BBC Thursday: The Future State of Welfare

Going4TheDream

Graham_Devon wrote: »

But in the circumstances of someone already at home, not working, but housed, taxes paid, NI paid, it's a completely different ballgame. They don't face the same choice or loosing income, or being £30 better off. It's simply the choise of "do I really bother for £30 a week".

Do you get a choice as to whether you get your a$$ out of bed each day to suck up cr*p at work

No...... thought not.

How ironic that those who pay taxes to support those that don't work get less choice..... not like you could just 'choose' to give up your job tomorrow and go on benefits if you so desired

vivatifosi

chewmylegoff wrote: »

i'm probably being unreasonable, but she didn't seem too chronically fatigued in that interview, she seemed quite up to having a massive rant about how unfair it was that she needed to prove she wasn't capable of working every six months. no doubt the real interview was at least an hour long and they just pulled out some soundbites for the programme.

ME is no fun chewy. I had it for two years when I was younger. You can't imagine how cr&p you feel when you are so tired you can't even walk on a down escalator, let alone walk up one. Or how scary it is to wake up and be so fatigued that the only thing you can move is your eyeballs and eyelids, but you have no way of moving to call an ambulance and live by yourself.

Having said all of that, with a caring employer I was able to work part time the hours I was able to manage and keep my job. If I had to job seek under those circumstances I wouldn't have been able to.

However I don't agree with her attitude that she's got ME for life. Many people don't and I found her particularly defeatist. The government are absolutely right to assess her regularly in that respect.

olly300

Going4TheDream wrote: »

When I was made redundant I had to sign on (fortunatley only for about 8 weeks) even though I had worked and paid stamp and was on JSA contribution based I was told clearly that if I should remain unemployed after 6 months and go on to income based JSA I would be expected to widen my search and to look at and apply for jobs of minimum wage.

Why then is this not being enforced?

You forget that employers don't like people who are long term unemployed.

If you were an employer would you prefer to employ someone who lost their job 6 weeks ago or someone who hadn't worked for 6 years?

lostinrates

vivatifosi wrote: »

However I don't agree with her attitude that she's got ME for life. Many people don't and I found her particularly defeatist. The government are absolutely right to assess her regularly in that respect.

An acwuaintance of mine is an ME volunteer with ME (on DLA). Her line is that ME is for life and that's it: this she tells me is the guidnace given by her county's ME support group. However, manages to volunteer for some other support groups (addicts, she was also an addict in the past) for 12 hours a week, as well as attending support groups herself daily and go on courses to further her abilty to volunteer.

I have immense sympathy for ME sufferers....at one stage they thought that's what I had, so I'm guessing I can sympathise with the feeling, but IMo if you can volunteer for a set 12 hours you can do light paid work for twelve hours.

I've made no secret of the fact I know I can't work reliably, so I'm now doing what I can. If I didn't have the support of dh it would be different, but I'd fully expect to be checked/reviewed to see how things stood if I were in a different situation.

vivatifosi

lostinrates wrote: »

Her line is that ME is for life and that's it: this she tells me is the guidnace given by her county's ME support group.

I don't see that its for life lir, except for some very unlucky people. If someone is asymptomatic then it shouldn't be seen as "for life" imo. Even on the Action for ME website it says that most people recover, though they may not recover to their former selves.

http://www.actionforme.org.uk/get-informed/about-me/when-will-i-get-better/

gizzie121

lvader wrote: »

What gets me is that I have to pay high rate tax, presumably because I earn a lot, yet some people on benefits live in a house bigger and better than mine and don't pay a penny for it. :mad:

I hear you!

Ilya_Ilyich

If employment barely pays better than benefits why does the response need to be to cut benefits? Are there huge numbers of employers out there desperate for low-skilled workers and unable to find them because they're all on benefits? Unemployment has soared in the last few years; are we then to believe that benefits have suddenly become much more attractive?

CLAPTON

Ilya_Ilyich wrote: »

If employment barely pays better than benefits why does the response need to be to cut benefits? Are there huge numbers of employers out there desperate for low-skilled workers and unable to find them because they're all on benefits? Unemployment has soared in the last few years; are we then to believe that benefits have suddenly become much more attractive?

yes, although it's not the important question

Ilya_Ilyich

what's the important question?

John_Pierpoint

lostinrates wrote: »

That said, I actually don't see full time parenting of below school age children by one parent as a bad thing.

The key word is parenting.

I seem to see the mother who is busy texting, while the baby balls it head off, and the toddler runs amok in desperate attention seeking behaviour. If its lucky it gets a clip round the ear.

My thought is "why did you bother to have them"?.