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

pinkshoes

I clicked on "no benefits" on the basis that rents are different in different parts of the country, so there is no right answer.

I think that someone job seeking should have their rent and bills paid, and a grocery parcel delivered every week. This equates to food, warmth and shelter - the basic requirements.

I would also have all job seekers have to work for their money i.e. delivering the food parcels, reading to old people etc...

I would have loved to have had something to do whilst on JSA, but the miserable cow at the job centre told me to give up volunteering at the old people's home otherwise I couldn't get my £40/week!

831badger

The benefit system should cover the minimum rent direct to the landlord / council.
People who are on benefit should be provided with food vouchers which would allow them to attend supermarket(s) of their choice and purchase staple, value / own brand products (the vouchers should not allow alcohol or cigarettes).

A top up of £20 per week cash could be provided to allow clothing to be purchased from chairty shops / supermarket(s). Money can of course be saved to allow a greater shop in 2 or 3 weeks. As these people then get jobs which can involve minimum wage employment the benefit cash / voucher can be reduced in line with inrease in wage. After 6 months employment the benefit can be stopped and the person can be self sufficient.

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.

a simple calculation could be worked out what would be required for use of public transport per week and bus/train tokens provided

ceridwen

I had a feeling I would depress myself at other peoples voting if I had a look at this thread - I voted F myself (as an ablebodied single person - who has been unemployed before now herself).

But then - I recalled that a surprisingly high number of people dont actually listen clearly/read clearly what they are seeing. So - I suspect that many people havent quite realised that the amount of money they voted for has to have £50 deducted from it for rent.

Hence - I voted F (meaning I know that they will have £100 left over after paying the rent). I know £50 per week after rent would be nowhere near enough to live on - and think it MIGHT just be possible to get by at a passable level on £100 per week after paying rent.

I know everyone should have read the question clearly and realized the amount they voted includes that rent - but I know some people wont.

The other thing is that the vast majority of people think unemployment "would never happen to me" until they realise their big mistake one day - because they have just been made redundant and it has.

Another thing one has to take into account is that there are lots of people out there perfectly capable of doing a job and genuinely trying to get one - and there just arent enough jobs going round for them to get one. What about that school-leaver that was in the Press in recent days? She was perfectly capable of getting a job - A Levels, attractive, genuinely trying hard to do so and she couldnt even get a NMW job - because of not enough jobs to be had. A lot of people live in parts of the country where they really arent many jobs to be had and its not easy in others.

£64 odd per week that is paid currently (less than that even for people under 25) is simply not enough as it is - without anyone trying to make excuses that an even lower amount would do by saying that people COULD get jobs if they tried hard enough. Sometimes - no they really couldnt - no matter what they do.

If anyone doubts that - then read some of the threads that come up on the Jobs Board and see how many threads are starting to come up with people complaining that there are so few jobs to go for and they've spent months without so much as a job interview.

I think also that some people currently in jobs have never had problems getting a job themselves because they've not had to try and get a job for years. If I had stayed in the first job I ever had (a long time ago now......) then I suspect I might wonder what the fuss is all about myself - as I might well be in it to this day. BUT - I asked for that job all those years ago (ie when getting a job was easy-peasy if you were halfway okay) and waltzed straight into it with no problem at all and didnt even have to ask for any other jobs. That was then - and this is now. In the interim - I did swop jobs and have found myself at times unemployed due to no fault of my own. I have found that unemployment can even last for months for someone like myself (and that was before things got half as bad as they are now) - and...yes...I really was trying to get back in work as soon as I could.

cw18

ceridwen wrote: »

I know £50 per week after rent would be nowhere near enough to live on - and think it MIGHT just be possible to get by at a passable level on £100 per week after paying rent.

£64 odd per week that is paid currently (less than that even for people under 25) is simply not enough as it is - without anyone trying to make excuses that an even lower amount would do by saying that people COULD get jobs if they tried hard enough. Sometimes - no they really couldnt - no matter what they do.

And the way I read the question (ie. 'overall level of benefit for all payments' means this money has to cover absolutely everything) means that the £100 after rent deduction still has to cover Council Tax, which is currently over and above the £64 (the same as rent is) - so by going for 'F' we don't actually give the 'jobseeker' £100 to spend "as they like".

ceridwen

pinkshoes wrote: »

I clicked on "no benefits" on the basis that rents are different in different parts of the country, so there is no right answer.

I think that someone job seeking should have their rent and bills paid, and a grocery parcel delivered every week. This equates to food, warmth and shelter - the basic requirements.

I would also have all job seekers have to work for their money i.e. delivering the food parcels, reading to old people etc...

I would have loved to have had something to do whilst on JSA, but the miserable cow at the job centre told me to give up volunteering at the old people's home otherwise I couldn't get my £40/week!

"Grocery parcel...every week" - and what if it contained different items to what they would buy themselves? (ie if they had foods they couldnt eat/didnt like). Fat lot of good a Sainsburys food parcel with a lot of processed food in it would be to a vegetarian health food eater like myself for instance:mad: - I'd be literally going hungry if I couldnt find someone to buy it off me at cost price.

What about social life? (nothing fancy, just a pint or two a couple of times a week with friends)

What about medical expenses that arent covered by the NHS?

What about unexpected expenses?

I simply dont understand how you can say this - having been unemployed yourself you should understand...so I dont know why you obviously dont.

ceridwen

cw18 wrote: »

And the way I read the question (ie. 'overall level of benefit for all payments' means this money has to cover absolutely everything) means that the £100 after rent deduction still has to cover Council Tax, which is currently over and above the £64 (the same as rent is) - so by going for 'F' we don't actually give the 'jobseeker' £100 to spend "as they like".

A fair point - I guess the answer to that is clarification is needed on that point - but I suspect that Council Tax wouldnt be payable because the level of C.T. one pays is means-tested and the figure where it is set at £0 per week is that £64 odd per week as I recall.

cw18

ceridwen wrote: »

A fair point - I guess the answer to that is clarification is needed on that point - but I suspect that Council Tax wouldnt be payable because the level of C.T. one pays is means-tested and the figure where it is set at £0 per week is that £64 odd per week as I recall.

I assumed it would be included within the figure we were voting on, as rent is currently calculated on the same basis (ie. you get rent paid in full - up to a limit for your local area, but we were told to assume that was £50pw for this poll - if all you have coming in is means tested benefits such as JSA)

ceridwen

bylromarha wrote: »

The word starve is too harsh, but disincentivise a non working lifestyle, yes please. No politician will be brave enough to make the changes though...

Actually - sheer pragmatism would dictate the politicians actions to some extent - ie wondering what people would do if they had no income to live on.

I have noted quite a few people on the Boards over time who dont draw very fine distinctions as to what is moral and what isnt about a range of small matters in their lives as it is - ie they do a variety of little things that I know are immoral in order to make the money go round. I have challenged a few of these people - and sometimes they dont give a **** that they have acted immorally and sometimes they admit they have been immoral and say its because they were very "pushed for money".

A very tiny example that a lot of people do - absolutely loads of people are still buying battery eggs (even though freerange eggs are now easily available). A lot of those people admit they know about the conditions battery hens are kept in - but say their money level is too low to allow for taking the moral stance and go and buy those eggs anyway.

Can you just imagine how immoral - and maybe downright criminal - some people would be if they had even lower or non-existent benefit?

...and then there are the people who would be out on the streets protesting and doing everything they could to make the politicans lives a misery:D:wave:

bonnycot

I am a single mum and currently on JSA (income based) and was told by the jobcentre that my 2 hours per week volunteering at a local school could potentially prevent me from taking on a new job and they would have to send the information to a decision maker and my benefit could be stopped (what utter nonsense!!). I have been volunteering for years including whilst working full time and I see volunteering as a way of giving something back to the community and to helps maintain your skills. It also gives you motivation to keep looking, otherwise it can get depressing when you don't get a reply for the umpteenth time from an application you've made and after a while you feel like giving up.

I voted £50 per week as I assume that on JSA you would get either your whole rent or most of it paid by housing benefits anyway, in addition you would either be exempt or pay very little council tax and get free school meals for your children (if you have them). Some of the utility companies such as Swalec have a special tariff for those on low incomes or difficult circumstances. Also you can keep food costs low by buying the reduced food in the supermarkets (not ideal but if you eat them quickly they are fine). Charity shops and boot sales are good ways to make your money go further and you can always get tips on here to pull in the purse strings a bit.

I don't drink or smoke and I just about get by with very few "luxuries", however I do get child tax credits, child benefit and a small amount of maintenance, I have also brought up my child to manage money properly. In addition due to my previous employment and careful financial planning I am lucky to have paid off my mortgage and have very little debt...

I have always been careful with money and it has stood me in good stead but I see many people these days get into debt because they want want want rather than waiting till they can afford something, or when they start to get into trouble they simply do not deal with it and bury their heads in the sand.

I get £49 per week on JSA for me and my child and I just about manage, any more than that and there would be no incentive to work.

I have a friend who is working just below the threshold of 16 hours, if she gains one more hour of employement she will get working families tax credit and wages (at minimum wage) but will lose £420 rent per month, have to start paying council tax and have no benefit, also she'd have to pay for dental treatment... there is no comparison, she is much better off on benefits!!! Seems a stupid situation to me, no incentive to get back to work for those who would only get jobs paid at minimum wage....

ceridwen

But then - there is this huge difference between benefit level to childless people and those with children. We all know that "having a parcel of children" means that the benefit income coming in is the same or better than the average wage and so there are people who "make a career" of having children at the States (ie our) expense.:mad:

But the landscape is very different for childless people and the income is very poor indeed for us - and none of the "unofficial network" of help that people with children usually get (ie things passed onto them, cheaper rates for many things). We get little/if any help from our "network" and no discounts at all with paying for things (other than the "privilege" of paying 75% of the Council Tax bill a couple or family would pay:mad:) - its always full-rate for single, childless people. Also - the bills are not proportionately lower for single people (eg the tv licence is the same and costs of putting on the central heating/running the freezer are the same). So - childless people certainly need rather higher benefit than at present (and would still be receiving a lot less than even NMW wagelevels).