Why cant welfare be an investment into people instead of a handout program?

It all sounds good, but you forget how bad the government is at investing money. The government couldn't even make money when they ran the Mustang Ranch in Nevada. How do you lose money on a brothel in Nevada?

I'm in favor reducing the "handout" mentality of welfare as it stands today but it is not as simple as you describe. If you pay no money to the welfare recipient and basically have the government pay their bills for them while they satisfy the work/education requirement you will have to set up a huge department to manage this.

It's going to take a lot of new government employees to manage these tax breaks, landlord payments, etc. You'll have to assign case workers to everyone on welfare since you will also have to manage other household expenses for them (like phone and power bills) and not everyone is the same. Not to mention oversight of all these payments. (What's to stop unscupulous landlords from abusing the system now that the cushy government checks are going straight to them?) Costs could very well balloon to something higher then the costs of the current welfare system.

This only scratches the surface of the myriad of difficulties faced in trying to overhaul welfare. I like the sentiment of your question, but I don't think the solution should involve making government even bigger than it is. And that is exactly what would happen in this scenario.

In the UK you have to prove that you are looking for work or incapacitated in order to claim benefits. the only exceptions are single mothers who are able to claim whilst their children are under the age of 16 and in full time education, and THIS becomes a hand out program, with girls choosing having babies as a lifestyle choice, knowing they'll have a steady income until their youngest child turns 16 (they can delay that by popping out another one every couple of years or so).

This is something which needs to change. Instead of Income Support (our version of "Welfare") these mothers should be offered free childcare places and help in finding a job or attending college. They should have to do this before they claim a penny in benefits. I'm sick of subsidising lazy little chavettes to have too many babies.

You have to work or go to school now to get your welfare. I do not like day care. I worked in them while I was in college. Many are scary places, a fourth of all baby care programs offer unsafe to emotionally damaging care. I worked social services. Here is the mom scam: Unwed mom gets pregnant. She qualifies for WIC and SCHIP, food stamps, housing, day care. She send baby off to day care. She goes to college, and works p/t. Gets into public housing. Can't get a decent job, since she would lose so many benefits, and have to 'cut back' in her style of living (plus watch her own kids). She spends so much time away from baby, the baby has little contact with mom. Mom does not have to be a parent, she learns quick how to keep the kiddies in day care, and she can have 'her time'. Kiddies don't learn a family structure, no role models, so they run amok. Mom doesn't have the time. And she doesn't want the kiddies around the loser dad. So dad is out of the pix. This process repeats when her daughter is a teen. Give moms a 'maternity leave' check. That's it. From that they pay for their own housing and day care. That would stop the generational poverty cycle in no time. Spend you government check on drugs, jeans, or your fake nails, live in a shelter. Lose your kids? well, the moms would learn quick they cannot live so irresponsibly.

Its good that we question the status quo however it is rarely as simple when we are dealing with people.You are right when you talk education, but remember that no matter what, the people that need social assistance will always be there and one way or another the tax payer pays.The old saying is build schools or build prisons.Someone in prison contributes nothing and costs lots

There were a lot of reforms in welfare during the Clinton administration. That was one of his few positive accomplishments. In addition, the government prefers "handing out" money to lower income people. All of it is spent, and goes back into the economy.