[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Judas

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.

During the 'assessment phase' you are actually paid much less. My money went down to about 40 pound a week. Once you pass the tribunal(and ATOS failing you is pretty standard from what I have heard, which is why I havent said when you pass your assessment) you get basic jobseekers amount, and about 30 a week on top of that.

[Vicky.]

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.

Definitely agree with this. I have a few mates who still live at home, and claim jobseekers. And basically, on their 'payday' they just go out on the drink with the money they get, or buy CDs or something.

If you live on your own, you get housing benefit and council tax benefit too... when you are over 25 you get about £65 a week...think its about £50 beforehand. You need to pay tv licence, water rates, electric, gas and food. I dont quite understand people who do it by choice(if single and on their own) as after all of this you have nothing at all left. I think the majority of scroungers must live with their parents still...or have kids. When you have kids your money goes up to a ridiculous amount.

Gavs ex has 3 kids. She gets around £200 every monday, and another £50 on a tuesday. Yet still moans that its not enough. Totally the opposite I think :/

[Zippy]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

sorry I don't know who ATOS is but they sound pathetic..

you can't call them pathetic based on one anecdote!

humans make mistakes. Im sure many others managed to con their assessors into giving them sick pay when they didnt really qualify so it works both ways.

and, as Ive said, just because you have a condition that makes it hard for you to do certain jobs it doesn't mean you can't do ANY JOB. There are jobs for all kinds of people in all kinds of enviroments. You just have to aim for one that suits. Not say, "oh I have panic attacks round lots of people so I can't work at all". Thats BS. Just get a job thats not around lots of people. Duh.

[Judas]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

During the 'assessment phase' you are actually paid much less. My money went down to about 40 pound a week. Once you pass the tribunal(and ATOS failing you is pretty standard from what I have heard, which is why I havent said when you pass your assessment) you get basic jobseekers amount, and about 30 a week on top of that.

Hmm, I can see that must be pretty hard, although again I feel that people who are unfit for work still shouldn't get £30 as a given - it should be if they need it to live on, not for simply being unable to work.

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Gavs ex has 3 kids. She gets around £200 every monday, and another £50 on a tuesday. Yet still moans that its not enough. Totally the opposite I think :/

Wow, that is quite alot. So I assume accomadation is payed for/discounted?

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Zippy

you can't call them pathetic based on one anecdote!

humans make mistakes. Im sure many others managed to con their assessors into giving them sick pay when they didnt really qualify so it works both ways.

and, as Ive said, just because you have a condition that makes it hard for you to do certain jobs it doesn't mean you can't do ANY JOB. There are jobs for all kinds of people in all kinds of enviroments. You just have to aim for one that suits. Not say, "oh I have panic attacks round lots of people so I can't work at all". Thats BS. Just get a job thats not around lots of people. Duh.

Well I actually couldnt. Your examples of internet work, or working alone didnt really apply to me. I was also depressed and very ****ed in the head, I couldnt concentrate or do anything tbh. I couldnt even cook for myself as I often forgot that I had the cooker on and things like that, I didnt have the concentration span to read more than about 5 lines of a book or whatever. I used to sit for hours and hours doing nothing at all, except staring into space. I was like, really bad back then.

Very very glad to be out of the system now to be honest, as they tend to treat everyone like the scroungers. I actually feel that the whole assessment and that made me worse :S

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Judas

Hmm, I can see that must be pretty hard, although again I feel that people who are unfit for work still shouldn't get £30 as a given - it should be if they need it to live on, not for simply being unable to work.

yeah I know. Apparently its for the extra living costs.

I can understand that for the physically disabled.

But the only extra living cost I had was having to get a taxi to the doctors every month for my medication, and a taxi once a fortnight to see my councilor person.. Which certainly did not add up to the extra £120 a month that I got :/

Originally Posted by Judas

Wow, that is quite alot. So I assume accomadation is payed for/discounted?

Yeah, she has no rent or council tax to pay. She also gets 'milk tokens'. For part of her food shopping

[Zippy]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Well I actually couldnt. Your examples of internet work, or working alone didnt really apply to me. I was also depressed and very ****ed in the head, I couldnt concentrate or do anything tbh. I couldnt even cook for myself as I often forgot that I had the cooker on and things like that, I didnt have the concentration span to read more than about 5 lines of a book or whatever. I used to sit for hours and hours doing nothing at all, except staring into space. I was like, really bad back then.

Very very glad to be out of the system now to be honest, as they tend to treat everyone like the scroungers. I actually feel that the whole assessment and that made me worse :S

well I didnt mean you specifically. But many others seem to think that having a certain illness prevents them doing any job. But even with physical injuries or incapabilities there are jobs you can still do. If you have the desire to work.

Trouble is we've created a workshy culture with no sense of pride.

Glad you're better now, Vicky.

[Vicky.]

About the ATOS thing too.

I did a quick google news search on them and the first 4 stories to come up are these

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20...t-welfare-bill

http://blogs.mirror.co.uk/investigat...os-origin.html


http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/iss...-rotten-system

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...isabled-people

Some interesting reading there. There are many more but I have to go out now, but just google ATOS medical if anyone wants to know anything ese about them

[Tom.]

Benefits are a good thing especially to those who aren't able to work, whether by physical or mental disability.

Incapacity benefit is a bit of a joke and if the conservatives have done one good thing then its to make sure that this isn't taken advantage of.

For people who aren't able to find a job, after about 3 months they should be given supermarket vouchers instead of money to go and buy the essentials they need (excluding including alcohol or cigarettes), that way it gives them a kick up the back side to go and find a decent job. And if you can't get one in 3 months you're just not trying hard enough, and perhaps its time to deflate your ego and go for a lowest rank job (ie cleaning). The alternative could be community work, and so those on job seekers benefit are effectively working for the state.

[Zippy]

yes I agree with vouchers instead of cash. Give them poundshop vouchers you can buy all you need there.

In America they have food stamps. makes sense.

[Stu]

The dole is perfect in every way and I shant have a bad word said against it.

[Judas]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Yeah, she has no rent or council tax to pay. She also gets 'milk tokens'. For part of her food shopping

It is annoying, there are so many kids from my school that have already got 3 kids (in the 3 years years since we first left). I would guess half of them will never work again. And then I have to pay for my own tuition fees, when others claim £1000's more during their lifetime.

Originally Posted by Vicky.

About the ATOS thing too.

I did a quick google news search on them and the first 4 stories to come up are these

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20...t-welfare-bill

http://blogs.mirror.co.uk/investigat...os-origin.html

http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/iss...-rotten-system

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...isabled-people

Some interesting reading there. There are many more but I have to go out now, but just google ATOS medical if anyone wants to know anything ese about them

Carefull you don't turn into arista, just the leftist version All those sites are abit biased, but I'll read into it now.

Originally Posted by Stu

The dole is perfect in every way and I shant have a bad word said against it.

omg you ***** scrunger livin off my taxes u derserve nothing

[Angus]

Originally Posted by Judas

It is annoying, there are so many kids from my school that have already got 3 kids (in the 3 years years since we first left). I would guess half of them will never work again. And then I have to pay for my own tuition fees, when others claim £1000's more during their lifetime.


Carefull you don't turn into arista, just the leftist version All those sites are abit biased, but I'll read into it now.


omg you ***** scrunger livin off my taxes u derserve nothing

The whole concept of welfare is that you pay your taxes and your national insurance contributions and IF and WHEN you find find yourself in hardship you will have earned the right to claim help. It was designed as a safety net, not a lifestyle choice.

What ticks me off is the amount of claimants who cynically exploit the system, never having done a day's work in their lives and having no intention of ever doing so. It's these scroungers who have ruined the welfare system, diverting scarce resources away from those who truly need them. It's because of these scroungers that genuine claimants are treated with hostility and suspicion, and have to jump through hoops to claim what they are entitled to.

[Jessica.]

People keep pressuring me to go on the Dole because it's actually impossible to find a job or anything but I don't want to because it's so degrading really, needing money from the government, I could do with the money but the whole concept is just not something I want to involve myself in.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Tom.

Benefits are a good thing especially to those who aren't able to work, whether by physical or mental disability.

Incapacity benefit is a bit of a joke and if the conservatives have done one good thing then its to make sure that this isn't taken advantage of.

For people who aren't able to find a job, after about 3 months they should be given supermarket vouchers instead of money to go and buy the essentials they need (excluding including alcohol or cigarettes), that way it gives them a kick up the back side to go and find a decent job. And if you can't get one in 3 months you're just not trying hard enough, and perhaps its time to deflate your ego and go for a lowest rank job (ie cleaning). The alternative could be community work, and so those on job seekers benefit are effectively working for the state.

Really sorry Tom to disagree.
One of my Aunts is high up in a supermarket chain,she says supermarkets would not like the voucher system,it would be unlikely some supermarkets would want to ahve to accept them and also smaller shops claiming the funds for them would be kept waiting for the funds too.

The vouchers would be open to misuse,people could sell the vouchers cheaply and then buy cigarettes with them but why on earth should people who have paid tax and National Insurance who find themselves out of work have to be made to look like 2nd class citizens in shops and stores handing vouchers over.

Then since a lot of shops and likely stores would not agree to them anyway,(many stores have now stopped taking cheques never mind vouchers),if they could only be used at certain outlets then you further penalise the genuine unemployed/sick/disabled from getting the best prices and deals from shopping around.
Vouchers are a rediculous idea,people should not be penalised and made to become 2nd class citizens because they have due to economic climates become unemployed or are genuinely sick and disabled.

People have to travel, how do they pay the bus/train with vouchers it would cost a fortune to manage and oversee never mind the large cost in setting it up.More waste of taxpayers money it would end up being.

[GiRTh]

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.

Great post Vic.

I too have been thru this process after rupturing several tendons in my upper leg. My experience are very similar to yours. I was examined by a nurse (not a doctor) she didnt look at my injury simply asked me a number of questions and gave me a zero score out of 20. I could barely walk yet she gave me a zero score. That system is a joke. My solicitor told me that they are told to fail everybody they examine so the person has to go thru the tribunal system. Its a disgusting system.

I think far too many people become enraged by the b*llsh*t they read about people on benefits without looking at the the issues they're reading about. Incidentally, are people aware that the greatest payout of benefits is actually thru pensions and the work shy scroungers are not as prevalent as they are being led to believe.

[BB_Eye]

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.

Most people on the dole would be delighted to have this. Not only is their income effectively trebled in full time work on the NMW compared to living on Jobseeker's Allowance, they get a working tax credit on top of that if they work for more than 30 hours. If they are disabled, have a child or are over 60, that limit is reduced to 16 hours. Sadly, putting them in work after a mere three months is impossible when those jobs don't exist.

Originally Posted by Grimnir

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.

Nice in theory, but where are you going to find permanent jobs for everybody where paying back such big debts in taxes will be even remotely possible? Plus, those in employment and paying taxes are repaying their debts anyway with their worker productivity and the taxes they are already paying.

[Tom.]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

Really sorry Tom to disagree.
One of my Aunts is high up in a supermarket chain,she says supermarkets would not like the voucher system,it would be unlikely some supermarkets would want to ahve to accept them and also smaller shops claiming the funds for them would be kept waiting for the funds too.

The vouchers would be open to misuse,people could sell the vouchers cheaply and then buy cigarettes with them but why on earth should people who have paid tax and National Insurance who find themselves out of work have to be made to look like 2nd class citizens in shops and stores handing vouchers over.

Then since a lot of shops and likely stores would not agree to them anyway,(many stores have now stopped taking cheques never mind vouchers),if they could only be used at certain outlets then you further penalise the genuine unemployed/sick/disabled from getting the best prices and deals from shopping around.
Vouchers are a rediculous idea,people should not be penalised and made to become 2nd class citizens because they have due to economic climates become unemployed or are genuinely sick and disabled.

People have to travel, how do they pay the bus/train with vouchers it would cost a fortune to manage and oversee never mind the large cost in setting it up.More waste of taxpayers money it would end up being.

Shops could effectively 'cash' them with the government, and if you read my post properly you'd see I think that drastic action should apply to those who clearly aren't looking hard enough for a job.

Theres no foolproof system, it is always going to have flaws but the flaws with the present system are too easy to cheat.

[BB_Eye]

Originally Posted by Judas

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.

They are means-tested. People paying rent or mortgage can claim housing benefit if they are living on a low income. Board money (the sum you pay your parents/guardians when living with them, not to be confused with lodging) is not covered by HB and there is no means test for it in JSA, Income Support, etc.

[GiRTh]

Originally Posted by Zippy

you can't call them pathetic based on one anecdote!

humans make mistakes. Im sure many others managed to con their assessors into giving them sick pay when they didnt really qualify so it works both ways.

and, as Ive said, just because you have a condition that makes it hard for you to do certain jobs it doesn't mean you can't do ANY JOB. There are jobs for all kinds of people in all kinds of enviroments. You just have to aim for one that suits. Not say, "oh I have panic attacks round lots of people so I can't work at all". Thats BS. Just get a job thats not around lots of people. Duh.

Make that two anecdotes. You surprise me Zippy. You're always saying we shouldn't believe what we read when its about say Cheryl Cole or anyone you like yet; when it comes to this you're ready to believe what the press and news are telling you but not people who have had real live experiences.

When I read Vicky post I burst out laughing as it seems her experience was very similar t mine. Two people in completely different cites having the same experience of a specific organisation. Uncanny.

[BB_Eye]

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.

This is pretty accurate.

My workplace often deals with people who have been taken off Incapacity Benefit or Employment and Support Allowance following a medical, only to later take it to appeal and win, only for the DWP to call them back for yet another medical and another and another until it runs on for years on end. It's bad enough that one medical and one round of form-filling alone is a degrading and humiliating experience.

A guy with cerebral palsy we dealt who is unable to walk more than a few paces or pick up objects for longer than ten seconds has been dealing wit them for almost a decade and you are right. Most medical panels never bother to hire qualified physicians and they are usually presided over by a nurse and a couple of DWP bureaucrats. They've often been known to ignore the diagnoses of doctors who stick up for their own patients in these situations.

God knows how much all of these medicals and appeals are costing the taxpayer in the long run. I expect it is far more than every benefit fraudster put together.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Tom.

Shops could effectively 'cash' them with the government, and if you read my post properly you'd see I think that drastic action should apply to those who clearly aren't looking hard enough for a job.

Theres no foolproof system, it is always going to have flaws but the flaws with the present system are too easy to cheat.

I know you meant it selectively but it would be an administrative nightmare, of course the shops could cash them with the government but how slow does govt work.Also every area of life, business, Government and the lower end of the scales too find easy ways to cheat systems.
A drug addict for instance given vouchers would simply sell the vouchers a bit more cheaply and use the cash from them to but drugs.
Similarly alcohol and cigarettes but then neither of those are illegal in the UK anyway.

Of course if someone is not looking for work then drastic action as you say should be done, but I watched a programme some time ago where people rang employers when the person said they been for an interview to make sure they had.

Far better to take action in such a way as to, 1) interview unemployed people after say 6 months weekly or fortnightly, 2) have them leave all details of interviews and final results of interviews.3) If they say they have been turned down for the job then select some employers who had interviewd them for a summary of what happened at the interview. 4) if it was clear they had not been to interviews and were thereby not trying then take some drastic action against them in that instance.

I come back though to the point I made earlier in this excellent thread that ukturtle has made, and that is you still cannot employ 2.5 million unemployed and still growing, into under 500,000 vacancies which are still dropping.
That being the case there is little case to justify penalising anyone unemployed at this time at least.

[Grimnir]

Originally Posted by BB_Eye

Most people on the dole would be delighted to have this. Not only is their income effectively trebled in full time work on the NMW compared to living on Jobseeker's Allowance, they get a working tax credit on top of that if they work for more than 30 hours. If they are disabled, have a child or are over 60, that limit is reduced to 16 hours. Sadly, putting them in work after a mere three months is impossible when those jobs don't exist.

Nice in theory, but where are you going to find permanent jobs for everybody where paying back such big debts in taxes will be even remotely possible? Plus, those in employment and paying taxes are repaying their debts anyway with their worker productivity and the taxes they are already paying.

There are many industries within England that could be expanded to make more jobs available.
Also if we have 3 million unemployed and then we told we need foreign workforce, somethings not right there.

For paying back the benefit through tax it would be gradual and not large amounts, so would be easily paid back. They would work for minimum wage and pay few % more tax each month.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by BB_Eye

This is pretty accurate.

My workplace often deals with people who have been taken off Incapacity Benefit or Employment and Support Allowance following a medical, only to later take it to appeal and win, only for the DWP to call them back for yet another medical and another and another until it runs on for years on end. It's bad enough that one medical and one round of form-filling alone is a degrading and humiliating experience.

A guy with cerebral palsy we dealt who is unable to walk more than a few paces or pick up objects for longer than ten seconds has been dealing wit them for almost a decade and you are right. Most medical panels never bother to hire qualified physicians and they are usually presided over by a nurse and a couple of DWP bureaucrats. They've often been known to ignore the diagnoses of doctors who stick up for their own patients in these situations.

God knows how much all of these medicals and appeals are costing the taxpayer in the long run. I expect it is far more than every benefit fraudster put together.

They cost multi millions as do the appeals too agaisnt the decisions, on top of Vicky's really strong and thought inspiring post, yours too demonstrstes the lack of care, compassion and fairness of such assessments.

From yourself and Vicky today, I have learned a great deal as what people go through on some benefits,how sad that some try to lump all unemployed,sick and disabled to be labelled scroungers.
Still thought the weakest and poorest in a society are easy targets but they should not be in a so called decent society.

[keithafc]

Don't people after a certain time on JSA, go on the Steps to Work programme?