Is there any wonder some of our young don’t want to work.

[MrSmith]

This bit is about businesses paying tax though, individuals can't avoid tax by using Irish and Dutch shell companies.

 

Even so it’s still not a good reason not to work and didn't Tony Blair avoid paying tax using shell companies and he's an individual, the tax system is for everyone, anyone can build a business and go from rags to riches and use the system to their advantage.

[MrSmith]

So are you saying that at this moment in time there are loads of spare staff sat on their backsides twiddling their thumbs waiting for someone like you to come up with a plan that can employ them.

I love to see their faces if you walked into the office telling the the existing staff that you're doubling their workload.

You haven't really thought this out have you?

 

It wouldn't double their worklord, it would just change from one system to a better system.

[MrSmith]

I think the public sector resources would be better used on other things than administering a system that forces people to do voluntary work. The exisiting system is too expensive and I would like to see it reduced not expanded.

It wouldn’t be voluntary and it would reduce the costs because if people had to work for benefit they would have an incentive to take a full time job for pay, instead of many jobs having to be filled by foreign workers because our unemployed are better off doing nothing for money.

One fundamental flaw at the heart of your proposal seems to be an assumption that all people in receipt of benefits, e.g. JSA, are sitting on their backsides lazing about. Many people on JSA will be working hard to find a job. I don't think you can make everybody on JSA a target for your forced work plan and most of them should be left to get on with their job search.

 

The other furndamental flaw seems to be getting people to do work that would otherwise be done by paid public sector employees. The obvious problem is that it could end with jobs that were previousdly paid being converted into forced volunteer schemes. Then perverse incentives could be created, e.g. to keep people on benefit to so they can be forced volunteers.

 

The work isn't being done by paid public sector workers, I only have to walk outside to see that plenty of jobs need doing, that aren’t being done, and if someone was spending 40 hours a week looking for work they would be working, unless they are being picky.

[I1L2T3]

It wouldn’t be voluntary and it would reduce the costs because if people had to work for benefit they would have an incentive to take a full time job for pay, instead of many jobs having to be filled by foreign workers because our unemployed are better off doing nothing for money.

 

 

The work isn't being done by paid public sector workers, I only have to walk outside to see that plenty of jobs need doing, that aren’t being done, and if someone was spending 40 hours a week looking for work they would be working, unless they are being picky.

 

Again, you seem to be assuming that all people on benefit are layabouts. I would agree if you said that after 12 months of job seeking people are perhaps in danger of falling out of the workforce permanently and need to be helped. Even at that point I would say that forcing people into publicly visible forced menial work is not a good way to help them.

 

You also seem to assume the jobs are there. They're not. We're in a recession with long-term unemployment at very high levels. Some areas are worse than others but the ratio of jobseekers to available vacancies is high everywhere. Ratios of 10 jobseekers per vacancy are not uncommon. On average there are 5-6 jobseekers per vacancy.

 

Before that 12 months is up people should be simply allowed to get on with job seeking and perhaps the one thing that could change is candidates for voluntary work matched up with suitable roles and encouraged to do them. And the benefits of doing that work made clear.

 

The other fundamental thing is that if somebody is out of work you can't always assume they are to blame or are in that position out of choice.

[Cyclone]

Even so it’s still not a good reason not to work and didn't Tony Blair avoid paying tax using shell companies and he's an individual, the tax system is for everyone, anyone can build a business and go from rags to riches and use the system to their advantage.

 

His business avoided paying that tax, he's the owner of that business.

 

It's not an option for the majority of people as they won't be able to get their employer to employ them in that fashion, indeed it would probably fall foul of IR35 anti tax avoidance legislation.

[MrSmith]

Again, you seem to be assuming that all people on benefit are layabouts. I would agree if you said that after 12 months of job seeking people are perhaps in danger of falling out of the workforce permanently and need to be helped. Even at that point I would say that forcing people into publicly visible forced menial work is not a good way to help them.

 

I’m not assuming anything; but you are assuming you know what I’m thinking. I know that all claimants arn't layabouts.

 

 

You also seem to assume the jobs are there. They're not. We're in a recession with long-term unemployment at very high levels. Some areas are worse than others but the ratio of jobseekers to available vacancies is high everywhere. Ratios of 10 jobseekers per vacancy are not uncommon. On average there are 5-6 jobseekers per vacancy.

 

I don’t assume that jobs are there, I know that jobs are there, because like I keep saying I can see the things that need doing that aren’t being done, and I know that many employers employ foreign worker because some of our unemployed apparently won’t take the low paid jobs.

 

Before that 12 months is up people should be simply allowed to get on with job seeking and perhaps the one thing that could change is candidates for voluntary work matched up with suitable roles and encouraged to do them. And the benefits of doing that work made clear.

 

 

 

 

The other fundamental thing is that if somebody is out of work you can't always assume they are to blame or are in that position out of choice.

 

I don’t assume they are to blame, that’s you assuming again, I know there are many different reasons why people find it hard to find a job, sometimes their expectations are too high, sometimes they get more in benefits than they would get in employment, sometimes they are just lazy, sometime they do work and claim benefits anyway. But whilst there is work available they should be expected to take the job, and each available job should matched to the skills of the available workforce. Employers also need an incentive to take on the unemployed, which I mentioned earlier on in the thread.

[MrSmith]

His business avoided paying that tax, he's the owner of that business.

 

It's not an option for the majority of people as they won't be able to get their employer to employ them in that fashion, indeed it would probably fall foul of IR35 anti tax avoidance legislation.

 

 

His business was to talk to people; he only apparently employed people to find a way not to pay tax. Is business model should have been as straight forward as a one man band, someone books him to talk, he talks and gats paid, then he fills in his tax return, or has he did employ a team of accounts to legally avoid tax, but that option is available to everyone. Everyone can become self employed and build a business so it is available to everyone.

[chem1st]

It wouldn’t be voluntary and it would reduce the costs because if people had to work for benefit they would have an incentive to take a full time job for pay, instead of many jobs having to be filled by foreign workers because our unemployed are better off doing nothing for money.

 

 

The work isn't being done by paid public sector workers, I only have to walk outside to see that plenty of jobs need doing, that aren’t being done, and if someone was spending 40 hours a week looking for work they would be working, unless they are being picky.

 

Over 90% of last years new claims for housing benefit were from working people!

 

Workers are on benefits.

 

We should force workers to work for their benefits, if we are forcing the unemployed to work for their benefits.

[MrSmith]

Over 90% of last years new claims for housing benefit were from working people!

 

Workers are on benefits.

 

We should force workers to work for their benefits, if we are forcing the unemployed to work for their benefits.

 

I know and a policy of employing British workers instead of foreign workers would lead to a smaller population and reduced housing cost, which would lead to lower costs for housing benefits. Workers do already support themselves for most things and just require help to afford the ridiculous housing costs. Workers also generally contribute in other ways unlike the unemployed; it is senseless paying for people to do nothing when there is work that needs doing.

[Mecky]

I know and a policy of employing British workers instead of foreign workers would lead to a smaller population and reduced housing cost, which would lead to lower costs for housing benefits. Workers do already support themselves for most things and just require help to afford the ridiculous housing costs. Workers also generally contribute in other ways unlike the unemployed; it is senseless paying for people to do nothing when there is work that needs doing.

 

Define foreign workers