Should we put a time limit on job seekers allowance?

Poll

Should there be a time period

niteninja1

22

Should there be a limit to how long a jobless can claim benefits

Reply 1

Jackieox

19

Personally yes. I think six months, a year at the most

Reply 2

Moura

18

Welll... no. You do realise people can't just sit around on job seekers? They have to keep going to the job centre to show all the jobs they've applied to and and they have to accept the first job they get. Also if you think that it's enough to live on and people wouldn't prefer a real job you're crazy.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 3

SonoLuma

18

Original post by niteninja1

Should there be a limit to how long a jobless can claim benefits

I used to be taught by a Kosovo man, he said that in Kosovo, they supply a good "wages" for a reasonable set amount of time (cant remember how long) with absolutely no support after that time period and it sounded like a great idea.
He seemed to agree

Reply 4

ByronicHero

20

No. All this will do is massively increase crime, thus increasing the strain on the police service, the courts and the prison system leading to far more money spent, and harm done.

Reply 5

I am Babatunde

There is currently a technical time limit on JSA. If you claim more than a certain number of weeks, you will automatically be placed in a government run course, the NEW DEAL, forcing you to undertake activities to improve your employability.

Reply 6

That'sGreat

21

There shouldn't be a time limit, because they'll commit crime to keep it up. However, if we make them work either in cleaning up parks or other community tasks then we can be paying them a wage, and not an allowance. Sure, it'll be the same as what an allowance is, but the government will be getting labour and money out of it, whilst they will be getting work experience.

Reply 7

evantej

18

No. The longer someone is employed the more intensive the support given to them should be. This does not mean enrolling people on mandatory courses or forcing them to do free work. It should be worked out on a case by case basis, taking into account the education, employment history and local employment context.

People with children, people with dependents, people with houses claim Jobseeker's Allowance. It would be utter madness to impose a time limit on it and make people homeless and turn to crime to make a living which will ultimately cost the state more in the long. Nor will there ever be one given that there is no time limit on taxation (e.g. people have to pay tax on their earnings even when they cannot claim relevant unemployment benefits). Plus it is generally accepted that capitalist societies require a steady number of unemployed people to keep wages down.

Reply 8

Rakas21

21

I support the idea that after 12 months welfare payments should be restricted. For those under 30 i would conscript them into basic training, for those over i would replace cash payments with vouchers.

Original post by Rakas21

I support the idea that after 12 months welfare payments should be restricted. For those under 30 i would conscript them into basic training, for those over i would replace cash payments with vouchers.

Completely agree that benefits shouldn't be paid in cash, it isn't the claimant's money and should be treated as such.

My only concern is that the alternatives can be exploited. With housing benefit it's easy to just give the money directly to the landlord, but if there were vouchers or prepaid cards then it wouldn't be long before there are "partnerships" with certain retailers - you can only spend your food voucher at Tesco for example, or only use one bus company when your city has 3-4 different ones.

Reply 10

Tempest II

16

Original post by Rakas21

I support the idea that after 12 months welfare payments should be restricted. For those under 30 i would conscript them into basic training, for those over i would replace cash payments with vouchers.

I agree with the first sentence of your post. When you say "conscript" & "basic training", do you mean the Army? I'd be reluctant to use up the military's limited resources if this was the case; I think some kind of community word would be more appropriate than sending unsuitably qualified & poorly motivated individuals into warzones. The Yanks tried that in Vietnam & it didn't work out too well for them (although I will admit that it was far from the only reason).

Reply 11

Rakas21

21

Original post by sr90

Completely agree that benefits shouldn't be paid in cash, it isn't the claimant's money and should be treated as such.

My only concern is that the alternatives can be exploited. With housing benefit it's easy to just give the money directly to the landlord, but if there were vouchers or prepaid cards then it wouldn't be long before there are "partnerships" with certain retailers - you can only spend your food voucher at Tesco for example, or only use one bus company when your city has 3-4 different ones.

For rent it would have to remain cash payments because i think one should be able to choose their home.

Your second concern is valid. Regarding transport that's not such a threat since every region has a body overseeing transport so the passes could be bought from them (wymetro in Yorkshire for example).

Original post by Tempest II

I agree with the first sentence of your post. When you say "conscript" & "basic training", do you mean the Army? I'd be reluctant to use up the military's limited resources if this was the case; I think some kind of community word would be more appropriate than sending unsuitably qualified & poorly motivated individuals into warzones. The Yanks tried that in Vietnam & it didn't work out too well for them (although I will admit that it was far from the only reason).

I would not make basic training any easier than it already is so there's no risk of heading to a warzone if your a bit rubbish. Either they'd spend 2 years at the equivalent of fat fighters (i.e. being made to do rigorous exercise, live in barracks) or some would find the discipline that the armed forces brought them to be beneficial. Some would hate it so much they'd accept that part time job in McDonalds.

Reply 12

kaylababesxx

11

there is a time limit of 6 months i think

Reply 13

Farchitect

10

Original post by Jackieox

Personally yes. I think six months, a year at the most

Then what? Let them resort to crime to feed themselves and become a curse on their communities?

Reply 14

999tigger

19

Original post by sr90

Completely agree that benefits shouldn't be paid in cash, it isn't the claimant's money and should be treated as such.

My only concern is that the alternatives can be exploited. With housing benefit it's easy to just give the money directly to the landlord, but if there were vouchers or prepaid cards then it wouldn't be long before there are "partnerships" with certain retailers - you can only spend your food voucher at Tesco for example, or only use one bus company when your city has 3-4 different ones.

Doesnt work. It would just simply start a black market in the vouchers plus its also anti competitive. Unemployment is dehumanising enough without compounding the problem.

Reply 15

RF_PineMarten

18

Original post by Rakas21

I support the idea that after 12 months welfare payments should be restricted. For those under 30 i would conscript them into basic training, for those over i would replace cash payments with vouchers.

The state has absolutely no right to force someone into military training, whether unemployed or not. That is the person's decision, and their decision only. Very basic personal liberty, which I thought a right wing/conservative would understand given how much they like to go on about "small government".

As for vouchers, iif people budget their benefit money to afford luxuries then that is their right and it should be encouraged. If you introduce vouchers then it prevents people saving for a "rainy day", and could limit the type of shops they are allowed to go to. It costs a lot of money to introduce and enforce and it wouldn't really save anything. That's before you even get into defining what a "luxury" is.

Reply 16

Trinculo

21

As a Tory, I'm going to say yes. There should be a limit. I'm thinking 10-15 minutes.

Reply 17

999tigger

19

Original post by niteninja1

Should there be a limit to how long a jobless can claim benefits

If you are going to put a limit on, then what sort of additional support will you oprovide in helping people obtain work? IT might be easu in places like London where there are plenty of jobs, but not the case in areas of high unemployment.

Some people are unskilled or gace been failed by the education system. If you dont actually assist them back into work, then what do you think will happen with these millions of people?

There is already a ime limit on how long you cna claim before it becomes income based.

Attachment not found

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 18

ChaoticButterfly

20

Original post by sr90

Completely agree that benefits shouldn't be paid in cash, it isn't the claimant's money and should be treated as such.

That will create a black market. Some savvy entrepreneur will just trade ciqs (or insert other "luxery" :wink:

in a way so that they can save money from the tokens for example.

Original post by Moura

Welll... no. You do realise people can't just sit around on job seekers? They have to keep going to the job centre to show all the jobs they've applied to and and they have to accept the first job they get. Also if you think that it's enough to live on and people wouldn't prefer a real job you're crazy.

Considering the sweatshop conditions of the warehouse sector being on unemployment benefits can be more appealing depending on whether or not you can actually survive on the benefits. Speaking from personal experience. The level of harassment just goes though the roof in those kinds of jobs compared to turning up to the job centre once a week.

Original post by That'sGreat

There shouldn't be a time limit, because they'll commit crime to keep it up. However, if we make them work either in cleaning up parks or other community tasks then we can be paying them a wage, and not an allowance. Sure, it'll be the same as what an allowance is, but the government will be getting labour and money out of it, whilst they will be getting work experience.