Contributions related benefits on the way?

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by sunnoficarus, Apr 7, 2013.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. They're talking shite though.

    They're basically trying to say that they will create jobs, at at least minimum wage, for anyone who has been out of work for X period. Whether they are capable of the work or not.

    It's laudable. It's also impossible.
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Sounds like workfare.

    I would be supremely confortable with the notion that the professionally unemployed drop to bare subsistance level live on beans benefits.
    • Like Like x 1
  3. The idea should not be to give more benefits to people who have worked, but to stop those who have no intention of working from claiming at all.

    If I were a cynical person, I'd suggest that they are trying to buy the votes of people who have jobs by promising them higher welfare payments; whilst simultaneously suggesting that people currently on welfare will be left alone.

    How is that going to help? Surely it's cheaper to keep people on benefits than to employ them in the public sector.

    The obsession with taking from the rich and taxing bankers' bonuses is childish. Regardless of the pros and cons of the policy, it's included here purely for emotional reasons. They're saying "elect us and we'll punish that stereotype you dislike."

    If you visit Liam Byrne's office, I bet there's a document pinned to the wall that reads something like:

    1) Come up with a policy that sounds plausible at first glance.
    2) Promise people something. More welfare money is always good.
    3) Dress it up with words that suggest a big change. Radical. Drastic.
    4) Use highly specific and technical sounding terms that make the policy sound thought-out.
    5) Cap it off with a healthy dose of emotion. An opportunity to **** over the nasty bankers, for example.
    • Like Like x 4
  4. Everybody on benefits should get subsistence and nothing more. It's a safety net if you're in desperate need, not something you should expect or rely on.

    If those earning a living want to soften the blow for themselves, they ought to save. Take the example of the 50 year old guy who's worked all his life. Had he put £100 a month into a savings account, he'd now have more than £38k to fall back on.

    That said, Labour haven't said anything about dropping the level of benefits currently dished out. In fact, almost unbelievably, they're suggesting an increase in the amount of welfare paid out and creating more public sector non-jobs.
  5. I wonder if those who object to a welfare state would rather pay for inequality US-style - that is, massive prison population and high crime.
    • Like Like x 1
  6. How about a state pension linked to how much you have paid in. Should it reach a certain amount, then you can retire early. This would reward those who worked and have paid jobs and penalise the layabouts who just take money from the pot. I think I would also cut child benefits for those who have been unemployed for a year, or at least seriously review their circumstances. Arrived home from work again last night to see the dolies sat on the grass drinking cider, with their feral kids running round. - No desire to find work, but unaffected by the bedroom tax as their flats are not under occupied :(
  7. I take your point, but where does inequality come into it? I grew up on a dive of a council estate and got exactly the same opportunities as most middle class kids.
  8. Well this is new, Not.
    You already have contributions based benefits, its called National Insurance.

    I never understood, when I signed on in 1984, between leaving the Mob and leaving for India, why I was getting the same as a lot of young people? When I asked my MP, he claimed that was the fairest way, he also said that once my Army pension came into effect, they probably would take any and all benefits off me, as it wasn't fair that I should have both [This was a Conservative government, so much for the Skivers/Strivers argument]. Funnily enough, they didn't mention fairness when they were taking my pension contributions along with my NI deductions, from my wages.

    However, aside from that, being on benefits can't be that good, as if they were MP's would be claiming them?
    • Like Like x 1
  9. So you think the government should pay people not to commit crime?

    I'd suggest that it's the benefits culture that promotes crime within the underclasses.
    The benefits system (under successive governments) has bred generations of people who've grown up believing that they are entitled to be given everything without having to earn it.
    Thus, when they see someone who has worked and earned owning more than they do then their first thought is not to try harder to earn such things themselves. Their first thought is of entitlement and without the inclination to provide for themselves they instead take what they want.

    I always used to think my dad was a twat when he'd tell me to save for things I wanted rather than expect to be given them. Now I'm older I realise he was right.

    Sent by carrier pigeon using Speckled Jim
    • Like Like x 4
  10. What about those in society who have no experience of work or who have nothing to offer prospective employers: Those such as most Labour MPs or their SPADs?
  11. "At the heart of Labour's plan is the reinstatement of full employment".....

    Such a simple plan, why has nobody else thought of this?
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Don't knock it, a lot of those prisons are highly profitable extractors of government pork and that's a couple of percentage points off the reported unemployment levels for about $40K PA/incarcerated Gibson. The tax payer would only be pissing away the money on schools and repairing the roads anyway.

    With real unemployment levels about twice that of the UK, about 14 million folks permanently living on disability, a hugely inefficient health care system that costs about a fifth of GDP and doesn't even cover the entire population the US is the obvious place for the Ed's Newish Labor to look for radical new 80s ideas, after all it's where that ardent Septic-ophile Gordon Brown got all his.
  13. Worked for HBOS... well sort of, if you get the SFA to redefine crime and then fit up someone else.
  14. Ed M: We're dipping in the polls down to a seven point lead!
    Ed B: Yes Dave and George blaming the lazy Chavs has us down two points
    Ed M: I've a wheeze, let's copy Tory spin and change the wording
    Ed B: Worked last 73 times!
    Ed M: I'll be a shew in in 2015!
    Ed B: Yes I will
    • Like Like x 2