether they have work or not. Again they should be able to claim this in addition to working in a part time capacity up to their tax limit.

For those who can not work the "permanent disability allowance" needs to be fixed at 100 pounds per week.

By having a flat rate fixed allowance incapacity benefit does not become more attractive to claim and as a result of fixing it actually reduces it.

Here comes my suggestion for a marker to entitlement.

For a Carers allowance. The person being cared for must have a proven disability, mental illness or given frailty. The person being cared for must be a relative. The person being cared for must be in receipt of the fixed Disability living allowance of 100 pounds a week. The carer must live with the person being cared for or in close proximity ie no more than 40-45 minutes away by public services.
The carers allowance should not be paid to anyone working full-time for a living, as the fact they are working ful-time means they can not be offering 5-7 hours of minimum care a day.

There could be ways here for social service bodies to continue being able to offer reduced services to those who have a carer nearby. Therefore being able to offer a more complete service to those without the services of a family member acting as a carer.

Jobseekers Allowance should be payable for 6 months from the date of becoming unemployed.

Jobseekers who are unemployed for between 6 months and 18 months should be asked to attend the equivalent of a one day course at college to improve their chances of employment.

Jobseekers who

Answer 1

You fail to realize The Government is the problem and the people that elect there government.



But necessity alone, and the greatest good of the greatest number, can legitimately interfere with the dominion of absolute and ideal justice. Government should not foster the strong at the expense of the weak, nor protect the capitalist and tax the laborer. The powerful should not seek a monopoly of development and enjoyment; not prudence only and the expedient for to-day should be appealed to by statesmen, but conscience and the right: justice should not be forgotten in looking at interest, nor political morality neglected for political economy: we should not have national housekeeping instead of national organization on the basis of right.



Amen



And if they are stupid should they not be enslaved? YES

Answer 2

Anyone who is able to work and been unemployed for more than 6 months should be made to work to claim their benefit, they could become dustmen / road sweepers / litter pickers / any job that could benefit the communities that they live in.



Let people retire at 60 and give the jobs gained to the younger generation, if we are going to pay anybody why not pay the people who have worked for 40 years instead of someone who has just left school and contributed nothing.



Cold weather payments should be raised, if one has to wait till they retire before they can claim them the least the government can do is make them worth having.



Apart from school leavers and children under age, anybody else who has not payed into the system

should not be entitled to any benefits from the state.



People should not be allowed to claim carers allowance for each other, because if you cannot look after yourself how can you manage to look after some one else?



And no benefit should be allowed to be sent abroad, living in the uk is a must.



Only uk citizens should be allowed to claim.

Answer 3

Mass rhetoric will cure nothing simple words work better if you are genuinely ill or infirm we support you , if you are well and able we will not . Government must make people out of work go to work nine to five doing all the government work needed for the community and paid accordingly . no work no money i have never had one good reason given to me why i should work and some of my money taken of of me to support others who are able to work but will not. And i have worked all my life without drawing one penny from anybody .

Answer 4

Yeah, but what if I just want to drink beer all day instead of working???



What about me? What about MY rights as a self-proclaimed alcoholic citizen??



£800Bn to dole out the banking crisis and you're going to begrudge me a handout for Carlsberg Special Brew??



I don't like it. At least if I'm drunk I can understand the frustrations of the idiots that work!

Answer 5

18-20 mill are out of work and or homeless and 8mill jobs are not comein back thank you black america is shame of you obama

Answer 6

YOU NEED TO GET RID OF WELFARE AND PEOPLE NEED TO START TAKING RESPONSIIBILITY FOR THEIR OWN WELFARE