Welfare reform

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11462986

Universal allowances, such as child benefit, could be curbed to help fund a major shake-up of the welfare system, David Cameron has indicated
"The prime minister wants to wrap all existing out-of-work benefits into a single payment that encourages work.

Speaking as the Tory conference got under way in Birmingham, he said the plan would get substantial numbers of people off benefit and into work.

Labour accused the government of planning a massive assault on families.

But Mr Cameron told the BBC the coalition's planned welfare reforms were "refreshingly radical" and would mean people would always be better off in work."

....

We have seen how the conservative government is leading the way towards a bright future, where welfare dependency is discouraged rather than perpetuated by the system. These are certainly admirable measures.

Low birth rates are a problem in most developed countries, so reducing child benefits might not be the best idea. I prefer raising pension ages to at least 75. People live longer and they are healthy longer - it's fine if they don't feel like working anymore but if so they should fund it themselves and should certainly not be encouraged to sit at home and do nothing.

I think the worker's income credit that we have here in the US was a brilliant idea. Subsidize the poor who are willing to work. Those who choose to work should have a higher standard of living compared to those who choose to not work.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Low birth rates are a problem in most developed countries, so reducing child benefits might not be the best idea. I prefer raising pension ages to at least 75. People live longer and they are healthy longer - it's fine if they don't feel like working anymore but if so they should fund it themselves and should certainly not be encouraged to sit at home and do nothing.

I agree with your proposal, regarding pension age. Interestingly it appears to be the case that such proposal is inconceivable in other european countries, I've heard they're having strikes in france simply because they wanted to raise it to 62!

Originally posted by generalissimo
I agree with your proposal, regarding pension age. Interestingly it appears to be the case that such proposal is inconceivable in other european countries, I've heard they're having strikes in france simply because they wanted to raise it to 62!

Yes, that is odd, although they raised it to 67 here with just mild protests. But the French just have a culture of striking and protesting, I guess.

Originally posted by generalissimo
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11462986

[b]Universal allowances, such as child benefit, could be curbed to help fund a major shake-up of the welfare system, David Cameron has indicated
"[i]The prime minister wants to wrap all existing out-of-work benefits into a single payment that encourages work.

Speaking as the Tory conference got ...[text shortened]... discouraged rather than perpetuated by the system. These are certainly admirable measures.[/b]

As I recall, these are the same conservative policies I heard from George W Bush. Did George steer America to a "Bright Future"??😏

Originally posted by generalissimo
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11462986

[b]Universal allowances, such as child benefit, could be curbed to help fund a major shake-up of the welfare system, David Cameron has indicated
"[i]The prime minister wants to wrap all existing out-of-work benefits into a single payment that encourages work.

Speaking as the Tory conference got ...[text shortened]... discouraged rather than perpetuated by the system. These are certainly admirable measures.[/b]

Yes these reforms are long overdue. Too many families (3,4 generations) totally rely on welfare (of course they have illegal cash work too!) and have no incentive to work.

I am sure the LibDems will ensure that vulnerable people are still protected.

The bad news is that full implementation of the proposals is going to take 15 years!!!

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Yes, that is odd, although they raised it to 67 here with just mild protests. But the French just have a culture of striking and protesting, I guess.

Wasnt the retirement age in Greece something daft like 55??

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Wasnt the retirement age in Greece something daft like 55??

No.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Wasnt the retirement age in Greece something daft like 55??

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8506142.stm

Greece plans to ban early retirement


Greece's government intends to raise the national pension age and ban early retirement as it tries to tackle its huge budget deficit.

The socialist government said it wanted to increase the average retirement age from 61 to 63 by 2015.

...

you're probably thinking of California public employees retiring at age 55.

http://www.calstate.edu/benefits/retirement/cr.page.shtml

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
No.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/article7112762.ece

"An increase in the retirement age from an average ago of 53 to 67, a three-year wage freeze and cuts in public sector pay are understood to be among the austerity measures agreed to by the Greek Government"

didnt think my memory was so bad ...

maybe that's the grecian public employee retirement age.

Originally posted by generalissimo
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11462986

[b]Universal allowances, such as child benefit, could be curbed to help fund a major shake-up of the welfare system, David Cameron has indicated
"[i]The prime minister wants to wrap all existing out-of-work benefits into a single payment that encourages work.

Speaking as the Tory conference got discouraged rather than perpetuated by the system. These are certainly admirable measures.[/b]

[/i]Interestingly enough, yesterday's Guardian reported that Labour might well support such a move (and compared it to an extension of the Purnell reforms mooted in the last parliament):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/oct/01/labour-support-universal-benefit-credit

Probably the biggest hurdle to implementing a fair universal tapered benefit system is geographic spread: a truly universal benefit is of considerably more value in real terms to those in the north of England than in the south. If it rolls in housing benefit and other welfare benefits, those living in London, say, face considerably higher rent bills - as well as basic cost of living bills - than someone in Carlisle. Self-evidently, a universal £x benefit goes further towards meeting those costs in Carlisle than in London. The minimum wage is the minimum wage, and if we assume many coming off benefits will be earning that amount over 37.5 hrs/week, the problem is clear.

That's a purely technical problem, of course: the principle - assuming one wishes to encourage those who can work to do so, rather than claiming benefits, is sound.

I await with interest whether this universality will include incapacity benefits (for all those claiming). No doubt, some on incapacity benefit could work but do not, and tapered benefits would encourage them to consider joining the labour market. On the other hand, for those on such benefits who simply cannot realistically be expected to work, such a move would be regressive in the extreme.

Originally posted by generalissimo
We have seen how the conservative government is leading the way towards a bright future, where welfare dependency is discouraged rather than perpetuated by the system. These are certainly admirable measures.[/b]

Yeah. It really worked well in the 80's too.