RobHawk Posted 1 August 2013 Author Posted 1 August 2013 I understand it isn't that many, just tends to get used by people to justify their desire to bring down benefits. I've got no sympathy for the scroungers but it's important to realise they aren't a major problem for the economy (I think). For the record in no way shape or form am i against people on benefits! You trace my history in other thread and i support their being funds available. But i think about if i lost my job, i'd do anything to bring in a wage, i'd consider anything. I think alot of people start out like that but get worn down by the system. Having 12 hrs a week where you are doing something can only help the individual long term! Its not just about saving money or getting something from the claimaints. Its about keeping them sane! Giving them something to be proud of! whether its a clean toilet or rubbish free hedgerow! Taking pride in ones work is essential and can only happen if they have work to do!
Harry - LCFC Posted 1 August 2013 Posted 1 August 2013 In terms of image, education and legacy if you let it fester the number only gets bigger and that creates a huge problem. Yes I would agree with that. I enjoy hearing about unemployment falling but I also appreciate it when others point out that long term unemployment is quite a big portion of it right now. Very difficult to deal with though.
Captain... Posted 1 August 2013 Posted 1 August 2013 Cynically motivated by Labour to get votes?, never, you'll be telling me they'll be giving peerages to entice the black community soon. I don't think it is an awful idea, we can't afford to pay for 1,000 people to clean the streets so why not take advantage of people who are doing nothing and getting free money for it, what do they get on JSA? £156 a fortnight? So assuming they come in on dole day and get selected for an 8 hour litter picking session or chewing gum pick up thats £19.50 an hour they are being paid by the state for it. You'd never catch the tories doing that would you... As for the second part, the worry is that if you lay off all the street cleaners then you are just exacerbating the problem by creating more people out of work. My idea a few months ago was to give people a minimum number of hours of work they have to complete to be eligible for their benefits, call it 10 hours a week for JSA. They can complete them in the public or charitable sector, and they can be responsible for organising their own placements, or accept the litter picking/graffiti cleaning. This allows people who want experience in a certain sector to be able to actually get relevant experience, if you want to work in retail, get down to a charity shop, you want to be a teacher, get down to your school to help out, you want office base work, all charities and civil service departments have admin/finance/hr departments. It would give them credible references and valuable experience and make them much more employable, which is the whole point, not just making sure scroungers don't get money for free.
Captain... Posted 1 August 2013 Posted 1 August 2013 This is not the problem with Benfits. JSA is a small amount. The problem is tax credits paid to people on low incomes - why tax people and then pay it back? Nonsense. Simply raise the tax threshold, and if you need to help families, increase child benefit. Because raising the tax threshold will result in everyone paying less tax, including footballers, millionaires, bankers etc, whereas tax credits are aimed at the worse off, unless you increase the higher rate of tax in the process all you are doing is reducing the net tax collected.
Webbo Posted 1 August 2013 Posted 1 August 2013 If all these simplistic solutions really worked don't you think they'd have been done already?
Captain... Posted 1 August 2013 Posted 1 August 2013 If all these simplistic solutions really worked don't you think they'd have been done already? There not simplistic though, it would be much harder to maintain and organise than the current process of giving them money and ticking some boxes to say they are trying to get a job.
leicsmac Posted 1 August 2013 Posted 1 August 2013 If all these simplistic solutions really worked don't you think they'd have been done already? Do you really have so much faith in the authority and their altruism that they have even seriously considered options like this?
Guest MattP Posted 1 August 2013 Posted 1 August 2013 You'd never catch the tories doing that would you... As for the second part, the worry is that if you lay off all the street cleaners then you are just exacerbating the problem by creating more people out of work. My idea a few months ago was to give people a minimum number of hours of work they have to complete to be eligible for their benefits, call it 10 hours a week for JSA. They can complete them in the public or charitable sector, and they can be responsible for organising their own placements, or accept the litter picking/graffiti cleaning. This allows people who want experience in a certain sector to be able to actually get relevant experience, if you want to work in retail, get down to a charity shop, you want to be a teacher, get down to your school to help out, you want office base work, all charities and civil service departments have admin/finance/hr departments. It would give them credible references and valuable experience and make them much more employable, which is the whole point, not just making sure scroungers don't get money for free. Giving a peerage to garner votes with the black community? Hmmmm. Apart from that (and I said I'd ringfence street cleaners so they couldn't be laid off) I'd have no problem with anything you say there, good idea. Might cause the odd problem when the tennents swilling lout sits there and tells you to get him some work in a school but I'm sure some sensible decision making overiding it could make them work.
Webbo Posted 1 August 2013 Posted 1 August 2013 Do you really have so much faith in the authority and their altruism that they have even seriously considered options like this? I have no faith in Govt at all, that's why I believe we should have as little of it as possible.
leicsmac Posted 1 August 2013 Posted 1 August 2013 I have no faith in Govt at all, that's why I believe we should have as little of it as possible. Ah right, I thought that you meant that those in power would already have given options like these the correct amount of consideration before dropping them for legitimate reasons. I think differently, but that's not what you meant I'm sure.
Webbo Posted 1 August 2013 Posted 1 August 2013 Ah right, I thought that you meant that those in power would already have given options like these the correct amount of consideration before dropping them for legitimate reasons. I think differently, but that's not what you meant I'm sure. That too, I just didn't like the suggestion that I have faith in Govt. What happens if the Govt change anything to do with unemployment/benefits/education/NHS? All the vested interests will tell us how worried they are about everybody else, not their cushy jobs or benefits obviously. The BBC will interview some overweight simpleton who will definitely starve to death because of this and even the people who suggested this change in the first place will consider the govt evil for even considering it.
Rincewind Posted 1 August 2013 Posted 1 August 2013 What some people seem to forget is that the majority of those claiming benefits are already working full or part time, mainly on low wage or zero contracts. As for voluntary you are only allowed to do so many hours voluntary or work experience and have to be available for interviews etc even if the work or training course could lead to a job. I was told I could not do a three full day course and if I did I was in danger of my JSA being stopped. Councils already use agencies for casual work usually a lot less wages than the fully employed and you are not covered or entitled to holidays. If it could be assured that it would be fair I'd agree to it.
Guest MattP Posted 1 August 2013 Posted 1 August 2013 Not a single person in the thread is advocating JSA being stopped for these tasks. We know most clamaints are in work, you tell us in every thread.
Rincewind Posted 1 August 2013 Posted 1 August 2013 Not a single person in the thread is advocating JSA being stopped for these tasks. We know most clamaints are in work, you tell us in every thread. Not everyone surely? Still see posts saying those claiming are single unmarried 18 year olds with three kids lazy bastards who claim they are disabled when they could easily work on a skyscraper. Sorry I exaggerated there. My sense of humour.
Guest MattP Posted 1 August 2013 Posted 1 August 2013 If it was true you would be telling us why I should work to pay for them.
Rincewind Posted 1 August 2013 Posted 1 August 2013 The extreme and rare case I agree with you about being scroungers but I just don't think it is as widespread as some think and a lot of unfortunate families are being branded the same hence the cuts. I see another ex-footballer is reported to be homeless. Samson of Arsenal fame. From what I heard he was living in a million pound house then went through a messy divorce. Never got over it and suffered with depression. Started to drink to compensate then went downhill. He couldn't handle what a lot of us think we could or that he should. I said when it was read out today he either needs a shoulder to cry on or a kick up the arse. The problem is either or both could make things worse. He retired at 36 after playing for 20 years. Made his debut at 16.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.