What are your views on this? I was watching the programme 'Nick&Margaret:we all pay your benefits' last night and I agreed with it's conclusion. Some expert said in the low qualification sector there about 45 people chasing every vacancy. So Nick (from the apprentice) said "so about 11% of the unemployed will get a job is it right for the goverment to force the rest into poverty?" The goverment are saving an absolute pittance from these cuts, they are doing it to pander to working people so that they can get votes. "look we're doing something vote for us". As Nick said "the answer is to create jobs and then people will flock to them." If your unemployed in the lower sector you can expect a lot of companies don't even bother replying or you might get a few of these.. Or ones that start with "due to the over whelming responce we can not continue with your application". You need to create jobs/ training not just simply make the poor poorer.
But then the same unemployed people in the program said they wouldn't bother getting a job if it paid the same as they were getting on benefits as they can stay at home and earn the same amount. If you've been on benefits for the long term you shouldn't be allowed to buy non-essentials from the payouts. Benefits should enable you to survive not to live a life at the same level as someone who works 37+ hours a week.
Unavoidable eventual outcome of not insignificant amounts of economic migrants entering the country in the 2000s? Edit: and also so many low wage jobs have simply been eliminated recently by technology anyway. Go look in your Tesco Local or whatever - barely any staff, two tills and 6 self-checkout machines.
Unfortunately knowing a few benefit claimants that are in the system, they won't be leaving any time soon as they need to earn too much to have the same lifestyle, there is no incentive for them to take a low paying job and work their way up as I and many others have done when they can just sit at home and take the money. Some have worked the systems for work and disability and live an better life than me just by staying at home all day and I am in a very well paid job, makes me feel like a mug the tax out of my salary is enough to provide a good salary to some one and I look at these people and think yup that is where it goes, they have nice house, car, sky TV, games, blurays etc. all on the sweat and tears of people like me.
Essential - food, water, heating, housing. No car, no fuel, no alcohol,... Unemployment benefits are not meant to cover your previous living standard, it is meant as a last safety net just above poverty, nothing more. Oh, the leftist "state, create more jobs"... No, the job of the state is not to create more jobs. The only task of the state is to create a economic climate where it is worth for people/companies to create jobs for other people. The solution for unemployment is not creating low skill public work places, which are then subsidized from the private sector taxes and/or state loans.
Okay, so food is essential, but alcohol isn't. What about orange juice? Surely that's not essential, I mean you could just drink water, couldn't you? What about steak? Is that essential or should you only be allowed vegetarian food? Do you see why this argument is ridiculous? The absurdity of the "essentials only" argument is that you can't define what's essential and what isn't in any practical, enforcable way.
Fundamentally there are two types of unemployed people: those who want to work and those who don't. I too watched that show last night, and unfortunately I don't think we really learned anything we didn't know before: Liam. A man in his late 20s who had a child too young (despite not caring for it), went to university to obtain a throwaway degree and now has a sense of entitlement. About as much emotional and social maturity as a fifteen year old. Happy living rent free with grandad on his £300 a month with no bills until a high paying job lands on his doorstep. Will fail at everything he does until he matures a lot. Luther. A man to whom we are forced to give the benefit of the doubt, however hard. He is terribly unfit and has invisible health problems. Seems a nice chap but clearly happiest sat on his bum "raising" children. Knowing how unbelievably chaotic our household is with a single 2 year old, I struggle to see how he can cope on his own with several kids, or indeed how this is any easier than working. He won't get a job or work - he doesn't need to because the doctor said so. Kristofer. Probably the best example of someone who would and could work, but for whom benefits are the easy option. He gets a big house and enough to get by on, and lacks the skills required to earn enough to tip the balance. Unless someone offers him work above his worth, or his benefits are dramatically cut then he will remain on taxpayer funding for a long time. Kelly. Could do with losing some weight, all bar one pet and the attitude, and would be perfectly capable of working. Sadly I think her only drive in the whole experience came from the honest but scathing criticism from the lady she was paired with. All the show proved to me is that people who just blindly start families without a modicum of though on how they will support themselves are very likely to end up trapped on benefits. Childcare is inordinately expensive to the point that having a couple of kids at nursery full-time costs approximately the same as sending a child to some of the more exclusive private schools in the country (i.e. well in excess of £20k). If the tax purse was re-jigged so that childcare became more heavily subsidised than unemployment, over time more and more people - many of whom are gifted - would resurface in the workplace. I really do feel for those who get stuck in the unemployment rut. My partner will be starting work again next month after over 6 months of jobseeking. She chose not to claim anything during this time as she wanted a little more creative control over the types of jobs she was applying for rather than just being pushed in a vague direction by the state.
You realize you are nitpicking on details, right ? You get the unemployment benefits money, and sure, you could spend it all on whiskey if you want, but the point is that the money you get should cover basic living costs and nothing more. Unemployment benefits is not meant to cover your high living standard, it is meant just as a last resort safety net. Unemployment benefits are not meant to be anywhere close to minimum salary.
There are a few people in my life that claim unemployment, one of whom has only worked a total of 6 hours in her life, and recently turned 30. Through the benefit she receives she has successfully gone on holiday a half dozen times overseas, got a brand new 3 bedroom house, paid for a wedding that cost around £5k, bought a two year old car amongst other things. She goes out on the town 2-3 times per week as well. Her disposable income is around 3-4 times as much as mine, yet I work around 50 hours per week in a demanding job I hate. I am considerably more qualified than my co-workers and was stuck taking this job due to health issues doing what I am qualified in. I take issue with people that know how to play the system. And with the law makers that put things in place that allow people to play the system. Although the total spending of tax money in the UK on benefits is pretty small compared to many other things, it is something that needs to be sorted as so many people are loosing faith in the system. Something I would like to see which would hopefully annoy people so much they would end up getting a job is having them sign on every single day, at random times of the day. Send them a text and they then have 1 hours to get there or they loose benefit. Would drive people insane and stop them being able to hold down jobs on the side where they work tax free. Lets be honest, they have the free time.
Sorry, faugusztin, but that's not what Atomic said in his initial post, which I replied to. He said "you shouldn't be allowed to buy non-essentials from the payouts", not that benefits should only be set at a level to cover the basic costs of living, which is your argument. Based on what you've written, I think your argument and Atomic's are quite different. I don't necessarily disagree with your argument, but I do disagree with Atomic's. Sorry if that wasn't clear from my posts.
I've not watched the program but my working history has been difficult and often the government have actually made it harder for me to get a job and many unskilled jobs I applied for never bothered replying, sometimes you see it on TV when a new supermarket opens there are 1,000s of applicants for relatively few jobs, the majority of people want to work but politicians don't understand how difficult it can be to survive when coming off benefit and going back to work, many companies pay monthly so your benefit stops and then no money for a month, I've had to sofa surf to get by until the first months wages and then even if you can find affordable accommodation landlords want a deposit often a months rent, and so it goes on, it's very difficult. Recently money that the government gives to local authorities like local councils has been cut and now the unemployed have to pay 20-25% council tax which is crazy just how the f*** can you do it on income support I served a full 4 year motor vehicle technicians apprenticeship and achieved distinctions in all exams I was obsessed with mechanics/engineering from an early age so the work and exams were not a problem but the day my apprenticeship finished I was laid off so another cheap labour apprentice could be hired. From that day on all I got when I went to motor tech job interviews was "What experience have you got" the full apprenticeship and all the city and guilds and national craftsman certificates I have meant nothing, also most garage employers want mechanics that can weld and repair body work and spray paint, etc, these are all trades in themselves but it's expected that a mechanic can do them all, I went for a mechanics job with a council looking after vehicles and plant machinery and the first question they asked was "Can you weld one inch thick plate" WTF, that a welders job, I didn't get the job. The next big problem is if you apply for an unskilled or semi skilled job and you have a trade and list your qualifications you often don't get a reply and I discovered why at one job interview when the guy said to me "Your over qualified for the job, you won't like it, you'll quickly get bored and soon leave so there's no point employing you" The government have claimed many times over the years that training schemes are available if your unemployed but when I found an IT training course a few years ago there was no funding available I'm not too proud to do unskilled work, I worked for three years in a scrap yard and the boss thought it was hilarious having a motor tech breaking cars I won't go on because it depresses the hell out of me but the reality of being unemployed and trying to get a job and accommodation is far more complicated than politicians and governments can possibly imagine and it's makes my blood boil when some dumb ass politician says they will live on dole money for a week to show how easy it is, F***ING MORONS Also, being single with no kids there is not a hope in hell of getting a council house/flat or a property with a housing association and I'm very lucky that I can rent a flat from a friend.
I agree that enforcement is not practical, but spin it a different way. I live in a house with an gross income of around £50k. The taxman takes care of a good chunk of that then I have to find over a grand a month just to pay the rent and council tax on a fairly unimpressive 3 bed semi. Once all the other essentials have been dealt with (including the aforementioned childcare) we have around £200 left over. I can't afford Sky, a flat screen telly, blu ray player and so on. I can't afford to replace or upgrade my rig whenever I want. I can't afford replacement clothes for myself, my partner or even my child. Holidays? I can dream. Something goes wrong with the car? Who knows? Quite how or indeed why any family living entirely on benefits should be able to afford any of these things when I can't is a mystery to me.
You should be a politician, that sounds like the kind of stupid thing they would say, you assume of course that everyone lives within walking distance to a benefits office or that they can afford the bus fare to get there or maybe you think that all unemployed have transport Hope you never lose your job and your health mate, you'll find life is a lot different then, you haven't got a clue you just spout a load of stereotypical tabloid garbage.
All politicians should have to live a month of their life on the dole as part of their politician training. Things would change rapidly.
I entirely empathise with you, as I'm in the same boat - childcare expenses are crippling to the point that it becomes a genuine decision whether one of either myself or my wife work or not: with two kids, it's actually more expensive for both of us to work full-time than it would be for one of us to be a stay-at-home parent. That can't be the sort of message that we're happy to send to working parents, but it's the reality. Playing the long game, we'd both rather keep full-time jobs whilst we have them so that we've got work when the kids are old enough to both start school, at which point finances should improve dramatically In your example, a family in the same situation as you but on benefits will probably be looking at a level of income similar to yours post-tax. However, they'll be better off than you as they won't have childcare costs to pay, and so will have more disposable income. I agree that it doesn't seem fair or right, and I think that reducing benefits for some things would help to iron out this sort of inequality where it exists. However, I'd also say that there are loads of people on benefits who really struggle to make ends meet, and for whom reductions in benefits might make life very difficult indeed.
errrr, I read it as implying exactly the same thing. And - I completely agree with Atomic. Why should people who are not working, potentially who haven't ever worked, be more well off than people working 37+ hours a week? Like, literally, why should they? THAT is what is mental. I have never signed on, ever, I have lost jobs or been made redundant and I have picked up minimum wage jobs in the interim while I find better employment. Because of this, I have no periods of unemployment for the last 12 years since I have been legally able to work - with the exception, of 2 months over my second year exams at uni. Some of these jobs have been pretty undesirable, but they kept my rent money coming, and therefore the way I see it kept a roof over my head. Similarly, I imagine there are people out there that are 28 like me, but have never worked, have had a few kids, and are probably on the same sort of money as I am now. I don't understand how there is anything remotely fair about that system. I also do not understand people saying that they need an incentive to work - what bigger incentive is there, than being able to pay your rent and buy food and eat? I also don't understand how it is so hard for some people to get benefits, when they have been paying into the system for the whole of their adult life. I had a friend who got made redundant around the time the recession properly hit, so around 2009/2010 (can't remember), he struggled paying his mortgage and finding work, but was told he couldn't get benefits before X Y Z and jumping through hoops and evaluation, well 6 months down the line he still hadn't been able to find employment and he still was struggling to pay his mortgage to the point that he had he house re possessed and was then homeless - this was someone who had never been on benefits or been unemployed, but was basically shafted by the system. How is that fair? When he had been contributing into the national pot since he had legally been able to.
Here is a reply I get all the time: All the supermarket companies will make you wait 6 months to apply again if you get rejected from your first application or interview. Every job interview I go to for these entry level jobs are interviewing mass amounts of people all day and ALL WEEK. One time I had an interview at David lloyds. I arrived before anyone else assuming it would be a 1 on 1 interview. (I was never told in the email) So after a while more and more people showed up. They then marched us off to a sports hall.. yes 50+ of us.. They then wanted us to stand in the middle of the sports hall and talk about ourselves in front of everyone..
