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

blou0102

Yes to a benefits system, but only if you have contributed to the system in the first place, a system employed by many European countries. If someone has not contributed to the system (with the obvious exception of newly graduated students/school leavers), then why should taxpayers pay to keep those people at all?
The benefits system is there as a safety net, for hard times like the one we are in the midst of at the moment. So what of those that were unemployed long term before the current crisis? Those are the people the government should be looking at closely, because those are the parasites on the rest of society.
The argument for the crime rate going up if their benefits are cut are a bit of scaremongering. Do people honestly believe the burglars/muggers etc are not already on benefits. These people will continue to rob others even if their benefits are cut. Use the money instead to build a shiny jail cell, instead of trying to bribe them into the straight and narrow!
So no, don't starve the jobless, because most of the jobless do not like being that way, want jobs, and want to contribute when they get the chance. Starve the long term lazy, because whatever way you look at it, unfortunately they probably will never contribute to society, so why should we contribute to them?

gems2381

blou0102- I agree with you

adouglasmhor

capondoug wrote: »

Firstly Claimants - anyone on benefits who refuses a job, any job, should lose their benefits Imagine I am an emloyer, I want Pole Dancers and "Masseuses" what is to stop me picking any fit women from the dole office and forcing them to work for me?
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.This exists already
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. Council Workers don't get much overtime here
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?Because we have a representative democracy not a meritocracy

You sound like a demented right wing nutjob to me, and ill informed.

Sazmin

mlz1413 wrote: »

Benefits are supposed to be so that no one should have to beg or steal to live - but they should not allow or be, a way of life.

My personal opinion is most benefits should be by vouchers so that the money is spend on rent, utilities, food, clothes etc and NOT cigarettes, alcohol, take away food etc.

Excellent idea! My husband and I are in serious debt as we have worked all our life and put 2 children through private nursery as state nursery only covered 2 1/2 hours a day (who can afford to work for 2 hours a day?) but because we have worked all our life we get jack s**t from the benefit system when I was made redundant just got JSA had to carry on paying nursery fees to keep place open for when I found a job which I did within weeks but no help as I was classed as not working!! I could go on and on but don't have time got to get to WORK!!

christophgrrr

We All have a responsibilty in life to support ourselves and ourfamilies. Its not about talking these people down but giving them giving them the motivation to contribute to our society

ashleypride

capondoug wrote: »

Firstly Claimants - anyone on benefits who refuses a job, any job, should lose their benefits

Rubbish idea. The job needs to suit the persons circumstances.

Casanova

mlz1413 wrote: »

Benefits are supposed to be so that no one should have to beg or steal to live - but they should not allow or be, a way of life.

My personal opinion is most benefits should be by vouchers so that the money is spend on rent, utilities, food, clothes etc and NOT cigarettes, alcohol, take away food etc.

Spot on - put this person in charge!

jamespir

Casanova wrote: »

Spot on - put this person in charge!

its all well and good but vouchers wouldn't help what about travel or emergencys not everyon has somone who cna keep lending them money

grinningdog

I've always worked, and when I chose not to, I didn't claim benefit. I am happy to help anyone who loses their job until they find another one. At whatever level is judged appropriate.

But I'm not prepared to pay for "career" benefit claimants and people who have never contributed. In other countries your "money out" is based on previous "money in". If you've worked for 25 years and lose your job - you get some help. If you have never worked... well, why should I help you?

We currently have a situation where people never work, they get free healthcare, dentistry etc, and then they are qualified for a full pension. How does that work?
I want a fairer system. That doesn't mean throwing money at people who quickly realise it's not worth working. It means focusing on the majority who want to work and contribute.

misti

Given that there will never be full employment (or wages would go up & we couldn't have that eh), how capitalism works is that there will always be those at the bottom, & them being attacked by the likes of digby jones is wrong.

People should not be forced into low paid menial work, which is unlikely to benefit society in any way. Minimum wage should be increased (& those paid too much capped), in order to have a more equal society rather than the current have & have nots. Also with a bigger gap tween benefits & wages if jobs were better people would take them, I see no difference in working to only cover rent/food & slavery. There are arguments that say thats why slavery ended, cheaper to pay by the hour.

Surviving on £50 is not easy, the £50 is not yours, you just distribute it tween utilities companies, the supermarket, & the bus. If you manage to get a drink you're doing well. No holidays, luxuries or comforts or security, life is hard, it is a trap & very hard to change when you have nothing. That is why benefits should be increased an extra £50 a week increase is the difference between staying trapped doing nothing, or a little something to build from & get things like phone line, internet, travel, computer. Very difficult to do on £50 a week, that hardly even covers food these days x