This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
Do people deserve benefits?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by sw651
Posted from TSR Mobile
1. Can they work?
2. If not, why not?
3. How many people in the household?
4. Why are they in the situation in the first place?
1. Can they work?
2. If not, why not?
3. How many people in the household?
4. Why are they in the situation in the first place?
These questions are already asked when JSA is applied for.
Original post by slam3000
These questions are already asked when JSA is applied for.
Posted from TSR Mobile
But surely if the answers are
1.yes
2. N/a
3. 1
And 4. I dropped out of school and I am not qualified enough, they shouldnt get anything?
Original post by sw651
Personally I believe that if they are able to work they should not get benefits at all, What do you guys think?
I don't really understand your point. People are given benefits so that they can eat and stay warm when they are unable to find paid work.
In the past, they could have just worked on the land. But since industrialisation and the rise of urban living, huge swathes of the populace have been left completely dependent upon the whims of private enterprises (often huge corporations) to survive.
We have created this situation, now you want us to actively starve our own population to death?
Original post by sw651
Posted from TSR Mobile
£72 Is the bare minimum, they dont pay housing or bills either, £72 is enough to live on, they wouldnt make it that small otherwise. Why do so many have huge tvs and the latest tech, they get additional things too
£72 Is the bare minimum, they dont pay housing or bills either, £72 is enough to live on, they wouldnt make it that small otherwise. Why do so many have huge tvs and the latest tech, they get additional things too
Because I bought those things before I became an unemployed bum. Plus I have savings. None of your business what I spend that on. As long as your overall savings are below £6000 you are entitled to the full JSA, which my savings were just over when I was made redundant. Paid my parents the food money for a few months in advance, then walsed on over for my £50.
Should we all be forced to give up our possessions and made to walk around in potato sacks?
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by sw651
I think we need a loan system where they get the money, up to a certain amount, but anymore and it must be paid back when they get a stable job, if they get one sooner, then they get less debt, more motivation, if they dont get a job, then it is slowly reduced
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
But many people are not able to get a stable job. A lot people will end up doing casual, part tiime or zero hours work.
It's also worth bearing in mind that many people - if not your sister - have already paid into the system when they were working so, in effect, you're suggesting that people pay for their benefits twice over.
Original post by sw651
Personally I believe that if they are able to work they should not get benefits at all, What do you guys think?
There are a number of problems with this.
First of all, there is a clear mismatch between what the government thinks is an ability to work and the real world. The government have a very poor record on assessing people's capability to work based on their health and job readiness. For example, lots of people who have been forced to switch from sickness benefits to unemployment benefits have their appeals upheld at tribunal or in some unfortunate cases have died before they have not got to that stage because of the backlog (i.e. they were actually sick). Metrics around work readiness are even more unrealistic. The DWP's own statistics show that their own intervention programmes to get people back into work are unsuccessful. In some cases the people on such programmes are less likely to get back into work than if they were not on the programme at all (i.e. the government is not only wasting money paying providers to help unemployed people but they are actually making them less employable).
Secondly, the ability to work has no relationship to economic opportunity. This is a typical Conservative fallacy which blames individuals for social problems. If every unemployed person got on their bike and went where there was jobs not only would there still be unemployed people, because there are simply not enough jobs for everyone able to work, but society would cease to function effectively.
Thirdly, a capitalistic society requires constant unemployment for it to function. There is level of inherent dishonesty in the idea that everyone should be expected to work when the system is based on not everyone working (this should be obvious to anyone as people do not work when they raise children and retire).
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by sw651
I think we need a loan system where they get the money, up to a certain amount, but anymore and it must be paid back when they get a stable job, if they get one sooner, then they get less debt, more motivation, if they dont get a job, then it is slowly reduced
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Good thinking. And thanks for the suggestion.
However, I am in principle not really in favour of the idea of unemployment benefits through a loan.
I think the very idea of unemployment benefits is just that - you get this money because you are unemployed and while you are. So that is what they are called - Benefits. But being made to pay it back? I mean .. in my view £ 72 a week is really not that much to justify then imposing an obligation on a person to repay it. It is minimal after all (as I think you yourself said).
Besides, if people know that once they start working and earning, they will then have to pay the benefits back, it might actually give them less motivation to leave benefits and get a job and more motivation to try and remain on benefits for longer.
Anyway .. that is just an alternative approach for you, I guess.
Original post by sw651
Posted from TSR Mobile
But surely if the answers are
1.yes
2. N/a
3. 1
And 4. I dropped out of school and I am not qualified enough, they shouldnt get anything?
But surely if the answers are
1.yes
2. N/a
3. 1
And 4. I dropped out of school and I am not qualified enough, they shouldnt get anything?
Your opinions about benefits seem to be based solely on your experience with your sister, when real life is actually far more complicated than that. There are people with degrees who are unable to find work, or people with health issues but have been found eligible to work by the DWP, even though they may struggle in a way a healthy person wouldn't. There are also older people who have been made redundant and can't get back into work, as employers tend to favour younger candidates as they are able to pay them less.
See? Things really aren't as black and white as you like to think they are.
Original post by slam3000
The amount of council tax benefit someone is entitled to is dependent on the local authority, but that's the only bill people are able to claim. Electricity, water, gas, phone/internet and TV license are all expected to be paid for out of someone's JSA.
Exactly !
That goes with the aspects I have put forward.
OK, thanks a lot for explaining.
Original post by slam3000
There are people with degrees
Sounds familiar .. I must admit frankly speaking.
But in all seriousness, my sympathies to all such people of course (and not only).
Original post by sw651
Bit touchy. I work and have had a job since 15, so I don't need to I earn more than benefits would give me as it is for many people
You've been very lucky then, mate. There's a reason so many are unemployed - the recession, companies going under and cutbacks in staff, to name a few. My neighbour was made redundant recently - she has a couple of decades of work experience, all the qualifications, and yet she's struggling to find work. I also know first hand that it's rarely ever a case of graduating and landing a job as soon as you walk out of your place of education, and many graduates find themselves in a viscous circle of needing experience to get a job and obviously they can't get the experience because they can't get a job. If it was that easy to find a job, the unemployment figures wouldn't be so high, there are well over half a million people on Jobseeker's Allowance currently and we can't just assume that there are so many people that are simply too lazy to work.
Original post by sw651
Posted from TSR Mobile
Does benefits get affected by region too, because I know what some of family get and they get bills included?
Does benefits get affected by region too, because I know what some of family get and they get bills included?
As I said, local authorities pay a variable amount of council tax (upto a 100% in certain boroughs), but that's the only bill anyone on JSA is able to claim.
Original post by slam3000
But many people are not able to get a stable job. A lot people will end up doing casual, part tiime or zero hours work.
It's also worth bearing in mind that many people - if not your sister - have already paid into the system when they were working so, in effect, you're suggesting that people pay for their benefits twice over.
It's also worth bearing in mind that many people - if not your sister - have already paid into the system when they were working so, in effect, you're suggesting that people pay for their benefits twice over.
Posted from TSR Mobile
My sister never ever worked, dropped out of school at 18. And maybe not, but there is a better way to go about it surely?
Original post by slam3000
As I said, local authorities pay a variable amount of council tax (upto a 100% in certain boroughs), but that's the only bill anyone on JSA is able to claim.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Will certainly have to check that, thanks though
Original post by evantej
There are a number of problems with this.
First of all, there is a clear mismatch between what the government thinks is an ability to work and the real world. The government have a very poor record on assessing people's capability to work based on their health and job readiness. For example, lots of people who have been forced to switch from sickness benefits to unemployment benefits have their appeals upheld at tribunal or in some unfortunate cases have died before they have got to that stage (i.e. they were actually sick). Metrics around work readiness are even more unrealistic. The DWP's own statistics show that their own intervention programmes to get people back into work are unsuccessful. In some cases the people on such programmes are less likely to get back into work than if they were not on the programme at all (i.e. the government is not only wasting money paying providers to help unemployed people but they are actually making them less employable).
Secondly, the ability to work has no relationship to economic opportunity. This is a typical Conservative fallacy which blames individuals for social problems. If every unemployed person got on their bike and went where there was jobs not only would there still be unemployed people, because there are simply not enough jobs for everyone able to work, but society would cease to function effectively.
Thirdly, a capitalistic society requires constant unemployment for it to function. There is level of inherent dishonesty in the idea that everyone should be expected to work when the system is based on not everyone working (this should be obvious to anyone as people do not work when they raise children and retire).
First of all, there is a clear mismatch between what the government thinks is an ability to work and the real world. The government have a very poor record on assessing people's capability to work based on their health and job readiness. For example, lots of people who have been forced to switch from sickness benefits to unemployment benefits have their appeals upheld at tribunal or in some unfortunate cases have died before they have got to that stage (i.e. they were actually sick). Metrics around work readiness are even more unrealistic. The DWP's own statistics show that their own intervention programmes to get people back into work are unsuccessful. In some cases the people on such programmes are less likely to get back into work than if they were not on the programme at all (i.e. the government is not only wasting money paying providers to help unemployed people but they are actually making them less employable).
Secondly, the ability to work has no relationship to economic opportunity. This is a typical Conservative fallacy which blames individuals for social problems. If every unemployed person got on their bike and went where there was jobs not only would there still be unemployed people, because there are simply not enough jobs for everyone able to work, but society would cease to function effectively.
Thirdly, a capitalistic society requires constant unemployment for it to function. There is level of inherent dishonesty in the idea that everyone should be expected to work when the system is based on not everyone working (this should be obvious to anyone as people do not work when they raise children and retire).
Posted from TSR Mobile
Should we not find a way to create new jobs then, in order to support these people? Rather than just giving them money. I mean even the average benefits claimant is 21-36, reasonably healthy and at least somewhat skilled
Original post by sw651
For example my sister is on benefits, she can work and dropped out of school herself. If people make poor life choices, should we have to pay for that? Furthermore, many that are on benefits deliberately cause themselves 'problems' just to get themselves more money. The government does offer a service to get these people jobs but the benefits money is easier
How back do you go in making people responsible for their choices? adolescence? childhood?
Original post by Thade
How back do you go in making people responsible for their choices? adolescence? childhood?
Posted from TSR Mobile
I assume you mean how far back?
I guess it goes back to when they are 16 ish, at that point they are generally responsible for a large part of their wellbeing
Original post by sw651
Posted from TSR Mobile
£72 Is the bare minimum, they dont pay housing or bills either, £72 is enough to live on, they wouldnt make it that small otherwise. Why do so many have huge tvs and the latest tech, they get additional things too
£72 Is the bare minimum, they dont pay housing or bills either, £72 is enough to live on, they wouldnt make it that small otherwise. Why do so many have huge tvs and the latest tech, they get additional things too
ah you've been caught by the media i know people who are disabled would love to work but can't due to this government red tape and they struggle to survive while scum such as jodie cunningham get thousands so find justice for that our elderly and disabled are struggling or crippled by debts but the scum get it all
the scum don't get ask to do capability for work form or tests
my godfather he's blind in one eye and can't walk unaided but he's been asked to do the test
just put the scum down now
Original post by jamesthehustler
ah you've been caught by the media i know people who are disabled would love to work but can't due to this government red tape and they struggle to survive while scum such as jodie cunningham get thousands so find justice for that our elderly and disabled are struggling or crippled by debts but the scum get it all
the scum don't get ask to do capability for work form or tests
my godfather he's blind in one eye and can't walk unaided but he's been asked to do the test
just put the scum down now
the scum don't get ask to do capability for work form or tests
my godfather he's blind in one eye and can't walk unaided but he's been asked to do the test
just put the scum down now
Posted from TSR Mobile
People that are disabled are very much deserving of benefits as are the elderly, they cannot help situations like that. And I hate the said 'scum' you refer to which is who I meant for this thread
Only british people
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
