BBC Thursday: The Future State of Welfare

michaels

Because Bob Crowe wouldn't insist that the Multi-skilled payment processing operatives can not live on less than 50k pa if it is in the private sector.

Ilya_Ilyich wrote: »

Why would this be preferable to a publicly-run toll road?

gallygirl

Road_Hog wrote: »

And before anyone trots out the phrase, the immigrants are only doing jobs that the British don't want to do. Perhaps you should think to yourself, why can these businesses not find workers and the simple answer is that they're not paying the market rate, they want cheap labour and they want to import it.

Now, it's all very well if you're say Polish and youngish, that you come to Britain to earn more than you can at home and you can claim benefits for your wife and child in Poland, at British rates and have it paid directly. You don't mind hot bunking in a bedsit with three mates, because the money is good, you're young and good benefits are being sent back home courtesy of the British taxpayer.

At the end of a few years, you can go back to Poland and have enough to buy a house/substantial deposit. But McJobs are no good for the indigenous population. You can't live a life like that forever, it is soul destroying with no possible future of home ownership or having a family.

Except a British worker with a family wouldn't be on a minimum wage, she/he would be on minimum wage plus WFTC, CTB, HB etc. It is pride that should send them out to work, but I don't see too much of that about. I know people in the recruitment business and the Poles and other Eastern Europeans hassle them to pick them up earlier as they don't want to risk being late - the Brits don't turn up if it's raining.

Temp work is a whole new argument - I can see why families on benefits can't take temp work as it plays havoc with their benefits - all very well saying they'll catch up eventually but that doesn't put food on the table now.

StevieJ

Ilya_Ilyich wrote: »

Why would this be preferable to a publicly-run toll road?

We could have both as I pointed out in a previous post, it is an example of how we could expand the infrastructure and create jobs without increasing govt borrowing (or future spending committments for that matter PFI).

Jimmy_31

gallygirl wrote: »

Except a British worker with a family wouldn't be on a minimum wage, she/he would be on minimum wage plus WFTC, CTB, HB etc. It is pride that should send them out to work, but I don't see too much of that about. I know people in the recruitment business and the Poles and other Eastern Europeans hassle them to pick them up earlier as they don't want to risk being late - the Brits don't turn up if it's raining.

Temp work is a whole new argument - I can see why families on benefits can't take temp work as it plays havoc with their benefits - all very well saying they'll catch up eventually but that doesn't put food on the table now.

I see plenty of pride everyday in the british workforce.

A british mans pride does make him go to work everyday and do the right thing.

This country is now at the stage were the proud british working man is stuggling to pay the bills whilst lazy scrounging benefit cheats and immigrants live the good life for doing nothing.

A proud man does not like to blatantly have the pi55 took out of him so will only do the right thing for so long.

CLAPTON

StevieJ wrote: »

There is a solution to that, charge on both some much needed cash into the exchequer plus more business for
the private enterprise.

indeed we could charge for both but I see no improvement in infrastructure from that although there may be an increase in revenue (taxation)
why would that be better for the UK?

olly300

Svenena wrote: »

How about if we had a system where people had to earn JSA through volunteering? Say they had to do 10 hours a week, which would have to be signed off by the organisation 'employing' them as a volunteer. They would be guaranteed time off for interviews, and not need to give more than a couple of days notice to start a job, if one was offered. People would then still have 30 hours a week to job search (assuming a 40-hour week), which I bet loads of people don't use on job-searching as it is. And they would be gaining/keeping up-to-date with relevant skills, which would help them get a job.

There are many flaws in your idea.

The primary one being is that on JSA they don't care if you volunteer as long as it doesn't get in the way of job hunting.

Also as quite a bit of voluntary work like helping out at sports clubs, taking people with special needs out and helping out at homeless shelters is done at weekends and evenings then it has no effect on you working if you work office hours, let alone claiming JSA.

Finally if you help out with vulnerable groups you are required to have a CRB check. I know from personal experience that due to the incompetence many voluntary organisations have in sorting out their admin, if you are actually looking for work or taking out before you go back to work, the admin won't be done let alone the CRB check before you are back working. Some organisations do really make you spend 6 months of endless form filling complaining about "errors" before they take you on.

jojo_2012_2

vivatifosi wrote: »

He returns to the area where he was born - Splott in Cardiff -

lol splott

blackandwhitebunny

What about making it less attractive to have more children? These days everyone has control over their fertility. Surely the Government could pick a date in just over nine months time and say that from that date benefits will only be provided to a woman for the first two children and all other benefit entitlement would be based on a two child household. Obviously this could not be applied retrospectively. But it would mean a gradual (actually I think not that gradual) reduction in amounts paid out. It would remove the need to pay massive sums in HB for large families, IS would only be paid until the second child reached a certain age etc etc. After all families that work have had to limit the number of children they have according to what they can afford for years. This would also be a 'green' policy.

On a different vein, last winter we watched and my OH helped several elderly people struggling on ungritted and uncleared pavements in the centre of our town. At the same time there were numerous youngish healthy looking men hanging around the job centre. Were we the only ones who could put the two together?

StevieJ

CLAPTON wrote: »

indeed we could charge for both but I see no improvement in infrastructure from that although there may be an increase in revenue (taxation)
why would that be better for the UK?

If we charged for both public and private motorways it may encourage the building of private motorways on the basis that people cannot just take the free option so will spread themselves between both private and public toll roads, thus relieving congestion.

Out,_Vile_Jelly

Governments are presumably nervous about introducing any sort of financial cap on family size that could be likened to China's policy. However, I think it merits serious discussion. I'm in my early 30s and most of my married friends have one child and are thinking about a second. However, this is a HUGE decision, as they have to factor in two sets of nursery fees or living on one salary, maternity leave pay, the possibility of moving to a slightly bigger house (which in London then has to be balanced by commuting costs and time from further out). I know of one couple who had twins, and have ruled out trying for another in case it happens again, as they could not afford 4 children. These are university educated, professional people on respectable salaries. Those on benefits don't have to worry about these issues; everything is paid for. I don't see how this can continue indefinitely.