[Benjamin]

Yes, it's time for me to start another discussion.


This time I want to know your views on benefits and the dole. Do you agree with them? Are you on or have you been on them?

[Grimnir]

My idea would be to set a 3 month limit on unemployment benefit

If someone leaves a job for whatever reason they have 3 months to find a new job

If after 3 months they unsuccessful, they are automatically given a job at national minimum wage.

Also once they start work their tax is increased by a certain % so they pay back the unemployment benefit. Once benefit is paid back their tax level returns to normal.

This way only people unemployed are the sick, children and the elderly.
Plus all benefit paid to those unemployed for 1-3 months is eventually returned. Save so much money.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Grimnir

My idea would be to set a 3 month limit on unemployment benefit

If someone leaves a job for whatever reason they have 3 months to find a new job

If after 3 months they unsuccessful, they are automatically given a job at national minimum wage.

Also once they start work their tax is increased by a certain % so they pay back the unemployment benefit. Once benefit is paid back their tax level returns to normal.

This way only people unemployed are the sick, children and the elderly.
Plus all benefit paid to those unemployed for 1-3 months is eventually returned. Save so much money.

Where would the jobs come from? There's a reason why people who earn under a certain amount of money don't get taxed and it's because they simply can't afford it.

My approach would be similar but also very different. I'd offer up a similar timeframe after which I'd have mandatory volunteering positions set up so that they can earn the money but also gain work experience at the same time. It's a bit more realistic as a lot of companies wouldn't turn down a free workforce and it's beneficial to both sides in the long run.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Grimnir

If after 3 months they unsuccessful, they are automatically given a job at national minimum wage.

If it was that simple, do you really think so many people would be unemployed?

Not everyone who is on the dole is a scrounger you know, many are actually looking for jobs, they just arent there

Its a fantastic idea in theory, but it wouldnt work.

[Grimnir]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Where would the jobs come from? There's a reason why people who earn under a certain amount of money don't get taxed and it's because they simply can't afford it.

My approach would be similar but also very different. I'd offer up a similar timeframe after which I'd have mandatory volunteering positions set up so that they can earn the money but also gain work experience at the same time. It's a bit more realistic as a lot of companies wouldn't turn down a free workforce and it's beneficial to both sides in the long run.

The jobs would come from the same place the mandatory volunteer positions you mentioned come from.
They already have mandatory work placements, but no one should be forced to work for below the national minimum wage under any circumstances, not even foreigners should be made to do that.
If main reason there are so many unemployed is because there are too many people and not enough jobs, then Government needs to lower the amount of people and create more jobs.

[Niall]

I think the dole is something very necessary to help those in the country that are down on their luck and have no job or income. The amount of people in poverty in the U.K would probably sharply increase if the dole was suddenly cut by the government.

I do think it causes some people to just sit around on the dole simply because they can. I know that many people on the dole are decent people who can't find a job, but there are some people who just stay on the dole cause its easy - my brother was one of them. But to be honest, I'm not that sure how to fix that issue other than the government trying to create jobs wherever they can.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Grimnir

The jobs would come from the same place the mandatory volunteer positions you mentioned come from.
They already have mandatory work placements, but no one should be forced to work for below the national minimum wage under any circumstances, not even foreigners should be made to do that.
If main reason there are so many unemployed is because there are too many people and not enough jobs, then Government needs to lower the amount of people and create more jobs.

The difference is that the companies would have to pay them if it was a job, if it's voluntary they'll be more likely to comply and then if there's any they are impressed with they can hire them if they wish. Also I'm not talking about full time work placements, I'm thinking of them doing as much work as they are paid in benefits. So a day or two a week, the experience would still be incredibly beneficial for them when it comes to looking for a job.

It's very easy to say 'create jobs' but how do you propose they go about it?

[Stacey.]

LOL *looks at tommy*

[Niall]

Originally Posted by Stacey.

LOL *looks at tommy*

[Grimnir]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

The difference is that the companies would have to pay them if it was a job, if it's voluntary they'll be more likely to comply and then if there's any they are impressed with they can hire them if they wish. Also I'm not talking about full time work placements, I'm thinking of them doing as much work as they are paid in benefits. So a day or two a week, the experience would still be incredibly beneficial for them when it comes to looking for a job.

It's very easy to say 'create jobs' but how do you propose they go about it?

Once someone gets to the 3 month stage of unemployment they go to the front of the queue when they attend the various job agencies thoughout UK.
The job agencies work by companies paying them to find them workers.
At this level the difference in quality of worker is insignificant so companies have no grounds for discriminating.
Also the advantage is that the company and agency only have to pay them minimum wage instead of Ł7-Ł10 per hour or so.

To create more jobs we should improve manufacturing industry and also stop big companies employing foreign workers in other countries so they can pay them peanuts and make huge profits.
An example is why now when ring BT does someone in India answer calling himself Dave?
No problem with someone Indian who lives in Britain working for BT but not having them based in India when they could just as easily operate from within Britain. It is called BRITISH TELECOM after all.

[cub]

Benefits and handouts could still come with a price.

Either compulsory training, schooling or part time manual work - picking up litter, gardening, etc.

Replace some of the money with coupons for food and clothing.

[Zippy]

I think many long term unemployed get very comfortable doing fck all and getting paid for it. As somebody who has to work and pay for all my extra joys in life its just annoying to see these people with their computers, game consoles, huge screen TVs...fags, booze etc etc And I see this with my own eyes daily so don't dare tell me its not the case.

If youve been jobless for more than a few months then you need to just accept one of the crappy, menial jobs and thats that. Can't be getting picky when you're supposedly desperate and taxpayers are paying your way. Meanwhile, you can still be looking for a better job.

And all the benefit cheats seriously need hunting down. They are draining the system;

ALMOST two million incapacity benefit claimants look set to be exposed as workshy scroungers. Damning new figures have for the first time unmasked the horrifying scale of fakers draining Britain’s welfare system. David Cameron has declared war on spongers and four in 10 claimants already tested have been ruled “fit to work”.

40% of sickness claimants even failed to turn up for assessments. Well kick them off benefits then!

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Zippy

ALMOST two million incapacity benefit claimants look set to be exposed as workshy scroungers. Damning new figures have for the first time unmasked the horrifying scale of fakers draining Britain’s welfare system. David Cameron has declared war on spongers and four in 10 claimants already tested have been ruled “fit to work”.

40% of sickness claimants even failed to turn up for assessments. Well kick them off benefits then!

As someone who has undergone the ATOS assessment myself a while back...I know this is a load of bollocks. ATOS are pretty much paid to find people fit for work, no matter how ill they actually are, so they can throw out statistics like this. The 'doctors' who assess you are not always qualified either. I had a ex midwife doing my mental health assessment. I was given 8 points, which made me 'fit for work' as you need 15 points to remain on IB. Even though at that time I could not leave the house on my own due to severe panic attacks and general anxiety. The midwife acknowledged this on my form. Along with my GP confirming it. Yet they tried to kick me off the sick, as I did not have the full 15 points. I appealed and won...but it was common sense anyway that if at that time I couldnt leave the house on my own...yes, technically I COULD sign on, only if someone came with me to my signings, but I could not look/take for a job. How many employers would take on someone who was severely depressed, took panic attacks at regular intervals, and had to have someone they knew around them on every shift?

The 'medical assessment' itself, is only someone sitting asking you questions. And they also twist your answers to suit themselves. They try to pressure you into certain answers. And in some cases even totally make up things that you are supposed to have said.

I know a few people who have said exactly the same thing too...they also appealed, and were found by the tribunal to be unfit for work. The tribunal panel DOES actually have a qualified doctor on it. This makes a hell of a difference IMO.

[joeysteele]

Well with high unemployment now at or over the 2.5 million mark then clearly benefits have to there,there are now many people losing jobs they have had for decades and others who have worked in their current jobs for a year or more, you cannot limit benefits as to time you pay them if you don't have jobs for people to take.

Now no way am I a brilliant mathematician but there are currently over 2.5 million people unemployed,simply unemployed, not on sickness or disability but there are only around at best 500,000 vacancies across the Country, now whether people are good at maths or not its easy to see that you cannot employ 2.5 million people into 500,000 vacancies.

So this bashing of people unemployed by this coalition govt is wrong and also unfair at this time.

[Zippy]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

The 'medical assessment' itself, is only someone sitting asking you questions. And they also twist your answers to suit themselves. They try to pressure you into certain answers. And in some cases even totally make up things that you are supposed to have said.

I know a few people who have said exactly the same thing too...they also appealed, and were found by the tribunal to be unfit for work. The tribunal panel DOES actually have a qualified doctor on it. This makes a hell of a difference IMO.

well mental issues are always difficult to assess. You're mostly having to go by what the patient tells you. Which could be lies.

So just as its easy to not read a persons illness its also easy for a claimant to lie and exaggerate how bad they are. Even with people who have issues being around lots of people they could still do many other jobs that are solitary or not around lots of people. They should train towards doing these jobs instead of just labelling them selves totally incapable of working. Which they are not. Many people even work online.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

As someone who has undergone the ATOS assessment myself a while back...I know this is a load of bollocks. ATOS are pretty much paid to find people fit for work, no matter how ill they actually are, so they can throw out statistics like this. The 'doctors' who assess you are not always qualified either. I had a ex midwife doing my mental health assessment. I was given 8 points, which made me 'fit for work' as you need 15 points to remain on IB. Even though at that time I could not leave the house on my own due to severe panic attacks and general anxiety. The midwife acknowledged this on my form. Along with my GP confirming it. Yet they tried to kick me off the sick, as I did not have the full 15 points. I appealed and won...but it was common sense anyway that if at that time I couldnt leave the house on my own...yes, technically I COULD sign on, only if someone came with me to my signings, but I could not look/take for a job. How many employers would take on someone who was severely depressed, took panic attacks at regular intervals, and had to have someone they knew around them on every shift?

Vicky, that is a brilliant post and what you describe is disgraceful, this is the post of this thread and maybe the coalition govt should be sent it too.

I think what happened to you Vicky was shocking and you are right what employer would take on or keep in work people who at a moments notice may become ill or be unreliable due to their condition at the time.Brilliant account and brilliant post from you.

This thread was talking about the unemployed of which actual unemployment is over 2.5m million people, Zippy brought in those on incapacity and disability too,so that takes the figure to over 4 million out of work at least with the 2 elements combined, how can the govt put over 4 million people into under 500,000 vacancies.
We are in the economics of madness and while I would agree there are likely scroungers in the benefits system there are likely more in business and among the very well off too,there was even a high number of scroungers among 650 MPs.
That does not mean the vast majority of sick, disabled, rich, poor, unemployed and MPs are all scroungers though.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Zippy

well mental issues are always difficult to assess. You're mostly having to go by what the patient tells you. Which could be lies.

I guess. Helps to have a person who is actually qualified in assessing mental health though...right? Or real GPs... not the medical rejects that they have there

ATOS are useless. Totally. They pass people who are on the sick for being 'alcoholics' just because they turn up to the interview drunk. Yet try to kick people off who are actually ill.

Luckily there is the tribunal panel though.

[Grimnir]

People who are unemployed and looking for work should be the focus.
Government and public should not demonise those who are sick and unfit for work.
Its easy for someone happy and healthy to look at someone who is not in a wheelchair or coma and think to themselves whats wrong with them? why they not workin like me? They must be lazy. Try living as that person for a while and see if you think same.

[Judas]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

It's a bit more realistic as a lot of companies wouldn't turn down a free workforce and it's beneficial to both sides in the long run.

The problem with this is, why would a company employ someone when they could get a free workforce? This would just increase unemployment...

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

We are in the economics of madness and while I would agree there are likely scroungers in the benefits system there are likely more in business and among the very well off too,there was even a high number of scroungers among 650 MPs.

Oh yeah, I know there are a lot who do just want something for nothing. Just makes my blood boil when the majority seem to be lumped into the same category tbh. And when the government throw out these statistics all the time, when they know fine well that the only reason they have these high percentages, is because of ATOS, and their shoddy 'medical examinations'...if they took into account also the amount of people who appealed the decision and won, the statistics would be far lower.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Judas

The problem with this is, why would a company employ someone when they could get a free workforce? This would just increase unemployment...

Exactly. The number of 'unemployed but working for benefits' would rise. Eventually everyone would be on benefits but working for free...

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Oh yeah, I know there are a lot who do just want something for nothing. Just makes my blood boil when the majority seem to be lumped into the same category tbh. And when the government throw out these statistics all the time, when they know fine well that the only reason they have these high percentages, is because of ATOS, and their shoddy 'medical examinations'...if they took into account also the amount of people who appealed the decision and won, the statistics would be far lower.

I don't disagree at all with you Vicky, you have spoken from a personal experience and have shown the massive flaws in the system, (sorry I don't know who ATOS is but they sound pathetic),It's a pity Govts don't listen to you and others with those experiences then with the knowledge gained from you and others make decisions based more fairly as to policy on the matter.
I thank you for your posts on this, you have taught me something I didn't realise happened.

[Judas]

I think that we are spending to much on 'the dole' and benefits in general. I think we need to look at each case on an individual basis. For someone living on their own JSA is simply not enough to survive on. However, I was speaking to Tommy and Scott recently about it (I hope they don't mind me using them as examples) - and they both claim some kind of benefits, and from the conversation it was clear they weren't to bothered about getting jobs. Obviously this shows that in some cases, people don't look hard enough.

But also I think that people in Tommy's situation are payed abit to much. As he lives with his Mum, he only has to pay around half to her and help her out every now and then understandably. But he also has money left to spend on fun things like clothes etc., which, if when I leave uni, and am in a similar situation, would leave me with little motivation to find a job.

Therefore I think benefits should also be means tested - if people live with their parents, they need much, much less. If they leave with on their own they need more to sustain a reasonable lifestyle and not end up homeless.

However, I do support agree that work experience should be provided - but only for charities. This obviously stops local councills sacking 'Bob the street cleaner' only for him to work as 'Bob the street cleaner' for an unpayed, voluntary figure. Working for charities in shops, care etc. would provide work experience and fill a missing void in the voluntary sector.

[Judas]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

As someone who has undergone the ATOS assessment myself a while back...I know this is a load of bollocks. ATOS are pretty much paid to find people fit for work, no matter how ill they actually are, so they can throw out statistics like this. The 'doctors' who assess you are not always qualified either. I had a ex midwife doing my mental health assessment. I was given 8 points, which made me 'fit for work' as you need 15 points to remain on IB. Even though at that time I could not leave the house on my own due to severe panic attacks and general anxiety. The midwife acknowledged this on my form. Along with my GP confirming it. Yet they tried to kick me off the sick, as I did not have the full 15 points. I appealed and won...but it was common sense anyway that if at that time I couldnt leave the house on my own...yes, technically I COULD sign on, only if someone came with me to my signings, but I could not look/take for a job. How many employers would take on someone who was severely depressed, took panic attacks at regular intervals, and had to have someone they knew around them on every shift?

The 'medical assessment' itself, is only someone sitting asking you questions. And they also twist your answers to suit themselves. They try to pressure you into certain answers. And in some cases even totally make up things that you are supposed to have said.

I know a few people who have said exactly the same thing too...they also appealed, and were found by the tribunal to be unfit for work. The tribunal panel DOES actually have a qualified doctor on it. This makes a hell of a difference IMO.

Just out of query, are you payed much more when your unfit for work for health purposes? I hate to sound like a moaner, but again I feel these situations should be means tested, for those that actually are skanking off the state.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Judas

I think that we are spending to much on 'the dole' and benefits in general. I think we need to look at each case on an individual basis. For someone living on their own JSA is simply not enough to survive on. However, I was speaking to Tommy and Scott recently about it (I hope they don't mind me using them as examples) - and they both claim some kind of benefits, and from the conversation it was clear they weren't to bothered about getting jobs. Obviously this shows that in some cases, people don't look hard enough.

But also I think that people in Tommy's situation are payed abit to much. As he lives with his Mum, he only has to pay around half to her and help her out every now and then understandably. But he also has money left to spend on fun things like clothes etc., which, if when I leave uni, and am in a similar situation, would leave me with little motivation to find a job.

Therefore I think benefits should also be means tested - if people live with their parents, they need much, much less. If they leave with on their own they need more to sustain a reasonable lifestyle and not end up homeless.

However, I do support agree that work experience should be provided - but only for charities. This obviously stops local councills sacking 'Bob the street cleaner' only for him to work as 'Bob the street cleaner' for an unpayed, voluntary figure. Working for charities in shops, care etc. would provide work experience and fill a missing void in the voluntary sector.

Yeah I agree with a lot of this, we also need to be careful to avoid having people falling into the unemployment trap so that people arent better off on benefits than they would be working. They should be a last resort and act as a safety net, and not give disincentivise people from finding a job