Extra £4bn welfare cut

Graham_Devon

sticky23 wrote: »

I'm from Denmark, and yes, we have subsidized, government-run childcare: Children go to a nursery or childminder from when they are one year old till they are six. After that they go to school, which usually have after-school clubs. The cost of this, as far as I remember, is around £300 a month.. (but remember that the tax is a lot higher..) Low cost or free places are available for those on low incomes.
So any woman, whether she is single or not, is expected to work, if she wants any kind of benefit, apart from child benefit. If you're un-employed, you have to be available for work the following day - this could be cleaning, factory work, or indeed helping out in a nursery. If you turn it down, you loose your benefits... Most people I know, who has been in this situation, got off their back-side and found themselves a job pretty sharpish...
On the other hand, benefits are generous, and help is available for those who are disabled or ill...
Another part of the Danish system is that you have to be resident there for seven out of eight years to receive benefits. That pretty much flushes out immigrants who wants a free ride. Obviously it also hits other people - I couldn't get benefits if I went to live there - but then I don't expect to anyway...

Compare and contrast.

It can happen in this country too. Just too much yohurt being knitted here.

IveSeenTheLight

Shakethedisease wrote: »

But then you'd put the full-time workers out of a job ? What employer in their right mind is going to keep on all their full-time staff when they can get the job done paying £65 a week ?

And that's the problem with these sorts of ideas. Those 'forced' to work for benefits, would put the full-timers out of work as they undercut them by so much.

The Government (via the tax payer) is paying for both at present
They're paying the benefits and paying to supply the services I am talking about.

Are you advocating that we should accept people to get benefits at home for doing nothing, so that it keeps a small percentage in full time employment?

1) Another thread in here said there were 7 million households wher people are not employed
2) I'm not certain that it would be to the detriment of the currently employed, they'd still need people to supervise the extra resources. The emplyers would be getting more people for the same costs.
3) This actually could provide a way for those on benefits to step up through work experience into a full time position.

IveSeenTheLight

lynzpower wrote: »

And how do you think that contracted waste contractors and thier lawyers would see the undermining of the contract? Ie the goverment undercutting them? I think that would be contract law city played out with the taxpayer footing the bill any-which-way.

Contracts are gicen by the governemnt or their councils.
The contract is not never ending, they will come to an end or need re-negotiating.

The government is paying both now, paying the waste contractors and paying those sitting at home on benefits

lynzpower wrote: »

Out of interest, who provides childcare for these people who are forced to work? Is there a huge excess of free childcare places in your area? If not, who will pay for those? I expect its a lot more that 46 pounds per week

Are you advocating people get pregnant and then stay at home on benefits?
I put off having children for years until my wife and I were in a better financial position.

I do agree that there needs to be provision to help people get into work.
I'd far better prefer that the government subsidised childcare in order to ensure there was not a stay at home mentality

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Well there you go. Instant need for a creche of some sort. Instant need for labour. Therefore theres a few jobs for those on benefits for a couple of days a week instantly...to service the others doing work for benefits.

I agree with most of your post but childcare should be better employed than a few drop in benefit workers.

I would rather have these sort of facilities set up by professional people that the government pay for if the time was spent by those utilising it to work for their benefits / attend job interviews.

Shakethedisease

Are you advocating that we should accept people to get benefits at home for doing nothing, so that it keeps a small percentage in full time employment?

But this would be uk wide, with millions out of those 7 million unemployed currently.. expected to work for their JSA money. That wouldn't just put a 'small percentage' out of work. You're making the mistake of thinking that this is going to somehow be a wee 'local' thing with a few 'work-shy' men getting pulled out of bed every morning to pick up litter..

But it wouldn't be. This would be uk wide, on a massive scale. And it almost certainly WOULD be to the detriment of those currently employed in 'services'. The can't all be supervisors.
And it wouldn't be long before government 'chain-gangs' would be hitting private sectors too. What cleaning company could compete with those sorts of 'wages' ?

3) This actually could provide a way for those on benefits to step up through work experience into a full time position.

There wouldn't be any full-time positions offered. Because there'll always be another batch of 'claimants' there to do the work for a fraction of the price of a full-timer.
Any boss who'd go out of their way to employ someone on a full-time wage when he can get 6 benefits claimants to do exactly the same job ( with none of the perks, holiday pay, paid sick leave, no need to worry about paye, tax etc etc )... would be (financially) off their rockers to consider it. Seriously.

And is it morally right to ask someone to do a job and not get paid the same as someone else doing exactly the same job ? Equality rights would have a field day with this. They've been fighting for years to get women and other groups the same terms and conditions as men for doing the same job... will they just ignore the JSA claimants ?

flashnazia

I'm not sure if benefit claimants should have to 'work' to claim because there is a risk that wages will be affected.

What I am sure of is that those on benefits should be FORCED to get out of bed every morning and go somewhere, even if it's to a community centre where there is nothing for them to do.

I know this will add to costs but I don't care (some money should be deducted from benefits to pay for the heating etc of the community center and lunch - after all the claimant will not be paying for gas and elec at home because they are out.)

Some people will 'sign off' because the lifestyle has ceased being easy.

Non-attendees have benefit cut.

We should never give money to ppl who want stay at home; whether its to bring up (or drag up) babies or watch tv etc.

365days

Last night I had a phone call from my best friend telling me she had been made redundant. At nearly 40 she has worked without break since she was 16.

I hope the benefit system will help her if she needs it.

There must be an easy way via National insurance Numbers to see how much someone has or hasn't worked in their life.

There should be some sort of percentage where if you have worked for more than 70% of your available working life you get higher benefits when you need them.

If it shows that work hasn't played a great deal of importance in your life you should be made to attend some kind of work based scheme 5 days a week to get your benefit.

The pattern around here at the moment seems to be workless young men being taken in by workless young single mums (who don't tell the benefit agency) The workless young men then sublet their housing benefit paid flats or digs to Eastern Europeans who are doing the lower paid jobs that are out there. I tell you the world has gone mad.

I know it would cost an absolute fortune but might be an investment to stop everyones benefit and make everyone apply all over again.

365days

flashnazia wrote: »

I'm not sure if benefit claimants should have to 'work' to claim because there is a risk that wages will be affected.

What I am sure of is that those on benefits should be FORCED to get out of bed every morning and go somewhere, even if it's to a community centre where there is nothing for them to do.

I know this will add to costs but I don't care (some money should be deducted from benefits to pay for the heating etc of the community center and lunch - after all the claimant will not be paying for gas and elec at home because they are out.)

Some people will 'sign off' because the lifestyle has ceased being easy.

Non-attendees have benefit cut.

We should never give money to ppl who want stay at home; whether its to bring up (or drag up) babies or watch tv etc.

Or shock horror do that cushy little cash in hand job they've got. And it might slow down procreation as they might be too tired with all that getting up in the morning!

Graham_Devon

Shakethedisease wrote: »

But this would be uk wide, with millions out of those 7 million unemployed currently.. expected to work for their JSA money.

This is getting sensationalist. It seems this is (sensationalism) the argument used against any type of change in the benefit system.

As you are well aware, of those 7 million homes, only SOME will qualify for work. In this case, only those who qualify would be asked to do something.

It's unfair to use these numbers in debate. It distorts everything being said.

sticky23

flashnazia wrote: »

I'm not sure if benefit claimants should have to 'work' to claim because there is a risk that wages will be affected.
QUOTE]

I'm going to compare UK with Denmark again:

UK minimum wage:£5.93

DK mimimum wage: £11.43


As I said earlier, benefit claimants are made to work in Denmark, often with a days notice. This could be in a government-run establishment, or in a private company. Either way, the claimant would be paid a wage - the private company would get part of this refunded from the government. These placements are always of a finite amount of time, for example 6 months - so the private company couldn't just have the same worker for years, partly subsidised by the state. It often leads to the private company keeping on the benefit claimant after the six months, as he/she is now trained up to do the job. Otherwise he/she will have had six months experience to put on the CV..