Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Tonkers

Working For Unemployment Benefit

Recommended Posts

So whoever it was, just on the beeb, saying that one should be expected to work for their unemployment benefit - does this, please, include all the work I did to earn the money to pay my ******ing National Insurance? If they want to break this contract, I no longer want to pay NI. Cheers, see you on your way out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can understand your indignation, but I suspect the point wasn't aimed at you. The reality is the vast majority of benefit recipients haven't contributed anything to the system on a net basis and giving endless entitlements is going to destroy us slowly.

If the same person had said "Move to a contribution based safety net with people who have made no contribution required to work" you'd have been much happier perhaps?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BBC

'National Insurance is now used to pay for:

The NHS

Unemployment benefit

Sickness and disability allowances

The state pension

NI is supposed to be "ring fenced" - meaning the money raised is only used for these areas and won't be spent on things like building schools or employing police officers.

However, the government can borrow from the National Insurance fund to help pay for other projects. '

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So whoever it was, just on the beeb, saying that one should be expected to work for their unemployment benefit - does this, please, include all the work I did to earn the money to pay my ******ing National Insurance? If they want to break this contract, I no longer want to pay NI. Cheers, see you on your way out.

what a shocker; working for money; where are you from? North Korea?

Ni is a small part of the state taxation including VAT, income tax, fuel duties, etc ... They do not give you a human right to sit at home doing nothing and receive money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So whoever it was, just on the beeb, saying that one should be expected to work for their unemployment benefit - does this, please, include all the work I did to earn the money to pay my ******ing National Insurance? If they want to break this contract, I no longer want to pay NI. Cheers, see you on your way out.

Contract? What contract? :lol:

There is nothing voluntary about this situation. They take what they want. They are thieves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried to get my 6 months Jsa. But gave up after 2 weeks. Too much hassle.

Whilst those that clearly had no plans to ever really work - wander in - have there bi weekly chat about the football - then walk out knowing their Jsa is safe and sound.

As usual - those who actually put effort in get ******ed over when they want to take a little out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can understand your indignation, but I suspect the point wasn't aimed at you. The reality is the vast majority of benefit recipients haven't contributed anything to the system on a net basis and giving endless entitlements is going to destroy us slowly.

If the same person had said "Move to a contribution based safety net with people who have made no contribution required to work" you'd have been much happier perhaps?

Yes, yes I would. Well that's a start. My NI payments to date would have financed all my spells of unemployment twice over, and probably at a nice holiday resort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried to get my 6 months Jsa. But gave up after 2 weeks. Too much hassle.

Whilst those that clearly had no plans to ever really work - wander in - have there bi weekly chat about the football - then walk out knowing their Jsa is safe and sound.

As usual - those who actually put effort in get ******ed over when they want to take a little out.

I start a new job on Monday, but I have enjoyed myself this time round by bringing in my powerpoint presentations that I prepare for interviews - man, do they ever back off!

Some poor ******* yesterday was being shown how to use the internet and was told, and I quote "you could be an airline pilot, or a psychologist, just click here" like the matchbooks you get in the USA. Better still, he did not take his earbuds out the whole time :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jobs, what jobs?

If you take a million unemployed and get them to work for free (increase the supply of labor for free)

1) What happens to the jobs that this group take ?

2) what happens to the price of labor ?

Could high unemployment numbers on welfare keep wages afloat by restricting the number of willing applicants?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Requiring people to do unpaid work in exchange for their benefits is a terrific idea and is long overdue. It doesn't need to be for 40 hours a week, because obviously people need a chance to spend time looking for work and to receive formal education and training, but it seems perfectly right to me that people in receipt of benefits - including a significant proportion of people on disability benefit - should work if they expect to be given free money by everyone else, individual citizens and businesses. They are not "living off the State", i.e. off some amorphous entity that possesses huge and unlimited power - they are living off you and me, and should expect to give something back in exchange for this largesse, as part of a moral contract within the community. The benefit recipient also gains by being forced into the discipline and habit of going to work, with all that that involves, and by gaining experience and training that can go on a CV, either to help them find a job or, better, for them to create work for themselves by setting up a small business and becoming self-employed. There's the endless complaint that "there are no jobs", as if jobs and employment just appear from thin air like magic or it's the Government's responsibility to provide them, when in fact jobs are created by someone else's hard work, or by someone's own efforts to create work for themselves by offering a self-employed skill that someone else is prepared to pay for.

What kind of work might benefit claimants do? Well, any parish or borough councillor or local authority employee can tell you there is a myriad of projects that need doing, from physical work like mending fences, gardening and clearing paths to manning the phones for the local Dial-a-Ride charity for elderly people. Charities are constantly seeking new volunteers for all kind of work from fund-raising and customer services to helping old people with practical tasks or simply a friendly voice. There's a charity in Scotland called the Food Train where people in need of free or cheap food are linked up with local supermarkets and shops seeking to dispose of surplus or near-to-date food; people are even helped with transport to the shops, but in return they are required to do several hours of free work a week to help run the charity and keep its costs down: they do not get something for nothing. Even the most housebound usually have access to a phone, which means they can work by being responsible for the helpline from time to time, to take orders or simply to have a chat.

Of course this is no panacea, but it ought to be a general principle that benefits do not come for free and people should have to work for them, and that includes *all* benefits, contributory and non-contributory, not just the relatively small proportion of people who are on Jobseekers Allowance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jobs, what jobs?

If you take a million unemployed and get them to work for free (increase the supply of labor for free)

1) What happens to the jobs that this group take ?

2) what happens to the price of labor ?

Could high unemployment numbers on welfare keep wages afloat by restricting the number of willing applicants?

If a labour force were to be created by those on unemployment benefit, would they perhaps have the motivation to unionise and demand better payment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Requiring people to do unpaid work in exchange for their benefits is a terrific idea and is long overdue. It doesn't need to be for 40 hours a week, because obviously people need a chance to spend time looking for work and to receive formal education and training, but it seems perfectly right to me that people in receipt of benefits - including a significant proportion of people on disability benefit - should work if they expect to be given free money by everyone else, individual citizens and businesses. They are not "living off the State", i.e. off some amorphous entity that possesses huge and unlimited power - they are living off you and me, and should expect to give something back in exchange for this largesse, as part of a moral contract within the community. The benefit recipient also gains by being forced into the discipline and habit of going to work, with all that that involves, and by gaining experience and training that can go on a CV, either to help them find a job or, better, for them to create work for themselves by setting up a small business and becoming self-employed. There's the endless complaint that "there are no jobs", as if jobs and employment just appear from thin air like magic or it's the Government's responsibility to provide them, when in fact jobs are created by someone else's hard work, or by someone's own efforts to create work for themselves by offering a self-employed skill that someone else is prepared to pay for.

What kind of work might benefit claimants do? Well, any parish or borough councillor or local authority employee can tell you there is a myriad of projects that need doing, from physical work like mending fences, gardening and clearing paths to manning the phones for the local Dial-a-Ride charity for elderly people. Charities are constantly seeking new volunteers for all kind of work from fund-raising and customer services to helping old people with practical tasks or simply a friendly voice. There's a charity in Scotland called the Food Train where people in need of free or cheap food are linked up with local supermarkets and shops seeking to dispose of surplus or near-to-date food; people are even helped with transport to the shops, but in return they are required to do several hours of free work a week to help run the charity and keep its costs down: they do not get something for nothing. Even the most housebound usually have access to a phone, which means they can work by being responsible for the helpline from time to time, to take orders or simply to have a chat.

Of course this is no panacea, but it ought to be a general principle that benefits do not come for free and people should have to work for them, and that includes *all* benefits, contributory and non-contributory, not just the relatively small proportion of people who are on Jobseekers Allowance.

Fine, but then why am I paying National Insurance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Requiring people to do unpaid work in exchange for their benefits is a terrific idea and is long overdue. It doesn't need to be for 40 hours a week, because obviously people need a chance to spend time looking for work and to receive formal education and training, but it seems perfectly right to me that people in receipt of benefits - including a significant proportion of people on disability benefit - should work if they expect to be given free money by everyone else, individual citizens and businesses. They are not "living off the State", i.e. off some amorphous entity that possesses huge and unlimited power - they are living off you and me, and should expect to give something back in exchange for this largesse, as part of a moral contract within the community. The benefit recipient also gains by being forced into the discipline and habit of going to work, with all that that involves, and by gaining experience and training that can go on a CV, either to help them find a job or, better, for them to create work for themselves by setting up a small business and becoming self-employed. There's the endless complaint that "there are no jobs", as if jobs and employment just appear from thin air like magic or it's the Government's responsibility to provide them, when in fact jobs are created by someone else's hard work, or by someone's own efforts to create work for themselves by offering a self-employed skill that someone else is prepared to pay for.

What kind of work might benefit claimants do? Well, any parish or borough councillor or local authority employee can tell you there is a myriad of projects that need doing, from physical work like mending fences, gardening and clearing paths to manning the phones for the local Dial-a-Ride charity for elderly people. Charities are constantly seeking new volunteers for all kind of work from fund-raising and customer services to helping old people with practical tasks or simply a friendly voice. There's a charity in Scotland called the Food Train where people in need of free or cheap food are linked up with local supermarkets and shops seeking to dispose of surplus or near-to-date food; people are even helped with transport to the shops, but in return they are required to do several hours of free work a week to help run the charity and keep its costs down: they do not get something for nothing. Even the most housebound usually have access to a phone, which means they can work by being responsible for the helpline from time to time, to take orders or simply to have a chat.

Of course this is no panacea, but it ought to be a general principle that benefits do not come for free and people should have to work for them, and that includes *all* benefits, contributory and non-contributory, not just the relatively small proportion of people who are on Jobseekers Allowance.

Spend 20 years working paying national Insurance then find yourself unemployed whilst desperately scrambling for a job for 6 months.

What you are proposing is worse than communism. I would prefer just to wholesale scrap benefits and send people to charities instead - In china there is no benefits, people save 40% of their income instead. You can also scrap the social security element of National Insurance and save us all lots of money.

Free labor is always going to price out free market labor - IMO the less people who can compete against me for a given job the better, if these people have to go to food banks and live in hostels then so be it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jobs, what jobs?

If you take a million unemployed and get them to work for free (increase the supply of labor for free)

1) What happens to the jobs that this group take ?

2) what happens to the price of labor ?

Could high unemployment numbers on welfare keep wages afloat by restricting the number of willing applicants?

+1

And anyone one who says it won't happen they're wrong ,my daughter has just been made unemployed after first having her hours reduced ,it`s no coincidence they now have two workfare slaves opposed to just the one that was engineered for the busy time of the year

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Creating jobs that are not worthwhile for the sake of it only creates more jobs to administer the jobless....like saying after cleaning the carpet please clean the carpet you must be seen to be working...if a job is worth doing surely someone would be employed to do it, or is free labour for rich corporations that already pay low wages better?.......would not learning, studying, helping needy other people because you offer help to them be better?.... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, how about using some of the unemployed to build prefabs on the greenbelt around major towns and villages? Housing benifits can then be reduced to zero and benifits bill could then be cut thus reducing taxes and creating jobs.

It would not be competing with the 'free market' wither as only those who are unemployed would be able to live in the houses and other people could go on to buy barrat boxes if they choose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These sort of crazy ideas come out because this government like all before it has messed up welfare reform.

As soon as you decide to use welfare to punish people it fails.People who support this sort of thing mostly have never had to go through a workfare scheme.

The truth is the unemployed are not the problem in welfare.The cost of people on JSA is tiny and a very large percentage are 100% genuine claims.

The problems in welfare are in tax credits and disability with housing benefit growing into a huge problem.

Welfare needs reform and working age welfare needs cutting back.This isn't the way to do it.

The facts are simple.Someone on JSA gets around £71 a week.Some parents on tax credits working 16 hours with children on DLA for made up ailments get £400+ a week.

The problem with welfare is the huge extra amounts added on to the basic elements.If you limit the amount to the first child only and do away with DLA you solve most of the problems in welfare as most people working would be means tested off benefits quickly.

A CI is the only long term answer of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you are proposing is worse than communism.

+1

So these people working for unemployment benefit would need some kind of permanent (presumably state-employed) managers and administrators to coordinate their activities and monitor attendance. They would need capital (tools, materials, vehicles, buildings) and training in whatever activity they are going to be doing "for society". They have not been selected for these activities on the basis of ability and enthusiasm as somebody doing a normal job has been; they are there because they are the random cross-section of the population that happens to be unemployed. They are likely to be in a wide range of states of mental and physical fitness. They will be available for irregular and unpredictable hours as they are supposed to be looking for work, retraining and attending interviews, and may re-enter the workforce at short notice at any time. If the activities they are doing for unemployment benefit are too demanding they will have less time and energy to put into jobhunting. They have no real incentive to do a good job. If they are doing work-like activities, they are going to start accruing work-related expenses like clothing, transport, childcare and food - are they going to have to pay for these out of the £70 a week JSA? Whatever activity they are doing will crowd out the paid workers who would have been doing the job before.

I would be extremely surprised if a work scheme for the unemployed actually produced a positive net return for the taxpayer in terms of the market value of the work that was done minus cost of running the scheme.

Edited by Dorkins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a world we live in.

The "Tax Payers Alliance" come up with a policy of making people work full time for £70 a week.

The "Million Jobs Campaign" go onto the Radio to support it.

No mention is made of the fact that both are Tory campaign groups based in the same office (along with "Big Brother Watch" and hundreds of other similar organisations funded by mega-corps after free staff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1

And anyone one who says it won't happen they're wrong ,my daughter has just been made unemployed after first having her hours reduced ,it`s no coincidence they now have two workfare slaves opposed to just the one that was engineered for the busy time of the year

Indeed.

In theory, having various community projects set up so that the long term unemployed (over a year) have to get up and do something is OK - it's probably good for their sanity as much as anything else, and would have to come with extra money.

But the current approach seems to be to use the workfare scheme to provide unpaid labour as substitutes for paid employees. Which is 100% guaranteed to make things worse..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Requiring people to do unpaid work in exchange for their benefits is a terrific idea and is long overdue. It doesn't need to be for 40 hours a week, because obviously people need a chance to spend time looking for work and to receive formal education and training, but it seems perfectly right to me that people in receipt of benefits - including a significant proportion of people on disability benefit - should work if they expect to be given free money by everyone else, individual citizens and businesses. They are not "living off the State", i.e. off some amorphous entity that possesses huge and unlimited power - they are living off you and me, and should expect to give something back in exchange for this largesse, as part of a moral contract within the community. The benefit recipient also gains by being forced into the discipline and habit of going to work, with all that that involves, and by gaining experience and training that can go on a CV, either to help them find a job or, better, for them to create work for themselves by setting up a small business and becoming self-employed. There's the endless complaint that "there are no jobs", as if jobs and employment just appear from thin air like magic or it's the Government's responsibility to provide them, when in fact jobs are created by someone else's hard work, or by someone's own efforts to create work for themselves by offering a self-employed skill that someone else is prepared to pay for.

What kind of work might benefit claimants do? Well, any parish or borough councillor or local authority employee can tell you there is a myriad of projects that need doing, from physical work like mending fences, gardening and clearing paths to manning the phones for the local Dial-a-Ride charity for elderly people. Charities are constantly seeking new volunteers for all kind of work from fund-raising and customer services to helping old people with practical tasks or simply a friendly voice. There's a charity in Scotland called the Food Train where people in need of free or cheap food are linked up with local supermarkets and shops seeking to dispose of surplus or near-to-date food; people are even helped with transport to the shops, but in return they are required to do several hours of free work a week to help run the charity and keep its costs down: they do not get something for nothing. Even the most housebound usually have access to a phone, which means they can work by being responsible for the helpline from time to time, to take orders or simply to have a chat.

Of course this is no panacea, but it ought to be a general principle that benefits do not come for free and people should have to work for them, and that includes *all* benefits, contributory and non-contributory, not just the relatively small proportion of people who are on Jobseekers Allowance.

you wil not win elections with this kind of attitude. do you think that the lower classes will ever vote for you ???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are currently spending £120 billion more each year than we have. Does anyone really think this can go on forever, and just keep adding to the over £1 trillion debt pile?

If we can't there are going to be a LOT of very tough decisions to be made. What someone does for their JSA will not even register on the scale of what is going to have to be done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont have too much difficluty with those on 'out of work benefit's being asked to do some work. Socially oreintated work, so that the community get the benfit. But it shouldnt be for more hours than their benefit equates to in terms of minimum wage hours, and it shouldn't be or for private companies.

Edited by Allthatglitters

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are currently spending £120 billion more each year than we have. Does anyone really think this can go on forever, and just keep adding to the over £1 trillion debt pile?

If we can't there are going to be a LOT of very tough decisions to be made. What someone does for their JSA will not even register on the scale of what is going to have to be done.

.....In that case everyone should be made to reapply for their jobs.....two people to do one job split the wage, no overtime paid the unemployed can do that....a few jobs many just as qualified/intelligent/prepared to learn quickly people would be prepared to do the same job for the same or less.........over paid people are no different to people being on benefits where no one will pay enough to employ them. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   211 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.