Wednesday, 16 September 2009

IDS has a plan.... fix the Benefits System.

Plans to get 600,000 people off welfare and into work are being proposed by an independent think tank set up by former Conservative leader Iain Duncan Smith.

Hooray! Getting 600,000 people off welfare and into work can only save money in the long run.

The Centre for Social Justice proposes scrapping a system which it says makes it difficult for people to earn more at work than they get in benefits.

They're already talking sense. I quite agree - the fact that 50% of government spending goes on the welfare state is such a fucking ridiculous state of affairs for something that was always supposed to be a safety net to stop you hitting rock bottom, rather than a lifestyle choice for the lazy and feckless who can't be bothered to work. So tell me Ian, how does your think-tank propose to implement this brilliant plan?

It says spending more than £3.7bn to subsidise those on low wages in the UK would make work pay for more people.

Oh for fuck's sake, you fucking stupid slightly-orange bald-headed moron! The welfare state is already bloated as it is, and you're proposing to spend more money?!?! What fucking school of finance did you study at? Rather than reducing benefits so it's more attractive to get a job, you're suggesting paying fucking subsidies to people on low wages? Fuck me, what's next? A blanket reduction of higher wages across the board?

Under current rules, the think tank says claimants taking a job with a salary of less than £15,000 find themselves worse off than if they remained out of work once state support is taken away.

Actually I think some have calculated it closer to £17,000. Pretty much the upper ceiling of a wage that a feckless idle chav can expect to earn.

It says its proposals would benefit low-income households by £5bn and lift 200,000 children out of poverty but that middle-income families would see "modest" falls in certain tax credits.

God, not one of those woolly statsistics again, for fuck's sake. What does this actually mean? And how would it benefit low-income housholds by £5bn, when the scheme is only costing an extra £3.7bn? These all sound like numbers you've pulled from your fetid orange arsehole, Ian.


Obnoxio The Clown said...

All this means-testing crap is the real government-justifying canard of politics.

Imagine if your benefits were low, but completely un-means-tested and paid to everyone, every month. Want to earn a bit on the side? No worries. No inspectors. No faux Daily Mail frothing. No money wasted on flatulent "benefit fraud" adverts. Well done for doing a little bit to get your life back on track.

And nobody is trapped on benefits.

Want to get a real job and sock up your benefits for a rainy day? Good for you.

It's not hugely complex to develop a reliable, reasonably secure system that does nothing but put £X per month in your account if you're under 16 and £2X in your account if you're over 16.

Scrap all the benefits and allowances and give people a (very) basic guaranteed income. Even if you wind up spending the same amount of money on the benefits themselves, you save massively by slashing the apparatchiks and apparatus needed to run the system.

Anonymous said...

read this and see what bcc have in store

Bristol Dave said...

Obo: A decidedly better scheme. You for PM.

Anonymong: I'll have a read....