Jobless to work 'clearing litter' !!!
- Thread starter Things change I've changed
- Start date
Rar rar You could've gotten a job scrubbing toilets with your tongue in all that time for all I care rar rar. Rar rar you are a scumbag for spending money right out of my pocket instead of getting the first job that came along, even if you couldn't for whatever reason. Rar rar. I am so bloodthirsty right now.
Rar rar. Rar, I want my 0.0000000000000000000000000000000001% of your £58/wk back or else.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 24,654
Although not at the expense of the squalor and want that families may be forced to endure if welfare state that Beveridge paved the way for.
Employment is not a black and white issue - to have potential languishing in low-quality jobs is as much as a waste as any state-dependant family. Employment should not be achieved by removing the safety net, something that is as likely to encourage crime as it is employment, instead education and the capacity for decent employment should be offered.
Yet there are many who would sincerely like a job but cannot find one for a variety of reasons, these are the people who would be punished if benefits were removed or reduced. Education on the other hand, would help everyone.
It seems you are arguing for something that would make the life of JSA claimants harder rather than encouraging them to achieve - is there any reason you would have them suffer but do not seem enthused as the prospect of giving them help?
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2006
- Posts
- 8,537
oh dmpoole, stop being such a drama queen, the only people on JSA i've called scum are those who treat it like badbob does, not those on it for a genuine reason (ie those trying to better themselves, or those who use it as a short term stop gap, not those who use it as a long term form of income because they are to self important to work in a job that they perceive beneath them 
).
).
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 24,654
Just under £100 by my estimate, although that's for all JSA claimants rather than the persistently unemployed. Long-term unemployed make approx 20% of claimants, so it would probably be £20 per year as a very rough estimate.
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 24,654
Rar rar You could've gotten a job scrubbing toilets with your tongue in all that time for all I care rar rar. Rar rar you are a scumbag for spending money right out of my pocket instead of getting the first job that came along, even if you couldn't for whatever reason. Rar rar. I am so bloodthirsty right now.
Rar rar. Rar, I want my 0.0000000000000000000000000000000001% of your £58/wk back or else.
That made me ****ing laugh. Why didn't DmPoole spend 18 months sending his tongue around the floor of the gents toilets in Broadmore? Too good for him? On MY MONEYS!
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,755
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
I did actually spend 3.5 months licking the toilet floors in Werrington Juvenile Prison while still claiming JSA.
I actually told the JSA lies because you are only supposed to volunteer up to 15 hours a week and I did around 27.
What a scumbag I am.
Actually, what I would prefer I started to discuss earlier in the thread, and you told me:
Cleanbluesky said:
At which point I gave up and began focusing on dealing with the issues and concerns with the current system and only the current system.
What I want and what I would primarily argue for is a system that both ensures a guaranteed basic income, and also means that work is always and instantly beneficial. Specifically by removing the current inefficient and bloated social security structure and replacing it with a negative income tax system to cover both social welfare and primary taxation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax
With such a system in place, I wouldn't care what you do, everyone is treated exactly the same by the government, everyone has a basic minimum to live on (although how you spend it will be up to you), and your future is clearly and easily in your hands. You remove the benefit traps that the current system has created, you remove the stigma of 'claiming benefit', because there's no such thing, and you prevent the current situation where some people are genuinely better off not working. Additionally it would help with social mobility and reduce overheads and running costs significantly.
Unfortunately, you've taken my opposition to the current setup of JSA and those who abuse it to mean I'm opposed to social welfare programs, and that's not the case, but because you ONLY wanted to discuss JSA, you can't then moan that you're not happy with the few reforms to the JSA system we've got that can really be made.
Worth it in my opinion. They'd be riots in the low class neighbourhoods if dole/ib/jsa is scrapped. And where do you think this money will come from?
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 5,166
- Location
- The land of Cows n Grass!
I was kinda on the fence on this subject. People need help, the ones ripping the system off should get kicked off and some decent work ethics put in place but now im realising no matter whats done there are people who will always treat humans like scum no matter what and that feeds the "I cant be bothered attitude" which then goes around to people sitting on benefits for life.
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 24,654
This post has been a high-point in this thread, although I don't feel I can critique negative income tax easily because its an overhaul of the system. I can see that it would make some significant changes. It would seem a more comprehensive system, because everyone would be covered - and you're right that it would remove a 'benefit trap', although only for single people. Unless those with depedants would be granted a higher threshold. I don't think social mobility would be helped on negative income tax alone, because social mobility is as much an attitude to change as it is a financially bound issue - in my experience financial help is available to those who want to gain more education or re-train but it also carries an element of committment and risk.
I think a negative income tax system would have a problem regarding how it was administered, particularly amongst the self-employed and those with fluctuating income - would their money be given monthly? If it were given monthly, there would be a massive increase in administration and monitoring of bank transactions. If a comprehensive system were designed, it would be likely that a lot of people who do not claim at the moment would recieve some level of support which may in turn increase tax burden.
Last edited:
Well, there's no detailed breakdown of social expenditure available here, so I have nothing to directly compare to. Assuming each person received £10,000 under NIT: £6.1 billion, plus maybe some administration costs. Thats compared to £169 billion on "social protection" (does not include NHS).
Last edited:
It works well for couples too, as the basic guaranteed income is personal, not household. There would be scope for tweaking thresholds and allowances for certain groups, although if the income value is set right, it shouldn't really be necessary, especially if you factor in the fact that income from a negative income tax is, essentially, tax free. I'd look at setting the negative value between £6k and £10k per person per annum, which is not an insignificant amount of cash each month, especially when you're not paying tax on it (unlike earning £10k now).
It's no worse than income tax to administer really, the payments out are fixed per year/month, so that wouldn't be a problem, you'd also remove a lot of the current exemptions, and simplify tax laws in the process. Likewise dramatic simplification of the benefits system, pensions and so on all helps to free up revenue. no more means testing (which is expensive to administer and pretty inefficent), no more worrying about checking qualifications and so on, it's a much, much simpler system. The fact that you pay flat tax on all earnings (no personal allowance, the personal payment is the alternative) also changes the amount of revenue raised quite significantly, but the fact that every penny you earn doesn't lead to another means test that could make you worse off must surely make the work more appealing.