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

ManyDollarz

Idea: If Lord Biggerdy Jones of Birmingham (Hmmm, ham, ham, ham, ham!) wants us all to starve, then I think we need to fix up some new enterance barriers inside all of Digby's local supermarkets, rather like those Alton Towers' ride height things before you go through, but in his case, a width gauge, let's call it a "Portly-o-meter".

Sorry Digby, but you can't come into the store this week. Bit more jogging please. See you next week when you can fit through our doors (and the aisles), then you can tell us all to starve!

Notlob

One of the main issues I have with benefits is LHA. Claimants on LHA can now rent a better property than those in full time employment.

How does LHA encourage claimants to seek employment?

nightwatchman

2 Thessalonians 3:6-15

"If a man will not work, he shall not eat."

ceridwen

nightwatchman wrote: »

2 Thessalonians 3:6-15

"If a man will not work, he shall not eat."

Ah....since you are in a church that takes the Bible literally - can I suggest you take note of the word "will". If a man (or woman) "cannot" work - ie because there are no suitable jobs available then that is very different. I cannot remember what version of the Bible your church uses - but I think you might find other versions also use the words "will not" - as in they "will" not to work, rather than they "cannot" work.

Jesus was obviously concerned that people should be able to eat - otherwise I've read the whole general message of the New Testament completely wrongly.....

...and, for instance, there was the occasion of the Loaves and Fishes - where he had been out speaking to a crowd of people and didnt want to see people go hungry in front of him because they hadnt brought any food with them to eat - so he started sharing what food there was - and then it turned out that many had brought surplus and shared what they had and they all had sufficiency to eat and food was left over. Can I suggest you follow the example set and join with not wishing to see people go hungry in front of you?

So - may I suggest you dont start quoting the Bible at us to justify your viewpoint - because some of us could swop you verse for verse and we could continue ad infinitum.

coupleuk

In other european countries like Spain, Germany you have to work for a peroid of time before you are eligible to claim any benefits. These only last for a short duration to tide the claimant over til they can find employment.

This method of paying benefits only once a contribution has be made into the system , could in my opinion work very well to motivate people back into work.

I have been saying something like the above for years.

Most people who lose their job dont deserve to lose it, so why do we penalise them from day 1 of unemployment.

I think you should get 100% of your average weekly declared (and taxed) income (shown on your last P60 / tax return) for a period of 1 month - that will cover the "shock" of losing your job and gives time to plan for a lower level of income.

Yes, some people will get more than others but it will be based on previous taxable income and will more accurately reflect the outgoings of each individual.

Then, 75% of previous P60 for months 2 and 3. This would give some time to plan for further income cuts whilst seeking work.

Months 4 to 6 would be at 50% of P60.

After that, NOTHING at all.

Research has shown that most people find alternative employment within 6 months of losing a job - that's why Jobcentres wont focus on newly unemployed people when it comes to retraining etc.

I would love a University Economics dept to consider the above and compare the cost to the current system.

Any professors reading?

yellowduck_2

nightwatchman wrote: »

2 Thessalonians 3:6-15

"If a man will not work, he shall not eat."

but then "Consider the liliies in the field, they toil not neither do they spin," the bible is a bit like Shakespeare can be used to express many views and attitides

Paulafos

I voted for £150.00p/week based on someone ACTIVELY/GENUINELY looking for work. I was jobless for a while (a bookeeper/supervisor), tirelessly looking for a job, and had to try and manage on £57 per week including travel/food etc.. I didn't want to claim the other benefits as it made me feel awkward and would have made me slacken off a bit. I was willing to work on the tills/in a factory/paint windows!!! I have a BIG grievance for those on the dole who don't get off their lazy behinds and do something..these people should have their benefits cut back to the absolute MINIMUM of £57 per week and NO MORE!!!!

Ames

I voted £200 a week, because I got confused and counted monthly bills as weekly. So in reality I'd go for

£50 rent (as the question said)
£20 council tax (the question said that the weekly amount was to cover all bills, including what people currently get free)
£15 food
£17 bills (electric, water, tv license, phone - based on my own bills)
£2 jobseeking costs (stamps, local paper, bus to sign on once a fortnight)
£3 medical (assuming they have to have one prescription a month, and putting something aside for dental/optical, although the short term unemployed shouldn't need this as they'd be working again by the time it comes through).

so just over £100 a week.

I'm on disability benefits, and I'm vehemently against vouchers. thanks to this site I've got my bills down, which gives me a bit left over for treats. If I had vouchers then I'd have no incentive to cut down on electric and water usage, which would be bad for the environment, or to shop cheaply. I'd also have less choice about where I shop, so I wouldn't be able to use the local butcher which is cheaper for me and good for the local economy.

and for the record, I don't just sit at home watching my plasma tv all day. I do some voluntary work, and go to social services/mental health services groups. all of which, along with my studies, will hopefully mean that at some time in the future I'll be able to do paid work.

My big problem with the benefits system is that there's no flexibility. as others have said, people could do some temp work but they lose out financially. also, if you get a week's work then you have to sign off and back on, which means that the 13 week wait till you can get help from the JC starts again. and it's ridiculous that people have to be on benefits for 13 weeks before they can get help with cv's, interview techniques etc - why not offer it right at the start of a claim, when it's going to be the most use, before there's a big unemployment gap on the cv which will put employers off.

and don't get me started on the cap on hours someone on JSA can spend doing voluntary work or training...

jesterslad

please let me know where in Oldham and surounding areas there are houseing for £50 a week I wish

jesterslad

please let me know where in Oldham and surrounding areas there are housing for £50 a week I wish,, sorry about the last one, I have now looked while typing lol