fake Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 true, but if they refuse you can stop giving them money and let them work it out for themselves. You can stop giving them full benefits but most will still be entitled to claim council tax and housing rebates. Most would also be able to claim basic subsistence allowance so money would still be claimed. Getting the unemployed to work for their benefits will also cost and around £3-5 billion is being spent by this government on new schemes to achieve that. The money will be spent on top of the benefit budget thus increasing the total benefits budget for the taxpayer to pay. The people who benefit most will be the companies that are contracted to carry out this scheme. The idea may seem fine to those who are working and bitter about people getting benefits but its those same people who will footing the increased cost of all this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulgarian Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 The idea may seem fine to those who are working and bitter about people getting benefits but its those same people who will footing the increased cost of all this. I don't think that having the view that people should so something for the money they get makes one "bitter" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 There are already people who actually clean the streets for a living, it doesn't make them criminals. Well he'd better watch out. He's about to be made redundant by people doing his job for free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leah-Lacie Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 Just to add to the family man scenario, a single woman with one child who is now 7, is considered available for work and moved from income support onto JSA. If she doesn't do hercommunity duties, she will be at least led to believe that her JSA and housing benefits, and other sources of income will stop. She could still claim small hardship payments and possible housing benefits too though I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leah-Lacie Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 Well he'd better watch out. He's about to be made redundant by people doing his job for free. This is just what I was thinking. If there was extra work to be done, we would have less unemployed. Obviously someones going to lose out to make room for this radical idea. He'll be back doing his old job for free in a few months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 Well he'd better watch out. He's about to be made redundant by people doing his job for free. There's plenty to clean that isn't done by the paid workers (and the government can't afford to employ enough to have it done). So his job should be safe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leah-Lacie Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 There's plenty to clean that isn't done by the paid workers (and the government can't afford to employ enough to have it done). So his job should be safe. Oh, I see Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cynic Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 If you are fit to work and have been unemployed a long time what is wrong with having to do community work for your benefits? Work out how many hours it would take to earn however much you receive in benefits at minimum wage and do that much work in the community. Seems pretty fair. I'd certainly feel less guilty if I was unemployed and had to rely on benefits and could do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 There's plenty to clean that isn't done by the paid workers (and the government can't afford to employ enough to have it done). So his job should be safe. There is plenty of work that needs doing, we could use a lot more community care workers for example. Maybe if the government reprioritised its finances we could afford them. Let's see.... Well we could reduce the £300 a day expenses for the Lords who just sign in and go home again, or what about taking the gratis credit cards off civil servants who get £1,000 every month to spend with no accountability - there are 140,000 of those, or there's the gravy train called the EU where there's a few quid to be saved, nobody knows how much coz their accounts have never been signed off. What about MP's pensions? They've just had a raise (only they're waiting till the heats off or a bad news day to quietly accept it...) Maybe we could drop a few less bombs on Libya for a week or two, that would save quite a bit.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 Do you want someone doing community care because the other option is that they loose their benefits... If a gutter isn't cleaned very well then it's not a huge problem, but if care isn't provided well then it has consequences. I don't think you've got that quite right about the credit cards, but I'm willing to be corrected if you have a link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.