Social Security

[timwilky]

Originally Posted by SoulKiss

Oh and why should an unemployed person be in the pub in the 1st place?

To ask if they have any vacancies?

[SoulKiss]

Originally Posted by timwilky

To ask if they have any vacancies?

Touche

[gruntygiggles]

I don't think we can ever have a system where we chemically alter a person to change their way of living or make life so darned hard on them. Yes, there are people out there that make up reasons for not working, use the benefits to pay for booze/smoking/drugs and have children in order to bring in more money but it has gone too far now to put too many restrictions or too much negative press on them.

We are in a state now where the kind of individual/family that lives like this are doing it because it is all they know. They were not brought up to have any aspirations or pride and have learned a way of life that most of us see as being easy. It is not easy though. Yes, how great to be able to stay at home, do what you want, have kids and let the state pay for it, but you take a good hard look at these people and tell me if you think they are really happy. I bet you they're not, they just don't know any other way of living and can't hold down jobs because they have never learned to cope with responsibility or handle being told what to do. Sure they'd never admit it, but it's a difficult and scary thing to completely change your way of living.

There have been many instances across the country with different trials where these people have been interviewed and given work placements in the industry that they have a passion for. It has helped to ignite the fire in them and when one person gives you a bit of praise for getting out of bed in the morning and doing a good days work, it means more than an entire country telling that person they are a waste of space.

Why can't we have a situation where, if you are fit and able to work, but can't find a job or don't want to find one, you have to do some form of public service. It could be tailored to suit the individual and who knows, maybe some of them would grow a little pride and want to get out there and get a paying job.
If you wanted to work, then this would give you something consructive to do with your time and if you didn't, it might just give you the spring board and confidence you need to take the plunge and start earning for yourself.
I would rather do this and have the odd success story than do nothing and watch these people live miserable lives, manipulate the state and teach the way of life to the next generation.

Just my opinions though and they change from time to time!

Originally Posted by SoulKiss

When long-term unemployed people have a better standard of living than I do then yes, someone needs a kicking.

And why should they be able to produce another drain on society when they cannot support themselves, as it is to many of them a baby is just a further income.

Oh and why should an unemployed person be in the pub in the 1st place?

I take it that this is not a serious post.

[Biker Biggles]

Big difference of course between some one who is sick and one who is fit and well but unemployed.
Originally the welfare state was designed to be a "helping hand" to get you back into work when unemployed and a basic safety net for those who couldnt support themselves.It still is in theory but like all organisations it has expanded into any other areas it could and has become a way of life for some.It should never be ticket to a cushy life though,paid for by the rest of the working people.

[SoulKiss]

Originally Posted by Ed

I take it that this is not a serious post.

Why would it not be - minus the physical violence of course.

The Hand-out State we now live in means that people travel from all over the world to take advantage of it, if we were not so attractive why would asylum seekers travel through other free countries - like half of Europe, to get here?

So a little short-sharp shock treatment for the system may be just what it needs.

Remember these are just my thoughts on the spur of the moment - I havent mentioned yet that if for example you Ed were to hit hard times, I wouldn't look at throwing you out of your house - you would loose a percentage of your home to the state based on how much it paid into your mortgage, but you wouldn't have to move house to some sinkhole council estate after you had bankrupted yourself paying the mortgage while you waited for better times to come.

On the other hand like Grunty has said, I would expect people in that situation to have to turn up a location every morning to be assigned their Community Service jobs for the day - be it sweeping streets, cleaning graffiti or whatever.

I am just looking for a fairer deal for everyone, and I dont see why the guy at the end of the bar who has been standing there smoking and drinking for the last 4 hours should be doing it with money from MY pocket.

The very fact that people have to raise money for MacMillan nurses, as people cannot afford to have cancer, makes me angry.

The problem is lumping people who have a genuine illness in with workshy types who want to be off sick.

It's all too easy to abuse, and the genuine people are tarred with the same brush.

[SoulKiss]

Originally Posted by shonadoll

The very fact that people have to raise money for MacMillan nurses, as people cannot afford to have cancer, makes me angry.

The problem is lumping people who have a genuine illness in with workshy types who want to be off sick.

It's all too easy to abuse, and the genuine people are tarred with the same brush.

I really hope (and I think I am failing) that my "policies" are targeted flatly.

What I am advocating is that a, admittedly basic base-line life would be provided by the state.

This includes food, water, shelter, clothing but delivered in a way that ensures value for money for those who are paying for the system.

The food parcel idea is to encourage better nutrition than a bunch of 3 for £5 bags of frozen Iceland junkfood feeding the kids for the week and the rest of the cash going on the parents.

The Community Service thing is as much to encourage people to get out - its all too easy to fall into a life of just sitting around the house when you are not working - thats personal experience from when I was between jobs in Nov 07, spend an hour checking the job sites and chasing agencies and then the rest just in front of the computer/telly.

More than the few weeks I was like that and it would become a way of life.

Is it really a bad thing to reduce the luxuries, such as cigarettes and alcohol of those that are not earning them?

Bit of a controversial one, but what are people's opinions of benefits having a basic margin on which you can survive as a minimum (no luxuries) and increases on it based on the amount of NI you pay. Effectively the more you are taxed, the more you get paid back during hard times. This could gradually drop back over a 3 month period to the miminium amount, starting 3 months after you commence redundancy. You need to be back in work for a minimum of 2 years to "reset" this counter (to prevent someone taking a £100K job then going on the dole for £40K PA forever more).

I know this seems like favouring the people who are most likely to have savings, but it just seems that the current system means if you earn more, pay more tax and have more outgoings, you're more at risk of losing things (and arguably, least deserving of doing so) like your house, car, etc. by missing a few payments as it's going to be far harder to keep up payments expensive things whilst on the dole. If you take the view that this would be decadent and dole should just ensure you don't die of hunger, why not go the other way and seize and liquidate people's assets to fund the benefits they receive and only pay out once these have been exhausted?

I have a crumb of comfort, SK is not going to evict me Sadly the Government won't cover my mortgage interest until after 9 months, by which time the lender would have evicted me anyway, so too late ducky.

What all this conveniently ignores is that I have paid higher rate tax for just about all my working life. I have paid NI too, stamp duty, VAT, the whole damn lot. I have paid in a fortune and if I fell on hard times I expect something back. Why shouldn't I? Why is there an automatic assumption that people who have signed on are workshy? Why are people on benefit labelled 'dolescum', 'council fodder' and other similarly offensive terms?

The other point follows - that JSA, and Income Support, are legal entitlements. Parliament has approved them, and if you don't like people claiming, well don't criticise them as they didn't make the rules, the answer is to change the law.

A number on here have made the point that a life on benefit isn't easy. That is perfectly true. I don't buy the theory that people don't go back to work because they prefer to claim benefit. It's true that some people are better off on benefit because they lack skills in the workplace. This is a difficult problem, probably cyclical because nobody has ever treated these people with respect and so they don't achieve, and rooted in poor self-esteem.

I don't think that anyone will get rich quick on this:

How much do you get?

Contribution-based Jobseeker's Allowance
You get a weekly rate according to your age:

AgeAmount16 - 24£47.9525 or over£60.50
Your payments might be reduced if you're getting a pension.
Income-based Jobseeker's Allowance
The maximum weekly rates are:

StatusAmountSingle people aged 16 - 24£47.95Single people aged 25 or over£60.50Couples and civil partnerships (both aged 18 or over)£94.95Lone parents (aged under 1£47.95Lone parents (aged 18 or over)£60.50


but of course it depends on your expectations in life. To some, that would be a fortune, and it's amazing how little you can live on if you really put your mind to it.