The fact is, I'd rather some people abuse the system, but we made sure those that really need it are cared for - than have a very strict system which means that some of the poorest/most vulnerable people don't get what they need.
Same here.. but there are so many people abusing the system that the system itself is verging on insanity, as such, putting the people who need it most at risk of losing it altogether.
Whilst the most needy most definitely need protecting, the parasites need weeding out, not shielding by the so called do-gooders, who are in fact putting the whole welfare state at risk by their singleminded need to help.
That's the very problem, Vinney, it is indeed a struggle. It should, however, still be the ultimate aim of the welfare state. The welfare state shouldn't, as others have said, be paying for booze, fags 'n Sky TV packages on widescreen TVs.
unfortunately its kinda predictable that the parasites quickly become the needy if benefits are taken away 🙁
Mind you, if I lived in North Wales, I'd drink a lot more than that.
😀
wisepranker - Member
There's plenty of people with bipolar and anxiety realated illnesses who still manage to work and hold down jobs.
Agreed. There's also, by your own words, then plenty of people with biopolar illnesses who don't, or can't hold down jobs. Maybe the wife falls into this catagory. I don't know. Do you?
wisepranker - Member
Most probably plays up to it to make sure she's kept signed off on the sick.
Ah right, you do know in this case. My apologies.
Is it not possible or reasonable to ask for a few hours graft in return for benefits?
That's a good idea! That way all the un-skilled labour in work can go on benefits too. No employer is going to pay minimum wage for unskilled labour when they can get it for free down job centre plus.
With the full time job I do at the moment, I am one of those that would be quite a bit better off, if I gave up work and claimed.
But I have a masterplan & it involves working for a living 😉
Maybe the wife falls into this catagory. [b]I don't know[/b]. Do you?
So why make an issue of it?
That's a good idea! That way all the un-skilled labour in work can go on benefits too. No employer is going to pay minimum wage for unskilled labour when they can get it for free down job centre plus.
Indeed, but there's a difference between giving Tesco's free shelf stackers and; litter picking, maintaining footpaths, working in a charity shop, taking old ladies shopping, manning the welcom desk in a hospital, working in the national trust, coaching kids football, all of which are done by vaulenteers.
There must be 1000's of un-econimicaly viable, but still worthwhile projects that could be done like this.
No employer is going to pay minimum wage for unskilled labour when they can get it for free down job centre plus.
And that's exactly why the judicial service never implemented community service.
Oh.
Indeed, but there's a difference between giving Tesco's free shelf stackers and; litter picking, maintaining footpaths, working in a charity shop, taking old ladies shopping, manning the welcom desk in a hospital, working in the national trust, coaching kids football, all of which are done by vaulenteers.There must be 1000's of un-econimicaly viable, but still worthwhile projects that could be done like this.
Indeed. He could be out there trail clearing at Llandegla, or manning the donation box at Penmachno.
🙂
That's a good idea! That way all the un-skilled labour in work can go on benefits too.
..and be better off. And with less expenses, the companies pay more taxes which pays for the benefits. win-win.
plus, that brings my plan for all the poor people to work as rickshaw pullers, which cuts down on fuel emissions and by lowering the demand for petrol reduces it's price. So I can drive on nice quiet roads. win-win
and if any of them die in rickshaw related accidenats, we could feed them to the dogs, and feed the surplus dog food to the rickshaw pullers.
also, because the amount of benefit paid increases with number of children, we could burn some of the excess kiddies to keep the factories going.
Indeed, but there's a difference between giving Tesco's free shelf stackers and; litter picking, maintaining footpaths, working in a charity shop, taking old ladies shopping, manning the welcom desk in a hospital, working in the national trust, coaching kids football, all of which are done by vaulenteers.There must be 1000's of un-econimicaly viable, but still worthwhile projects that could be done like this.
This +1
Sarcasm aside, I've wondered the same thing (community service for benefits) myself.
Sure, there's logistical hurdles, but you've got a situation at the moment where people are worse off if they go to work (or at least, believe they are). Get paid to sit on your arse all day, or do a day's graft for less money? Let me think.
I'm not saying everyone on benefits is a lazy scrounger (most of us will have been out of work at some point, no doubt), but it'd perhaps remove one obstacle if people were working irrespective of whether they were on benefits or a salary?
Walking round town, there's plenty of jobs that could be done that, currently, there's neither the funding nor inclination to do. Reversing the urban decay; painting over graffiti, picking up litter, sweeping broken glass from outside pubs, planting flowers at the roadside. Maybe if more people took a pride in their environment (or at least, had to clean it up again afterwards) then they might be a bit less inclined to crap on their own doorstep in the first place.
I'm sure that someone's going to be along to point out why this is a stupid idea, and TBH I welcome it if they do, cos I'm damned if I can see it.
manning the donation box at penmachno needs doing it's been cut in half with a still saw before now.
but you've got a situation at the moment where people are worse off if they go to work.
this is simply not true at the momnet except in very rare occasioanl cases. the long taper on tax credits makes it so
and if they'd have just said weekly grocery shopping costs £240 for 8 people, few would have said anything...
but will be better for us English once the regions' become independent 🙂
bit of a hoary old chestnut the work-for-benefits thing though isn't it?
Every government promises to sort something out, then it gets quietly brushed under the carpet. I guess some things aren't as simple as they look on the surface.
this is simply not true at the momnet
Sorry TJ, I went back and edited this whilst you were replying because it isn't quite what I meant.
However of course it would make sense to pay people to do work not to sit on the dole. wouldn't suit the tory agenda tho
Some of you really need a reality check - our benefit levels are miserable - some of the lowest in Europe where 80% of wage for a year for unemployment benefit is the norm instead of the £57 a week we get here.
No luxuries at all allowed if you are unemployed - bare basics for survival only despite the fact we do not have work for millions of people
Walking round town, there's plenty of jobs that could be done that, currently, there's neither the funding nor inclination to do
Unfortunately they cost money to run - if there's no checking up on the work done, a certain percentage of your workforce is going to skive off. Which leaves you back where you started...
What I find hard to believe is that a computer programmer could be out of work for 10 years: a miner or shipworker, I could understand, but a programmer???
Some of you really need a reality check - our benefit levels are miserable - some of the lowest in Europe where 80% of wage for a year for unemployment benefit is the norm instead of the £57 a week we get here.
Sources please TJ.
Some of you really need a reality check - our benefit levels are miserable - some of the lowest in Europe where 80% of wage for a year for unemployment benefit is the norm instead of the £57 a week we get here.
Not all Europe, in Spain it's not 80%. And when it runs out, that's it. No housing benefit, no food tokens, nothing.
Whilst the most needy most definitely need protecting, the parasites need weeding out, not shielding by the so called do-gooders, who are in fact putting the whole welfare state at risk by their singleminded need to help.
What if the cost of 'weeding them out' is greater than just paying them benefits? Pretty sure it's been shown not to be cost effective to go after them - unlike going after tax cheats for instance, which this government (and the tabloid press) isn't so keen on for some reason.
I'm sure that someone's going to be along to point out why this is a stupid idea, and TBH I welcome it if they do, cos I'm damned if I can see it.
Presumably because of the cost of training/supporting/administering such a system with a load of highly unmotivated, unskilled, under-educated people?
"I see eight people here having to choose between eating or heating."
They could always try eating the weaker members of the family to cut costs...
[i]a programmer[/i]
the computing world moves on - if he's got obsolete skills he's got little chance of finding a role.
nothing to stop him learnign new ones in 10 years though, it has to be said.
Sources please TJ.
I'm pretty sure in France you get a very good percentage of whatever you were earning before - I know of a French footballer who played in our Championship who went back to France and received a very healthy 'salary' from the French benefit system based on his previous earnings.
Norm may be overstating it -
Germany - remeberthese are not means tested - this is the equivalent of the £57 a week we get here so a single person on mimimum wage full time would get £160 a week if this was so here.
The level of the UI benefits is defined relative to the net earnings in the previous job.The formal replacement rates are [b]67% for parents and 60%[/b] for childless people. There is an upper cap to the benefit level, which depends on the upper threshold for gross earnings up to which contributions to the social insurance system have to be paid.
The amount of the Dutch unemployment benefit (WW benefit)The amount of your Dutch unemployment benefit depends on the daily wage you earned. The benefit will be a percentage of the daily wage up to a maximum of € 191.82. (This amount applies as from January 2012.)
* For the first 2 months, you will get 75% of the daily wage
* After 2 months, you will get 70% of the daily wage
* In May, you will receive holiday allowance on top of your benefit
Replace some benefits with something which isn't redeamable for fags, booze, X Box, Sky etc
COULD'NT GIVE A SHIT ABOUT PEOPLE LIKE THAT, DO MY ****ING HEAD IN, THEY ALL NEED SHIPPING TO THE MIDDLE OF THE OCEAN AND DROPPED INTO THE SEA 😈
Anyway nice day for a ride is'nt it 😀
Say what you mean squiff 🙂
Personally I don't have a problem with the benefits.Says Ray: "The market for my skills dried up 10 years ago - there's a total lack of work in my area of expertise."
It's the above quote I have and issue with, he's had 10 years to retrain.
they are drawing at the teat of humanity and shamelessly supping the milk of human kindness.
these people have no shame.
TJ, you missed this bit off
Duration of the Dutch unemployment benefit
How long you get an unemployment benefit depends on the number of years you have worked. For each year of work after 1998, you get 1 month of benefit. The years between your 18th birthday and 1998 are also treated as years of work. The maximum duration of the benefit is 3 years and 2 months.
TandemJeremy
Ok that thing Clarkson said on the One show a bit back, that's what I mean
My old dad would be ashamed of what the benefits system has become
He left the RAF in 1947 to go back down the pit
He spent the next few years as a union leader and local Labour Party policy advisor
They built us a great system and we're letting it implode.
[img] 
[/img]
Sandwich, I see your point, obviously my thought was just that and I would hope Government policy would consist of more than one sentence and have a lot more thought behind it to protect those currently in employment.
But in reference to your comment about unskilled labour all going on the dole, you are highlighting what is wrong with the current welfare system:
Minimum wage for 21 and over is £6.08, on a 45 hour week that's £273.60, two working parents and that's £547.20 a week before basic rate tax so that's (hang on a mo, i need a calculator .....) somewhere in the region of £495 after tax. The family in question on the BBC website get £582.40 per week without having to pay tax. Who is better off? the working family or the one on benefits? This is an illustration using a case I know little about but I think you get my point here.
Just in case you were wondering, the proposed £26k a year = £500 a week.
Don't get me wrong, I believe that society should support those who need it but I also believe that you should not be better off on benefits than in work or there will never be an incentive to get work will there.
I wonder how many people are going to read that story and walk away thinking it's a good example?
Minimum wage for 21 and over is £6.08, on a 45 hour week that's £273.60, two working parents and that's £547.20 a week before basic rate tax so that's (hang on a mo, i need a calculator .....) somewhere in the region of £495 after tax. The family in question on the BBC website get £582.40 per week without having to pay tax. Who is better off? the working family or the one on benefits? This is an illustration using a case I know little about but I think you get my point here.
If you're comparing like for like, then the working family in your example will also be receiving child benefit and likely other top up benefits.
Don't get me wrong, I believe that society should support those who need it but I also believe that you should not be better off on benefits than in work or there will never be an incentive to get work will there.
OK, so make taxes less of a burden on those working on low wages, increase taxes on the well-off to pay for it (and spend more on combating tax evasion/avoidance, which has been proven cost-effective).
Simple.
Funny how there's never the same tabloid induced outcry about tax cheats/avoiders, wonder why?
Yeah, but the ones on benefits have got the time during the day to burgle peoples houses while they're at work, and fit in a bit of shoplifting. So they're quids in really
the computing world moves on - if he's got obsolete skills he's got little chance of finding a role.nothing to stop him learnign new ones in 10 years though, it has to be said.
Yes and no - I agree that his skills from 10 years back are of little use today, but as a programmer with a fair amount of free time it shouldn't take him more than a month or two (at most) to pick up a new language, obviously not to expert level but enough to get a job. But yes, he'd probably need to move.
I do find myself (much to my horror!) agreeing with TJ though: given enough benefits claimants there will always be a few that seriously* abuse the system, and they're the ones that the media will pick up on.
* Seriously abusing the system: if you're unemployed and a mate pays you 50GBP to help him move house it's probably illegal, but personally I don't have a problem with it...
Funny how there's never the same tabloid induced outcry about tax cheats/avoiders, wonder why?
The Guardian are quite quiet on the issue as well.....