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

teddyco

MSE_Martin wrote: »

The great problem with benefits in my view is that to protect those who need and deserve help there will always be some who other think of as 'scroungers'.

Those who are saying no benefits - I find shocking. Frankly lets say we did that with our 2m unemployed and maybe it forced 500,000 back into work. That'd leave 1.5m people with no income forced into the black economy or crime.

I personallly wouldn't feel safe in my bed in that circumstance.

Martin

Do you really think 1.5 million people would resort to criminal behavior to survive? Either you don't have much faith in the British spirit or you are using fear tactics to defend socialism. What about people going back to live with a grandmother, or family or friends? Trust me, when people know they have to do something to survive, they will find ways of making ends meet without resorting to prostitution or crime.

What did society do before we socialized a benefits system? Sure, there will always be those who will choose crime rather than get a job, but others will find other means to live instead of living off State benefits.

What about people who say 'there aren't any jobs', when we all know there are jobs that could be done, but folks don't want to do them? When I was working my way through college, I waited tables, loaded fabric into lorries, installed garage doors for a summer, even dug ditches to make money to pay for my tuition.

It really galls me when I hear people say 'there aren't any jobs out there' but when those folks are really questioned, what they are saying is 'there aren't any jobs that pay £25,000 with benefits'.

How about a benefits system where the local government works more closely with the unemployed to really get people back into work doing 'anything'?

Look, when I know that immigrants are being imported into the country to fill jobs that no one will do, I know that people aren't really making an effort to find work.

The bottom line is that the current benefits system is not working, is too costly, and allows too many to stay on benefits without the incentive to get a job and it needs a major overhaul.

silvasava

Ive been reading some really good responses to this poll - perhaps some of our politicians may take a look and put some of these practical ideas into action. I find it very interesting to see how many people feel that Unemployment Benefit should be in the region of £75/100 per week when very few of our pensioners (who mostly have worked since they were 14/15 & paid taxes) can hope to get that much in pensions payments. ( My heating bill was 3/4 of my pension this winter) Maybe if we brought our benefits in line with the rest of the EEC we would only get migrant WORKERS. I am all for supporting the less able in principle but I'm afraid its the able I find difficult to accept

jamesd

silvasava, someone retired now who has a full contribution record could expect £7,000 to £8,000 a year or £134 to £153 a week in basic and additional state pensions combined. They would probably also have some job-related pensions as well. For the exceptions, Pension Credit pays £132.70 per week. In either case Housing Benefit or its equivalents could be available as well.

This compares to £5,746 a year, £65.45 a week, plus housing benefit for an unemployed adult.

So around half as much today for an unemployed single adult as a retired single pensioner. Worth remembering that the poll choices left £7,500 a year as the lowest possible choice that wouldn't cut income to below current benefit levels.

Martin nicely explained one of the general benefits to society of the payments: avoiding pushing lots of people into crime. Another major benefit is some underlying protection as a safety net for all of us who may fall on hard times at points in our life.

silvasava

You are right James D in theory - in practice it doesnt work quite like that. Yes hubby gets full pension but I only get a pension on his contributions (I've worked for 48 years almost continuously & paid reduced stamp - very bad move) I won't get anything else as we are classed as a couple - well I could get about a fiver a year knocked off my council tax! With the help of MSE we're not in debt & keeping our head above water.

Pottedbeef

Increasing VAT (which will probably happen this summer anyway) will mean that luxury items will increase in price but essential items will not. Couple this with a reduction in income tax (or NI) and working people will have more money to buy these luxuries while people on benefits can still maintain a basic standard of living.

JimmyTheWig

teddyco wrote: »

If our ancestors, who slaved in the coal mines and factories in Sheffield, Leeds, Birmingham and Manchester
...
We need to elect a government who's sole aim is to bring manufacturing back to impoverished areas of Britain
...
The Conservatives are the only party that has a plan...

Um, do you remember the 1980s? Do you remember the last Conservative government? Do you remember how Thatcher took on one section of workers after another and defeated them?

If we want jobs, they're the last people we want back again! It would be like putting Dracula in charge of the blood banks.

bylromarha

Was thinking about this more today.

I remembered back in 2005

OH is self employed. He's been SE since 2000. We calculated everything before I quit work full time in 2004 to look after our newborn son.

His business went belly up for 6 months in end 2005. As he is SE, there was only about 10% of normal money coming in from his business for about 6 months, and child benefit. Nothing else to fall back on from the gov. I went out and did some temp work whilst OH looked after baby and tried to resurrect the business. We scraped through, prioritising the mortgage and bills and living on value pasta. I later found out that had I rung tax credits then, we'd have qualified for a review of our income and received WTC and CTC. I didn't, we survived and carried on, and somehow managed to carry on with the house move we'd already started when income was coming in, due to baby no.2 arriving in 2006.

When we then declared OH's income to tax credits the next January, we received a massive back payment - which we used to pay off the CC bills we'd accrued living during that time. The back payment was about 30% more than the CC bills were. I remember the figure clearly as I was so shocked about the excess of money. Had we had it at the time we needed it it all would have been spent, but as so little was coming in, we spent as little as we could and still got through as I went out and did something about it with the thinking "where else is the money going to come from?"

My point is that we had to survive without benefits when income was tiny. I had to go and work and get the money else we'd be thrown out of our home. Our back payment was far too high for what we proved we could live on for 6 months.

lilykim

As someone who was unemployed for 18 months at one time, I think it depends on so many things, for example:

1. How many jobs are actually available in your area?
2. Can you earn a fair living from working full time. i.e. are you simply going to work to pay bills and have no personal money at all?
3. The tax credit system needs a complete overhaul.

Looking back i would have gladly done volunteer work but lived in a very rural area and had no personal transport.

Having to do so many hours a week at some kind of voluntary work would have prepared me for the "culture shock" of actually having to get up to get transport to work, adapt to working with others and would have been a great personal confidence booster.

This is a subject that could be discussed for ever, and I think government should speak to people on benefits and get their opinions. But I also think that you will always get the ones who cant be bothered to work, and will take as much as they can.

I personally love being back in full time work, and have been for over 5 years now. But I dont take home what I call a great wage and basically some weeks all I do is pay the bills. Thats my lot at the moment and its up to me personally to better that.

Helly13

I am currently unemployed with a boy to support (CSA enforce my ex not paying-don't get me started on that subject!!). I find it soul destroying to apply and not even receive a reply from job applications. I remember being made redundent in 2007, and within one week I secured a new job on £4k more! How times have changed! I want to work! I have even applied for jobs on half the salary I was on, only to be rejected. JSA is less than I received from one days work.

cw18

Having monitored my spending closely for the last 18 months (due to a major drop in income), I did some number crunching to come up with my vote.

I firstly removed my 'allowances' for the dog (who could be rehomed) and the car.

Then I reduced my groceries (by half), toiletries/cleaning (by 25%) and water, gas and electricity (also by 25%). These reductions were based on the fact I currently have a teenage son at home, so if it was just me I'd use less - and if I was on my own in a rental it would be a smaller place so hopefully cheaper to heat

I then cut my house insurance budget by half as a 'best guess' (if I were renting I wouldn't need buildings insurance, and if in a smaller property I'd have to downsize my belongings so less contents cover needed).

I also removed my endowment premiums and central heating breakdown - again, these are things I wouldn't need if in a rental property.

Next I reduced the council tax budget (smaller property should mean a lower band) then added on £50/week for the assumed rent.

This gives me a figure of just over £6k, but has nothing for bus fares to get to job centre/interviews (bearing in mind I'd have given up the car) - and nothing at all for clothing/shoes (shouldn't need much, but shoes are the one thing I can't compromise on partly for medical reasons and can get pricey when I find something suitable). My budget also doesn't include anything for alcohol, tobacco products or a social life.

As such I considered the £5k figure to be much too low even for 'survivial', but would have settled for £6.5-7k rather than the £7.5k I went for.


I believe the National Minimum Wage (for those aged 22 or over) is currently £5.80. So if I worked for 40 hours a week on that wage, then my gross income would be just over £12k/year - and throwing that through an on-line calculator tells me my nett pay would be £10,200.

On this basis I still think £7k would be more appropriate than £7.5k, but don't think £7.5k would be enough to have me sitting back and thinking I needn't bother looking for work.

But if benefits were working out at £10k/year, then I think even I would start to doubt the logic in looking for a job (especially as the extra £200/year I'd have would be unlikely to cover the cost of commuting and other work related expenses, and even the £540/yr that the Tax Credit calculator suggests I'd be entitled to doesn't seem to make it worth the effort).

This actually came as a shock to me when I realised it, as - since late 1984 - I've almost always worked. I've had a total of 28 weeks maternity leave (covering two babies - 13 weeks with one, 15 with the other - as this was all I could afford to be off for), one spell of 16 months sick leave (including 6 months on half pay and 4 months on Incapacity Benefit), and been out of work for 11.5 months (though wasn't entitled to either JSA or IS due to other incomes, so didn't technically class as 'unemployed').

I've been lucky enough to get a p/t job since then, and even though it is only p/t (and on a much lower hourly rate than I used to get) I considered myself very lucky to be employed again.