Contributions related benefits on the way?

#2
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.
 
#3
Sounds like workfare.

I would be supremely confortable with the notion that the professionally unemployed drop to bare subsistance level live on beans benefits.
 
#4
"The problem at the moment is that you have a person aged 50 who has worked all his life and then becomes unemployed getting much the same as the person next door who has never worked. It is about linking what you take out to what you have put in," said a senior party source.
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.

At the heart of Labour's plan is the reinstatement of full employment as a government objective. Under its plans, no one would be able to remain unemployed for more than two years, reduced to a year for a young person. After that, they would be offered a real job with appropriate training...
How is that going to help? Surely it's cheaper to keep people on benefits than to employ them in the public sector.

...funded by the taxing of bankers' bonuses and restructuring pension tax relief for the wealthiest. If they fail to take the job they would be stripped of benefits.
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.
 
#5
I would be supremely confortable with the notion that the professionally unemployed drop to bare subsistance level live on beans benefits.
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.
 
#6
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.
 
#7
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 :(
 
#8
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.
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.
 
#9
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?
 
#10
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.
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
 
#11
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?
 
#12
"At the heart of Labour's plan is the reinstatement of full employment".....

Such a simple plan, why has nobody else thought of this?
 
#13
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.
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.
 
#14
So you think the government should pay people not to commit crime?
...
Worked for HBOS... well sort of, if you get the SFA to redefine crime and then fit up someone else.
 
#15
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
 

Drivers_lag

On ROPS
On ROPs
#16
The trouble is that it's the kids you're looking after - in theory, at least. We all know a professional dolie and whadda ya know? They've all got kids.

I had to sign on a couple of years ago and **** me, £62 a week didn't get me far. Certainly, it's not an amount you can survive on for a long period of time. It buys food and that's it, really... but of course, you need more than food.

What a conundrum though. One can't expect children to live miserable and impoverished lives in a civilised country. One can't stop people breeding. One can't dictate what people spend money on. One can't take children off people simply for being poor, so it's pretty much inevitable that the system is going to be abused occasionally.

I think the answer lies in education and reform of the benefit system to allow people to claim whilst in college. People aren't going to work if it leaves them poorer than when they started and I can't say I really blame them. I've been there - signed on and offered work, which I took. I was paid £100 for my shift and when I declared it, the jobcentre took £95 out of my dole, leaving me with a fiver. Which was my petrol. Which meant I'd done an 11hr shift for nothing at all... I mean, would you?

But they might just be persuaded to get a trade for the same money.
 
#17
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.
Trouble is if you are on low wages, with inflation lowering the value of your earnings and eroding your savings, its difficult to build anything up.
Your assumption dosnt take into account a few periods of unemployment in your working life.
Some people in work were suckered in to getting mortgaged to the hilt to benefit in later life, so any drop in income or unexpected expense there is no slack to cover it.
 
#18
The trouble is that it's the kids you're looking after - in theory, at least. We all know a professional dolie and whadda ya know? They've all got kids.

I had to sign on a couple of years ago and **** me, £62 a week didn't get me far. Certainly, it's not an amount you can survive on for a long period of time. It buys food and that's it, really... but of course, you need more than food.

What a conundrum though. One can't expect children to live miserable and impoverished lives in a civilised country. One can't stop people breeding. One can't dictate what people spend money on. One can't take children off people simply for being poor, so it's pretty much inevitable that the system is going to be abused occasionally.

I think the answer lies in education and reform of the benefit system to allow people to claim whilst in college. People aren't going to work if it leaves them poorer than when they started and I can't say I really blame them. I've been there - signed on and offered work, which I took. I was paid £100 for my shift and when I declared it, the jobcentre took £95 out of my dole, leaving me with a fiver. Which was my petrol. Which meant I'd done an 11hr shift for nothing at all... I mean, would you?

But they might just be persuaded to get a trade for the same money.
Just phase out child benefit then any money saved raise the tax threshold, so if you work you pay less tax regardless of children or not.

People shoulds not be allowed to claim in college, but you should be able to do some work and not take a big hit in dole money.
 
#19
I had to sign on a couple of years ago and **** me, £62 a week didn't get me far.
62 quid would be tricky to get by on although not impossible. The thing is your average professional dolie isn't on just 62 quid. They know how the system works and how to get the most out of it. If they put as much thought and effort into an honest days work as they put into getting their entitlements they'd probably be quite well off!

What a conundrum though. One can't expect children to live miserable and impoverished lives in a civilised country. One can't stop people breeding. One can't dictate what people spend money on. One can't take children off people simply for being poor, so it's pretty much inevitable that the system is going to be abused occasionally.
Why can't you stop people breeding? Having endless offspring isn't a right, it's a choice.
You can guarantee that if any government were to actually grow a set of balls and say no increase of benefits over say 2 kids then you'd find a lot of people discovering birth control very quickly.
It's hardly surprising for people who've probably been raised themselves within a benefits dependent family, the more kids you have, the more money you get.
It would take some harsh government policy to get people out of this mindset and there'll never be a completely fair system but as it is now it's unsustainable.
I've mentioned before on this subject, a few years back I'm stood in the queue at the post office behind a pair of young girls (probably around 19-22 years old). They're in there to collect what they like calling their 'wages' and one is complaining to the other that after she's got fags and drink for the week and some clothes and cds then there's hardly any left over to feed the baby. But her mother had told her that she should simply have another kid or two for the extra money. That is the kind of thinking that needs to stop.

I think the answer lies in education and reform of the benefit system to allow people to claim whilst in college. People aren't going to work if it leaves them poorer than when they started and I can't say I really blame them. I've been there - signed on and offered work, which I took. I was paid £100 for my shift and when I declared it, the jobcentre took £95 out of my dole, leaving me with a fiver. Which was my petrol. Which meant I'd done an 11hr shift for nothing at all... I mean, would you?

But they might just be persuaded to get a trade for the same money.
Personally I would have preferred putting in the shift for my money rather than wanting to just be given it, and I'd like to think the majority of people would be the same. It's the sense of pride in that you've earned your own money, when it comes down to it what's the difference between someone expecting other people to pay their way through life and someone begging in the street? Both want something for nothing.
As for college, there's plenty of work out there for people with no further education. The long term unemployed just won't take those jobs as they don't pay all that much and they don't want to put the hours of work in to get not much more than they can be given for doing nothing. Again, that's down to personal pride.

It is a quite ludicrous situation in this country when we have millions out of work but at the same time have millions of immigrants moving here to work and earn.

Sent by carrier pigeon using Speckled Jim
 

Drivers_lag

On ROPS
On ROPs
#20
The point was that I was marginally worse off for having done a day's work. No-one in their right mind wants to be worse off than £62 a week.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top