GC8

You didnt, you demonstrated that you didnt understand what I had said.

scoobynutta555

I didn't. You're demonstrating again you don't understand my replies :P

PeteBrant

But i'm not sure wiping 80% off the welfare budget is exactly good for the, er, common good.

Interesting dicussion though.

I think what is clear is that all parties, are clamping down on what is becomming apolitical hot potato.

J4CKO

iTrader: (1)

If theres ever a thread where NACRO will get himself infracted, this is it.


Sits and waits like Bill Oddie, expecting the arrival of a Great Tit.

Lisawrx

iTrader: (1)

I have to say, that whatever happens, I really worry for those who are genuinely in need. I am quite strong in my opinion that something needs to be done to put an end to people abusing the help that's out there, but am concerned that, what may happen is that the genuinely needy may suffer, yet as has been said before, those who know how to play the system will still continue to get away with it.

It makes me wonder though, not that I'm saying it's ok, but those who have been able to play the system long term, how? Are those people handing out the benefits etc. actually doing their jobs? I was under the impression, that benefits were not a permanent measure, not so much incapacity but certainly help for those just out of work. Maybe if more had been done to clamp down on those taking the **** sooner, we might not have ended up in a situation where those who need help, really need it, are potentially going to suffer.

We shouldn't even have a culture, which allows people to be better off on benefits, than working anyway. Benefits should only be there to help people in need, and I do think it should not be a way not to have to work (again, I'm not grouping in those who actually can't work). Maybe if money wasn't wasted in keeping people for life who won't work, some of that money could be put into helping those willing to work, in low earning jobs. That way people are in work, but getting a little help, an incentive to work. Then we would only be left with the really lazy, workshy left to deal with.

swampster

iTrader: (1)

Well I dunno how all these bloody people get all these benefits... I'm not sure if some of it is Daily Mail hype....

I remember a few years ago... when I came out of the RAF I lived on my savings, and gratuity as well as taking a temp skivvy job to top up the bank account.... I left the RAF in July 2002, and intended to take a few months off before seriously getting on with looking for work, although I did keep my eyes on the market.

Anyway Christmas came and went, and in the new year the job hunting started in earnest... to be honest I didnt think it would take as long to find a suitable job.. and consequently I ended up claiming Job Seekers Allowance...

Now because my wife is medically retired and she'd had some foresight whilst fit and working, she receives a small pension. This amounts to a couple of hundred a month... add this to the JSA and we were getting £118 per week to pay the rent, the bills, inc council tax, feed and cloth ourselves, pay prescriptions, and that is it... for the pair of us...nothing more. Because I was on contributions based JSA.. i.e I'd paid plenty of NI in my time I wasn't entitled to any other benefits.. you need to be on income based JSA for that.

The Government basically says that a couple needs £117.xxp per week on which to live (might be higher now), if you are on or below that you can get income based JSA, which then triggers other benefits such as, income support, mortgage/rent relief, council tax relief, prescriptions paid etc. However if you go 1p above that you get none! So for having some foresight and being £1 over the threshold per week we lost around £400 in benefits.

No matter what we tried we were not entitled to anything else... and believe me it was a tough few months!

Personally I think these new proposals stink, they won't stop the workshy, and those abusing the system... as with everything they will hit the soft targets... and people truly deserving of assistance will be hit hardest.

j4ckos mate

question for you, if you can get the higher rate of disability allowance ie, enough for a motability car , you can obviuoulsy drive, therefore car why cant they get jobs as couriers or van drivers, or taxi's.
and another thing, whilst they are working clearing the streets and cutting the grass at the churches etc, they are not out earning cash in hand, like lots of them do,
and one more thing, when im in power, one simple rule will get rid of scroungers and i have said it before on here,


only people working and pensioners will be allowed to vote and it weill be compulsary, parties policies will be aimed at workers and will look after them, fat idle ******* dolie scroungers wont be voting and would not get the easy ride they do now.

scoobynutta555

I must admit, I do find the whole 'work for your dole' thing they seem to be pushing for long term unemployed is misguided. They should focus on getting them into employment and not doing chores offenders do on community service.

PeteBrant

Agreed

Not agreed

scoobynutta555

Pete, have a read up on Frank Field, he comes up with some surprising solutions for a leftie

Martin2005

I think frank Field makes a lot of sense, and should of been listened to more by the government on both pensions and IB.

PeteBrant

I will do . To be honest I'm not that clued up on him, I really justknow him as the thorn in the Governments side.

swampster

iTrader: (1)

Ok lets say you own a taxi firm, or courier service....

Would you be happy employing somebody who...

a) is very likely to be off sick a LOT, due to taking medication, stays in hospital, agonising pain, other symptomatic reason related to their condition?

b) may or may not turn up on time to a pick up or delivery because they've had to stop for a while to get out of the car/van as the condition they have doesn't prevent them driving, does cause them an awful lot of pain if they're sat in one position for too long or may cause other effects if they're sat for too long...

c) may require specialist equipment fitting to your vehicle to allow them to drive in the first place

d) may require wearing of specialist equipment to allow them to drive/prevent deterioration of their condition?

e) all of the above

Oh and you would have to at least part (probably fully) fund any/all special equipment, and cover employers sick pay contributions etc etc?

Glad to see there are people that are so charitable, something often so severely lacking these days, This would cut down on a lot of benefit expenditure no doubt.. and it's great to see individuals at the forefront of private enterprise all too willing to take up the mantle and foot the bill out of their own/or their own businesses pockets!!

Evil Twin of Tarquin

These jobs you intend to put them in, where are you going to magic them up from? There are plenty of community based "tasks" which need to be carried out and with the state of our economy (primarilly service based) we don't really have the option of providing them with jobs in the primary sector, the secondary has been run down to a great extent with the offshoring of manufacturing so all we are left with is the tertiary sector and, to be honest, there is only so much insurance a man can buy, only so many bank accounts etc etc

There is however lots of litter and graffitti which needs cleaning, flower beds which need maintaining, curbstones needing painting, dog poo picking up etc Lets get this country looking spick and span, lets instil some pride in our communities and environment. As for these being the tasks for those on community service, well they shouldn't be, they should just be dealt with by corporal punishment Well, it works in places like Singapore.....

scoobynutta555

What about starting their own taxi firm

PeteBrant

WHo says they haven't?

I think the idea of disabled drivers being prime candidates for couriers/delivery drivers is obviously a bit misguided; I am fairly certain if you qualify for a specialist vehicle, then shifting boxes etc about is not really going to suit you.

However, the taxi thing could be workable (of course what happens to all the existing taxi drivers? ). And of course, there is every chance that it already happens.

scoobynutta555

There are plenty of jobs out there. The trouble is as they'd get more on benefits there is no incentive for them to get a job. Or the job in question is "beneath them" in some way. While you've got someone picking up litter they're not looking for a job or learning a skill. Yes there are plenty of jobs that need doing in the community, so ramp up community service for offenders.

Again, I fail to see how someone thousands of miles away born into poverty with no education, even not speaking English can come here and find employment. I get a bit sick and tired of hearing a long term doley moan about lack of jobs in their area or how crap their community is. It's the excuse of the lazy and ignorant, either of which I abhor paying for.

swampster

iTrader: (1)

Aside from pete's answer... that perhaps many of those thay can work/set up their own business already do!

I think we're getting to the crux of it, as far as disabled people are concerned in some people's views.

Would the view,

I shouldn't have to pay for these lazy scroungers out of MY taxes, and I'll be damned if I'M paying anything to employ one of these wastes of space, and no I wouldn't be happy employing anybody who's not going to be there half the time due to their condition, if I can stub my toe in the morning and do a hard day's graft (because I'm a god damned work place hero) then what excuse is having no legs! Actually having no legs is an excuse as they are OBVIOUSLY disabled... but the rest of them are just swinging the lead. To be honest the world would be a better place (and I'd be 2p richer) if SOMEBODY (obviously not me) just put down this malingering scum at birth!?

Be somewhere close to the mark!?

scoobynutta555

No, there's a reasoned debate then there's making a load of crap up about someone's views to scramble higher up the tower of holier than thou.

swampster

iTrader: (1)

Sorry I don't think it's a load of crap the general opinion I seem to be getting from various people on this board, whilst not overtly coming out and saying it (although some are on the verge) appears to be not far from what I just stated..

Evil Twin of Tarquin

Evil Twin of Tarquin

Just in case your comments were aimed at me....

There are malingerers.
There are dole scrounging cheats.
There are people claiming disabilities who aren't disabled.

The trick is to weed out the wheat from the chaffe. I suggested a panel to decide on disabilities rather than just a single person saying this person is unable to work and this person is able.

How about no benefits until you have paid in to the system for 2 years (with exemptions on medical grounds) and then a cap of 5 years maximum claiming? How is that unfair? It is trying to get people to be productive. You are right about people not taking jobs as they are "beneath them", it's all about having realistic expectations. Currently the expectation amongst the young is that the state will pay so why should I get off my **** and work. Introtuce a time bar and they'd have to do work just to live or we go back to my suggestion about state provided housing, clothing and feeding with little cash for spending on "fripperies".

Nowhere have I suggested bolt gunning mallingerers as I think that would be an extreme, and expensive, way of dealing with the problem.

PeteBrant

So would you have this approach to all disagnosis by GP's?

And what do you do with those people that fall outside those criteria?
Leave them to starve? Homeless? What are you going to do with them?

j4ckos mate

more are disabled than others, if you can drive a car you can work,


come on mate, when i got my car from the auctions just one site in prestonm,
on one day of the week just one model of car just one motability sale, 28 picasso's went thru in a few minutes, wednesday is a motability day at bca and you can imagine how many cars go thru in an hour never mind in a minute,

based on rough numbers just mulled theu now,

a car gets sold in what 3 minutes, thats 20 an hour x 6 hours, so let say that just 5 percent that can drive and take change or lift parcels thats nine people claiming benefit per day that could get a job and pay taxes, x 5 days a week at maybe 10 auction sites thru the uk.




pete you are like my missus, you have been brought up to see the good in people but im afraid rather than see this as a good thing there is an underclass of soicety that just see it as a weakness

Evil Twin of Tarquin

1. No, just in the case of benefits on medical grounds.
2. As I said in the penultimate paragraph "Introtuce a time bar and they'd have to do work just to live or we go back to my suggestion about state provided housing, clothing and feeding with little cash for spending on "fripperies". "

PeteBrant

Not sure how you justify trusting a GP to diagnose, an illness and treat accordingly, on grounds of health. But not trust him to do it when there's money involved.

Not that being on benefits gives toy much to spend on "fripperies", but I think we are possibly headed the way of vouchers etc.

Evil Twin of Tarquin

But Pete it does seem to in a number of cases. How do people on benefits afford plasma televisions? How do they afford to smoke and drink alcohol? None of these are what I would class as essentials and are therefore "fripperies", unless of course you wish to argue that £50+ per week on **** and booze is essential... in which case I await the logic behind the justification with baited breath

Lisawrx

iTrader: (1)

I think, Evil Twin of Tarquin is getting to the crux of the issue. I thought earlier on he (sorry if you are a woman) was a bit harsh to say the least, but now, not so much. The main thing here, is to apply common sense, and come up with some way of separating those who do need help and the **** takers. I don't think it's unreasonable, to have some limit to the time that can be spent claiming, with the exception of disability, it's a slightly different issue, so would in my opinion have to be dealt with separately. Most people who find themselves out of work, through no fault of their own, will want to get back into work as soon as possible, and would be likely to only use benefits as a temporary solution anyway.

I am just focusing on those clearly abusing the system, and actually I don't think it's that stupid an idea to get them out working within their communities, in the vain hope that making them earn benefits may actually push them into working again. If they are just lazy, then if they are been made to work for their help, I would hope they would have the sense to think they may as well go out and work for a real wage. Not only that, but it may actaully help address other social issues. Without grouping everyone together, but I'll give an example. Sometimes these problems are most prominent poorer areas, and if people are being pushed into working in their community, doing work to improve the area, in turn it may give them a little pride in where they live, and they may actually start watching out for those causing damage there etc. I would be annoyed to say the least if I'd cleaned up an area and someone came along and wrecked it again. I know what I'm getting at, I've just explained it badly.

PeteBrant

How many of them have plasma televisions, then?

And given that an average LCD is around £400 these days (i..e the cost a telly has always been, perhaps they saved for it, or perhaps bought it on the never never)
Some people on benfits smoke and drink, some don't. Just like everyone else.

Where do you get the £50 a week figure from?


Som people just cannot accept that to live on benefits should not mean you live in a square room with absolutely no luxuries whatsoever - Such an attitude is quite beyond me.


Life doesn not presen tthat same opportunties to eveyone. Not everyone can be a success, not everyone can earn well.

The question is, do you provide a level of existance to those less fortunate, or do you just leave them to rot?

TelBoy

I'm not really familiar with the benefit system, fortunately, and it's possible i only see the Daily Mailesque headlines, but it does seem to me to be relatively easy to get some soft of benefit if you're only slightly disadvantaged in some way. Sure there will be genuine cases, ie in my opinion those beyond the reasonable control of the individual, but in cases where benefit is just being used as an alternative to sorting the problem out, make it damn difficult for benefit to be that alternative.