The state benefits system mega-thread.

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

Correct but resources should be targeted at the areas which will save more money. The amount of things done by recent governments to try and stop benefit fraud is excessive. They have probably spent more money than they saved.

Resources should be targeted to areas they are needed. No-one with any human decency wants the needy to suffer and those that defraud the system are taking from people who need it. It is right that the Government should ensure resources are properly targeted.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Hugh

HMRC say about £10 billion is lost each year in taxes due to the off-the-books work, and an organisation called Tax Research estimated it at £85 billion a year.

We definitely have a huge issue with off-the-books work. Crossing threads over it is, apparently, one of the big attractions to the UK for illegals.

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by Kursk

Resources should be targeted to areas they are needed. No-one with any human decency wants the needy to suffer and those that defraud the system are taking from people who need it. It is right that the Government should ensure resources are properly targeted.

Its not right when they not saving any money. Its been for ideological reasons not economic.

Its a bit like movie companies claiming they lose money to people who wouldnt buy the product anyway.

So no, the fraudulent are not taking money from those who need it, but anti fraud measures are.

You seem to have been brainwashed by propaganda.

A 0% target on fraud is a unrealistic target.

The amount of money lost on all the legal battles carried out to try and deny people rightful benefits is staggering.

When senior judges from the tribunal service told the government they wasting public resources by their agressive approach to deny benefits, what was the response? to breach human rights laws and add barriers for people to appeal decisions.

So to clarify you think its a good thing e.g. to pay someone £100 to save you £50?

By the way in 2013 the government backed down on the very frequent ESA assessments (temporarily), this is still in affect today, and it has saved quite a lot of money. Ironically what they did is automatically grant existing claimants a 2 year extension on their prognosis time without an assessment. It has saved a ton of money in both fee's paid to private companies to carry out these assessments and the inevitable drop in tribunal cases as well.

I am curious, since noone has commented on my opinion on what JSA claimants should be paid for workfare.

If people disagree they should be paid at least the minimum wage, please explain why.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

I am curious, since noone has commented on my opinion on what JSA claimants should be paid for workfare.

If people disagree they should be paid at least the minimum wage, please explain why.

I mentioned this a long time ago that people who commit crimes get a punishment of "unpaid work" as little as 40 hours. that unpaid work is no different to the work benefit claimants are having to do for weeks and months non stop.

it was met with "it gives people work experience"
but we all know that as long as it's not them that is having to do it. then they're fine with it.

people profit from this 'slave labour'
in the real world a government would step in and talk about the minimum wage.
it just so happens that this government condone slave labour.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Gary L

I mentioned this a long time ago that people who commit crimes get a punishment of "unpaid work" as little as 40 hours. that unpaid work is no different to the work benefit claimants are having to do for weeks and months non stop.

it was met with "it gives people work experience"
but we all know that as long as it's not them that is having to do it. then they're fine with it.

people profit from this 'slave labour'
in the real world a government would step in and talk about the minimum wage.
it just so happens that this government condone slave labour.

I a....

I agr......

I agre......

I can't do it......


The issue in my mind is two fold

1) The people who are genuinely busting a gut to try and find work (will this interfere with their job searching? Or, would they be expected to complete that out of hours?

2) The people that make living on benefits a life style choice and have done for years I have no issues with them working. Let's face it, IF someone has say claimed JSA for five years then they probably owe the country a fair few hours.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

I a....

I agr......

I agre......

I can't do it......


The issue in my mind is two fold

1) The people who are genuinely busting a gut to try and find work (will this interfere with their job searching? Or, would they be expected to complete that out of hours?

2) The people that make living on benefits a life style choice and have done for years I have no issues with them working. Let's face it, IF someone has say claimed JSA for five years then they probably owe the country a fair few hours.

You could have a girl who stacks shelves at Tesco for 30 hours a week for nothing phoning them up from home saying "Hello, I'm enquiring whether you have any vacancies for shelf stackers"

Tesco's would say "LOL"

I've noticed Aldi's (who are not involved with the government run slave labour program) are advertising for shelf stackers and such.
if they were to be talked into taking on free benefit workers by a government representative in the Mercedes. then them signs and adverts would come straight down. and never be seen again.

no need to employ anybody. they do the same job for free.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Gary L

You could have a girl who stacks shelves at Tesco for 30 hours a week for nothing phoning them up from home saying "Hello, I'm enquiring whether you have any vacancies for shelf stackers"

Tesco's would say "LOL"

I've noticed Aldi's (who are not involved with the government run slave labour program) are advertising for shelf stackers and such.
if they were to be talked into taking on free benefit workers by a government representative in the Mercedes. then them signs and adverts would come straight down. and never be seen again.

no need to employ anybody. they do the same job for free.

Should the long term feckless unemployed (and by this I mean those who see benefits as a lifestyle choice) receive their benefits without making a contribution to society?

---------- Post added at 14:02 ---------- Previous post was at 13:59 ----------

Originally Posted by Gary L

I mentioned this a long time ago that people who commit crimes get a punishment of "unpaid work" as little as 40 hours. that unpaid work is no different to the work benefit claimants are having to do for weeks and months non stop.

it was met with "it gives people work experience"
but we all know that as long as it's not them that is having to do it. then they're fine with it.

people profit from this 'slave labour'
in the real world a government would step in and talk about the minimum wage.
it just so happens that this government condone slave labour.

So the money for housing benefit, Job seekers allowance, Council Tax discounts, free prescriptions, free school meals comes from where exactly? Why should they not make a contribution?

Originally Posted by Gary L

You could have a girl who stacks shelves at Tesco for 30 hours a week for nothing phoning them up from home saying "Hello, I'm enquiring whether you have any vacancies for shelf stackers"

Tesco's would say "LOL"

I've noticed Aldi's (who are not involved with the government run slave labour program) are advertising for shelf stackers and such.
if they were to be talked into taking on free benefit workers by a government representative in the Mercedes. then them signs and adverts would come straight down. and never be seen again.

no need to employ anybody. they do the same job for free.

Small, but fairly important flaw in your (for lack of a better word) "reasoning" - if everyone was on benefits, no one could afford to buy all the stuff the shelf-stackers were stacking at Tesco, so they wouldn't be needed.....

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Small, but fairly important flaw in your (for lack of a better word) "reasoning" - if everyone was on benefits, no one could afford to buy all the stuff the shelf-stackers were stacking at Tesco, so they wouldn't be needed.....

Nail, meet head.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Should the long term feckless unemployed (and by this I mean those who see benefits as a lifestyle choice) receive their benefits without making a contribution to society?

No.

So the money for housing benefit, Job seekers allowance, Council Tax discounts, free prescriptions, free school meals comes from where exactly? Why should they not make a contribution?

[quote]A contribution in the way of making Tesco's bigger profits by them not having to employ and pay wages?
I'm not against them making a contribution. just them working for free, increasing company profits. and the selective minimum wage laws not applying.

---------- Post added at 15:46 ---------- Previous post was at 15:44 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

Small, but fairly important flaw in your (for lack of a better word) "reasoning" - if everyone was on benefits, no one could afford to buy all the stuff the shelf-stackers were stacking at Tesco, so they wouldn't be needed.....

Small, but fairly important flaw in your rambling.
it's nonsense.

Only to you, Gary, with your special way of "thinking", only to you....

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

You seem to have been brainwashed by propaganda.

Rubbish; and I can say that with confidence because I read it in the Daily Mail

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Should the long term feckless unemployed (and by this I mean those who see benefits as a lifestyle choice) receive their benefits without making a contribution to society?[COLOR="Silver"]

You havent answered the question.

I will ask it again.

Is there a reason why people doing work should not be paid the legal minimum wage?

Obviously any wage they get would be counted as normal taxable income meaning if they getting housing benefit and council tax help with their JSA, that help would be adjusted downwards so they wouldnt be getting anything more than someone normally employed on the same wages.

A vague "Should the long term feckless unemployed (and by this I mean those who see benefits as a lifestyle choice) receive their benefits without making a contribution to society?" doesnt really answer the question, or are you trying to say you are ok with double standards in society, ie. you benefiting from the likes of tesco not paying a proper wage so you can get food a bit cheaper out of your proper wages.

It seems you are ok with it, but are too ashamed to say so directly.

I will repeat also what I would be ok with as you also havent said if my proposals would be acceptable.

So either

1 - The JSA claimant does the workfare, however they only work the amount of hours that would pay the JSA rate via minimum wage, so e.g. 11 hours work for their £72 JSA. Fair is fair right?
or
2 - They do 30-40 hours work, but they also get paid the min wage for doing that work so e.g. 30 hours per week at tesco increases their JSA to £195. This £195 would either be paid by the company benefiting from the work or the DWP.

It seems you want the best of both worlds, you basically want to benefit from people working for a pittance.

Then you have the motivational side of it, if you actually pay people on workfare what they would get as a job, then they get to see the benefits for themselves (extra money) and then may become more motivated to look for work (if you really believe that everyone on workfare is a workshy scrounger as told to you by the sun and daily mail).

[peanut]

Maybe if they did work for minimum wage then they could lose the right for other benefits like housing benefits etc so could be worse off. So there is also a chance that working for benefits could also be worth more than working for minimum wage. Too many variables to give a one size fits all answer.

I don't believe that people should work for nothing, maybe a full time job at the end of it but we all know that'll be exploited. And again working full time on minimum wage some could be a lot worse off so a no win situation, who would sign up for that?

It seems some people just want claimants to be punished no matter what the outcome.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

You havent answered the question.

I will ask it again.

Is there a reason why people doing work should not be paid the legal minimum wage?

Yes, if for example they have been on long term benefits, for example five years of JSA, Housing benefit etc. they should work the required hours that it would take to earn the amount (paid at national minimum wage)

Obviously any wage they get would be counted as normal taxable income meaning if they getting housing benefit and council tax help with their JSA, that help would be adjusted downwards so they wouldnt be getting anything more than someone normally employed on the same wages.

Obviously? Do people on the minimum wage pay income tax (I honestly dont know?)

A vague "Should the long term feckless unemployed (and by this I mean those who see benefits as a lifestyle choice) receive their benefits without making a contribution to society?" doesnt really answer the question, or are you trying to say you are ok with double standards in society, ie. you benefiting from the likes of tesco not paying a proper wage so you can get food a bit cheaper out of your proper wages.

It seems you are ok with it, but are too ashamed to say so directly.

Vague in your opinion, I posed a question thats all

I don't see why the long term unemployed should be able to receive a large amount of financial assistance without making a contribution. It doesn't have to be Tesco. How about a project that benefits the communities that they live in?


I will repeat also what I would be ok with as you also havent said if my proposals would be acceptable.

So either

1 - The JSA claimant does the workfare, however they only work the amount of hours that would pay the JSA rate via minimum wage, so e.g. 11 hours work for their £72 JSA. Fair is fair right?
or
2 - They do 30-40 hours work, but they also get paid the min wage for doing that work so e.g. 30 hours per week at tesco increases their JSA to £195. This £195 would either be paid by the company benefiting from the work or the DWP.


OR


3. They work the required hours that pays not only for their JSA but ALSO their benefits received such as housing benefit etc. council tax benefit etc.

It seems you want the best of both worlds, you basically want to benefit from people working for a pittance.

No, I want it to be fair, so that the people who actively decide that benefits is a lifestyle choice don't spend years receiving state assistance whilst making no contribution back to society.

Then you have the motivational side of it, if you actually pay people on workfare what they would get as a job, then they get to see the benefits for themselves (extra money) and then may become more motivated to look for work (if you really believe that everyone on workfare is a workshy scrounger as told to you by the sun and daily mail).

If we need to tell people that having a job or career is a good thing because they will earn more money then there is a serious problem somewhere..........