FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > national community service???
national community service???
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
"thought about this after reading another thread about people on benefits. what are peoples opinions on a form of national community service. now i am not talking about slave labour or anything but people doing some sort of community work to earn the benefits that they get, so they work an equivalent number of hours at minumum wage to the amount of benefit they get. so someone getting say £80 a week does as many hours at the relevant rate, up to the £80 I am not talking about these people doing jobs that would put people out of work but supplementing those people. There is always litter to clear up and old folks gardens and loads of other jobs like maintaining parks and play areas, that need doing so why not have them doing things like that under the supervision of the usual full time workers. That way if they show willing, the supervisors will give them good references so they can apply for other jobs with more hours and better pay. It would also help to get people into the routine of getting up and clocking in and out etc. i know families in Birmingham where they are now 4 generation, where there is no working adult in the family. The kids grow up with no concept of a working schedule. just an idea and wondered what peoples opinions are.... " I think there are plenty of politicians in the house of commons sat on their cushions all day generating hot air that could be put to better use on schemes like this... bravo, what a capital idea. Wolf 
| |||
 | |||
"thought about this after reading another thread about people on benefits. what are peoples opinions on a form of national community service. now i am not talking about slave labour or anything but people doing some sort of community work to earn the benefits that they get, so they work an equivalent number of hours at minumum wage to the amount of benefit they get. so someone getting say £80 a week does as many hours at the relevant rate, up to the £80 I am not talking about these people doing jobs that would put people out of work but supplementing those people. There is always litter to clear up and old folks gardens and loads of other jobs like maintaining parks and play areas, that need doing so why not have them doing things like that under the supervision of the usual full time workers. That way if they show willing, the supervisors will give them good references so they can apply for other jobs with more hours and better pay. It would also help to get people into the routine of getting up and clocking in and out etc. i know families in Birmingham where they are now 4 generation, where there is no working adult in the family. The kids grow up with no concept of a working schedule. just an idea and wondered what peoples opinions are.... I think there are plenty of politicians in the house of commons sat on their cushions all day generating hot air that could be put to better use on schemes like this... bravo, what a capital idea. Wolf
"i dont want to be drawn into a long argument about politicians. At the end of the day they put themselves forward and we vote them in. I am talking about people who choose a life on benefits because they think its an easy option. and to add, i know a few politicians from both sides of the house and none of them work less than about 70 hours per week but thats a topic for a different thread. | |||
"not realy a good idea. "why do you think that? i personally believe that they should be made to earn their living (if they can!) i know that recently there was uproar about people being made to work for companies for their benefits but they were being made to work a lot of hours and it brought their hourly 'wage' to below minimum. that isnt fair. But there are lots of things that they can do, such as litter colecting, working for charities etc Why should they get to sit around and get paid for it? | |||
"not realy a good idea. "a valid opinion but why do you think this? | |||
"not realy a good idea.
a valid opinion but why do you think this?"I am consistantly against this idea. If there is comunity work which needs doing, then people should be amployed in doing it in proper jobs paying proper wages. You can almost guarantee that if people on benefits are dragooned into doing a variety of unskilled jobs then anyone who is properly employed doing similar jobs will be laid off and the employer will get in people on the 'National Service Scheme' (or whatever it is called. I am on the dole, at the moment, and am spending a lot of time looking for work. However, there are very few jobs out there not being recruited for by Employement Agencies. It is dificult, therefore, to look for a job for the regulation 4 hours a day because you end up phoning or emailing the same agencies time and time again. There are only so many times you can issue out a speculative emails (the cost of postage, paper and printer ink would be prohibative for real mail). I don't care to comment about removing benefits from people who are not looking for work because, since I can only realy efectively look for work for about 2 hours a day having walked most of the streets in Liverpool and could be accused of the same myself. If we want to get people off the dole, we ned to create lots of jobs. Only the government can do this. It plays right up the Governments street (of both Red Blue and Yellow) for us to turn on each other making relatively unsubstatiated claims about people on the dole as it deflects our attention from those at the other end of society who's tax whezes and sharp practices costs at least 10 times the money to the exchequer.......... | |||
| |||
| |||
"i have never claimed any benefit so have no clue what the rate it, someone above said it was £80 a week so will take that as the right amount National minumum wage is what? £6 something? so to make them work hours commensurate with that they would have to work 13 and a half hours a week. given that you just said that you can only look for work around 2 hours a day, 10 hours a week, you are still 'working' less that a full time employee i still dont see the problem here" thats my point entirely. no one would get laid off, if fact you can increase the pay for the employed people because would be supervising teh community workers. i am talking about local authorities, not private companies just using people for cheap labour. Authorities would not be allowed to make job cuts, they would just be utilising an otherwise unused labour facilty to supplement the work of the usual workers. The country is turning into a shit hole so lets use the resources we have to make it a better place. You cannot just create jobs, there ill always be people out of work but if the rest of the country are paying for them to live, then they should at least pay something back in time. they wont have to work full time, it would just be part time, say 10 to 15 hours per week leaving pelnt of time for them to look for better paid employment. It gives the country better value for the money it spends, it woudl make the the country a better tidier place and give people some purpose, experience and help them develop skills they may otherwise not have. i employ a young man who did community service as a punishment, and he used it to develop his skills in garden maintenance. He now has a full time job for me as a gardener and handyman. | |||
"thought about this after reading another thread about people on benefits. what are peoples opinions on a form of national community service. now i am not talking about slave labour or anything but people doing some sort of community work to earn the benefits that they get, so they work an equivalent number of hours at minumum wage to the amount of benefit they get. so someone getting say £80 a week does as many hours at the relevant rate, up to the £80 I am not talking about these people doing jobs that would put people out of work but supplementing those people. There is always litter to clear up and old folks gardens and loads of other jobs like maintaining parks and play areas, that need doing so why not have them doing things like that under the supervision of the usual full time workers. That way if they show willing, the supervisors will give them good references so they can apply for other jobs with more hours and better pay. It would also help to get people into the routine of getting up and clocking in and out etc. i know families in Birmingham where they are now 4 generation, where there is no working adult in the family. The kids grow up with no concept of a working schedule. just an idea and wondered what peoples opinions are.... " Having a dig at people on benefits is a superb way of turning people on low incomes against people on very low incomes and deflecting attention from the fact that the rich are shafting us all in a big way. | |||
"i have never claimed any benefit so have no clue what the rate it, someone above said it was £80 a week so will take that as the right amount National minumum wage is what? £6 something? so to make them work hours commensurate with that they would have to work 13 and a half hours a week. given that you just said that you can only look for work around 2 hours a day, 10 hours a week, you are still 'working' less that a full time employee i still dont see the problem here" A single person receives about £60 a week, and he rarely gets all his rent paid unless his rent is under the Local Housing Allowance rate but is expected to make up the shortfall from his Jobseekers Allowance (which I think is now called something else). | |||
"not realy a good idea.
a valid opinion but why do you think this? I am consistantly against this idea.
If there is comunity work which needs doing, then people should be amployed in doing it in proper jobs paying proper wages.
You can almost guarantee that if people on benefits are dragooned into doing a variety of unskilled jobs then anyone who is properly employed doing similar jobs will be laid off and the employer will get in people on the 'National Service Scheme' (or whatever it is called.
I am on the dole, at the moment, and am spending a lot of time looking for work. However, there are very few jobs out there not being recruited for by Employement Agencies. It is dificult, therefore, to look for a job for the regulation 4 hours a day because you end up phoning or emailing the same agencies time and time again. There are only so many times you can issue out a speculative emails (the cost of postage, paper and printer ink would be prohibative for real mail).
I don't care to comment about removing benefits from people who are not looking for work because, since I can only realy efectively look for work for about 2 hours a day having walked most of the streets in Liverpool and could be accused of the same myself.
If we want to get people off the dole, we ned to create lots of jobs. Only the government can do this. It plays right up the Governments street (of both Red Blue and Yellow) for us to turn on each other making relatively unsubstatiated claims about people on the dole as it deflects our attention from those at the other end of society who's tax whezes and sharp practices costs at least 10 times the money to the exchequer.........." | |||
| |||
"[Removed by poster at 11/07/12 22:20:28]" You shouldn't have removed this, I thought it was a very good post....... | |||
"thought about this after reading another thread about people on benefits. what are peoples opinions on a form of national community service. now i am not talking about slave labour or anything but people doing some sort of community work to earn the benefits that they get, so they work an equivalent number of hours at minumum wage to the amount of benefit they get. so someone getting say £80 a week does as many hours at the relevant rate, up to the £80 I am not talking about these people doing jobs that would put people out of work but supplementing those people. There is always litter to clear up and old folks gardens and loads of other jobs like maintaining parks and play areas, that need doing so why not have them doing things like that under the supervision of the usual full time workers. That way if they show willing, the supervisors will give them good references so they can apply for other jobs with more hours and better pay. It would also help to get people into the routine of getting up and clocking in and out etc. i know families in Birmingham where they are now 4 generation, where there is no working adult in the family. The kids grow up with no concept of a working schedule. just an idea and wondered what peoples opinions are.... Having a dig at people on benefits is a superb way of turning people on low incomes against people on very low incomes and deflecting attention from the fact that the rich are shafting us all in a big way. " the rich will always shaft us, its been happening for centuries and will continue to happen for centuries more...what do you propose we do about it? i still stand by my question..Why should people who make a career of being on benefits be allowed to sit on their arses while i go out to work? if we all had their attitude where would we be then? Not to mention that by making them work for their money they are gaining work experience, they are more able to rehabilitate into the workforce because they havent been able to sleep in till lunchtime (believe me, i have managed those who have been long time unemployed and i know what a culture shock a 9-5 life is for them) | |||
"not realy a good idea. "I'm with you on this one. Im not gonna explain why so don't ask. | |||
| |||
| |||
"But some people already do hours of community service rather than jail time, I know one guy who has painted public toilets, removed grafitti,litter picked the beaches, done council flower beds and gardens, cut old peoples grass ...... all on hours of community service. " Yep, community service is a direct alternative to custody. Whats gonna happen when all these jobs are taken by people claiming benefits?? Are we going to be faced with an even lager jail population as there's no longer an alternative to offer the Courts? | |||
"the rich will always shaft us, its been happening for centuries and will continue to happen for centuries more...what do you propose we do about it? i still stand by my question..Why should people who make a career of being on benefits be allowed to sit on their arses while i go out to work? if we all had their attitude where would we be then? Not to mention that by making them work for their money they are gaining work experience, they are more able to rehabilitate into the workforce because they havent been able to sleep in till lunchtime (believe me, i have managed those who have been long time unemployed and i know what a culture shock a 9-5 life is for them)" I do agree that people on long term benefits need to be shifted off them, but these people are the tiny minority (from what statistics I have seen from ONS). The argument is always stilted towards 'people on benefits' and once you drive that wedge in, it's easy to crack the gap further open. As to what we can do to stop the rich fucking us over, well there are a few. A) Stop people thinking that just because they work in a call centre (and wear a white collar) thinking that they are middle class (or rather, help them to understand that they are still working class). Stop deamonising the Working class as necesarily ignorant or lazy Chavs (or plebs, as I have ranted at before) We aren't. We are the ones who do the work which makes the money to let the rich get rich. B) Re unionise. I don't just mean make everywhere a Union workplace, but help people to see that democratic workers representation is the best way forward to making our (and I mean those at the botom) working life better and more profitable. Unity is Strength IS NOT an anachronism. An individual employee can be treated like shit so long as the rest of the workforce are scared of being treated the same or being singled out. Together we can stand up for a fair days (or weeks or months) pay for a fair days work. Just a couple, but I don't need to rewrite the comunist manifesto, or even the constitution of the Labour Party, they are already there........ | |||
 | |||
"thought about this after reading another thread about people on benefits. what are peoples opinions on a form of national community service. now i am not talking about slave labour or anything but people doing some sort of community work to earn the benefits that they get, so they work an equivalent number of hours at minumum wage to the amount of benefit they get. so someone getting say £80 a week does as many hours at the relevant rate, up to the £80 I am not talking about these people doing jobs that would put people out of work but supplementing those people. There is always litter to clear up and old folks gardens and loads of other jobs like maintaining parks and play areas, that need doing so why not have them doing things like that under the supervision of the usual full time workers. That way if they show willing, the supervisors will give them good references so they can apply for other jobs with more hours and better pay. It would also help to get people into the routine of getting up and clocking in and out etc. i know families in Birmingham where they are now 4 generation, where there is no working adult in the family. The kids grow up with no concept of a working schedule. just an idea and wondered what peoples opinions are.... Having a dig at people on benefits is a superb way of turning people on low incomes against people on very low incomes and deflecting attention from the fact that the rich are shafting us all in a big way. " i havent had a dig at them...... i just suggested that insated of being given free money they do at least some work to earn it...... and why is it people think the rich are shafting people???? most rich people are that way because they have worked hard to earn it. in only a very few cases is it given to them. what is wrong with asking people on benefits to contribute some time to do something contructive or should we just keep giving it to them??? | |||
"i have never claimed any benefit so have no clue what the rate it, someone above said it was £80 a week so will take that as the right amount National minumum wage is what? £6 something? so to make them work hours commensurate with that they would have to work 13 and a half hours a week. given that you just said that you can only look for work around 2 hours a day, 10 hours a week, you are still 'working' less that a full time employee i still dont see the problem here A single person receives about £60 a week, and he rarely gets all his rent paid unless his rent is under the Local Housing Allowance rate but is expected to make up the shortfall from his Jobseekers Allowance (which I think is now called something else). " how much they get is immaterial here. its about doing something to earn what they do get. no one should be made to work 40 hours for that sort of money. my son is 18, he doesnt get benefits, he has a part time job in a hotel doing 18 hours per week, so he gets very much the same as he would on the dole. He actually thinks working for beneift is a good idea too. he is getting experience and we know one dya it will help him when applying for full time jobs. | |||
"What a load of bollocks!! If there is litter needing picked up, employ more street cleaners, if the parks need cleaned up, employ more parkies!! I can just see thousands of unemployed going out and doing menial jobs for minimum pay!! NOT!!! Next thing that would happen is, the council decides they don't need as many binmen because all those unemployed are doing it! What happens? Sack them and get them back as slave labour???" No..... there would be rules in place to stop councils doing that. they would be used to supplement the full time workforce. anyway.. whats wrong with doing menial jobs for minimum wage????? there are thousands of people, cleaners, bar staff,chamber maids, gardeners all over the country doing that every day and most are proud of the fact that they earn their own keep instead of expecting the someone else to give them the money for free.. i did it when i was younger, i worked in all sorts of jobs for less, before minimum wage was even introduced and i have never claimed one penny of benefits. its a culture choice for some people now and it has to stop somewhere. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"What about people on benifits because of health problems" i have no problem if people have health problems and if incapable of work then fine, that is what the disabilty benefit system is for. having said that there are a number of people with health problems that can still contribute. as i have said before on other threads, i employ 85 people in my business, i also employ people with health problems, doing jobs within their capabilties and they make a tremendous contribution. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Wot about the people who are signing on and only getting their stamp paid, they are already discriminated against because they have to pay out for the transport to interviews, the paper for letters, postage, telephone calls etc for no money - how would they fit into the scheme of working - would they then get paid for those hours that they do the community work - therefore getting some money instead of none??? " if they dont get any money then, no, they wouldnt be expected to work.. we are just talking about people that get cash in their hand. why do they only get stamp paid?? is it because they have savings or some other support??? i dont know so cant really comment. i know it wouldnt be perfect but it would be a way of tackling the problems of people who make a life choice not to work, and just claim dole money. There would also be a period of say 6 months before they would be required to do any work for their dole money. Would give them time to look for better work if they wanted to. Look,we all know it wouldnt be a perfect system, none of them are, but we now live in a society where, unfortunately, there are a large number of people who choose not to work. The welfare state was set up to help the unfortunate who couldnt get work, not to give people a choice of working or not. It has become a lifestyle choice where it was designed as a safety net. This has to stop somewhere. | |||
"i have a heart problem and will need surgery one day in the not too distant future,i have worked all my life and paid my dues. Now when i need help i get fook all n told i can use my hands so i can use a key board and get a typing job. Theae people dnt know me or my medical condition and some may think im a scroungers but i dnt care. I have a very good Cardiologist who will tell if and when im fit to work again. Till then i will continue to claim what ive paid in for 32 yrs" _acci, i fully understand your situation and of course there will be cases where a community work scheme would not apply. This sort of system would be designed for people who choose not to work, not people unable to work due to medical conditions. people who have worked and contributed shoudl be able to get the money they deserve. The idea in the OP was about the ones who have never contributed and dont want to work. | |||
"What about people on benifits because of health problems" Can of worms or kettle of fish? You decide, the choice is yours.  | |||
"i have a heart problem and will need surgery one day in the not too distant future,i have worked all my life and paid my dues. Now when i need help i get fook all n told i can use my hands so i can use a key board and get a typing job. Theae people dnt know me or my medical condition and some may think im a scroungers but i dnt care. I have a very good Cardiologist who will tell if and when im fit to work again. Till then i will continue to claim what ive paid in for 32 yrs _acci, i fully understand your situation and of course there will be cases where a community work scheme would not apply. This sort of system would be designed for people who choose not to work, not people unable to work due to medical conditions. people who have worked and contributed shoudl be able to get the money they deserve. The idea in the OP was about the ones who have never contributed and dont want to work." the new rules for getting people off incapacity benefit telling them they are capable of work are wrong - as Jacci said if u can put one hand on a keyboard u dont qualify there are a list of 17 criteria that the Government assess u on - to meet the requirement u have to have 15 of those points - which is nigh on impossible to get cos they are not disability based - if u dont meet the criteria u then have to apply for jobseekers cos u are fit to work - if u have been on incapacity benefit for the past x amount of years u dont qualify for the benefit, just get to have your stamp paid, despite your Nat 1 contributions being paid for u whilst u were claiming incapacity benefit - so therefore u are in the situation sign on for your stamp to protect your pension if u need to protect it - and try and get a job proving that u are doing everything u can - even though u know an employer will not take u on because u havent been in the workforce for so long and in most cases cannot guarantee being able to do the job anyway - check out whether u need your stamp to be paid cos you only need 30 years nat contributions now (men and women) to get your pension - and become someone who doesnt appear on any of the Governments lists - not on any benefit so therefore the Government have reduced another person off of their "sick" list and saved money and the person has to survive with nothing .......totally unfair. | |||
"i havent had a dig at them...... i just suggested that insated of being given free money they do at least some work to earn it...... " Which is a dig, sorry, but it's true | |||
"i havent had a dig at them...... i just suggested that insated of being given free money they do at least some work to earn it...... Which is a dig, sorry, but it's true" gonna have to agree to disagree then. not a dig at them, but maybe a dig at the system that allows it to happen. so just answer me one question. why should i, a hard working business man, pay for someone else to sit at home playing playstation and watching jezza. i know its not everyone on benefits but believe me i know loads of people who have never worked a day in their lives and have no intention doing so. that, to me, is unfair and i would be much happier to see my money going to someone who at least does some work to pay it back and make the country a nicer place to live. | |||
"i havent had a dig at them...... i just suggested that insated of being given free money they do at least some work to earn it...... Which is a dig, sorry, but it's true gonna have to agree to disagree then. not a dig at them, but maybe a dig at the system that allows it to happen. so just answer me one question. why should i, a hard working business man, pay for someone else to sit at home playing playstation and watching jezza. i know its not everyone on benefits but believe me i know loads of people who have never worked a day in their lives and have no intention doing so. that, to me, is unfair and i would be much happier to see my money going to someone who at least does some work to pay it back and make the country a nicer place to live. " Well I won't engage in imotive language, let's try a Keynseyan argument...... Someone on the dole spends every penny that they get. There is no reserve. That means that every penny they get goes back into the ecconomy as demand stimulus........ You, as a business man, save (say) 50% of you income (that's an arbitrary figure, if it's too much of your income don't make a masive point of it, just roll with the concept). your savings are dead money, goin towards paying of a bank's bad loans and stimulating no demand........ | |||
| |||
"i havent had a dig at them...... i just suggested that insated of being given free money they do at least some work to earn it...... Which is a dig, sorry, but it's true gonna have to agree to disagree then. not a dig at them, but maybe a dig at the system that allows it to happen. so just answer me one question. why should i, a hard working business man, pay for someone else to sit at home playing playstation and watching jezza. i know its not everyone on benefits but believe me i know loads of people who have never worked a day in their lives and have no intention doing so. that, to me, is unfair and i would be much happier to see my money going to someone who at least does some work to pay it back and make the country a nicer place to live. Well I won't engage in imotive language, let's try a Keynseyan argument...... Someone on the dole spends every penny that they get. There is no reserve. That means that every penny they get goes back into the ecconomy as demand stimulus........ You, as a business man, save (say) 50% of you income (that's an arbitrary figure, if it's too much of your income don't make a masive point of it, just roll with the concept). your savings are dead money, goin towards paying of a bank's bad loans and stimulating no demand........" i think i do more than my share for the economy and stimulating demand. i spend my money too which stimulates demand in the same way, if not more,than someone on benefits spends theirs,so that argument doesnt work I, or my company, pay more in taxes into the treasury than most people earn in about 4 or 5 years. I dont save my 'spare' money, i reinvest it, mainly in property which i renovate thus creating work for tradesmen. i certainly dont shove it in the bank as dead money. I currently employ 85 people in jobs paying 25% over the average rates with good working conditions. i just dont seem it is unfair to expect someone who gets paid money to live on, from the pot of money that i pay into, to st least do some work in exchange for it. i know there are people who dont want to be on the dole i know there are people who cant work because of health issues. but there are people who have never contributed, never intend to contribute yet are the first in the queue for free money. They are the ones that i feel need to contribute some effort into what they get. | |||
"i havent had a dig at them...... i just suggested that insated of being given free money they do at least some work to earn it...... Which is a dig, sorry, but it's true gonna have to agree to disagree then. not a dig at them, but maybe a dig at the system that allows it to happen. so just answer me one question. why should i, a hard working business man, pay for someone else to sit at home playing playstation and watching jezza. i know its not everyone on benefits but believe me i know loads of people who have never worked a day in their lives and have no intention doing so. that, to me, is unfair and i would be much happier to see my money going to someone who at least does some work to pay it back and make the country a nicer place to live. Well I won't engage in imotive language, let's try a Keynseyan argument...... Someone on the dole spends every penny that they get. There is no reserve. That means that every penny they get goes back into the ecconomy as demand stimulus........ You, as a business man, save (say) 50% of you income (that's an arbitrary figure, if it's too much of your income don't make a masive point of it, just roll with the concept). your savings are dead money, goin towards paying of a bank's bad loans and stimulating no demand........ i think i do more than my share for the economy and stimulating demand. i spend my money too which stimulates demand in the same way, if not more,than someone on benefits spends theirs,so that argument doesnt work I, or my company, pay more in taxes into the treasury than most people earn in about 4 or 5 years. I dont save my 'spare' money, i reinvest it, mainly in property which i renovate thus creating work for tradesmen. i certainly dont shove it in the bank as dead money. I currently employ 85 people in jobs paying 25% over the average rates with good working conditions. i just dont seem it is unfair to expect someone who gets paid money to live on, from the pot of money that i pay into, to st least do some work in exchange for it. i know there are people who dont want to be on the dole i know there are people who cant work because of health issues. but there are people who have never contributed, never intend to contribute yet are the first in the queue for free money. They are the ones that i feel need to contribute some effort into what they get. " I don't have a problem with anything you say, but In terms of percentiles EVERYTHING I get fromthe dole goes back into the ecconomy, not the same for you (and that's not an attack, by the way, honestly....) Also I bet you emply an accountant (either on the books or ad hoc) who you pay to minimise your tax liability...... You aren't looking for a Credit Controller are you? | |||
| |||
"i havent had a dig at them...... i just suggested that insated of being given free money they do at least some work to earn it...... Which is a dig, sorry, but it's true gonna have to agree to disagree then. not a dig at them, but maybe a dig at the system that allows it to happen. so just answer me one question. why should i, a hard working business man, pay for someone else to sit at home playing playstation and watching jezza. i know its not everyone on benefits but believe me i know loads of people who have never worked a day in their lives and have no intention doing so. that, to me, is unfair and i would be much happier to see my money going to someone who at least does some work to pay it back and make the country a nicer place to live. Well I won't engage in imotive language, let's try a Keynseyan argument...... Someone on the dole spends every penny that they get. There is no reserve. That means that every penny they get goes back into the ecconomy as demand stimulus........ You, as a business man, save (say) 50% of you income (that's an arbitrary figure, if it's too much of your income don't make a masive point of it, just roll with the concept). your savings are dead money, goin towards paying of a bank's bad loans and stimulating no demand........ i think i do more than my share for the economy and stimulating demand. i spend my money too which stimulates demand in the same way, if not more,than someone on benefits spends theirs,so that argument doesnt work I, or my company, pay more in taxes into the treasury than most people earn in about 4 or 5 years. I dont save my 'spare' money, i reinvest it, mainly in property which i renovate thus creating work for tradesmen. i certainly dont shove it in the bank as dead money. I currently employ 85 people in jobs paying 25% over the average rates with good working conditions. i just dont seem it is unfair to expect someone who gets paid money to live on, from the pot of money that i pay into, to st least do some work in exchange for it. i know there are people who dont want to be on the dole i know there are people who cant work because of health issues. but there are people who have never contributed, never intend to contribute yet are the first in the queue for free money. They are the ones that i feel need to contribute some effort into what they get. I don't have a problem with anything you say, but In terms of percentiles EVERYTHING I get fromthe dole goes back into the ecconomy, not the same for you (and that's not an attack, by the way, honestly....) Also I bet you emply an accountant (either on the books or ad hoc) who you pay to minimise your tax liability...... You aren't looking for a Credit Controller are you?" to be honest i am a 'by the book'guy when it comes to tax. i have an in house accountant and he is as straight as a die. i believe in paying my dues and have no problem with my current tax bills. it is because of that, that i think its only fair that people at least do something for the money they get. i appreciate that everything you get goes back into the economy, but in my case, in pure cash terms, and this isnt a dig, what i put back in would still out trump anything that someone on benefits puts back in. Do you think its fair, for example, that people who pay for car insurance have to pay extra to pay for the claims caused by the ones that dont bother to pay?? or if all your mates in the pub decided to put say £10 per week into a savings pot, and then someone who doesnt pay in, but happens to drink in there, says he wants some of your money?? simple analogies but much the same. i know its an emotive subject but there has to be something done about the ones that just dont want to work.. | |||
"I think it's a good Idea as long as the people are not out of pocket. Transportation costs and money to cover buying food and a drink while out would be appropriate. There are many things people could do voluntary wise to benefit society. " i agree about transport costs, and there could be allowances for that. As for food and drink, you have to buy that anyway whether you are out working or sat at home. | |||
| |||
| |||
"i have never claimed any benefit so have no clue what the rate it, someone above said it was £80 a week so will take that as the right amount National minumum wage is what? £6 something? so to make them work hours commensurate with that they would have to work 13 and a half hours a week. given that you just said that you can only look for work around 2 hours a day, 10 hours a week, you are still 'working' less that a full time employee i still dont see the problem here" but how far do you go with this If someone is getting £80 a week in benefits and NMW is £6.19 per hours that means they have to work just short of 13 hours per week, but someone who is working would have to pay towards their rent and council tax out of that where as an unemployed person does not have to pay rent or council tax so should they be made to work a few extra hours to pay towards their rent and council tax benefits too? | |||
"i have never claimed any benefit so have no clue what the rate it, someone above said it was £80 a week so will take that as the right amount National minumum wage is what? £6 something? so to make them work hours commensurate with that they would have to work 13 and a half hours a week. given that you just said that you can only look for work around 2 hours a day, 10 hours a week, you are still 'working' less that a full time employee i still dont see the problem here but how far do you go with this If someone is getting £80 a week in benefits and NMW is £6.19 per hours that means they have to work just short of 13 hours per week, but someone who is working would have to pay towards their rent and council tax out of that where as an unemployed person does not have to pay rent or council tax so should they be made to work a few extra hours to pay towards their rent and council tax benefits too? " they would still get their benefits. housing etc. nothing would change in that regard. The only change would be they would be forced to contribute to the country they are getting benefits from. | |||
"I sure i heard on the news last night david camron saying from next year youcan only claim jsa now for 6 months an thats it . " Thats for immigrants. | |||
