Jobless to work 'clearing litter' !!!

cleanbluesky · 22 Jul 2008 at 17:52

Dolph said:
No, that's not true, that implies I have choice about whether to give money to the government or not. What actually happens is the government takes my earnings under duress, it's essentially legalised theft or blackmail. Given that, I'd at least like some say in (a) how it's being spent and (b) how much they spend.

I'm sure you would, write to your MP. Explain to them that you worked in McDonalnds, therefore she should listen to your opinion.

You seem to be taking this quite personally, yet have tried to claim it's my problem not yours several times. Will you be being forced to do something for your money soon?

I just like a few people to see their attitudes in context.

Dolph · 22 Jul 2008 at 18:18

cleanbluesky said:
I'm sure you would, write to your MP. Explain to them that you worked in McDonalnds, therefore she should listen to your opinion.

As opposed to sitting at home on the dole refusing to work while claiming voluntary work is 'bettering yourself'? If we're going to go into personal situations and contexts, you really should describe yours in full, rather than dodging the question as you did below.

I just like a few people to see their attitudes in context.

Ditto, that's why I asked you about whether this would affect you, or we can expand it to see whether it would affect you in the past, if not today, seeing as you seem to be willing to use my job history and unwillingness to scrounge off the state when I could work as a negative against me.

vincent1989 · 22 Jul 2008 at 18:35

seek said:
Yes, I know he insulted you, but that is no excuse for such generalizations. I agree people who live on benefit (without trying to look for work) are scum. But you make it sound like everyone who claims it is scum. There are plenty of people who simply need help during a rough patch, and that's what it's there for.

no, you'll note I only ever mention scum in accordance with people who think the dole is an acceptable option to shelf stacking (or similar dull activity)

oh, and i got my 3rd job acceptance in so many years today, a 100% success rate so far, no more shelf stacking for me.

cleanbluesky · 22 Jul 2008 at 19:04

Dolph said:
As opposed to sitting at home on the dole refusing to work while claiming voluntary work is 'bettering yourself'?

Yes, it can give access to professions not usually open to people who would thrust themselves into a McJob and feel very proud for doing so.

Ditto, that's why I asked you about whether this would affect you, or we can expand it to see whether it would affect you in the past, if not today, seeing as you seem to be willing to use my job history and unwillingness to scrounge off the state when I could work as a negative against me.

It is not your personal unwillingness to take benefits that is of interest, just your curious belief that your opinions on this subject are of consequence or that you are somehow fit to judge what attitudes others should have.

Dolph · 22 Jul 2008 at 19:33

cleanbluesky said:
Yes, it can give access to professions not usually open to people who would thrust themselves into a McJob and feel very proud for doing so.

Which is admirable, unless you're sponging at the same time...

It is not your personal unwillingness to take benefits that is of interest, just your curious belief that your opinions on this subject are of consequence or that you are somehow fit to judge what attitudes others should have.

You can have whatever attitudes and behaviour you want, provided you're self sustaining and not harming anyone. The moment you expect your attitude or behaviour to be funded by other people, or it starts affecting other people, then other people gain influence and a right to criticise.

Can you see which one of those the 'I'm too good to work' dole claimaint breaches?

SpicyDuck · 22 Jul 2008 at 19:35

I can't believe some of the crap I'm reading in here. But I don't want to get involved, 'cause it's pointless.

deuse · 22 Jul 2008 at 20:08

cleanbluesky said:
It seems that a few here want to punish people who are unemployed, a small minded attitude IMHO. The extra energy would be better spent achieving things in your life rather than worrying about what others are doing.

cleanbluesky · 22 Jul 2008 at 20:14

Dolph said:
Which is admirable, unless you're sponging at the same time...

It not about admiration.

You can have whatever attitudes and behaviour you want, provided you're self sustaining and not harming anyone. The moment you expect your attitude or behaviour to be funded by other people, or it starts affecting other people, then other people gain influence and a right to criticise.

Can you see which one of those the 'I'm too good to work' dole claimaint breaches?

No, a person can have whatever attitudes they want and what YOU can do it write to your MP. Do it, do it now and remember to tell her you have auhoritai behind you. Remind her that you pay her wages. Everyone's behaviour is funded by other people, its called an economy. Funding is not the issue, a vague notion of entitlement is and YOU are completely disconnected from the decision process, as am I.

cleanbluesky · 22 Jul 2008 at 20:15

OvertoneBliss said:
I can't believe some of the crap I'm reading in here. But I don't want to get involved, 'cause it's pointless.

Good man, I salute and echo your apathy.

deuse · 22 Jul 2008 at 20:19

Dolph said:
I've written to her in the past enough times to know not waste the paper. Sadly people round here keep voting Labour

I can see you never lived through the The Thatcher years.
She tried the same thing and it did not work.

And I am unemployed but I have worked and payed taxes longer then you have been alive.

So not every one one dole is the same.

Dolph · 22 Jul 2008 at 20:19

cleanbluesky said:
It not about admiration.

No, a person can have whatever attitudes they want and what YOU can do it write to your MP. Do it, do it now and remember to tell her you have auhoritai behind you. Remind her that you pay her wages. Everyone's behaviour is funded by other people, its called an economy. Funding is not the issue, a vague notion of entitlement is and YOU are completely disconnected from the decision process, as am I.

No, we can discuss it here and I can express my disgust at those who sponge off the state, and the reasons behind that disgust and who it applies to. Ironically it's called a discussion forum for a reason.

It seems the only people really opposed to this are those who are net recipents from the state because of their benefit claims...

cleanbluesky · 22 Jul 2008 at 20:24

Dolph said:
No, we can discuss it here and I can express my disgust at those who sponge off the state, and the reasons behind that disgust and who it applies to. Ironically it's called a discussion forum for a reason.

I'd LOVE to talk about the reasons behind that disgust, but all we've had is a number of prejudiced assumptions and people arguing about abstract moral rights or entitlements. The system is the system, you can write to your MP and discuss it on the internet... just remember to pay.

It seems the only people really opposed to this are those who are net recipents from the state because of their benefit claims...

That's a big assumption given the evidence, would you like to believe the above statement is true?

Dolph · 22 Jul 2008 at 20:57

cleanbluesky said:
I'd LOVE to talk about the reasons behind that disgust, but all we've had is a number of prejudiced assumptions and people arguing about abstract moral rights or entitlements. The system is the system, you can write to your MP and discuss it on the internet... just remember to pay.

To start with, we can look at the reasons why the welfare state was brought in following WW2, the arguments put forth and so on (we'll ignore the generational commitment issue, whereby although the generation that voted for the welfare state had the choice, subsequent generations have not had the same). The crux of the issue is that the system was supposed to ensure that people didn't suffer through age, disability or short term unemployment, it was never supposed to provide a means to not work if you are capable.

My disgust with people who take advantage of this system is based, therefore, on the fact that they don't need it, and they are, therefore, taking money from those who do need it. Every pound that goes to someone who isn't working because they don't want to, or because they think they are too good to work, is a pound that cannot go to the people we as a society should actually be supporting, namely the vunerable, the unfortunate and the unlucky.

cleanbluesky · 22 Jul 2008 at 21:06

Dolph said:
To start with, we can look at the reasons why the welfare state was brought in following WW2, the arguments put forth and so on (we'll ignore the generational commitment issue, whereby although the generation that voted for the welfare state had the choice, subsequent generations have not had the same). The crux of the issue is that the system was supposed to ensure that people didn't suffer through age, disability or short term unemployment, it was never supposed to provide a means to not work if you are capable.

wiki on the Beveridge report said:
Social insurance is only one part of a "comprehensive policy of social progress". The five giants on the road to reconstruction were Want, Disease, Ignorance, Squalor and Idleness.

Policies of social security "must be achieved by co-operation between the State and the individual", with the state securing the service and contributions. The state " should not stifle incentive, opportunity, responsibility; in establishing a national minimum, it should leave room and encouragement for voluntary action by each individual to provide more than that minimum for himself and his family".

The Beveridge report was designed in a spirit of revolution, not stability at the expense of the working classes and boom and bust economy. To merely persecute the jobless is NOT in the spirit of Beveridge, nor do the ideals behind the report extend only to social security, health or employment. The entire idea was that of social mobility, and the idea of "any job" goes wholeheartedly against any opportunities a person may have for that social mobility.

As far as the government is concerned, a person stops being a problem once they are back in work. The government do not care if they want to be in that line of work, if they have wasted potential, in short - the government do not care about the Beveridge ideals. The people need education and oportunity, the problem is not solved by pushing them into minimum wage jobs.

My disgust with people who take advantage of this system is based, therefore, on the fact that they don't need it, and they are, therefore, taking money from those who do need it. Every pound that goes to someone who isn't working because they don't want to, or because they think they are too good to work, is a pound that cannot go to the people we as a society should actually be supporting, namely the vunerable, the unfortunate and the unlucky.

There are a hundred thousand opportunities to witness the waste and inefficiency of our government, and it is never accurate to point the finger and say "there, that person is wasting my money" because the blame is diffuse. There are a series of complicated reasons as to why people are long-term unemployed, and I believe that fostering oportunity is the best way to solve the problem.

Dolph · 22 Jul 2008 at 21:13

cleanbluesky said:
The Beveridge report was designed in a spirit of revolution, not stability at the expense of the working classes and boom and bust economy. To merely persecute the jobless is NOT in the spirit of Beveridge, nor do the ideals behind the report extend only to social security, health or employment. The entire idea was that of social mobility, and the idea of "any job" goes wholeheartedly against any opportunities a person may have for that social mobility.

As far as the government is concerned, a person stops being a problem once they are back in work. The government do not care if they want to be in that line of work, if they have wasted potential, in short - the government do not care about the Beveridge ideals. The people need education and oportunity, the problem is not solved by pushing them into minimum wage jobs.

One of the problems Beveridge wanted to help eliminate was idleness...

There are a hundred thousand opportunities to witness the waste and inefficiency of our government, and it is never accurate to point the finger and say "there, that person is wasting my money" because the blame is diffuse. There are a series of complicated reasons as to why people are long-term unemployed, and I believe that fostering oportunity is the best way to solve the problem.

The results of the welfare state in the UK beg to differ, we would have done huge amounts to eliminate the need for benefits if that was the case, rather than creating a benefit dependant sub culture.

As for government waste, I know, I regularly argue against all kinds of government waste, not just this one, but you can blame people who choose to claim benefits when they are able to work. They are at fault, as well as the system which allows them to do it.

Darkwave · 22 Jul 2008 at 21:16

Dolph said:
As for government waste, I know, I regularly argue against all kinds of government waste, not just this one, but you can blame people who choose to claim benefits when they are able to work. They are at fault, as well as the system which allows them to do it.

Money I have spent has circulated, and you can't prove it didn't end up in your employer's wages to you. You are wasting my money by sitting on the internet and arguing instead of cleaning up litter or something. :eek:

Honestly though, your argument can be applied to pretty much anything in this country. The people you should be preaching to is the government, as much as it'd be a waste of time.

Dolph · 22 Jul 2008 at 21:18

Ulfhedjinn said:
Money I have spent in a job has circulated, and you can't prove it didn't end up in your employer's wages to you. You are wasting my money by sitting on the internet and arguing instead of cleaning up litter or something.

Honestly though, your argument can be applied to pretty much anything in this country. The people you should be preaching to is the government, as much as it'd be a waste of time.

Actually, the government can't do much without a change in the attitude of the electorate, that means exposing the problems of the system to them to force change...

badbob · 22 Jul 2008 at 21:20

I wonder just how much of say £20K annual salary goes into JSA? It's probably not much, relative to others.

Darkwave · 22 Jul 2008 at 21:20

Dolph said:
Actually, the government can't do much without a change in the attitude of the electorate, that means exposing the problems of the system to them to force change...

In that case, if you're so interested in changing the attitude of the people, maybe you should run for local MP somewhere and get your ideas into practice. I think that'd be a whole lot more fruitful than talking about it on here.

I'm sure it won't be hard for you to get a lot of people on your side considering how much people hate "dolers".

SexyGreyFox · 22 Jul 2008 at 21:21

I'd like to publically apologise to Acidhell2 and Vincent1989 for working continuously for 33 years and paying into the system and then being made redundant.
I'm sorry that I accepted £58 a week while also taking £250 a week out of my dole money to live.
I'm sorry for going back to college to try and better myself this time round and for taking a total of £7000 out of my redundancy just to survive before being employed again.
I sincerely apologise to Vincent1989 that he has had to work for a total of 3 years to help pay my JSA and I hope he never hits a brick wall when he is 49.
Sorry for being scum.