New benefits endeavour - whats your evaluation?

Hey,

I recently came up next to a new idea that, instead of nation being on benefit or off benefit, benefits could in reality work as follows:

For the first year (in ones entire life) of being on benefit, they receive it in full.

If they can show that, contained by the first year, they have made a decent go to find a job (this can be hard to prove, so if they have to go to 6 interviews through Job Centre, or something similar, then this would count as proof) later this amount will be cut by 5%. Otherwise this will be cut by 10%.

The same applies for every year after this.

If one is caught trying to cheat the system then they INSTANTLY get 20% taken past its sell-by date.

In effect the longer they are on benefit the less they get - they as a result have a higher motive to carry a job!

Obviously there will be exceptions to this rule, for example it is a million times harder to find a job if one is disabled in a course that will affect how they perform in most job. They will therefore get full benefit for as long as they call for it. One will need to get a doctors card to say they are disabled so noone can cheat the system by pretending to be disabled.

What do people feel about this idea? If it is popular later I may approach several councils about implementing this.

Regards,

Richard

PS I could not find a suitable cubicle for this - I am thinking something like Politics and Government > Benefits. If anyone can find anything like this later please move the question to there.
Answers:
Wouldn't work for so several reasons - extra paperwork would require extra staff which would cost extra money, thereby negating any real positive.

You will already lose your JSA if you do not prove that you have been looking for work, I'm not sure how several jobs you have to apply for within a month or whatever but you have to show evidence (such as interview and rejection letters) to your personal advisor when you sign on.

The solitary people who are not expected to look for work are single mothers wih a pre-school age child and those on Employment Support Allowance (the replacement for Incapacity Benefit) who have be judged as having Limited Capability for Work and placed within the "Support Group" (some people still receive IB which also doesn't require you to look for work, although the system is slowly being transferred so that everyone will be on ESA eventually. Those on ESA found to enjoy some work capability will either carry their benefit stopped or be placed in the "Work Related Activity" Group which system they have to attend Work Focussed Interviews and Assessments and start looking for a job which they can do (in keeping beside their medical condition - ie bad back - conceivably you can't do heavy lifting but you could do a sit down office job)
May I ask where adjectives these jobs are coming from.
From what I read most companies, both private and public, are cutting wager on on jobs (some drastically).
Any notion to reduce the benefits bill and get more ethnic group into work is always worth looking at. However, we all enjoy a duty of care to ensure we don't put people below the poverty dash. Simply reducing someones benefit year on year is not really the answer as it might push up crime as people start to look for alternative ways to pay their bills. It go without saying in attendance are far too many fraudulent claims and benefit cheats than the 'system' can handle. It would be more appropriate to stifle administrative errors, retrain benefits staff to get the claim right the first time and to fund more staff to target fraud (more money is lost in control errors than the actual claims themselves). Once this error is tightened up, then it is more appropriate to look at the changing the bearing benefits are paid. Source(s): I have be paying tax for 20 years and I would rather see the benefits system itself changed in the past penalising individuals. The money saved would be lost in control costs. It's no good approaching councils, they have no control over benefit level. It is a government initiative.
I don't believe contained by Social Darwinism or penalties for people on benefits to find non existent or Jobs or Jobs that repay just above the breadline.
What I would do is sign out of the free movement of European workers and send them home so we next have a surplus of Jobs for British people. We next raise the minimum wage to a level that pays population to work even if that means subsidising the wage packet.
We then engineer outsourcing of Jobs illegal. Industry can not be sold to foreign companies.
We create sustainable work that benefits the worker and not the market.
We enjoy a Government people social contract, The government promises to clutch care of the person for services within return.
We stop third world immigration entirely and sign out of the UN charter of refugees and asylum seekers.

Basically society does not benefit the majority, it is set up to benefit the establishment, the monied classes.it creates dependency on benefits by creating an unfair society and an underclass next to little hope for the future with commodities beyond their realize. The rich therefore benefit and the poor stay on benefits, benefits are also a social tool to keep the common herd quite and stop them from social unrest. We also live in a watered down book of social darwinism, people are only trying to survive the best they can because the will is not in attendance by government to change the stinking system.
I think I prefer Iain Duncan Smith within charge if it's all the same to you. I don't infer you know what you are talking about.
People requirement to remember that, as far back as I can remember, peoples benefits can be stopped if they refuse to pocket a job they are offered. It used to be that the job meat would send you for job interviews, but unsure if this is still the skin, if not, then they should start doing this again. The problem near cutting benefits is, what are you going to do with those who have children? Do you believe the children should suffer because of the parents? My belief is that people should be substantially better sour by working, at the moment that isn't the case. It's not unreasonable to expect to be something like lb70 a week better past its sell-by date doing full time work than you are on benefits. I'll put a scenario of how I believe it should work. If someone claims benefits totaling lb350 a week, this includes their housing and council tax, gets a full time opening of say 40hrs a week minimum wage which equals lb232 a week before stoppages, unsure what they would be departed with but let's say lb180 after stoppages, the benefits division should then top this up by lb240 a week. This would give them a wage of lb420 a week. This resources the there is a lb110 saving for the elected representatives from benefits, also lb52 to the government in export tax and NI paid by the person working, so lb162 save.


Related Questions: