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

carlos1973

I personally think that I should be given a work-shy layabout to look after. If I feel they've made a genuine effort to gain employment or attempted to improve their marketable skills then I'll give them some money. In order to do this I could stop paying Taxes and National Insurance and keep the money to support my charge.

I know some will be spitting pure vitriol at my opinion, but it is mine nonetheless and I won't apologise for it.

I work 5 or 6 days a week, full-time and sometimes a days overtime, for just above NMW and I am sick and tired of seeing others milking the system. I don't have a games console, large screen TV, Satelitte/Cable, pet, car, addiction (Alcohol/Cigarettes/Recreational Drugs), and yet see others who have all the above provided by The State.

If I gave up my job I would be in the same position financially as I am now, if not better as I would have considerably more leisure time. The reason I don't is that I feel it is inherently unfair to expect others to support my idleness. Unfortunately too many in todays society feel otherwise.

P-J-D_2

glider3560 wrote: »

I voted for £5000 (£100/week). My basis for this is that as a student, I am given £3500 of loan and £1200 of grant. This comes to £4700 and has to cover everything plus £3500 of this has to be repaid eventually. If I want more money, I have to work. I believe the same should apply to benefits.

You cannot compare like this as there is a burden of cost associated related to further education, due to the greater earning potential it provides. Going off topic a bit here but.. the typical degree qualification result in twice the earning power IIRC. The average wage is £20k gross, so the uni leaver can expect to earn £40k or more. Therefore leaving university with debts in the tens of thousands is not the hardship it's often made out to be.

P-J-D_2

mlz1413 wrote: »

Benefits are supposed to be so that no one should have to beg or steal to live - but they should not allow or be, a way of life.

My personal opinion is most benefits should be by vouchers so that the money is spend on rent, utilities, food, clothes etc and NOT cigarettes, alcohol, take away food etc.

So in your personal opinion people who are unable to work should not have freedom to choose how they spend what little they receive? How incredibly arrogant and blinkered of you. You will of course change your tune should you find yourself in "their" position. The freedom to spend the money as they wish is built into the system absolutely intentionally.

P-J-D_2

carlos1973 wrote: »

I personally think that I should be given a work-shy layabout to look after.

Displays of ignorance and contempt such as this give support to the argument that democracy is flawed, however judging from his comments - there is a strong possibility that the quoted poster is below voting age.

ManyDollarz

Should we starve the MPs & Lords back to work?

'Portly' Lord Jones, (77.0% attendance rate in the House of Lords; cast 917 votes out of 1191) former head of business institute the CBI (and for a while an independent Labour minister), recently said we should ‘starve the jobless back to work’ by making benefits not pay, in a discussion about the young unemployed.

h ttp://alexhughescartoons.co.uk/archive/2008-04-16-Digby-The-Fattest-Cat-In-The-World.jpg

But what would you say is roughly the right food bill to give an able MP/Lord seeking work?
(Vote based on the overall level of food bill mountain a portly Digby Jones sized Lord eats during those 23% non-attendances of the House of Lords) :money:

A. Nothing
B. 29p for a bag of Hula Hoops (Rosie Cooper MP)
C. 30p for a white chocolate cookie (Rosie Cooper MP)
D. 30p for a TESCO EXTRA jam doughnut (Rosie Cooper MP)
E. 45p for chocolate Bounty bar (Rosie Cooper MP)
F. 45p for McCoy's crisps (Rosie Cooper MP)
G. £2.80 for two ice creams from the House of Lords (Rosie Cooper MP)
H. £4.32 for an apple turnover, chicken wrap, Cola, Maltesers (Rosie Cooper MP)
I. £4.51 for a butter croissant, a bag of McCoys crisps, a milkshake, a Cadburys Boost and a BLT sandwich (Rosie Cooper MP)
J. £25/week (£1,250/year
K. £50/week (£2,500/year)
L. £75/week (£3,750/year)
M. £100/week (£5,000/year)
N. £150/week (£7,500/year)
O. £200/week (£10,000/year)
P. £300/week (£15,000/year)
Q. The same as average British eater c. £2160/year
R. £2509/year Lord Digby Jones' Day Subsistence 2008-09 House of Lords
S. £86.50 “clocking-in” day rate for food for Bishops in the House of Lords
T. £7,484 food/Accom. allowance after turning up on 88 days by The Bishop of Southwark, the Rt Rev Tom Butler.

ceridwen

antonia1 wrote: »

Yeah, heavens forbid we should consider the welfare of the CHILDREN in this case. Yes its bad that some people make a career out of having kids, but I think that punishing the kids is very mean. As I stated earlier, this seems to be a very Victorian point of view. Perhaps these people should have their children taken away from them too? Workhouses maybe? That would stop them living off the state.

.

If you had read my posts correctly - you would see that I have not said "no benefits to EXISTING children". What I HAVE said is that no benefits for any children that dont yet exist (even as a pregnancy). If the parent goes ahead and conceives the child in the first place AFTER losing their job - then that is sheer irresponsibility on the parents' part and THEY would be the ones depriving the child concerned of enough money to live on.

<...wishes people would read my posts properly before thinking I said something totally different to what I actually did say....>

ceridwen

yellowduck wrote: »

oh and don't forget that "the unemployed" could include you one day, it's apprx 2.5 million at the moment and I have a feeling that post 6 May when the real cuts kick in it will go a lot higher.

QUITE!

I think that many people have a little thing going in their head that says "I personally would never be unemployed because I am (insert whatever is applicable in their case)" - it simply isnt true.

When unemployment hit me for the first time I was totally absolutely gobsmacked/shocked out of my skin....because it simply was never going to happen to someone like myself. The thought simply literally hadnt occurred to me that I might become one of the unemployed.

I sat down at the time and asked myself why I had thought it would never happen to me - and the answer I came up with - to put it bluntly - is "Well - I live in an urban area (ie there should be plenty of jobs around near me) and I myself am reasonably-qualified/intelligent/a reasonable worker/healthy/attractive and......errrr (confession time) middle class". From which I thought "Then - how could it possibly happen to me?"

Hence the extreme shock and disbelief when it did. The shock and disbelief was actually a good bit stronger than the money worries about this. (A brave friend told me that I was quite obviously in shock for months the first time unemployment hit - as I was so astonished.)

Not just did it happen once - it happened several times:mad:. I still cant believe it/dont understand at one level - but I KNOW that it did indeed happen (despite being impossible in my mind). The difference was, on subsequent occasions where I became unemployed that the shock/disbelief wasn't quite so overwhelming and the money worries about it were much greater.

So - I really DO urge people to remember that theirs could be the next "feet in the dole queue" - despite all the reasons they are telling themselves that it couldnt happen to them.

liswan

James_ wrote: »

In reality the whole problem is that this country can't support the population size, I think heavy taxes for having more than two children would be a good idea.
This would also have the effect of high income families having more children who will generally be educated to a higher level, which of course is good for the job market and the country.
Also, due to there being less low income children, much more financial support could be given for them to go to University e.t.c.

I think that can be an unpopular opinion but in reality, anyone thinking of the welfare of everyone in the country would agree that it's a good idea, generally it's selfish people that disagree strongly.:p

So You would call yourself a caring humane individual would you?

James_ wrote: »

I would also just like to ad, I'm anti-commie

Can I ask you what you think a commie is.

Cerisa

"If the parent goes ahead and conceives the child in the first place AFTER losing their job - then that is sheer irresponsibility on the parents' part and THEY would be the ones depriving the child concerned of enough money to live on. "

Yes but at the end of the day Ceridwen, you wouldn't be punishing the adult, you'd be punishing the child. Also I'm massively pro choice, but putting someone, especially someone with strong religious beliefs, in the position where they have to have an abortion for economic reasons is dreadful. Accidental pregnancies happen all the time; I was recently prescribed a medication and as I always do, double checked that it was compatible with my contraceptive pill; it isn't and thank god I checked! But if I hadn't asked my doc I could have easily become pregnant and had hard choices to make.

That said I absolutely agree that unemployment is shell shocking and that anyone could find themselves there. Prior to my 2 month bout of unemployment, i'd never been unemployed for more than 3 weeks! I applied and applied and kept hoping something would turn up. If I had gotten pregnant I'm not sure I would have thought "oh I should get rid of it" (although i have to admit it would have been a long, hard decision) because I was absolutely confident that I would have a job in no time.

Cerisa

James: I agree from a green perspective that people should have less children. But seriously, I don't know where you've gotten this idea that richer people are morally better.

Bankers are rich.:mad: Lawyers who help murderers get acquitted are rich. Footballers who rape women and perpetrate hit and runs are rich. Gary Glitter was an extremely rich !!!!!phile. Rich and poor people alike are just as capable of good and evil; the only difference is rich people get away with more.

To quote Terry Pratchett, "Living in a slum was practically evidence of criminality; while owning a street of them merely got you invited to the very best social occasions."