Originally Posted by Chrysalis (Post 35792634)

Correct but resources should be targeted at the areas which will save more money. The amount of things done by recent governments to try and stop benefit fraud is excessive. They have probably spent more money than they saved.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35792483)

HMRC say about £10 billion is lost each year in taxes due to the off-the-books work, and an organisation called Tax Research estimated it at £85 billion a year.

Originally Posted by Kursk (Post 35792647)

Resources should be targeted to areas they are needed. No-one with any human decency wants the needy to suffer and those that defraud the system are taking from people who need it. It is right that the Government should ensure resources are properly targeted.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis (Post 35792743)

I am curious, since noone has commented on my opinion on what JSA claimants should be paid for workfare.

If people disagree they should be paid at least the minimum wage, please explain why.

Originally Posted by Gary L (Post 35792760)

I mentioned this a long time ago that people who commit crimes get a punishment of "unpaid work" as little as 40 hours. that unpaid work is no different to the work benefit claimants are having to do for weeks and months non stop.

it was met with "it gives people work experience"
but we all know that as long as it's not them that is having to do it. then they're fine with it.

people profit from this 'slave labour'
in the real world a government would step in and talk about the minimum wage.
it just so happens that this government condone slave labour.

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 35792763)

I a....

I agr......

I agre......

I can't do it...... :D


The issue in my mind is two fold

1) The people who are genuinely busting a gut to try and find work (will this interfere with their job searching? Or, would they be expected to complete that out of hours?

2) The people that make living on benefits a life style choice and have done for years I have no issues with them working. Let's face it, IF someone has say claimed JSA for five years then they probably owe the country a fair few hours.

Originally Posted by Gary L (Post 35792766)

You could have a girl who stacks shelves at Tesco for 30 hours a week for nothing phoning them up from home saying "Hello, I'm enquiring whether you have any vacancies for shelf stackers"

Tesco's would say "LOL"

I've noticed Aldi's (who are not involved with the government run slave labour program) are advertising for shelf stackers and such.
if they were to be talked into taking on free benefit workers by a government representative in the Mercedes. then them signs and adverts would come straight down. and never be seen again.

no need to employ anybody. they do the same job for free.

Originally Posted by Gary L (Post 35792760)

I mentioned this a long time ago that people who commit crimes get a punishment of "unpaid work" as little as 40 hours. that unpaid work is no different to the work benefit claimants are having to do for weeks and months non stop.

it was met with "it gives people work experience"
but we all know that as long as it's not them that is having to do it. then they're fine with it.

people profit from this 'slave labour'
in the real world a government would step in and talk about the minimum wage.
it just so happens that this government condone slave labour.

Originally Posted by Gary L (Post 35792766)

You could have a girl who stacks shelves at Tesco for 30 hours a week for nothing phoning them up from home saying "Hello, I'm enquiring whether you have any vacancies for shelf stackers"

Tesco's would say "LOL"

I've noticed Aldi's (who are not involved with the government run slave labour program) are advertising for shelf stackers and such.
if they were to be talked into taking on free benefit workers by a government representative in the Mercedes. then them signs and adverts would come straight down. and never be seen again.

no need to employ anybody. they do the same job for free.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35792810)

Small, but fairly important flaw in your (for lack of a better word) "reasoning" - if everyone was on benefits, no one could afford to buy all the stuff the shelf-stackers were stacking at Tesco, so they wouldn't be needed.....

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 35792797)

Should the long term feckless unemployed (and by this I mean those who see benefits as a lifestyle choice) receive their benefits without making a contribution to society?

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35792810)

Small, but fairly important flaw in your (for lack of a better word) "reasoning" - if everyone was on benefits, no one could afford to buy all the stuff the shelf-stackers were stacking at Tesco, so they wouldn't be needed.....

Originally Posted by Chrysalis (Post 35792743)

You seem to have been brainwashed by propaganda.

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 35792797)

Should the long term feckless unemployed (and by this I mean those who see benefits as a lifestyle choice) receive their benefits without making a contribution to society?[COLOR="Silver"]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis (Post 35792928)

You havent answered the question.

I will ask it again.

Is there a reason why people doing work should not be paid the legal minimum wage?

Yes, if for example they have been on long term benefits, for example five years of JSA, Housing benefit etc. they should work the required hours that it would take to earn the amount (paid at national minimum wage)

Obviously any wage they get would be counted as normal taxable income meaning if they getting housing benefit and council tax help with their JSA, that help would be adjusted downwards so they wouldnt be getting anything more than someone normally employed on the same wages.

Obviously? Do people on the minimum wage pay income tax (I honestly dont know?)

A vague "Should the long term feckless unemployed (and by this I mean those who see benefits as a lifestyle choice) receive their benefits without making a contribution to society?" doesnt really answer the question, or are you trying to say you are ok with double standards in society, ie. you benefiting from the likes of tesco not paying a proper wage so you can get food a bit cheaper out of your proper wages.

It seems you are ok with it, but are too ashamed to say so directly.

Vague in your opinion, I posed a question thats all

I don't see why the long term unemployed should be able to receive a large amount of financial assistance without making a contribution. It doesn't have to be Tesco. How about a project that benefits the communities that they live in?


I will repeat also what I would be ok with as you also havent said if my proposals would be acceptable.

So either

1 - The JSA claimant does the workfare, however they only work the amount of hours that would pay the JSA rate via minimum wage, so e.g. 11 hours work for their £72 JSA. Fair is fair right?
or
2 - They do 30-40 hours work, but they also get paid the min wage for doing that work so e.g. 30 hours per week at tesco increases their JSA to £195. This £195 would either be paid by the company benefiting from the work or the DWP.


OR


3. They work the required hours that pays not only for their JSA but ALSO their benefits received such as housing benefit etc. council tax benefit etc.

It seems you want the best of both worlds, you basically want to benefit from people working for a pittance.

No, I want it to be fair, so that the people who actively decide that benefits is a lifestyle choice don't spend years receiving state assistance whilst making no contribution back to society.

Then you have the motivational side of it, if you actually pay people on workfare what they would get as a job, then they get to see the benefits for themselves (extra money) and then may become more motivated to look for work (if you really believe that everyone on workfare is a workshy scrounger as told to you by the sun and daily mail).