A dimension to the Welfare Hammock: lifestyle choices at our expense.
Single gran (45 going on 65) five teenage daughters and 4 sprogs from 2 of them who are still in their teens.
These people are the result of the Welfare Hammock (tm).
As existing State dependents, under Roger's Manifesto they would not be eligible for additional/larger state housing if they expand their families. Taking it to its logical conclusion, they would still be in their mum's studio apartment to start with, and no prospect of a Council flat on the horizon. If they wanted a "babbers" and to get their own place, the first thing that would enter their heads would be "make sure the bloke can afford it", presuming that their heads are capable of thought (which I think, 90% of the time, it would be, faced with such a harsh reality)
This has got to stop. (hat tip, DK)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Good, we've gone round in a full circle.
It was The Purple Scorpion who picked up on this first, I explained how much less that family would get under a sensible Citizen's Income type welfare scheme and threw in your idea about allocating council housing (which has been incorporated into the MW manifesto).
Yes, indeed.
CBI would be infinitely less expensive to ADMINISTER too, and all those who feel it is shameful to claim would not be denied.
CBI does require a top-grade ID system to prevent fraud and multiple applications, however.
Sure, it would be about £10bn cheaper to administer (I shit ye not).
Fraud & error based on fake ID's is in fact a relatively small amount.
Further, I'd split the system, those that earn less than £10,000 get the CBI of £3,000 p.a. but no personal allowance for tax (which in this example would be a flat tax of 30%), those that earn more get a £10,000 peronal allowance but get no CBI.
(if somebody strays across the line, it doesn;t actually matter, mathematically)
That gets the number of actual cash claimants down by two-thirds.
Post a Comment