Something for nothing!

[snowbear]

I was on benefits for about 2 years and I just hated it.

I hated being a burden on the state and applied for work nearly everyday.

See, I think benefits should be a safety net. Something to feed, clothe and keep a roof over your head when times are tough, but that's it.

If getting a job is an undesirable option because your sponging enough money from the state to live in relative comfort, then the system has failed.

I'm all for the welfare state, I think it's a great thing, but like I said, it should be a safety net, not a means to live by.

Tell that to my brother who hasn't even tried looking for a job for like 3 years now, since he is a lazy ****.

I completely agree with the idea of a "Safety net" but sadly we can't get rid of the current system since people who actually TRY and find work but can't get any need it I guess.

This is my point entirely. Do you know why your brother thinks its OK to sponge of others? Or is it simply a case of why should I work if I get more money for doing nothing?

I think there's many people in the latter situation. My friends at the party certainly were. That's why we need a system where people are made to work for their benefits. even if it only 20 hours a week, at least they would be putting something back into the system.

I'm all helping the people that genuinely need it, but those of us that can work should work IMO. Im sure the local day care center would love some help looking after the kids.

 

[Whateveralot]

I think one should get a limited amount of benefits: enough to eat, drink, etc. It's not for going out, it's not to go on holiday from. Also, they should have the following conditions:
- Only when you apply for a minimum amount of jobs a *period*.
- Only when you are subscribed to at least 2 job agencies.
- Only when you participate in society, one way or another.
- Only when you apply for the first job offer. No saying "no" because you're overclassified.

Also, for ones that do not have a job, but are perfectly healthy: support society. There are enough jobs that can be done voluntarily, that make you a valuable asset to society.

So basically: participate or starve.

The way to do this, I think, is by creating an agency of government-employed job coaches, which can become the crucial link between:
- Schools / Training thingies, to increase one's chances of one finding a job;
- Organisations that require volunteers, to make the jobless people participate in society. These can be everything, from a big library to a local business.;
- Job agencies, for jobs;
- Firms, also for jobs.

 

[Watcheroftrends]

There should be a system that lets people on lower wages communicate with each other and setup housing/transportation arrangements. I know you can live on minimum wage - you simply need to share costs. I'm talking even bulk meals, etc. It's not that hard on paper. There's just a lack of community.

Beyond that, the eventual goal should be to give people the tools to live the "American Dream". You can't really reach that on minimum wage. You're stuck simply surviving at that income. You need a job that pays more. You can't get one without training. That takes time or money - limited resources.

This is where the real problem lies. If someone who works hard at near minimum wage will be no better off than someone relying entirely on aid, why would they choose to spend the hours at a job when they can just sit on their ass? This is where people start saying "I can't find any work". I honestly don't think it's that there are literally 0 jobs for a person. It's that there are no jobs that allow someone to be any better off than they would be on aid. Also, if you consider that some people on aid actually get a higher dollar value of assistance than what someone working at minimum wage makes, and those on aid have much more free time to pursue education or job skills, how is it that they are still stuck on government aid?

Clearly the problem is that there are no avenues for a person to better themselves and make more moeny. You either try and get stuck on the bottom run of the income ladder, or you sit back and have it handed to you. Even when it's handed to you, though, you're options are still severely limited. The government needs to figure out how to bridge this missing link.

 

[Mr F.]

This is mainly for residents of the UK but I'm sure many people of different nationalities can chip in with opinions.

Just wondering what the deal is with benefits and why people feel like they are entitled to them.

I'm not saying people who really need help should feel like they can't claim help, but I was recently talking to to a few people at a party, and the conversation turned a bit sour when they mentioned that their benefits had been cut to a mere £26,000 a year and they couldn't go out as often.

This annoyed me somewhat and maybe I was a bit out of line when I asked why they felt like they should get more money than somebody who works extremely hard to support their family (I work 70-80 hours a week to barely scrape £25k).

The reply was they have to look after their kids and there isn't enough work out there for their partners so somehow its the Governments fault...

I call foul on this notion, And if this is the case why should the government pay for them to go out and have a good time and pay for luxury's in life like sky TV, alcohol, and smoking?


I guess my question is this...

Do you feel people like this should get so much money in benefits, or do you think they should forgo any luxuries until they can afford it by their own means?

I think that whilst there are some people who abuse the benefits system the current attack on all those who are on benefits is fucking ridiculous.

So yes, 'People like this' should get so much money in benefits cause the majority of those on benefits struggle and people like the ones you met are not the majority of those on benefits.

Plus there is not much in the way of work now is there?

As for the word "Entitled"

Following the war it was decided that people should be given access to decent healthcare, education and provision to be made for those who are not in employment. We are "Entitled" to it because that is one of the things our government has decided to guarantee, a minimum quality of life for the citizens of this country. We deserve benefits whilst we are unemployed as much as we deserve the NHS and universal education.

 

[Starik20X6]

As has been said, I'm all for it as long as it's just a safety net. What does annoy me though is the discounts given to people on the dole, specifically in the world of education. My diploma will cost me around $1,500. But if I was on the dole, it'd cost around $50. The fact that I'm paying more because I make my own money bothers me. Yeah I get that it's so people on the dole can afford an education towards a job, but that doesn't change the fact that I'm essentially being punished for having an income.

 

[Phasmal]

I've been on benefits for a while, and I would be on the street without them.
Yeah, some people abuse them, but most people are not abusing them.

There are a lot of people out of work right now, so when you're someone who doesn't have the best qualifications and also had a long period of sickness, employers don't need to hire you, there are a bunch of other people to employ.
It's difficult, but I hate being looked down on just because nobody will hire me.

 

[Headdrivehardscrew]

I think benefits should really only be viewed, used and applied as a safety net to keep people from falling to bits and giving up. If people use that money for partying and drugs, there really is something very, very wrong.

I'm glad for Daystar's insight, but I must admit that the majority of merry benefit spongers I've had to deal with so far are of a much, much different breed.

"Why should I go back to working as a hairdresser when I'm far better off on benefits?"

"Why should I question the fact that the state (which I hate) pays for everything, and all I have to do is show up for a couple of interviews?"

I myself have briefly been on both benefits and disability pension, and I have to agree with Daystar - I found myself unable to consider that to be much fun. It's limiting, debilitating and crippling, and I would have been unable to enjoy life partying away, as rent, health insurance and everything else pretty much made it impossible for me to even just get a new pair of shoes. It wasn't exactly the sweet life, but I was glad I didn't have to give up completely just because of unfortunate circumstances. Oh, and I actually paid everything back. Makes me look like a fool, doesn't it?

 

[Vault101]

This is my point entirely. Do you know why your brother thinks its OK to sponge of others? Or is it simply a case of why should I work if I get more money for doing nothing?

because he is a waste of space

I am not ambitius by any means but I honestly don;t understand people who have NOTHING to work for or want in life, its a vaules thing really, generally we are raised to understand and apreciate the value of work, some peopel dotn get the message
you can't weed out the leeches, and you can't get rid of the systm

 

[ninjaRiv]

People need benefits to live. This friend is making £26K on benefits? Are you sure they're not lying for some reason? Most people can barely live on benefits, it's always confused me when a very small minority of people seem to be having a good time. But it's obvious these people are exploiting every loophole and probably working a little on the side. By working, I mean selling drugs. MAYBE the occasional labouring job. These are the people who shouldn't be on benefits.

I have been on benefits and I have been sanctioned (when the Job Centre basically decide you're not doing enough to find work) for simply not filling in a job seeking diary correctly while I know people who sell drugs and never feel the need to touch their job seekers allowance.

So no, not everyone is like the person you described and I'm sure people are reading this thinking "all the people on benefits I know are out partying and spending spare cash!" That's because The majority of people on benefits can't afford to go out so you don't see or know them.

Also, there's not a lot of jobs out there. That's always a thing people bring up; "Get a job! There's thousands out there!" Which is great, except they don't mention how these jobs are either not enough hours, on the other side of the country or require stupid amounts of experience or qualifications. I've lost count of the amount of jobs I'd be suited for but require experience in some software that you can only get experience in by having used it in a previous job. As for working in a store, hundreds of people go for the same job, making it worse than 100 to 1 odds of getting a job in a store. And that's really not an exaggeration. I'm sitting here right now waiting for a phone call for a job in a store. I'm probably not going to get it because of these odds.

Rant over.

 

[snowbear]

It wasn't exactly the sweet life, but I was glad I didn't have to give up completely just because of unfortunate circumstances. Oh, and I actually paid everything back. Makes me look like a fool, doesn't it?

Maybe, but I for one have the greatest amount of respect for you. If only others were more like you.

Snip

I'm not saying that no one deserves this help, but do you really think its fair that even somebody who is playing by the rules and trying their hardest to find work, but hasn't yet is better off than that of somebody who has working for a living?

Seems a bit skewed to me. Everyone should indeed have the basic standard of life, I'll agree with that. I however don't agree that basic standard should be so comfortable, that there is little incentive to actually work.

I actually had a shocking thought earlier, I wasn't sure I should make it really but I think I will to maybe gauge a reaction from you guys.

The actual thought I had was why not enforce a paid national service to those people that that are young enough and fit enough but couldn't find work.

I reeled at the thought myself and then thinking about it more I watered it down slightly.

Why not give people that cant find a job a choice.

1) Paid national service
2) paid community service
3) paid apprenticeships or training
4) If you decline one of the above then you get nothing more than the real basic help

Would you all see that as a positive change to the benefit system? (obviously this wouldn't apply to those that are truly in need of help and are unable to work).

 

[EeveeElectro]

I really don't see how people do it :s I was on benefits for 12 weeks and I felt disgusted by myself and ashamed every day I woke up. I managed to actually make myself ill and depressed looking for work.
I struggled in those 12 weeks though, because I only got something like £105 a fortnight. It's so hard to live on, dafuq do I have to do to rake in as much money as some?
I might quit work and pop a few kids out, or tell the government I have a bad back and totally can't work.
I was always told "if you and your partner don't work and have kids, well then you're laughing at the people who do work."
I used to live with someone with autism and he managed to get something like £1200 a month because he had autism. I don't know how that as possible and why he got so much (I believe he got his mum to tell the government he was house bound and couldn't go to any physical exams, they didn't bother with any house calls either).

The thing that pisses me off is when people say "Going on a shopping spree/going out and getting pissed all weekend now I've been paid, yipeeee!"

NO, YOU DID NOT GET PAID YOU DAFT TWAT, YOU DID NOTHING TO EARN THAT MONEY!

 

[In Search of Username]

I understand this is a problem but at the end of the day, there simply aren't enough jobs in existence for everyone right now, and I'd rather have some people getting paid too much in benefits than any people at all having to live in poverty because they aren't given enough, y'know? It might be annoying to see people getting an easy route through life, but it's not exactly as big a problem as people make out, compared to, say, tax evasion by the super-rich.

But yeah, I don't really understand the attitude. I need something to occupy my time, be it work or education or whatever, or I'll just get depressed, bored and lonely. So I can't see how people can just live like that, I couldn't do it myself, despite generally being a pretty lazy person.

Don't assume all people on benefits are like the ones you talk about here though. Most just genuinely can't find a job.

 

[Zykon TheLich_v1legacy]

My friends at the party certainly were. That's why we need a system where people are made to work for their benefits. even if it only 20 hours a week, at least they would be putting something back into the system.

The thing with that is that "only" 20 hours is a decent part time job, that somebody should be being paid properly to do properly. A lot of people, especially parents, really need that kind of work. If you are going to make someone work for their money, just give them a job. Say "You must take this" but at least do it properly. Maybe if a job is advertised but at the closing date no one has applied for it you could give it to them, otherwise it just looks like you are taking advantage of a cheap source of labour and taking jobs away from willing workers.

 

[Thedutchjelle]

Here in the Netherlands, after you've been fired/lost your employment the government will pay you an X percentage of your previous pay. However, you'll have to make active effort to find new employment and there are strict rules in place so you can't just sleep and party 24/7 [ not entirely sure on the details though, I haven o first hand experience].

If after a few months you still didn't find a job you'll be put in a lower classification for "benefits" (that's the term in English?). As far as I know it's barely enough to live from, but the Government still provides some money for vacation so the poor people aren't completely without joy.

 

[CaptainKarma]

So everyone is kind of lumping "benefits" and "job seekers allowance" together into one thing, which is a bit misleading, especially as many benefits (child tax credits, housing benefits etc) are given to both the employed and the unemployed alike.

My friends at the party certainly were. That's why we need a system where people are made to work for their benefits. even if it only 20 hours a week, at least they would be putting something back into the system.

The thing with that is that "only" 20 hours is a decent part time job, that somebody should be being paid properly to do properly. A lot of people, especially parents, really need that kind of work. If you are going to make someone work for their money, just give them a job. Say "You must take this" but at least do it properly. Maybe if a job is advertised but at the closing date no one has applied for it you could give it to them, otherwise it just looks like you are taking advantage of a cheap source of labour and taking jobs away from willing workers.

This is exactly why the whole "work for your JSA" thing is misguided. id the government is capable of providing employment for people on the dole then they should just straight up give them a job, not press-gang them into some "community service" type thing (you do know that's for criminals yeah? Is being unemployed a crime now)to make them feel bad about being unemployed.

Look at the workfare system we have no, its totally fucking bonkers. There are people getting forced to take jobs aat Tescos or lose their 50 quid a week JSA, which means that as soon as they go over 8-and-a-bit hours as week they're effectively employed for less than minimum wage.

And then what do Tesco do? They fire they're normal employees (or cut hours) because of all the wonderful free labour they're getting from workfare. That's our benefits budget (zomg YOUR TAXES!!!!1!!!) directly subsidizing one of the largest corporations on the planet.

Remind me who the spongers are again?

 

[Bvenged]

When I tried to go on a gap year last year, I went to a job centre for help in finding a job. I only wanted a 5 minute chat with a person who was just stood around waiting to give assistance. When I told him I wasn't collecting job seekers allowance (benefits), he told me they only help people already claiming.

What? So you're saying you're not going to help me find a job... because I'm not on benefits? I wasn't in education at the time, and I didn't already have a job either. That's backwards. Surely you want to help me get a job, sustaining myself and paying tax, as opposed to waiting until I'm claiming free money from the UK government? You'd be so much better at your job preventing people from going on benefits, than getting people off of of it.

 

[SonicWaffle]

I work 40+ hours per week and I make half of that. If i was getting so much for free, I wouldn't want to get a job because it would mean getting much less money. I think that benefits should be lower than a full time wage, otherwise the government is actively encouraging people to stay unemployed.

I read this argument in the right-wing dailies a fair amount, and it never makes sense. Yes, people are better off on benefits than they would be in work. I know several people who are in this situation. They hate it, just like the vast majority of people claiming the dole do.

The problem we have is with wages being too low compared to the cost of living - living on benefits (I had to for a year or two) is fucking horrendous, because the money you get is barely enough to survive - not with benefits being too high. There is a big problem with the welfare vs work balance, but our government seems determined to attack the wrong side of it.

 

[SonicWaffle]

I think benefits should really only be viewed, used and applied as a safety net to keep people from falling to bits and giving up. If people use that money for partying and drugs, there really is something very, very wrong.

I've known people to spend their welfare money on drugs and alcohol to the extent that they won't be buying food or heating their homes. This is because they are addicts. I think for many people on the dole, buying these things isn't a "luxury" so much as a compulsion.

A good friend of mine is on the dole currently, he's been trying to find a job, going to interviews and whatnot. When his money comes in, he gets drunk and then lives off baked beans and whatever he can scrounge. He's tried to quit alcohol many times, even going to counsellors and doctors about it, but hasn't managed it yet. It isn't exactly "partying" for him, is it?

Being on benefits is utterly fucking miserable. You're bored out of your skull all day, you can't aford to go anywhere or do anything. Imagine trying to kick drugs or alcohol when you have literally nothing else to do and bugger all to keep your mind off it.

 

[snowbear]

Snip

I'm talking about the whole lot not just JSA. While I agree with you It shouldn't be Tesco's that's taking advantage of this system that is why I suggested smaller firms that need extra staff but cant afford it should take priority over multinational companies.

If we are going to strictly talk about JSA though saying people are press ganged into to working at less than minimum wage isn't completely true. I currently have a part time job at a supermarket to bump up my yearly wage. what I earn from working there is indeed taxed at ~20% making my hourly rate while working there about £4.90. If you consider that to be the actual minimum wage then more hours would be required before they reach the "working for less than minimum wage" complaint.

This is kind of beside the point though. As it can potentially lead to a job in the future it shows you are willing to work if a job is offered. Saying you don't want to do this is akin to being asked ?Can you go help out this farmer on his field, if you do a good job, he might say to other farmers about your work, it will look good on your CV, and you might learn/achieve something.? then replying ?No, I don?t want to do farm work, I will keep taking money from you until I find something I want to do.?

Oh and I'm sure the many people I know that do voluntary community service will be a bit offended at your community service is for criminals comment. Community service is just a broad term for helping put something back into the community.

 

[Mr F.]

It wasn't exactly the sweet life, but I was glad I didn't have to give up completely just because of unfortunate circumstances. Oh, and I actually paid everything back. Makes me look like a fool, doesn't it?

Maybe, but I for one have the greatest amount of respect for you. If only others were more like you.

Snip

I'm not saying that no one deserves this help, but do you really think its fair that even somebody who is playing by the rules and trying their hardest to find work, but hasn't yet is better off than that of somebody who has working for a living?

Seems a bit skewed to me. Everyone should indeed have the basic standard of life, I'll agree with that. I however don't agree that basic standard should be so comfortable, that there is little incentive to actually work.

I actually had a shocking thought earlier, I wasn't sure I should make it really but I think I will to maybe gauge a reaction from you guys.

The actual thought I had was why not enforce a paid national service to those people that that are young enough and fit enough but couldn't find work.

I reeled at the thought myself and then thinking about it more I watered it down slightly.

Why not give people that cant find a job a choice.

1) Paid national service
2) paid community service
3) paid apprenticeships or training
4) If you decline one of the above then you get nothing more than the real basic help

Would you all see that as a positive change to the benefit system? (obviously this wouldn't apply to those that are truly in need of help and are unable to work).

Just to jump through your proposals

1) Too fucking expensive and rather pointless.
2) Depends. If they are being paid the minimum wage? Yes. If not? No. We have a minimum wage for a reason. Also, this would cost a bejeezus load of money. Plus how much community work is there to do? Remember, the Tories want us all to work for free in our communities. Its called the Big Society. We are supposed to forget Thatcher and the whole 'No such thing as society'
3) AHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA. With whom exactly? There are no appreticeships. There is nobody willing to give out free training. There are barriers around.

The sad fact is right now there is not that much work. Unemployment is on the up, graduates are fucked, students are fucked, people between 16 and 25, by the nine divines they are fucked. There is no quick fix.

I am just going to leave this here.

And piss off to sleep.