Work for Benefits

[Sour Mash]

Why should the taxpayer underwrite mortgages for second homes under the latest 'inspired' Government initiative ?

I wasn't aware of that. Stick up a link of the story and I'll have a read and comment.

[Lord Duckhunter]

 

"Poor people CLAIM benefits. Middle-class people RECEIVE benefits."

 

The middle class, whether families or pensioners should not be "receiving" or "claiming" benefits. Nothing will be done about it because they vote in large numbers. As a nation we spend enough money on welfare, but it is spread way too thinly. The giverment is handing over millions to feed the middle class' kids, heat their homes, pay for their tv licences , pay them for just having children whilst an underclass struggle to get by from week to week. We over tax the average person and then distribute it back to them in various benefits.

 

The overriding view is "I've paid for the welfare state, so I am entittled to something back". Why ?. I pay my house insurance, that doesn't mean im entittled to money back from The Nationwide. However it gives be the peace of mind that if disaster fell , they'd be there for me. Why can't people view the welfare state the same way. We have over 80k coming into our house each year from 3 earners, why should I be able to claim £140 odd pound a month child benefit. That money doesn't grow on trees, it either comes from the pockets of the poor via lower benefits for them, out of the working mans taxes , or is borrowed by the giverment be paid back by my children and grandchildren.

[Whitey Grandad]

The middle class, whether families or pensioners should not be "receiving" or "claiming" benefits. Nothing will be done about it because they vote in large numbers. As a nation we spend enough money on welfare, but it is spread way too thinly. The giverment is handing over millions to feed the middle class' kids, heat their homes, pay for their tv licences , pay them for just having children whilst an underclass struggle to get by from week to week. We over tax the average person and then distribute it back to them in various benefits.

 

The overriding view is "I've paid for the welfare state, so I am entittled to something back". Why ?. I pay my house insurance, that doesn't mean im entittled to money back from The Nationwide. However it gives be the peace of mind that if disaster fell , they'd be there for me. Why can't people view the welfare state the same way. We have over 80k coming into our house each year from 3 earners, why should I be able to claim £140 odd pound a month child benefit. That money doesn't grow on trees, it either comes from the pockets of the poor via lower benefits for them, out of the working mans taxes , or is borrowed by the giverment be paid back by my children and grandchildren.

 

It's not a subsidy. They're just giving you back a little of what they have taken. It's a ridiculously over-complicated system.

[KelvinsRightGlove]

What extra training or experience would liked to have been offered by the government while unemployed?

 

I don't think you've got my point.

 

I'm not saying there should necessarily be training & experience for unemployed. But if people are going to be made to work at the expense of the taxpayer, why not make that be productive for everyone? Why not get them doing something that will actually boost their employment prospects not just short term, but actually do something that can enable them to gain long-term employment and give them a chance of carving out a future for themselves, instead of just bouncing between short-term, low-paid jobs with little prospects and ultimately meaning they end up back on benefits in a relatively short time.

[aintforever]

It's not a subsidy. They're just giving you back a little of what they have taken. It's a ridiculously over-complicated system.

 

That attitude is no different to someone on the dole just sitting on their ass and doing nothing because they use to pay tax so are just getting back what they have given.

[Sour Mash]

I don't think you've got my point.

 

I'm not saying there should necessarily be training & experience for unemployed. But if people are going to be made to work at the expense of the taxpayer, why not make that be productive for everyone? Why not get them doing something that will actually boost their employment prospects not just short term, but actually do something that can enable them to gain long-term employment and give them a chance of carving out a future for themselves, instead of just bouncing between short-term, low-paid jobs with little prospects and ultimately meaning they end up back on benefits in a relatively short time.

Because those sorts of jobs aren't available unfortunately.

[tony13579]

I receive benefits, I don't claim them as I am entitled.

It is interesting that for 35 hour minimum work I get a mere £59.75 as a carers allowance. A measley

£1:71 per hour.

[buctootim]

I receive benefits, I don't claim them as I am entitled.

It is interesting that for 35 hour minimum work I get a mere £59.75 as a carers allowance. A measley

£1:71 per hour.

 

 

I agree with carers allowance but don't understand the comment or mentality. Presumably you are caring for a member of your family, someone you love? The state is enabling you to do that, albeit for less money than is ideal. Its not like a paid job as professional carer. Should people also be paid for caring for their children?

[pap]

Big defeat for the Government on this issue. The scheme has been described as "legally flawed" by the Supreme Court, opening the way for people who've had benefits stopped to start claiming them back.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/oct/30/poundland-case-government-defeated-work-schemes-duncan-smith

[Barry Sanchez]

Concerning name, Cait, what the hell is that all about, you can put your boll ocks to a barndance she is a right little bellend.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

They really did need to sort out all the legal framework prior to bringing this into force. Shame, as this government seems to be trying to do the right things, but in a haphazard and frankly negligent way.

[trousers]

Big defeat for the Government on this issue. The scheme has been described as "legally flawed" by the Supreme Court, opening the way for people who've had benefits stopped to start claiming them back.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/oct/30/poundland-case-government-defeated-work-schemes-duncan-smith

 

While the supreme court stopped short of ruling that the regulations constituted forced or compulsory labour, it decided that it was unlawful for the government to fail to supply parliament and hundreds of thousands of jobseekers with proper information about the so-called "workfare" schemes they were forced to undertake at pain of losing jobseeker's allowance.

The judges ruled that the secretary of state had failed to provide sufficient information about the schemes to Reilly and her co-claimant, Jamieson Wilson, an unemployed lorry driver.

 

So it's not the scheme itself that was deemed "illegal", rather the way it was implemented?

 

Yet another case of a "good idea, poor execution" from the Tories...

[Barry Sanchez]

They really did need to sort out all the legal framework prior to bringing this into force. Shame, as this government seems to be trying to do the right things, but in a haphazard and frankly negligent way.

 

Seems to be trying to force people in free work for companies more like, how about stable employemt with fixed hours on an hourly wage thats livable.

 

Jeff, dont be silly now.

[Barry Sanchez]

So it's not the scheme itself that was "illegal", rather the way it was implemented?

 

Yet another case of a "good idea, poor execution" from the Tories...

 

Yes the tories should be executed.

[pap]

So it's not the scheme itself that was deemed "illegal", rather the way it was implemented?

 

Yet another case of a "good idea, poor execution" from the Tories...

 

Hardly. I thought the big Tory idea was "work should pay". Sh!t idea. Usual (sh!t) execution.

[bridge too far]

I do wonder how many more defeats / U turns / delays Duncan Smith's department will be allowed before he gets the chop. He's been in charge of a catalogue of disasters!

 

And Jeremy Hunt lost his court appeal yesterday too

[buctootim]

Its an idiotic idea. It just gives free labour to private companies instead of paying overtime to existing staff or recruiting new paid staff. Shark companies who think it is okay to exploit people are able to undercut competitors which are run to higher standards. The end result is that good companies get screwed (and presumably lay people off) by companies using free labour subsidised by the taxpayer. Blind dogma, not 'a good idea'.

[trousers]

Yes the tories should be executed.

 

[trousers]

It's a "good idea" that people who are out of work do something "useful" with their time rather than doing nothing. I tend to agree that placing unemployed people into private sector posts is open to abuse and therefore not the best solution. I would rather see people who are claiming out of work benefits doing something useful 'in the community', such as helping out with meals on wheels or panting the local scout hut etc. I know some people do this sort of thing voluntarily anyway but the concept of people doing something to 'earn' their unemployment benefit is a sound concept.

 

In my opinion of course.

Edited 30 October, 2013 by trousers

[pap]

It's a "good idea" that people who are out of work do something "useful" with their time rather than doing nothing. I tend to agree that placing unemployed people into private sector posts is open to abuse and therefore not the best solution. I would rather see people who are claiming out of work benefits doing something useful 'in the community', such as helping out with meals on wheels or panting the local scout hut etc. I know some people do this sort of thing voluntarily anyway but the concept of people doing something to 'earn' their unemployment benefit is a sound concept.

 

In my opinion of course.

 

Isn't community service what convicted criminals do?

 

Are the unemployed criminals?

 

Furthermore, how do you define "useful"? I'd argue that a single mum on benefits staying at home and properly looking after her kids is more "useful" than the same mother doing some menial work for almost no money, just so that genuine taxpayers feel that she is doing something "useful".

[trousers]

Isn't community service what convicted criminals do?

 

Are the unemployed criminals?

 

I hesitated before posting as I knew that would be the first response.

 

Yes, of course that's what another section of society does too. But just because criminals are obliged to help out in the community why does that make it wrong for another section of society to do the same? There are plenty of 'non-criminals' who do community work voluntarily already.

 

I thought "whataboutery" was frowned upon on here anyway....

 

Furthermore, how do you define "useful"? I'd argue that a single mum on benefits staying at home and properly looking after her kids is more "useful" than the same mother doing some menial work for almost no money, just so that genuine taxpayers feel that she is doing something "useful".

 

I'd tend to agree with that specific example.

Edited 30 October, 2013 by trousers

[pap]

I hesitated before posting as I knew that would be the first response.

 

Yes, of course that's what another section of society does too. But just because criminals are obliged to hep out in the community why does that make it wrong for another section of society to do the same. There are plenty of 'non-criminals' who do community work voluntarily.

 

I thought "whataboutery" was frowned upon on here....

 

You're missing the point. The job of Government should be to create conditions whereby people can go out to work unassisted. Successive governments have failed to grasp the nettle in this regard, despite the vast power they purport to have, such as the ability to create laws that might be able to radically change those conditions.

[Barry Sanchez]

People are naive here and miss the point, if a criminal does a job they undercut the tax paying person working in a similar role, they tried this in America in the 30's I think, it failed.

We need long term viable positions to offer people out of work, we need work to pay more than the dole, we need to look at how many children you can have before you start paying yourself for your children, we need more free colleges for people to attain skills, we need to build much more social housing that can never never be sold off cheaply and must always stay in the renting sector, we need to compeletly change our thought process in this Country.

[pap]

People are naive here and miss the point, if a criminal does a job they undercut the tax paying person working in a similar role, they tried this in America in the 30's I think, it failed.

We need long term viable positions to offer people out of work, we need work to pay more than the dole, we need to look at how many children you can have before you start paying yourself for your children, we need more free colleges for people to attain skills, we need to build much more social housing that can never never be sold off cheaply and must always stay in the renting sector, we need to compeletly change our thought process in this Country.

 

Didn't fail. Still in operation today. The prison system is the only place where slavery is still legal. Corporations are banking loads of cash off the back of young black men on drug possession charges.

 

That's what the War on Drugs was really all about.

[Barry Sanchez]

Possibly on slavery but they are not doing things like roadworks and heavy industry.

[trousers]

The job of Government should be to create conditions whereby people can go out to work unassisted

 

Indeed. The job of government is to shape the economy to encourage companies to start-up, expand and flourish, thus creating the job opportunity conditions you describe. It is also the job of the government to ensure that there aren't any incentives for people to avoid "going out to work unassisted"

[buctootim]

It's a "good idea" that people who are out of work do something "useful" with their time rather than doing nothing. I tend to agree that placing unemployed people into private sector posts is open to abuse and therefore not the best solution. I would rather see people who are claiming out of work benefits doing something useful 'in the community', such as helping out with meals on wheels or panting the local scout hut etc. I know some people do this sort of thing voluntarily anyway but the concept of people doing something to 'earn' their unemployment benefit is a sound concept.

 

In my opinion of course.

 

I don't disagree with the idea of socially useful work. In principle it helps the unemployed maintain a structure to the day which helps with transition to work and also provides benefits to the organisations receiving free labour. In practice though it is hard to make it work.

 

Those who have got useful skills and are self motivated tend not to be unemployed for long - even if that just means they organise their own volunteering. Organising worthwhile work for the long term unemployed who are often unskilled, poor literacy and numeracy, may have chaotic lifestyles and not turn up reliably is an administrative nightmare. I'm not saying dont do it - but a meaningful programme will be expensive, much more so than just paying benefits.

[pap]

Man dies of starvation after benefits were cut.

 

http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/11043378.Man_starved_after_benefits_were_cut/

 

Very sensational, so I'll qualify this with the "bloke had problems anyway".

[Tokyo-Saint]

He was scared of food Pap. This is definitely going to give you issues with nutrition. Doesn't sound like he was 'fit to work' though.

[Barry Sanchez]

That is very sad indeed, another case where they have blood on their hands.

[Tokyo-Saint]

Is it really Barry? Can you comprehensively state that having some of his benefits cut lead to his death? I would say that is very difficult to do. Did it help - no definitely not, was it the wrong diagnosis, yes by the sounds of it. Do they actually have blood on their hands (meaning the killed him), very difficult to say. He had money to by food, that is stated but he chose not to do this because of his phobias. This is very sad and sounds like the guy needed much more than 'benefits', it sounds like he needed care.

 

Oxfordshire Coroner Darren Salter gave a narrative verdict at the inquest. He said: “Mr Wood had an eating disorder and food phobia. It is likely that this caused or contributed to his death as he was markedly underweight and malnourished.”

 

He added: “I accept the evidence about something pushing him over the edge heard by the GP Mr Ward.

 

On the other hand we do know cash was provided prior to death, but because of his phobias he didn’t use that cash to buy food.”

[Bearsy]

shut up tokyos fat-cat councillors killed food-scare man as surely as if they had sat on him. Fucking bastards. I'm not even joking, i read that whole story pap posted and i felt v.sad for food-scare man, he must have been v.unhappy. Poor food-scare man. RIP

[Barry Sanchez]

Is it really Barry? Can you comprehensively state that having some of his benefits cut lead to his death? I would say that is very difficult to do. Did it help - no definitely not, was it the wrong diagnosis, yes by the sounds of it. Do they actually have blood on their hands (meaning the killed him), very difficult to say. He had money to by food, that is stated but he chose not to do this because of his phobias. This is very sad and sounds like the guy needed much more than 'benefits', it sounds like he needed care.

 

Oxfordshire Coroner Darren Salter gave a narrative verdict at the inquest. He said: “Mr Wood had an eating disorder and food phobia. It is likely that this caused or contributed to his death as he was markedly underweight and malnourished.”

 

He added: “I accept the evidence about something pushing him over the edge heard by the GP Mr Ward.

 

On the other hand we do know cash was provided prior to death, but because of his phobias he didn’t use that cash to buy food.”

 

It certainly did not help, how would you feel if it was your reletive? Let down? I would feel that way.

[Barry Sanchez]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-26377119

[Barry Sanchez]

What a caring society we live in, ****ing ashamed to be British sometimes, even Countries with far harsher systems for claiming prolonged benefit would be shaking their heads in disgust at us.

[Tokyo-Saint]

I don't think benefits are the answer bear, I think this guy needed more than just cash. He had £250 on him when he died. I would say the bigger issue is the care system or lack of it. I mean look at you. I saw a program about the police before, normal police not scum on the run style program. The thing they said they takes up the biggest chuck of their time is dealing with and helping people with mental issues. Benefits are there as a safety net but these people need a bigger net, not just cash. They need someone looking after them a bit. ATOS are dumb and make and have made loads of mistakes but I don't believe they have 'blood on their hands', the people who got rid of the care system maybe do or maybe even his GP who is the one pointing the finger. I don't know the options the GP had but he should definitely recommended for this guy to have some help.

[buctootim]

It certainly did not help, how would you feel if it was your reletive? Let down? I would feel that way.

 

There is also an issue with the expectation the state will solve all the problems and someone is to blame if they dont. Maybe there were some misjudgments or mistakes but this man had parents and at least one sibling, and they are blaming the state for him starving to death. They sent him some money but didnt visit?

[Barry Sanchez]

There is also an issue with the expectation the state will solve all the problems and someone is to blame if they dont. Maybe there were some misjudgments or mistakes but this man had parents and at least one sibling, and they are blaming the state for him starving to death. They sent him some money but didnt visit?

 

This is not solving a problem, this is missing a problem, a completely different scenario.

[Tokyo-Saint]

It certainly did not help, how would you feel if it was your reletive? Let down? I would feel that way.

 

Closer than you think Barry, my brother has AS.

[buctootim]

This is not solving a problem, this is missing a problem, a completely different scenario.

 

Its not. Some people just have intractable problems that cant be solved. You couldn't set up a more deadly combination than a fear of food and fear of social situations (ie avoidance of helping agencies) and a wish to be independent (spurning help from family). The main choices are detaining people against their will in institutions and forcing drugs / food / hygiene on them or providing a system of community care which inevitably means people who dont want to / cant eat / wash / pay the rent / utilities / council tax will sometimes spurn help and fall through the net. Do vulnerable people have the right to refuse / not seek help or not?

Edited 28 February, 2014 by buctootim

[badgerx16]

or maybe even his GP who is the one pointing the finger. I don't know the options the GP had but he should definitely recommended for this guy to have some help.

 

"Dr Ward, from Bampton Medical Practice, said he had not been contacted by either Atos or DWP about Mr Wood’s medical history, and revealed that if they had asked for his professional opinion he would have said Mr Wood was unfit for work. "

[Barry Sanchez]

Its not. Some people just have intractable problems that cant be solved. You couldn't set up a more deadly combination than a fear of food and fear of social situations (ie avoidance of helping agencies) and a wish to be independent (spurning help from family). The main choices are detaining people against their will in institutions and forcing drugs / food / hygiene on them or providing a system of community care which inevitably means people who dont want to / cant eat / wash / pay the rent / utilities / council tax will sometimes spurn help and fall through the net. Do vulnerable people have the right to refuse / not seek help or not?

Thats another point altoghther.

[Tokyo-Saint]

That's not my point Badger. My point is that benefits is not 'really' what this guy needed. The GP obviously knew about these issues but either did not recommend for some help to be provided or was not able to do this due to this option not being available. This guy may not have eaten even with all the money in the world. As I said, I know a little about A.S.

[badgerx16]

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jul/22/work-capability-assessments-criticism

 

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jan/17/atos-attack-emotional-commons-debate?guni=Article:in%20body%20link

 

"The government's own figures revealed that 1,300 people had died after being told they should start preparing to go back to work..."

[badgerx16]

That's not my point Badger. My point is that benefits is not 'really' what this guy needed. The GP obviously knew about these issues but either did not recommend for some help to be provided or was not able to do this due to this option not being available. This guy may not have eaten even with all the money in the world. As I said, I know a little about A.S.

 

The GP wasn't asked - mind you, given the evidence of so many others, it probably wouldn't have made any difference to ATOS's decision if he had been.

[Tokyo-Saint]

Yeah you are right, it sounds like they made a mistake not asking for the medical records. I said at the start they got it wrong. My point is not that his benefits were stopped, it is that he should have been given more 'real' help. Even if he had money, he may well (and probably would of) died.

[pap]

Bloke let go from company. Refuses to work for same company unpaid for 26 weeks on a community work placement. Loses benefits.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/nov/03/dwp-benefits-electrician-work-placement-labour?CMP=share_btn_tw

 

 

The whole policy is f**king disgraceful anyway, but this is especially messed up.

[trousers]

What's the alternative? Sitting at home watching daytime TV?

[pap]

What's the alternative? Sitting at home watching daytime TV?

 

Job creation, affordable housing, re-prioritisation of funding, renegotiation with banks and central bankers.

 

I suppose most of all, having a mind capable of seeing past the "either-or" binary buttfúck of a choice given to you by lying politicians.

[Verbal]

What's the alternative? Sitting at home watching daytime TV?

 

The alternative, once the 'charity' involved has stopped hanging its had in shame, is to pay the guy. This amounts to bonded labour.

 

This is just an extreme case of the familiar dodge by the worst employers - shift the costs of labour (with low pay or no pay) from the employer to the tax payer.

 

Employers like this are the worst of state benefits spongers. I thought you'd be against such a thing.