The Benefits System

custardy

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I've heard similar, but it was pointed out that in Holland (for example, though probably was Holland), thats ALL you get.

I.e that cash is supposed to pay for housing, things like council tax etc.

Makes the comparison a little pointless.

65% of my wage would cover my mortgage and other bills
less spending money but i would manage

Graham_Devon

As for the whole welfare issue, I've long suggested, and been flamed for suggesting that those who are on benefits (out of work benefits) for over a year should be required to go and sit in a building.

They don't have to do anything. Just sit. Or they could do something more constructive. As long as they are in that building at least 3 times a week, between the hours of 9-5, I don't really care what they do. Obviously I don't mean setting up pool tables and a bar etc. Just a building with tables and chairs.

I've been told thats like sending people to prison. I prefer to suggest it's like going to work in an office 9-5.

I believe the boredom would soon make people look for work. If they have got to be somewhere anyway, they may aswell make some money out of it.

As it is, our system gives them money for doing whatever they like - which is often part of the attraction.

hallmark

jamespir wrote: »

we should lower the wages of people in banking parliament and these company bosses who get payed to play golf all day oh and local council leaders should have there wages cut they spend most of the time having lavish dinners

I agree local & govt politicians should get paid less. Actually I'm amazed the coalition didn't immediately announce a massive pay cut for MPs, they can certainly afford it & it would have been good PR. An opportunity missed.

Regarding the private sector it's easy to say they should get paid less but impossible to implement. People & companies can simply choose to go elsewhere, that's not a myth. If Osborne is not careful we may lose HSBC & Standard Life, both of whom are making noises about relocating.

jamespir wrote: »

yeah you can set up a business but you need money to do that where are you expecting them to get it from ?

You really don't need money to setup a business. I know a guy who makes a living & I mean a good living, not a crap one, assembling furniture for people (i.e. Ikea stuff). he wasn't anything special at DIY beforehand but once you've assembled a few things you soon learn how most of them work. His startup costs were a screwdriver. My best friend's wife wanted to earn money so she started doing people's nails. With the money she earnt from that she went on courses to do other stuff like massage & various treatments. Then she used some of the money she was making to buy a spray tan rig. Now she is raking it in & actually earns more than her husband & all from the comfort of her house, her customers come to her.

There are a million ways to make money out there if people actually made an effort.

kabayiri

Benefits in poorer regions of the country should be enhanced at the cost of benefit recipients in the richer S.E / London / Home Counties.

Long term unemployed 'who choose' to have that lifestyle will then move to parts of the country which support their lifestyle, and the state will reap benefits in terms of reduced housing benefit payments, and a freeing up of precious housing stock in London.

The idea of a 'one size fits all' benefits system for the whole country is flawed.

hallmark

pqrdef wrote: »

Hey, it's bob-a-job week!

But charities don't even do this sort of thing to fund-raise now. The world has moved on. All forms of trade are more strictly regulated. You'll want liability insurance before you set off with your bucket and sponge, in case somebody slips on your soapy water.

There is of course a black economy that operates outside the law. Is that where you think the answer lies?

yawn. You dont' actually have an argument to make, you just want to disagree in principle with anyone who suggests it's possible to work for a living. By your logic there would be no companies in existence. Who'd pay for all those benefits you love so much then by the way?

pqrdef

hallmark wrote: »

My best friend's wife wanted to earn money so she started doing people's nails. With the money she earnt from that she went on courses to do other stuff like massage & various treatments. Then she used some of the money she was making to buy a spray tan rig. Now she is raking it in & actually earns more than her husband & all from the comfort of her house, her customers come to her.

How many regulations is she breaking? If somebody reports her to the council, she'll find out.

hallmark

pqrdef wrote: »

How many regulations is she breaking? If somebody reports her to the council, she'll find out.

Why do you assume she's breaking any? are you so ignorant that you can't conceive of any other possibility? Or are you just a boring troll?

DirtyDick

Thrifter wrote: »

They should do what they do in Germany. A number of people every week are randomly plucked out the Job centre and taken to do menial jobs for local businesses. That way they are actually earning their 'benefit' and are demonstrating that they are willing to work.

I actually think that could work on a larger scale.

Still receive JSA etc., but one days where no interviews they have to report, frex, to a park to do tidying, from 9am to 5pm. No need on a supervisor (another claimant?) to check up on their work, as that could prove too expensive, but merely their continued presence on site during working hours and a general check on their task progress at the end of the day (e.g. by a park keeper upon locking up - has the flower bed been weeded, have the dead leaves been swept adequately?). Others could do any other manual labour for the community; given the squeeze on council funds, provides an additional source of labour.


It'd get people out of a rut and the taxpayer would have the feeling that jobless people were doing something constructive. Even give them a day to go job hunting.

Going4TheDream

pqrdef wrote: »

How many regulations is she breaking? If somebody reports her to the council, she'll find out.

I think the point is that it proves that people can, if they put their mind to things, get off their backside and earn an income , rather than sitting on the dole?

The point of regulation for the purpose of this topic perhaps is a mute one?

hallmark

DirtyDick wrote: »

I actually think that could work on a larger scale.

Still receive JSA etc., but one days where no interviews they have to report, frex, to a park to do tidying, from 9am to 5pm. No need on a supervisor (another claimant?) to check up on their work, as that could prove too expensive, but merely their continued presence on site during working hours and a general check on their task progress at the end of the day (e.g. by a park keeper upon locking up - has the flower bed been weeded, have the dead leaves been swept adequately?). Others could do any other manual labour for the community; given the squeeze on council funds, provides an additional source of labour.


It'd get people out of a rut and the taxpayer would have the feeling that jobless people were doing something constructive. Even give them a day to go job hunting.

That's much too sensible a suggestion, someone will be along shortly to give you a list of reasons why it can't be done.