Please sign This petition Ian Duncan Smith to live on £53 a week.

guilds

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/02/ten-lies-told-about-welfare
SAYS IT ALL!

Dunroamin

guilds wrote: »

If this about making work pay it should be achieved by raising the minimum wage - not by cutting benefits. If the benefits are higher than what people get paid, then people aren't being paid fairly, simples as a meerkat once said

Nobody is cutting JSA to under 25 year olds, in fact it's just gone up.

Given that NMW for 18-20s is £4.98 ph, you don't really need to do a lot of work to be better off than on benefits - 12 hours a week to be precise.

Dunroamin

guilds wrote: »

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/02/ten-lies-told-about-welfare
SAYS IT ALL!

An aging actor with a background in the BNP - can't argue with him then.

clemmatis

Dunroamin wrote: »

An aging actor with a background in the BNP - can't argue with him then.

Easier to say that than address what he wrote, right?

Dunroamin

clemmatis wrote: »

Easier to say that than address what he wrote, right?

I don't tend to engage with people for whom I have little respect and that includes RT.

clemmatis

Dunroamin wrote: »

I don't tend to engage with people for whom I have little respect and that includes RT.

I'd hardly call commenting here on the points in the Guardian piece "engaging" with him.

I know almost nothing about him, I admit.

lukieboy96

guilds wrote: »

If this about making work pay it should be achieved by raising the minimum wage - not by cutting benefits. If the benefits are higher than what people get paid, then people aren't being paid fairly, simples as a meerkat once said

Just read in the paper today that they are thinking about 'REDUCING' the minimum wage!!! They are really hitting the poor. How can they go back on what they say?

lukieboy96

So nice the hear the queen is getting an extra 5 million!!!! This is so wrong.

FBaby

Dunroamin wrote: »

Seeing that the only people who would have to live on this amount (£57 not £53) are healthy under 25s, do we actually want to be paying an amount that will be comfortable for them to live on indefinitely, particularly as the majority of them will be living in the parental home? The UK has a big enough problem with NEETS already, without making a benefit lifestyle any more desirable.

If this was the amount payable for older people it would be a totally different situation, but it isn't.

Indeed, you can't win. If you make benefits comfortable, there isn't enough of an incentive for young people to get a job. You make it that all they can do is survive, therefore incentivising them to get a job and it's cruel.

The reality is that a healthy person under 25 without caring responsibility have no good reason to be without a job for longer than a few weeks. They can move where the jobs are, they can take anything, working evenings, nights, weekends. Yes, they might have to start with doing something they really don't want to do, but that again will be the incentive to look for better.

The worse predicament for a young adult is to remain without a job or education for too long. CVs with unexplainable gaps will results in them being unemployable.

This cut will also encourage young people to think twice before getting into debts...just because they can make monthly repayments.

It is of course very unfortunate for the few who will really struggle through no unwillingness of theirs to genuinely work but somehow struggle, but something needed to be done.

Morlock

FBaby wrote: »

Indeed, you can't win. If you make benefits comfortable, there isn't enough of an incentive for young people to get a job.

Unemployment is an intentional consequence of capitalism, it keeps the workforce keen, prices down, and ensures low wages for all. Full employment would be a disaster for a capitalist society, and in any given capitalist society it will never happen.

Unfortunately, this means that a huge amount of people in the UK will always be unemployed, no matter how 'incentivised' they are to work. It is favourable to big businesses, which is who the Tory party represent, as is a cut or freeze in minimum wage, which will be touted as necessary to improve the economy, when in reality it will increase the, already obscene, profits of big businesses.