working for your dole......

Nice straw man, that's not what he said. He said he could do the job but didn't want to as he would only earn as much as he gets on benefits so why should he HAVE to work.

I misunderstood what he said, his calculation took travel expenses and stuff into account, I didn't think it did so when I said I wouldn't have taken the job I did so purely on the basis of being worse off due to travel expenses.

I'd rather work than be bored off my **** at home, even if its only £10 better off there are still overtime opportunities and such.
 
Oh look another kneejerk judgement. You don't know me, my situation, or how long I've been on benefits.
I don't want to seem rude but as you're heading that way I should say I don't particularly care either so it's not an emotional statement. You asked a question, if you could do a job that only paid as much as you get in benefits should you HAVE to do it. The answer in my opinion (and it is only my opinion) is yes you should. Benefits should be a safety net for people with no other options as is perfectly right in a civilized society, not a choice INSTEAD of working when there is another option.
 
Last edited:
I don't want to seem rude but as you're heading that way I should say I don't particulalry care either so it's not an emotional statement. You asked a question, if you could do a job that only paid as much as you get in benefits should you HAVE to do it. The answer in my opinion is yes you should. Benefits should be a safety net for people with no other options as is perfectly right in a civilised society, not a choice INSTEAD of working when there is another option.

:) In the net! 3 points for you.
 
I don't want to seem rude but as you're heading that way I should say I don't particulalry care either so it's not an emotional statement. You asked a question, if you could do a job that only paid as much as you get in benefits should you HAVE to do it. The answer in my opinion is yes you should. Benefits should be a safety net for people with no other options as is perfectly right in a civilised society, not a choice INSTEAD of working when there is another option.

I misunderstood what he said, his calculation took travel expenses and stuff into account, I didn't think it did so when I said I wouldn't have taken the job I did so purely on the basis of being worse off due to travel expenses.

I'd rather work than be bored off my **** at home, even if its only £10 better off there are still overtime opportunities and such.
 
I misunderstood what he said, his calculation took travel expenses and stuff into account, I didn't think it did so when I said I wouldn't have taken the job I did so purely on the basis of being worse off due to travel expenses.

I'd rather work than be bored off my **** at home, even if its only £10 better off there are still overtime opportunities and such.

I respect that you would be willing to do that. My issue bud is with the people are are not willing to not you specificly :).

I have done better off calculations for people who are earning 7 to 900 pounds a month off of benefits. Based on certain jobs where they would be earning the same or a tad more they would be better off in some circumstances if they get said job yet in some cases they refuse to apply for jobs due to feeling anything up to 100 pounds better off is pointless to them. Those are the people i have issue with.
 
So I was just reading about Mr Osbournes policy of making the long term unemployed of this country working for their benefits by litter picking, graffiti removal and cooking meals for the oldies.


George Osbourne

I think this is a marvellous idea, it certainly cant do any harm to these people and in the process the rest of us hard working individuals get to live in a litter/graffiti free environment and get to see some of our tax money going to good use while are grandparents are being fed like kings and queens.

However, and this is the sticking point for me, how can they implement this scheme, COST EFFECTIVELY?
I mean will it be like a chain gang with paid supervisors or will they be trusted to their own devices? I cant see how this can work in the real world.

If you honestly think this scheme (and other forced labour schemes) don't do any harm, then frankly you're not thinking very hard.

Forced labour devalues that work, takes a job that somebody would be paid for, and reduces the salary to 0.

And if you think that jobseekers are all chavs who don't want to work, you're totally wrong.

This is why we NEED the Tories OUT. They exist for one reason and one reason only: to benefit the upper echelons of society while treading on, exploiting, and destroying the quality of life of those at the bottom.

The Tories = the Lords and Landowners of medieval society, and everbody who isn't their mate is a peasant.

The Tories will destroy society, plain and simple, whilst giving tax breaks to huge corporations and spending money on duck pond houses.
 
All politicians are at the end of the day ******* who look after their own. It's just nice to change them around every couple of years.
 
I respect that you would be willing to do that. My issue bud is with the people are are not willing to not you specificly :).

I have done better off calculations for people who are earning 7 to 900 pounds a month off of benefits. Based on certain jobs where they would be earning the same or a tad more they would be better off in some circumstances if they get said job yet in some cases they refuse to apply for jobs due to feeling anything up to 100 pounds better off is pointless to them. Those are the people i have issue with.
My problem is all these schemes and bodges the government brings up to fudge the numbers are all just catch all, they don't care if they screw over genuine people just to get the small amount of dossers.
 
If you honestly think this scheme (and other forced labour schemes) don't do any harm, then frankly you're not thinking very hard.

Forced labour devalues that work, takes a job that somebody would be paid for, and reduces the salary to 0.

And if you think that jobseekers are all chavs who don't want to work, you're totally wrong.

This is why we NEED the Tories OUT. They exist for one reason and one reason only: to benefit the upper echelons of society while treading on, exploiting, and destroying the quality of life of those at the bottom.

The Tories = the Lords and Landowners of medieval society, and everbody who isn't their mate is a peasant.

The Tories will destroy society, plain and simple, whilst giving tax breaks to huge corporations and spending money on duck pond houses.

its not forced labour though, you just wont get your benefits.
I also never said all job seekers were chavs either.
did you even read the whole thread, including my thoughts on various points that have been made?
its not a conservative party thing either, its a get long term claimants off their backside and do something worth while, instead of just sitting back taking everything they can get, the benefit system is one of the factors that's dragging our economy through the gutter and something has got to give.
 
Last edited:
One thing to remember in context of private companies and work camps: A task is not going to get done as well (or even done properly) by someone being forced to work there, as it is by someone who you employ.

Why should a private company pay someone who doesn't want to be there and therefore is going to be slack at his/her job the same amount of money as someone who does?

You would also be "employing" people who are lazy, people who would have no problem opening sexism law suits against you to try and get a big pay off so they can go back to their lazy lives with a big paycheck to support them.

I wouldn't take on anyone from a work camp even for free (and I could do with the help!) because I know they would be a liability in all sorts of ways.
 
If you honestly think this scheme (and other forced labour schemes) don't do any harm, then frankly you're not thinking very hard.

Forced labour devalues that work, takes a job that somebody would be paid for, and reduces the salary to 0.

And if you think that jobseekers are all chavs who don't want to work, you're totally wrong.

This is why we NEED the Tories OUT. They exist for one reason and one reason only: to benefit the upper echelons of society while treading on, exploiting, and destroying the quality of life of those at the bottom.

The Tories = the Lords and Landowners of medieval society, and everbody who isn't their mate is a peasant.

The Tories will destroy society, plain and simple, whilst giving tax breaks to huge corporations and spending money on duck pond houses.

How do you think huge corporations got there in the first place? Decades of hard graft is how.

Are we better off with Labour, a government who puts us into debt every time they get in and gives money it doesn't have (debt) to people who can't be bothered to work?

There is a very good analogy to the current benefit system somewhere, about buying drinks, I can't find it though :/
 
Here we go. Note that people who don't pay tax are the people on benefits.

THE UK TAX SYSTEM EXPLAINED IN BEER Suppose that once a week, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten
comes to £100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something
like this..
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay £1.
The sixth would pay £3.
The seventh would pay £7.
The eighth would pay £12.
The ninth would pay £18.
And the tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.
So, that’s what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every week and seemed quite happy with the
arrangement until, one day, the owner caused them a little problem. “Since
you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost
of your weekly beer by £20.? Drinks for the ten men would now cost just
£80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the
first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free but what
about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the
£20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? They realized that
£20 divided by six is £3.33 but if they subtracted that from everybody’s
share then not only would the first four men still be drinking for free
but the fifth and sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his
beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fairer to reduce each man’s
bill by a higher percentage. They decided to follow the principle of the
tax system they had been using and he proceeded to work out the amounts he
suggested that each should now pay.
And so, the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (a 100%
saving).
The sixth man now paid £2 instead of £3 (a 33% saving).
The seventh man now paid £5 instead of £7 (a 28% saving).
The eighth man now paid £9 instead of £12 (a 25% saving).
The ninth man now paid £14 instead of £18 (a 22% saving).
And the tenth man now paid £49 instead of £59 (a 16% saving).
Each of the last six was better off than before with the first four
continuing to drink for free.
But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings. “I only
got £1 out of the £20 saving,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the
tenth man, “but he got £10″
“Yes, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved £1 too. It’s
unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me”
“That’s true” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get £10 back, when I
only got £2? The wealthy get all the breaks”
“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get
anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor” The nine men
surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next week the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat
down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the
bill, they discovered something important – they didn’t have enough money
between all of them to pay for even half of the bill.
And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our
tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will
naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much,
attack them for being wealthy and they just might not show up anymore. In
fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat
friendlier.
David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics.
For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible
 
Back
Top Bottom