The Student Room Group

£1 an hour to clear rubbish...new IDS blitz on the workshy

Scroll to see replies

Reply 40
Original post by screenager2004
What about unemployed parents? I find it highly suspect that the report and news articles cite 1.9m children living in workless households: if the parent is forced to pick garbage for 30 hours a week, what happens to the child? Obviously they can't pay for childcare for 30 hours a week - and the reality is that parental commitments is one of the biggest barriers to employment.


If people choose to have a children and to live at home with them, that is fine.

However screenager2004; I have a very serious problem with your interpretation of what job seekers is for.

It is not money for being unemployed.

It is money for looking for a full time job. If people cannot spare the time to do 30/hours week of work, then I have to wonder if they have the time to do the amount of applications necessary to get a job to begin with.

People choose to have children, nobody forces them to. Their child-care arrangements are their own problem. Also, given the amount of benefits available for people who have children I don't quite see why you're acting like unemployed parents are at rock bottom.
Original post by harmonize
Nope. I believe society should be in many ways a meritocracy - unemployed people who've been on the dole for years don't bring any merit to society, I see no reason why they should be allowed to vote or disturb other people's lives.

Most middle class people work hard to be comfortable. Most underclass people are there because they don't work hard and make poor life decisions. It's not my fault that Delon on the dole decided to sniff glue instead of revising for his GCSEs, I shouldn't have to suffer the consequences of his mistakes and I shouldn't have to give my money to the government to give him a good life; and I don't want him voting in and on a system which he brings nothing to.

The underclass are the people on the dole who don't work, working class people are poorish people who work. There is a difference.


This is definetly a troll. There is no way anyone would believe this.

What about people searching for jobs? there is not enough to go around.

Oh yeah i forgot everyone on the dole are driving ferraris and living in mansions living 'the good life'...
Reply 42
Original post by Left Hand Drive
This is definetly a troll. There is no way anyone would believe this.

What about people searching for jobs? there is not enough to go around.

Oh yeah i forgot everyone on the dole are driving ferraris and living in mansions living 'the good life'...


To be honest, what the **** do you think £400 / week to live in a 4 bed room house is?

It's not even £400 a week is it? It was more then that, the conservatives are just trying to cap it to £400.

Yet you have the audaciousness to imply that people are getting a hard time?!

**** you Labour-voting vermin. It's not about "poor" people - it's just about a special class of benefit claimants who have every benefit stacked their way.

The conservatives are the real party of the working class.
(edited 13 years ago)
Reply 43
This is little more than forced labour, an excuse to provide wealthy interests with an even cheaper labour source. It is morally reprehensible and anybody who supports it is either woefully ill informed or completely inhuman. Neither has a place in public debate, and should be treated with the contempt they deserve.
I'm interested in the mention of 1.9 million children living in homes where nobody has a job. Suppose the child's parents don't turn up for litter collecting duty and get no money. Who pays for that child's food and clothes etc? If they're receiving child benefits, what's to stop the parents just using that money for their own alcohol and cigarettes in lieu of the dole they aren't receiving?

Whilst I like the idea of refusing to give money to those who refuse to work, it does seem as though it could be a threat to the financial support of children in such households, who are not at fault.
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by RyanT
To be honest, what the **** do you think £400 / week to live in a 4 bed room house is?

That's more then twice my weekly earnings!

It's not even £400 a week is it? It was more then that, the conservatives are just trying to cap it to £400.

Yet you have the audaciousness to imply that people are getting a hard time?!

**** you Labour-voting vermin. It's not about "poor" people - it's just about a special class of benefit claimants who have every benefit stacked their way.

The conservatives are the real party of the working class.


Oh shut up. Stop using a minority of cheats to punish the majority as always.

I dont vote labour for your infotmation you libertarian ar5ehole
Reply 46
Original post by kronstadt
This is little more than forced labour


People have to fill out a form to receive Job Seekers.

It is not unemployment benefit - there is no unemployment benefit.

It is money that is paid for people who are searching for a full time job - and can prove it.

Therefore, the government already demands you do work for job seekers, i.e. you spend your time looking for a job.

That they are now proposing that you must also do a different kind of working, i.e. something productive beyond mailing CVs; it a difference of degree rather then kind.

You can either say that forcing people to prove they're looking for work, whilst recieving job seekers is forced labour - or you must renounce the idiot use of such expressions simply because the government has changed the nature of that work.

It's really up to you - you can stick by your words and acknowledge that the Labour government also forced labour - or you can look like a complete idiot for bleating about a change of degree; whilst comparing it to a change of kind.
Reply 47
Original post by kronstadt
This is little more than forced labour, an excuse to provide wealthy interests with an even cheaper labour source. It is morally reprehensible and anybody who supports it is either woefully ill informed or completely inhuman. Neither has a place in public debate, and should be treated with the contempt they deserve.


Picking litter is a wealthy interest :lolwut: It's in everybodies interest to live somewhere that looks nice.
Reply 48
Original post by Left Hand Drive
Oh shut up. Stop using a minority of cheats to punish the majority as always.

I dont vote labour for your infotmation you libertarian ar5ehole


Why do you refer to these people claiming £400+ for housing as benefit cheats?

They aren't cheats - it is actually what they are entitled to.
Original post by RyanT
Why do you refer to these people claiming £400+ for housing as benefit cheats?

They aren't cheats - it is actually what they are entitled to.


What do you suggets we do throw them in the streets?
Reply 50
Original post by tazarooni89
I'm interested in the mention of 1.9 million children living in homes where nobody has a job. Suppose the child's parents don't turn up for litter collecting duty and get no money. Who pays for that child's food and clothes etc? If they're receiving child benefits, what's to stop the parents just using that money for their own alcohol and cigarettes in lieu of the dole they aren't receiving?


Social services takes the children away of course. What do you think happens? :lolwut:

It's a form of child abuse - if the parent does it then it is up to social services to act. We don't pay people extra money just to not let their children starve however - they've already been given the money to stop the child from going hungry!
Reply 51
Original post by Left Hand Drive
This is definetly a troll. There is no way anyone would believe this.

What about people searching for jobs? there is not enough to go around.

Oh yeah i forgot everyone on the dole are driving ferraris and living in mansions living 'the good life'...


This scheme is aimed at the people who have been on the dole for years and make little or no effort to get a job - it's not for people who are trying to find work. Again, note the difference between underclass and working class. There are so many jobs for people to do - they just don't want to do them. At my gfs work most of the cleaners are foreign - and no white person has applied to the cleaning jobs they give out in the last year. For many people claiming benefits is simply more comfortable than cleaning toilets, there are jobs out there but many of the underclass are too comfortable to work.
(edited 13 years ago)
Reply 52
Original post by harmonize
Picking litter is a wealthy interest :lolwut: It's in everybodies interest to live somewhere that looks nice.


If it's important to society, why not pay them a living wage- so they actually have a job instead of "living off benefits"? I mean surely by forcing claimants into doing it for a fraction of the already too low minimum wage, you're taking away something that could be a proper job.

And this is just part of a greater picture, which is continuing the restructuring of our society- slowed down but not reversed by the Labour government- to have a huge reserve of underpaid labour who will be too shackled by debt and too busy making ends meet to dare question them.
Reply 53
Original post by Left Hand Drive
What do you suggets we do throw them in the streets?


You don't have a job or pay for rent do you?

£400 a week is more then a lot of people earn. You can afford rent and food on less and no - people who can't afford to live in nice houses, don't have the right to live in them either.

You have the right to live in houses you can afford - and local government has the duty to provide housing to those without it. There is no issue here, except people thinking they have the right to live in middle class homes for some weird reason and expecting people who can't afford to live in middle class homes - to pay for them to do so.

It's complete *******s. Benefits are absurdly high. They do not need to be that high. If you had any idea of the value of money, you'd understand too.
Reply 54
Original post by kronstadt
If it's important to society, why not pay them a living wage- so they actually have a job instead of "living off benefits"? I mean surely by forcing claimants into doing it for a fraction of the already too low minimum wage, you're taking away something that could be a proper job.


The only problem with the minimum wage is the inflated housing market.

The whole idea is that they're meant to find themselves a job. That's why they're paid job seekers. Society doesn't have an endless pot of money to "give everyone a job" idiotic thinking like that is why we're in so much damn debt. :lolwut: They're meant to find themselves a job with a company that does something productive. Not get paid by tax payers to pick up rubbish - we already pay people to do that.



Original post by kronstadt
And this is just part of a greater picture, which is continuing the restructuring of our society- slowed down but not reversed by the Labour government- to have a huge reserve of underpaid labour who will be too shackled by debt and too busy making ends meet to dare question them.


I don't think you thought that through.

Under the current system - people are paid money to be content.

The poorer and harder their lives are - the more angry they will be and the more they will question everything.

People take the time to read your posts - you could at least take the time to think them through before you post. :rolleyes:
Reply 55
I don't have a problem with making the fit and well perform certain tasks so as to recieve benefit - which I believe this proposal states.
Original post by RyanT
You don't have a job or pay for rent do you?

£400 a week is more then a lot of people earn. You can afford rent and food on less and no - people who can't afford to live in nice houses, don't have the right to live in them either.

You have the right to live in houses you can afford - and local government has the duty to provide housing to those without it. There is no issue here, except people thinking they have the right to live in middle class homes for some weird reason and expecting people who can't afford to live in middle class homes - to pay for them to do so.

It's complete *******s. Benefits are absurdly high. They do not need to be that high. If you had any idea of the value of money, you'd understand too.


I work very hard actually. Its not a shop job. It involves lifting heavy things for 10 ten hours in the freezing cold.

You dont have housing to move them to though! Are the torys not even stopping building houses? So unless you can move them to a more approaite home then they have a right to stay there and recieve support
Original post by harmonize
This scheme is aimed at the people who have been on the dole for years and make little or no effort to get a job - it's not for people who are trying to find work. Again, note the difference between underclass and working class. There are so many jobs for people to do - they just don't want to do them. At my gfs work most of the cleaners are foreign - and no white person has applied to the cleaning jobs they give out in the last year. For many people claiming benefits is simply more comfortable than cleaning toilets, there are jobs out there but many of the underclass are too comfortable to work.


You cant pay someone £1p/h. If they need to travel then its could cost them 5 or even more hours of work before they even start to make anything. Some employers wont employ people if they know they can get some people on JSA to do the work.
Reply 58
Original post by Left Hand Drive
I work very hard actually. Its not a shop job. It involves lifting heavy things for 10 ten hours in the freezing cold.

You dont have housing to move them to though! Are the torys not even stopping building houses? So unless you can move them to a more approaite home then they have a right to stay there and recieve support


Okay a little bit of help for you.

There are 10 people in the country.

There are 10 houses.

At the moment, the rent paid is market rate + £400 benefit.

This money goes to the landlords. Tax money, paid to already rich people.

Now, we take away £400 benefit.

The landlords of mortgages they need to pay, holidays they want to go on. A house that makes them zero money is a big liability.

So, the landlords charge a new rent, to ensure the houses are rented out.

The economy now pays the market rate to fill up 10 houses, so the landlords can go on holiday.

What do you notice is different in the new model? Taxes aren't being paid to wealthy people. That's all this £400 benefit achieves. It is a tax on the poor to pay the rich. It is complete and utter *******s.

Houses don't suddenly disappear if housing benefit is removed - all it does it allow people who are in receipt of it (i.e. Labour voters) to get the nicer houses at the expense of people who are working. In the new model, the Labour voters are living in houses they can afford - and the hard working people are able to afford to move into the middle class homes because inflated rents have collapsed.

Do you now see the issue? You're working 10 hours a day in the cold to pay people benefits that price you out of affording to rent a nicer house.
Reply 59
Original post by Left Hand Drive
You cant pay someone £1p/h. If they need to travel then its could cost them 5 or even more hours of work before they even start to make anything. Some employers wont employ people if they know they can get some people on JSA to do the work.


+1

Expenses must be paid. But there is also no reason to pay them for the actual work, either.

Quick Reply

Latest