Means test benefits payments and council housing

There are a lot of individuals working the current system and getting benefits despite not being entitled to them. There are also many individuals in council houses where there are other individuals living there without permission.

Either someone needs to reasses those in these situations and carry out spot visits without notice to properties to ensure circumstances are as they claim


offer incentives to the public for information where benefit fraud may be committed.

Also ask employers for feedback on interviews or job applications where individuals are claiming a job seekers allowance as some individuals sabotage this process intentially to continue to receive an allowance without working. Better support should however be provided to those individuals looking for jobs with their CV's and interview techniques

Why the contribution is important

Individuals who are able to work should also be contributing to taxes which would increase the amount the government has to spend while also reducing outgoings on benefit payments. We are also currently encouraging a culture of getting government housing as it is so easy to do so where kids should instead be learning the importance of having a career and earning money

by pent on April 05, 2017 at 01:53PM

Current Rating

Average rating: 4.5
Based on: 13 votes


  • Posted by DocMills April 05, 2017 at 14:25

    Means test pensions, free bus travel, free prescriptions, free eye tests etc. etc. too
  • Posted by nemo April 05, 2017 at 16:16

    MHKs have been paying lip service to the idea of means testing council housing for years now. It's high time they grew some balls and did something about it.
  • Posted by LaxeyBoy April 05, 2017 at 18:17

    Not all benefits should be means tested, those benefits that benefit all such as bus passes/ child credit / pensions should remain open to all but housing , job seekers and those benefits that are claimed as a result of not doing something that people have to do such as work should be means tested. Also social benefits are for the short term to help those who when they need it and should not be treated as a long term benefit, those who refuse to try and not need the benefit should also be penalised not just those who on paper may not need it. I think the Italy model is a good one where you get money/support for a set period of time after that time the government give restricted help defining what the benefit can be used for and restricting actions encouraging people to get off the benefit
  • Posted by ninjadispenser April 08, 2017 at 16:01

    I know from recent newspaper reporting that the DHSS is cracking down on benefit cheats and maybe an incentive scheme for those working in the benefit offices(not money but perks) would make them even more vigilant. However,I pay for home are for my disabled daughter and was recently sent a letter asking for 25pence that I owed from 2013 on a bill.Considering what I have saved the Government in care over the past decades I thought this was a bit OTT! I have to add that in the last decade,I have noted that the first place that savings are made is always the elderly and the disabled and we use the term 'vulnerable' way too much to describe elements of society who are anything but whilst failing to support those who really ARE unable to defend themselves against monetary and care cuts.
Log in or register to add comments and rate ideas

Idea topics