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

adouglasmhor

cw18 wrote: »

That's exactly the kind of thing where I think production of receipts should become mandatory. Or there could be an 'approved supplier' type list (including access to special requirement due to disability goods), where you get the loan but have to buy through them - so you never actually see the money in your bank account, but the supplier is paid directly by the benefits agencies.

They used to do this, it meant your children had to wear outdated horrible clothes and really stick out at school. The co op were the suppliers in this area.

liswan

I think this is so sad that human beings are so ignorant to think that we should partially starve someone on benefits because they feel hard done by.:(

There are not enough jobs for everyone so how would you feel if you were thrown out of your job to be replaced by a long term unemployed person that your employer got on the chea? Would you still feel the same towards the unemployed.?
I personally admire the long term unemployed and so should you. :A If not for them the wages would be even lower. They do not undersell their labour or !!! lick like the rest of us have to every day.

Coming off benefits in this country is a joke, they lie to get you to take up a low paid job promising you this that and the next thing. Then by the end of the week rent rebated, tax credited and council tax aided you find you are not off benefits but still as dependent on the tax payer. (95% of walmart employees wages are subsidised by tax credits.

Sell cheap and let them stock pile.:mad:

honey10

Everyone is going on about the idea of these food vouchers, when in reality they would be kinda pointless, given the current level of Jobseekers Allowance or Income Support most people cant afford to smoke or drink never mind both.

Myself and my partner are in a no win situation, I am currently signed off sick from work, and have been for almost 3 years, but the way the government policies work, would mean my partner would have to earn £1500 a month to cover rent, council tax, utilities, food, transport etc, which is extremely unlikely to happen. He is also not allowed to go to college, nor work part time, so he is wasting his time, and talent because we cant afford for him to go to work full time. However, when I go back to work, be it full or part time, I will be paid half my current benefits, half my rent and have my council tax subsidised for a period of time (currently 12 months) It does nothing for anybody except have a negative effect on motivation and self confidence.

The government doesnt help itself while it is stopping able and willing people from working.

liswan

honey10 wrote: »

The government doesnt help itself while it is stopping able and willing people from working.

That is where you are wrong it keeps people like you and me helpless and when a rubbish job comes along with an exploitative pay we grasp it quickly, hoping to regain our dignity.. They will promise you this that and the other to get you back work.and then they never deliver I owe 600 pounds in overpayment of housing benefit which i have had to pay back out of mingey benefits at 13 pounds a week talk about kicking you when your down.

I have recently joined the employed working for tax credits and housing benefits to top up disgustingly low wages but never mind i am not alone. There are many of us out there sold cheaply to employers to cut their costs and leave money in the companies left to boost profits or dividends. An example of where government policy is aimed.

Record Profits for banks, Utility and oil companies howmany of thier employees do you know that earn more than the average wage. The rich according to the rich list released recently are 30% richer on average.

plimsoll

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.

Well if all benefits are increased then yours would therefore be too? On a serious note - if this is including the nominal £50 a week then anyone who (presumably like yourself) owned their own home would not receive that £50 a week housing benefit. Those who receive that don't really have it to spend. There is very limited help (interest payments only & onyl after you've been claiming for a while, they changed what it is so I'm not sure) with a mortgage if you own but not outright & end up unemployed.

So with the £100 option, they would actually be receiving £50 to your £93 to spend (which I think is around the current level)

Eco_Miser

831badger wrote: »

People should be means tested and show that they are able to support a family before having children to reduce the amount of families on beneift with no ntention of ever working and thus reducing crime in the future.

So are you advocating compulory abortion or state-locked chastity belts?

honey10

liswan wrote: »

Record Profits for banks, Utility and oil companies howmany of thier employees do you know that earn more than the average wage. The rich according to the rich list released recently are 30% richer on average.

Bring on the Robin Hood Tax is what i have to say to that. I wonder how the fat cats and politicians would cope trying to live on benefits, or even on an average salary of around £15,000?

I think the TV show 'Tower block of commons' gave us an insight into that one....

plimsoll

cw18 wrote: »

That's exactly the kind of thing where I think production of receipts should become mandatory. Or there could be an 'approved supplier' type list (including access to special requirement due to disability goods), where you get the loan but have to buy through them - so you never actually see the money in your bank account, but the supplier is paid directly by the benefits agencies.

councils & council groups (like surestart centres) have to buy through apporved suppliers. it means they pay a lot more than you or I who can shop around for the best price. Not saving taxpayers money at all. TBH I'm amzed that in the example someone has quoted the person told them it was for a mattress, if it was a Budgeting Loan then you don't have to specify what it is exactly, just category (e.g. furniture, paying off other loan, etc). And it is a loan, they have money taken off benefits every week to repay it, usually over no more than 2 years. Those working with a decent credit rating can achieve a similar thing (interest free loan to buy things first rather than saving) using credit cards with interest free purchase period, then switching to new CC with interest free balance transfer period etc (ok there is balance transfer fee so pay slightly more than nothing unless can pay back in interest free purchase period).

Anna

plimsoll

antonia1 wrote: »

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.

no council tax on income based benefits, bills I don't think I ever paid separate to my rent when in shared houses, I now average approx £20-25 a week (over the year, much more to pay in winter as on PPM atm) although I do have 2 children living in a 3bed house, according to comparison websites elec above average but gas less than half of average usage for a 3bed house. Food depends what you eat. I spend around £50 I think on the 3 of us on basic food, but my children won't eat mince so I have to buy actual pieces of meat (eggs cost me around same per meal as average meat, same with B Beans cos I won't buy ones with sweeteners which the cheap ones have). As a student I ate mince a lot so did spend less, plus I worried less about sweeteners etc so if single not worrying about kids diet etc then £10 might cover it - but then again things like baked beans have gone up massively in price since I was a student lol!!

liswan

Eco_Miser wrote: »

So are you advocating compulory abortion or state-locked chastity belts?

It is only a matter of time with an American charity opening in the UK hoping to pay drug addicts £200 to get sterilised so as not to become parents.

Maybe if we starve the unemployed a bit more than we already do, we can offer them a fiver for food with the condition they get sterilised and therefor reduce the unemployed of the future. More jobs for all:beer:
What is it Blairs government called it oh yeah early intervention. lol:rotfl: