Welfare reforms unveiled - but will they work?

#2
All well and good, but with mass redundancy and fewer jobs available, wages dropping as employers see an opportunity to lower wages as they have 50+ applicants per role, what do the gov't plan to do to increase available work for those who want it?
 
#3
All well and good, but with mass redundancy and fewer jobs available, wages dropping as employers see an opportunity to lower wages as they have 50+ applicants per role, what do the gov't plan to do to increase available work for those who want it?

To be brutally honest and blunt. It is not the business of Government to create jobs. It is the business of Government to make it possible for people to create jobs, by starting new businesses, by taking on more staff, by investing in companies and ideas, by investing in R&D and making it worth their while to do so.

Anything that impedes that process is, by and large, a very bad thing.
 
#4
I have a plan. Eliminate unemployment benefit entirely. Make the same amount of money available but only to those who turn up and do an honest day's work picking up litter and other community related projects. Hey presto, unemployment figures down, "big society" sorted.
 
#5
#7
I'd say that £26,000 is FAR too high!
My local bus company in Herts, Arriva, is currently advertising for drivers and offering UP TO £400 per week. I think that's for a minimum 40 hours and includes overtime / shift working premium.
Don't forget, someone working would have to be on about £34k a year to have the same take home income as someone on £26k of benefits.
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
#9
I'd say that £26,000 is FAR too high!
My local bus company in Herts, Arriva, is currently advertising for drivers and offering UP TO £400 per week. I think that's for a minimum 40 hours and includes overtime / shift working premium.
Come on! Be fair!!

£400 pw for 40 hours equals £10 per hour

£26,000 per annum only equates to £2.96 ph as these twats are idle 24 hours a day/7 days a week/52 weeks a year !!!!!! :(
 
#10
Come on! Be fair!!

£400 pw for 40 hours equals £10 per hour

£26,000 per annum only equates to £2.96 ph as these twats are idle 24 hours a day/7 days a week/52 weeks a year !!!!!! :(


I can see Blinky Balls's next announcement -

'Con-Dems to force the unemployed to live on less than the minimum wage!'
 
#11
Come on! Be fair!!

£400 pw for 40 hours equals £10 per hour

£26,000 per annum only equates to £2.96 ph as these twats are idle 24 hours a day/7 days a week/52 weeks a year !!!!!! :(
Bus drivers should get £26,000 per year as well, then! They spend most of their working lives sitting down...
 
#12
I can see Blinky Balls's next announcement -

'Con-Dems to force the unemployed to live on less than the minimum wage!'
You think you're joking...
 
#13
HOUSING BENEFITS

Dangerous area for risking votes here! However restricting housing benefit cost to the bottom 30% of properties in a district is a start.

What needs to progress from there is that, particularly if someone has arried from 300 miles away, there shoul be no obligation on London Boroughs, for example, with high property rentals, to house them. There is no alleigance to London as an area, this has been by pure choice. They should be made aware of cheaper property rentals only another few hundred miles further North.

DISABILITY BENEFIT

Disbility benefits needed A MAJOR SHAKE UP. "Disabled or not" is totally the wrong Question.

We need a sliding scale from people who are genuinely unable to do any form of work, of a 100% of whatever allowance is agreed.
Then, for people able to do some form or work for as few or for many hours of the week, this would reduce.

In general terms we should be measuring "HOW ABLE IS SOMEONE TO WORK?"; not asking how "HOW DISABLED?"

MOBILITY
What are we doing (bar propping up the motor retail industry), by providing new cars to people who would never had or needed a new car in their life, unless thrown at them? The misuse of these vehicles, lent to relatives or used primarliy by another family member for their own business is widespread.
A pure mobility allowance would allow people to chosse and pay for transport to suit that purpose.


TOP UP TO BENEFITS BY WORKING

I sense something of a new trap opening here - will people in low paid jobs become unemployed, so they can go on benefits for a time, then get the increased money? Has it, I wonder been thought thtorugh?
 
#14
Perhaps "social" housing should be made more accessible to low income working families. Instead of charging a fixed rent maybe a percentage of income (say 20% of the highest earners gross) should be the cost. Phase out housing benefit and charge benefit claimants this amount as it is proportionate to income.

It will allow working families better access to social housing and non working families a better incentive to actually get a job instead of having their housing handed to them on a plate.
 
#15
Child benefit only to be paid for , say , three or four children , you have any more then it stays at only the amount for three or four , put a stop to those having dozen or more and raking in thousands on benefit
 
#16
When Child benefit was originally brought in, nothing was paid for number 1. It was considered that was a choice/planned birth. Then it reversed and now the rate is £20.30 for chile number 1 as it is classed as an expense, then £13 for everyone after that. In the 60's Labour introduced a rate so skilled workers got benefit for the first 6 months out of work to get them a bit of a cushion to help them find a job but still pay the bills. We now have the situation where the unskilled and useless get paid MORE than they could hope to earn in employment because they have the IQ of a box of rocks or are unemployable. The poor s#ds in the middle who are doing lower paid jobs to maintain their families are the worse off. Why should a single parent or asylum seeker/overseas worker live in accommodation they could not pay for if they were working? You or I could not do this and it's time this was sorted. Ironically before the last election, Ed (Red) Milliband wrote that he did not see it as fair that unemployed people should be housed in accommodation that they would not be able to afford if they were working and Labour would look at this. Funny how things turn round, isn't it?
 
#17
The optimist in me say 'about time the cap was introduced' while the cynic in me wants to know when the ideological shoe will drop and we'll find the same old pandering to folk whose vote they need that every politician does.
 
#18
The optimist in me say 'about time the cap was introduced' while the cynic in me wants to know when the ideological shoe will drop and we'll find the same old pandering to folk whose vote they need that every politician does.
You may be correct, however, in the unlikely event that Cameron has some grasp on reality, he will realise that there are more votes in sticking to the policy.

Basically one will never get the useless parasites to vote Conservative and there are a lot of workers who will vote for anybody who gives the idle what they deserve, i.e. nothing.
 
#19
You may be correct, however, in the unlikely event that Cameron has some grasp on reality, he will realise that there are more votes in sticking to the policy.

Basically one will never get the useless parasites to vote Conservative and there are a lot of workers who will vote for anybody who gives the idle what they deserve, i.e. nothing.
I was thinking more in terms of slashing away like a dervish on poppers to simply to appease their constituency parties rather than attempting to bribe doleys to vote Conservative. I'm a big believer in the need for welfare reform and particularly the cap on total benefits. I just don't trust politicians to deliver an impartial reform package. They will always play to the gallery one way or another.

We all know what Labour did, I'm cynical about how capable the current government are of defining a 'reasonable' job offer when the people driving their agenda are so out of touch with the people who find themselves on benefits through no fault of their own. I think they'll trample that sort in their eagerness to get at the one who make headlines in the Mail.
 
#20
You may be correct, however, in the unlikely event that Cameron has some grasp on reality, he will realise that there are more votes in sticking to the policy.
Myabe but how many higher tax payers moaned when their child benefit stopped? How many people with kids going to university are bumping their gums about the fees. Telling anyone to stand on their own feet is a hard thing to do.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top