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

tripled

Benefits should be £75-£100/week. 18,836 voted.

Actually, more than 50% of people voted benefits (including rent) should be £75 per week or less. So why Martin has picked £100 is a bit of a mystery - but then the headlines, stories, polls, etc. on this site seem to be becoming less fact based and more biased generally.

Edit: I see, he's picked the average amount divided by votes, rather than what most people have actually voted for. The poll is skewed though by the fact the numbers jump up far faster once you cross £100.

Another case of lies, damned lies and statistics!

lazystar

As a mature single parent , i am stuck in a poverty trap .
i compete all the time with students who CAN work the hours i cannot ,
ie late evenings & weekends ,
i get constantly passed over for a younger model that can work ANY hours .

As my only experience is in retail i struggle to find work above the average wage , the only way i can afford to work & pay my bills , would be to work on mimimum wage ,well over 40 hrs a week , which then leaves a VERY large bill in child care .

Not too mention 6weeks school holidays & the fact i wouldnt see my child , the nightmare of finding a reliable stranger to look after my child who would probably have an hourly pay higher than mine !

The government does give a percentage of help towards childcare ,this must be saved so that it goes towards 6weeks school holiday .
In reality its not very viable UNLESS you can earn over national wage .
(not to mention jumping through hoops to get it , the fact they can only estimate how much you will get & the possibility of paying it back )

What does need to be looked at ,is part time earnings .
At present if you work less than 16hrs you can keep earnings of £20 .

This is probably the best option , but this needs seriously updating & modernising .

How many jobs do you know that are 15hrs55min ?

the ones that are less than 16hrs are usually the weekend & you wont qualify for child care !
The best way to help mothers back to work would be to raise the 16hr rule .
its old fashioned & outdated .
let mothers work part time without withdrawing all help unless they work full time .
that way they have work experience ,a sense of belonging to society ,a rolemodel for theyre child & a purpose until they can rejoin the workplace fully .

flibblesan

lazystar wrote: »

As a mature single parent , i am stuck in a poverty trap .
i compete all the time with students who CAN work the hours i cannot ,
ie late evenings & weekends ,
i get constantly passed over for a younger model that can work ANY hours .

As my only experience is in retail i struggle to find work above the average wage , the only way i can afford to work & pay my bills , would be to work on mimimum wage ,well over 40 hrs a week , which then leaves a VERY large bill in child care .

Not too mention 6weeks school holidays & the fact i wouldnt see my child , the nightmare of finding a reliable stranger to look after my child who would probably have an hourly pay higher than mine !

The government does give a percentage of help towards childcare ,this must be saved so that it goes towards 6weeks school holiday .
In reality its not very viable UNLESS you can earn over national wage .
(not to mention jumping through hoops to get it , the fact they can only estimate how much you will get & the possibility of paying it back )

What does need to be looked at ,is part time earnings .
At present if you work less than 16hrs you can keep earnings of £20 .

This is probably the best option , but this needs seriously updating & modernising .

How many jobs do you know that are 15hrs55min ?

the ones that are less than 16hrs are usually the weekend & you wont qualify for child care !
The best way to help mothers back to work would be to raise the 16hr rule .
its old fashioned & outdated .
let mothers work part time without withdrawing all help unless they work full time .
that way they have work experience ,a sense of belonging to society ,a rolemodel for theyre child & a purpose until they can rejoin the workplace fully .

I'm working an average of 20 hours per week. I get the majority of my rent paid for by housing benefit (local housing allowance) and a small amount of council tax paid. The rest I have to pay myself which is about £16 a week for rent and £15 a month for council tax, direct debit.

The point I'm getting at is you can afford to work part time. If you work less than 16 hours, you will receive full housing and council tax benefits. Work more than 16 hours and the amount of benefit you receive is reduced based on your weekly earnings.

With the amount I'm earning each week, and the rent and council tax paid, I'm left with £10-£20 more than I was receiving on Job Seekers Allowance. Now it may not seem worth it to many people, but I think it's worth it as I'm working and not putting as much of a strain on the system as others.

Most people that complain about not getting benefits when working more than 16 hours per week obviously haven't tried getting help. It's out there!

Bella12345_2

I believe that the jobless (unless they are genuinely looking for work and have been in employment previously) should be given the very minimum to be able to buy food, rent etc. The system is very unfair. Both myself and partner work full time and earn a reasonable salary, however, we can't afford holidays, laptops etc, however, my daughters friends who's family have never worked get free laptops, go on holiday and have the latest ugh boots etc. My daughter doesn't understand why she is one of the only kids in her class who's parents both work full time so has to go to afterschool club, when I explain I have to earn money to buy nice things to she asks why as her friends parents don't and they still get nice things, what an example is that? Also I believe if these people can smoke and drink on their benefits they should be reduces further

TighterThanTwoCoatsOfPain

I'm not against benefits in theory, however there should never be a scenario whereby its better to not work than to live on benefits.

A friend of mine is currently trying to recruit at his family business for a part time position that will be paying above the national minimum hourly rate, but is struggling to find anyone who wants it!

He was saying at the weekend that 80%+ of the applicants who come his way are telling him they want the job, but its not worth their while as they would lose a proportion of the benefits they currently get for doing nothing!

Personally, i dont care if you have to work 35 hours a week and still only breakeven... I dont agree that handouts are a right, be it sweeping streets, cleaning toilets, any task regardless of how menial you think it is. I might currently earn above minimum wage, but would rather be in a dead end minimum wage job than watching Jeremy Kyle and Loose Women.

Benefits shouldnt be a lifestyle "choice" as many folk treat it.

Wow, didnt realise what a bad mood i was in! :rotfl:

jamespir

Bella12345 wrote: »

I believe that the jobless (unless they are genuinely looking for work and have been in employment previously) should be given the very minimum to be able to buy food, rent etc. The system is very unfair. Both myself and partner work full time and earn a reasonable salary, however, we can't afford holidays, laptops etc, however, my daughters friends who's family have never worked get free laptops, go on holiday and have the latest ugh boots etc. My daughter doesn't understand why she is one of the only kids in her class who's parents both work full time so has to go to afterschool club, when I explain I have to earn money to buy nice things to she asks why as her friends parents don't and they still get nice things, what an example is that? Also I believe if these people can smoke and drink on their benefits they should be reduces further

if youre both working and cant afford nice stuff your both in the wrong jobs
and i dont know many people on jsa who have laptops and stuff unless they got them before they were made unemployed so i dont mean to be funny but your just stereotyping

alan8253

everybear wrote: »

benefit should be generous to start with and then slowly reduce with time.

I'm on JSA. I get about £275 per calendar month. With food my bills come to about £345 per calendar month. That's a shortfall of £70 pcm. AND, that's with no public transport, no social life, no new clothes, eating as cheaply as possible, in fact nothing but literally spending the absolute minimum I can. Benefits should be tight agreed but you should be able to live on them. Luckily I've got a good friend who's helping me out, otherwise I'd have been in the courts by now. Yes, I've met people who are screwing the system and don't want a job, but the system shouldn't penalise everyone because of a few skivers.

pinwizard

How can it be right to make people who have contributed all their lives to carry on working til they are 67 or even longer if some of these idiots in government have their way and yet pay idle sods who have no intention of working from birth to death.I am not meaning the people who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own,I mean those who make a career out of being unemployed.Also if the retirement stayed at 65 or less surely would this not make more jobs available for the rest of the workforce or is that to obvious for politicians to see.

sparklysushi

My fiance and i both work, he is full time and i am unfortunately part time due to my depression (and no i don't claim anything because i am scared people will judge me) We both work in retail and are both trying to find a new job. My fiance has been applying for jobs every single week since July..he has had around 3 interviews... but nothing has lead onto a new job. (he wants office based work to build up a career). Because of this we cannot move out of my mum's house (we live in London so too expensive on what we earn) We cannot plan our wedding because we want to have our own place to live first... and even if we did, we would have nothing left each month to save.

Of course there are people who stay on benefits just so they don't have to work etc, but there are a lot of people who are struggling to find work as well. When i apply on websites such as reed it tells you how many people applied for the job... and the numbers range from 200 to even 300 people for one job...It doesn't leave you with much hope, and the sad thing is that all this is leading others to become depressed also.

I can't think of a solution for the benefits, but i know that i was on it for 2 weeks when i finished college (i was jobless for 3 months without benefits then applied as i ran out of money) and they looked at me like i was worthless and spoke to me so rudely! I was so happy when i got a job because i hated being on benefits. People are too judgmental.

leeparsons

minerva_windsong wrote: »

I voted for £100/week, as that covers rent, food, utilities etc - what I would consider the basics - thereby allowing people to survive but at the same time encouraging them to work.

Where the f*** have you been living to? I really feel you dont have a concept on how much things are. I got to say I dont as well. Thou I know for a fact, that 100quid to live on is quite impossiable. I know that average room for a bed sit about 10 year ago was 60 quid. So I would say that is atleast 80, probabl;y edging towards the 100 pound mark.
Now add the cost of food, and utilities etc. It just isnt viable. Also, you can't say this is applicable nationaly. As there is a huge varaiton, in regional prices for things.