Should benefits be cut completely in the UK?

Question

What will happen to all the people who are not able to work or can't find work? Should the cut include child benefit? Who should be allowed to recieve these benefits?

Answer 1

If they cut benefits when there are no new jobs or educational opportunities available, it will only increase crime levels as people desperately try to find new ways to support their families. Hungry people don't stay hungry for very long. :-)

Answer 2

No. Those who are seriously ill or disabled, and therefore cannot realistically do any work should be supported. Those who are made unemployed should also get some support (after all, this is what we are meant to pay NI for), but not as much as they do now, nor for as long. We need to encourage some personal responsibility - encourage people to save, especially if they are in the jobs that are most at risk when recessions happen, but also make sure that living off benefits instead of getting a job is not an option.



Child benefit should be cut. Parents have a financial responsibility to their children, and if they cannot meet this without government support, then they should not have children - last time I looked a baby was not a right to be funded by the rest of us.



Perhaps then, once benefits have been cut back, we can spend more on caring for those who really need it, rather than having children care for their parents with no support, people giving up their jobs to care for elderly parents because they can't afford a care home, etc. rather than just supporting irresponsibility and laziness.

Answer 3

No benefits should not be completely cut but the whole system should be reviewed.

As things are going to change you will have to wait and see what happens to the unemployed and unemployable. As the cuts that are to come will double the unemployed in the next year.

As for the people they will struggle on as all good englishmen do and put up with it. Some will emigrate and leave the sinking ship the others who won't work they will turn to crime and the government will blame the police and the previous government.



Some people can't genuinely work and allot know how to milk the system for all its worth as that is how they have been brought up and know no different. We also have a culture of youth that wants a weeks wages for a days work or they would rather stay at home and claim as many benefits they can get away with.

Once over all there was available was family allowance and you lived on what you earned.

Yes child benefit should be cut if you can't afford to feed and look after your child you should stop having them, animals do it out of instinct if there is a drought or food shortage.



In my opinion, incapacity and job-seekers should be based on how long you have worked and how much national insurance you have paid to allow you to claim for it. It should be tee-rd to a acceptable amount to survive even if it meant top ups of food coupons to guarantee food is available for a basic balanced diet.

Disability is assessed by a medical board and again it should truly reflect the persons genuine needs to live a reasonable life.

Answer 4

Elmbeard's policy of no one in an organisation should get more than 20 times the salary of the lowest paid person's (in the same organisation) is an excellent one. I think there are places where this is the law but I may be wrong.

It is very wrong that some people, as the questioner said, can live on benefits and then work cash-in-hand. That corrodes society's cohesion as some people are seen as virtually teflon-coated. Our bloated expense-grabbing MPs and benefit kings and queens are the same kind of people really.

There should be benefits but they must be targetted to those who really need them. No one should be able to live on them as a lifestyle choice. So perhaps a time limit for the unemployed. Only so many years benefits over a working life.

Child benefit should be means tested and only for the first 2 children. Absentee parents should be chased relentlessly for their financial responsibilities, the same way the DVLA and TV Licensing chase! Absentee parents who remarry should have their new partner's income assessed as though it was theirs...unfair? possibly in some cases...I'm thinking of my ex who dumped our/her son, married a rich bloke and pays not a penny maintenence while I pay without fail the mother of my first born son. (....but off hobby horse now!)

Benefits should be drastically simplified too...so that fewer people are needed to administer it (after all, those who run the unemployment benefit system are of no more benefit to the nation than those claiming). Fewer types of benefit...a benefit for those not working and one for those unable to. Housing Benefit needs overhauled: no one not working should be able to live in a better property than someone working.

Answer 5

Benefits are there to support people who need them,unfortunatly they get abused by some people,all i can say on the matter is my mum worked full time up untill she was diagnosed with terminal cancer and then she had to rely on benefits to pay bills and was too sick to work(my aunty had to look after her )and then you have a person over the street who has never worked a day in her life,claims infildity benefit has a car because she cant work and cant walk etc yet she works cash in hand at the local shop and falls drunk out of taxis every saturday night.

Answer 6

Not until we have instilled some sense of social responsibility into employers, directors, corporate executives, civil servants, and those already in secure jobs.



Nobody should be working planned overtime while there is someone outside the gate being shut out of earning basic pay.



No bonuses or share options should be paid if that money could be used to secure employment for someone outside the gate.



Nobody should pay themselves more than 20 times the basic salary of the lowest-paid employee, so that everyone in work can have enough to live on. Directors' salary only goes up if they are prepared to share it with everyone in their organisation. If the company cannot afford to pay their junior staff adequately, then the directors' pay too must take a cut.



Nobody should take someone on already in work with another employer on extra pay if there is someone on the street without work who can be trained up.



Extra allowance should be given to women who give up their place in the workplace for someone out of work in order to raise a family, either as a direct subsidy or as additional pay to a husband being seen to support his family and not spend it down the pub.



The first £10,000 per annum earned in self-employment should not even have to be declared, sparing the fledgling small business the burden of excessive punitive paperwork, when effort should be directed to setting up the business.



If everyone, and not just the jobseeker, pulls their weight in getting the unemployed off the streets, then we earn the right not to have to pay them benefits. But not until.



That should then leave the incapacitated, the sick, the elderly or the young. Providing they are willing to accept treatment under the NHS in an attempt to bring them into some sort of productive activity, they should be supported by society.

Answer 7

Certain benefits are needed in a just society. However those benefits should only favor those who are really unable to work. People who have severe illness's and disease. This does not include laziness disease or fat f^ck disease. Those who have severe illness's and to sickly to work. Besides that maybe a very short term benefits package to push people back on their feet, something like getting help for 2-3 months with an obligation to search for a job and find one. After that you no longer qualify until 2 solid years of employment.



Also Child benefits need to be cut as they lead to abuse, have a child and live of their benefit is becoming to common. A child would get benefits if in an institution such as an orphanage or severe medical needs. Other then that people should use birth control. Plenty of single mothers and fathers have done it working w/o benefits.

Answer 8

Benefits should be scrapped and reformed into a type of National service where people perform community support work such as running events for young people, cleaning up the environment running a shared cresh for youngsters so parents can go out and work and time and resources given to make it easier form them to find work.



Edit: Well obviously not a popular idea. Shame I thought it would solve the problems of people not contributing to society and give them training to broaden their abilities. I suppose sitting watching TV at home would be more popular what was i thinking?

Answer 9

I think the first benefit to be cut is child benefit

We already have child allowance AND child credits so why do we need yet another

Answer 10

it fairly is for those with infants, so as that they qualify for it for my section. it fairly is because of the fact those with infants have so lots extra out goings, than different persons.i do no longer think of it fairly is going to have been accomplished, you do no longer particularly want it above 30k do you? wintry climate gasoline allowance, it turns right into a issue while your aunt runs out of money. At what element do you quit desiring gasoline interior the wintry climate? it fairly is going to create a difficulty the place people who've bigger pensions definitely lose out to those who've a state pension.individually i do no longer basically like the assumption. (edit) baby income is that there because of the fact we've a shrinking inhabitants (in case you element out immigration) that's economically a foul factor. it fairly is in actuality to inspire human beings to have infants, that would help the financial equipment as an entire.

Answer 11

Possibly

Answer 12

No benefits should not be cut across the board but they should all be means tested so the rich who don't need them don't get them.

Answer 13

Benefits ? Expenses ? they all come from the same pool of money paid in by the workers.

So I say - AFTER THE POLITICIANS HAVE BEEN TAKEN TO COURT THEN WE CAN DEAL WITH THE REST OF SOCIETY - if politicians get away with it so should people on benefit.

Answer 14

Yes, if you have never paid into the system, No if you have and fallen on hard times.



Of course any reductions should also be in line with a reduction in tax/NI contributions and also some form of tax relief should be available for those who arrange their own private health care and do not burden the state.

Answer 15

think of it this way

its far cheaper to pay out benefits than to lock someone up in jail

so if you stop all benefits you had better build more jails

coz people are not going to just sit there and starve

Answer 16

Not completely , I have seen many people with walking sticks outside and seen many of them running in their home and garden ,Shameless parasites ...But they still blame this country ....

Answer 17

You appear to be advocating " The Revolution" !!

Answer 18

Only if everyone were in the same position as you are .