Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

"Benefit cuts: Monday will be the day that defines this government..." Watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by evantej)

    The fact is you lived at home when you were on JSA. Your parents subsidised you and you frankly have no idea how easy or hard it is to get by on benefits.
    Yeah, I noticed that. Some people are just so lacking in self awareness its painful.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I was on benefits for a large part of the 1990s.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    You didn't actually read that did you.
    Of course I've read it.

    That article put a negative spin on it. It doesn't matter, it supports all the data assertions I've made and they look decent to me. NYT took an editorial position against it, but it's a program that's still running and has the support of the public.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnonymousPenguin)
    Of course I've read it.

    That article put a negative spin on it. It doesn't matter, it supports all the data assertions I've made and they look decent to me. NYT took an editorial position against it, but it's a program that's still running and has the support of the public.
    Its clear you didn't read it, or at best you skim read it.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by n00)
    :rolleyes:
    And if say 6-8% could be expected to find employment without being on workfare?

    Were you looking for this?
    http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd5/...08/rrep533.pdf

    Have fun cherry picking the positives out of that.
    +repped

    That's what I was looking for.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnonymousPenguin)
    +repped

    That's what I was looking for.
    You won't read that either.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    If 'there aren't any jobs ' why is my current employer struggling to fill entry level roles even though they provide subsidised transport ( that will take you home to your door after a twilight /night ) pay weekly, are responsible with regard to working conditions and PPE ...

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zippyRN)
    If 'there aren't any jobs ' why is my current employer struggling to fill entry level roles even though they provide subsidised transport ( that will take you home to your door after a twilight /night ) pay weekly, are responsible with regard to working conditions and PPE ...

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Post a link to the job.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zippyRN)
    If 'there aren't any jobs ' why is my current employer struggling to fill entry level roles even though they provide subsidised transport ( that will take you home to your door after a twilight /night ) pay weekly, are responsible with regard to working conditions and PPE ...

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    How can any of us comment without knowing the details?

    What we do know is what the government's own statistics tell us about the state of the job market.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Budgie)
    Congratulations. You have just provided an interesting case study into whether or not JSA is sufficiently high to stop people from seeking work.
    (Original post by Budgie)
    Again, using an unrepresentative anecdote to characterize millions of people. It's vile.
    Well played.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    You won't read that either.
    Of course I read it.

    I now:
    -support the Australian model, because it's fair.
    -accept that workfare alone fails to get people into jobs.

    I am perfectly happy to change my opinions based on sound cited research.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnonymousPenguin)
    Of course I read it.

    I now:
    -support the Australian model, because it's fair.
    -accept that workfare alone fails to get people into jobs.

    I am perfectly happy to change my opinions based on sound cited research.
    +1 for changing your mind based on evidence, however what are your reasons for supporting the Australian model? What is "fair" about it?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    +1 for changing your mind based on evidence, however what are your reasons for supporting the Australian model? What is "fair" about it?
    After six-months the unemployed are asked to undertake a placement in, from what I can gather from the report, in the non-profit sector. I think it's fair that the recipients of support are asked to contribute to the community and make a valuable contribution. There's not a great deal of funding for community projects and this, as far as I can understand, makes them happen, while providing experience to participants. Seems like a good idea to me. They're not placing anyone in Tesco, which I do agree is a questionable idea.

    Participants work for up to six months on community projects run by councils, charities and community organisations and receive a $20 a fortnight supplement on
    their unemployment payments. Placements are made in organisations involved in
    heritage, the environment, arts, community care, tourism, sport and the provision,
    restoration and maintenance of community services and facilities
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnonymousPenguin)
    After six-months the unemployed are asked to undertake a placement in, from what I can gather from the report, in the non-profit sector. I think it's fair that the recipients of support are asked to contribute to the community and make a valuable contribution. There's not a great deal of funding for community projects and this, as far as I can understand, makes them happen, while providing experience to participants. Seems like a good idea to me. They're not placing anyone in Tesco, which I do agree is a questionable idea.
    Why not just give people a job? With a wage and employment rights?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    Why not just give people a job? With a wage and employment rights?
    Where would we get the money? I'm all for universal employment, but it didn't work out that well for the eastern bloc economically.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnonymousPenguin)
    Where would we get the money? I'm all for universal employment, but it didn't work out that well for the eastern bloc economically.
    Taxes. If there are things needing doing, pay people a wage. Pretty much a basic, otherwise you're only undermining pay and conditions for everyone else. Especially given that this workfare programme makes it harder for participants to find jobs.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The only problem with these changes is that they do not go anywhere even approaching far enough.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    Taxes. If there are things needing doing, pay people a wage. Pretty much a basic, otherwise you're only undermining pay and conditions for everyone else. Especially given that this workfare programme makes it harder for participants to find jobs.
    As far as I cans see if you follow that logic those community projects wouldn't happen or would be greatly diminished.

    They might not be strictly needed, certainly not at the full price, but they're still a valuable contribution to the community and this makes them happen. And I don't see how it would undermining pay and conditions given that it's so strictly limited to a few under-funded areas. I mean it might to an extent in those areas (or it might expand employment a bit due to needed supervision), but not in the whole economy at all.

    And as for the suggestion that it makes it harder to find jobs, I don't think the evidence is there. The DWP document doesn't cite any such evidence; It states that in one study these people found more jobs and in another long-term employment prospects were similar.

    Anyway, I don't have any more time to procrastinate on TSR. So have a nice evening, I won't be posting here anymore.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnonymousPenguin)
    As far as I cans see if you follow that logic those community projects wouldn't happen or would be greatly diminished.

    They might not be strictly needed, certainly not at the full price, but they're still a valuable contribution to the community and this makes them happen. And I don't see how it would undermining pay and conditions given that it's so strictly limited to a few under-funded areas. I mean it might to an extent in those areas (or it might expand employment a bit due to needed supervision), but not in the whole economy at all.

    And as for the suggestion that it makes it harder to find jobs, I don't think the evidence is there. The DWP document doesn't cite any such evidence; It states that in one study these people found more jobs and in another long-term employment prospects were similar.

    Anyway, I don't have any more time to procrastinate on TSR. So have a nice evening, I won't be posting here anymore.
    Back to you not reading things properly again.


    Have a nice life.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OU Student)
    So, can we not afford to pay people benefits; but can give higher earners a tax cut?
    Hate this argument. High tax rates drive rich people away or encourage tax avoidance. The reason it was put up to 50% in the last months of labour was political point scoring because they knew it was costly and that the tories would lower it then they could make the conservatives look like the bad guys.


    When gordon brown raised it to 50% the amount of people declaring a pre tax income over £1million fell from 16,000 to 6,000. Now i know some were lost due to the economic situation but when it was dropped to 45% the number rose to 11,000.
    The decision to raise it to 50% cost the country £7billion (can't remember if this is per annum or for the whole period it was at 50%). at 50% you get more per individual but less collectively.

    This tax break for the rich argument is nonsense but seems to be spouted every time someone opposes a conservative view.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: April 17, 2013
Poll
Which web browser do you use?
Useful resources

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.