Damik Posted June 28, 2010 Author Share Posted June 28, 2010 (edited) And the vast majority of people would be better off working than they are currently on benefits, that is why a part time admin job attracts 300 applicants. What you are proposing would COST MORE MONEY. It is not a question of opinion, every single workfare scheme in history has COST MORE MONEY. Reality does not require your personal belief to still be reality and the reality is workfare has been tried and often and always COSTS MORE MONEY (Sorry it needed to be said few times). Not just in the modern age but in antiquity, the Victorians, the Romans, go do some reading up on Sparta. There is a reason that 'spartan' today means 'frugal', what the Spartans did have was full employment, what you seem to want is to personally live like an Athenian while imposing a Spartan system on everyone else, you can't. It reduces everyone to a Spartan standard pretty damn quick. Lets try this another way, please show me where and when a workfare scheme has managed to enrich a nation? A report from external auditors will do nicely demonstrating that 100% enforced employed instead of a welfare state brings on an economic miracle. I disagree with you here. Would you like to support your claims by related literature? A couple with 2 children or more get now more than the equivalent of minimal wage. Singles or people leaving with parents would be entitled for less to balance it ... Yes, some technical details would have to be sorted out ... ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- I still do not understand why you belive that giving people money for nothing or for amount of children will make us better ... ??????? Edited June 28, 2010 by damian frach Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damik Posted June 28, 2010 Author Share Posted June 28, 2010 It would also require abandoning capitalism and free market in employment. Go read up and some economics, how many free market economist argue the free market can deliver 100% employment? 'full employment' has been redefined to no longer mean 100% employment, it means the 'optimal amount of unemployed for the market'. Even economists now classed as rabid left wing loonies like Stiglitz or Beveridge don't advocate 100% employment, it simply can not be done in a capitalist system. We already do not have a free labor market, because of the minimal wage ... I am not suggesting 100% employment. I am suggesting to replace "benefits" by something what is close to "work" ... Not ideal, but giving people money for no effort or to have more family members is very un-social and also not sustainable ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
headmelter Posted June 28, 2010 Share Posted June 28, 2010 How to sort out the benefits and housing allowance issues 1) All benefits and housing allowances will be canceled 2) Councils will be required to provide anybody (who asks) with a subsidised/protected job (cleaning the streets, helping kids crossing the road, just anything meaningful, but it would be called a job ...). The subsidised/ protected job would pay the minimal wage (obviously). 3) Mothers with children or disabled people would have reduced working hours or type of work. E.g. blind or people or on wheel chairs would be allowed to do the something (again anything meaningful) from home. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Sorted out. Everybody would be required and motivated to work. Nobody would be forced to divorce and have 15 children with 16 different fathers. Everybody would be looking to get a normal job and earn more money. People who like this lifestyle would be economically motivated to do not have 15 children. People working and earning would feel rewarded. ------------------------------------------------------------------- If you like the idea please speak with your local MP! Honestly some of the posts appearing on this forum are ridiculous. . .. . . . . . This one however is completley ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
easy2012 Posted June 28, 2010 Share Posted June 28, 2010 once again; all benefits would be canned and replaced by this guaranteed/subsidised council job ... I thought that my original post was clear ... Send them to China - there are a few good jobs there for western looking man and women. Chinese Business FAIL: ‘Fake’ Executive Opportunities Available — $1,000/Week (w/Video) Three Fingers of Politics ^ | June 21, 2010 | Stupac Posted on 21 June 2010 20:54:35 by Superstu321 So you’re worried about the so-called looming Chinese – a nation that has is apparently on the verge of overtaking the United States in terms of manufacturing, holds tons of U.S. debt and has a government that is something akin to Orwellian-lite. While China may lead the way in manufacturing troll dolls, Nerf balls and Justin Bieber dolls, call me a skeptic – especially after seeing this. On CNBC today, one reporter explained that if you’re an American in China, you could potentially make $1,000/week being a fake executive. The idea – you go to the remote parts of China in a nice suit to the sweatshops where they manufacture this “crap” and pretend to be some form of quality control. It’s all perception with these folks. Just last week at a World Cup match in South Africa, Chinese actors pretending to be North Koreans were rooting on their communist allies. And perhaps this mentality was best expressed during the 2008 Summer Olympics with their opening and closing ceremonies. You have allegations of one child lip-syncing because the real child was too “ugly” to be seen during the ceremony. If you’re worried about the looming Chinese threat – better take a real hard look at it because perception isn’t reality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flopsy Posted June 28, 2010 Share Posted June 28, 2010 (edited) It's true that there are disabled people who spend parts of their days on Facebook or on disabled forums. The same people would often love a job. They feel isolated at home. They feel lonely, useless and dumped by society. However, the jobs that they could do at home with that time and what strength they have, simply do not exist. Competition is stiff for flexible, part time work. The disabled compete with mothers and students for these jobs. Some of these people online are bedbound but can sit up a little, log in and use a computer. If they didn't communicate with people on line they would often be completely cut off from contact between 8-6 (or when their family members get home). I know of one bedbound tube fed teenager, who has not been able to leave her home for years but can live a "sort of" life online. I know how few flexible jobs exist, because I try to help people in my support group for neurological illnesses find work. We need employers who will allow people to work from home, at odd hours or part-time. We need assessable transport for those who can leave their homes. No one in my group is off to a festival. There is no way they are physically able to do so. They would dream of going to a festival. I couldn't go. Disabled who can get to a festival must be a small percentage. There are always going to be bad apples and I don't defend them. Let's look at what we do need to get disabled into work and make these flexible, part time and home based jobs available. Edited June 28, 2010 by Flopsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miko Posted June 28, 2010 Share Posted June 28, 2010 We already do not have a free labor market, because of the minimal wage ... I am suggesting to replace "benefits" by something what is close to "work" ... Work fare in other words. How about calling for something a bit radical instead of moaning that some people are getting taxpayers money as they don't have a job. How about sharing out the work that is about . Make overtime illegal except in exceptional circumstances . Cut the working week , but also slash income tax and NI at the lower and middle end of earnings . People would be earning less but come out about the same as the tax cuts from their wages would balance out the drop in earnings.The state would not need the tax and Ni as the unemployed would take up the slack in the jobs market Back on the overtime suggestion, make the fines extremely heavy for companies that get employers to do unpaid overtime ( something that is happening more and more now due to people not being able to say stuff it im not working extra for no pay and finding another job ) . Then close the gates on immigration untill we have full employment. If a company really can not fill a job from people already here then they would have to apply to bring someone into the country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damik Posted June 28, 2010 Author Share Posted June 28, 2010 Work fare in other words. How about calling for something a bit radical instead of moaning that some people are getting taxpayers money as they don't have a job. How about sharing out the work that is about . Make overtime illegal except in exceptional circumstances . Cut the working week , but also slash income tax and NI at the lower and middle end of earnings . People would be earning less but come out about the same as the tax cuts from their wages would balance out the drop in earnings.The state would not need the tax and Ni as the unemployed would take up the slack in the jobs market Back on the overtime suggestion, make the fines extremely heavy for companies that get employers to do unpaid overtime ( something that is happening more and more now due to people not being able to say stuff it im not working extra for no pay and finding another job ) . Then close the gates on immigration untill we have full employment. If a company really can not fill a job from people already here then they would have to apply to bring someone into the country. Sorry, this is nonsense ... you are looking for a problem, which does not exist ... The problem is giving people money for no effort ... this can be easily fixed ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miko Posted June 28, 2010 Share Posted June 28, 2010 Sorry, this is nonsense ... you are looking for a problem, which does not exist ... The problem is giving people money for no effort ... this can be easily fixed ... Rubbish If someone dose unpaid over time that is the company getting work for nothing . There is nothing free it has to be paid for one way or another , the company gets free work done, the tax payer picks up the bill for the unemployed . Yes as you said can be easily fixed stop unpaid overtime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sourman Posted June 28, 2010 Share Posted June 28, 2010 Just another nonsense thread by some loony with another great idea. Can't believe any of you are taking this seriously. A future tory party candidate no doubt! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magneticworld Posted June 28, 2010 Share Posted June 28, 2010 Just another nonsense thread by some loony with another great idea. Can't believe any of you are taking this seriously. A future tory party candidate no doubt! True there may be extremes in terms of how to tackle this problem...but i don't agree that the thread is loony..the contents could have been delivered in a more subtle way but the message is pretty loud and clear. The benefits system is CRAZY! CRAZY! No rational/humane individual would say STOP the benefits system in seriousness however it has to change and you know what change it will. This coalition govts plan is just the start but someday (..maybe a future govt) the benefits system would be tackled because the bill is madness and the abuse of the system even "madder". Not too long ago you could literally go to university for free in England i.e. you got tuiton paid for by the govt and a basic grant and an optional loan if required. The tide turned and tuition is now not a mandatory sum paid by the govt for students. WHY was this? Very simply cost. The cost was too much. Unfortunately govt receipts can't cover everything. The population is growing and there is more and more pressure for every £. The benefits system is being abused by people and whilst like poverty can't be erradicated in the world so also would there always be a need for people to be on benefit the trick would be to get as many of those who really deserve it on the system, reduce drastically the people who don't and ensure that the amount dished out for all benefits is proportional to what one can live / house on etc... It won't be easy to find a solution but one this is certain...its current format is full of problems. For so long we all knew that there were problems with it ----> this issue has now risen from the media to the Govts desk.. it's a start... i too know that one day I might/would rely on the system...but i also recognise the inefficiencies/abuse in it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D.C. Posted June 28, 2010 Share Posted June 28, 2010 I disagree with you here. Would you like to support your claims by related literature? A couple with 2 children or more get now more than the equivalent of minimal wage. Singles or people leaving with parents would be entitled for less to balance it ... Yes, some technical details would have to be sorted out ... ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- I still do not understand why you belive that giving people money for nothing or for amount of children will make us better ... ??????? We already do not have a free labor market, because of the minimal wage ... I am not suggesting 100% employment. I am suggesting to replace "benefits" by something what is close to "work" ... Not ideal, but giving people money for no effort or to have more family members is very un-social and also not sustainable ... Damian, reread those two posts of yours, carefully. 'A couple with 2 children or more now get more now get more than the equivalent minimal wage.' You are right, a COUPLE with CHILDREN get more money between the four of them than a single person. But most claimants of benefits are not in that position, a single person with no kids gets £65 per week and you are proposing to pay them minimum wage instead? PAYING MORE MONEY COSTS MORE MONEY! And your second bit, you are not suggesting 100% employment but you are going to replace benefits with work?! What else do you call having 100% of people doing 'work' other than 100% employment?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miko Posted June 28, 2010 Share Posted June 28, 2010 Damian, reread those two posts of yours, carefully. 'A couple with 2 children or more now get more now get more than the equivalent minimal wage.' You are right, a COUPLE with CHILDREN get more money between the four of them than a single person. But most claimants of benefits are not in that position, a single person with no kids gets £65 per week and you are proposing to pay them minimum wage instead? PAYING MORE MONEY COSTS MORE MONEY! And your second bit, you are not suggesting 100% employment but you are going to replace benefits with work?! What else do you call having 100% of people doing 'work' other than 100% employment?! +1 I said share the work that is there out a bit more , cut the working week , no overtime unless exceptional circumstances and no unpaid overtime , but he does not like that either . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D.C. Posted June 28, 2010 Share Posted June 28, 2010 There's always going to be an unemployment rate, but this will made made up of "churn", newly unemployed people coming in as others get new jobs. Then there's long term unemployed, or people "playing the system" legally, or people who want work but cannot cope with a traditional job for whatever reason. Are you saying we should ignore these, just carry on as we are? Now we are getting somewhere... The churn you describe is a good thing, it is needed for the free market to function. But in order for that to work effectively, when someone becomes unemployed they need to re-employed quickly or retrained and the re-employed. Now look at how our society works at the moment. If you are long term unemployed and apply for a job the HR drone looks at CV and tosses it. Why? Because there is an inbuilt assumption that anyone who is long term unemployed is unemployable. there must be something wrong with them if they are unemployed, right? Once someone has no money or means of income, things like education become tricky too. If you become a full-time student you lose your benefits and can't buy food. Perhaps you decide that you will take a long term view, not go to college and pay privately to do a few 'A' levels on sly so that you still get benefit. Problem is a single 'A' level costs more money to do privately than the annual food budget. You need 3 'A' levels to get to uni so that is no food for 3 years. Employers have offloaded the costs of doing any training of staff wanting experienced superstars from their first day. Many employers also treat what few apprenticeships that are left as a source of cheap labour, they provide little to no training or shadowing from an experienced, skilled member of staff and just have the apprentice doing paperwork, coffee making, floor sweeping duty on the cheap for two years. The current situation is unacceptable, but there is simply no point screaming at the unemployed about it when it is the lack of will to train them and the lack of will to employ them that is the problem. Stop employers shipping in cheap labour, stop immigrants from doing low paid, low skilled jobs and force employers to offer jobs to unemployed people. This reduction in corporation tax the Tories are bringing in, instead of making it 4% across the board why not make it a 5% reduction but only for companies that take on 5% of their workforce from the pool of long term unemployed each year? Why not increase the corporation tax for companies like Pret A Manager that shockingly who's workforce is shockingly made up of over 75% immigrants? Making sandwiches and pouring coffee does not require highly skilled immigrants but when a company does reject English people in favour of immigrants for low skilled it does have a negative effect on the economy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sourman Posted June 28, 2010 Share Posted June 28, 2010 True there may be extremes in terms of how to tackle this problem...but i don't agree that the thread is loony..the contents could have been delivered in a more subtle way but the message is pretty loud and clear. The benefits system is CRAZY! CRAZY! No rational/humane individual would say STOP the benefits system in seriousness however it has to change and you know what change it will. This coalition govts plan is just the start but someday (..maybe a future govt) the benefits system would be tackled because the bill is madness and the abuse of the system even "madder". Not too long ago you could literally go to university for free in England i.e. you got tuiton paid for by the govt and a basic grant and an optional loan if required. The tide turned and tuition is now not a mandatory sum paid by the govt for students. WHY was this? Very simply cost. The cost was too much. Unfortunately govt receipts can't cover everything. The population is growing and there is more and more pressure for every £. The benefits system is being abused by people and whilst like poverty can't be erradicated in the world so also would there always be a need for people to be on benefit the trick would be to get as many of those who really deserve it on the system, reduce drastically the people who don't and ensure that the amount dished out for all benefits is proportional to what one can live / house on etc... It won't be easy to find a solution but one this is certain...its current format is full of problems. For so long we all knew that there were problems with it ----> this issue has now risen from the media to the Govts desk.. it's a start... i too know that one day I might/would rely on the system...but i also recognise the inefficiencies/abuse in it. OK so the benefits system as it is, is crazy, I agree. I keep thinking one thing again and again on these benefits threads, and that is the problem of immigrants claiming benefits. I have no idea what the figures are but I suspect they make up a fair percentage of those claiming, it is certainly crazy to support this kind of abuse as it is completely a one way street for them. I also suspect no one has the required gonads to tackle that problem, so the emphasis shifts onto an easier target, " the english die hard layabout", no fear of being called a racist there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomwatkins Posted June 28, 2010 Share Posted June 28, 2010 Now we are getting somewhere... The churn you describe is a good thing, it is needed for the free market to function. But in order for that to work effectively, when someone becomes unemployed they need to re-employed quickly or retrained and the re-employed. Now look at how our society works at the moment. If you are long term unemployed and apply for a job the HR drone looks at CV and tosses it. Why? Because there is an inbuilt assumption that anyone who is long term unemployed is unemployable. there must be something wrong with them if they are unemployed, right? Once someone has no money or means of income, things like education become tricky too. If you become a full-time student you lose your benefits and can't buy food. Perhaps you decide that you will take a long term view, not go to college and pay privately to do a few 'A' levels on sly so that you still get benefit. Problem is a single 'A' level costs more money to do privately than the annual food budget. You need 3 'A' levels to get to uni so that is no food for 3 years. Employers have offloaded the costs of doing any training of staff wanting experienced superstars from their first day. Many employers also treat what few apprenticeships that are left as a source of cheap labour, they provide little to no training or shadowing from an experienced, skilled member of staff and just have the apprentice doing paperwork, coffee making, floor sweeping duty on the cheap for two years. The current situation is unacceptable, but there is simply no point screaming at the unemployed about it when it is the lack of will to train them and the lack of will to employ them that is the problem. Stop employers shipping in cheap labour, stop immigrants from doing low paid, low skilled jobs and force employers to offer jobs to unemployed people. This reduction in corporation tax the Tories are bringing in, instead of making it 4% across the board why not make it a 5% reduction but only for companies that take on 5% of their workforce from the pool of long term unemployed each year? Unworkable and made for scammers who will hire and fire to "invent the numbers". Also if somebody is genuinely crap then how long do you have to keep em before they "count" towards the reduced rate? Try having a Bank of National Recovery, instead of bail outs of the existing sh!te, plus a genuine desire to make the UK "industry friendly" and you won't need most of your stuff. Can we build another Port Sunlight? Why not? Why not increase the corporation tax for companies like Pret A Manager that shockingly who's workforce is shockingly made up of over 75% immigrants? Making sandwiches and pouring coffee does not require highly skilled immigrants but when a company does reject English people in favour of immigrants for low skilled it does have a negative effect on the economy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miko Posted June 28, 2010 Share Posted June 28, 2010 Why not increase the corporation tax for companies like Pret A Manager that shockingly who's workforce is shockingly made up of over 75% immigrants? Making sandwiches and pouring coffee does not require highly skilled immigrants but when a company does reject English people in favour of immigrants for low skilled it does have a negative effect on the economy. Yes bang on , Know a few middle aged unemployed men me included who after a few months as unemployed applied to Pret and other coffee shops ( these jobs came in the ok i will take anything league ) none of us got a look in . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zebbedee Posted June 28, 2010 Share Posted June 28, 2010 Whether soemthing at this end of the scale would work I doubt.... for instance there are genuinely diabled people who we wouldn't be able to find work for, there are people who are genuinely incapacitated for whom it might be difficutl to work, and lets not forget you have to find the work for them to do, which doesn't grow on trees and sacking current govt employees to provide the slots clearly is a non-starter etc ect..... but I do think there is a role for saying people should work ( at min wage) for their benefits as a principle and then see which sections it can be made to work for... the something for nothing culture ( as opposed to the genuine support for those in need cuture) is definately somehting that needs to change I like the idea but am more in favour of select tasks being given to the unemployed so that they earn the benefit, have central government allocate some menial jobs that don't or seldom get done,-cleaning graffiti, clearing chewing gum, buffing up the pavements to name a few and set the unemployed to task. That way they'll have earned their keep and if they are genuinely looking for work will feel a sense of achievement (I know how spirit sapping even a few months unemployment can be). You could even allow people a period of grace; say 3 months with time added on for each year of previous employment before the work for benefits kicks in. If they won't do the tasks then they got no money! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D.C. Posted June 28, 2010 Share Posted June 28, 2010 Unworkable and made for scammers who will hire and fire to "invent the numbers". Also if somebody is genuinely crap then how long do you have to keep em before they "count" towards the reduced rate? Try having a Bank of National Recovery, instead of bail outs of the existing sh!te, plus a genuine desire to make the UK "industry friendly" and you won't need most of your stuff. Can we build another Port Sunlight? Why not? Ok, it might get abused. Instead you could vary corporation tax across the country, the areas with high unemployment get a big discount, the areas with low unemployment get no discount. According to the Tories own figures, over the last ten years for ever job created in 'the north' 10 jobs were created in 'the south'. But the north already has houses, infrastructure, schools, hospitals etc etc. Seems insane to move all the people out of the north into the already crowded south, demolishing schools that become unused in the north and paying to build more new schools in the south. It would be far cheaper to incentivise business to locate themselves in the north and create jobs there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miko Posted June 28, 2010 Share Posted June 28, 2010 I like the idea but am more in favour of select tasks being given to the unemployed so that they earn the benefit, have central government allocate some menial jobs that don't or seldom get done,-cleaning graffiti, clearing chewing gum, buffing up the pavements to name a few and set the unemployed to task. That way they'll have earned their keep and if they are genuinely looking for work will feel a sense of achievement (I know how spirit sapping even a few months unemployment can be). You could even allow people a period of grace; say 3 months with time added on for each year of previous employment before the work for benefits kicks in. If they won't do the tasks then they got no money! Great idea , allocate some menial jobs that don't or seldom get done . Tell you what i will go one step further than that look at what does not get done and then make proper jobs for people to do it. If something needs doing pay a decent rate for it to be done. Then the unemployed that take these jobs will have an even better sense of achievement and then if the pay is ok will be able to have a life. Don't say the money is not there to pay for this as another topic posted on this forum tonight is about an NHS trust looking to employ a cost cutter on a six month contract at £1000 per day. While twats are being paid £1000 per day you want others to work for benefits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zebbedee Posted June 28, 2010 Share Posted June 28, 2010 (edited) Great idea , allocate some menial jobs that don't or seldom get done . Tell you what i will go one step further than that look at what does not get done and then make proper jobs for people to do it. If something needs doing pay a decent rate for it to be done. Then the unemployed that take these jobs will have an even better sense of achievement and then if the pay is ok will be able to have a life. Don't say the money is not there to pay for this as another topic posted on this forum tonight is about an NHS trust looking to employ a cost cutter on a six month contract at £1000 per day. While twats are being paid £1000 per day you want others to work for benefits. What just create jobs out of thin air and pay a greater amount of money for them to be done, the russians tried that, it doesn't work. Who said the things need doing? Thats the point, I the tax payer is forking out for others to sit on thier arses, I'd be happy to have something to do when I've been unemployed but at the same time wouldn't want to be taking someones job to do it for benefits. Did I say I agree with twats being paid £1000 to do a non job? Edited June 28, 2010 by zebbedee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D.C. Posted June 28, 2010 Share Posted June 28, 2010 I like the idea but am more in favour of select tasks being given to the unemployed so that they earn the benefit, have central government allocate some menial jobs that don't or seldom get done,-cleaning graffiti, clearing chewing gum, buffing up the pavements to name a few and set the unemployed to task. That way they'll have earned their keep and if they are genuinely looking for work will feel a sense of achievement (I know how spirit sapping even a few months unemployment can be). You could even allow people a period of grace; say 3 months with time added on for each year of previous employment before the work for benefits kicks in. If they won't do the tasks then they got no money! Ooops. You just destroyed an industry and put all the people that work for this company and this company and this company on the dole queue. If you insist on workfare stuff, can I suggest you focus on things that need doing that only provide unstable transient employment? Like picking things at harvest time? A lot of people have a far too simplistic view of the market and now well it caters for things, take the recent icy winter we had. People in the private sector with unused land stockpile grit for years, buying it when cheap and store it knowing that occasionally, once a decade maybe they will be able to flog to a desperate council at a hugely inflated rate when they run out of grit. The more stuff that gets done by a slave army of unemployed people on benefits, the less opportunity there is for the private market. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zebbedee Posted June 28, 2010 Share Posted June 28, 2010 Ooops. You just destroyed an industry and put all the people that work for this company and this company and this company on the dole queue. If you insist on workfare stuff, can I suggest you focus on things that need doing that only provide unstable transient employment? Like picking things at harvest time? A lot of people have a far too simplistic view of the market and now well it caters for things, take the recent icy winter we had. People in the private sector with unused land stockpile grit for years, buying it when cheap and store it knowing that occasionally, once a decade maybe they will be able to flog to a desperate council at a hugely inflated rate when they run out of grit. The more stuff that gets done by a slave army of unemployed people on benefits, the less opportunity there is for the private market. Fair point but there are numerous opertunities to better our environment which will pass by for lack of money and an entire workforce sitting at home getting money for nothing who could be put to better use. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnionTerror Posted June 28, 2010 Share Posted June 28, 2010 (edited) Ooops. You just destroyed an industry and put all the people that work for this company and this company and this company on the dole queue. If you insist on workfare stuff, can I suggest you focus on things that need doing that only provide unstable transient employment? Like picking things at harvest time? A lot of people have a far too simplistic view of the market and now well it caters for things, take the recent icy winter we had. People in the private sector with unused land stockpile grit for years, buying it when cheap and store it knowing that occasionally, once a decade maybe they will be able to flog to a desperate council at a hugely inflated rate when they run out of grit. The more stuff that gets done by a slave army of unemployed people on benefits, the less opportunity there is for the private market. You could also well get the situation, whereby you could have an army of public sector street cleaners, who are made redundant by their council, and are forced on to the dole. Street cleaning is then outsourced to a private company (to allegedly save money) who then get workfare ppl to do those jobs - I suspect that if such a scheme were to take place, a private welfare to work provider would somehow strike deals with businesses to allow this to happen. Ultimately what have you achieved - apart from the welfare provider & the street cleaning business making a handsome profit off the govt, moving unskilled ppl on to the dole, and a different group of unskilled workers to taking their place.. Save money & create jobs it will not..It will just piss off those low-paid ppl already doing those jobs (and perhaps making them redundant), and it will drive down wages.. Here's a very interesting debate: http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_details.php?topicID=138 Edited June 28, 2010 by zagreb78 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellie Posted June 28, 2010 Share Posted June 28, 2010 How to sort out the benefits and housing allowance issues 1) All benefits and housing allowances will be canceled 2) Councils will be required to provide anybody (who asks) with a subsidised/protected job (cleaning the streets, helping kids crossing the road, just anything meaningful, but it would be called a job ...). The subsidised/ protected job would pay the minimal wage (obviously). 3) Mothers with children or disabled people would have reduced working hours or type of work. E.g. blind or people or on wheel chairs would be allowed to do the something (again anything meaningful) from home. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Sorted out. Everybody would be required and motivated to work. Nobody would be forced to divorce and have 15 children with 16 different fathers. Everybody would be looking to get a normal job and earn more money. People who like this lifestyle would be economically motivated to do not have 15 children. People working and earning would feel rewarded. ------------------------------------------------------------------- If you like the idea please speak with your local MP! Tw@t I couldn't bear to read the rest of this thread, much too depressing. Or are you being ironic? ps - over here we spell cancelled like this; "CANCELLED". Are you a US citizen (in which case you should have spelled subsidised with a Z) - or are you just illiterate? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miko Posted June 29, 2010 Share Posted June 29, 2010 What just create jobs out of thin air and pay a greater amount of money for them to be done, the russians tried that, it doesn't work. Who said the things need doing? Thats the point, I the tax payer is forking out for others to sit on thier arses, I'd be happy to have something to do when I've been unemployed but at the same time wouldn't want to be taking someones job to do it for benefits. Did I say I agree with twats being paid £1000 to do a non job? ERR you said they needed doing . Just create jobs out of tine air the russians tried it you say it did not work the yanks tried it at the end of the depresion and it worked. " I the tax payer " are you the only tax payer in the country , most unemployed have paid into the tax system so included them as well. You might have wanted to do somthing for your benefits when you were unemployed , fine , when i was unemployed i did not want to work for my benefits. o.k. I had paid tax at 40% for years plus all the other taxes on top so was entitled to the piddley £65 p.w. Fine you don't agree with twats being paid £1000 a day accept that , however you did want people working for JSA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.