To agree with workfare in principal?

[IAmMiranda]

Donning my flame retardant underwear - though note I'm not for the current scheme, but the principal is sensible.

Working for unemployment benefits makes sense to me - provided that the "wage" is fair for the hours and skills. Eg. £90 a week job sellers could equal 15 hours of charity work?

Taking into account disabilities, childcare and other responsibilities I really don't think its unfair to provide people with jobs to earn the equivalent of benefits?

I do think its wrong to line the pockets of corporations, reduce jobs for other workers etc but surely charity work is an option?

I think I've probably missed some huge glaring point but AIBU?

(NOTE: I have previously been in reciept of JSA and would happily have done 15 hours a week and had plenty of time to job search)

Offred, under these circumstances none of these people could legitimately be considered job-seekers, correct? So this is a non-issue.

Perhaps what you're arguing for is greater support for people in job training, fair enough. But either you're a job seeker or you're not.

What makes you think I don't have compassion for her?

I don't think her view is acceptable.

Fundamentally I don't think it is acceptable to feel you don't or shouldn't have to contribute to society.

What my problem is is that I don't think the unemployed are a group who are inherent non-contributors and I think we need to value contribution properly. For example the likes of tesco and the banks are not contributors, they are damaging the economy and being allowed to do so by the govt.

But they are considered job seekers because they have all been dumped on JSA because without JSA they would be entitled to nothing.

I could be working as a junior solicitor

but you would not be creating a job. if you didn't do it someone else would. and they would probably be cheaper to train.

Crowler not at the moment, when youngest is 5 I think they will move us onto JSA but I'm not sure as I am also a carer for my disabled son.

Offred is right that many women contribute without earning a wage. To put my son in residential care it would cost upto £2000 a week. I get an extra £55 per week and if I work I can only do 16 hours on minimum wage before they take it away. My eldest child will be going to Uni next year and plans to be a teacher so she will be benefitting generations to come. I volunteer and help vulnerable pregnant ladies and give postnatal support. In the current NHS maternity services say that our help is vital as they are so overstretched we are plugging a gap. My mum cared for my Gran before she died and saved the state hundreds each week in home care fees.
So why is it that caring for the young, sick and elderly I looked down on and poorly paid

'The wealthy are not expected to contribute'. Really?

Apart from the 40% tax and if both parents are working providing employment for nurseries and childminders, and paying NI for people who for both acceptable and non acceptable reasons arent working.

Perhaps they have opted out of the state education system (we have) and perhaps they have private medical insurance so therefore dont use the NHS so much.

Please dont keep bringing up rape as a reason why so many babies are unplanned. Your situation is rare.

I agree that we need to really drum into young girls in particular that having a baby is not an easy route. Make sure they understand that birth control IS under their control. I know there are men involved in this as well but realistically if they are unable to support you its pretty pointless to start blaming them too. If you have unprotected sex you are likely to become pregnant especially if you are young.

Make the consequences of a unplanned pregnancy something YOU need to take responsibility for. Its funny, if you were under say 20 and you had a baby with no visible means of support then a hostel will be available where you can learn a trade and you can be taught to look after YOUR child. I truly believe that if that was the consequence then you would take much better care of the birth control side.

And please dont think you are complete if only you had a boyfriend....

Surely the last 50 years has taught women that you can stand on your own two feet

BrokenSunglasses I'd say working for benefits isn't comparable to voluntary work. The principal difference being that voluntary work is voluntary. Working for benefits when the alternative is starvation and homelessness isn't voluntary.

Anyway, you asked for opinions, that's mine. On the flipside, receiving benefits based on need means your country views you as worthwhile and worth supporting whatever your circumstances. It recognises that though you might not currently be paying income tax, you still have value, you still have something to contribute, you're not just left to rot. Feeling like your own government would happily have you killed just so you won't be a burden any more is unlikely to leave you wanting to do your bit and contribute to society.

Of course, if workfare had been demonstrated to improve job prospects, help the economy, encourage the long term unemployed to become productive taxpayers, and so on, then we could say to hell with what people feel about being on benefits. But quite the opposite has been demonstrated, and so all it is is a very effective tool for grinding people down.

Offred, this woman's view is entirely irrelevant. She is legally obliged to contribute to society by way of TAXES.

You're barking up the wrong tree re: Tesco (and I agree with you) - they should be forced to pay their fair share of taxes. Your anger should be at the arcane tax code.

Offred I have to agree with handcream. I can't quite believe that there's anyone in 2013 who would suggest that people are powerless to control their reproductive destiny.

They wouldn't be cheaper to train, why would they? I've paid my law degree fees so far in full myself. Not many people can say that. Now my husband and I have split I might need help for two or three years. I'm not saying I'm creating a job I'm saying that it makes no economic sense when I have four children to support to force me into working in a shop forever.

People who pay PAYE tax are by and large not the wealthy I am talking about.

I'm not suggesting people are powerless to control reproduction. I am saying in reality people do not have as much control as you believe. For very many reasons.

I'm not making any kind of work placement suggestions. BrokenSunglasses said that people should not be required to give up volunteer work if they're offered a work placement. I disagree.

What type of work placements? If it's for a company then they should pay a real wage for a real job. If it's for the community then that's the sort of thing people are doing in voluntary work already.

Offred, you seem to be missing the point that the wealthy contribute to society through all the tax they pay.

I don't think anyone is saying the people should be punished for being poor. However, some of us are questioning whether people should get money for nothing.

Volunteering is becoming an increasingly hot political potato and I think it is likely that before too long we may see greater recognition of unpaid work that so many people do. I work for a charity and we have huge numbers of volunteers who give enormous amounts of their time. However, they do it because they love and enjoy it and it adds to their life too.

I cannot see how it is good for anyone to have nothing to do. Surely, it has to be better to be doing something, rather than nothing. I don't know why some people are sneery about shelf stacking or other low skilled jobs. Not everyone can be a brain surgeon or work in PR!

Offred They wouldn't be cheaper to train, why would they?

because you and your dependants need supporting while you train.

an 18 yo student would be cheaper for tax payers.

Offred - I think you are blinkered in your views. You think because something has happened to you and a friend then by default it must be rife. I really dont know where you are getting this figures from 1 in 3 young women in abusive relationship. I think you must really dislike men to come out with this sort of nonsense. I do understand why you might feel like this but really, this is an awful thing to say.

And I dont know anyone who has had a child from rape, neither did I have unplanned babies. I didnt want a baby and took the appropriate precautions. If you dont choose to do that the chances are that you will fall pregnant

"I agree that we need to really drum into young girls in particular that having a baby is not an easy route"

As long as girls from the poorest and least well educated sectors of society continue to be employed in jobs which are very poorly paid, unfulfilling and insecure, and as long as they continue to form relationships with men who experience high levels of unemployment and low wages, and as long as housing remains disproportionately expensive in relation to wages, young women WILL continue to have babies outside of stable relationships as a route to a small but reliable income from the state, and a means of securing housing.

I don't blame poorly educated, working class women ONE BIT for making this choice. They act on self interest, just as the rich do in seeking to reduce the proportion of income they pay in tax.

If you could rely on the wages of the lowest paid jobs to keep a roof over your head and allow you the opportunity to have children, and once having had them, support them and house them, then there would be vastly less incentive to having children courtesy of the state.

I don't dislike men at all.

I dislike ignorance about the prevalence of sexual abuse.

You that depends on how much I am having in terms of contribution. I have no student loans, I'm paying my fees in full and always have, I'm now claiming child tax credit but no housing benefit or income support/JSA. I doubt it would be cheaper to put an 18 year old through a law degree in full and an LPC.

I really think that some have lost the plot here.

My DH and I are higher rate tax payers, we both work full time, we send our DS's to private school. One to a very well known boarding school. We have a nice house and nice hols, however we absolutely pay tax, are we wealthy? Well, yes we are very comfortable but methinks that some have a chip on their shoulder...

I also think that some think if somehow they can 'blame' birth control, abusive men and such like then they take responsibility from themselves to others and then become the 'victim'.

I doubt it would be cheaper to put an 18 year old through a law degree in full and an LPC.

cheaper for who?
what benefits would the 18 yo student be entitled to?

I even explained that my experience is likely to be skewed FGS. If you read.

I haven't pulled the stats out of my arse.

If you have anything at all to do with local community work you would know how prevalent all these things are.

I'm not sure how you would know how many people have rape babies or who have been sexually abused really, why would they share it with you?

I am not ignorant of the prevalence of sexual abuse. I simply do not agree that it figures into this conversation.

"I agree that we need to really drum into young girls in particular that having a baby is not an easy route"

As long as girls from the poorest and least well educated sectors of society continue to be employed in jobs which are very poorly paid, unfulfilling and insecure, and as long as they continue to form relationships with men who experience high levels of unemployment and low wages, and as long as housing remains disproportionately expensive in relation to wages, young women WILL continue to have babies outside of stable relationships as a route to a small but reliable income from the state, and a means of securing housing.

I don't blame poorly educated, working class women ONE BIT for making this choice. They act on self interest, just as the rich do in seeking to reduce the proportion of income they pay in tax.

If you could rely on the wages of the lowest paid jobs to keep a roof over your head and allow you the opportunity to have children, and once having had them, support them and house them, then there would be vastly less incentive to having children courtesy of the state.

I agree with absolutely every word of this.

It's so easy for people in their well-educated ivory towers to pass judgment on the poor choices of other people. Spend some time with these feckless poor and you quickly realise they are normal people with normal emotions but with incredibly narrow horizons and very little opportunity. If we want people to stop making poor choices we have to give them opportunities to make better ones. That means less of a postcode lottery in terms of education. More outreach work by agencies such as sure start. More intervention from social services. Reducing crime. Better wages. All of which require taxation.

An 18 year old needs 3 years of £9k student loans and grants for living costs...