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

cw18

bonnycot wrote: »

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....

Not true.

My DD (a single Mum) works 16 hours a week on just above minimum wage, and still gets most of her rent and CT paid for her. They assess it on income - including Tax Credits - but also make adjustments to allow for child-care costs. She pays around 60p/week towards her rent and 20p/week towards her Council Tax. She also retains her free medical/dental/optical entitlement via a Working Tax Credit Exemption certificate.

penarthian

If a pensioner is expected to survive on under £100 a week why is this any different to other aged people. Maybe all benefits should have the same starting criteria linked to what any person needs to live, covering rent/fuel/food. Pensioners and other workers,who have paid into the system for many years, should then get payments based on their contributions.
This seems a much fairer system compared to the one we have now that penalises young people who get more on benefits than if they work. Would you work if you could get more money by doing nothing?

plimsoll

RaceyRichard wrote: »

I also believe that unless you have worked and have a baby whilst unemployed then there should be no state help other than for baby vouchers to be exchanged at participating chemists for baby food. I believe once again the onus should be put on to family's to carry the burden and not the tax payer!

Absolutely not!!!! You are actually saying that babies born to those out of work should only be fed formula & processed baby food - in order for mums to breastfeed they need extra food for themselves, and to feed their baby home-cooked food once started solids they need to buy that food. It's one of the reasons I hated the old "milk tokens" - they financially incentivised formula as FF mums got a full tin of formula free each week (value approx £5-7 at the time, often more now) but BF mums got 7pints cows milk (value approx £2.80 at time - and that's assuming she actually used them, not everyone drinks that much cows milk or even any). The current system whereby everyone on low income (except WTC) gets money-value vouchers (currently £6.20 p/w under 1yo, £.10 p/w 1yo-4th b'day) is MUCH fairer. Mums who are FF can choose to buy formula and/or fruit/veg for older baby/child, mums who are BF can choose to buy cows milk and/or fruit/veg for themselves/child when older.

And children also need clothes - not everyone has someone to pass them down & even buying everything from charity shops/eBay second hand costs a significant amount of money - babies particularly outgrow clothes quickly, so whereas an adult only needs new clothes if puts on/loses weight or they wear out, children need "new" clothes regularly.

As a single parent on IS I do support suggestions of part of the value of current benefits being in the form of food vouchers, part "cash" for longer-term purchases (like clothes, furniture etc) & bills but not the American system where food vouchers only get you specific foods with low choice as to your own diet, and not the level being reduced - I really struggle to keep within budget & I've had a lot of clothes etc passed down from others. OK so I spend a bit more than some on food (cos I'm trying to feed a healthy diet not processed stuff all the time) but I don't think I'm extravagant.

plimsoll

penarthian wrote: »

If a pensioner is expected to survive on under £100 a week why is this any different to other aged people. Maybe all benefits should have the same starting criteria linked to what any person needs to live, covering rent/fuel/food. Pensioners and other workers,who have paid into the system for many years, should then get payments based on their contributions.
This seems a much fairer system compared to the one we have now that penalises young people who get more on benefits than if they work. Would you work if you could get more money by doing nothing?

you're misunderstanding the way it works. A pensioner gets almost £100 a week ON TOP of CTB, and HB if renting. It used to really annoy me someone I knew who'd avoided work while of working age moaning about the state benefit level cos I knew she was getting almost double what someone on JSA was! I understand if you have worked but not managed to save your own pension it's a drop, but it is massively more than if you're not working under pension age.

MrsTinks

Personally I think that if you are on unemployement benefits you should be doing 4 days work a week for the benefit of your local community for it. I don't care if that is cleaning public toilets, picking litter at the side of the road, volunteering for a charity or something else. 1 day should be 100% dedicated to job hunting (with time off allowed from the other days for interviews obviously).
Not only will this benefit the country, it would help the communities, teach skills and show new employers that someone isn't work shy and has good time keeping skills etc.

I've been made redundant in the past, I've gone out and found new jobs each time. I've been on "the dole" for a total of a week of my life (I had a mortgage and needed to activate my insurance). I don't care how bad the country's recession - there is always work if you're willing to do it. It migh not be your first choice of career, but tough cookies I'm afraid...

Anyone not willing to do the voluntary work etc? 4 weeks unemployment benefits then stop every means of support. Would crime rise? Doubt it if as everyone claims that "most people WANT to work"... anyone who doesn't get benefits would be the ones who are abusing the system anyway...

francodevil

MrsTine wrote: »

Personally I think that if you are on unemployement benefits you should be doing 4 days work a week for the benefit of your local community for it. I don't care if that is cleaning public toilets, picking litter at the side of the road, volunteering for a charity or something else. 1 day should be 100% dedicated to job hunting (with time off allowed from the other days for interviews obviously).
Not only will this benefit the country, it would help the communities, teach skills and show new employers that someone isn't work shy and has good time keeping skills etc.

I've been made redundant in the past, I've gone out and found new jobs each time. I've been on "the dole" for a total of a week of my life (I had a mortgage and needed to activate my insurance). I don't care how bad the country's recession - there is always work if you're willing to do it. It migh not be your first choice of career, but tough cookies I'm afraid...

Anyone not willing to do the voluntary work etc? 4 weeks unemployment benefits then stop every means of support. Would crime rise? Doubt it if as everyone claims that "most people WANT to work"... anyone who doesn't get benefits would be the ones who are abusing the system anyway...

here bloody here, you have hit the nail on the head.....
its about time some of these (not all) little scroungers get off their backsides and do something for the money that they are effectively 'stealing' off the hard working folk of this country. Mrs Tine's plan for the withdrawal of their benefits after 4 weeks if no community work is done is a great idea!

[Deleted User]

I agree with everyone talking about vouchers.

In america, food stamps means that - food. No luxuries, just the basics.

The number of people I see who complain about their benefits being low, but spend it all on Sky TV and flashy gadgets is obscene.

JimmyTheWig

I had another thought last night...

What about a cash alternative to housing benefit?

Consider a young adult who qualifies for full housing benefit. With the scenario here they could rent a place for £50/week and the state would pay it.
Imagine that they have the option to stay with family or friends. Currently they wouldn't get any benefit for doing so.

Why not give them the option of £25 a week cash instead of the housing benefit?
If they chose that option it would cut the bill for the tax payer and it would free up the place they would have gone for (given that it wasn't costing them anything, they might as well) for someone else who needs it.

Jammy.NI

Should we starve the jobless back to work ? Sounds rather Victorian to me, wouldn't work.

Malpoet

There is no ideal world and there never will be. The fact is that any cash benefits are a deterrent to finding work and they are also a penalty on all tax payers. The best way to establish full employment is to abolish the minimum wage and scrap many of the barriers to employers taking on workers.

People who are without work should mostly be supported by their families and by community based voluntary organisations. Our society has become too bureaucratic, remote and alienating. Government systems cannot ever have the human contact and caring that is necessary for building personal responsibility, strong families and supportive communities.

For those people who fall outside of all personal support, the state should only offer food and basic accommodation, not money.