The state benefits system mega-thread.

Originally Posted by jb66

If folk on benefits can afford the vip package and own a iphone 5s on benefits then we are paying the unemployed too much.

A single person on JSA could not afford either. Only the baby machines get loads

[MalteseFalcon]

Yes, I could never afford to have an iPhone on benefits. Not that I would buy Apple crap anyway.

[peanut]

Originally Posted by jb66

If folk on benefits can afford the vip package and own a iphone 5s on benefits then we are paying the unemployed too much.

You forgot the obligatory 50" flat screen TV to watch it on. Of course you can have everything you dream of and all for £70 a week. lol.

[peanut]

More info and update on the new 'work for benefits' policy.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24327470

3 years on the dole before it kicks in seems quite realistic to me.

Though I am against community service as I don't see what that achieves towards getting a job and more like a punishment.

Originally Posted by peanut

More info and update on the new 'work for benefits' policy.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24327470

3 years on the dole before it kicks in seems quite realistic to me.

Though I am against community service as I don't see what that achieves towards getting a job and more like a punishment.

I get the impression that it is about promoting attitude adjustment, rather than introducing candidates to potential employers.

Originally Posted by Chris

I get the impression that it is about promoting attitude adjustment, rather than introducing candidates to potential employers.

still got to be able to magic up all the jobs for those with adjusted attitude to go to

Promoting economic recovery is the best way of creating new job vacancies.

[Taf]

Originally Posted by Chris

I get the impression that it is about promoting attitude adjustment, rather than introducing candidates to potential employers.

I think it is more a political attack against Labour, the "benefits party".

[Derek]

Originally Posted by tizmeinnit

still got to be able to magic up all the jobs for those with adjusted attitude to go to

Not sure what it's like where you live but round here there are plenty of non-skilled jobs that can be done.

As Chris said this is very little to do with job matching but far more to do with getting long term unemployed used to getting up at a set time, getting them to a place where they work then they go home so they are getting a work ethic.

Originally Posted by Derek

Not sure what it's like where you live but round here there are plenty of non-skilled jobs that can be done.

As Chris said this is very little to do with job matching but far more to do with getting long term unemployed used to getting up at a set time, getting them to a place where they work then they go home so they are getting a work ethic.

honestly that is all well and good but to do that there has to be something they can do, If there is something they can do then it would normally be done by someone and this someone would be paid.

So if there is a job needs doing give the long term unemployed that job they have to take it and pay them otherwise they are doing someone else out of that job and that changes nothing

That's a point. If someone is doing proper work during this scheme then shouldn't they be paid for that work rather than receiving benefits?

Originally Posted by Damien

That's a point. If someone is doing proper work during this scheme then shouldn't they be paid for that work rather than receiving benefits?

No. There is no necessary connection between fulfilling legal obligations and getting paid at national minimum wage or better.

You don't get paid for jury service, you don't get paid for attending compulsory schooling, I'm pretty sure I could come up with a longer list without too much effort.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Damien

That's a point. If someone is doing proper work during this scheme then shouldn't they be paid for that work rather than receiving benefits?

How do you mean "proper" work?

doing the jobs that social services would have done and paid somebody to do anyway?
doing the jobs that the council would have done and paid somebody to do anyway?
doing the jobs that the likes of Tescos would be paying somebody to do anyway?

---------- Post added at 14:06 ---------- Previous post was at 14:01 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

No. There is no necessary connection between fulfilling legal obligations and getting paid at national minimum wage or better.

Legal slavery in Britain.

who'd have thought it?

and the 'workers' and some of the brain dead have been fooled into bringing it back.

[Taf]

Work, sign on daily, or the best of all 3: attend classes for literacy/numeracy until you find a job.

I hope they have good teachers as some unemployed will be up to degree level literature/mathematics. Either when they start, or when a job actually becomes available.

I hope this also applies to persons to whom English is a second language.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Taf

Work, sign on daily, or the best of all 3: attend classes for literacy/numeracy until you find a job.

Work = Doing jobs that would have to have been paid for by government departments, and companies.
almost certainly resulting in saving money by not having to pay a wage to somebody they once were, or would have.

Sign on daily = I'd say it was more than just popping in to give your autograph.
it'll be like a community centre day.

Classes = they'll probably send them home early when the staff have got an headache.

I hope this also applies to persons to whom English is a second language.

Depends if it will be fair to make them attend. and if making them attend doesn't offend them too much.