Benefit shake-up 'revolutionary'

[Tocano]

i think ur misinterpreting lazy sods for people looking for work where there is no jobs

Nope....was meaning those who can't be bothered to get off their butts to fill the jobs there are out there.....

 

[english]

Nope....was meaning those who can't be bothered to get off their butts to fill the jobs there are out there.....

the 'benefit shakeup' is a **** off big skank to get cheap "Labour" from thousands upon thousands of ppl. and they'll probably be using the 1000+ new privacy invasion laws (I read it in The Sun, today! thanks to 7/7 is this) to find out what they need to from the claimants in order to verify their claims. hmm. as if the fact they're out of work isn't enough

Slavery is a better word in fact. the system creates people that don't want to work because there's 'no point' then moans about it and charges the taxpayers for it. making us think peeps out of work are lazy. lets go communist, fook it. it works for the yanks ;p

"Nope....was meaning those who can't be bothered to get off their butts to fill the jobs there are out there....."

i can see ur point but dig a little deeper

 

[chronoman]

I know loads of abled bodied guys (mostly toke heads) who have scammed since they left school.
It has been far too long in something like this coming.
The UK infrastructure if foooked why not get them rebuilding .Cheap labour yes .do they have a choice yes .
They start applying for jobs and make the effort and they will get proper pay.
I am just wondring who will clean my windows now though

 

[stevemac40]

Looking at the amount of respondants on here, I would say that just about most are in favour of this new scheme in principle at least.

 

[hamba]

Looking at the amount of respondants on here, I would say that just about most are in favour of this new scheme in principle at least.

I'm in favour of helping people get back to work, deal better with their lives, improve their education, but I'm not in favour of forcing people to do something they don't want to do. There has got to be a better way.

 

[malcoa]

The problem that i see here, is that its going to be work that other people are already being paid to do thus putting more people out of work, where does the governments minimum wage come into it i.e are their benefits increased if they earn it or are over 21. it seems to be a sure fire way to devalue the low value jobs out their
Dont get me wrong, i am far from against such idea's, i just dont want to see the honest worker affected by this which as far as i can see will become unavoidable

 

[earthshayker]

I know someone who was on benefits and got a job but after 3 months found it impossible to live on the money left after bills, she was better off on the dole and getting housing benefit and council tax benefit, free dental, free priscriptions the list goes on, she's very bright but because she got no qualifications on paper minimum wage jobs is all she could get. She has tried going to college and did some course but on completion still can't get a job in that field as all employers want you to have experience so she gets depresed and stop looking for work and refused to do another course.

As to the eastern european people they send all thier cash home so nothing goes back into the system so thats not good anyway

The only solution in my opinion is to adjust the cost of living to what people are being paid or vice versor

 

[daveleebond]

the way i see it people who were born in the UK and have worked thus earning NI should have benefits.

why do others get a free ride? and considered a higher priority? Just to be PC.

 

[daveleebond]

no, thats inaccurate - anyone who works in the UK and contributes should be entitled to benefits.

even if they have never worked here?

 

[wonko]

even if they have never worked here?

would seem to be answered by

...anyone who works in the UK and contributes....

you know - the post you quoted!!!

 

[daveleebond]

would seem to be answered by

you know - the post you quoted!!!

but this implying they are not in employment

 

[Dutcho]

no, thats inaccurate - anyone who works in the UK and contributes should be entitled to benefits.

Unfortunatly though there are quite a lot don't bother to work and just expect hand outs all the time.

 

[Dutcho]

Well at least they wouldn't be free loading and maybe would think twice about getting a proper job.

 

[Dutcho]

No no I don't think there will be any job's eatting pudding mate, I think they will do things that will help serve the community better, like making sure there is no gravel lying about when I go for a tear about on the bike

 

[wonko]

but this implying they are not in employment

in what way?

I dont understand your objection to paying people that arent currently employed benefits provided they have previously worked in the UK and paid into the system - I can understand objections to not paying benefits of any type in (NHS etc) to those who dont fit into the above category - I dont agree but can understand that - of course what we will then do with several million starving immegrants is another matter - when they cant afford to pay the fines for standing around looking untidy in a suspicious foreign manner what do we do then - it will cost money to kick them out of the UK, and even if we assume that not all of them will resort to voilent crime for both financial and recreational purposes the land fills wont cope and fairly sure that current law wont allow them to be used for petfood in lieu of fines.

I find it remarkable that any new measures are needed when according to the PM we have the highest employment ever and taxes paid by these workers are at a record high - were is all the money going? coz it certainly ISNT going on benefit payments (btw anyone see on the fiddle a coupel of weeks ago - couple convicted of scamming £80k from benefits system - operation to catch them cost £375,000)

edit - btw I have previously been paid to watch paint dry - seriously lol

someone must do the quality control and actually taste puddings lol

 

[smirnoff_rules]

think l have posted this before . but why should l sort all the bottles in one box cardboard in another when theres peeps on the dole that can do it ???

let them work in a sorting place picking the metal and reusable things out

 

[Diddy]

This has been going on in the US for years. Many stories have come back from over the water about the effect it has had. Ill give a few of these so called effects, just for the sake of this debate.
1. Social Breakdown - Sound familiar ? This is the concept that if both parents are out working then the children of said parents suffer from lack of parenting (this argument has been cited in this country too when referring to kids straying off the beaten path due to neglect of the parents, I must point out the UK examples are few and they point to EXTREME cases)
2. As point 1 but for single parent families......take that single parent out of the home and who does the baby sitting ?
3. All this "work" already gets done, it way not get done as quickly as some would like or as well as some would like but it still gets done and the people who do it generally get more than £65 per week. (Again for the debate name a job that "work for benefit" people could do that wont cost some poor sod his/her job due to government assisted undercutting ?)

Now the positives are there I deffo agree. It's got to be a good thing to get the majority of people out in the workplace, just i think it shouldn't be in a competitive manner. IE they should be training for jobs that they could do but tailored for the individuals circumstances. Say train peeps on basic pc literacy and they can do it from home - in a sort of pay for what you do kind of way.
I think the emphasis should be "Train for benefits" as opposed to work for them. This kind of thing could have a positive impact if implemented properly. But when has any policy that requires something other than 1st grade thinking ever been successfully implemented by civil servants ?

Another point what are we going to give the community service people to do now that the welfare to work peeps are cleaning up the graffiti ect ? Suppose they will have to just stay in prison and play on the ps2 or whatever, or the could read a book to pass the time ?
Seems like if I were a lazy fooker who wanted to further my career in being a professional lazy fooker then the way forward is to get into the mugging and robbing game, many benifits include 1. Money from my proceeds. 2. Most people just walk on by 3. If and when caught I just go to the clink for a bit and chill, come back out and rinse&repeat.
Im not saying any of the above is "right" im just throwing a few things up in the air (like i would do if i were sat on a government think tank.

**Disclaimer - I think robbers,muggers and criminals who directly effect the ordinary man are scumbags, my point above was just to point out a "what if" scenario.

 

[Bronto]

let them work in a sorting place picking the metal and reusable things out

lol yeah and feed them all Gruel .. You want "MORE" ! lmao

Poor buggers, we'll have them all in work houses next

Joking aside I don't mind helping to support the genuine people, it's the free loaders that need sorting

 

[smirnoff_rules]

have to say l mean lazy bas*ards not the lads and lasses that havent a choice and cons lol

if someone came to me and said lv been looking for a job and been working in a sorting place l would think more of him .. if u get me

 

[hamba]

The problem is that those who are playing the system will continue to find ways to keep playing the system. It's the less clever, needy ones who will loose out.