Trying to get my head around it

lemonjelly

carolt wrote: »

Personally, I would force the parents to work for their benefit, the same as I do.

Anyone who failed to get a job within an allotted timespan (say 3 months?) would either have all benefits cut off or be made to work at minimum wage level in a job that was imposed on them. Not full-time - their befits wouldn't cover that, and it wouldn't allow them to look for a longer-term job. But if they get £60/week, then 10 hours a week cleaning the streets, say. They'd learn some transferable soft skills in the meantime, our streets would look better (or whatever), they'd get some self-respect as they were actually earning' their pay, and it might discourage those who wre just too damn lazy, to look for work.

The kids would be no better or worse off financially. But their parents would now have something to put on their CV, someone to give them a reference, and some work experience.

They'd know that if they were to work more, they could get more money.

And I'd scrap any rule that made it financially advantageous to be on benefits over getting a job, as it is now.

I agree with the point about transferrable skills which would come. To an extent, I think that could be one of the biggest benefits.

I take issue with the word "forced". I think it is important not to be confrontational, or to cause resentment about how we change the culture of benefit claimants. I believe it would be better to implement conditionality by focussing a claimants social responsibilities.

There are too many issues around cutting off benefits after 3 months - what if there is a recession? What if the only large scale employer in that town has just closed? & what do you do with their children? Take them into care as the parents can't provide? That'd just overburden the budget & staff in social services depts. The financial burden would just be shifted.

However, with the conditionality plans, if they come in, as time on benefits passes, claimants would have greater expectations placed on them, & are likely to have the amount they are expected to contribute increased.

tek-monkey

The problem with forced labour, is that there are usually people who would do the jobs if they were offered. Making doleys clean the streets will put the street sweepers out of business, and therefore on the dole.

Dave101t

short sighted comment. akin to 'oh what will all the chimney boys do, what will the miners do? retrain for a better life is what.
remove the dole as an option (like abroad) and suddenly transform society back from the brink (like abroad), ill cite dubai (where you are deported after 4 weeks if you dont get a new job) and china (where you get bread and water rations and the disgrace of dishonouring your family name) as my examples of how to do it right!

Emy1501

ninky wrote: »

i don't have kids myself but i wonder if those that do would actively discourage their own kids not to have children. i think the social and familial pressures to reproduce are far greater than the welfare benefit advantages (not sure there really are that many) of having children.

there are far more financial benefits for the majority to not have children yet they are rarely put forward with seriousness and you don't find many people who seriously say i'm not having kids because i can't afford to raise them properly. i've put forward this argument myself and have been met by people saying it doesn't cost much to have a kid etc rather than much supportive agreement.

There is more to raising kids than money. As long as my kids wanted kids for the right reasons and realised that their kids especially when young came before pretty much everything else then I would encourage them regardless how well off they were.

Kids are expensive but its the time, effort and sacrifices one has to make which determines how a child does in life. There are a fair few children from poor backgrounds at my eldests school hes friendly with a few. Problem for some of these kids is there is no real parent involvement in their life. They are left to roam the streets as they want, their parents rarely if ever would turn up to a sporting event or encourage their kid to do their homework. With a bit of parent effort these kids could do as well as kids from a better background without any real extra money.

carolt

lemonjelly wrote: »

I agree with the point about transferrable skills which would come. To an extent, I think that could be one of the biggest benefits.

I take issue with the word "forced". I think it is important not to be confrontational, or to cause resentment about how we change the culture of benefit claimants. I believe it would be better to implement conditionality by focussing a claimants social responsibilities.

There are too many issues around cutting off benefits after 3 months - what if there is a recession? What if the only large scale employer in that town has just closed? & what do you do with their children? Take them into care as the parents can't provide? That'd just overburden the budget & staff in social services depts. The financial burden would just be shifted.

However, with the conditionality plans, if they come in, as time on benefits passes, claimants would have greater expectations placed on them, & are likely to have the amount they are expected to contribute increased.

I disagree - I think you have to force them - how many people would choose to do it otherwise. It's easy to find work for them to do - sweeping the streets is pretty much unlimited, but there are any number of good works we could set them to if street cleaners felt they were being done out of a job. How about trainee brickies, building the social housing our country so desperately needs? They could go into old people's homes and chat to the old dears, clean graffiti or chewing gum off the streets etc etc. All things that would improve lives for other people, and teach them both the value of hard work and the importance of maintaining and not destroying our public spaces and the fabric of our society.

Whether there is a recession on or not is neither here nor there - you're paying them the same money they would have got anyway, so it's cost neutral.

The thing is, I'm left wing, and people nowadays seem to imagine that the true socialist message is 'rob the rich to give to the scroungers'. It's not. It's 'to each according to his needs, from each according to his ability'. The problem with modern-day left wing solutions is they've forgotten the second part. I think we need to return to a solution where everyone is required to give what they can back to society, rather than some people viewing the traffic as entirely one way.

SingleSue

zygurat789 wrote: »

And then, of course, everyone has a little something on the side.

Everyone?

I think not.

Graham_Devon

tek-monkey wrote: »

The problem with forced labour, is that there are usually people who would do the jobs if they were offered. Making doleys clean the streets will put the street sweepers out of business, and therefore on the dole.

Theres plenty of areas that need cleaning up that are not touched at the moment.

So it's perfectly possible to create this work without effecting anyone else. Bonus is the UK should be cleaner too.

lemonjelly

carolt wrote: »

I disagree - I think you have to force them - how many people would choose to do it otherwise. It's easy to find work for them to do - sweeping the streets is pretty much unlimited, but there are any number of good works we could set them to if street cleaners felt they were being done out of a job. How about trainee brickies, building the social housing our country so desperately needs? They could go into old people's homes and chat to the old dears, clean graffiti or chewing gum off the streets etc etc. All things that would improve lives for other people, and teach them both the value of hard work and the importance of maintaining and not destroying our public spaces and the fabric of our society.

Whether there is a recession on or not is neither here nor there - you're paying them the same money they would have got anyway, so it's cost neutral.

The thing is, I'm left wing, and people nowadays seem to imagine that the true socialist message is 'rob the rich to give to the scroungers'. It's not. It's 'to each according to his needs, from each according to his ability'. The problem with modern-day left wing solutions is they've forgotten the second part. I think we need to return to a solution where everyone is required to give what they can back to society, rather than some people viewing the traffic as entirely one way.

Then we'll agree to disagree;)

My feeling is if forced, there will be resentment. It's a bit like making them wear high visibility jackets etc. I don't think this is about creating a sense of dishonour amongst such people, or creating a stigma. Leave that for prisoners on licence, who are repaying a social debt.

I'd prefer to get them to think it is their idea almost. Change the mindset of the nation if you will. I think that will only happen gradually. Give them some options as to what they can do for there benefits.

If you were forced to do something, how good a job would you make of it? My guess, is there wouldn't be a great deal of pride in what you did. & arguably less effort.

If you are at least under the impression that you chose, in some way, a particualr vocation in order to keep getting your benefits, then perhaps you will get a bit more enthusiasm, interest in development of skills, the person would be getting something out of whatever task it is they are doing.

Perhaps I'm just too optimistic?

carolt

No, choice is fine - as in choosing between a range of jobs.

But not as in choosing whether to get off their backsides at all, or whether they'd rather stay at home with a cup of tea watching daytime telly. Because I think we now what most of the answers would be.

pipkin71

BACKFRMTHEEDGE wrote: »

I don't think it's naive at all. Poor people have always had kids. In the 1800s they had massive families and there was no benefits system.

Why do you believe that poor people have children because of the benefits system? Because it said so in the Sun?

I entered into a conversation in DT regarding the 'poor' having children, and not for the first time it's been suggested that those on benefits would stop having children if their benefits didn't increase.

My own thoughts are though, that in places like Ethiopia, where there are no benefits, and where there is real poverty, women continue to have children, so I don't believe capping benefits would result in a dramatic decrease of babies either.

Of course, it may affect the decision of a percentage of women on benefits, but I still think that a higher percentage would continue to have babies, than not.

I can understand why people feel that benefits should be capped, and have had those views myself, but I'm also a tree hugging type who does think of the children, and can see that by capping benefits, the babies who continue to be born will then suffer a life of poverty

No idea what the answer is there, though.