It is kind of though, from what I can gather from the article it says most of those on jobseekers will be made to go out and do community service and those claiming certain types of incapacity benefit (drug addicts, etc) will be given help to go back to work.
Jobless to work 'clearing litter' !!!
- Thread starter Things change I've changed
- Start date
- Joined
- 27 Jul 2005
- Posts
- 13,360
- Location
- The Orion Spur
But are they forcing you to work though ?, end of the day you don't have to do it, it just means that you give up the right to claim benefits, you want the money you work, you don't won't the money then just refuse to do it, I hardly call that forcing you to do it, end of the day if 'they' really hate it that much then 'they' can find/get a real job.
I agree with it. It's a good motivator for all. Nothing worse than having been on benefit for a considerable amount of time and loosing the motivation to find work. It happens a lot.
Although 2 years is a long time, it should be reduced to months with the flexibility to still look for paid work and attend interviews.
Although 2 years is a long time, it should be reduced to months with the flexibility to still look for paid work and attend interviews.
The human rights act says people have a right to use other people's money while contributing absolutely nothing to society? Really?
It's not going to be slave labour. There is (hopefully) going to be the choice of not doing it or not getting the money.
If you claim out of work benefits, you are by definition out of work and that means unemployed yes?
T.O.F.N.S says-" The number of unemployed people increased by 12,000 over the quarter but fell by 47,000 over the year, to reach 1.62 million."
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=12
so what, who, where, and when?
I think its a step in the right direction from our government. I mean the people who have been doing nothing and getting money will now have to work or do some good.
This "Mundain" work will hopefully get them to either look for work or stop claiming benefit (win-win).
Also the tightening on the incapacity benefit with more serious check in place will also put an end to more of the scammers.
This "Mundain" work will hopefully get them to either look for work or stop claiming benefit (win-win).
Also the tightening on the incapacity benefit with more serious check in place will also put an end to more of the scammers.
There is a difference between claiming within the current rules and claiming inability to work that means the system requires fundamental reform. The problem with the current system is that it encourages dependancy and allows those who are capable of work to keep claiming IB, as well as encouraging them to do so through the variety of linked benefits lost if you stop (this is the root cause of the benefit trap).
When the minister said about those claiming IB but being capable of some form of work, he was probably pretty much spot on with the numbers, but they are claiming within the current system, not outside of it. The real problem is that they tried to make IB easy for those who need it, but by definition that also makes it easier for those who don't need it, and some people are abusing that, like they tend to abuse anything they can until the restrictions become more and more draconian.
Associate
- Joined
- 22 May 2003
- Posts
- 492
- Location
- Derby
This will never happen without many changes to it. Criminals get to clean grafiti via community service as a punishment for their crimes, the jobless will get the same 'punishment' yet it is labelled as help.
The intentions are good but turning every one who i unemployed into a deck hand scrubber will not really improve their prospects, it simply helps to silence tax payers and voters from complaining (often valid of course) about scroungers.
The intentions are good but turning every one who i unemployed into a deck hand scrubber will not really improve their prospects, it simply helps to silence tax payers and voters from complaining (often valid of course) about scroungers.
Last edited:
I think that almost everyone would agree that the system needs changing/refining to weed out the abusers but how that is accomplished is debatable.
Benefit was meant as a safety net for society's less fortunate but it has become a way of life for many; there lies a great part of the problem.
Benefit was meant as a safety net for society's less fortunate but it has become a way of life for many; there lies a great part of the problem.
Unfortunately, it's a problem that these measures won't address, because the real cause of benefit dependancy is the benefit trap, which makes work less attractive (and less of a good finanicial option) than claiming benefits.
Without fundamental reform of this problem, so work pays from the moment you do some, that's not going to change.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2006
- Posts
- 8,537
great idea, i'm fully behind it, and were I on JSA i would expect to do something for my support (even if it were volunteering in a charity shop, litter picking, working with the elderly or disabled etc etc) i can't believe some people really believe they should be able to get something for nothing (although it still wont get me to vote labour 
)
)
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 24,654
Moving people from the benefits to a low-paid job doesn't really benefit them, so it doesn't happen - but that is as much a consequence of there being little social mobility in the UK as it is the benefit system being 'generous'. Whilst its of no real consequence to anyone in employment, there seems to be a queue of working-class blowhards with a chip on their should who have convinced themselves that if they're not slogging, they have no value - and in turn believe they have some right to look down on others.
The government seem to have convinced us of their vision that getting people off benefits is a success in itself when it is not, moving people into minimum-wage dead-end jobs is as much of a failure as allowing them to continue to live on benefits. Social mobility is needed, to merely work is not enough, people need progression for themselves and for society in general.
Trapping people on benefits through a series of losses making the headline benefit rate seem low is certainly doing them no favours. Virtually no-one claims just the dole, for example.
You haven't actually explained why I, for example, should have to work so you, again for example, don't have to. If the tax burden was lower due to better spending, working would be much more beneficial.
Getting people contributing for their money is a benefit in itself when the alternative is them providing no contribution for their money. Personal responsibility for finances and opportunities also helps, rather than expecting both money and opportunity to be presented to you and refusing to do anything until it's there on a silver platter.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 5,166
- Location
- The land of Cows n Grass!
I saw that program and along with that woman did you see that bloke who ran the scaffolding company! I felt like chinning the prat. He was making a grand a week take home and was fiddling the system. I get angry because I would love to have my own business and I wouldnt dream of fiddling the state if I was getting that kind of money in my pocket, and when he was pulled into an interview he knew full well he was guilty but still tried it on lol.
The the biggest weetake was the couple and the two homes, beamer on the drive etc. How the hell did they get away with it for so long?
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2006
- Posts
- 8,537
the less people on benefits the better, less money spent on benefits is more money to either;
A. be spent elsewhere (increasing the standard of living/decreasing the depression/stress associated with being in a crappy job)
and/or
B. tax cuts, increasing expendable money, giving people more freedom (even in their crappy dead end job
either/or is a massive benefit from fewer people sucking the country dry
and is a plus for all parties involved.