Should unemployment benefits be cut?

[happyhippy]

Quite simple. £120 per year on a mobile is a luxury spend (how many actually take on a £10 contract though, most seem to go for the £35 that gets them the latest 'pear' phone with goggle and facepalm). A cheap £15 PAYG mobile, £10 credit (I hear ASDA are quite cheap for this) and a little self control would save the person, and hence the taxpayer, at least £95 pa if not £395 pa.

 

You're quite happily assuming that people are going to be unemployed for a year, here.

 

You are quite correct, however I wouldn't consider gambling, drinking and smoking to be hobbies.

 

Whenever I've left the places of my employ to have a bet in the bookies or even the racetrack, a pint in the pub at dinnertime, or a swift cig, I always considered them to be hobbies.

 

My hobbies. Why shouldn't they be the same of others?

 

I don't think that bookies should employ bouncers; snipers would be better.

 

Why? I've spent many a happy hour when either on leave or just ignoring the office for an hour having a pleasant gamble.

 

You are quite right; I'm wrong on this one.

 

If they've got away with it for years, then it isn't their mistake. It's the mistake of society as a whole, and more specifically those who administer the benefits.

 

Now I really have a problem here. You tell me exactly how people who administer benefits are supposed to rid the system of those who are supposedly committing fraud?

 

The mistake of society? Yes, you're probably right. The fault of public workers? Don't be silly.

 

Perhaps the time has come to pay a flat rate benefit to all (including those who work), raise income tax slightly and get rid of EVERYONE employed to administer the system.

 

Who would administer the system you've just de-administered

[Longcol]

Everytime they quote how much is being spent on benefits, I wonder how much of that figure is actually administration costs.

 

 

Since the 80's the government has usually made an assumption of 5%.

[happyhippy]

Everytime they quote how much is being spent on benefits, I wonder how much of that figure is actually administration costs.

 

It must cost billions just to sort the whole complicated mess and get the benefits to the right people..

 

Little. Administration costs pretty much nothing in real terms. I'd rather not say how much can be spent by Central Government on nothing in particular.

[Cyclone]

Are you really arguing for the status quo hh?

[convert]

You're quite happily assuming that people are going to be unemployed for a year, here.

Yes, I am. It's quite normal to quote per annum figures though.

 

 

Whenever I've left the places of my employ to have a bet in the bookies or even the racetrack, a pint in the pub at dinnertime, or a swift cig, I always considered them to be hobbies.

 

My hobbies. Why shouldn't they be the same of others?

Quite simple. Not everyone, especially those on low incomes, can afford those kind of luxuries. Benefits should be a safety net, not a lifestyle. Safety nets shouldn't allow for luxuries.

 

 

 

Now I really have a problem here. You tell me exactly how people who administer benefits are supposed to rid the system of those who are supposedly committing fraud?

 

The mistake of society? Yes, you're probably right. The fault of public workers? Don't be silly.

Now why did I know that you'd have a problem with this one...vested interest in staying on the socialist gravy train anyone?

 

As for getting rid of those who commit fraud, I'd suggest that those who administer the system actually did their jobs. A slightly odd concept to most public sectoe employees, I'll give you.

 

 

Who would administer the system you've just de-administered

My comment was actually supposed to be tongue in cheek, but thinking about it we could cull quite a lot of the ineffective admin team. Payments could be automated, overseen maybe by existing employees who perform payroll duties for local government. We wouldn't need anyone to administer the increases in PAYE.

[convert]

Are you really arguing for the status quo hh?

 

Of course HH is arguing for the status quo. Otherwise it's the end of the gravy train.

 

Time we looked at Final salary pension schemes for Public sector employees.

 

One company I know has just increased the contributions it's employees make from 5% to 8%, and capped the pensionable part of any future pay rises to a maximum of 2.5%. The employees all thought it was worth it to keep their pensions though.

[Weazel2006]

I decided yet again to test the frontline benefit customer service staff and was actually pretty shocked. I asked about 2 jobs one 5 hours and one 10 hours that were on his desk. I asked what the take home rate was on small earnings, i think it's something like the first 5 or 10 pounds....he couldn't answer my question. I then said well i keep some benefit until im working over 16 hours in which case it stops dead right?......again he could not answer and told me it really wasn't part of his job....is that right?. I mean shouldn't those frontline workers be able to dish out the basics of jsa?.

 

So coupled with my other post, anyone who wants to get benefit and not have to do anything to get it, jsa is a cash pig.....this is why as someone on benefits i voted for change and i will not shed a tear for the staff there who do lose their jobs...it's rediculous and the entire system needs a radical overhaul.

 

Hell get me a job IN the job center, sack the lot of em and ill get the fraudsters into work pretty swiftly

[chem1st]

Convert, you might be interested to know the benefits of some other European countries.

 

We have some of the lowest in the EU

[artisan]

Do you believe for a moment that they will listen to what the people tell them ?

 

If Cameron is going to follow in the footstep of Tony Blair with this sham of 'public consultation' his credibility will drop through the floor.

 

And which credibility is this of which you speak.

He has no mandate from the people to govern, only that conferred on him by Elizabeth Windsor.

He is about much use as a used car salesman, and far less capable.

[marshlad]

There is.

 

 

 

So what about the person who applies for job after job after job (and not for pie in the sky either), but gets pipped to the post time after time?

 

S/he gets nothing because s/he has been unlucky? I've spent years interviewing people in this sort of position, and there are a damned sight more than you'd think.

 

Don't get me wrong, there are many who swing the lead. There are many who won't lower their sights, but what I do know is this. Most who sign on are genuine, and the vast majority find work within weeks.

 

The incessant demonisation of those who sign on is frankly unwarranted, especially as few do for very long.

 

I know someone who worked for about 6 weeks when he was in his 20's and is now in his 40's and hasn't worked since. He is not ill or disabled he just doesn't want to work because he says he is better off not working because if he worked he would have to pay his rent and council tax. I know most claimants do want to work but people like him should not be provided with free money and a house because they don't want to work. When I was made redundant I applied for JSA and I went to sign on in the morning for the first time and they sent me for an interview in the afternoon. I had about 3 hours to find where I was going, get home and change my clothes and get to the interview.