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

teddyco

I think Unemployment Insurance should be means tested based on previous earnings which means a person cannot claim unemployment benefits until they actually get a job and pay into the system to build up 'credit' that can then be claimed after being unemployed.

It should also be capped at only 30 weeks which means that if a person hasn't found a job by then, they are out of luck and must seek personal funds or other arrangements for their survival. This is how it is done in Massachusetts, and it has been a success for many years. Here are the basics of their system:

http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=elwdterminal&L=3&L0=Home&L1=Claimants&L2=Unemployment+Insurance+(UI)&sid=Elwd&b=terminalcontent&f=dua_initial_claim_benefits_overview&csid=Elwd

"1. Weekly Benefits

Claimants receive a weekly benefit of approximately 50 percent of their average weekly wage, up to the maximum set by law. The current MAXIMUM benefit rate is $629 (approximate £414.00) a week.

The duration of benefits – the maximum number of weeks you would be able to collect benefits – is determined by the total amount of your wages paid and the amount of your benefit rate.

The maximum number of weeks a claimant can collect full benefits is 30 weeks. Under Massachusetts law, regular benefits are capped at 26 weeks (instead of the maximum of 30 weeks) whenever there is a program of extended benefits. However, many individuals qualify for less than the maximum weeks of coverage. The maximum benefit credit amount is $18,870, which equals $629 a week for 30 weeks.

If you are eligible for UI benefits in Massachusetts, you will receive a weekly payment for the prior week’s benefit. If you have children, you may be eligible to receive an additional $25 per child per week up to a maximum of 1/2 of your weekly benefit amount."

If Britain would make Unemployment Benefits means tested against salary, it would end the constant bickering that exists between people who don't think they get enough, and this or that person is getting too much. People would be responsible for their own choices and suffer the consequences of their own bad decisions instead of making everyone in society pay simply because 'someone owes you something'.

ak35

i think this is a much wider debate - i love the way the captains of industry have such a simplistic view of everything - i am qualified to the eyeballs, i have a degree in psychology, a postgrad in computer programming and a masters in applied forensic psychology, and yet can i get a decent job - no - i am working for the civil service in a job i can do with my eyes closed. the focus should be on providing an equal system where people get jobs based on ability and best fit, not the old boys network which still pervades in society.

gems2381

I think vouchers are a good idea, and they'd need ID to use them too to stop them being sold.
Someone else mentioned no reduction paying for your tv license as a single person.....if they can't afford it they should maybe sell the tv, not everyone has a tv and it's not essential. If people want entertainment go join a library and borrow the free books.

tim79_2

We were having the "benefits system" chat in the pub the other night and here's what we came up with:

- We have created a capitalist society which requires you to work. If by birth or accident you are physically or mentally incapable of fitting into this, it is not your fault and the system should provide whatever is necessary to give you a "normal" standard of life.

- For everyone else, benefits is there as a safety net and nothing more.

- "Safety net" covers food, clothing, shelter, utilities, a TV license and a travel pass so you can get to job interviews.

- No cash should be handed out in "safety net" benefits.

- People currently in houses should be able to transfer mortgage/rent payments to the state for a period of 6 months without penalty. Council housing should be freed up for the remainder (there are plenty of people in council housing capable of supporting private mortgage/rental payments) along with the construction of flexible housing units.

- Clothing and food should be provided in the form of vouchers where the huge purchasing power of the government could negotiate economies of scale.

- Utilities (electricity and gas) should be provided via card meter with a base quantity per couple, increased for each additional person in the house, but again on special mass-purchased government rate. I appreciate that this will mean short-term installation of a card system in private homes on a temporary basis should people wish to take up this option, but nothing is perfect.

-After 12 months, "safety net" benefits stop and a minimum wage job is made available to you either in the public or private sector. You retain the option to rent your current council accomodation and pay for utilities via the card scheme (to be deducted directly from your wage packet) for a further 12 months.

- "Safety net" benefits should only be made available to immigrant workers who have been tax-payers for a set period (we couldn't decide what this period would be).

As an addition:

- If you want to have children then you or your family should be capable of supporting them. Child benefits should be limited to the first birth only.

We really should insist on anyone entering the houses of parliament is at least over the drink drive limit. It's soooooo much easier to set the world to rights when you've had a few beers. :beer:

cw18

gems2381 wrote: »

If people want entertainment go join a library and borrow the free books.

I take it you've never lived somewhere where the library only opened 2 afternoons and 1 evening a week then. And the choice of books was minimal...... I gave up using it on a regular basis after 18 months (and that was while working f/t, so I wasn't exactly racing through what was on offer). Sure I could have 'reserved' books from other branches so that they'd have been brought across, but that would have cost me (they now charge 50p a book for this service)

I do like the idea of a reasonable chunk of the benefits being paid as food tokens (which I'd support for needing ID to use, and not being redeemable against alcohol or tobacco products - or lottery or mags/newspapers), but I wouldn't want them store specific as I shop at several to make the money stretch as far as possible. I'm another who would be totally against food parcels, mainly as I do a lot of my food shopping from the end of day clearance - and this helps free up money for other things (such as my TV licence) - but also as I want to eat my choice of meals not what someone somewhere thinks I should be eating that week.

kevanf1

As somebody who has in the past been long term unemployed I think that Job Seeker's Allowance needs to be set at a sensible level. No, I don't know what that is but I wouldn't want it set by MP's. To go along with this though I feel that anybody who is 'able' should be at the very least helping out in their local community. Stuff like keeping public areas clean and tidy, litter picking or helping the elderly or less able. In my opinion that would make the receipt of benefits more palatable to a far larger number of the general public.

When I went through those periods of long term unemployment I did voluntary work at my local library. I served customers and helped to put books back and keep the shelves tidy. It actually gave me a sense of pride in that I was doing something and ultimately it helped me to find work.

Now, sadly I have been unable to work for the last 10 years due to the fact that I am severely disabled (osteo arthritis all through and now diabetic) and often simply unable to move. If I were able to do some work even unpaid I most certainly would.

What I would like to see is an end to the large scale 'tarring with the same brush' of the unemployed insinuating that they are all workshy and lazy. Sadly, this particular fire keeps getting stoked and prodded by certain MP's; pot kettle maybe?

adouglasmhor

Aunt_Harriet wrote: »

You people make me sick! :mad:

Why not go the full hog and line the jobless up against the wall and shoot them!!

:mad:

Who would we send the bill for the bullet to?

capondoug

Firstly Claimants - anyone on benefits who refuses a job, any job, should lose their benefits
Next Employers - if, having taken on a benefit claimant, the employer has to release that person (say within 3 months) due to unacceptable behaviour - absence & lateness; poor performance; indiscipline - then a report should be given to the DHSS resulting in the the person losing the right to benefits.
Finally Work - there is always work: removing grafitti, cleaning up chewing gum; clearing litter; cleaning beauty spots; shovelling snow.......... it annoys me that taxpayers money is spent on council workers overtime when taxpayers money is also spent on layabouts.
Oh and the Election! - only net contributors to the country's finances (tax payments > benefits claims) should be allowed to vote. Why should those who are net withdrawers from the system (benefits claims > tax paid) have a say in how the country / welfare state is run?

rag31

I'm afraid the question was a little confusing. How do we know what this person is paying in bills? Do they live rurally and need to spend a lot on public transport to get to job interviews etc etc.

Maybe it would be simpler to ask 'after all bills and essential expenses, how much should they have on for food and living'.

As far as vouchers etc, I'm sure most people on benefits would not care what system it was if it actually covered all the basic necessities - I know when I was a lone parent on income support I would have loved it if what I got covered basic expenses. As it was, with social housing non-existant and housing benefit not actually paying the amount that is charged by private landlords, I couldn't afford my utility bills and had to go without food for 1 or 2 days a week so my daughter could eat. I wouldn't have given a S if I had been paid in vouchers if it meant I could live as basically as I was without getting into debt and starving.

This was under the tories in the mid 90's though, don't know if the situation has changed under labour so that people can afford to live.

Becky

gems2381

cw18 wrote: »

I take it you've never lived somewhere where the library only opened 2 afternoons and 1 evening a week then. And the choice of books was minimal...... I gave up using it on a regular basis after 18 months (and that was while working f/t, so I wasn't exactly racing through what was on offer). Sure I could have 'reserved' books from other branches so that they'd have been brought across, but that would have cost me (they now charge 50p a book for this service)

.

Actually my local library does have irregular opening hours and limited choice (it's a very small village one which I admittedly no longer personally use), but if I was visiting my Job Centre in town on a regular basis I'd be able to go the much larger and better stocked library.

My ex boyfriends family were all (and still are) on benefits, his younger brother was able bodied but very lazy, his dad registered disabled by a bad back (yet able to paint and decorate the house and jump about when Man U were on tv, his mum is his dads registered carer yet she does hair and beauty on the side!
They have a flash tv plus tvs in every bedroom, sky with all the channels, they bought a computer with a loan from the council after telling them it was for a mattress for his dad and they all have lap tops too now.

Using the above example shows there is something very wrong with the system!