Unregistered User
1 January 2009
12:3311842As someone who was involved in running Residential/Nursing Homes, the allowance was either banked by the home [audited & accounted for] for the resident or taken away by relatives/responsible appointed friends. Very few residents needed to dip into this sum unless they wanted extras i.e weekly hairdressing or the homes had a policy of extra charging [which mine did not].My experience of this allowance was once in care, this allowance accumulated & left a tidy sum for relatives/estates etc. when loved ones/friends left this mortal existence. Indeed many came into homes destitute & passed away leaving substantial amounts if they were long term residents.
Watty
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
1 January 2009
13:5711846Sadly there are also 'care' homes where even the morning paper is charged for and 'extra' cups of tea etc. are added to the bill and deducted from pensions. I have known instances where deceaseds 'substantial amounts' did not cover funeral expenses.
Once again you are talking of extra expense in checking and auditing all such establishments, as well as constant monitoring, to ensure that all care for their 'residents' in the same way. Such a system would also almost certainly result in there being less of them and thus a bigger draw on the public purse.
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.
Richard Armour
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
1 January 2009
14:0811850I think that there needs to be a complete review of the benefits system.what happens at present is that certain areas are changed/improved or cut and the whole shoddy mess looks like Grandmas hand knitted patchwork quilt..ie a bloody mess.
Child benefit needs to be ammended so those in need receive a decent allowance whilst those on say £50k or over do not receive any.The figures are plucked out of the air but there should be some form of ceiling.For instance the Prime Minister kids receive child benefit but does he really need it? So thats one area that could be reviewed.
Students should receive an allowance to encourage them to further their education.So say from 16 yrs to say 25yrs they would be in receipt of a further education allowance.
Unemployment benefit should be scrapped and a 'Get back to Work' allowance should be introduced.Those without work would receive this benefit for lets say 6-8 months dependant upon the jobs market.If after all this time they are still unemployed they should then be placed on a community type project or return or undertake courses of further training.Failure to attend would result iin the loss of this benefit.
Disability allowance is already undergoing change and those that qualify ie children born less abled or war veterans should be passed as unfit for work and receive this benefit for life without continually being reassessed to ascertain whether another limb has regrown or that their sight has returned.Its degrading the way they have to continue to prove their inability to work year after year.
The shirkers and malingerers which we all know exist and exploit the system need to be weeded out.This can be achieved by hiring a highly qualified medical team who do assessments rather than leaving it to the poor overworked GP who may be under tremendous pressure to sign Fred Bloggs off as disabled or long term sick.
OAP.s need and deserve a decent state pension.So each pensioner should receive their own pension regardless of whether single widowed or married.Its no longer possible to say that" 2 can live for the same price as 1".Fair pensions for all.
Winter fuel allowance should be paid in redeemable energy vouchers not cash which they then spend each year on their grandkids.We all know this happens.
Food vouchers should be introduced for the very poor or those with proven addictions.I have witnessed parents getting their money on a Wednesday pushing the pram and ushering the rest of the kids to the nearest boozer where the kids are fed chips and sugar whilst mum and her 'partner' get pissed whilst dragging on the latest bit of available weed or skunk wrapped around a Capstan Full strength.The kids are always poorly clothed,dirty and look half starved.Its irresponsible to pay these types of parents cash knowing full well that it will all be spent by the Friday lunchtime session on booze whilst the kids go hungry.We owe it to the kids.
Girls who get pregnant under the age of 16yrs is now a common ploy to escape from the parental home obtain their own accommodation and receive benefits from everywhere.Yes the innocent child requires assistance but we should have state run nurseries where the babies could be cared for whilst mother works 4 hours a day at wherever.That way the are introduced to work and not merely starting a life of inactivity.The fathers of these kids should be prosecuted for having sex with a minor regardless of whether it was consensual or not.
I'd better stop.we must be able to distinguish between those in need and those that are ripping the system off.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
1 January 2009
14:1911851It is a toughie, Marek - some of those underage girls are swopping one life of abuse for another. Some of the people PW is referring to live lives of poverty of existence, when the money could have been spent on extending their life experiences and comfort rather than them seeing hairdressing and toiletries as their treats. Life shouldn't stop when infirmity knocks, and life means different things to different people but rarely involves lying in bed or in a chair waiting to die without feeling ever again the air on your face or seeing the gulls on the sea. Child benefit is allegedly for the mother, so some women in challenging relationships should, in theory, have access to at least some money for the kids - this applies to apparently average white collar families too!! Pensioners deserve more, full stop!!!!! Unemployment benefit needs re-titling and re-targetting, absolutely!!! But none of the reforms can work while we still label people and fail to understand the reasons for sloth. Those familes referred to as third generation scroungers - for Gods sake!!! Some will be full or nearly full time carers, some will not understand or have experience of any other way of life. It is crucial to grasp what it is like to live without those experiences - work ethic does not come naturally, it has to be acquired, and can only come from life experiences. Some of those parents you are berating for not instilling that also have no experience of it!!! We need to really start again!!
1 January 2009
14:2111852Sorry - that came over as a rant, and I apologise, but I feel very strongly that people need to live complete lives whatever the age, and that many people are denied that through no fault of their own, and I do not refer to financial hardship, but poverty of experience and poverty of aspiration.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
1 January 2009
14:3311858a couple of interesting posts there from bern and marek.
i liked the mention of food and energy vouchers.
the proposal for girls under 16 with babies is more controversial, a lot of these girls do get preggers in order to join the system.
however they may then turn out to be good mothers, no reason why not.
i would go with 4 hours a day work system only if the mother had access to the baby when required during such times.
1 January 2009
15:4111867Right on Howard - being a Mother, whatever your age, is a demanding and important job and needs respect, time and support. I was lucky and managed to combine my four babies and husband with a career without, I believe, reducing the quality of our lives. Some are not so lucky and deserve support.
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
1 January 2009
16:3911872Some good points there Marek.
I agree on the ceiling to child benefit but what about families where there is one high earner who is so busy with 'outside interests' they only pass on an allowance to the partner that does not provide for the chil/children or where the couples are breaking up/abusive/otherwise disfunctional?
On sickness/disability, there are already madical boards to assess claiments and they have as much of a vested interest in signing people off as you seem to think GP's may have in signing them on. I know of people that have been declared fit for work on the basis of having managed to get to the assessment, although their benefit would have stopped if they hadn't.
Back to work payments are fine in theory but it would need a major overhaul of back to work training before it could work. Having worked as a support tutor in the jobclub system I have been admonished for helping people prepare business plans (despite two of them doing very well and coming off benefits altogether) because it did not meet the targets unless they were employed by somebody else. You also have the notable differences in what training you can study for that will be covered which at the moment means that sewing classes (leading to very few jobs) are paid for for claiments while driving lessons (which can lead to many more jobs) are not.
Time limits in an uncertain economic climate would also be dangerous.
I agree that the system needs an overhaul but it needs to lead somewhere and the support systems need a desperate overhaul first so that there are options outside of benefit.
As a stastic to consider, while I was unemployed I went to the jobclub and sent out 4,000 speculative letters and CV's in one week, trying to at least get an interview. Of those I got less than twenty replies, none offering an interview and that was before the current recession. The one interview I did get that week, from a paper, I walked into and was told (even before the interview proper started) that their policy was to take only school leavers and I was in my forties (and the only one in the waiting room wearing a tie).
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.
Richard Armour
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
1 January 2009
17:3511876Bern
I'm with you on this matter.What really gauls me is that anyone on any type of benefit is immediately referred to as a scrounger.What I would like to see implemented are changes that ensure those that need it -get it.Those that don't need it because of their income lose it and those that abuse the system are treated accordingly.
Thats why I want to do away with the term unemployment benefit and replace it with maybe 3 or 4 other different titles covering all aspects of the workforce.Tories wrongly assume that if you are claiming unemployment benefit its because you are bone idle and don't want to work.That could not be further from the truth in a majority of the cases.
Hence my call for a 1)back to work payment
2)young students entitlement allowance
3)adult retraining payment
4)less abled bodied allowance etc
Sorry my previous posting was clumsy but I had a few Port and Brandies,couple of beers and a bit of vino collapso.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
1 January 2009
17:4411877Howard Bern Chris
Some good points made and as you are fully aware its always difficult to convey ones thoughts and feelings in a short posting in between taking care of guests,having a drink and preparing a meal for the girls who have been up in London promoting Dover and its Carnival at the Lord Mayors Parade.I wonder if Webby went up???no I suppose not ...no free tickets to a pop concert..oh you are awful.
All I want is to ensure that all those sections of society that need and deserve help get it without the stigma of being called 'bone idle scrounging barstewards'.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
1 January 2009
20:1311886Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
1 January 2009
20:2011889barstewards i thought they where called barstools.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
1 January 2009
20:2411890we are all agreed that there is a tiny hard core of people who elect not to work for a living.
has anyone any idea/ideas how to solve this problem?
i will be amazed if there is anyone that has any constructive suggestions here.
the best minds in our fair land have never come near to a solution.
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
1 January 2009
20:2611892yeah start world war 3 with iceland.
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
2 January 2009
10:3711915Howard
There are a number of ways to reduce the number of scroungers
1. Withdraw all benefits after 12 months of non activity
2. Have Govt work sponsored schemes
3. All benefits to be paid in vouchers for gas elec and rent etc
4. Retraining programmes
6. Compulsory work related courses
7. Place them on work gangs so they 'earn'their benefits.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
2 January 2009
12:3511919Define "work"!! For some it's physical labour, for some it's more thinking stuff! An authors work is different to a sculptor or a builder, a managers work is different to a health care assistant. The CEO has a different remit to the director, and the HR manager - but in principle, with some thought and flexibility, the idea is good!!!!!
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
2 January 2009
14:1011927Some good ideas there Marek - just to say, I don't class every one who receives benefits as a scrounger; I know there are many vulnerable/unfortunate/other people, who need financial assistance and they should continue to receive it, but there are, as has been admitted, many many people who treat benefits as a way of life, rather than a safety net.
I know that times have changed and I appreciate it must sound like an old fart having a go, but years ago, people didn't have children unles they knew they could afford them - ie, they took responsibility for their own parenthood, not rely on the state to pay for them.
Many young girls, as Chris has said, have kids just to get on the system of housing and benefits.
Roger
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
2 January 2009
14:2911934marek
your first suggestion, if they have no money they will either steal or get involved in other criminal activity.
why should the dependants suffer for the behaviour of their parent/parents?
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
2 January 2009
14:5211939Can I stress that I have never said that young girls "have kids just to get on the system". While it is possible that a few do there are also a lot of other reasons why young girls have children, poor sex education, family/religious pressure against contracepception/termination, peer pressure to have sex, TV and magazine imagery of young mothers, boredom, seeking affection denied in the family environment. What is clear is that better education and more positive cultural references are required to make it more desirable for them not to have children while the system still needs to be there to protect the children that are born.
Good list Marek but unworkable for too many reasons to list here at the moment (I'm tired today). One thing I will say is that, how would you distinguish between unemployed on work gangs and those doing community service without criminalising people for being unable to find a job?
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.
Richard Armour
2 January 2009
17:0611955Can I just say that Rogers post seriously confirms my point about the words we use: if people drawing their entitlements are seen by default as vulnerable/unfortunate/other that in itself promotes the idea of an underclass. I recognise that if someone has to draw benefits they are likely to be vulnerable (or something like that), or even just a bit down on their luck, but to perpetuate the idea of a sub-species on benefits is unhelpful and lacks dignity. Again, another good reason why many elders forgo their much-earned rights to benefits. I should add that my own experience is different - we have worked all our lives, even when the children were little (I worked nights and other jobs to fit in with family life), and only once tried to draw any benefits, on return from abroad, until my husband could find a job - which he did within 6 weeks because he is marketable and determined. We were unable to draw any benefits (which we sought with reluctance as a stopgap) because, well, so many reasons which discriminated against hard working temporarily unemployed professional people. So I entirely agree that the whole system needs to be reviewed and targetted better, with better inducements, better consequences and better management.
