Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oswy)
    The employer can 'assure' what it wants and having worked in a few sectors I know, for example, that 'guaranteed sales earnings' in call-centre job adverts is cruel myth. I don't think anyone should be forced to take a job where there's no set minimum income, otherwise people will simply be subject to completely unrealistic targets to secure minimum-wage which they ultimately just won't secure and then no doubt be stuck in a job they can't voluntarily leave for fear of becoming ineligible for a return to welfare - a perfect capitalist trap.

    Did you find some full-time cleaning jobs? If so I'm impressed as they don't usually require experience.
    There's loads of them on the site, and no a lot don't require experience. However in any industry there's no shame in taking some unpaid work experience if it eventually leads to paid work in the future.
    • Offline

      13
      (Original post by rmpr97)
      She abandoned them because they weren't making any money and the country was moving from that industry to a financial industry. If a company doesn't make money you don't let it keep going you do something, and seen as it was at cost to the tax payer they were shut down. Not because of some conspiracy that she wanted to burn the North East. What a ridiculous thing to say.

      Hating socialism, does not equal wanting to burn down the North East.

      I hate socialism as a whole, yet I don't wanna do that.

      Although I concede that more could have been done to help those areas. Although we are generations on now, and there is no excuse for benefit scrounger there, 30 years on, a 40 year old who would have been a 10 year old can't say 'Where's my mining jobs?'.
      Actually, plenty of unprofitable activity gets support from government - you only have to think of the cost of the nuclear missiles which have had, and continue to have, billions thown at them, all for the purposes of national 'prestige' (we're in NATO, we don't need our own nukes, assuming you do believe in their deterrent effect and have a potential enemy in mind). And Thatcher never kicked up much of a stink at how much subsidy British farmers were receiving (guess what, farming communities are predominantly Tory or independent voters). Thatcher chose to abandon these industries and do so in a deliberately devastating way without any strategy of support or economic reorientation - like I say, it was to punish. You can call me ridiculous and I can call you naive or ignorant, it won't get either of us very far.

      The problem with the creation of high unemployment hotspots and welfare dependency is that it becomes a way of life, people who struggle to find work eventually become resigned to their condition, the psychological transformation which takes place is well recognised (I even attended a lecture on the subject when I worked in the Employment Service as it was called back in the 90s). Children learn their orientations and values from their parents so if you abandon one generation to unemployment you're inevitably abandoning several generations. Political views that are ignorant of actual human psychology and anthropology are not worth very much. Besides, where are the industries to replace the lost opportunities for the children and grandchildren of the miners, the steel workers, the shipyard workers, the tank builders? Catalogue collecting and minimum-wage call-centre cold-calling. Yeah, go capitalism.
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Oswy)
      Actually, plenty of unprofitable activity gets support from government - you only have to think of the cost of the nuclear missiles which have had, and continue to have, billions thown at them, all for the purposes of national 'prestige' (we're in NATO, we don't need our own nukes, assuming you do believe in their deterrent effect and have a potential enemy in mind). And Thatcher never kicked up much of a stink at how much subsidy British farmers were receiving (guess what, farming communities are predominantly Tory or independent voters). Thatcher chose to abandon these industries and do so in a deliberately devastating way without any strategy of support or economic reorientation - like I say, it was to punish. You can call me ridiculous and I can call you naive or ignorant, it won't get either of us very far.
      Comparing apples and oranges here, coal mining is a tax payer industry that was losing tons of money. A nuclear missile is regrettably in this day and age a necessity. It is a deterrent.

      Again, British farmers are needed, unless you're into starvation of-course?

      Yes, I've agreed with you it was handled baldy, but better that then still paying billions for a waning industry. Trust me, if Thatcher hadn't of done it, then somebody else would of.

      The problem with the creation of high unemployment hotspots and welfare dependency is that it becomes a way of life, people who struggle to find work eventually become resigned to their condition, the psychological transformation which takes place is well recognised (I even attended a lecture on the subject when I worked in the Employment Service as it was called back in the 90s). Children learn their orientations and values from their parents so if you abandon one generation to unemployment you're inevitably abandoning several generations. Political views that are ignorant of actual human psychology and anthropology are not worth very much. Besides, where are the industries to replace the lost opportunities for the children and grandchildren of the miners, the steel workers, the shipyard workers, the tank builders? Catalogue collecting and minimum-wage call-centre cold-calling. Yeah, go capitalism.
      True I suppose, yet it's still not an excuse for being a scrounger. Put it anyway you like they're still scroungers and these people need to be told that and need to be made to work. The fact that these people can make a life on benefits is shocking and is evident that it should be cut or some cap should be put into place.

      Well you asked me to give you no experience, no qualifications jobs, you're not going to get anything impressive are you.

      These children didn't have lost opportunities, it's been 30 years, you can't keep using that as an excuse.
      • TSR Support Team
      • Very Important Poster
      Offline

      21
      ReputationRep:
      Can I just point out that a lot of people who claim benefits are actually in work?
      Offline

      12
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by uktotalgamer)
      I'm from the north east. A place where to be perfectly honest; the amount of people on state benefits is higher compared to the rest of the country.

      There will always be three major problems as far as I'm concerned:

      - Where do you draw the line? As in which level of benefits is acceptable for certain people. So for example disabled people who cannot work. These people need benefits no doubt about it, but how much? £20000 a year is too much in my opinion. I know that these people are disabled but without being harsh and I mean nothing by this, they contribute very little to the state. They need help but not as much as perhaps is given. Also how about for those that don't work. I'll cover that point a bit later on but what I'll say is that it shouldn't be anymore than minimum wage, no matter the
      Believe me, the majority of disabled people are NOT getting £20,000 a year.
      • Offline

        13
        (Original post by rmpr97)
        Comparing apples and oranges here, coal mining is a tax payer industry that was losing tons of money. A nuclear missile is regrettably in this day and age a necessity. It is a deterrent.

        Again, British farmers are needed, unless you're into starvation of-course?

        Yes, I've agreed with you it was handled baldy, but better that then still paying billions for a waning industry. Trust me, if Thatcher hadn't of done it, then somebody else would of.
        That nuclear missiles are a necessity is a matter of opinion, that we have the automatic protection of NATO nuclear missiles makes the idea of an 'independent' deterrent weak, even if you do believe. Politicians thus get to pick and choose what they throw public money at and while Thatcher was happy enough throw money at our uncompetitive farmers, who vote Tory, she wanted to destroy struggling insustries like coal, steel and ship building as quickly as she could, given that they were in Labour heartland and centres of Trade Unuionism. If we can get all our coal cheap from overseas in the name of liberal capitalism why not our food too? Politics, that's why.

        (Original post by rmpr97)
        True I suppose, yet it's still not an excuse for being a scrounger. Put it anyway you like they're still scroungers and these people need to be told that and need to be made to work. The fact that these people can make a life on benefits is shocking and is evident that it should be cut or some cap should be put into place.

        Well you asked me to give you no experience, no qualifications jobs, you're not going to get anything impressive are you.

        These children didn't have lost opportunities, it's been 30 years, you can't keep using that as an excuse.
        Insofar as you might want to characterise inter-generationally demotivated populations whose opportunities are now reduces to crap jobs or welfare as 'scroungers' then yes, it is an excuse. As I've said, you can't bypass actual human psychology and behaviour. Either you want to understand why people do what they do in the circumstances they find themselves in or you want to indulge in superficial if self-satisfying moral condemnation. At the very least the encouragement to work needs to go hand in hand with training and actual opportunity, telling people to go collect catalogues for a vague 'promise' of minimum wage or suffer the loss of benefit will not get results, approach the disenfranchised as your enemy and they will respond as your enemy, and when you're already at the bottom you have less to lose.

        As I've said, the culture of welfare dependency that exists today was ultimately generated by the policies of the 1980s which gave no regard to the way families would pass on their disenfranchisement, low self-esteem, low-motivation and passive acceptance of unemployment as their 'natural' state. Humans have evolved as social and cultural beings, we are supremely able to pass on the most subtle of our orientations, values and understandings to our offspring, long before there was capitalism, government, unemployment and welfare, this was so as it will be long after. If you're still think in terms of 'excuses' you're not learning anything, human behaviours and attitudes come from somewhere, they don't just pop up in some moral aether, they come from somewhere, as students our aim should be to understand where.
        • TSR Support Team
        • Very Important Poster
        Offline

        21
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by uktotalgamer)

        - Where do you draw the line? As in which level of benefits is acceptable for certain people. So for example disabled people who cannot work. These people need benefits no doubt about it, but how much? £20000 a year is too much in my opinion. I know that these people are disabled but without being harsh and I mean nothing by this, they contribute very little to the state. They need help but not as much as perhaps is given. Also how about for those that don't work. I'll cover that point a bit later on but what I'll say is that it shouldn't be anymore than minimum wage, no matter the circumstance.
        Very few disabled people get £20k a year. We can't help the fact that our disabilities make it impossible for us to work / unreliable employees. Most disabled people worked before their disabilities made it impossible for them to work. Some of whom were in highly paid jobs.

        How much help do you think disabled people need? You don't have a clue at all. It's not just a case of "I'm disabled. Can I have £20k per year please?" It's based on needs.
        • Community Assistant
        Offline

        21
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Oswy)
        Actually, plenty of unprofitable activity gets support from government - you only have to think of the cost of the nuclear missiles which have had, and continue to have, billions thown at them, all for the purposes of national 'prestige' (we're in NATO, we don't need our own nukes, assuming you do believe in their deterrent effect and have a potential enemy in mind). And Thatcher never kicked up much of a stink at how much subsidy British farmers were receiving (guess what, farming communities are predominantly Tory or independent voters). Thatcher chose to abandon these industries and do so in a deliberately devastating way without any strategy of support or economic reorientation - like I say, it was to punish. You can call me ridiculous and I can call you naive or ignorant, it won't get either of us very far.

        The problem with the creation of high unemployment hotspots and welfare dependency is that it becomes a way of life, people who struggle to find work eventually become resigned to their condition, the psychological transformation which takes place is well recognised (I even attended a lecture on the subject when I worked in the Employment Service as it was called back in the 90s). Children learn their orientations and values from their parents so if you abandon one generation to unemployment you're inevitably abandoning several generations. Political views that are ignorant of actual human psychology and anthropology are not worth very much. Besides, where are the industries to replace the lost opportunities for the children and grandchildren of the miners, the steel workers, the shipyard workers, the tank builders? Catalogue collecting and minimum-wage call-centre cold-calling. Yeah, go capitalism.
        Whilst i disagree with the motive i sadly have to agree with you on this point (and i previously viewed her as an economic God).

        A repeating pattern in Thatcher's policy was that whilst it was great on the surface she never looked deeper than that. A few examples to name a few...

        1) The right to buy is a brilliant policy on it's own but without using that money to replace the bought council houses we now have a chronic shortage driving private rents through the roof

        2) Energy companies were granted a monopoly with no price controls (at least rail fares only go up at inflation plus x%)

        3) The money gained from privatisation went on seemingly nothing (NHS spending increased in real terms) when what should have happened is a an investment fund or further tax cuts
        Offline

        0
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by OU Student)
        Doesn't mean it won't be enough to live on though.

        If you look on the left hand side, it says commission only - £50 - 300 a week.
        This is mildly irrelevant but I worked a similar job with AVON and it was a god awful pay out. I would do hours worth of work but receive very little in return. You are required to sell at least £78 worth of **** before you can make any money. You are then entitled to 20%. You are expected to buy the books and the bags yourself. If you sell £77 worth of stuff, you get **** all and AVON get free labour.

        It's a ***** and I quit because the £15 I was making a month was bull****.

        Even now employers snort at it on my CV because I'm 'self employed' and can't even get a ****ty reference.
        • Community Assistant
        Offline

        21
        ReputationRep:
        In regards to the thread title i find this view too simplistic and believe a US system would be catastrophic. Having grown up in a benefits family myself these are my thoughts...

        Whilst there are plenty of champagne socialists in Labour who think that throwing money at the poor (ever more benefits) is the answer i have seen what welfare dependency can do and how what we really need to is seperate the poor from each other and give people the best education possible.

        Simply throwing money at the poor is absolutely useless for most, a much bigger problem is the fact that we have massive estates full of people with little or no aspiration in life because all they see around them is failure and mediocraty, we live in a country where whenver i dare to applaud my brilliance and self belief i am called arrogant and we have state schools where the only aim is to get a 5 C grades and not an A*. The poor in this country have been segregated from the rich and yet people expect that because it is a difference of wealth rather than skin colour that this will produce no consequences.

        You want the poor to escape poverty then do the following...

        1) Limit the number of council houses per square mile so that we are less segregated and live around those who succeed rather than in 'ghettos' (this will involve building more council houses but spread out - some will be sold, especially on large existing estates in deprived areas)

        2) Instititute an educational voucher policy allowing state students to be educated in our on the whole superior private schools for no extra cost

        3) Raise tax thresholds

        4) Reduce the cost of labour to business so that they can hire more

        In regards to those who are disabled and cannot work for health reasons i do agree with providing a safety net.
        Online

        22
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by L i b)
        I disagreed with the OP, but I also find myself disagreeing considerably with this sort of rhetoric. Benefit "scammers" are a red herring here. The Guardian and the like often cite small figures showing benefit fraud to be no great problem. Lovely. But that's not the rationale behind welfare reform.

        In most cases, it's about reprioritising cash where it's most needed, ensuring there is a robust system of assessment and being able to monitor assessments in the future.



        They really aren't. There's been a great deal of scaremongering over these issues. Yes, some people will get less under PIP - some will get more. Overall spending on it will continue to increase.
        If their concern was not eradicating benefit fraud, i.e people claiming benefits when they don't need them - then why are they doing it?

        I strongly suspect that the money spent on ATOS, tribunals, etc. is more than would initially have paid for those to stay on benefits.

        Also, I fail to see how a private company, where their pay depends on how many they declare fit for work, where the letters from their GP's are ignored, can at all be considered fair.

        Also, why did the government cut the support of remploy - the organisation that set up to get disabled workers back into work, that should be the kind of system the government should be supporting
        Online

        19
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by That Bearded Man)
        If their concern was not eradicating benefit fraud, i.e people claiming benefits when they don't need them - then why are they doing it?
        Well, there are a lot of individual reforms. Housing benefit reform seeks to stem the huge rise in expenditure for that benefit. ESA reform seeks to get people who can work back into work. DLA/PIP reform seeks to better prioritise disabled benefits to the most needy disabled people.

        One of the main thrusts behind it is making work pay, and eliminating barriers between employment and unemployment (why, for example, there will be more direct payment of benefits etc - to promote budgeting on a monthly basis). Loads of good examples.

        I strongly suspect that the money spent on ATOS, tribunals, etc. is more than would initially have paid for those to stay on benefits.
        Definitely not. For a start, the Work Capability Assessment already existed before the current government came into office. But even if it did cost more, it would still be a good thing - it is quite right that people who are fit to work, or can work with proper support or assistance, do so. Not only for the sake of the Exchequer, but for their own sakes. Worklessness has hugely negative effects on people's health, self-confidence, social inclusion and in numerous other areas.

        Also, I fail to see how a private company, where their pay depends on how many they declare fit for work, where the letters from their GP's are ignored, can at all be considered fair.
        The point isn't to diagnose illnesses, it's to measure abilities. As we're talking about a formal assessment here, it is very strict in how information is gathered. This is to remove the element of subjectivity: the intent is to be entirely objective and thus provide a fair and consistent assessment.

        Anyway, Atos employees don't make the decisions on who is fit to work. They simply prepare a form based on an interview which is then referred to Decision Makers in the DWP. When a DWP Decision Maker removes benefits, Atos doesn't get any extra payment at all. In fact, Atos are not even informed where a benefit is removed or changed (say, to the Work Related Activity Group) by the DWP!

        Also, why did the government cut the support of remploy - the organisation that set up to get disabled workers back into work, that should be the kind of system the government should be supporting
        Remploy has two wings. Remploy employment services - which does get disabled people into mainstream work - and Remploy factories, which are sheltered businesses. Almost every disability organisation believes sheltered employment is inappropriate and does not best meet the needs of disabled people.

        For its part, Remploy have said for every 1 person they employ in their factories (at a cost of about £25,000 to the taxpayer per person per year - generally more than they get paid!) they could help four people into work through their employment services division. All this was investigated by the Sayce Review, quite independent of government, and the government's response is built around the evidence from disability charities etc.

        If you're suggesting they're cutting money here, they're not. The budget for disabled employment support is to be entirely protected. It's going to be reinvested in Remploy employment services, the universally praised Access to Work scheme and so on.
        • TSR Support Team
        • Very Important Poster
        Offline

        21
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by That Bearded Man)

        Also, I fail to see how a private company, where their pay depends on how many they declare fit for work, where the letters from their GP's are ignored, can at all be considered fair.
        This is something I don't understand either. Some people such as myself, have seen specialists on and off for 20+ years. Yet, their opinions really don't matter. I was "lucky" that I was sent the form, filled that in, was informed by my GP surgery that they'd received a form about my benefits and received a letter 6 weeks later telling me no face to face assessment and straight into the support group. Although, the fact the fact that I had to see 5 different specialists probably did go in my favour.

        When ESA first came out, people saw it as a good thing. There are people who with the right support could work. But the problem is the way they've gone about it. A lot of people have said they turned up, got asked a few questions and discovered they failed. They asked for the report and it seemed to be about a different person. They then go to tribunal and are found unfit for work.

        If that happened to a few people, then ok. Not all systems are perfect.
        • Offline

          13
          (Original post by Rakas21)
          ...

          1) The right to buy is a brilliant policy on it's own but without using that money to replace the bought council houses we now have a chronic shortage driving private rents through the roof...
          This is another example of Thatcher's hostility to socialist ideas coming before any other consideration, damn the consequences. The principle of council housing is that it consitutes not-for-profit homes for, at least, those who struggle to pay rents or pay mortgages to the capitalist class. Thatcher recognised that council housing (like the NHS) was an obvious and popular socialist idea which further fostered the idea that we don't have to be subject to market forces for our most basic human needs, in this case shelter. As much as an atheist like myself can characterise someone as evil, she is it. Now there's a chronic housing shortage like never before and private rents for poor people are sky-high. She is disgusting.
          Offline

          0
          ReputationRep:
          Ill not get involved in the other bits as I work for the DWP but I can answer this:

          A single person, <25 gets £57pw to cover food, gas, electric, tv license and travel. They get Housing Benefit to cover a room in a shared house and pay no council tax or health costs.

          I'd say food £25, gas £5, electric £5, tv £5 leaving £17 for travel.

          I believe it would be better if paid at a lower rate as a non-householder, I.e. living with parents, family or sofa surfing. Possibly £50pw though difficult to administer. The current amount is fine if you rent your own room and claim HB though.

          I do not agree with taking housing benefit away completely for <25s. On that low JSA they only move out from family if absolutely necessary.

          Single 25+ gets £71pw. I think that should the reduced to the same £56pw. There should be no cliff edge at 24/25 nothing changes, before you could have your own flat now you have the same shared room rate HB so it's redundant.

          Give the higher £71pw rate to those single at 35+ to cover their bills as they get HB for a 1 bed flat.

          Couples get £111pw which is reasonable, it costs less to keep a couple than 2 separate people. They get HB for a 1 bed flat.

          For 1 child you get £60pw CTC and £20pw CHB total £80pw. For 2 children you get a total of £135pw. The amount goes up indefinitely, I.e. 4 children £280pw, 8 children you get £465pw. You get free school meals.

          That means a family of 2 adults + 4 kids gets income of £400pw (£1760pcm) just for food, gas, electric, tv license and travel! Incidentally a family of 8 gets £575pw (£2530pcm).

          Child Tax Credits should be scrapped, you can't get tax credited back if you never paid any! Merge them with Child Benefit as they're now both means tested but the amounts are too high and should be capped at 2 children (enough to reproduce a couple) though unsure how this works with kids returning from care... It doesn't cost more to keep a child than an adult, especially a baby under 2! The amounts should be £60 1 child and £100 2+ children.

          ESA and dla are a different discussion.


          Posted from TSR Mobile
          Offline

          0
          ReputationRep:
          Oh and they should be limited to 4 bed properties which they now are on LHA rates

          They also need to stop selling council properties to tenants!!!!

          Posted from TSR Mobile
          • Thread Starter
          Offline

          2
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by joey81)
          Ill not get involved in the other bits as I work for the DWP but I can answer this:

          A single person, <25 gets £57pw to cover food, gas, electric, tv license and travel. They get Housing Benefit to cover a room in a shared house and pay no council tax or health costs.

          I'd say food £25, gas £5, electric £5, tv £5 leaving £17 for travel.

          I believe it would be better if paid at a lower rate as a non-householder, I.e. living with parents, family or sofa surfing. Possibly £50pw though difficult to administer. The current amount is fine if you rent your own room and claim HB though.

          I do not agree with taking housing benefit away completely for <25s. On that low JSA they only move out from family if absolutely necessary.

          Single 25+ gets £71pw. I think that should the reduced to the same £56pw. There should be no cliff edge at 24/25 nothing changes, before you could have your own flat now you have the same shared room rate HB so it's redundant.

          Give the higher £71pw rate to those single at 35+ to cover their bills as they get HB for a 1 bed flat.

          Couples get £111pw which is reasonable, it costs less to keep a couple than 2 separate people. They get HB for a 1 bed flat.

          For 1 child you get £60pw CTC and £20pw CHB total £80pw. For 2 children you get a total of £135pw. The amount goes up indefinitely, I.e. 4 children £280pw, 8 children you get £465pw. You get free school meals.

          That means a family of 2 adults + 4 kids gets income of £400pw (£1760pcm) just for food, gas, electric, tv license and travel! Incidentally a family of 8 gets £575pw (£2530pcm).

          Child Tax Credits should be scrapped, you can't get tax credited back if you never paid any! Merge them with Child Benefit as they're now both means tested but the amounts are too high and should be capped at 2 children (enough to reproduce a couple) though unsure how this works with kids returning from care... It doesn't cost more to keep a child than an adult, especially a baby under 2! The amounts should be £60 1 child and £100 2+ children.

          ESA and dla are a different discussion.


          Posted from TSR Mobile
          With eye watering sums like that, its a wonder anyone bothers to work....
          Online

          19
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by Oswy)
          As much as an atheist like myself can characterise someone as evil, she is it. Now there's a chronic housing shortage like never before and private rents for poor people are sky-high. She is disgusting.
          Selling council houses has not led to a housing shortage, but instead removed families from the council system.

          I also remind you that in another thread, about criminals, you were discussing how someone's responses are guided not out of some instinct towards badness, but rather their circumstances and upbringing. Yet oddly enough, in here you see fit to condemn a woman as evil. A woman who, despite your politics, believed she was doing the best by this country and worked tirelessly for its improvement.
          • TSR Support Team
          • Very Important Poster
          Offline

          21
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by joey81)
          I believe it would be better if paid at a lower rate as a non-householder, I.e. living with parents, family or sofa surfing. Possibly £50pw though difficult to administer. The current amount is fine if you rent your own room and claim HB though.
          How would they be able to pay their parents rent, travel and other stuff they have?
          Offline

          16
          ReputationRep:
          Did anyone see this piece in the Independent? "Voters 'brainwashed by Tory welfare myths', shows new poll"

          The report in the paper had some charts and things which looked quite pretty. It is an interesting read anyway.

          As a side note - I have seen references to the Work Capability Assessment in some posts. Absolutely no problem with such a thing, however it is how it is conducted which is an issue.
         
         
         
      • See more of what you like on The Student Room

        You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

      • Poll
        Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
        Useful resources

        Groups associated with this forum:

        View associated groups
      • See more of what you like on The Student Room

        You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

      • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

        Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

        Quick reply
        Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.