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

michaels

But this would make everything more expensive from McDonalds through things bought in shops to hospital services and so everyone (including those on the new minimum wage) would be worse off from higher costs. That would inevitably mean that some things would no longer be affordable and would not be purchased (if not on minimum wage the same income would just buy fewer things so some things would have to be given up), thus reducing the number of jobs available - so fine for those who have a job but bad luck for those no longer working - and who would they be these people who would lose out - those who's skills meant that their labour added less value than the minimum wage - ie those with fewest skills who I guess are the people you would be trying to help with the minimum wage increase?!

marklv wrote: »

In my opinion the only way to get people off benefits is to increase the minimum wage to a level that makes work worthwhile. We need to peg the minimum wage to the Western European average, which I guess must be around £8.50 an hour or so. Anything less makes it difficult for people on family-type social benefits to give them up.

ILW

marklv wrote: »

In my opinion the only way to get people off benefits is to increase the minimum wage to a level that makes work worthwhile. We need to peg the minimum wage to the Western European average, which I guess must be around £8.50 an hour or so. Anything less makes it difficult for people on family-type social benefits to give them up.

So are you now saying that you would shovel !!!!!! for £8.50 per hour if there was nothing else available.

marklv

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

People who think they are too good to work for a living in a job they don't fancy should feel free to sit on their !!!!!! for as long as they like - so long as I'm not paying for it.

Of course it's not right for people to deliberately avoid doing any kind of job, but this is an extreme, and I don't believe more than a small fraction of unemployed people fall into this category. Most jobless people are perfectly genuine in looking for a job, no doubt about that. The minority who are not obviously need some 'prodding', but that's pretty obvious, isn't it?

The_White_Horse

they should just stop all benefits except three:

1. Pension - provided you have paid in

2. Job Seeker Allowance - for a max of 6 months

3. Disability benefit - but only for the completely incapcitated.

that is it. pay for everything else from your wages. you have no wages, starve.

work shy scum.

sjaypink

The_White_Horse wrote: »

they should just stop all benefits except three:

1. Pension - provided you have paid in

2. Job Seeker Allowance - for a max of 6 months

3. Disability benefit - but only for the completely incapcitated.

that is it. pay for everything else from your wages. you have no wages, starve.

work shy scum.

C 'mon, its a Friday night, surely theres some crackhead prossies somewhere you should be violating? :kisses3:

Sibley

riginally Posted by vivatifosi
I'm a quarter Romany. How do you plan to execute a quarter of me?

As you can use the internet I've decided to let you live.

jamespir

The_White_Horse wrote: »

they should just stop all benefits except three:

1. Pension - provided you have paid in

2. Job Seeker Allowance - for a max of 6 months

3. Disability benefit - but only for the completely incapcitated.

that is it. pay for everything else from your wages. you have no wages, starve.

work shy scum.

lets see you starve when you job goes belly up

ILW

marklv wrote: »

Of course it's not right for people to deliberately avoid doing any kind of job, but this is an extreme, and I don't believe more than a small fraction of unemployed people fall into this category. Most jobless people are perfectly genuine in looking for a job, no doubt about that. The minority who are not obviously need some 'prodding', but that's pretty obvious, isn't it?

In previous posts you stated that when you were unemployed you would not accept or even apply for jobs which you considered below your educational level, bit of a contradiction to the above.

Shakethedisease

In previous posts you stated that when you were unemployed you would not accept or even apply for jobs which you considered below your educational level, bit of a contradiction to the above.

Would shovelling s**t at £7 an hour, full-time, be honest now.. cover your expenses if your current main income went belly-up ?

Remembering of course, that any savings or assets you have would have to be sold before you got any sort of help.

leveller2911

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Would shovelling s**t at £7 an hour, full-time, be honest now.. cover your expenses if your current main income went belly-up ?

Personally no, but we would "Cut our cloth" many thousands of people who have recently lost their jobs are doing just that.Its nothing new its been happening for decades.

People now overpay on their mortgages/rents (us included) just in case this scenario happens.No one said its easy but its amazing what you can save with a bit of thought.Many mortgage lenders allow payment holidays too.

Do you think its ok for someone earning £40k a year not to take up the !!!!!! shovelling job ? but you would expect someone who currently earns £7 per hr to go for it? personally speaking I earn around £26k a year and I would shovel sh1te if it meant I kept my family fed.

TBH its a poor excuse, in fact the argument is trolled out by workshy doleites time and time again, "I can't find a job that pays enough to pay the bills" when the truth is many have the oppotunity whilst unemployed(long term) to get qualifications and a better chance of a better paid job.............but choose not too.