Chris_Sleeps Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 it would be completely voluntary, work for money or don't work for no money. A choice between work and starvation isn't a choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crosser Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 The only problem with most of these scenarios is that people pay NI when they are working (and have no choice). NI = National Insurance to wit Insurance against being laid off/made redundant etc. The benefit bashers here seem to forget that MOST of the people who are on benefits have paid into the system for years as did their parents and grandparents. Also MOST of the recipients of benefits are bona-fide. Anyone with an ounce of sense realises that being in work is more beneficial then not for the simple reason that you can "juggle" your money, rather than it being earmarked for this/that or the other at source (I'm sure low pay workers can relate to that) . Also You have to remember that the government of the day take back 20% of the spending of EVERYONE in VAT regardless of where they get their money (except for a few items admitted) So if someone gets (say) £100 per week in benefits, £20 of that is handed straight back (Yeah I know, it's the same for others too) but would YOU work for £100 per week ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 What is the view of members on able people who are claiming benefits and not working to help maintain the community surroundings such as? Litter picking, Removing Graffiti, Clearing leaves, Snow clearing etc. Eh, how are you going to make them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lotusflower Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 Eh, how are you going to make them? Starve them if they do not comply! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxmaximus Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 Re my bold. You did! Not in as many words but you did say that they would work for what they get now in JSA. The second part I highlighted is a change of tack for you according to what you said in posts 80, 82, 85, 92, 101 and 103. For instance, in post 80...and I quote you, you said, "Why is it a major issue expecting them to do something for the money they now receive?" You went on to say, in the same post 80, "If someone falls on hard times and loses their job the state finds them something to do and pays them enough to survive until they find something better." ---------- Post added 05-01-2013 at 18:54 ---------- In your scheme of things what would happen to anyone not volunteering? Let's say Joe Bloggs is made redundant from his job as a Council cleaner and becomes a JSA claimant. He is then offered his old job back in a volunteer's capacity to make him feel better about not being a scrounger. Has he lost anything financially? I've had the same tack throughout this topic, there wouldn't be any JSA, just people working for what the government decide they need to live on, instead of doing nothing for what the government decide they need to live on, but they wouldn't be working for less than the minimum wage. The hours you work would be dependent on the money the government decide you need to live on. ---------- Post added 05-01-2013 at 19:17 ---------- A choice between work and starvation isn't a choice. It’s a choice billions of other humans face and the choice humans have faced since life started on this rock, I’m not sure why you think this minority of people are that important that they shouldn't have to make that choice. ---------- Post added 05-01-2013 at 19:19 ---------- The only problem with most of these scenarios is that people pay NI when they are working (and have no choice). NI = National Insurance to wit Insurance against being laid off/made redundant etc. The benefit bashers here seem to forget that MOST of the people who are on benefits have paid into the system for years as did their parents and grandparents. Also MOST of the recipients of benefits are bona-fide. Anyone with an ounce of sense realises that being in work is more beneficial then not for the simple reason that you can "juggle" your money, rather than it being earmarked for this/that or the other at source (I'm sure low pay workers can relate to that) . Also You have to remember that the government of the day take back 20% of the spending of EVERYONE in VAT regardless of where they get their money (except for a few items admitted) So if someone gets (say) £100 per week in benefits, £20 of that is handed straight back (Yeah I know, it's the same for others too) but would YOU work for £100 per week ? Look at NI as an insurance policy to cover anyone that can't work because of ill health or old age, and not to cover people that don’t want to work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 Starve them if they do not comply! Then they will just steal food then and besides, I'm quite sure the government doesn't want to be seen starving its own people Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lotusflower Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 Then they will just steal food then and besides, I'm quite sure the government doesn't want to be seen starving its own people I honestly don't think the government gives a flying fox about people starving. ---------- Post added 05-01-2013 at 19:38 ---------- I've had the same tack throughout this topic, there wouldn't be any JSA, just people working for what the government decide they need to live on, instead of doing nothing for what the government decide they need to live on, but they wouldn't be working for less than the minimum wage. The hours you work would be dependent on the money the government decide you need to live on. ---------- Post added 05-01-2013 at 19:17 ---------- It’s a choice billions of other humans face and the choice humans have faced since life started on this rock, I’m not sure why you think this minority of people are that important that they shouldn't have to make that choice. ---------- Post added 05-01-2013 at 19:19 ---------- Look at NI as an insurance policy to cover anyone that can't work because of ill health or old age, and not to cover people that don’t want to work. How marvellous! That implies unemployed people would work for the minimum wage then, yes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 It’s a choice billions of other humans face and the choice humans have faced since life started on this rock, I’m not sure why you think this minority of people are that important that they shouldn't have to make that choice. We're that important because we have a welfare state to stop the cutting edge of severe poverty from hurting us. If you want to live like that then go somewhere that doesn't. Syria is lovely in the spring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxmaximus Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 How marvellous! That implies unemployed people would work for the minimum wage then, yes? If they wanted some money they would have to or find a job which is over the minimum wage. ---------- Post added 05-01-2013 at 19:44 ---------- We're that important because we have a welfare state to stop the cutting edge of severe poverty from hurting us. If you want to live like that then go somewhere that doesn't. Syria is lovely in the spring. There wouldn't be any poverty because the governmnet would find work for everyone and give them enough to live on. You do sound very averse to work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 If they wanted some money they would have to or find a job which is over the minimum wage. They're looking for work. That is why they're on Jobseekers. You're punishing people who are looking for work because they are out of work. Let's boil this to the bone, because it's Saturday, and it's getting towards an hour where some enjoyment beyond Sheffield Forum can exist. Firstly, you don't care about the money. What you care about is hurting people, and specifically poor people. People on the dole. You think you're better than them, and paying for them, thus they should suffer. So you think up new ways in which you can force your will on them. They're in receipt of a benefit, so you now have a moral prop to use against them. You have to think up a reason why they should suffer though, beyond because you want them to. That reason doesn't make sense, and it doesn't create the result that you're pretending you care about, but you don't let that stand in your way. Poor people should suffer because you think they should. They shouldn't. For all the reasons stated. It's unjust, against people on benefits and people who do work. It wouldn't produce the intended results. The punishments for not complying would be out of proportion and create even more trouble. It goes against every thought that put the welfare state together. Beyond that .... t'is Saturday night. *skips off* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.