Just been on a course about new benefit system

I remember when my friend fell on hard times (walked out on when PG), she took in a lodger.

I think if you are not brought up to take benefits, it's the kind of thing you do. Benefits, for many people are the last resort.

It's just a massive Ponzi scheme.

YES! It is! Thank you, Nicholas, it's so hard to get people to see it.

my main wish would be to default and stuff the bankers - Can't say I disagree, Leith. Turn the Bank of England back into a consumer bank while we figure things out, maybe.

Isn't it hard to work out all this stuff about social enterprise, community funding and all that malarkey? No surprise that a high proportion of successful applicants are 'partnered' by a corporate enterprise.

FartBlossom - No, because it's still being made up as they go along. UC, which is imminent, is still said to be "Probably" "In the region of" £70/week ... a 35% income cut for me, if so.

actually my main wish would be to default and stuff the bankers in the way they stuffed us

its not the banks we borrowed money from www.debtbombshell.com/bond-market.htm plus who is going to lend us money for the deficit if we arent trustworthy?

The whole system needs reforming. Under the current financial model, only a very few prosper. Everybody else suffers. It's just a massive Ponzi scheme.

Sorry if its been asked, but is there anywhere to find out what I will be entitled to after the cuts? I know I can go on entitled to, but that only tells me what Im entitled to now, I want to know how I will be affected/effected (sorry it always confusing me) in the coming year.

I have tried to read the official lines, but it doesn't really tell me what Im hoping to find out, ie the actual figures I would be entitled to if nothing changed.

G what type of thing are you doing? I am trying the very long route of a community organisation in the education disability rights field, maybe a social enterprise or perhaps a development trust. It is me and a few others, the thing that is just so wrong is that a huge amount of creative talent is out here, plus skills and experience. it's being wasted and then people tell us to get a job that some like me, maybe you too can never hope to sustain.

Those job cuts and yes some would occure would be dealt with by introducing nonm profit lead training and job training schemes. Further and higher education grants, and more help for the start ups that Garlic advocates. All you wanted was an alternative not a simpler easier solution well you have it. It would make the money we have work for us instead of others.

With tax loops closed, more people earning enough to pay tax a 1 p raise in tax rates for everyone, savings on trident, and road building which is pointless and crap for the planet, then yes we will pay down the debt. Ot actually my main wish would be to default and stuff the bankers in the way they stuffed us. iceland, remember iceland they did that and did they sink nope. Have they been taken over by swiss gnomes, nope, are they a better more united country, it appears so.

Ah, thanks, Leith! Yes, I had seen that but it is hopelessly pathetic and too short-lived :( I'm currently living in (distinctly unrealistic) hopes that my permitted work will take off at some point - fast enough to get me off benefits in one swoop!

It would be nice if there was a decent graded-earnings scheme but, so far, I've seen them knocked off the table as soon as they were put there.

It is like living in crazyworld sometimes

"Yes indeedy Josephine. I depart from Garlic in what I would use the savings for, but the amount of ctc, hb, ESA, IS, JSA, that could be saved by telling tescoes and the rest to pay more would be substantial. A saving of tax payers money."
No it wouldn't, because it would cause mass job cuts!

Yes indeedy Josephine. I depart from Garlic in what I would use the savings for, but the amount of ctc, hb, ESA, IS, JSA, that could be saved by telling tescoes and the rest to pay more would be substantial. A saving of tax payers money.

This would need underpinned by legislation to stop private landlords, mortgage companies, banks etc profiteering. However it would mean that we could raise prices in the shops so people like dairy farmers can get a decent living. Our cost of living is lower than other countries as a result of driving everything including wages down to the bottom thats why we are now in such big trouble.

Yes, you have

The minimum wage is insufficient for most people to live on. The current estimate for a liveable UK minimum is around £10/hr. You said we need the giants to maintain jobs, so they have to be able to pay NMW. Minimum wage-earners are topped up by benefits. So taxpayers' money is being used to make up the wages.

I say don't give that "make jobs" money to international corps, give it to real people to start businesses. The big corps will reduce employment as far as possible anyway because, as you said, they lift profits by eliminating staff. Small outfits would only have to break even to remove a burden on the taxpayer. When they make profits, they become a net gain instead of a drain on the economy. Their profits will be contributing to the UK economy instead of some other country's.

Sorry I meant to say G if you want me to I could get details and pm you?

Garlic: Someone on Jsa or Income support who wants to take a shot at starting their own sme can apply for a top up to their benefit for a fixed time. It's only a tenner a week I think and it is only to get them to the stage of being ready to put a business plan in for funding, not that sure about it really just know my mate had to get EHRC involved

"Josephine, you've been arguing that large corporations need taxpayers' money to maintain jobs."
Have I?

What additional top-up, Leith?

Niceguy, I agree there should be graded incentives to coming off benefits although I think the current proposal is too punitive.

Josephine, you've been arguing that large corporations need taxpayers' money to maintain jobs. I propose that, if our money is going to be used for job creation/maintenance, it should be invested in ground-level startups. Perhaps there could be an added incentive for creating at least one employee.

This is likely to keep more of our cash circulating in the domestic economy than going straight into tax havens. I believe.

Niceguy thats not what I accused you of the claimin that we need to make cuts is what I said you had bought in to. The fact that as you rightly say no mainstream politicle party and certainly not any of the big 3 / 4 say anything diffrent speaks absolutly bloody VOLUMES

I will apologise to you for possibly misreading your politics, however the consequence of what you said are still that which I described. For anyone in a first world country to talk about an ideology that will see people die as a direct consequence not just unintended or unknown but as an explicit part of the policy, and just stick to the "austerity" mantra shows a lack of reality if not compassion.

Reformating Access to work, raising the bar at the amount of hours that a disabled person needs to work in order to qualify for help. Not very good examples of "helping" Josaphine.

Also no one on incapacity benefit or ESA as is is told they can get the additional top up to start their own business/ In fact a friend of mine had to take a letter from the EHRC saying that they would take out a discrimination case against the dwp in to his local job centre to even get the forms to apply for the start up money.

Just because I am pointing out that we cannot afford the status quo and therefore that rationing is an inevitability, this does not mean I am some sort of evil right wing capitalist pig who wants to see the poor & destitute on the streets so I can sit in my luxury mansion like Mr Burns laughing at the little people.

Nowhere have I said we shouldn't have a welfare state. But regardless of how misguided you perceive me to be, the simple facts are:

1. We cannot afford the system as-is
2. Rationing is an inevitability
3. No serious political party has offered an alternative which doesn't involve cuts.

If someone has a comprehensive plan which will sort out the deficit without the need for any cuts then please will they tell David Cameron. I'm sure he'd love to know, as would the rest of us.

One of the main reasons the govt are introducing Universal Credit is to eliminate one of the worst aspects of the current system which is that it provides little incentive to work and actually traps many. For that reason alone I support it.

As for the main topic which is the govt are using UC to make further cuts, well politically this may backfire on them. But economically cuts must be made regardless of who is in power.

So as I have said in other threads. If you don't want to see tax credits cut, who should have their funding cut more to pay for tax credits? What about pensioners? Nurses? Soldiers? Council workers?

We must move away from the idea that the government has some secret money tree which they are keeping just for their rich mates. There isn't. The money comes from working people and taxes are already high enough.

Because it wouldn't be a good idea? If it was, the banks would do it themselves. Banks are in the business of making money. If someone comes to them for a loan with a good business plan, they will get the funding.

Josephine, can you think of any good reasons why the government doesn't, for example, demand more payback from the banks and pile that money into grants for start-ups?

disabled people organisations have never, ever said that disabled people DO NOT want to work

But the funding was still removed from Remploy, which provided gainful employment for thousands of disabled folks. That's how much commitment there is to helping the less-able back to work.

But there wouldn't be the jobs for them.

"Choosing" to work shouldn't be an issue.

Raising the minimum wage to £10 an hour wouldn't create many, if any, jobs. It would just eliminate many of the jobs currently paid at less than £10 an hr.

Thank you, Leith.

If Tesco had to pay all it's staff £10 an hour, they would adjust their business to eliminate most of the unskilled roles.

They already are. Tesco make around £14,000 profit from each employee; that figure would be higher if they had fewer employees so it's in their interest to reduce staff. The taxpayer basically funds them to have lots of people in unskilled roles.

We fund these jobs because there's already a job shortage. It's just a way of faking employment, at taxpayers' expense. Even so there aren't enough jobs.

If every vacancy was filled by an unemployed job seeker, only 10% of the seekers would get a job. The other 90% would still be unemployed and there would be NO vacancies. This includes part-time jobs with unsocial hours, by the way.

The problem isn't like a household budget. Unless we stop the rich (people and corporations) funnelling taxpayers' money out of our economy without putting it back, we will all end up in the gutter. As I said before, corporate giants will not walk away from a huge revenue stream if they're made to put more back in & reduce profits. Right now, we're simply giving money away and saying "Never mind, our vulnerable people can make up for it." Soon it will be "Our working classes", then "Our middle classes".

I'm not exaggerating, this is common sense and we need to grow some balls/ovaries!