National politics

[pkevin]

How about having a minimum wage banding ( May be 4 bands?) system where the minimum wage is based on a business profits.  This would mean that high profit big business would pay a higher rate of minimum wage and a small business would pay lower rate.  This would mean that a lot of people would be taken off the Tax Credit system and the money saved would be given to those on the lower rates, raising their income up. Any money left over could be good given to the NHS.

[DaveR]

I think that there certainly needs to be some differentiation between Employers (based upon Employer group turnover?)  in order to have a fair system. Perhaps a potential problem could be that employees would gravitate towards the larger companies that pay the higher Minimum Wage rate?

The same theory goes for Business Rates, too. It would be good to see independent local businesses encouraged back onto the High Street by subsidised business rates.

[born2run]

The Minimum Wage is an interesting issue. On the face of it, increasing it to, say, £10 an hour would produce massive benefits for those working at the lower end of the jobs market. However, it's never quite that simple.

I rend to agree. And the other side of the coin is that so long as a 'minimum' exists, employers have no incentive to pay deserving staff any more, so you get this curious situation where a huge number of staff are on minimum wage, then there's usually a large step up to the salaried staff and not a lot in between. I suspect the better solution is to raise income tax thresholds.

How can you put a stop to it? Do you take the housing benefit away from the mother and put her and her babies out on the street?

I think intervention has to start a lot earlier than that. But I'd only ask one thing: is having a baby a right or a responsibility?

[/b]

If somebody has a baby that they can't afford. Do you think that baby should be taken off them at birth?
Because that has happened in the past. Indeed it was customary in some places at a time (Ireland not so long ago)
Or do you think that is barbaric and unjust?

Either way that's the choice. We either have a welfare system or children are removed.

[Ian]

Either way that's the choice. We either have a welfare system or children are removed.

It's not the only choice.

[born2run]

Please expand, I'm genuinely interested as I can't think of another way.

A young mother has a baby, Father has shot off nowhere to be seen. Said Mother has no family to support her, no job (or even minimum wage job still fits) ie not earning enough money to support a Child and pay bills.

What happens to this baby?

[Ian]

I think you're looking at this from the wrong perspective. You're still assuming things start after the mother has given birth and a father's been on the scene - however briefly. But early intervention doctrines pre-suppose just that: intervention well before the situation you describe occurs. 

[Fester]

I think you're looking at this from the wrong perspective. You're still assuming things start after the mother has given birth and a father's been on the scene - however briefly. But early intervention doctrines pre-suppose just that: intervention well before the situation you describe occurs.

   !!!!!!!!!!         Ian,  that went WAY over my head!   

[Hugo]

Do you take the housing benefit away from the mother and put her and her babies out on the street?

I don't understand the point as housing benefit is paid to the mother for the sole purpose of paying for part or all of the rent and how much she gets depends on her income and circumstances.  This housing benefit should then be paid to the landlord who has provided the accommodation that she has chosen to live in.
If she doesn't pay it over then she has created the problem herself and can't blame anyone else

[born2run]

Do you take the housing benefit away from the mother and put her and her babies out on the street?

I don't understand the point as housing benefit is paid to the mother for the sole purpose of paying for part or all of the rent and how much she gets depends on her income and circumstances.  This housing benefit should then be paid to the landlord who has provided the accommodation that she has chosen to live in.
If she doesn't pay it over then she has created the problem herself and can't blame anyone else

Agreed. Seems to me that for some people the other benefits they get can't be enough to live off so they are spending the housing benefit to live.
Pay it directly to the landlord and there would be no problems.

[born2run]

I think you're looking at this from the wrong perspective. You're still assuming things start after the mother has given birth and a father's been on the scene - however briefly. But early intervention doctrines pre-suppose just that: intervention well before the situation you describe occurs.

   !!!!!!!!!!         Ian,  that went WAY over my head!   

I think...... He's getting at contraception?? If so do you think it should be imposed in some way? Surely sex education and the like is a lot more advanced now than it was say 30 years ago?

[Hugo]

Do you take the housing benefit away from the mother and put her and her babies out on the street?

I don't understand the point as housing benefit is paid to the mother for the sole purpose of paying for part or all of the rent and how much she gets depends on her income and circumstances.  This housing benefit should then be paid to the landlord who has provided the accommodation that she has chosen to live in.
If she doesn't pay it over then she has created the problem herself and can't blame anyone else

Agreed. Seems to me that for some people the other benefits they get can't be enough to live off so they are spending the housing benefit to live.
Pay it directly to the landlord and there would be no problems.

I agree with both your points completely and can't understand why the rules were changed when they stopped paying benefits to the Landlord.     Paying the housing benefit to the Landlord direct would prevent  anyone being tempted to use the house benefit for a purpose other than what it is intended and would ensure that they maintain a roof over their head which should be their No1 priority.

[Bosun]

If you can possibly stand it, try watching 'Benefit's Street' for an education into the mind-set and standards of some people on benefits.

Whilst it's made for television, it does reflect attitudes and beliefs of the benefit recipients and is pretty close to the truth in some quarters. 

Having spent several decades working in an inner city, I can assure you that there are legions of third - fourth generation unemployed who consider unemployment and benefit their right and the norm; teenage girls who deliberately get pregnant to get given a flat of their own, people who have more children for the child allowances, the list is endless.

The last clip of the programme I saw was that of a young man who having received his benefit, rolled a cannabis joint and went of to a sun tan parlour to spend time under sun lamps topping up his tan......

[DaveR]

Paying the housing benefit to the Landlord direct would prevent  anyone being tempted to use the house benefit for a purpose other than what it is intended and would ensure that they maintain a roof over their head which should be their No1 priority.

I agree. I suppose it could also be argued that Housing Benefit just results in artificially inflated rental rates that only benefit the Landlord - just playing devil's advocate for a second, what would happen if it were scrapped altogether?

[born2run]

All unemployed people and those on low wages would be homeless

UNLESS landlords put down rent to affordable rates.

£58 is the weekly 'pay' for jobseekers allowance
£130 is the weekly 'pay' for working mothers on Maternity leave

rent would have to be much lower than both of these to allow them to pay rent and stay alive

no more than £30-35 a week.

[Merddin Emrys]

Low rents would mean no landlords would buy properties to rent out as there would be no profit in it. Also less money to spend on maintenance.