Quote:
Originally Posted by punky
I'm not going over this people-at-death's-door-being-made-to-pick-up-litter-lest-they-lose-their-benefits. I'll believe it when I see it.
|
It's there in the previous link - people with terminal illnesses being taken off benefits and put in a position whereby they are forced to work to survive. It may not be specific to picking up litter - and it may be uncomfortable reading for you given your stated position - but it is a fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by punky
I am curious as to how I legally claim benefits whilst being able to work but not wanting to?
|
Legally is the key here, obviously.
"Not wanting to" work and "not being able to work" are two very different things. Not wanting to work is hard for any third party to discern. However not being able to work is, by comparison, fairly easy to identify.
Forcing people to work for four weeks will not change the mindset of those who do not want to work. They will simply comply with the requirement (costing the treasury more money) and then revert to form. It will do them no discernable good.
It is a pyrrhic victory of sorts - at best.
Forcing people who are genuinely not fit to work to work for four weeks serves no purpose and represents the potential threat of an even greater long term fiscal cost.
Quote:
Originally Posted by punky
And I know more about the differences between the genuinely long-term unemployed and the work-shy than you'd like to think. In the someone I know was unemployed for a long time. After a while worthlessness and depression set in. So he went to work for free with a family friend on a building site to get out of the house and earn some self-respect back. Then because he was doing that he managed to get a job with a plant hire company. And that's how I know this scheme will differentiate between the needy and greedy by those who would support the scheme and those who wouldn't.
|
Yes, you see the difference in your example is that he achieved what he did at his own volition - he wasn't "forced" by a third party. He also acted primarily due to his own acknowledgement of the onset of mental health issues (low self estreem and depression).
Some people are not that lucky.
As I stated earlier I acknowlewdge that there are vast numbers of people in receipt of benefits who should not, ordinarlily, be in receipt of those benefits. There are very real problems with this proposal by Duncan Smith and I feel he is playing to the gallery rather than trying to get to the root causes of the problem. Perceived entitlement and fraudulent claims being but two of those issues.
I'll people should be cared for, not stigmatized and lumped together with ner do wells who exploit a system.