Yet more feckless wasters.

[thinfourth2]

Roo said:

These two were on the TV this morning moaning about how hard life is and the fact that their kids are embarrassed at the parents having to struggle to get by.



I wish I had to struggle to get by on £50k a year. TAX FREE.

Well go grab a fat slapper, get her pregnant, move into a stty council house, spend ten years living in complete sthole pumping your load into a fat stupid slapper and you too can have the dream


I'll stay on my 30K a year thanks paying tax and not shagging a fat moron while surrounded by st

[davepoth]

blueg33 said:

You have your quotes all wrong and you are attributing statements to me that I haven't made.

Despite all that, I would urge you to study the theories of Thomas Malthus and then apply them to modern economy and you will see where I am coming from.

I havement made statements about people from Hull working in the south east, but if I look at my office in the City of London the staffing are broadly as follows:

4 of us including me from the West Midlands
3 from the souh east
2 from the east
2 from scotland
1 from Yorkshire
i from Romania

If I look at our Yorkshire office

1 from Yorkshire
3 from the south east
3 from greater manchester

Looks like your broad assumptions that people can't move are wrong.

I'd say your sample was far too small to be representative. And we don't know whether the business you work in is representative of the labour force in general.

Generally, people are not especially willing to move hundreds of miles, cut themselves off from their family and friends, and forge a new life to work for minimum wage in a city they don't know when they could just stay on benefits in their home town. We've made the alternative too enticing unfortunately.

[martin84]

RoadToNowhere said:

iphonedyou said:

Just give the bloody benefits as vouchers. There's a stigma attached to foodstamps and the like, so few people will want to be on them, and those that are perfectly happy to be on them will at least be forced to 'spend' them on necessities.

This - can somebody explain to me why this wouldn't be workable? Genuine question.

The British Government would be in charge of administering it.

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Well I dont know if thats based on reality or just assumption. Most employers dont bother to respond to applicants so they have no way of knowing whether they'd be any good or not. Daily Mail whining, as well as the news and communities like this place scream 'foreigners work harder' so much that employers probably believe it without research. Change your name to Vladimir and you'll get an interview.

blueg33 said:

Looks like your broad assumptions that people can't move are wrong.

To apply the statistics from your extremely small data field with precious little additional information to the country as a whole is the definition of a broad assumption. I never said people can't move, people do move. I said people up north all flocking to jobs down south wont change the net result of the benefit bill and nor will it help improve the northern economy.

[Negative Creep]

RoadToNowhere said:

iphonedyou said:

Just give the bloody benefits as vouchers. There's a stigma attached to foodstamps and the like, so few people will want to be on them, and those that are perfectly happy to be on them will at least be forced to 'spend' them on necessities.

This - can somebody explain to me why this wouldn't be workable? Genuine question.

If it's your sole source of income then it's fine for food or clothes bought in a shop, but what about things like internet purchases, phone bills, bus fare, direct debits, bank fees etc?

[Lost_BMW]

Negative Creep said:

If it's your sole source of income then it's fine for food or clothes bought in a shop, but what about things like internet purchases, phone bills, bus fare, direct debits, bank fees etc?

People who won't work shouldn't expect to be allowed bus journeys, phone calls or the internet, let alone credit cards and direct debits.








Sits back to watch the fury...

[Mojocvh]

Mobile Chicane said:

TheDiplomat said:

UKIP's policy makes the most sense: only receive benefits for your first 3 children.

Or none at all... Why pay people to breed?

Rather invest the money in workplace nurseries for those who:

a. need it
b. contribute something to society.

Now you see that is a simplistic argument in such that it discriminates against Anglo Saxons et al who have, due to 45 years of failed UK governance, have been left high and dry with NO future apart from daytime TV.

[blueg33]

davepoth said:

I'd say your sample was far too small to be representative. And we don't know whether the business you work in is representative of the labour force in general.

Generally, people are not especially willing to move hundreds of miles, cut themselves off from their family and friends, and forge a new life to work for minimum wage in a city they don't know when they could just stay on benefits in their home town. We've made the alternative too enticing unfortunately.

Definately too small a sample, it was just an example.

People don't need to move 100's of miles but they do need to move nearer to places with more opportunity. The old mining towns and villages like Goldthorpe mentioned in this thread will always struggle. They are too remote for enough employers to be attracted when the access to workforce is so much better if they locate in places like Sheffield or Barnsley.

[Munter]

martin84 said:

Munter said:

I should be able to walk into a job center, search the system, it says a relevant job exists in Barking. I apply, get an interview, and get the job. I should be packed off to accommodation relevant to working in barking. Better to pay a couple of train tickets for interviews and relocation, than have someone sat on benefits for years

Remarks like this prove how out of touch PH'ers are with reality sometimes. This idea of relocate to get a job might work in the middle class world where relocation is worth while and companies will look further afield for the talent they need, but it doesnt apply to working in JD Sports. an.

I guess if you (presumeably deliberately) miss quote someone. Then you could form that opinion

[Negative Creep]

Lost_BMW said:

Negative Creep said:

If it's your sole source of income then it's fine for food or clothes bought in a shop, but what about things like internet purchases, phone bills, bus fare, direct debits, bank fees etc?

People who won't work shouldn't expect to be allowed bus journeys, phone calls or the internet, let alone credit cards and direct debits.

Sits back to watch the fury...

What if they took out a contract before being laid off? Access to the internet, phone and transport is also rather important in finding employment

[NorthernBoy]

blugnu said:

Do you even know how much benefits amount to? Could you live on it?

I could if I had to, but I choose not to.

This is one of the reasons that I turned up every day at school, and learned, and why afterwards I kept putting in the effort to gain the skills that'd make me employable.

It's needed a couple of career changes along the way, and constant effort, but it's the right thing to do.

It's worth asking, how many long-term unemployed do you think have done the same? As you well know, many pissed around at school, preferring to have a smoke or go shoplifting. If their life is st now because of this, they get no sympathy.

[Lost_BMW]

Negative Creep said:

Lost_BMW said:

Negative Creep said:

If it's your sole source of income then it's fine for food or clothes bought in a shop, but what about things like internet purchases, phone bills, bus fare, direct debits, bank fees etc?

People who won't work shouldn't expect to be allowed bus journeys, phone calls or the internet, let alone credit cards and direct debits.

Sits back to watch the fury...

What if they took out a contract before being laid off? Access to the internet, phone and transport is also rather important in finding employment

And to find a new irony meter?

[Lost_BMW]

NorthernBoy said:

I could if I had to, but I choose not to.

This is one of the reasons that I turned up every day at school, and learned, and why afterwards I kept putting in the effort to gain the skills that'd make me employable.

It's needed a couple of career changes along the way, and constant effort, but it's the right thing to do.

It's worth asking, how many long-term unemployed do you think have done the same? As you well know, many pissed around at school, preferring to have a smoke or go shoplifting. If their life is st now because of this, they get no sympathy.

But sadly they do get a cut off your labour/ taxes for their benefits so maybe they are the winners?

[NorthernBoy]

King Herald said:

. Not his fault, he wanted to work, but he had no real skills and a .

Not his fault?

Where do you think that the rest of us got our skills, in a Christmas cracker?

How on earth can it be anyone's fault but his own that he has no skills?

"I've sat here on my arse all day long and, can you believe it, not a single person has come round and trained me as a lab technician".

This attitude stinks. It truly stinks. It takes time and effort to gain skills. It takes commitment and drive. The acquire none, and to blame the world, not yourself, is just so wrong.

[NorthernBoy]

Lost_BMW said:

But sadly they do get a cut off your labour/ taxes for their benefits so maybe they are the winners?

They are "winners" compared to the honest person struggling with low pay, too proud to claim tax credits, perhaps, and are definitely winners compared to how many people think that they should be living (vouchers for food, benefits reduced for extra children etc.) but it's only down to a horrible lack of vision and imagination that they think that they are winners compared to how things could be, or could have been for them.

The problem is not that the world of employment is no better than the dole, it's that the first rung is no better. That step to having to take some responsibility, to do what you are told, keep turning up every day, etc. is the one that people don't like.

The rungs above are better and better.

Until, of course, you earn "too much", at which point everyone thinks that you are a again...

[martin84]

Negative Creep said:

If it's your sole source of income then it's fine for food or clothes bought in a shop, but what about things like internet purchases, phone bills, bus fare, direct debits, bank fees etc?

To answer whats-his-faces question, there's a lot of reasons why this system wouldn't work.

People on this thread are referring to the tiny minority of 'sponging wasters' who refuse to work when they talk about giving them vouchers etc, the reality is such a system would keep more people on benefits for longer.

If you've lost your job and no longer have an income you still need access to a telephone, what company will employ someone without a phone number? Most jobs take email applications now so internet access is required. If none of your benefit was in cash you couldn't even afford envelopes, stamps or printer paper to send in applications. People need clothes and you can get more for your money if you can buy online, so being able to use a card is an advantage. What about transport to get to any interview you might get? What if you dont own a suit or need a new one to look presentable at your interview? Giving people no money and lumbering them with just food vouchers will keep them alive at low cost but it wont help them to ever find work. Throwing people out of their homes and giving them £5 a week to live on hardly makes them employable. Would you employ someone without a phone who turns up (if you could contact them) in old jeans and t-shirt stinking to high heaven because the Government wouldn't give him any cash to buy soap or clothes with?

You need to stop thinking of the unemployed as the Daily Mail front page spongers, they're notable for a reason - they're rare. Most of the unemployed are people trying to get work in a country with not enough to go around, many of them were probably working full time until very recently. You are aware millions have lost their jobs in the last five years arent you?

Giving jobseekers their benefits in cash means they can make decisions on how best to spend it to help themselves. You may think food stamps and homelessness will make more people get work but it'll actually have the opposite effect. You'd keep the spongers alive for low cost, but you'd harm everybody else. The irony is the only people who would be unharmed are the very people you hate.

The biggest problem the unemployed face is that first months work before they get paid. When you get a job, you have to sign off and you need to make your own way through that month. Job Centre advisors used to have a special fund they could go into to help jobseekers through that month, to help them buy suits for work, fund transport costs etc, things like that. I believe they've gotten rid of that now which no doubt is harming even more peoples employment chances.

[Halb]

Some of those things could be facilitated via the DHSS office.

[martin84]

Halb said:

Some of those things could be facilitated via the DHSS office.

The DHSS hasn't existed for about 25 years.

Yes the DWP probably could create more red tape, bureaucracy, form filling, box ticking and employ thousands to facilitate these basic simple small things, but I thought we were looking for a smaller state which did less? So surely its better to just pay it out and let the claimant take responsibility for what they spend it on? Big Society and all that.

You wont save any money by using such a stupid system. It seems you're more interested in kicking the claimants in a vindictive manner rather than actually saving money, and when the main defence for kicking the claimants is to save money I find that quite bizarre. You seem happy for the state to actually spend more money administering welfare so long as it annoys the unemployed a bit more.

[thinfourth2]

If you want the ultimate in fair systems then

Step 1

Introduce a flat income tax of 35 to 40% and bin all other income related taxes
Bin all minimum wage laws etc

Step 2

Give everyone a universal credit of 10K a year if they are working or not

Bin all other benefits including pensions housing benefit etc


Step 3

Fiddle with tax and universal credit until it works


Step 4

Laugh you ass off as the usual suspects scream it is unfair that everyone gets the same

[Guybrush]

Brother D said:

Your solution?

No benefits at all for more than 2 children would be a good start. Maybe even capping total benefits paid to a household could work, although many less than stable 'families' would be difficult to police.

[Halb]

martin84 said:

The DHSS hasn't existed for about 25 years.
Yes the DWP probably could create more red tape, bureaucracy, form filling, box ticking and employ thousands to facilitate these basic simple small things, but I thought we were looking for a smaller state which did less? So surely its better to just pay it out and let the claimant take responsibility for what they spend it on? Big Society and all that.

You wont save any money by using such a stupid system. It seems you're more interested in kicking the claimants in a vindictive manner rather than actually saving money, and when the main defence for kicking the claimants is to save money I find that quite bizarre. You seem happy for the state to actually spend more money administering welfare so long as it annoys the unemployed a bit more.

A name change, I wasn't really aware, I should have typed job centre. They offer a lot of that now, contacting businesses, internet all that, no new staff or services needed. I don't really know what the big society is, a buzz word for Cameron. So hardly a 'stupid' system.
Not sure if you are addressing me here, I have not been vindictive in any of my posts, are you getting confused and mean someone else?