MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
Seems as if our leaders are introducing a bedroom tax for all recieving Housing Bemefit, a 14%cut in the amount paid if you have more bedrooms than occupants, a couple count as one bedroom, kids under 16 count as 1 bedroom, etc.
Under the Welfare Reform Act, due to be brought in next April, each person or couple in a household is allowed a bedroom, with children under 16 of the same gender and children under 10, regardless of gender, expected to share.
Any household deemed to have more bedrooms than required will lose 14% of their housing benefit for one, or 25% for two rooms
and youre expected to downsize and move to a smaller home or pay the extra to your landlord.
Yep. I work in housing and trust me this will be chaos. The only saving grace is that it won't affect u if you're over 60.
What about bikes? Three = one bedroom?
Yet again, the Tories putting the 'n' in cuts.
Bike tax next
Lol
😀
Given I receive no benefits and cannot afford a spare bedroom I don't see this as unreasonable. We're also thinking about moving to a cheaper area as money is tight.
If I'm subsidising someone else to stay in better accommodation than I can afford then is it wrong for me to support this policy?
One problem I see though - if children are expected to share rooms (no bad thing in and of itself) bedrooms in a lot of new builds are tiny. We have two boys and I don't think their beds and a single wardrobe would fit in either of their bedrooms and leave enough space for both to stand.
No thread could have illustrated the plight of the 'striver', the 'bloated lazy public sector' and the 'benefits scrounger' so perfectly and succinctly in less than 10 posts.
😀
great idea..
what this does is penalise those seeking homes that are larger than those who work could afford and what it will do is lower rents and free up larger houses for those that need them.
and frankly why should anyone working have to pay extra to live in a big home when you would nt if you were on benifits as the govt pays your rent..
whats wrong with kids sharing rooms?
Doesn't it just encourage people to have more kids? Or am I looking at it too simplistically!? 🙂
Social housing is built to the homes and communites agency's scheme development standards which include minimum space standards.
The problem with this policy is that housing is inelastic of supply, ie. it takes 3 years minimum from the point someone thinks we'll build some houses to the point when people move in, and in many areas the property profile won't match the demands put on it by the new policy. So for example this will put huge pressure on 1 and 2 bed units. Most Local Planning Authorities havent allowed 1 bed new build units for years bceause they are seen as unsustainable. It actually doesnt increase your build cost much to build a 2 bed instead of a 1 bed anyway because the footprint is virtually the same so we now have a lot of 2 beds in many areas, a lot of course is relative. How is that now going to help a single man? With a lack of suitable property to downsize to what you're talking about here is a policy that will force the absolute poorest in our society to subsidies their rent from the pittance they get in unemployment benefit. I'm sorry you are having to move Tony but I guess you ate tonight.
single bed flat? why does someone without a family need a house?How is that now going to help a single man?
As I said 1 bed flats haven't been built by housing associations for years. I wasn't talking about a house I said a 1 or 2 bed unit. A unit being a dwelling, be that a flat a house or a bungalow
[i]Yep. I work in housing and trust me this will be chaos. The only saving grace is that it won't affect u if you're over 60.
[/i]
Why is it a saving grace - according to the above, a couple with 3 boys will be expected to live in a 2 bed flat, yet a pensioner living on her own can have a 3 bed house 🙄
Well two wrongs don't make a right but you have a point.
Really? I just googled and there are lots of housing associations with new 1 bed flats/apartments.As I said 1 bed flats haven't been built by housing associations for years.
Everything is relative, there arent enough
On a related matter...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/9596251/Abu-Hamzas-wife-asked-to-leave-1m-council-house.html
anyone can CLAIM HOUSING BENEFIT, DEPENDENT ON INCOME,Working or not, and it also affects privately rented accomodation as well.
So the government is looking to make sure it gets best value from housing benefit and gets best use of the housing stock.
IE Move people out of 3 bed properties after kids have left home etc.
Frees up money and bigger houses for those on the waiting list.
As above the state should support the minimum required when the economy is down the pan.
Are they going to penalise people even if there's no other accommodation with the correct number of bedrooms available?
May be helpful for reducing the bill for the long-term unemployed, providing the houses are available for them to move into as circumstances change.
The problem is that the electorate think that welfare = scroungers (long term unemployed), when probably the majority who are on some form of welfare or benefit will be not be long term unemployed but low-income, disabled, key workers, or short term unemployed. However, because the electorate thinks welfare = scroungers, then conservative policy is set up to punish the minority of scroungers with no thought to what effect it has on other welfare claimants.
Just need to look at Cameron's reluctance to apply any of these cuts to the elderly, even to the very richest, for example by applying this scheme to over 60s, or by means testing winter fuel allowance. Elderly people and the rich are his key electorate.
How does someone with a very limited income afford the deposit to move house?
I am of course making the ludicrous assumption the stock exists
I think the children under 10 sharing idea is flawed. I don't think girls who have started puberty (i.e. menstruation) should be sharing a bedroom with a brother.
And how do 'step' siblings count?
Do you know of many nine year old girls having periods then?
Not saying it never happens, but few and far between surely 😕
I see absolutely nothing wrong with this, I work bloody hard and so does my wife we have 9 yr old twins. If we were on housing benefit we'd be automagically upgraded to a 3 bed house, as we work 60hrs plus a week each we are treated worse and don't get the benefit.
If only people realised they are entitled to **** and and should work for it the sooner we'll all be better off. And no I'm not rolling in it, struggling by self employed with SO as a civil servant, yet we take home less than one woman I know who adopts 1 kid!#
We take home £2k a month on a good month
She has one kid, fosters another, has rent paid of £700 c/tax of £120 and a take home wage of £1900! wtf is the world coming to?
Single parent gets £2720 yet two bloody hard working parents to two kids get less? Tony Blair has ****ed things up for generations, you are entitled to sh1t all unless mentally of physically need it, otherwise do what i do, scrape by.
Pisses me right off when I do odd jobs like fix gravestones, groundwork etc to get by.
Junkyard's point is the most interesting to me. Low earners would be forced to choose between a large % drop in their income or trying to save a similar amount towards moving. Having a massive amount of demand at the same time for smaller properties must surely be good news for landlords though 😉
Can always rent out the spare room to a lodger of course - and I believe they've also changed the rules so that someone on benefits can keep a greater proportion of any rent received, without losing their benefits.
Tosh- all benefits are means tested, this is another attack on the poor, i say free up all those big houses with multiple rooms that are not used, second homes are not needed, you can only live in one, its time to abolish all forms of private ownership, make life simple-- you live somewhere,you die, someone else has a home-- game shows to decide who gets what, Queen v Single mum at darts, or dog tricks, yeah crazy man-- i'm going to birmingham , seems like plenty of people hangin there this week with similar ideas
Nothing wrong with minimum but reasonable benefits but they have to go hand in hand with lots of other measures ie assistance to those who want ti work, a severe kick uo the arse to those who don't (imho everybody should work in some way for all benefits as it helps counter the ' no financial benefit in working' and fairly taxing the better off. Right now too much looks like tory ideology and targeting the poor cos they're an easy target and a vote winner in times of austerity. Guessing this won't save billions.... Ps why did any council ever allocate housing on a one size for life basis?!
She has one kid, fosters another, has rent paid of £700 c/tax of £120 and a take home wage of £1900! wtf is the world coming to?
Those figures don't seem right to me. She's above the limit for the universal benefit, no? And way above any specific limits for HB that I can find. These mention a limit of about £300. Are you sure your figures are correct?
I think this is fair enough - the housing benefit system has descended into a complete farce if there's even a shred of truth in these articles:
So the proposal is - have a tramp move into the spare room or loose 14% in housing benifit.
No mansion tax though.
"We are all in this together" apparently.
And to robdixon re the links - it is exactly this sort of dross in the right wing press about a tiny number of extreme cases that gets people thinking of benifit scroungers.
housing, a social issue, where people live, community, if you think that should be treated like some piece of clothing... you have not given it much thought. Alienation is a big problem with rootless communities, leading to many social problems down the line, there is a consensus among those who are involved, that strong and stable communities are in everyones interests--i know this is a cycle forum offshoot, but have a think
The UK already has the smallest homes in western Europe due to an obsession with room numbers, the size of a child's bedroom in a newbuild in London wouldn't be fit to be called a cupboard in Germany, to force two teenagers into cubby hole is ridiculous.
It's just another example of Tories not understanding the lives those on the breadline actually live.
Junkyard - MemberI am of course making the ludicrous assumption the stock exists
It's gonna be musical houses LOL
Even if you agree with the idea in principle, its gonna be way too complicated to implement & for that reason alone it should be binned. I always thought the social housing where you paid rent according to income was a good model - naturally created turnover as people became more well off they would move on to private rented or buy their own home as what they got for their money in social housing became less appealing the more money they earned.
The more I see of the tories' latest wheezes, the more I think they all originated from Stewart Pearson's 'mind camp' in The Thick of It.
"Get the Unemployed to drive Ambulances!"
"Yes and Ho!"
Due to the state of the nations finances, left to us by the previous government, we can no longer afford our overly generous social security system.
Ultimately, we will need to house unemployed people, and their families, all in one large building together. But so they don't feel too alienated, we'll still use the traditional parlance and refer to it as a '[i]house[/i]'
And as they will be there while they actively seek '[i]work[/i]', that should also figure in the title. Maybe as a prefix. Maybe they could even be compelled to do said '[i]work[/i]' while we graciously allow them to stay there
Blue sky thinking, you see
Who defines how many bedrooms a house has?
Could you knock two rooms through into one to reduce the number of bedrooms a house has? and then put a 'temporary' partition up to separate the rooms again?
I think changes do need to be made, the benefits system should be a safety net not a lifestyle choice, but this sounds frought with difficulties/workarounds like the old window tax..
It's housing associations fault. They built houses for ordinary people in nice areas. Not much point living in your nice postcode if some oiks who do manual labour are allowed to live there and use the school,park etc. Isn't this what housing estates were built for?
This is unworkable. "Mrs Brown,I see your eldest child has left home and you have a spare bedroom..." That night Mr Brown comes home to find the lights dimmed and George Benson playing on the stereo....God I hate the Tories.
We take home £2k a month on a good monthShe has one kid, fosters another, has rent paid of £700 c/tax of £120 and a take home wage of £1900! wtf is the world coming to?
Single parent gets £2720 yet two bloody hard working parents to two kids get less?
your figures are just bobbins - you can caluculate benefits online because the figures are there
You dont get money for adopting a child
You will for fostering but the rates vary.
That amount is above HB rates and council tax
When folk in work get less money that those on benefits [ it only ever actually happens with lotsof kids tbh despoite what you read] you should remewber that benefits aree the bare minimum to survive and tend to keep youy below the poverty line.
You should direct your anger at the fact wages are so low rather than think benefits aretoo high
RE hb we should be annoyed that many well off folk do buy to lets to make money so we have the everday taxpayer subsidising the well ish off to make money via HB and taxes
It is not the fault of those on benefits how much rent costs
PS IF YOU THINK A NEIGHBOUR IS BETTER OF ON BENEFITS WHY NOYT GIVE UP WORK AND LIVE LIKE THEM - ITS THE ARGUMENT THAT PRISONS ARE LIKE HOTEWLS - YOU ARE FREE TO ENGAGE WITH THE SERVICES IF THEY ARE THAT ****ing brilliant- soory accidental caps lock not shouting
You should direct your anger at the fact wages are so low rather than think benefits aretoo high
This needs to be applauded, it's fact that you can't live off minimum wage in this country now. Someone who works full time but doesn't get paid enough to cover his/her living costs reminds me of victorian Britain.
So while lots of people only get minimum wage their employers are making tons of profits, surely those employers are effectively being subsidised indirectly by the government?
Anyhow, don't fret, as housing associations are now only paying rent directly to the claimant and not the landlord anymore there will soon be lots of homeless people and free houses as they spend it on booze, fags and big TV's instead of paying their rent 🙄
The benefits system IS a safety net. I've no doubt some people abuse it, but the entire system seems to be being redesigned on the assumption a few anecdotes about people living in large houses represent the majority of people claiming. Theres already upper limits and guidelines on the amount paid out.
[b]People are getting annoyed at a situation that doesn't exist.[/b]
I blame Jeremy Kyle for this. Parading those people on TV has turned the benefits system into part of class war.
The phrase "claims benefits" now means "track suits, unemployed, lazy, smoke, drink, sky TV, eat junk food, asbo". And we all HATE those people.
hey its better than that taxpayers top up the Minimum Wage with working family tax credits so tax payers are subsidising multi billion pound multinationals like Mc Donalds [ by supporting low wages] so they can make even more profit.
work needs to pay we need to lok at the employers who will pay their workers F all not target those who cannot get jobs - its not like w ehave full employment now is it
Got to agree with Horatio's first point, benefits are not a long-term solution to a person's financial problems, they are a crutch to allow an acceptable level of existence while they get back on their feet.
Too many people see it as a lifestyle or 'career' choice - they make an objective decision to take benefits and enjoy a lifestyle with which they are comfortable rather than work to improve that lifestyle.
The problem is that this lifestyle is often comparable to that which people working 60hr weeks have to endure. Alcohol, tobacco, TV subscriptions, holidays, luxury electronics etc should NOT be within the reach of someone supported by benefits.
Too many people see it as a lifestyle or 'career' choice - they make an objective decision to take benefits and enjoy a lifestyle with which they are comfortable rather than work to improve that lifestyle.
Really how many people do you know who made that "lifestyle choice"?
The problem is that this lifestyle is often comparable to that which people working 60hr weeks have to endure. Alcohol, tobacco, TV subscriptions, holidays, luxury electronics etc should NOT be within the reach of someone supported by benefits.
I have been unemployed, for just four months, it took me 4 years to recover from the financial damage it wrecked upon me. Your fantasy is complete bullshit and frankly offensive to anyone unfortunate to suffer that misery.
utter bollocks - that is just not true but the right wing would have you beleive it so that you feel that benefits cuts are ok as they are some form of luxurythat this lifestyle is often comparable to that which people working 60hr weeks have to endure.
FWIW i would get £71 per week to live on and i would need to run a house on that - my bills are more than that
I would then be penalised for having too many rooms so would loose a % of housing benefit [if I rented] making me worse off again.
Can you do all those things you list from that amount?
Can anyone?
Even if it was true the issue lies with wages and not with benefits.
Just because there is the odd execption - rates now capped and it wil be less than 1 %]- who have lots of kids and money it is no reason to assume everyone without work lives the luxirous live you describe. It is a right wing fantasy created to make you despise them and to justify hitting the poorest in our society hardest whilst giving tax breaks to the wealthiest.
They are not well off and it is a lie to argue that they are
Full of myths of neighbours on 2 k benefits and them all having holidays - its Bollocks - go and look at the poor parts of any town and tell me that is luxury
This sounds like it's going to cost more than it saves, if you force people on benefits to move house they will all be applying for a decorating grant (i'm sure they still get this). How will this affect couples sharing custody? Does this also mean people will move to a bigger house when the kids are over 10 then have to move to a smaller house when then move out at 16?
Why doesn't the government just cap benefits at the second sibling?
Really how many people do you know who made that "lifestyle choice"?
There are a great many people I know in that position. I recently went on a school reunion where one guy was complaining about being unemployed. I asked him what sort of work he was after and he was quite happy to admit that he was not - he was perfectly happy having as much free time as he wanted. He figured it was a fair payoff for living on limited means.
He added me on facebook but I had to delete him after a week - all his posts about the films he was watching all day made my p*ss boil.
The final straw was when he started bragging about how he'd spent all day on the phone to sky complaining about his Sky Premier On Demand not working properly!!
When you say it took you 4 years to "recover", it sounds to me like you "expect" a certain standard of living. Nobody should "expect" anything. To be honest, the fact that there was a safety net which allowed you to rebuild your life is a good example of how the benefits system should be used.
It's frightening how many people on here think:
unemployed= lazy ****less ne'er-do-well
Do these people not read or watch the news? I'll put it simply: many hard-working people were laid- off (it wasn't their fault) due to the hard times we've had recently. Despite trying very,very hard a lot of them have not found new jobs as very few businesses are taking on new workers. So they are still out of work and struggling to get by. They are not living the life of riley, off down the pub and the bookies whilst you're hard at work.
There are a great many people I know in that position
what position the picture you painted fiorst time or the picture you painted second time?
Obviously governemnt policy towards the unemployed should be based on your anecdote of a school reunion and face book posts of one person.
When you say it took you 4 years to "recover", it sounds to me like you "expect" a certain standard of living. Nobody should "expect" anything.
doofs caps and sends little timmy too sweep your chimney
I expect compassion,understanding and empathy from folk but you are right I should not expect it from everyone
Unfortunately, all every aspect of the economy is cyclical, and that includes employment. If the economy can't support employment, you have to expect unemployment.
In an ideal world, unemployment would stimulate a contraction in the population, growth in other areas, economic migration etc, etc etc. Sadly, our benefits system stifles all these natural effects causing economic stagnation.
Ecomomics is just like Darwen, but with money rather than genes... innit.
Junkyard, you are speaking junk. I've never yet met an unemployed family that don't have sky or virgin media. The normal hardworking person is subsidising the average unemployed scrounger. I know what it's like to be unemployed, but 90% of the unemployed are better off under the current benefit giveaway system and have no visions of ever seeking employment. The system needs to change and this is a good starting point.
Junkyard, you are speaking junk.
Thanks - why not say whihc bit - was it the actual figure you get if unemployed?
Is that because you dont know very many? I am not sure why we are getting hung up on this point tbhdo yu have any actual data to support your anecdote? -I've never yet met an unemployed family that don't have sky or virgin media.
The normal hardworking person is subsidising the average unemployed scrounger.
Well that is the kind of rational well made point that is hard to refute 🙄
Could you explain to us all what is the point of the better of caluclation and why the system , involving working family tax credits has been designed to ensure that you are always better of in work*? I mean I realise this is an actual verifiable fact so why not look it up on google or go to a Job centre and let them do the calcualtion for you.I know what it's like to be unemployed, but 90% of the unemployed are better off under the current benefit giveaway system
That is just utterly utterly wrong,innaccurate and not true.
* it is theoretically possible [ but very ver unlikely - 0.01 % or thereabouts iirc]that with a large number of kids that you many not be better of in work but i have never seen it happen in thousands of calculations. Facts are rather inconvient things when you want to innacurately rant
You can despise the poor and the unempoloyed if you wish but it is just not true to cliam they are better of on benefits. As i keep saying it is a lie told to you so often by the press that you start to believe it- check it out yourself via a JC and the minimum wage if you dont beleiev me.
Lets not get angry at billionairres depriving us of millions and billions of pounds of tax lets all targer those benefits scroungers who are better off than me , even though i work hard, and spend all day in the lap of luxury
I really cannot believe you buy these lies
Junkyard, is English not your first language, or has someone swapped some of the keys round on your keyboard??
I really can't be arsed trying to decipher what you're saying which is a shame as you might have the odd good point to make. Unlikely though... 😉
I am sure you have the "sense" to be able to decipher what i say and also the sense to realise you have no factual counters to my point hence your "face saving" reply 🙄
Dont let this inability change your view though
Face saving? Not I. I'm 100% unswerving in my opinions, which I know to be 100% correct. Fact.
I just like to patronise people sometimes... 😉
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Junk.. you need to get out more fella.. I've posted before facts on people I not only know but I'm related to who are playing the system and have a much better standard of living on benefits than me and my wife (who both work full time). Yet you 'choose' not to believe it.
I'm sure there are many people with terrible experience of unemployment, yet the majority (and it IS the majority) of people I know have not only never worked, they have no intention of ever working. And yes.. they all have skyTV too.
thanks for the ad hominem and the anecdote they sure trump my facts that you can go and check for yourself 🙄
The majority of folk you know have never worked and have never intended to - are you Jeremy Kyle ?
Only sometimes, you under sell yourself shib 😉
Tell you what, why don't you just find out what you would get if you were unemployed, see how well you could actually live for a few months, when you get paid, move any extra money into a separate account, pay EVERYTHING from your benefits figure, see exactly how well that goes. You will soon realise what bullshit your spouting.
It's amazing how seemingly even well educated folk can believe Tory propoganda if they are told it enough times.
Living on benefits for the majority is miserable, I once had to work part time due to becoming a single parent, it's survival, not living.
You are, and always were better off by working.
The tories among you will be pleased to hear it was only for a short time and I am now taxed to the hilt 😀
The current Welfare State is perfectly affordable. The Tories have an agenda to reduce welfare, regardless of how much it costs. It's a Tory Axiom that all poor people are scroungers and all rich people are oppressed entrepreneurs who just need lower taxes to flourish. Nothing to do with economics or reality......
Junk.. you're delusional.
Every man and his dog knows that the way to do it is to work the bare minimum hours to qualify for tax credits.
Quick look at the current HMWTC calulator shows that a couple working 24 hours per week on minimum wage will bring in about £15k. Include a couple of kids and they get just under $5k child tax credit and whatever child allowance is too. They will also qualify for full housing and council tax benefits.
I wish I had over £20k left each year after paying rent/mortgage and Council rates.
Try opening your eyes.
I notice elzorillo also fails to mention if you work full time (i.e.) over 30 hrs per week) you get a higher rate award. If you're on £15k a year you will not get all your rent paid, maybe some of it, and you will pay full rate of council tax.
I know, I've been there.
It'll never happen. Waaaaaay too complicated to implement, fortunately.
I honestly don't know what to believe regarding unemployment. For the short time I was unemployed there was no way I could live on the £60-ish a week that came in.
However, in the Job Centre there was a clear difference between the people for whom this was a new experience and a substantial number who'd clearly been in and out for a long time. Unlucky? Permanently unemployable? Scroungers? Dunno.
The system is antiquated and not fit for purpose - the computer wouldn't accept a degree as an acceptable qualification and the database is filled with a glut of pretend jobs.
Junkyard, you've got too much time on your hands. I suggest you get a job. Adios 😀
Why aren't you on benefits elzorillo?
Why aren't you on benefits elzorillo?
I wonder that myself at times..
........it's fact that you can't live off minimum wage in this country now.
You can, just, but only because it's topped up by benefits.
Why would a company pay any more than the bare minimum when they know the taxpayer will step in and subsidise [u]their[/u] employees wages?
I'm sure in many cases the owners/directors of these companies are often very well off and could if they so wished pay a reasonable wage, however it might mean they wouldn't be able to afford that new Aston they promised themselves.
It's the private sector that are screwing the benefits system.
The thing is people will be forced to move to houses or flats in different areas, possibly worse areas, where higher costs are the norm, due to theft, pushing up insurance,limited shops,poor public transport etc.
Then once their old houses are empty will new tennants be easily found that can pay the new rent, without any HB to help pay for it.
Usual nonsense from the middle class whingers'
Fact; I am unemployed, wife, two kids in school.
Fact; There are very few jobs in a shrinking economy,
fact; We survive on benefits, that is what its for.
Lies; People on benefits are scroungers
Lies; Its their own fault
Lies; Damn lies and statistics...
When i sign every two weeks , i have an @interview' to ensure that i have been keeping my Job seekers Agreement, evidence of efforts, jobs applied for and so on, last time , five of the jobs , were not actually there,they were maybe jobs, that the relevant agency might have, this is increasingly common, where open days are set up, to fish among the jobless pool, in case an employer may want someone at some unspecified future date, these days involve travel(expense) and can become disheartening. Oh yes life on benefits is full of joy......
I am not complaining, just trying to counter the bullshite coming from the stonethrowers...
The Tories have always demonised the poor,its part of their rhetoric, the poor are to blame for their own and everybody elses predicament......i'll give marks for front....
Junk.. you're delusional.
Can you argue without insults? Is that meant to be persuasive?
Quick look at the current HMWTC calulator shows that a couple working 24 hours per week on minimum wage will bring in about £15k. Include a couple of kids and they get just under $5k child tax credit and whatever child allowance is too. They will also qualify for full housing and council tax benefits.
1. I assume you mean the HMRCTC with the bit above?
2. a couple on the wages you state without children dont get anything from the state
3. the next part would involve kids and would be termed child tax credit
and they would get just under 3.5 k
4 . They wont qualify for full housing or council tax it depends but i suspect they will get nothing or perhaps very little in london
Basically, whilst lecturing me for my ignorance, you have managed to make everything you say be wrong - well done
Try opening your eyes.
Try learning about the rules for the system you are so intent on telling me I don’t understand lest you look incredibly ll informed when you get it all wrong.
This narks me quite a bit.
"Fact; There are very few jobs in a shrinking economy"
Not necessarily, if you are prepared to move about there are good, well paid jobs all over the country (I employ engineering people all over the uk and know the markets well). The problem is that most on benefits think its a god given right to have a local job using the old excuse "there's no work around here" - WELL FRICKIN MOVE TO WHERE THERE IS WORK!!!!.
"Lies; People on benefits are scroungers" maybe so, but the majority are lazy, stubborn and don't think outside the box (This has absolutely nothing to do with intelligence).
Tax & benefit reforms are needed, this is a small country punching way above its weight with ever deminishing control over it's governing policies. If it needs to take serious steps backwards to ensure survival then so be it.
Big difference between those on breadline who work and those who don't. The former needs and deserves help. The latter don't.
I like the above. Without getting into any racist issue, how come the country has large amounts of immigrants working? They have jobs.
Konastoner you come across as an utter ****.
Unemployment has risen by a massive amount in the last few years, no? Either several million people have suddenly got very lazy or it has become much more difficult to get work.
if you are prepared to move about there are good, well paid jobs all over the country (I employ engineering people all over the UK and know the markets well
are you suggesting everyone unemployed s qualified enough to work for you?do you think they, who you describe as lazy and stubborn have the skills to do the well paid jobs you claim there are. Are there about 3 million of these jobs?
I rather fear you have not thought this through tbh
The problem is that most on benefits think its a god given right to have a local job using the old excuse "there's no work around here" - WELL FRICKIN MOVE TO WHERE THERE IS WORK!!!!.
so where exactly should all the unemployed folk move to exactly to get work - i assume there is housing stock for them, infrastructure, schools for their kids etc and it is actually very easy for them all to do this
What if your kids are in the last year of school exams?
how would you sell your house ? could you then afford to buy one where there is work? can you afford the house move if you rent and are on benefits?
Not everyone can just move like you suggest , you must realise this.
but the majority are lazy, stubborn and don't think outside the box (This has absolutely nothing to do with intelligence).
That is even more stupid than it is offensive. I assume they are also the highly skilled workers that employers would be willing to employ - as a rule do you recruit those who are lazy, stubborn and don't think outside the box?
we are going to get a polarised debate here however.
I would very much doubt that anyone thinks that everyone on benefits is looking for work. However it is a large leap to assume that none of them are and an even bigger leap into fantasy land to claim there is work for them all if they just moved [ ignoring the lack of skills amongst the long term unemployed].
how come the country has large amounts of immigrants working? They have jobs.
locally where I work [ with the unemployed] a number of large employers wont employ UK residents and ue eastern europeans which is wha i assume you mean rather than the doctors or footballers who are also immigrants. There are a number of reasons for this including
they will work for less, they will put up with worse employment conditions - such as zero hour contracts - done via agency work so not illegal, compulsory overtime [ with no overtime rate],constantly being laid off when work is slack and working outside the time directives.
By sharing houses they need less money - not easy when you have a family.
I would agree it is a factor in the unemployment rate but you need to look at employers here as much as the unemployed IME if you want a solution.
Kona stoner, , in the last week, JJB gone bust lots of new people heading for unemploymnet, and a major pizza manufacturer in flint gone bust 400 jobs gone, then two bus comapnies gone bust about 120 jobs gone.
Just perhaps explain as you would to a small child where these ex workers should move to, and be able to afford a deposit on a new home, for rent, and relocate their kids etc to get a job with no experience of engineering.
Junkyard, I feel duty bound to point out that there are plenty of immigrants who don't meet your description. I do remember the immigrant unemployment rate being slightly lower than average. Makes perfect sense to me that as an economic migrant you might return home if you were unemployed.