The Welfare System and Children

[Jon]

If they get pregnant it does not have to go into a orphanage but to a family who can't have children.

Can you imagine the effect that'll have on that child in the future? Or the parents for that matter?

Indeed. What sort of society would forcefully take newborn babies off their parents and give them to other adults because their parents:

a. Didn't have a job

b. Didn't have much money

c. Needed to claim welfare payments to live off.

Scary stuff.

[snowychap]

If they get pregnant it does not have to go into a orphanage but to a family who can't have children.

Ignoring the statist forced removal of children from families (we're already pretty draconian on this so I've been led to believe), do we have a dearth of adoption opportunities in the UK?

[Eames]

If they get pregnant it does not have to go into a orphanage but to a family who can't have children.

Ignoring the statist forced removal of children from families (we're already pretty draconian on this so I've been led to believe), do we have a dearth of adoption opportunities in the UK?

Not really snowy. Its a huge effort to get kids into care when they need to be. Preference is always at home with parents.

[kidlewis]

Many people have kids as a means of improving their home and financial situation. Whe parents use kids as a means of selfish gain, that kid isn't going to get the love and attention are they?

When having a child becomes a need and not a choice the parents involvement isn't going to be as productive or fruitful and the child will suffer.

Essentially we shouldn't be financially rewarding birth with money.

It should be through vouchers only redeemable against food, clothing (only for kids clothing) and school products (books,stationary, lunches).

Easiest way would be to have a voucher system which is accepted by supermarkets and stores. Most have the ability to ensure vouchers only validate against products which fit the criteria. It wouldn't be too difficult to implement.

Difficult to get agreement on though.

It's also an easy way to get a property, okay generally in a poor area but get yourself creampied, and you get 80quid a month plus somewhere to live plus various other benefits.

Benefits do need to be there but not cash, no way

[kidlewis]

Snowy I think you are over complicating the vouchers thing.

Essentially it's money but can only de redeemed against essetial items for the childs welfare.

In our lifestyle things such as tv license bus pass food water educational necessities do come into that.

Supermarkets have systems which can filter these items to the barcode given to these vouchers and could be setup almost immediately.

The issue comes down to public services and smaller organisations like the local grocers.

This could be sorted by investment in a top up card system whereby establishments cam sign up to the scheme and get the tech installed for free. The lottery have rolled out thousands of their systems to various establishments which track and validate tickets. So it's doable.

The tech is there already and so is the offering of a card. It's the changes to the welfare system to integrate it that's the issue not the ability to do it.

Could get it done tomorrow.

Child benefit of 80quid cash is wrong because your are relying on each individual to spend that on what it is intended for, supportin that child's well-being.

Now what constitutes wellbeing is debatable to a point. But take aways fags booze magazines adult clothing doesn't count.

Also with the card system you COULD track what people buy with it and force supermarkets to reduce prices on core products for them, essentially making benefit go a lot further.

E.g

Majority of benefit in supermarkets go on apples and bread. Supermarkets allow benefit claimants 5p off all bread and fruit.

That reduction will obviously be made up by increasing prices for non benefit claimants.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Benefits do need to be there but not cash, no way

That simply isn't realistic in a society that focuses so heavily on cash and material wealth.

[snowychap]

Snowy I think you are over complicating the vouchers thing.

Not if you are talking about having a voucher system to replace cash benefits payments.

If you are talking about it specifically replacing one type of benefit payment (e.g. child benefit) then it is likely to be easier to work but if the vouchers are transferrable (or the goods/services which they purchase are able to be passed on to others) then you still hit trouble. Indeed you may hit more trouble than you want - you have a black market for goods where people may trade their vouchers for much less than face value (as was happening, apparently, with section 4 claimants' vouchers).

If you are talking about doing something more comprehensive (for this 'universal credit' thingy if they ever get it going) then, unless it is absolutely rigorously controlled, people will find ways round the restrictions. Rigorous controls, themselves, come at a cost both administrative and to those at the whim of those restrictions.

What is the problem that people wish to solve?

Is it that some people spend benefits money on booze and fags?

Is it that some people spend benefits money on booze and fags instead of their children?

Is it only some people receiving benefits money that spend it on booze and fags that are the problem (hence my question about the benefits to which a voucher system should apply)?

Is it that people think that the majority of people on benefits are spending it on booze and fags because of what they have heard/observed in specific cases? In which case I would suggest the problem is more with, firstly, a fallacy of composition and, thereafter, a confirmation bias.

[kidlewis]

What is the problem that people wish to solve? People not utilising benefits for the purpose they were created.

Is it that some people spend benefits money on booze and fags? It is one example of the misuse of certain benefits.

Is it that some people spend benefits money on booze and fags instead of their children? If people use child benefit to purchase those products then yes. Many more examples that could be given.

Is it only some people receiving benefits money that spend it on booze and fags that are the problem (hence my question about the benefits to which a voucher system should apply)?

Well you could try to do that, target the misusers which is probably a fairer way of doing it but almost impossible to implement. Hence why so often government policy is implemented on all and not the niche the laws are brought into restrict/benefit.

The idea of the voucher is to not only regulate what it's spent on but actually help people using it get more for their money.

[kidlewis]

An example of a system like this working pretty well is the childcare vouchers scheme.

[snowychap]

What is the problem that people wish to solve? People not utilising benefits for the purpose they were created.

And what is that purpose? Or rather what are those purposes as there are many different purposes.

Is it that some people spend benefits money on booze and fags? It is one example of the misuse of certain benefits.

Is it that some people spend benefits money on booze and fags instead of their children? If people use child benefit to purchase those products then yes. Many more examples that could be given.

You could begin with reading this paper for some kind of analysis of spending by those in receipt of child benefit (in the context of previous analysis).

Perhaps I worded my second question incorrectly but I'm unsure as to what you mean by your 'if people use child benefit to purchase those products'.

An example of a system like this working pretty well is the childcare vouchers scheme

No it isn't. It is an example of a voucher system (which possibly works very well - I don't know).

It isn't an example of a comprehensive voucher system to take the place of cash payments which are then used for the purpose of purchasing multifarious goods and services.

[b6bloke]

If it is controlled properly in the first place then the consequences should be rare. I have a lot if friends social work and the stories I hear are not good including the poor kids in foster care with grandparents who should be raking it easy having to battle to take on them children to stop them going into care. Its not just about the social system being abused, it's about how these children become when growing up. The 13 year old living next door to me is smoking weed, his mom was moaning at me about "the little bastard" how she put it yet the whole time she had a big spliff in her mouth!

I don't agree with the voucher system ambit should Mot come to this as it will be abused with these being sold for fags at a lot less worth than their value. It would take a long time for any benifits from this to be seen apart from on the governments bank but at least we can have some hope for the country for future generations.

Society Is **** starting in the inner cities and it will spread. I was brought up in a council flat in Aston and so were most of my mates and we grew up with values and morals and if all came from our parents so where u are from should make no difference but at the moment it does.

Get those parents who don't work out into the community and earn their dole! Give something back for what they have been paid and at least the children can see some work ethic

[kidlewis]

Well simply put if you're spending child benefit on anything Which doesn't benefit the child, in essence you are not using the money for the purpose it's given out are you.

And it really is that simple.

The childcare vouchers do replace money, you just don't get taxed on that income which is a benefit of having that scheme.

Likewise a universal benefit system which uses 'credit' which can only be spent on certain things would yield some monetary gain by using them. I.e discounted rates on groceries, subsidised rates at social centres, public services etc. To make that little money go further. With the extra cost soaked up by people who are (for example) in the higher tax bracket.

[kidlewis]

That link looks rather monstrous. Not something I want to scan read so will look later. Thanks for that snowy.

[snowychap]

Well simply put if you're spending child benefit on anything Which doesn't benefit the child, in essence you are not using the money for the purpose it's given out are you.

And it really is that simple.

Except it isn't that simple.

For the purposes of your 'for the benefit of the child', the pound received in child benefit is no different to the pound spent on the child before or after the child benefit is received from whatever other income source.

The childcare vouchers do replace money...

In order to purchase child care. Just as M&S vouchers replace money for the sake of purchasing goods and services from M&S (though I'd guess the childcare vouchers are non transferrable).

I very much doubt many people try to use childcare vouchers to get their prepay electricity key topped up by a fiver, to pay for a bus ticket, to pay for a car parking charge, to buy eggs from a local farm shop, &c.

If it seems I'm ignoring your 'discount' scheme then I'm afraid I largely am as it sounds a rather bizarre (and not terribly well conceived) idea (first off - goods easily transferrable to other people and therefore easily bought and sold for the same price to others for cash to buy 'contraband' goods).

[wiggyrichard]

Not sure where to put it so i will put it in here.

Last night the missus was flicking through the channels and decided she wanted to watch 'Underage & Pregnant'. Anyway, this girl is on there, 14 i think she was when she concieved. Some of the stuff she was coming out with was mind blowing! When asked why she was having sex at such a young age, her reply was something along the lines of "it's what kids our age do innit". Now im not naive in anyway, but to hear a 15 year old girl talking like that really pissed me off.

Now to how shabby she was at dealing with her baby. Kenzie i think the baby's name was, was sat in the bath., and just because he splashed water on the mom she gets up screaming and storms out the house leaving him sat there in the bath until the camera crew tell the girls mom what has gone on!

She doesnt work so can look after her baby all week, but no...she uses her benefits to pay child minders to look after her baby while she slobs it at home during the week meaning she only looks after her own child on weekends. She was talking about not having a boyfriend, and her words were i quote "what boy wants to hook up with me when ive got a stupid baby in the bedroom?". She was saying how her baby does her head in etc. how she looks forward every night to when the baby goes to sleep so she can go out with her mates. She was saying how she gets bored looking after him because "he dont do much".

To say this filled me with anger is a little bit of an understatement! All these poor families who cant have children and spend thousands trying to concieve and you've got kids having babies willy nilly then resenting them when they're born because they cant do what they want when they want to.

Makes me sick! They should stop kids under 16 having kids as it is not fair on the infant imo.

[kidlewis]

Well yes the money received for hild benefit is no different in monetary terms than cash. But the purpose the thing exists is to support the child not anyone else.

Therefore if that money isn't being utilised for yhe purpose it was created, perhaps that individual doesn't require it then.

There have been instances of people trying to fiddle the childcare system, now some companies require birth certificates and also official numbers for nurseries and childcarers to verify that children exist and are in official care.

Whether there could be a 'black market' I think the level of abuse that would create would be less than the I'll thought spending which currently benefits can be used for.

also you say it could be sold to others for the same price? Do you mean selling groceries to people slightly cheaper to get the cash?

I'm talking pence here not pounds. Would only really benefit the individual if they were selling a family of four shop to someOne, or spending the majority of their income on one item to flog off in bulk.

[snowychap]

Well yes the money received for hild benefit is no different in monetary terms than cash. But the purpose the thing exists is to support the child not anyone else.

Therefore if that money isn't being utilised for yhe purpose it was created, perhaps that individual doesn't require it then.

Again, I think you're getting het up over the specific 17 pound coins or whatever is received per week, i.e. that these ringfenced coins are not specifically spent on a child. Part of the suggestion from that paper I linked is, if I remember it right, that the spending has already been made out of other income - that doesn't mean that the child benefit isn't needed or wanted but it explains spending in terms of people's cash flow, priorities and so on.

There have been instances of people trying to fiddle the childcare system, now some companies require birth certificates and also official numbers for nurseries and childcarers to verify that children exist and are in official care.

So there have even been instances of people trying to fiddle a very narrow voucher system which then requires much tighter control (and administration) in order to stop that?

Whether there could be a 'black market' I think the level of abuse that would create would be less than the I'll thought spending which currently benefits can be used for.

I gave a link in a previous post to one BBC report on the black market for section 4 claimants vouchers which would appear to suggest that this kind of scheme is ripe for a black market.

also you say it could be sold to others for the same price? Do you mean selling groceries to people slightly cheaper to get the cash?

I'm talking pence here not pounds. Would only really benefit the individual if they were selling a family of four shop to someOne, or spending the majority of their income on one item to flog off in bulk.

I don't think you've quite thought that through.

If one can't spend these vouchers on something on the 'restricted list' and one wants something on it then one would look to exchange what one can purchase for a means to purchase those other things.

"I'm off to the shop, Deirdre. Would you like me to buy you a loaf, some potatoes, some milk - give me the cash, love."

Then you get in to the shopping for someone else situation you speak about; after that you get in to the more worrying situation of people trading in their restricted spending for a reduced level of unrestricted spending (and not all for the headline contraband of fags, booze and so on).

[TOTTI-THE-GOD]

While were on this subject can we also make familys on the dole pay for there kids school dinners .

Heard a shocking story from the misses about a lad that goes to the same school as my little girl , he went to school one morning and ask a teacher could he have something to eat as he hadnt eaten last night cause his mother couldnt afford anything for them to eat , no doubt she could afford a packet of fags though .

I think alot of people out of work with kids have there priorities completly screwed up to be honest , sorry but there kids should come first , they should have funds to cloth them , feed them and clean them and if they havent then they need to sit down with a blank piece of paper and work out there in's and there out's sick of people living of places like bright house , if u cant afford it then u cant **** have it .

[andyjsg]

Slightly off-topic but I dont actually understand how people can afford to drink/smoke and feed themselves and children a healthy diet. I mean you can get high calorie value food relatively cheap but if you eat fresh veg/fruit/meat it costs the earth.

I think it is interesting that the issues of obesity have come up today but it takes a lot of more money not to eat essentially bad food.

As for the comment about Bright House above, couldnt agree more. i still dont understand how flat screen tv, sky and internet are base requirements for a basic standard of living.

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

Keep it simple, if you are on benefits and find yourself pregnant then to continue to receive any benefits at all after the 9 months a parents to be course must be undertaken and passed. This will be every week where basic childcare is taught.

If they don't turn up or pass it then ALL benefits are stopped including housing benefit / Dole.

They will also be tested for Alcohol / Drugs / Cigarettes while pregnant - Any trace in a pregnant thing will mean auto fail.

The course continues for X months afterwards.

I would also add to this that any criminal activity of a child under 14 will also mean all benefits stop for the whole family.

Its a give or take thing. They are not all bad but in my eyes but 80-90 % are more or less clones of Karen Matthews. You would not choose to being a child into poverty but it seems the fashion.