Benefits shake-up: warning for non-working claimants

KimYeovil

What I am unsure of is this 'ensuring you are better off in work' palaver. So this means unemployed people will be paid more than those who have continually worked. Seems a bit grotesque to me.

pwales_2

KimYeovil wrote: »

What I am unsure of is this 'ensuring you are better off in work' palaver. So this means unemployed people will be paid more than those who have continually worked. Seems a bit grotesque to me.

nah i think they mean taking money off benefits to bring there income less than minimum wage so you would be better off working, i cant see tham giving extra

prosaver

KimYeovil wrote: »

What I am unsure of is this 'ensuring you are better off in work' palaver. So this means unemployed people will be paid more than those who have continually worked. Seems a bit grotesque to me.

and diverting the issue of "getting the government to create jobs"

cit_k

Is MSE physcic now?

This is a white paper, it needs further stages before it even gets to bill stage, then it has to be debated, and agreed in parliament.

Yet MSE seems to be saying it WILL happen, instead of making it clear it needs to be debated/cleared through parliament.

quantic

pwales wrote: »

dla is not exempt from changes, every person on it of working age will have a full medical to filter out people who should not be on it.
so dla claimant numbers should drop

Sorry, I worded my reply badly. What I meant was that people who are out of work claiming DLA (Genuine and none Genuine) will not be forced to work or lose benefits.

I think the scale of people claiming fraudulently is vastly under appreciated. From personal experience I see a lot of families where the generations are being educated into being benefit experts. Knowing exactly how to squeeze every penny out of the system that they can.

Le73Uq86Uv

To all those who think this is a good thing.

You won't think it is so good if one day you need help and support.

All they have to do is make it so hard for you to comply with the rules you lose the benefits, and dont say you won't as you never know what may crop up when you should be at an interview.

Car broke down, child ill at school or even a death in the family.

ViolaLass

prosaver wrote: »

Unemployment is an unbalance between the supply and the demand of working hours. We all know that the efficiency of all types of machines is increasing yearly. We need fewer people to produce the same goods. Work time has been reduced in the past 200 years from about 12 hours a day to less then 8 hours per day and the working week from 7 days to 5. The way to stop Unemployment and have everybody working, is to continue the historical trend; is to distribute the available work between all persons that want to work. This we can do if each person works fewer hours per week
tell your mp to get his finger out

I suspect fewer people worked 200 years ago than work now, as percentage of the population.

liam8282

Le73Uq86Uv wrote: »

To all those who think this is a good thing.

You won't think it is so good if one day you need help and support.

All they have to do is make it so hard for you to comply with the rules you lose the benefits, and dont say you won't as you never know what may crop up when you should be at an interview.

Car broke down, child ill at school or even a death in the family.

Surely there will be an "extenuating circumstances" clause.

Just sounds like an attempt to make excuses already! :rotfl:

wotsthat

Problems will come with implementation but the principle is sound - if you are able to work and have access to work but decide not to then that's up to the individual concerned but they shouldn't expect that the state will support them financially.

An obvious area where money will be saved will be where people work AND receive unemployment benefits. Eventually they'll have to stop claiming.

cit_k

pwales wrote: »

dla is not exempt from changes, every person on it of working age will have a full medical to filter out people who should not be on it.
so dla claimant numbers should drop

Not exactly, the purpose of the medicals has already been announced - it is to meet the target of kicking 20 percent of DLA claimaints of DLA.

They set the target, they have to go through the farce of the assessments in order to pretend to have justified removing 20 percent of claimaints.

The fact the target is set at 20 percent, when only 0.5 percent of DLA claims are thought to be fraudulent, shows that they have decided in advance to just cut the number of claimaints.

Obviously they cant just do that - they have to introduce a known flawed assessment system in order to justify the removal of those people from the benefit.