Should people collecting state benifits have to work for them?

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by BuggerAll, Jan 3, 2012.

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. BuggerAll

    BuggerAll LE Reviewer Book Reviewer

    Why shouldn't people who receive state benefits work for them? If you want Job Seekers Allowance (JSA) £67.50 per week then you should do 11 hours work a week at the minimum wage of £6.08

    Of course JSA is the tiny tip of the iceberg of benefits and allowances. You want housing allowance. The current cap at £340 per week would require 50 hours of work. This could of course be divided up among the 'family unit' beneficiaries.

    What sort of work? Anything that needs doing or would be nice to do and the taxpayer can't afford to do at the moment. Whether it's street cleaning, planting trees at the National Arbouretum, painting and decorating schools, ditto barracks and police stations.... Work required by charities...

    If the work is difficult or unpleasant then the 'pay' rate could go up.

    I've seen some estimates that the top scroungers are getting the equivalent of £40,000 pas or more. Why shouldn't they work for it?
    • Like Like x 5
  2. Was it in the Daily Mail that you saw these "estimates" Do not believe anything you read in the Daily Mail
  3. Sounds good to me, but it will never happen.

    If the gub'mint ever grows a collective pair and tries to implement such measures, you will hear a loud groaning sound; that's the sound of thousands of Human Rights lawyers all having an orgasm at the same time.

    There's already a similar scheme in America, I believe.
    • Like Like x 1
  4. If they can't turn up for community service, how do we expect them to turn up for these tasks?

    I'm not saying it's a bad idea. It's been mentioned many times throughout the forum (I think you've pointed it out in another couple of threads) but our system is so steeped in pointless ******* beauraucracy and liberal pre-caution that there'll be some bollocks in the way about human rights and forcing people to work to keep a roof over their heads.

    Not to mention countless false claims of: "I have a new baby at home, I am disabled, I am unqualified (to pick litter off the streets)" and so on and so forth. Then there's all the employment legislation involved and whether or not it complies with EU rules on working hours and pay and conditions.

    You know what it's like, mate. We've dug ourselves a massive hole with the scroungers and we are never, ever getting out of it because the UK has a system that more or less enables tossers to think they know better and that they shouldn't be touched in any way. Politicians are too scared to crack down on it, for fear of a few mistakes with genuine benefit claimants, and the courts are too afraid to implement that kind of legislation.

    It IS a stellar idea, yep, and I'm absolutely certain that most ARRSERS and members of the British public will agree with you. Christ, in my opinion it's the true defenition of socialism - after all don't you have to give to society to get back? - but it just wouldn't work.

    There are probably a lot of good, honest people unfortunate enough to be claiming job-seekers who would be glad of the opportunity, shame they have to suffer at the hands of the retarded masses.
  5. What does it matter where he got the estimates?

    He ******* knows for a fact that the top scroungers are making that money. It's been in every paper - local and national - around the country for a few years now and the Government don't deny it.
  6. IMHO this one has been done to death on here repeatedly. What I would permit (not make compulsory, though) is Jobseekers to take part in a certain amount of voluntary work a week.

    Surely that would demonstrate a work ethic, give some pride to the long-term unemployed and benefit local communities. In my rare periods without a contract I was applying for many jobs a day but realistically speaking for anyone with any gumption this isn't full-time work & can be soul-destroyingly dull...
    • Like Like x 2

  7. Just shows that if you repeat a lie often enough that people will start to believe it.
  8. Okay, mate, you win. I back down.

    However, I'm curious to know if you agree that the colour black is, indeed, black.
  9. Over here they have the same sort of deal.

    You get X euros as a basic benefit and then get offered a "help society job" for which you can earn an extra 1 euro an hour.

    If you refuse 3 of these or get reported for not attending/******* up then you not only lose your extra 1euro but they also dock your benefit by up to 30%.

    Only problem with the system is that some charitable organisations have promptly sacked all their part time workers as they can get these ein-euro types for free.
  10. That's a solid idea and it avoids all the political and legal hand-wringing but it'll probably be too costly to implement as only about 3% of the jobseeking population (a hyperbole, Westpoint, not a ******* daily mail quote) are genuinely good people who want to do any work and thus nobody would turn up.
  11. There are grey areas.
    • Like Like x 1
  12. I'm in favour of the principle but reckon the cost of monitoring would exceed the cost of the current system. If we're going to pull benefits from people who don't work we need a) to identify jobs for them to do (which are not likely to be permanent tasks but more likely odd-jobs) and b) someone to make sure they're doing them (another nasty, tax-stealing public sector worker). It all depends on what triumphs in the minds of the electorate - wanting to see those on benefits doing something for them; or wanting a tax cut at the next election.

    I know what my money's on.
  13. Please give the citation and the source for these estimates.
  14. Don't worry YMP, I think Westpoint's a scouser and therefore expects to get everything handed to him

    Of course if any government had any sort of bollocks to implement a deal like this there would be a rush for people claiming compensation for being forced to do demeaning forced labour.

    The only way the untermensch will ever get off their lazy jobless arses is if there were limits put on overall benefits income, that would be under what low paid workers get.
    Then it would be in their own interest to get some sort of work, instead of now where they see it as their right to get paid for doing nothing and that employment would actually mean a drop in their income
  15. It is true. I knew of a person, I will repeat that I (PERSONALLY) knew someone who was earning more than my good self in benefits. Unless you could explain 4 kids, two adults (niether worked) a house the same as mine, and a new car on the drive... not to mention tvs, computers video games etc for the kids.

    I was a Full screw at the time, I am sure he said he was pulling hte equivalent to £28,000 at the time.

    You also get a lot of 'housing benefit' and other 'benefits' that add up to what we would call a 'wage'.


    Yes, they should work. I don't care if that work is 'sitting in a room' for the alloted time. Graffiti cleaned/painted over, road kill picked up, road signs cleaned, litter collected from streets, roads and motorways, recyclables collected daily from houses. Sorted by prisons. Voluntary work ie at shops could be used too.

    Remove the daft legislation. Someone working in their own time, would turn up to work for 'dole' too, so there is no breach of benefits rules... one person, one hour, one pay. If they have a internet business like e-bay too... well done.
    • Like Like x 1