Let's help Duncan Smith - how would YOU improve the benefits system?

Procrastinator333

marklv wrote: »

I would consider going abroad. This country has nothing to offer any more.

We can but hope.

marklv

weehev wrote: »

can you please tell me what this rant is all about - i never said stop benefits all together, i said:

1. benefits paid in food/clothing vouchers that cannot be used for alcohol/drugs/fags/50inch tv's -nothin wrong with this, unless thats what you spend your handouts on????
2. reduce benefits so its not a comfortable life - why should I pay for you to live comfortably
3. make people work for benefits, even if its just picking up litter, cleaning grafitti or even helping out in care homes/animal rescue centres etc - again, nothing wrong with this unless you are too lazy/selfish to do anything for your handouts
4. if convicted of a crime and fined - automatically take this from their benefits - only criminals would be annoyed at this
5. stop jobseekers allowance after say 3 yrs, how can someone not find a single job in 3 years!!! if they can't its cause they are unwilling to take on certain jobs. - 3 years is ample time
6. stop throwing money at schools, youth centers etc in poorer areas, thye do not appreciate it and its not making any difference
7. prisons - return to basic cells, no fancy food, computers, gym equipment etc - its supposed to be punishment! - again, only criminals would be annoyed at this


oh, and by the way, you stupid moron is not a question - its a statement, so no need for the '?'

but thanks for the lovely comments, it made me chuckle :T

OK, here are my responses:

1) Benefits paid in vouchers? Yeah, right, to further rub in the humiliation so that any unemployed person is treated like a criminal? What is the point? And what is nonsense about 50 inch TVs and drugs? Are you totally loopy? How can you buy these things on £65 a week benefits? You are getting mixed up with people who work and illegally claim benefits, and that's another matter altogether.

2) Reduce benefits?!! We already have among the lowest benefits in Europe. How can you be comfortable on £65 a week? Reduce them further and you'll see people resorting to theft and burglary even more than already happens - just to survive! And then of course when in prison they will cost the state far more than they were when on benefits! Utter nonsense. Only a lunatic, an idiot or a criminal would advocate this.

3) Forced labour? OK, why not the workhouse then? Because this is what you are effectively advovating. It seems to me like a breach of human rights, an indignity that again criminalises people for what isn't their fault. When you are unemployed, looking for a job is a job in itself - there is no point in giving people menial tasks. Dickensian barbarism - pure madness.

4) Funnily enough I'm not opposed to this in principle. However it depends on the crime and the excact circumstances.

5) I think you might be mixing up JSA with income support. Contribution based JSA ends after 6 months, after which it becomes income based and then income support after a further period. There are different levels of means testing etc. You can't simply stop all beenfits after a maximum of three years - a lot of people cannot find work and you have to accept this. What you advocate is Victorian brutality, but it won't work. You'll just create a massive underclass of criminals and down and outs. No thanks.

6) This depends on what exactly is having money 'thrown at'. You need to have some areas of recreation for youths, otherwise they will just hang around on the street and cause trouble - do you want that?

7) Have you ever been in prison? Trust me, it's basic enough already and the food is much like hospital food. Hardly the Hilton. Before you ask, no I haven't been an inmate there but I have known prison wardens. There is certainly a need for greater discipline in prisons, and bribing wardens seems to be commonplace. Of course this needs to stop.

marklv

bendix wrote: »

Perhaps, but let's not forget he is senior IT manager in the public sector, a role he took presumably after not being able to survive in the private sector due to his penchant for wearing egg-stained cardigans to work. And short sleeve shirts, tucked into his suit pants.

LOL!!! :rotfl:

You are so ridiculous. I don't wear pinstriped suits like those slick, arrogant plonkers on the Dragon's Den, but I certainly don't wear cardigans, let alone stained ones.

bendix wrote: »

He's really come alive over the last few days, hasn't he? So much anger. I've particularly revelled in his tirades against immigration, but only blacks and asians, and his advocacy of a report linking IQ to race.

One can understand his current anger. He moved to the public sector hoping to secure a pension. Sadly for him, the new Government is going to lay those plans to waste. And now, of course, he's scared of losing his job to the darkies in bongobongo land.

Straw man argument: twist what someone else is saying to make it totally different from what he was really saying, then attack that position. You are obviously a master at this.

bendix wrote: »

It must be fun being marklv at the moment. It's certainly fun watching him get angrier and more abusive as his cosy assumptions and well-thought through plans spiral out of control.

I'm certainly angry. I guess it's the anger of the ordinary guy who has to face crap every day of his life and sees his country falling down into a spiral of self-destruction. I'm not pro-this or anti-that, just the 'ordinary Joe' who wants things to be better. Think about it.

marklv

StevieJ wrote: »

You do more to discredit the unemployed than any of the Daily Mail types on here, why would they have to pay the mortgage/rent out of £65?

Because housing benefit or mortgage interest income support is usually not enough, that's why.

marklv

ILW wrote: »

From some of Marks previous posts it appears he turned down many jobs because he considered them below him, whilst happily taking the benefits cash.

I didn't turn them down because I never applied for them in the first place. There was a period in the early 90s (the John Major recession) when I was unemployed for a year - and of course I would not be looking for jobs below my educational level. What would have been the point? I was living at home with my parents at the time and was quite happy to claim unemployment benefit. It gave me time to look properly for a proper job - and in the end I found one. The trouble is that settling for a menial job just earn a crust often makes you get used to that job, when you really should be spending time to look for a more suitable job. Looking for a job is a job in itself.

treliac

vivatifosi wrote: »

I agree that cuts need to be made and also agree with many of the government's proposals. However there is one thing that concerns me: what will happen to the unemployed with learning difficulties.

I meet a lot of people with learning difficulties who get despatched to the library by the Job Centre. I know from speaking to people at the Job Centre that they have a lot more "customers" (sorry don't know correct term), less money to go round and face further cuts themselves. They therefore send those with learning difficulties to the library, or to local NGOs for help. The problem is that libraries and NGOs are having their budgets cut too. So if someone turns up who needs to know how to use a computer to type a CV, or fill out an application form, or even send an e-mail, there aren't going to be the people to help. So people may end up in a sort of limbo, plus because they have learning difficulties, I've found people also don't understand their own entitlements, so are less likely to find the help that they are entitled to. I hope that the new system takes such people into account and gives them the hand that they need to do what afterall they want to do and find a job.

I thought the Job Centre was supposed to run courses or know how to channel people into them - not send people to the library. What on earth do they expect library staff to be able to do for the unemployed, with or without learning disabilities.

Job Centres are also supposed to have advisers for people with disabilities. There's a massive contradiction, it appears, between what the govt tells us it's doing to help the unemployed and what is, in fact, actually happening.

ILW

marklv wrote: »

I didn't turn them down because I never applied for them in the first place. There was a period in the early 90s (the John Major recession) when I was unemployed for a year - and of course I would not be looking for jobs below my educational level. What would have been the point? I was living at home with my parents at the time and was quite happy to claim unemployment benefit. It gave me time to look properly for a proper job - and in the end I found one. The trouble is that settling for a menial job just earn a crust often makes you get used to that job, when you really should be spending time to look for a more suitable job. Looking for a job is a job in itself.

Strange, but I thought unemployment benefit was for people who could not get a job, not for those that could not get a job that they thought was good enough for them. Silly me.

marklv

ILW wrote: »

Strange, but I thought unemployment benefit was for people who could not get a job, not for those that could not get a job that they thought was good enough for them. Silly me.

No, unemployment benefit (or JSA) is for people who are jobless and are actively looking for a job. As long as you can prove that you are actively looking, have made regular applications and attended interviews when offered them, then you are within the rules. It's ultimately up to you which jobs you apply for, although as time goes on you get pressured more and more to apply for ridiculous jobs.

It actually makes no sense to apply for a burger grilling job when you are an unemployed white collar professional, because the fast-food manager isn't going to consider you when he sees your background. They don't want people who will continue to take time off for interviews and quit whenever they find something better. So the whole process of applying for such jobs is a waste of time unless you can prove that you really want to work there long term.

Shakethedisease

Sorry folks, off topic for a min..

I have no idea of your personal circumstances, and frankly little curiousity

Oh, but I did read it. Very briefly. Why wouldn't I? You yourself alluded to it.
And fascinating stuff it is indeed.

I'm so glad you found my 'story' fascinating, even though you have no idea of my personal circumstances ( ???)...

Bendix. You're contradicting yourself totally. While I don't mind being in the wrong on any forum I post on should I be presented with the info otherwise.. You are lying through your teeth in one of those posts. I don't like liars, especially holier than thou ones.

See you around.

Apologies again to others on the thread. Am off to read the rest of it through...

Shakethedisease

marklv.. there are some here who like baiting people like you. Don't rise too much. They wouldn't dare say it to your face in real life.