Jobless to work 'clearing litter' !!!

Megahurtz400 · 21 Jul 2008 at 11:46

Ceryndrion said:
Do things the easy way....

Lose your job? Get executed... don't care what the excuse is.
Disabled? Execution... not fit to work... not fit to live.
Foreign? leave now.. not born here.. not welcome..
Chav? Incinerated at birth.

End of story... all problems solved.. and from what a lot of people around here post.. in a way that is culturally acceptable to all the forumites..

Darkwave · 21 Jul 2008 at 11:53

You know what I just realised?

This news article has resulted in quite a lot of discussion about benefits lately, some of it pretty heated at times. And isn't it ironic that this announcement came around the time that he BBC aired a programme about benefit fraudsters?

Isn't it funny that the news is suddenly going into overdrive?

Iran has missiles, there are signs of the economy collapsing, there are signs of a fuel crisis in progress, Muslims are in the news again. They've got our minds occupied while they prepare for the election guys, and they're making us argue between ourselves about everyone but them. I think the correct phrase is "trolled".

Well played, Labour. Well played.

JPL · 21 Jul 2008 at 11:56

Ulfhedjinn said:
You know what I just realised?

This news article has resulted in quite a lot of discussion about benefits lately, some of it pretty heated at times. And isn't it ironic that this announcement came around the time that he BBC aired a programme about benefit fraudsters?

Isn't it funny that the news is suddenly going into overdrive? Iran has missiles, there are signs of the economy collapsing, there are signs of a fuel crisis in progress, Muslims are in the news again. They've got our minds occupied while they prepare for the election guys, and they're making us argue between ourselves about everyone but them. I think the correct phrase is "trolled".

Well played, Labour. Well played.

Spot On

(ALL Politicians are Scum of the lowest kind)

cleanbluesky · 21 Jul 2008 at 12:36

Dolph said:
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.

1) You don't have to work so that anyone else can claim benefit, you are free to do as you wish.

2) If you think that a decrease in JSA claimants will lead to lower taxes (even marginally), then you're naive.

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.

If it were the case that being off JSA was a benefit in itself, then not so many people would be on JSA. That or the number of people who simply choose to be on JSA and not look for work is lower than you expect.

I think it has nothing to do with a threshold of money at which a person will quit benefits and 'find' a job (assuming that will alone is resposible for their unemployment) - it is more a question of where a job will lead - if there is little social mobility there is little reason to work. Simply being off JSA does not equate to social mobility, more oportunities for education are required.

ste_bla · 21 Jul 2008 at 12:38

A Simpler way would be give benefits in form of vouchers so you can only get food (no booze), pay your rent and clothes (limit this though) etc. Soon get them into work?

cleanbluesky · 21 Jul 2008 at 12:43

The largest problem with this topic is an unwillingness to examine just how wide the problem is - the number of JSA claimants can be expressed as a statistic and there is a tendency to assume that a decrease in number is a success - but there are lots of people who are stuck in crappy jobs who don't have the oportunity to education in order to get a better one. Everyone is trying to move up, but the government only care about statistics.

Welshy · 21 Jul 2008 at 12:44

This idea has been a long time coming, should have been implemented years ago.

Ulfhedjinn said:
You know what I just realised?

This news article has resulted in quite a lot of discussion about benefits lately, some of it pretty heated at times. And isn't it ironic that this announcement came around the time that he BBC aired a programme about benefit fraudsters?

Isn't it funny that the news is suddenly going into overdrive?

Iran has missiles, there are signs of the economy collapsing, there are signs of a fuel crisis in progress, Muslims are in the news again. They've got our minds occupied while they prepare for the election guys, and they're making us argue between ourselves about everyone but them. I think the correct phrase is "trolled".

Well played, Labour. Well played.

Definetly, I did think that Brown might be doing this (something that the Conservatives originally proposed) to get a few extra Brownie points before an election.

Dolph · 21 Jul 2008 at 12:45

cleanbluesky said:
1) You don't have to work so that anyone else can claim benefit, you are free to do as you wish.

2) If you think that a decrease in JSA claimants will lead to lower taxes (even marginally), then you're naive.

Do I think that reforming social security, which accounts for a full half of all government expenditure, could not lead to reducing taxes? All my proposals revolve around wholesale reform, not piecemeal reform. Specifically by introducting negative income tax, a guaranteed minimum income and abolishing the vast, vast majority of other support, which will in turn remove the benefit trap and mean that any work will mean you are better off than the minimum, while ensuring there is a minimum acceptable living standard.

If it were the case that being off JSA was a benefit in itself, then not so many people would be on JSA. That or the number of people who simply choose to be on JSA and not look for work is lower than you expect.

It's an overall benefit, not a personal one. That selfish people sit on the dole waiting for something they deem to be right for them is not a benefit to anyone but them.

And again, you're forgetting the benefit trap meaning that work genuinely doesn't pay when it should do.

I think it has nothing to do with a threshold of money at which a person will quit benefits and 'find' a job (assuming that will alone is resposible for their unemployment) - it is more a question of where a job will lead - if there is little social mobility there is little reason to work. Simply being off JSA does not equate to social mobility, more oportunities for education are required.

Your beliefs are the same as the selfish ones I'm talking about. Why should other people pay for you to sit around waiting for something you deem appropriate?

Everyone capable of paying their own way should be expected to do so, unless there is a specific reason they are not (such as they are in education). The problem with the free ride is that it isn't free for society.

atpbx · 21 Jul 2008 at 12:50

Welshy said:
This idea has been a long time coming, should have been implemented years ago.

Definetly, I did think that Brown might be doing this (something that the Conservatives originally proposed) to get a few extra Brownie points before an election.

If you have listened to the news, the general consensus is that it is only a left wing government that could ever introduce this, as were a right wing government to do it, everybody would be up in arms about it.
If the socialists do it, there is nowhere for the lazy buggers to run to anymore.

Welshy · 21 Jul 2008 at 12:55

atpbx said:
If you have listened to the news, the general consensus is that it is only a left wing government that could ever introduce this, as were a right wing government to do it, everybody would be up in arms about it.
If the socialists do it, there is nowhere for the lazy buggers to run to anymore.

Sorry?

Breeze · 21 Jul 2008 at 12:57

ste_bla said:
A Simpler way would be give benefits in form of vouchers so you can only get food (no booze), pay your rent and clothes (limit this though) etc. Soon get them into work?

Said the same thing a few weeks ago to a mate.

Darkwave · 21 Jul 2008 at 12:58

ste_bla said:
A Simpler way would be give benefits in form of vouchers so you can only get food (no booze), pay your rent and clothes (limit this though) etc. Soon get them into work?

For a lot of people that is not going to be an issue. Not everyone who is claiming benefits fraudulently is an alcoholic, the ones just out for a free ride would probably be just as happy with vouchers.

Not only that, but such measures would only create a "vouchers for cash" black market. Of course, such a system is impossible anyway as pretty much everyone has wildly varying circumstances and different budgets when it comes to food, clothes, rent, travel and things like that. You'd have to tailor it to each claimant, which is why they use cash.

Welshy said:
Sorry?

I think he's mistaking new Labour for a left-wing and socialist party.

Stretch · 21 Jul 2008 at 13:15

This is government run scheme we’re talking about here, and the one thing we’ve all learned about government is their insatiable ability to foul things up at the tax payer’s expense.

The scheme will no doubt cost money to administer (I can see it now, mangers on £100k+, supervisors on £30k+ etc) and will not actually produce any tangible benefits to tax payer apart from a sense of well being knowing that claimants have had to suffer for their money like the rest of us. Do you really think we’re going to get a reduction in council tax if they have the unemployed picking up litter? Dream on, council tax only knows one direction, and that’s up. They’ll soon find something else to waste the money on.

They’d be much better of setting up a pool labour that the business community can lease if they cover the cost of benefit payments. If the people refuse to work then the benefits stop… Oh, hang on a minute, it’s called the job centre. It would work apart from the fact they never cut the ****** benefits off. Back to square one again.

Nothing's going to work until the government grow a spine

Darkwave · 21 Jul 2008 at 13:18

You've hit the nail on the head really Stretch. This is just wasting money because, as you said, there is a very functional system already in place that is not used to its potential. Whether it's through misregulation on the government level or through mismanagement on the branch level, Jobcentre is a complete push-over.

Either way, this scheme is nothing but trumpet blowing; "Look at us, we're pretending to do something". I have a £10 note here that says this proposal is just another one of those that appears in the news then is quickly forgotten.

badbob · 21 Jul 2008 at 13:24

I bet those moaning about dolies have cushy well paid jobs. Who in there right mind says "any job is a job" unless you're willing to do it yourself, but you're not as driving a BMW living a 5 bedroom house.

Dolph · 21 Jul 2008 at 13:27

badbob said:
I bet those moaning about dolies have cushy well paid jobs. Who in there right mind says "any job is a job" unless you're willing to do it yourself, but you're not as driving a BMW living a 5 bedroom house.

I worked as a crew member for 18 months in McDonalds following graduation rather than going on the dole, so yeah, I think I can say 'Any job is better than no job', and only be preaching what I practiced.

Stretch · 21 Jul 2008 at 13:32

badbob said:
I bet those moaning about dolies have cushy well paid jobs. Who in there right mind says "any job is a job" unless you're willing to do it yourself, but you're not as driving a BMW living a 5 bedroom house.

Why should those in "cushy well paid jobs" pay for those that have made nothing of their lives. I wouldn't take a low paid menial job, which is why I worked hard to get something better. I live in a two bedroom house a drive and 16 year old 306, hardly a life of luxury. You’re living on a different planet if you think the average earner is living a 3+ bedroom house and driving a BMW.

evanswolves82 · 21 Jul 2008 at 13:38

So when is all this meant to be starting then? I wasnt really paying attention to this on the news, just caught something about 3 pilot schemes/tests around the country

Vixen · 21 Jul 2008 at 16:08

I think that this is a great idea for people who are claiming JSA and are stuck in the benefits trap. It's a terrible idea for those who are sick or disabled. I know a lot of people with ME, many of whom are housebound, and it is a struggle for all of them to either get or keep incapacity benefit. It is an illness the government doesn't really understand, with good days, bad days and lots of rest involved. If this comes into place for people who are claiming incapacity benefit, it could be devastating for people with my condition. Even if they're not forced into work, it will be a huge amount of stress and energy to fight for the money to buy food.

cleanbluesky · 21 Jul 2008 at 16:13

Dolph said:
Do I think that reforming social security, which accounts for a full half of all government expenditure, could not lead to reducing taxes? All my proposals revolve around wholesale reform, not piecemeal reform. Specifically by introducting negative income tax, a guaranteed minimum income and abolishing the vast, vast majority of other support, which will in turn remove the benefit trap and mean that any work will mean you are better off than the minimum, while ensuring there is a minimum acceptable living standard.

I don't care about your proposals, I'm discussing JSA - which accounts for less than 0.5% of all tax expenditure and that includes legitimate claimants.

It's an overall benefit, not a personal one. That selfish people sit on the dole waiting for something they deem to be right for them is not a benefit to anyone but them.

It is of short-term economic benefit that they take whichever job they can find, which MAY benefit the proletariat slightly and indirectly by the benefit to the economy, although the long-term consequences of professionals who adopt the first job they can find may be detrimental. Also, it would probably not benefit the economy if slews of temporary workers took low-paid jobs.

And again, you're forgetting the benefit trap meaning that work genuinely doesn't pay when it should do.

The benefit system isn't what stops work from 'paying', its low-oportunity and low pay that stops work from paying.

Your beliefs are the same as the selfish ones I'm talking about. Why should other people pay for you to sit around waiting for something you deem appropriate?

They're not. The government are. Applying the same logic, we'd lose the NHS and social care... why should SOMEONE ELSE pay for YOUR treatment? etc. etc.

You'd brand others as selfish yet are unwilling to aid those in need...

Everyone capable of paying their own way should be expected to do so, unless there is a specific reason they are not (such as they are in education). The problem with the free ride is that it isn't free for society.

The benefit system is designed to catch those who cannot pay their own way.