Discussion
Pothole said:
ut everyone should be treated the same, only differently from the way they are treated now? I can't see how this proposal will make the slightest difference or save us any money, really.
Someone above said the money should not be available to spend on ready meals (junk food) but rencet research suggests that they could be 'healthier' (whatever the f
k that means) than meals cooked from sratch follwoing popular 'celebrity' chefs' recipes. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-20713985
I don't believe there is a simple fix for the idle and workshy. It seems hypocritical, however, to encourage people, on the one hand, to be ambitious and hold out for the best offer or deal in most of their life, but to expect them to settle for any job, however menial or however overqualified they may be, merely as an alternative to claiming benefits to which they are entitled.
By the same token, have you ever applied for any of these 40-50 hour a week cleaning jobs you mentioned? I have, and got nowhere because employers don't believe I'm serious or will stay for any length of time so don't bother with me as they see it as a waste of time. I have had that from the horse's mouth, by the way.
What can I say ? From my experience I found it far too easy to get used to it, and far to easy to pop into town every two weeks for a someone to spends seconds looking at my efforts to find work and simply sign it off as all OK and come back in another two weeks. As said, I could have easily milked it for 3-6 months and spent my days pottering about in the garage doing bits on the car and then spent 10 mins faking my far too easy looking for work booklet. At least in days gone by I think you actually had to go and get your money, didn't you ?Someone above said the money should not be available to spend on ready meals (junk food) but rencet research suggests that they could be 'healthier' (whatever the f
k that means) than meals cooked from sratch follwoing popular 'celebrity' chefs' recipes. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-20713985I don't believe there is a simple fix for the idle and workshy. It seems hypocritical, however, to encourage people, on the one hand, to be ambitious and hold out for the best offer or deal in most of their life, but to expect them to settle for any job, however menial or however overqualified they may be, merely as an alternative to claiming benefits to which they are entitled.
By the same token, have you ever applied for any of these 40-50 hour a week cleaning jobs you mentioned? I have, and got nowhere because employers don't believe I'm serious or will stay for any length of time so don't bother with me as they see it as a waste of time. I have had that from the horse's mouth, by the way.
It's a big problem that going to need a thousand things combine to make a real difference. The one thing I come away with though was just how easy and convenient it was - over the phone application, short interview and providing proof or rent etc, money in your bank. That's not something that would drive someone who may be in the same situation I was, but who is a lazy bugger and will milk it for 6 months, back into work.
There's many different situations and types. Where I did work, there was many married guys there or with a partner who had kids. A lot of the wives and partners didn't work because that got the same in benefits as they did from doing low paid unskilled jobs. Now there is a whole other debate there as to why that is, but many had no problem in doing so because it was made so easy. Every two weeks pop into town and then go round the corner to the cash machine and all your money is there ready for you to spend.
I'm sorry to say the few have spoiled it for the many, like so many things in life. I'm now of the firm opinion you need to make it less easy and make getting free money and bit more of a pain in the bum to at least drive out those who are picking it because of ease. If that's by limiting their spend on crap, or just making someone go and get their free money, I'm now all for it.
SpeedMattersNot said:
Mr_B said:
There is a first interview regarding your claim and to check it and to see what work you can do etc etc and in which you agree a course of action as to what you are going to do to find work. So you tell them what you were doing and what you can d,o and they will agree so many things you have to do to to find such a jod, which you record in your little booklet which you produce every 2 weeks. You are given a period of time ( I forget how long, 3 months I think ) to find a similar job and pay to what you were doing and what might replace your income and commitments such as mortgage, rent etc. They do not say there is this cleaners job near you, you must apply. That can happen after the time period is up, but doesn't seem to happen or work.
So, a first inerview and then every 2 weeks to get your booklet signed off. They did next to nothing, and the times I was there watching everyone doing the same, it seemed 5 mins was a long wait.
I never said it should be harder to claim benefits. I said it should not just be a case of money arrives in your bank and you spend it as you wish. I offered the rough idea that if say a part of that was only available to spend on food, and decent none junk food at that, then it would force you to either take it or have to take and and then spend what for some is the living excess buying crap like fags booze and junk food, stupid Christmas presents and anything else.
as said, I could have easily taken 6 months of and spent every day doing anything. Wouldn't have any money, but wouldn't have been uncomfortable and not been doing 50 - 55 hours a week at work.
What can I say other than my impression of it, which was this is far too easy and I can see why those who will only ever get a job at the st end of the market will and doo accpet this for as long as they can milk it. The incentive level was low, but then everyone is different and some will work their arse of not to be there, so will just accpet it as beter than work.
When they paid your private rent, did they pay it directly, or did they pay the money into your bank account, allowing you to pay your rent? So, a first inerview and then every 2 weeks to get your booklet signed off. They did next to nothing, and the times I was there watching everyone doing the same, it seemed 5 mins was a long wait.
I never said it should be harder to claim benefits. I said it should not just be a case of money arrives in your bank and you spend it as you wish. I offered the rough idea that if say a part of that was only available to spend on food, and decent none junk food at that, then it would force you to either take it or have to take and and then spend what for some is the living excess buying crap like fags booze and junk food, stupid Christmas presents and anything else.
as said, I could have easily taken 6 months of and spent every day doing anything. Wouldn't have any money, but wouldn't have been uncomfortable and not been doing 50 - 55 hours a week at work.
What can I say other than my impression of it, which was this is far too easy and I can see why those who will only ever get a job at the s
t end of the market will and doo accpet this for as long as they can milk it. The incentive level was low, but then everyone is different and some will work their arse of not to be there, so will just accpet it as beter than work.Also, how long did it take you to get back into work?
The key point for me is that benefits are supposed to be a safety net.
This implies food and shelter in times of need. Nothing else. It certainly shouldn't be comfortable.
Wheres the motivation to do something with your life if you get given a house and enough benefit that you can sit on your arse all day, watch TV & drink yourself silly.
When welfare was originally introduced folks were ashamed to be recipients. People had pride and work ethic and would do whatever it took to become self dependent. Now people actively seek out a life dependent on welfare (just look at the % of households where no-one has EVER worked). There's no stigmatism, in fact these people are molly coddled and fawned over by leftie hand wringers, encouraged that they are the victims and they are entitled to more.
This is not what welfare was supposed to be about.
This implies food and shelter in times of need. Nothing else. It certainly shouldn't be comfortable.
Wheres the motivation to do something with your life if you get given a house and enough benefit that you can sit on your arse all day, watch TV & drink yourself silly.
When welfare was originally introduced folks were ashamed to be recipients. People had pride and work ethic and would do whatever it took to become self dependent. Now people actively seek out a life dependent on welfare (just look at the % of households where no-one has EVER worked). There's no stigmatism, in fact these people are molly coddled and fawned over by leftie hand wringers, encouraged that they are the victims and they are entitled to more.
This is not what welfare was supposed to be about.
Bandit said:
When welfare was originally introduced folks were ashamed to be recipients. People had pride and work ethic and would do whatever it took to become self dependent. Now people actively seek out a life dependent on welfare (just look at the % of households where no-one has EVER worked). There's no stigmatism, in fact these people are molly coddled and fawned over by leftie hand wringers, encouraged that they are the victims and they are entitled to more.
This is not what welfare was supposed to be about.
I'd like to see the figures you are basing this on. There were idlers who were happy to be on welfare when the current system was adopted just as there are now. Laziness didn't begin in the 1940s, did it? The Royal Commission into the Operation of the Poor Laws 1832 found evidence of widespread idleness and criminality. Perhaps we should, indeed, bring back Indoor Relief! This is not what welfare was supposed to be about.
Mr_B said:
The thing with benefits that bugs me, is just how easy it is made. You just make a phone call to start a claim, visit the Job Centre and then the money just arrives in your ban k account and there for you to do as you please. So no effort at all and free money in your account.
ever been through the system ?here's actually what happens
there's a claim form which is about 20 pages long there's three ways of getting this information down
1.sit down and write it out long hand
2.spend an hour or so doing it on the computer via a 'live'internet connection
3.spend ages on the phone
visit the job centre for the first of several visits before your claim is complete
visit one
1.check through the information previously provided
2.prove your identity (birth cert, Driving licence, passport Marriage certifcate,Decree absolute as relevent),right to live in the UK (birth cert, passport,any naturalisation /ULTR documents ),right to claim benefits (as last item) and provide up to date tax information (P45,P60 and last payslip)
3.provide details of bank account you wishyour payments to be madeinto
4.get issued claim paperwork,complete a temporary job seekers agreement
Visit two (may be combined with visit three)
1.'sign on'
2.provide documentary evidence you have complied with your temporary Job Seekers agreement
visit three
1.provide any documents requested at visit one
2.proof of qualifications held
3.provide copy of CV
4.have proper Job seekers agreement completed
hopefully at this point a decision maker will have said you can have JSA and three days after visit 2 you might get some money but you might not and get it as arrears at some point. I've claimed JSA twice in my life so far the first time was only for a matter of 4 or 5 weeks and I didn't get a payment until after i'd signed off ... the second time (much more recently) I did get a payment 3 days after my first signing...
the bare minimum Job seekers agreements at present seem to be
- provide evidence of seven activities to look for work a week
-apply for at least three jobs a week
-increasingly peopl eare asked to signup to universal job match and to allow the DWP access to your UJM account ,various tree huggers will say not to allow them this access,but i'm really not sure what the basis of this is other than entitlement culture or free-wibble-on-the -land /'sticking it to da man'
Mr_B said:
I think I'd like to see it made harder in some ways, so maybe have part of it in food that you can get from any supermarket, but with of a limted range ( no crap )that you have to get of your arse and go collect in store. While that idea alone maybe not that great, something just to make at least part of it a pain in the arse might actually remind some it's ( well, should be ) a safety net and not a liefestyle.
and don;t forget CB SJA lasts for 6 months so if you have more than a paltry amount of savings or have your own house it'll stop again after 6 months and AIUI home owners aren't eligible for HB .
Edited by mph1977 on Wednesday 19th December 22:46
Pothole said:
mph1977 said:
the bare minimum Job seekers agreements at present seem to be
- provide evidence of seven activities to look for work a week
-apply for at least three jobs a week
I have to do 3 things to find work, not apply for 3 jobs (yet).- provide evidence of seven activities to look for work a week
-apply for at least three jobs a week
TTwiggy said:
So, in a nutshell, another way for my tax to fund big supermarkets through the back door? No thanks.
quite probably even though the veg i get from my local market and the meat i get from my other local market /farm shop is considerably nicer and more cost effective than the supermarket offering... (and a damn site less 'food miles')mph1977 said:
quite probably even though the veg i get from my local market and the meat i get from my other local market /farm shop is considerably nicer and more cost effective than the supermarket offering... (and a damn site less 'food miles')
Purely as we are going wayyyy off topic anyway 
AIUI, food miles are soil to plate, not shelf to plate. Cheap stuff almost certainly not local, therefore higher miles, so ha!SpeedMattersNot said:
Pothole said:
mph1977 said:
the bare minimum Job seekers agreements at present seem to be
- provide evidence of seven activities to look for work a week
-apply for at least three jobs a week
I have to do 3 things to find work, not apply for 3 jobs (yet).- provide evidence of seven activities to look for work a week
-apply for at least three jobs a week
Pothole said:
SpeedMattersNot said:
Pothole said:
mph1977 said:
the bare minimum Job seekers agreements at present seem to be
- provide evidence of seven activities to look for work a week
-apply for at least three jobs a week
I have to do 3 things to find work, not apply for 3 jobs (yet).- provide evidence of seven activities to look for work a week
-apply for at least three jobs a week
Enjoying my benefits
mph1977 said:
Mr_B said:
The thing with benefits that bugs me, is just how easy it is made. You just make a phone call to start a claim, visit the Job Centre and then the money just arrives in your ban k account and there for you to do as you please. So no effort at all and free money in your account.
ever been through the system ?here's actually what happens
there's a claim form which is about 20 pages long there's three ways of getting this information down
1.sit down and write it out long hand
2.spend an hour or so doing it on the computer via a 'live'internet connection
3.spend ages on the phone
visit the job centre for the first of several visits before your claim is complete
visit one
1.check through the information previously provided
2.prove your identity (birth cert, Driving licence, passport Marriage certifcate,Decree absolute as relevent),right to live in the UK (birth cert, passport,any naturalisation /ULTR documents ),right to claim benefits (as last item) and provide up to date tax information (P45,P60 and last payslip)
3.provide details of bank account you wishyour payments to be madeinto
4.get issued claim paperwork,complete a temporary job seekers agreement
Visit two (may be combined with visit three)
1.'sign on'
2.provide documentary evidence you have complied with your temporary Job Seekers agreement
visit three
1.provide any documents requested at visit one
2.proof of qualifications held
3.provide copy of CV
4.have proper Job seekers agreement completed
hopefully at this point a decision maker will have said you can have JSA and three days after visit 2 you might get some money but you might not and get it as arrears at some point. I've claimed JSA twice in my life so far the first time was only for a matter of 4 or 5 weeks and I didn't get a payment until after i'd signed off ... the second time (much more recently) I did get a payment 3 days after my first signing...
the bare minimum Job seekers agreements at present seem to be
- provide evidence of seven activities to look for work a week
-apply for at least three jobs a week
-increasingly peopl eare asked to signup to universal job match and to allow the DWP access to your UJM account ,various tree huggers will say not to allow them this access,but i'm really not sure what the basis of this is other than entitlement culture or free-wibble-on-the -land /'sticking it to da man'
Mr_B said:
I think I'd like to see it made harder in some ways, so maybe have part of it in food that you can get from any supermarket, but with of a limted range ( no crap )that you have to get of your arse and go collect in store. While that idea alone maybe not that great, something just to make at least part of it a pain in the arse might actually remind some it's ( well, should be ) a safety net and not a liefestyle.
and don;t forget CB SJA lasts for 6 months so if you have more than a paltry amount of savings or have your own house it'll stop again after 6 months and AIUI home owners aren't eligible for HB .
Edited by mph1977 on Wednesday 19th December 22:46
Jesus H Christ there are some lunatics on this site. So the suggestion is that everyone who is unemployed is feckless and workshy. With nothing better to do than spend the states money at the nearest discount booze store, or toss it off at Weatherspoons.
Why not make them wear an armband as well, then perhaps we could put them all to work in a labour camp, or even better we could kill them all.
It's always the same political line, lets not make it illegal to stash your millions abroad and avoid tax, lets not have back handers, and fat contracts for those that support the party, once again we pick on the poor. As we all know its all down to them. Millions are wasted yes wasted on IT projects that don't work, defence contracts that go millions over budget, but thats ok as its all part of the political gravy train. We even gave someone who f+ucked up the security at the Olympics 25 million, and the Army paid for by the TAXPAYER had to bail them out.
You know what really beggars belief, is someone who can't get a job is made to feel even worse, by some politician who has his snout so far in the trough. Yet someone who screws a bank into the ground and cost the TAXPAYER billions gets paid off for being a total f+ckwit. Fair society we live in eh?
I'm not against better benefit policing, not against getting people back to work and off benefits. Giving someone vouchers is not the way out of the mess.
Why not make them wear an armband as well, then perhaps we could put them all to work in a labour camp, or even better we could kill them all.
It's always the same political line, lets not make it illegal to stash your millions abroad and avoid tax, lets not have back handers, and fat contracts for those that support the party, once again we pick on the poor. As we all know its all down to them. Millions are wasted yes wasted on IT projects that don't work, defence contracts that go millions over budget, but thats ok as its all part of the political gravy train. We even gave someone who f+ucked up the security at the Olympics 25 million, and the Army paid for by the TAXPAYER had to bail them out.
You know what really beggars belief, is someone who can't get a job is made to feel even worse, by some politician who has his snout so far in the trough. Yet someone who screws a bank into the ground and cost the TAXPAYER billions gets paid off for being a total f+ckwit. Fair society we live in eh?
I'm not against better benefit policing, not against getting people back to work and off benefits. Giving someone vouchers is not the way out of the mess.
deltaevo16 said:
Jesus H Christ there are some lunatics on this site. So the suggestion is that everyone who is unemployed is feckless and workshy. With nothing better to do than spend the states money at the nearest discount booze store, or toss it off at Weatherspoons.
Why not make them wear an armband as well, then perhaps we could put them all to work in a labour camp, or even better we could kill them all.
It's always the same political line, lets not make it illegal to stash your millions abroad and avoid tax, lets not have back handers, and fat contracts for those that support the party, once again we pick on the poor. As we all know its all down to them. Millions are wasted yes wasted on IT projects that don't work, defence contracts that go millions over budget, but thats ok as its all part of the political gravy train. We even gave someone who f+ucked up the security at the Olympics 25 million, and the Army paid for by the TAXPAYER had to bail them out.
You know what really beggars belief, is someone who can't get a job is made to feel even worse, by some politician who has his snout so far in the trough. Yet someone who screws a bank into the ground and cost the TAXPAYER billions gets paid off for being a total f+ckwit. Fair society we live in eh?
I'm not against better benefit policing, not against getting people back to work and off benefits. Giving someone vouchers is not the way out of the mess.
Blimey, that's a bit sensible isn't it? Way to spoil our fun... Why not make them wear an armband as well, then perhaps we could put them all to work in a labour camp, or even better we could kill them all.
It's always the same political line, lets not make it illegal to stash your millions abroad and avoid tax, lets not have back handers, and fat contracts for those that support the party, once again we pick on the poor. As we all know its all down to them. Millions are wasted yes wasted on IT projects that don't work, defence contracts that go millions over budget, but thats ok as its all part of the political gravy train. We even gave someone who f+ucked up the security at the Olympics 25 million, and the Army paid for by the TAXPAYER had to bail them out.
You know what really beggars belief, is someone who can't get a job is made to feel even worse, by some politician who has his snout so far in the trough. Yet someone who screws a bank into the ground and cost the TAXPAYER billions gets paid off for being a total f+ckwit. Fair society we live in eh?
I'm not against better benefit policing, not against getting people back to work and off benefits. Giving someone vouchers is not the way out of the mess.
SpeedMattersNot said:
deltaevo16 said:
Jesus H Christ there are some lunatics on this site. So the suggestion is that everyone who is unemployed is feckless and workshy. With nothing better to do than spend the states money at the nearest discount booze store, or toss it off at Weatherspoons.
Why not make them wear an armband as well, then perhaps we could put them all to work in a labour camp, or even better we could kill them all.
It's always the same political line, lets not make it illegal to stash your millions abroad and avoid tax, lets not have back handers, and fat contracts for those that support the party, once again we pick on the poor. As we all know its all down to them. Millions are wasted yes wasted on IT projects that don't work, defence contracts that go millions over budget, but thats ok as its all part of the political gravy train. We even gave someone who f+ucked up the security at the Olympics 25 million, and the Army paid for by the TAXPAYER had to bail them out.
You know what really beggars belief, is someone who can't get a job is made to feel even worse, by some politician who has his snout so far in the trough. Yet someone who screws a bank into the ground and cost the TAXPAYER billions gets paid off for being a total f+ckwit. Fair society we live in eh?
I'm not against better benefit policing, not against getting people back to work and off benefits. Giving someone vouchers is not the way out of the mess.
Blimey, that's a bit sensible isn't it? Way to spoil our fun... Why not make them wear an armband as well, then perhaps we could put them all to work in a labour camp, or even better we could kill them all.
It's always the same political line, lets not make it illegal to stash your millions abroad and avoid tax, lets not have back handers, and fat contracts for those that support the party, once again we pick on the poor. As we all know its all down to them. Millions are wasted yes wasted on IT projects that don't work, defence contracts that go millions over budget, but thats ok as its all part of the political gravy train. We even gave someone who f+ucked up the security at the Olympics 25 million, and the Army paid for by the TAXPAYER had to bail them out.
You know what really beggars belief, is someone who can't get a job is made to feel even worse, by some politician who has his snout so far in the trough. Yet someone who screws a bank into the ground and cost the TAXPAYER billions gets paid off for being a total f+ckwit. Fair society we live in eh?
I'm not against better benefit policing, not against getting people back to work and off benefits. Giving someone vouchers is not the way out of the mess.
Why are people so averse to vouchers?
If i lost my job. I would just be treading water on JSA. I couldn't keep my current life style without finding work. My mortgage wouldn't be covered by any benefits. I would HAVE to find a job. The JSA would be a welcome help with travel costs and food whilst I found a job. The fact it was vouchers wouldn't be an issue. Benefits are a stop gap not a lifestyle.
Edited for typo - thanks
If i lost my job. I would just be treading water on JSA. I couldn't keep my current life style without finding work. My mortgage wouldn't be covered by any benefits. I would HAVE to find a job. The JSA would be a welcome help with travel costs and food whilst I found a job. The fact it was vouchers wouldn't be an issue. Benefits are a stop gap not a lifestyle.
Edited for typo - thanks
Edited by ofcorsa on Thursday 20th December 12:13
ofcorsa said:
Why are people so adverse to vouchers?
If i lost my job. I would just be treading water on JSA. I couldn't keep my current life style without finding work. My mortgage wouldn't be covered by any benefits. I would HAVE to find a job. The JSA would be a welcome help with travel costs and food whilst I found a job. The fact it was vouchers wouldn't be an issue. Benefits are a stop gap not a lifestyle.
You've partially answered it. To you benefits are a safety net and something to tide you over, but currently you're free to spend your income as you wish. If i lost my job. I would just be treading water on JSA. I couldn't keep my current life style without finding work. My mortgage wouldn't be covered by any benefits. I would HAVE to find a job. The JSA would be a welcome help with travel costs and food whilst I found a job. The fact it was vouchers wouldn't be an issue. Benefits are a stop gap not a lifestyle.
Now imagine you've spent your life surrounded by folk who consider benefits a right, and their main source of income and money they can spend as they wish and you'll understand the mentality of those opposed to vouchers.
I don't think they'll work, but I don't oppose the principle of giving people what they need and making them earn the things they want.
ofcorsa said:
Why are people so adverse to vouchers?
If i lost my job. I would just be treading water on JSA. I couldn't keep my current life style without finding work. My mortgage wouldn't be covered by any benefits. I would HAVE to find a job. The JSA would be a welcome help with travel costs and food whilst I found a job. The fact it was vouchers wouldn't be an issue. Benefits are a stop gap not a lifestyle.
Firstly, it's averse.If i lost my job. I would just be treading water on JSA. I couldn't keep my current life style without finding work. My mortgage wouldn't be covered by any benefits. I would HAVE to find a job. The JSA would be a welcome help with travel costs and food whilst I found a job. The fact it was vouchers wouldn't be an issue. Benefits are a stop gap not a lifestyle.
Secondly, it's not a necessary, or worthwhile change. All it will do is cost the taxpayer more (no doubt) and stigmatise genuine jobseekers and other poor people along with the workshy and feckless.
Thirdly, having just found out this morning that I have not been selected for a role I put a lot of time and effort into trying to secure, I am not at all happy to be one of those mentioned above. Frankly, I could do with a drink! (I won't have one until later as I have to go and sign on this afternoon).
I haven't seen anyone mentioning any actual research or figures to support the need for a change. Major upheaval of this kind of system without proper research and investigation, late alone cost projections, is not what we should be encouraging in any government, it it?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff