Benefits shake-up: warning for non-working claimants

diable

frank_begbie wrote: »

Everything is just great as long as it doesn't affect you.

It affected me I was made redundant, my job sent to Bangalore, I became lazy and drunk on the idea of easy money and being paid to do nothing and to screw the system for my benefit, I can't really complain as I had fun so back to work early starts earn the cash and put it back in to the system.

CFC

frank_begbie wrote: »

When you only receive the bare minimum to survive when on Job Seekers how can they make it less?

Surely they should be making work more attractive by increasing the wages?

Its not that the benefits are too high its that the wages are too low.

That is why there are 'in work' benefits. It's easy to say that 'they' should make work more attractive. There is no 'they'. There is the government who takes money from me and other workers in the private sector to pay government wages and benefits, and there is the private sector who generate the jobs. If minimum wages get raised, inflation goes up and prices rise, and therefore the minimum wages buy less and the cycle starts again.

The real problem is that people who are not working or work in poorly paid jobs just have to accept that they will have a low standard of living. That's just the way it is.

NorthernLights_2

diable wrote: »

It was just an idea for you to get a group of people together and to do something.

Which group? and what?! and most importantly with your post, who pays them after they've "done something" to both houses of parliament, and are in charge?

Go read up on the French & Russian revolutions - if you like how they turned out in the decades afterwards then you have a blueprint!

ElkyElky

I think ANYONE claiming JSA should be forced to do voluntry work until they find paid work. How much better would the system be if the Government told claimants they have to earn their benefits by working xx hours a week in a charity shop or by helping the community. It's a win win for everyone.. the claimant will gain experience and learn new skills, the Government will get the scroungers off their backs and the charity shops will love the extra help.

I disagree with people getting this money for doing absolutely nothing. They need to be made to earn their benefits and by that, I mean not just signing a peice of paper every fortnight but actual voluntry work 9-5, several days a week.

I know someone who has chosen a life of benefits rather than work and they love it. They love having their rent paid, council tax and their £60 a week without having to lift a finger. They've never worked a day in their adult life and it sickens me.

janninew

CFC wrote: »

That is why there are 'in work' benefits. It's easy to say that 'they' should make work more attractive. There is no 'they'. There is the government who takes money from me and other workers in the private sector to pay government wages and benefits, and there is the private sector who generate the jobs. If minimum wages get raised, inflation goes up and prices rise, and therefore the minimum wages buy less and the cycle starts again.

The real problem is that people who are not working or work in poorly paid jobs just have to accept that they will have a low standard of living. That's just the way it is.

I'm glad I'm not the only person who thinks this way! Life isn't fair, some people have it better than others, but at the end of the day its tough! Loads of people work for min wage and just get on with it, why does work have to be made more appealing to get people of benefits? My sister is an example, she supports herself, is 21 years old, earns rubbish money (min wage) and works awful shifts, she doesn't moan, she gets on with it and pays her way, there is nothing special about this and millions of other people do it.

Sixer

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Why should people with children get more money than those without?

Where did I say they should? The question was asked. I answered it. Benefits are calculated on households. Taxes are calculated on individuals. The poster didn't understand that.

seven-day-weekend

Can anyone tell me (sorry if it has been mentioned already, I haven't read all the thread), if someone gets sanctioned from JSA will they be given another benefit?

Because if so, this removes ANY requirement to seek work!

Oldernotwiser

frank_begbie wrote: »

Everything is just great as long as it doesn't affect you.

When I've been unemployed I've moved to find work or done a longer commute. It's ridiculous to suggest that people shouldn't do this if they can't find jobs locally.

Oldernotwiser

Sixer wrote: »

Where did I say they should? The question was asked. I answered it. Benefits are calculated on households. Taxes are calculated on individuals. The poster didn't understand that.

You said people with children should get more, whether from earnings or benefits. I disagree.

seven-day-weekend

I saw a woman on the TV yesterday who said she 'couldn't' work as any job she got would 'only' make her £27 a week better off.

This is over £100 a month,:eek: without even mentioning the non-financial benefits such as self-respect and contributing to society instead of taking from it.

My son worked for several months in a job paying less than JSA (because it was only eight hours at minimum wage). He said he did not want to be unemployed and even this was preferable as it was at least a job that he could put on his CV and get a reference from.

I'm glad to say he has now got a much better job at Morrisons.

I just hope people like the one I saw on the TV ARE sanctioned; it might bring them up with a short sharp shock.