'Should we starve the jobless back to work?' poll discussion

Perrian

And it did a bally good job of keeping the workshy fops hard at it..

On a more serious note, unemployment is one of a few minor problems that society has to worry about..
Obesity, alcohol and uncontrolled excess create far more problems than the unemployed ever could.

Though I still believe the rise in duty on £1 per gallon 12% ABV cider was (hic) a bad idea.. tax on the poor..

"oh johnny boyyy, the payyyyps, the payyyyps are caallllingg..."

tr6p

Can anyone explain to me why it should be more than my State Pension of £93 a week. In my view some form of work in the voluntary sector should be a condition of receiving benefits and this should require the routine of getting up and attending the job each day. John - a disgruntled pensioner who started work at 15 and never claimed a penny until retirement, when I discovered that my state pnsion is classified a benefit.

aliplaysdrums

I think there should be a major overhaul of benefit payments.

1. You cant get anything out until you've put at least 2 years in.
2. You should start on JSA at 90% of your wage, decreasing to 25% over 1 year.
3. Those with dependent children should receive an extra amount (just spitballing at £10 per child per week) but this should not exceed your final salary, and will be capped at 4 children. (so as to stop these baby-benefit families)
4. After 6 months of unemployment, you should be able to work for min wage doing menial council jobs (street sweeping, grass cutting etc) (although the problem could end up that the council cannot afford to have everyone under their employ)
5. You should have to submit receipts for how you have spent your benefit money, just like the politicians, so we know people aren't buying new TV's, yachts etc with benefit money. (christmas and birthday allowances should be made)


Dont really know what else. But there's my two penny's worth.... and here's a receipt for them... haha!

Ali

nickmatthews

They should get no more than £100 per week - max!!

And if they are long term unemployed they should be putting something back to justify the benefits. Working with the council to cut verges, cleaning/maintaning public places, assisting with repairing potholes, cleaning grafitti, etc, etc.

I am happy to support people who are unfortunate enough to not have a job but not so they feel they never need to work again!!

I'm sure this will upset some people but too many choose the benefit option as a lifestyle to enable them to watch Jeremy Kyle & This Morning daily!!!

Topazmine

I've never been on unemployment benefit in this country, but years ago was back in my native New Zealand.

At that point the benefit was calculated by working out how much it would cost to feed a family of four in the north of the country, and dividing that by four to get your weekly figure. It came out about the same as this exercise for covering rent alone.

Nothing else was paid for. No housing, electricity, transport, phones; even items such as shampoo and soap, needed for basic human dignity, weren't allowed for.

The end result of a system that provides only the barest minimum support is that those who are unemployed begin to find it even more difficult to find work. Paper is needed for printing out CVs, and this can't be afforded on the kind of minimum support suggested. Transport is needed to get to job interviews - which of course, can't be afforded (and god help you if you live out in the countryside where there are only buses running twice a day - try getting to a job interview that way!) It was absolute hell. Applying for work actually put me deeper in debt each week, as I had to borrow money to get to interviews, print out CVs, etc.

That situation, of applying for jobs landing you deeper in debt, caused some people I knew to give up in despair, as they could only see a never-ending spiral of of worsening debt opening up in front of them.

There is a vast difference between knowing you have access to funds when you need them, and being forced by circumstances outside your control to live this way for a long period.

There are limits, of course, because there are some people who will take advantage of the flaws in any system. However that doesn't mean everyone in need of support should be penalised, and I strongly suspect Lord Jones has never been forced to live on a benefit. Perhaps, as an exercise, he could live that way for six months (in a rented apartment of course) and then tell us how he feels about it?

In fact a politician in NZ once did try this - she lasted about three weeks before giving up the attempt because "she became sick and it simply wasn't possible to continue". What a pity the rest of us weren't in a position to opt out when it became an inconvenient nuisance!

jamespir

tr6p wrote: »

Can anyone explain to me why it should be more than my State Pension of £93 a week. In my view some form of work in the voluntary sector should be a condition of receiving benefits and this should require the routine of getting up and attending the job each day. John - a disgruntled pensioner who started work at 15 and never claimed a penny until retirement, when I discovered that my state pnsion is classified a benefit.

was there any need for the massive post

jsa isnt more than your state pention its 64. odd
so get your facts right

Topazmine

5. You should have to submit receipts for how you have spent your benefit money, just like the politicians, so we know people aren't buying new TV's, yachts etc with benefit money. (christmas and birthday allowances should be made)

Point 5 is problematic; who will bear the cost of the people needed to scrutinise the hundreds of thousands of receipts that will come in every day? It's a massively time-consuming and money-hungry exercise keeping track of that many receipts. Most likely it would be the tax payer who has to fork out again to pay people to do the bookkeeping/accounting.

In all likelihood it would cost more money than it saves.

gems2381

jamespir wrote: »

was there any need for the massive post

jsa isnt more than your state pention its 64. odd
so get your facts right

Some people post in large as they have difficulty seeing the screen, they've already stated that they are a pensioner so may have done so through failing eyesight!

aliplaysdrums

Topazmine wrote: »

Point 5 is problematic; who will bear the cost of the people needed to scrutinise the hundreds of thousands of receipts that will come in every day? It's a massively time-consuming and money-hungry exercise keeping track of that many receipts. Most likely it would be the tax payer who has to fork out again to pay people to do the bookkeeping/accounting.

In all likelihood it would cost more money than it saves.

very true... i'm not saying its the definitive answer. on the topside, it would create jobs haha

DebtHater

What a disgusting thing to say MSE..... "starve the jobless back to work"

There are ways and means of getting people back into work, and with the right Government we will be able to achieve this.

"Starving" people is definitely NOT the answer.