Quote:
Originally Posted by punky
Self-preservation. I certainly wouldn't work if I won the £113m lottery.
|
Indeed, neither would I. However it is you who "forces" yourself to work. There is an alternative but you've made your disdain clear by lumping those who are genuinely incapable of work and those who "milk the system" together as the "workshy" which isn't quite true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by punky
Yes there is. It says "job-seekers benefit". Not incapacity benefit or other benefits. By definition via the government: "To get Jobseeker's Allowance you must be:
* available for, capable and actively seeking work"
|
A bit of forward thinking wouldn't go amiss. Jobseekers allowance is to be scrapped / rebranded as part of the universal benefit proposal. As the report says
"The Welfare Reform White Paper, set to be unveiled in the coming week, will set out Mr Duncan Smith's plans for a universal credit to replace the range of benefits currently claimed by the jobless".
This is clearly not specific to jobseekers allowance (not "benefit" as you suggest).
Quote:
Originally Posted by punky
I stand by what I say. There are people that literally make a careet out of dodging work. Deliberately sabotaging their CV, throwing interviews, getting fired...If they put as much effort into doing work as they do avoiding it they'd actually quite a lot.
|
I have never said that wasn't the case. I acknowledge that there are such people. It is you, together with Iian Duncan Smith, who seems incapable of making any distinction between them and genuine claimants.
This policy is a farce. It's a weak and ill thought out attempt at trying to be seen to be fighting fraud - nothing more.
Anyone looking at this objectively would see how flawed it is.
By way of example. All of the claimants affected (whether fraudsters or genuine claimants) will have to be paid the national minimum wage for the duration of any work carried out (an extra cost to the treasury). Are we to believe that by doing this work and taking themselves beyond the allowed benefit income thresholds that their entitlement to WTC, housing benefit, income support etc will be frozen - revaluated during / after the four weeks or is this simply a once a year top-up or bonus for those on benefits who are fit to work?
It's nothing more than a paper exercise which will, at every level, cost the treasury more money to implement than it will save.
Quote:
Originally Posted by punky
I should not have to work just so I can fund those that don't want to.
|
As stated previously, you are also "funding" the ill who cannot work and those who are genuinely unemployed through no fault of their own. This is not a one size fits all problem and, as such, it is extremely naive to adopt a one size fits all position.
[QUOTE=punky;35118857Make me out how you will with your asides - I don't care and won't apologise for it.[/QUOTE]
I don't expect nor want you to apologise. I just thought it sad that you have evidently bought into the media campaign to stigmatize all benefit claimants as "workshy" ****.
Each to their own I suppose.