MSE News: Unemployment to 'keep on rising'

Randvegeta

Indeed. I don't check with great enthusiasm the correctness of my forum posts. But thanks.. I think.

dickydonkin

cashbackproblems wrote: »

As mentioned it just comes down to fact that foreigners work harder as they need the money more and have no alternatives plus appreciate it having come from difficult backgrounds.

If you work full time on minimum wage you get about £218 p/w after tax, on jsa £68, surely that alone is incentive to work but the UK culture of the uneducated/unemployed is that of laziness and entitlement.

I totally agree about the differential between the £68 for JSA and the £218 for a weeks work on NMW - however, what also has to be considered is that the person on JSA could very likely be receiving other benefits that will supplement that meagre income which when amalgamated, may be well in excess of the £218.00.

Council tax and housing benefits are just two examples - I am not criticising those who claim them, but just highlighting why people who are unemployed and claiming such benefits could be worse off financially by taking a low paid job.

It needs fixing- and quickly - but successive governments just seem reluctant to grasp the nettle.

dandelionclock30

They dont do anything because they know that there still are not enough low paid jobs to go round. National Minimum wage jobs are very few and far between.
What they need to be looking at is finding a way for there to be decent paying jobs for all, not low paid jobs that keep people in appaling poverty.
Some migrants are prepared to sleep 10 people to a room or work for just their board and lodgings or at less than the minimum wage. Some are trafficked here and have to pay the main man the money back so they have no choice. This also is not right.
Unemployed people should not have to be forced to endure victorian standards of living and poverty whatever their background, or immigration status. (By this I mean like highlighted above.)
By cutting the public sector massively and the ongoing recession I dont know why they think there is going to be an expansion of the private sector! By forcing all these people on the dole and wage cuts means that there is less money in the economy.Therefore this makes expansion of the private sector very unlikely to say the least.

Randvegeta

dandelionclock30 wrote: »

They dont do anything because they know that there still are not enough low paid jobs to go round. National Minimum wage jobs are very few and far between.
What they need to be looking at is finding a way for there to be decent paying jobs for all, not low paid jobs that keep people in appaling poverty.
Some migrants are prepared to sleep 10 people to a room or work for just their board and lodgings or at less than the minimum wage. Some are trafficked here and have to pay the main man the money back so they have no choice. This also is not right.
Unemployed people should not have to be forced to endure victorian standards of living and poverty whatever their background, or immigration status. (By this I mean like highlighted above.)
By cutting the public sector massively and the ongoing recession I dont know why they think there is going to be an expansion of the private sector! By forcing all these people on the dole and wage cuts means that there is less money in the economy.Therefore this makes expansion of the private sector very unlikely to say the least.

Why should it be up to the tax payer to pay for high standards of living for the unemployed?

And where is this money coming from to pay the public sector? There isn't enough money to pay them all, and raising taxes takes money out of the economy too.

dandelionclock30

The state has a moral duty to ensure that people are not living in victorian conditions like starving and living 10 people to a room. The majority of unemployed people have paid plenty of tax and national insurance. People need to have at least a basic standard of living otherwize they can start getting ill and suffering from disease etc. Ironically enough the Liberals started welfare reform in 1906 with a series or reforms that helped the unemployed, the poor etc.
Theres plenty of money to pay for other things like daft wars in other countries, theres enough money to pay people if they got their priorities right. Also higher taxation for the bigger earners and higher buisness tax.

Randvegeta

dandelionclock30 wrote: »

The state has a moral duty to ensure that people are not living in victorian conditions like starving and living 10 people to a room. The majority of unemployed people have paid plenty of tax and national insurance. People need to have at least a basic standard of living otherwize they can start getting ill and suffering from disease etc. Ironically enough the Liberals started welfare reform in 1906 with a series or reforms that helped the unemployed, the poor etc.
Theres plenty of money to pay for other things like daft wars in other countries, theres enough money to pay people if they got their priorities right. Also higher taxation for the bigger earners and higher buisness tax.

Don't get me wrong, I think some basic assistance should be provided, but certainly not to the extent to what we have now.

If living off benefits can get you as comfortable a life as working on minimum wage, there is little incentive to get off that couch to start working.

I have said this before, but I'll say it again. Those on benefits (unemployed people) really should be made to live in shared accomodation (meaning shared rooms, like dorms). They should be provided with basic meals and all the basic facilities needed to live and find work. Of course this should be a safe environment. But they should NOTHING more!

I say this because this is how many people spend their holidays. If it is good enough for a holiday, it is good enough for a non contributing member of society.

I also say this because it seems perfectly acceptable for bording school children to live like this, where parents fork out thousand of pounds. So it MUST be okay for the unemployed 'layabout'.

Why should they get any more? Why should their standard of living be to the same standard as a working person? Do these living conditions not encourage those to work to get a better lifestyle while also ensuring they are safe, with a roof above their head and not living in destitute?

And yes there is waste elsewhere, but that doesn't mean we can waste more on 'layabouts'.

And taxing the rich won't do any good because it's just going to push them out of the country or force them into using special tax vehicles to minimize their tax burden (or both). I am guilty of such practices and I am not ashamed to admit it!

I believe in equal opportunities and being fair. I fail to see how it is fair to take from hard working people, only to give to the lazy.

I do realize that there are many people who are genuine job seekers, but I have heard too many people seeking a job that is not available. They are far too comfortable sitting around NOT working because the work that is available is not 'good enough' for them.

And if there really is no work available, and they are really willing to do any kind of job, they should only be so greatful that they will have a roof over their head, a bed to sleep in and food to eat given that half the world is in poverty. Those people in 3rd world countries could only dream of such luxuries, yet here in the UK we take it for granted and live in this silly entitlement society thinking that it is a RIGHT to have things we didn't earn.

dandelionclock30

Shared accomodation like dorms? What so your saying there should be a return to the days of the workhouse? Are you having a laugh?
How would families manage? would there be dorms for men, women and children? Would they go to church on a Sunday and also sew sacks whilst jobseeking?.
A lot of unemployed people have worked all their life and paid a lot in tax and NI, therefore they are more than entitled to be supported by the state whilst they look for something suitable.

dickydonkin

dandelionclock30 wrote: »

Shared accomodation like dorms? What so your saying there should be a return to the days of the workhouse? Are you having a laugh?
How would families manage? would there be dorms for men, women and children? Would they go to church on a Sunday and also sew sacks whilst jobseeking?.
A lot of unemployed people have worked all their life and paid a lot in tax and NI, therefore they are more than entitled to be supported by the state whilst they look for something suitable.

I agree.

And why not reopen the coal mines and send the kids of those who have had the audacity to lose their job through no fault of their own - down the pits?

Opening coal mines would also require the increased use of solid fuel which would mean chimneys would need to be swept - so perhaps after a shift down the pit, those urchins can climb up a few chimneys and subsidise their parents benefits.

Come on Randvegeta, your solutions are indeed radical, but I am with you on many of your views regarding our benefits culture - although not the solutions you suggested I hasten to add.

I agree that many do exploit the system, but it is unfair to tar everyone with the same brush.

Would you send a person to live in a dormitory who has worked all of his life and has lost his job and needs support from a system he has paid into all of his/her working life? This very same person could be in the same room as someone who has never worked, never intends to and has contributed nothing to this country.

At first, I thought your solution was tongue in cheek - but on reading it again, you are actually serious.

There is no easy answer, but institutionalising the unemployed and those who cannot work is certainly not the answer.

And taxing the rich won't do any good because it's just going to push them
out of the country or force them into using special tax vehicles to minimize
their tax burden (or both). I am guilty of such practices and I am not ashamed to admit it!

Then you are hardly in a position to be critical of others who you suggest are exploiting the system when you are doing it yourself!

Anubis_2

Randvegeta wrote: »

Don't get me wrong, I think some basic assistance should be provided, but certainly not to the extent to what we have now.

If living off benefits can get you as comfortable a life as working on minimum wage, there is little incentive to get off that couch to start working.

I have said this before, but I'll say it again. Those on benefits (unemployed people) really should be made to live in shared accomodation (meaning shared rooms, like dorms). They should be provided with basic meals and all the basic facilities needed to live and find work. Of course this should be a safe environment. But they should NOTHING more!

I say this because this is how many people spend their holidays. If it is good enough for a holiday, it is good enough for a non contributing member of society.

I also say this because it seems perfectly acceptable for bording school children to live like this, where parents fork out thousand of pounds. So it MUST be okay for the unemployed 'layabout'.

You are assuming everyone unemployed is a "layabout."

You are proposing workhouses for those less fortunate.

You are proposing even more segregation of the "have" and the "have-nots" - the deserving and less-deserving.

Scenario. Man with wife and 2 children. Mortgage. Has worked in his current job for the last ten years. He is made redundant. So, you are expecting him to leave his home and move to a workhouse environment with his wife and children?

I can't believe you think there is no lack of jobs :eek: it might be an idea for you to research current job to person ratio - you will soon see there is a distinct lack of jobs.

The overseas workers will work for less money, hence why my local Asda took a good percentage on, and basically refused the locals the jobs.

Where I live, contracts are ZERO hours and 95 percent of the very few jobs there are, are for NMW.

I think you need to hit some unemployment black spots to get a good idea of the current problems. Many businesses have folded and thousands of people have lost their jobs since the recession. A lot have lost their homes too.

What about the disabled? Should they be forced to live together in a workhouse environment too?

Randvegeta

Shared accomodation like dorms? What so your saying there should be a return to the days of the workhouse? Are you having a laugh?

No. I'm quite serious. What is laughable is that many people consider this acceptable for their holidays (like hostels) and their children (boarding schools) but not good enough for THEM to live in! Why is that?

How would families manage? would there be dorms for men, women and children?

Of course families can be provided more appropriate accommodation to ensure safety and privacy. When children are involved, it is always a different matter. I am 100% for equal opportunities, and the fact that most of Europe now have ageing populations, I am beginning to think child benefits and other benefits to encourage having children is actually a good thing. I say this from an economic sense of course.

A lot of unemployed people have worked all their life and paid a lot in tax and NI, therefore they are more than entitled to be supported by the state whilst they look for something suitable.

Just to remind you, it isn't the state that supports them, it's the tax payer. Are you so willing to give your unemployed neighbours your hard earned cash? Hard working or not, you (and everyone else) should not be responsible to provide a more than basic standard of living to people who effectively do not contribute to society (note I am speaking in present tense). The mere fact that they have worked and paid national insurance for much of their working lives is of little consequence. It, after all, would be helping pay for the millions who have not contributed sufficiently (or at all) unemployment benefits. NI does not only pay for your own benefits. It pays for others!

And why not reopen the coal mines and send the kids of those who have had the audacity to lose their job through no fault of their own - down the pits?

Opening coal mines would also require the increased use of solid fuel which would mean chimneys would need to be swept - so perhaps after a shift down the pit, those urchins can climb up a few chimneys and subsidise their parents benefits.

And why not just give everyone a nice big house, a car, and say 'no need to work'? It's about affordability. We can't afford the current system, and the fact that NMW pays the same/similar standard of living makes the system BROKEN.

I agree that many do exploit the system, but it is unfair to tar everyone with the same brush.

Those who want to work, will REALLY want to work under such conditions. It's bound to encourage genuine workers to really get out there, and it brings the cost of supporting the true 'scum' right down. Don't you think?

Would you send a person to live in a dormitory who has worked all of his life and has lost his job and needs support from a system he has paid into all of his/her working life? This very same person could be in the same room as someone who has never worked, never intends to and has contributed nothing to this country.

Sounds like a good incentive to get out there and work your !!!! off!

Then you are hardly in a position to be critical of others who you suggest are exploiting the system when you are doing it yourself!

I don't exploit the system. I am a British national but was born overseas. I have a company based in my country of Birth. I'm here to be with my girlfriend, who is currently a student, and will be leaving when she graduates. What I am doing is deferring my earnings to when I move away from the UK to bring my tax down to 0. It's hardly exploiting the system since 99% of my company's earnings is earned outside of the UK. If I could get paid tax free, I would spend more money here. Sadly the system makes it unattractive for me to do so.

The fact is, we are moving towards a global, and highly mobile economy. The most educated, and the highest earners are extremely mobile. They can live and work anywhere. I'm British! I love my country. I would love to see it change for the better. But what I see is an abuse of the welfare system, and discouragement of accumulating wealth and earning a decent living through high taxes.

R&D doesn't have to be done here! It can be done anywhere! Plenty of other countries with lower tax and superior infrastructure than the UK, so why do it here?

Think of it this way. Two computers of equal spec and quality. One cost twice as much as the other. Which do you buy? Why stay in the UK when you can get more somewhere else?

Enough of my tax rant, I do enough of that in the tax section of this site.

Bring down cost of benefits, it will eventually bring down tax people must pay. This will put more money in people's pockets and more money to put back into the economy. Good for everyone!