Extra £4bn welfare cut

leveller2911

sticky23 wrote: »

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..

Sounds like a win- win situation to me.Wonder why our previous Government and this coalition haven't tried it.We hear about all these "Fact finding" trips abroad carried out by MP,s but I guess they haven't ben to Denmark ...............Yet.


So many people on benefits struggle because they have little or no previous experience so IMO this would help.

olly300

leveller2911 wrote: »

Sounds like a win- win situation to me.Wonder why our previous Government and this coalition haven't tried it.We hear about all these "Fact finding" trips abroad carried out by MP,s but I guess they haven't ben to Denmark ...............Yet.

Because the Nu Labour government would have had to raise VAT in the boom years and not spend so freely. Then possibly raise income tax if the scheme was proven to be successful.

UK governments are into short-termism.

Otherwise why would you get two politicians with 2 different ideologies from 2 different political parties concluding the same thing about the benefits system?

365days

Ok I've just gone to ww.entitledto.com if I gave up work I would get £15,600 (tax free of course) a year.

Not bad eh?

That's for a single mum of 1.

Of course I wouldn't have to run a car, pay maintenance on my house,buy work type clothes, would be free all day to do as I wish, be less stressed etc etc oh and also be eligible for free school meals, laptops etc etc. While the figures look like this there will never be an incentive to work for some.


The government cannot even begin to solve the welfare problem until benefits are cut therefore making it HARD to be on benefits, not just having to watch the pennies but GRIM.

Work gives me so much more than money. It gives me self worth, confidence, friendships etc etc.

Many long term unemployed I meet are depressed, low self worth and no aspiration. But it isn't worth the effort, in their eyes, to get out of that rut if you are only going to be £5 a week better off.

By the way Mr..call me Dave ...Cameron if you happen to be reading in feel free to PM me. I would be far cheaper and better than other consultant you may be currently employing!

SingleSue

But how would that work for carers or the real disabled 365days, who are not able to go out and work (no matter how much they want to)?

Would you prefer to see them having a grim life too for a situation which is outside of their control?

Remember, a fair few carers and disabled people have also spent many years working in the past, some as high rate tax payers.

It's an awkward one for sure, something needs to give, the deficit needs to be cut but where without unfairly impacting those whose situation cannot be improved easily.

I don't agree with the working for your benefits, not because of lazyness but because I think in the wider picture, it impacts on the job market for those who DO want to work...why take on someone paying even minimum wage when you can get someone for a hell of a lot less? My brothers girlfriend is facing exactly this, she had volunteered as part of her ESA agreement to work for another department connected to the job centre, they trained her up, kept her there for 6 months or so but when asked why they couldn't offer her a job after she had passed all the exams, said there were cut backs and it is cheaper to just have volunteers as they only have to pay transport costs.

So she is fully trained, very qualified but applying for anything and everything and still without a job....mind you, they want her back on a volunteer basis again as they are stuggling to cope with the workload and she was such a good worker but this time, are quibbling over paying for the transport!

365days

Surely Sue they are Carers or Disabled rather than long term unemployed? Totally different kettle of fish and I would of thought by now, as it has been said to you so many times, that you could see the difference.

365days

'I don't agree with the working for your benefits, not because of lazyness but because I think in the wider picture, it impacts on the job market for those who DO want to work..'

But this is the whole point. Working if you are able is not a case of do I WANT to or do I not. It is a case of do I NEED to or do I not. If you deciede to have kids, you need to work to support them (if you are able that caveat is getting rather tiresome to type in EVERY time) Trouble is in the UK that is no longer true. You don't need to work at all as the state i.e the taxpayer will pick up the tab. WRONG just so wrong on many many levels.

SingleSue

I'm sorry, I see benefit claimants and assume (in this case, it did make an !!! out of me), that it applies to all benefit claimants and not just those who are on unemployment benefits.

SingleSue

365days wrote: »

'I don't agree with the working for your benefits, not because of lazyness but because I think in the wider picture, it impacts on the job market for those who DO want to work..'

But this is the whole point. Working if you are able is not a case of do I WANT to or do I not. It is a case of do I NEED to or do I not. If you deciede to have kids, you need to work to support them (if you are able that caveat is getting rather tiresome to type in EVERY time) Trouble is in the UK that is no longer true. You don't need to work at all as the state i.e the taxpayer will pick up the tab. WRONG just so wrong on many many levels.

Oh I agree that something should be done to earn your unemployment benefits but not something which could take a job away from other people which would then end up with that person having to claim.

It certainly is a tight rope situation though figuring out what would do someone else out of a job and what wouldn't.

Shakethedisease

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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.

I repeatedly used the words JSA claimants. And there are nearly 3 million of them currently in the UK.

If you want to call that 'sensationalist' then your a bit behind the times mate.

Folks here are calling for people to work for their benefits. By it's very definition Job Seekers Allowance defines that person as fit, heathly and available for work ?

Or are you now back-tracking to say that only 'some' JSA claimants should work for their benefits ? How would you qualify that ? By your arguement, if all JSA claimants have to do some sort of work in return for the benefit.. then that's nearly 3 million people currently entering the labour market in some form.

I was simply pointing out that the above would be very detrimental to the exsiting workforce as it stands.

I don't actually believe it'll ever happen ( there are too many pitfalls ).. but was trying highlight a number of flaws in these constant calls for getting JSA claimants to work in return for their basic living allowances. The most important one being, that it will put many other's out of work and put a number of small businesses at great risk because they cannot compete financially. You can't magic up 'work' up for a few million people out of thin air.

IveSeenTheLight

365days wrote: »

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.

I once made a suggestion that a percentage of your income must be put aside (say 10%) into a fund account to be used whenever you ar emade unemployed.
So you have to dip into it in the bad times.
Upon retirement, any money left in the slush fund would be used towards a pension.

I certainly think it would go a long way to sorting out the problems we have today with pensions and the welfare system