Poll: Benefit cap vote.

[Mr Jack]

Not necessarily. I don't see an issue in principle (if it were feasible to implement) with controlling the spending of benefits recipients.

It's draconian, ineffective (it has been done, by the way), unnecessary and demeaning. Why on earth should someone who's lost their job be told they can't spend it as they wish whilst they look for their new job? Why should someone stuck in a wheelchair not choose to watch Sky TV? Why should the child of someone on benefits not get toys?

 

[leaskovski]

I never understood the benefit system as in the money you get out.

There should be a cap at when benefits get paid out out. No one earning over the figure of what is defined as enough money for a family to survive on (based on number of members and members who are disabled) should get money from the government if they are above that line.

 

[deuse]

I voted for "in line with inflation" and as for "The coalition says public sector pay is capped at 1%" well that's rubbish for a start

 

[Mr Jack]

I voted for a freeze, All payrises at the place I work are based on performance I have colleagues who despite doing a good job have not had a rise in nearly a decade (I have recieved increases but nothing like those attached to benefits!) because just doing a good job isn't enough. To see benefits rise by such large amounts is rather insulting when the wages of those who work hard are not going up by anything like as much.

Be careful with your claims here. Benefits, remember, are much lower in cash value than wages. Yes, a 1% rise is less in relative terms than a 2.7% rise, but if you're already earning 7x as much*, the "large amount" that benefits are rising by is less than half as much in cash terms as your pay rise.

* - that being very approximately the ratio of median wage to jobseeker's allowance.

 

[Gilly]

Risk your life by leaving the house? You must work in HR or something.

No, but I have to take it into account.

There is a small element of risk in everything that is done. Just driving a car or waling down the road carries an inherent amount of risk.

OK a little clearer, I potentially risk my life by entering buildings which are on fire to safe lives.

Feel free to comment.

I was completely unaware that there was such a thing as a privatised fire service. Where can these jobs be found? I could do that for the sums you're talking.

 

[Hatter The Mad]

I think that benefits should be wrapped up into a universal credit and paid onto a cash card:

1. The government could do clever things with the data, get really good insights into small tweaks to delivery/nudges
2. It's a more efficient way of managing benefit payments

I don't think benefit recipients should be blocked from buying luxury items like cigarettes. It's a disgraceful shame that they do (assuming there are other pressing priorities, like feeding your kids), but we should use the VAT system to disincentives spending on cigarettes and alcohol.

It means the money 'comes back' anyway, albeit in a round-about way, but it isn't draconian and is effective.

 

[dumbmayhem]

Gilly: there are commercial firefighters such as Ineos for oil refineries such as Grangemouth.

You might have to give that job a miss tho with the risk assessments you'd have to complete just to get there!

 

[Hatter The Mad]

My wage is less than 30k. My job in the private sector sits mid 40k.

Like most public sector workers, you forget that your job is generally kinder and less volatile; you have a much, much lower chance of getting fired and are held to lower standards (generalising).

 

[Gilly]

Gilly: there are commercial firefighters such as Ineos for oil refineries such as Grangemouth.

I would assume that there are specific requirements around that job though, rather than it being something that any firefighter could do without any training over and above standard.

You might have to give that job a miss tho with the risk assessments you'd have to complete just to get there!

 

[dumbmayhem]

Again a public miss perception.

Exactly what way is it harder to fire someone in the public sector. In the last year and a half I've seen two colleagues been investigated and fired.

My other half works as a manager in one of the UK's banking industry and I saw how much work she had to do in order to get rid of one of her employees - so I'm not buying that one.

Lower standards, I can maybe see your point with other services maybe, but ultimately I would disagree from my own as I know the standards that we set as well as my colleagues.

 

[leaskovski]

I think that benefits should be wrapped up into a universal credit and paid onto a cash card:

1. The government could do clever things with the data, get really good insights into small tweaks to delivery/nudges
2. It's a more efficient way of managing benefit payments

I don't think benefit recipients should be blocked from buying luxury items like cigarettes. It's a disgraceful shame that they do (assuming there are other pressing priorities, like feeding your kids), but we should use the VAT system to disincentives spending on cigarettes and alcohol.

It means the money 'comes back' anyway, albeit in a round-about way, but it isn't draconian and is effective.

I like that kind of thinking.

get that man a job in the policy think tank groups.

 

[Gilly]

Again a public miss perception.

Exactly what way is it harder to fire someone in the public sector. In the last year and a half I've seen two colleagues been investigated and fired.

'Investigated and fired'. That would indicate a breach of terms and conditions of contract?

That's a rather different story than those you might find in the private sector where no profit = no jobs.

Reform is so much more difficult in the public sector, for myriad reasons but unions being at the forefront of them.

 

[dumbmayhem]

I would assume that there are specific requirements around that job though, rather than it being something that any firefighter could do without any training over and above standard.

You'll get extra training due to the nature of the job as in your dealing with chemicals etc but a the same time, I work at the closest operational station to Grangemouth plant so I will be turning up if there is any type of incident.

And if your implying that they are better trained firefighters then you would then need to look at a role map as there will be numerous other types of training that we cover than a "private firefighter" doesn't need to such as road traffic incidents, special rescues etc.

 

[Gilly]

Not 'better trained' just 'more specialised'.

The private company needs to ensure they don't lose people they sink the training into, no?

 

[Tummy]

Those bloody Unions! Haha. Only gave us working conditions, minium wage, weekends...

For what it's worth I think the amount people get through benefits should be kept in line with inflation but also I think the idea of paying them on a card, that they can use to purchase things is much better.

It would allow for the system to be monitored much more closely and could help with changes in prices for people and the amount of credit they're given.

 

[dumbmayhem]

'Investigated and fired'. That would indicate a breach of terms and conditions of contract?

That's a rather different story than those you might find in the private sector where no profit = no jobs.

Reform is so much more difficult in the public sector, for myriad reasons but unions being at the forefront of them.

Yes a breach. I don't disagree with the fact they were fired, however it's not a case of no matter how big the mistake - lets sweep it under the carpet as a lot of people seem to think.

Again, due to the cuts, our 'service' is now being made to close stations, cut jobs and is now treated as a business. Not as a service which is what people pay taxes for. I can't comment on profit as we don't obviously make any.

So you're against unions as well? Or is it just everything associated with the public sector?

 

[Gilly]

I take a dim view of unions because of the way they have presented themselves in my area of the private sector, and specifically relating to my business.

That being said, I know hey have achieved things for people in the past, I just believe it is more bad than good.

 

[ubersonic]

Not sure if anybody has posted this yet but it attempts to explain the situation (yes it was made by the Conservative party).

 

[dumbmayhem]

Not 'better trained' just 'more specialised'.

The private company needs to ensure they don't lose people they sink the training into, no?

Well I Now go back to your original point.

Public sector wages are not a fair reflection on benefits given that public sector wages are astronomically high in comparison to private.

Is this the case?

 

[Tummy]

I take a dim view of unions because of the way they have presented themselves in my area of the private sector, and specifically relating to my business.

That being said, I know hey have achieved things for people in the past, I just believe it is more bad than good.

Yeah, more bad than good, giving people minium wages, working conditions, weekends blah blah. Unions exist to look after the workers, or they should. What you meant to say is, given the little contact I've had with Unions it hasn't been postitive, so as a result I dislike them as a generalisation

I'm against privatising the public sector. Privatisation = ran for profit, the public sector shouldn't be about profit, it should be about service. The public sector is always going to be a black hole of money, but hey!