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

Wednesday

My objection is to those who view living on benefits as a career choice when they leave school. Why should I pay tax to support people who have no intention of contributing to society?

In my view it should be related to how much national insurance you have already paid in your working life. I don't get anything for nothing - I have never signed on and as a single person, I pay for everything on my own (no tax allowances for single people, eh?). I'd actually be better off if I'd never gone to university and had just stayed at home popping out brats on the social.

otheradam

To official MSE staff: If you run such polls in future I think it would be good to add an option for

• After tax income on minimum wage for 35hrs/week (approx £xxx)

I think this is a realistic comparison with being on benefits. If a job won't pay more then lots of people won't go back to work (ref an earlier poll result).

tanco

I am a hard working tax payer, recently married. If we wanted to have a single child it would mean looking for another source of income.

What burned me to the core was reading about a family who thought it was okay to have 7 kids, be unemployed as it didn't make economic sense to find jobs, and then defend themselves saying 'they are entitled to benefits'!!!!!!!!, while wondering where they were going to go for their annual holiday, and what to buy for dinner that evening, should they go out in their mercedes people carrier, or just stay home and watch a movie on one of their SEVERAL flat screen TV's!!!!!
Erm.... vehicle ?, insurance ?, petrol ? tax ?, flat screen tv's ??, probably have an xbox 360, ps3, and bluray to go with it.

I agree with the people on here that spoke about vouchers, who wants to hand over vouchers for things ?, I certainly wouldn't. There is a stigma about them, surely that would have some effect!

Who are the fools here ?. You work hard, you pay all the bills you are asked to pay, and the little you have left remaining buys you a few minor luxuries, or save for a rainy day.

horrorshowmalchick

I really don't think some people have considered their answers.

"April 21 2010 - The unemployment rate stands at 8.0%" - hrmguide dot co dot uk/jobmarket/unemployment dot htm

There were 61,400,000 people in the United Kingdom in 2008 - World Bank

8% of 61,400,000 is 4912000

To all those who wanted to give nothing at all in unemployment benefit: you would see up to five million people, including children, on the streets utterly destitute. This is clearly unacceptable.

To those who wanted to pay about £50 a week, these five million would be stealing to eat. Crime would soar, prisons would fill, and people would still starve and freeze to death. Good call there!

Really people... do you think at all, or do you just read the Daily Mail and spew the bile with which it fills you onto my internet?

adouglasmhor

horrorshowmalchick wrote: »

I really don't think some people have considered their answers.

"April 21 2010 - The unemployment rate stands at 8.0%" - hrmguide dot co dot uk/jobmarket/unemployment dot htm

There were 61,400,000 people in the United Kingdom in 2008 - World Bank

8% of 61,400,000 is 4912000

To all those who wanted to give nothing at all in unemployment benefit: you would see up to five million people, including children, on the streets utterly destitute. This is clearly unacceptable.

To those who wanted to pay about £50 a week, these five million would be stealing to eat. Crime would soar, prisons would fill, and people would still starve and freeze to death. Good call there!

Really people... do you think at all, or do you just read the Daily Mail and spew the bile with which it fills you onto my internet?

This does include, the retired, children, the disabled and students. So it's 8% of a lesser figure.

antonia1

This poll is supposed to be about young, single people and that is where I based my choice. As a young single person myself I would only want the basics from JSA and would like to repay society through any voluntary work possible. As such, I voted for £100 per week based on the following calculation:
Rent : £50
Council Tax : £20
Bills : £15
Food : £10
Interview costs : £5
If any of my estimates are wrong, my vote would be increased or decreased accordingly.

People who think that you should just take any old job have a point, but think about this from an employers point of view. If you have a menial job vacancy, do you want to employ someone who will do the job for a significant period of time, or someone who will leave as soon as something better comes up?

There seems to be plenty of people on here making sweeping generalisations about those on JSA. Please remember that there are large numbers of the general public who feel the same about people in debt. I believe the argument "its your fault you can't get a job, why are you wanting handouts from me" is very similar to the agrument "its your fault you got into debt and didn't make your repayments, so why are you expecting me to stop credit card companies taking your house". Neither view is particularly helpful IMO.

DebtHater

But all this comes back to the MPs. HOW MANY of you voted Labour in and allowed Tony Blair and Gordon Brown the chance to muck the country up and allow one of the worst recessions to take place? We are damn lucky it didnt turn into a depression, although it did come extremely close!

Labour havent really done alot of positive things, have they? If more help was offered to businesses etc, then work would be readily available!
Has anyone here actually been to the JobCentre recently, and seen how many jobs are actually on offer? Not alot, and the jobs that are there are the ones that need training and skills, such as nursing etc.

So how about THINKING about your vote in May. Maybe if we get rid of the problem, the root cause of all these problems, then a solution will be easier to find and implement.

Oh, and sack Gordon Brown from Labour for the disgraceful job he has done.

DebtHater

antonia1 wrote: »

I believe the argument "its your fault you can't get a job, why are you wanting handouts from me" is very similar to the agrument "its your fault you got into debt and didn't make your repayments, so why are you expecting me to stop credit card companies taking your house". Neither view is particularly helpful IMO.

But can the same argument not be applied to those in need of healthcare, or any other state funded service?
If people are thinking that they can be the judges as to whether someone "deserves" a benefit, then maybe we can also judge those people when they are lying in the road in need of an ambulance after an accident, or when their house is burning down in the middle of the night and they call on the services of the local fire and police services. Or, maybe they will need the help of a Government department themselves one day, for example when they themselves get made unemployed and they need the services of a tribunal or court. But for their critical judging of others, and just for being so self-centered, maybe they shouldn't be entitled to the help!
But that wouldnt be right, would it?!
And how is all this funded? Via the state. The same state that pays for the JSA, Income Support and other benefits.

But dont get me wrong, I am not defending the lazy slobs who dont want to work, they just claim JSA because thats the habit they have become used to. I am speaking for the people who have been made redundant through no fault of their own, the people who cant find employment even though they are trying hard. Those people deserve their benefit, just like you would deserve it (and expect it) should you ever lose your job.

antonia1

DebtHater wrote: »

But can the same argument not be applied to those in need of healthcare, or any other state funded service?
If people are thinking that they can be the judges as to whether someone "deserves" a benefit, then maybe we can also judge those people when they are lying in the road in need of an ambulance after an accident, or when their house is burning down in the middle of the night and they call on the services of the local fire and police services. Or, maybe they will need the help of a Government department themselves one day, for example when they themselves get made unemployed and they need the services of a tribunal or court. But for their critical judging of others, and just for being so self-centered, maybe they shouldn't be entitled to the help!
But that wouldnt be right, would it?!
And how is all this funded? Via the state. The same state that pays for the JSA, Income Support and other benefits.

But dont get me wrong, I am not defending the lazy slobs who dont want to work, they just claim JSA because thats the habit they have become used to. I am speaking for the people who have been made redundant through no fault of their own, the people who cant find employment even though they are trying hard. Those people deserve their benefit, just like you would deserve it (and expect it) should you ever lose your job.

Exactly. I think that people should get help when they need it. Perhaps I didn't make myself clear, the two opinions I quoted are ones I regularly hear, but are certainly NOT mine. I think they are not helpful and the world would be a worse place if we all looked after number 1.

brokeinwales

Young women actually earn more than men these days

Is this true? (As in backed up by stats rather than just a subjective observation). If so I'm interested to know more about why?