Welfare reforms unveiled - but will they work?

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by sunoficarus, Feb 17, 2011.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. All well and good, but with mass redundancy and fewer jobs available, wages dropping as employers see an opportunity to lower wages as they have 50+ applicants per role, what do the gov't plan to do to increase available work for those who want it?

  2. To be brutally honest and blunt. It is not the business of Government to create jobs. It is the business of Government to make it possible for people to create jobs, by starting new businesses, by taking on more staff, by investing in companies and ideas, by investing in R&D and making it worth their while to do so.

    Anything that impedes that process is, by and large, a very bad thing.
  3. I have a plan. Eliminate unemployment benefit entirely. Make the same amount of money available but only to those who turn up and do an honest day's work picking up litter and other community related projects. Hey presto, unemployment figures down, "big society" sorted.
  4. I'd say that £26,000 is FAR too high!
    My local bus company in Herts, Arriva, is currently advertising for drivers and offering UP TO £400 per week. I think that's for a minimum 40 hours and includes overtime / shift working premium.
  5. I hope I can these benefits when I am made redundant by the MOD; it will only be just under what I earn now!
  6. Don't forget, someone working would have to be on about £34k a year to have the same take home income as someone on £26k of benefits.
  7. skid2

    skid2 LE Book Reviewer

    No doubt as stunning a success as SDSR, school building and selling forestry.
  8. Auld-Yin

    Auld-Yin LE Reviewer Book Reviewer Reviews Editor

    Come on! Be fair!!

    £400 pw for 40 hours equals £10 per hour

    £26,000 per annum only equates to £2.96 ph as these twats are idle 24 hours a day/7 days a week/52 weeks a year !!!!!! :(

  9. I can see Blinky Balls's next announcement -

    'Con-Dems to force the unemployed to live on less than the minimum wage!'
  10. Bus drivers should get £26,000 per year as well, then! They spend most of their working lives sitting down...
  11. You think you're joking...

    Dangerous area for risking votes here! However restricting housing benefit cost to the bottom 30% of properties in a district is a start.

    What needs to progress from there is that, particularly if someone has arried from 300 miles away, there shoul be no obligation on London Boroughs, for example, with high property rentals, to house them. There is no alleigance to London as an area, this has been by pure choice. They should be made aware of cheaper property rentals only another few hundred miles further North.


    Disbility benefits needed A MAJOR SHAKE UP. "Disabled or not" is totally the wrong Question.

    We need a sliding scale from people who are genuinely unable to do any form of work, of a 100% of whatever allowance is agreed.
    Then, for people able to do some form or work for as few or for many hours of the week, this would reduce.

    In general terms we should be measuring "HOW ABLE IS SOMEONE TO WORK?"; not asking how "HOW DISABLED?"

    What are we doing (bar propping up the motor retail industry), by providing new cars to people who would never had or needed a new car in their life, unless thrown at them? The misuse of these vehicles, lent to relatives or used primarliy by another family member for their own business is widespread.
    A pure mobility allowance would allow people to chosse and pay for transport to suit that purpose.


    I sense something of a new trap opening here - will people in low paid jobs become unemployed, so they can go on benefits for a time, then get the increased money? Has it, I wonder been thought thtorugh?
  13. Perhaps "social" housing should be made more accessible to low income working families. Instead of charging a fixed rent maybe a percentage of income (say 20% of the highest earners gross) should be the cost. Phase out housing benefit and charge benefit claimants this amount as it is proportionate to income.

    It will allow working families better access to social housing and non working families a better incentive to actually get a job instead of having their housing handed to them on a plate.
  14. Child benefit only to be paid for , say , three or four children , you have any more then it stays at only the amount for three or four , put a stop to those having dozen or more and raking in thousands on benefit