[Archived] Government Benefits

[K-Hod]

The system is broken, people are exploiting it. It shouldn't be so lucrative to be unemployed. Little wonder people have no get up and go about them when they're earning more sitting on their backsides than they would with 40 hours a week graft.

Food stamps would be an alternative to monetary benefits, so bellends that are taking advantage of their unemployment can't splurge their cash on drugs and booze.

[PAFELL]

Exactly ! That represents good housekeeping and sound common sense. The state of both rural and urban areas in this country is crying out for some good old fashioned manual TLC. Unfortunately it would mean sales of imported Stella, TV meals and SKY TV packages would plummet.

I'd vote for you as PM Pafell.... unfortunately UNITE and the wishy washy liberals wouldn't see it that way. They'd just see you taking public sector jobs that we can't afford to cover anyway and there'd be national strikes for weeks on end until you gave in and let the country and it's population spiral into ever worse degredation .

ironically, I have recently been asked to get involved in local council. I said no. Sadly, I live in a tory town, where folks vote tory because they always have done. Idiots who do not look at what any party stand for. But vote all the same, for the simple reason of tradition. To me all the political parties should change their names to 'the not to be trusted party'

I do get involved in various cross party think tanks on some subjects. But that is it.

The system is broken, people are exploiting it. It shouldn't be so lucrative to be unemployed. Little wonder people have no get up and go about them when they're earning more sitting on their backsides than they would with 40 hours a week graft.

Food stamps would be an alternative to monetary benefits, so bellends that are taking advantage of their unemployment can't splurge their cash on drugs and booze.

I wonder if you have really thought about this subject properly. Would you apply that to every welfare benefit payment?

[adopted scouser]

Quite timely food for thought...........

http://money.aol.co....nk3&pLid=124981

Why the Zaphod pic ?!

[thenodrog]

Why the Zaphod pic ?!

No reason whatsoever Nick. Just the first thing I found on my computer that enables me to find previous posts easily. Life's never been the same since the new format disposed of Mohammed. I felt like Vyvian when SPG got squished. Must say Mark Wing-Davey made a great Beeblebrox, much better than the Sam Rockwell version thats for sure.

[K-Hod]

ironically, I have recently been asked to get involved in local council. I said no. Sadly, I live in a tory town, where folks vote tory because they always have done. Idiots who do not look at what any party stand for. But vote all the same, for the simple reason of tradition. To me all the political parties should change their names to 'the not to be trusted party'

I do get involved in various cross party think tanks on some subjects. But that is it.

I wonder if you have really thought about this subject properly. Would you apply that to every welfare benefit payment?

It was just an observation. Obviously food stamps can't pay bills.......

[PAFELL]

It was just an observation. Obviously food stamps can't pay bills.......

The problem about tarnishing all folk on benefits is that even those in genuine need get tarnished with those who could work, but won't.

Work is hard to find up and down the country. Town centres are being damaged by the supermarkets. Yet if folk shopped in local shops in the towns and stopped using the supermarkets, jobs would be created. In the current climate there are reasons why folk claim benefits - so I do not believe it is right to tarnish, punish folk by taking away their social life - which food stamps would do - with the same brush. If we were in a climate where there were many jobs, especially unskilled jobs. This would weed out the work shy folk. Then you could take action against them.

Then the folk who are in genuine need, such as the sick, disabled etc could be helped even more.

[LeChuck]

It was just an observation. Obviously food stamps can't pay bills.......

But paying for things with stamps would be very degrading to the unemployed. I understand that there is a large section of society that probably deserve to suffer the indignity, but equally there are is also a large section of people who genuinely want to work who would also suffer as well. It's a pure statement of fact to say that there aren't enough jobs to go round, there HAVE to be people unemployed to make our capitalist economy work. Some people will have be unemployed through no fault of their own.

I admit some people may react positively to paying for things with food stamps, for some it could provide motivation to do something about their situation. For others though, it could just exaggerate confidence issues that long term unemployment can bring - confidence issues that will make it harder for them to find employment, and thus spiralling those people further into unemployment and further away from being able to contribute to society.

The idea of 'food stamps' is an easy fix imo. It doesn't tackle the true issue of how we ended up with this underclass society in the first place, those who are seemingly set on being on the dole for life with no motivation to do anything else. Issuing food stamps would be sticking chewing gum over the leaking dam - might provide some short term relief but it doesn't tackle to true problem.

I think most people suggesting it are doing so for emotional self service anyway. No working person would feel any tangible benefit if it was introduced, it would only satisfy the part of them that resents those unwilling to work. That's not the kind of thing you build long term social policies on.

[JAL]

Can anyone shed any light as to just where are the three million full time jobs in this country are on offer, so that we can can get these people off the unemployment register and begin to justify why we allow so many immigrants into the country.

See today on the news yet more closures of factories announced for the coming months.

[PAFELL]

Can anyone shed any light as to just where are the three million full time jobs in this country on offer that can get these people off the unemployment register.

See today on the news yet more closures of factories announced for the coming months.

I would like to know that also. My wife commutes to London daily for work, due to no work in the area - bar seasonal work. A two hour trip.

But paying for things with stamps would be very degrading to the unemployed. I understand that there is a large section of society that probably deserve to suffer the indignity, but equally there are is also a large section of people who genuinely want to work who would also suffer as well. It's a pure statement of fact to say that there aren't enough jobs to go round, there HAVE to be people unemployed to make our capitalist economy work. Some people will have be unemployed through no fault of their own.

I admit some people may react positively to paying for things with food stamps, for some it could provide motivation to do something about their situation. For others though, it could just exaggerate confidence issues that long term unemployment can bring - confidence issues that will make it harder for them to find employment, and thus spiralling those people further into unemployment and further away from being able to contribute to society.

The idea of 'food stamps' is an easy fix imo. It doesn't tackle the true issue of how we ended up with this underclass society in the first place, those who are seemingly set on being on the dole for life with no motivation to do anything else. Issuing food stamps would be sticking chewing gum over the leaking dam - might provide some short term relief but it doesn't tackle to true problem.

I think most people suggesting it are doing so for emotional self service anyway. No working person would feel any tangible benefit if it was introduced, it would only satisfy the part of them that resents those unwilling to work. That's not the kind of thing you build long term social policies on.

Very very good post.

[LeChuck]

You could argue that allowing the unemployed to spend their JSA on booze/fags saves the government money since more of that will return to government coffers than if they bought food with it.

[jim mk2]

Some people are lucky in that they have a job doing something they want to be doing. Some people are lucky that they can integrate their work with their life in a positive way.

Most workers probably don't have that luxury. To them, working for a low wage is technically undignifying. A lot of people spend 8+ hours of their day earning little money doing something they don't want to do. But they do it anyway because they "need a wage".

Workers who pay taxes do have the right to be aggrieved or even appalled to know that benefit money can end up being spent on cheap drugs, alcohol and tobacco. That, of course, can lead to further tax costs upon the NHS.

I'm far from being a right-winger (although some people may believe I'm something similar-sounding to a right-winger) but you do have to consider the tax payer as much as the beneficiaries. There is no simple answer to resolving this situation, which is probably why it's always been benefit money that's either cut or raised between governments for decades.

Until the government does decide on a long-term solution going forward (which I believe involves strong child support and ensuring they get that support) then the tax payer is always going to be the main group at a loss.

Workers who do pay their taxes ought to be more appalled that the wealthy are not paying their taxes. The so-called benefits scandal is just a ripple in the pond compared to the vast waves of money the rich (legally) are allowed to hide from the taxman every year. If rich people and corporations paid their taxes like everyone else this country would not be in economic crisis.

[jim mk2]

I'm pointing out that this government's continuing focus on benefits and welfare and targeting those at the bottom of the pile is unfair when people like this below (an extreme example but there are tens of thousands like him) are avoiding tax and depriving the country of £25bn (yes £25bn) of revenue every year.

http://www.ukuncut.org.uk/blog

[Doug]

edit. ignore

[thenodrog]

I'm pointing out that this government's continuing focus on benefits and welfare and targeting those at the bottom of the pile is unfair when people like this below (an extreme example but there are tens of thousands like him) are avoiding tax and depriving the country of £25bn (yes £25bn) of revenue every year.

http://www.ukuncut.org.uk/blog

Have you investigated where this money is and what it is being invested in? I cant imagine it's just gathering dust in some bank vault, it must be working somewhere.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

Workers who do pay their taxes ought to be more appalled that the wealthy are not paying their taxes. The so-called benefits scandal is just a ripple in the pond compared to the vast waves of money the rich (legally) are allowed to hide from the taxman every year. If rich people and corporations paid their taxes like everyone else this country would not be in economic crisis.

It's always been the same Jim, blame the idle poor never the idle rich.

[Baz]

Have you investigated where this money is and what it is being invested in? I cant imagine it's just gathering dust in some bank vault, it must be working somewhere.

I'm not so sure Theno....

Many of those sitting at the top of the rich lists have also inflated their fortunes through the manipulation of Britain's lax tax rules - and thus at the expense of taxpayers. In the past three years, Philip Green has paid his family some £2bn in dividends from Bhs and Arcadia. And because his retail companies have been set up so that they are in effect owned by his wife, Tina, a Monaco resident, the Green family have saved close to £500m in tax.

When Mr Green paid his family £1.2bn in October last year, he financed it by taking out a loan. Although this is a common form of financial engineering in privately owned companies, it had the benefit of cutting Arcadia's corporation tax bill, as the interest charges on the loan could be offset against profits. In this way, wealth was simply being redistributed from taxpayers to Mr Green's family.

This from:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/analysis-the-rich-get-richer-in-poor-old-britain-470417.html

[Sparky Marky]

Workers who do pay their taxes ought to be more appalled that the wealthy are not paying their taxes. The so-called benefits scandal is juust a ripple in the pond compared to the vast waves of money the rich (legally) are allowed to hide from the taxman every year. If rich people and corporations paid their taxes like everyone else this country would not be in economic crisis.

What a fool you really are. I assume you are poor.

[jim mk2]

Most people won't disagree. However, it's still not right for certain people to stay on benefits because they'd be less well off if they worked (provided they can work). If anyone thinks that there is nothing wrong with that and that it shouldn't be addressed then I'd like to hear why!

Of course it is wrong but the solution is not to cut benefits but to raise the basic wage so people have an incentive to go to work. The minimum wage in this country is too low. Companies could afford to pay their workers more if managers and shareholders paid themselves less.

[Doug]

Of course it is wrong but the solution is not to cut benefits but to raise the basic wage so people have an incentive to go to work. The minimum wage in this country is too low. Companies could afford to pay their workers more if managers and shareholders paid themselves less.

So where would the incentive be to invest? And where would the incentive be to become a manager?

[thenodrog]

So where would the incentive be to invest? And where would the incentive be to become a manager?

What a fool you really are. I assume you are poor.

I'd not accept poor financially but I'd accept intellectually impoverished.

[jim mk2]

So where would the incentive be to invest? And where would the incentive be to become a manager?

Managers should of course earn more but the earnings gaps between those in the boardroom and the shopfloor has widened considerably over the post 30 years and has increased further during this recession (see link below) ! The greed is good culture of the 1980s at the top end of society continues to this day and everyone suffers because of it - including those on unemployment benefits.

http://money.msn.com...-you-brush.aspx

[Jeru tha Damaja]

Raising minimum wage would only cause inflation. It costs companies more to pay their workforce, so they put their prices up to compensate rather than accepting a drop in profits. That also makes our exports less competitive, meaning that demand falls and workers get laid off. Yet more businesses will choose to relocate to emerging economies where they can employ people at a fraction of the cost, even if quality of service does suffer. Then, as a result of all this, the pound becomes devalued, meaning that imports are more expensive and at the end of the day nobody is really any better off.

In short, you might end up slightly better off if your minimum wage job still exists 6 months down the line, but the damage a significant increase in minimum wage would do to the economy is simply not worth it.

Government interference in the economy needs to be carefully considered and, where possible, should be limited to steering the markets through taxation and spending.

[jim mk2]

The notion that higher wages would see jobs go abroad is a myth and overall costs need not increase if managers and shareholders took less money out of companies.

Compare and contrast the fortunes of Britain and Germany, the world's second biggest exporter and a massive success story over the past 15 and particularly during the recession.

Pay for skilled manual workers in Germany is higher than in Britain. According to statistics from the Federation of European Employers, the median pay for skilled manual workers in Germany is 17.99 euros per hour. The equivalent pay for a UK skilled manual worker is 14.42 euros.

In addition, employer social security contributions are significantly different: while UK employers contribute 13.8 per cent of the workers' salary, the equivalent in Germany is 20.84 per cent.

In April, the Tories changed the rules so that an employee can only claim unfair dismissal if they have been working for the same employer for two years or more. The equivalent in Germany is six months.

Mass dismissal is also more problematic for employers in Germany. If an employer wishes to dismiss more than 30 people in any given month, they must provide a social plan which has to be approved by government. In Britain, the process is more straightforward and no government approval is required.

In short, German workers have more rights and better pay and training and skills than their British counterparts, yet they are seen by government as an integral part of a strong manufacturing base that we also used to have in this country. And surprise, surprise, German managers pay themselves less than the fat cats in our boardrooms.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/18/britain-germany-economies-eurozone-crisis

[Jeru tha Damaja]

We were talking about an increase in pay for minimum wage workers, then you quoted figures for skilled manual workers, which is a rather different thing. Minimum wage jobs tend to be the kind that you could train any reasonably intelligent animal to do, so it's no problem to just take the operation to wherever labour is cheapest, and plenty of companies will do that before they'll make pay cuts at the highest level.

[jim mk2]

I don't see how you outsource minimum-wage jobs such as cleaning the streets to the Far East. Fact remains that many workers do not receive a decent living wage and those at the highest level are paid too much, which you seem to acknowledge.