Should unemployment benefits be cut?

[Cyclone]

Your idea of what are luxuries and someone elses may be completely different. You stated that if people can afford to make payments to brighthouse then their benefits could be cut. A simple statement but not one that takes into account that those on benefits go without necessities on occassion in order to make such purchases. These people also go shopping at charity shops - so perhaps their benefits could be cut even further.

 

What do you actually consider a fair amount to pay someone who is unable to find work?

 

So you want to discuss what is a luxury and what isn't?

 

What do I consider to be fair.

Enough to survive on.

I don't really care about the exact amount, the key thing for me is that doing any work, be it 1 hour a week, or 37.5 hrs a week, even at minimum wage, should always make someone better off than staying on benefits.

[DragonofAna]

Surely if you've worked 30 or 40 years (your words remember) then you'd be entitled to redundancy. I'd expect that someone in that postion would also have a house that is probably mortgage paid, so plenty of capital to survive off.

 

Re - my previous post. I have currently had about 20 different jobs and have never been entitled to redundancy payments.

 

I don't believe that everyone on benefits is living in luxury. I do believe that most of them seem to be running around with the latest mobile phones, which when I last looked were not essential but a luxury item.

 

People go on contract which is like £10 per month - cheaper than a landline and means they can be contacted whilst out. A mobile phone is often included with the contract as a 'freebie'.

 

There's no need for them to buy essential items on the 'never never' from retailers that are in reality no better than loan sharks.

 

All they need is to get a copy of the free ad papers and buy something second hand (a few days cutting down from 20 to 10 L&B's a day and they'd soon have enough for a washing machine, maybe reduce the number of pints of 'wife beater' to buy a hoover).

 

And a poor man always pays twice. You have also said just what I was pointing out in that to afford some necessity an unemployed person will give up something else.

 

Yes I'd agree that some people do get caught out defrauding the system, however your assertation that they all get caught is poppcock.

 

I know of several (one is related to me) who claim to have a bad back, thus being unable to work. It doesn't stop my cousin from performing a sprint of near olympic record speed if he thinks that the bookies is closing and he hasn't got his bet on.

 

Yet when he does get a job it does seem to affect his ability to get out of bed in the morning to get to work on time.

 

Bold - where do I state or imply that they ALL get caught?

[DragonofAna]

So you want to discuss what is a luxury and what isn't?

 

What do I consider to be fair.

Enough to survive on.

I don't really care about the exact amount, the key thing for me is that doing any work, be it 1 hour a week, or 37.5 hrs a week, even at minimum wage, should always make someone better off than staying on benefits.

 

You cannot come off benefits working 1 hour a week. Come back to reality.

And not everyone on unemployment benefits sits around on their rear all day drinking beer whilst playing on the xbox or watching television. I know you did not say they do but seems to be what many think actually happens.

 

I will leave it to you to provide links as to where someone can get a job working 1 hour a week and earn enough to live on.

[Cyclone]

You haven't understood what I wrote.

 

Obviously working 1 hr a week, at minimum wage, you would still be entitled to benefits.

My point is that you should be better off by working that 1 hr. So if you earn £5.50 for 1 hr. You should only loose £3.00 in benefit (for example). Thus being £2.50 better off overall.

[DragonofAna]

You haven't understood what I wrote.

 

Obviously working 1 hr a week, at minimum wage, you would still be entitled to benefits.

My point is that you should be better off by working that 1 hr. So if you earn £5.50 for 1 hr. You should only loose £3.00 in benefit (for example). Thus being £2.50 better off overall.

 

Your answers are as always so enlightening when you say what you actually mean to say rather than hide in vagueness and make posts open to being misinterpreted on purpose in order to get a rise out of people.

You also ignore the fact that the person working that one hour still has to travel, and the 2.50 becomes non-existant (a dayrider costing more than £3).

 

Are you going to suggest people pay to work now?

[convert]

Re - my previous post. I have currently had about 20 different jobs and have never been entitled to redundancy payments.

Maybe that says more about you than it does about redundancy payments.

 

 

People go on contract which is like £10 per month - cheaper than a landline and means they can be contacted whilst out. A mobile phone is often included with the contract as a 'freebie'.

Funny the last time that I checked a phone, even a landline one isn't an essential item. People managed for centuries without one. So that's at least £10 we can cut from the monthly benefit bill.

 

 

And a poor man always pays twice. You have also said just what I was pointing out in that to afford some necessity an unemployed person will give up something else.

Sorry, are you saying that in this consumer driven, disposable society that we live in ALL second hand goods will fail, and/or are shoddy in quality; so much so that anyone buying second hand will have to buy something twice?

 

Really?

 

Do you work for Brighthouse?

 

Are you on commission?

 

I agree that some may have to give up luxuries to buy necessities. nothing wrong in going without fags and booze is there?

 

 

Bold - where do I state or imply that they ALL get caught?

 

You didn't say some of these get caught did you?

 

There are many people misusing the system, and these are caught and charged with fraud/benefit theft

[Greybeard]

The simplest way to cut the value of benefits is to increase VAT and I think the govt. are already planning to to that.

 

A solution that kills two birds with one stone

[convert]

 

Are you going to suggest people pay to work now?

 

Why should they, when we pay them not to?

[espadrille]

I'd really like to meet all your unemployed aquaintances who can afford plasma TV's and the like, or are you just quoting rubbish you've read in the Daily Mail.

 

Unemployed people with families are in a different catagory in terms of benefits as they can apply for their children and other things, but single unemployed without dependents are a different case entirely and have to survive on very little or supplement their income by resorting to crime.

 

My friend who has all the talent he needs to start his own business is unable to because he needs a phone and transport, neither of which he can afford. If he could, he'd be working for himself by now.

Any ideas how he can pay for these on £50 a week?

 

He needs to get some business advice. Has he been in touch with BIG?

Check them out on the councils website

[DragonofAna]

Maybe that says more about you than it does about redundancy payments.

 

Really? What does it say about me?

 

Funny the last time that I checked a phone, even a landline one isn't an essential item. People managed for centuries without one. So that's at least £10 we can cut from the monthly benefit bill.

 

According to benefits it is considered an essential. I suppose it depends on your pov though. I consider it a benefit to enable the job centre to be able to contact me at short notice, but that is just one example of how phones can help those out of work.

 

Sorry, are you saying that in this consumer driven, disposable society that we live in ALL second hand goods will fail, and/or are shoddy in quality; so much so that anyone buying second hand will have to buy something twice?

Really?

Do you work for Brighthouse?

Are you on commission?

 

Everything breaks down eventually. No - I do not work for Brighthouse and no I am not on commission.

 

I agree that some may have to give up luxuries to buy necessities. nothing wrong in going without fags and booze is there?

 

Cos everyone who is unemployed smokes and drinks don't they?

 

You didn't say some of these get caught did you?

 

Correct. My bad. I took it for granted that people would know that not all get caught. I live in the make believe world which believes the warnings about benefit fraud which state that no matter where you are or what you are doing - if you practice benefits fraud then you will get caught.