In 2011 the level of public spending on the welfare state by the British Government accounted for £113.1 billion, or 16% of government. By 2020 welfare spending will rise to 1/3rd of all spending making it the largest expense followed by housing benefit, council tax benefit, benefits to the unemployed, and benefits to people with low incomes.
I think fewer restrictions. It is too costly to determine for the restrictions in place now. While there may be some fraud in the system, it is not so significant to cause the program to be useless for those that need it. I do think we should have some caps, and if the amount determined is based on number of children in the household at the time, funds cap based on that number. I do think there should be fewer restrictions around if a person is married or not. Should be based solely on income and household size.
At any given time, 12-20 percent of a population will need assistance due to low iq or disability. I think all of America is okay with providing some sort of safety net. But this should only be for people who absolutely need it.
Welfare benefits should be based on need, regardless of race or gender. Kid or no kid! If you need government assistance, it should be afforded to you by need! Ex. they give more food stamps to people with children, that's fine. But, if you work full time, go to school full time, and you make what you make and still have to pay all your bills, don't give us $15 worth of stamps!
The historical activity of users engaging with this question.