To ask what's the beef with benefits?

[mytartanscarf]

Do people think they are too little? That they should be more?

There's always a lot of upset on here about them - about how wrong the government are and how awful life is on benefits. I've never been on benefits so obviously can't judge. But what are the solutions?

I suppose I am asking what should the government do?

Does op mean perks not benefits? I only read first and last pages but that's how it sounds to me...

Ilovesooty jobs may not be as abundant as they were years ago but there is still plenty of work out there if you are not picky

Omg really!!

I have one of those perfect few hours a week school term time jobs you mention and it certainly didn't get handed to me on a plate.

Even convicted criminals eat though don't they, Daisy. While people facing a sanction are left Togo hungry along with their innocent children. Can you tell me why or how that is fair.
Also what about the poor gentleman who was an ex soldier fought for our country and he missed an appointment at the j.c. Sanction straight away!. He was diabetic and had no money for food and no electricity to store his medication. He died as a result. His poor body was found surrounded by CVS. His poor poor mind must have been in a turmoil, so howbmuch more do you want the poor to suffer,
His sister has started a petition for an inquest into her brothers death, she was successfull.
I would say the JC worker who autborized the sanction has blood on their hands.

"JSA is not enough for most people to live on when they have been made redundant, especially if they have lost a well paid job and have a lifestyle that matches their income."

So Woo Woo you are basically saying that the middle classes shouldnt have to adjust their lifestyles in the way that the working classes should. I expect this sort of post from you anyway

I agree a life on benefits is shit and im really worried for my future when my kids are older.
When i was younger i had a great job in the city, i got pregnant and my partner fucked off and left me holding the baby, so i took a lesser paid job closer to home so i wasnt spending hours and hours travelling each day.
New partner, us both working full time, me shifts, new baby, partner fucks off again, I cannot do the shifts as no childcare outside 'normal hours' (should have shoved them in a dog cage with a tin of beans eh).
I was lucky to find a 16hr post that i have been allowed to work during normal childcare hours (it should include evening and weekend work). Its shit pay and im seriously topped up by benefits.
When the kids are older even working more than full time i will struggle massively in this job to keep afloat.
Im lucky that im in Scotland and i think tuition fees are still paid. When my youngest goes to school im going back to college to retrain to hopefully getva better paid job, its the only way ill have to support myself.
You will all be pleased to hear ive been sterilized and sworn off men!!
Oh and ive been paying taxes for over 20 years so i dont feel bad about claiming now.

Why is it smug to expect people to work to support themselves? Schools teach children and guide them through career choices so is that classed as smug too now?

I won't read the link as no doubt ita just another Tory bashing but I apologise if its a true government site with details stats as I've not clicked on it.

I forgot the MN mantra is to not utter a word about people choosing to live in benefits

Iliveinalighthousewiththeghost Sun 04-Jan-15 17:38:50
Hi Derek. You're partner walks out. Leaves you alone to bring up his son.
Yet you're the one worried about getting a Sanction. Something not right there.
All we ever is critique for the single parent. I have never once heard one government minister criticsize the absent parent but yet they seem to get off on penilising single mums/dads. Is it because they are an easy target I wonder.

They are misogynistic polices Ghost. Because most single parents are women

Daisy you haven't got a valid argument, or indeed any argument if you don't a) look at evidence provided and b) provide evidence.
People don't choose, in the main to live on benefits, your choice to believe it because the evidence may damage your belief in your political party clearly demonstrates that you have difficulty dealing with reality.

People !like you Daisy never cease to amaze me, and believe me when I say. I have not lead a sheltered life

Oh my friend works full time and had to use a food bank.
I forgot im just about middle aged just now so lord knows who will employ me when i finally retrain!

Daisy you say Of course people with children can lose their jobs but it depends on the person as to the effect it has. Those with a good work ethic etc will put all their energy into finding work and will take any job that comes along and move when something better comes up.

But in the meantime what do they do with the kids they can't feed? Are you going to look after them or should they be put down.

I asked you about this earlier but you avoided it.

Back

Daisy is unable to answer inconvenient questions. She's not replied to any of mine.

Yeah, I just like the thought of her having to scroll past that bit with her eyes closed in case she sees something that might change her mind.

Daisy, your naiveity is astounding. Where are all these jobs? In case you didn't know there aren't enough jobs to go round. Next time you're in your local supermarket, take a look at how many self service tills there are. Improved technology equals no work for humans. Millions are out of work across Europe, There are no jobs for them. In an ideal world everybody would support themselves. Even if you're lucky enough to have a job the chances are your wages would have to be subsidised by tax credits because successive governments refuse to set a realistic minimum wage. Wake up to what the real problem is, it certainly isn't caused by people who have to rely on welfare.

Why is it smug to expect people to work to support themselves?

It isn't.

I forgot the MN mantra is to not utter a word about people choosing to live in benefits

Again, it isn't.

But your unshakeable belief that "benefits are a lifestyle choice" and that "the MN mantra is not to utter a word about people choosing..." is entirely in your head.

It sickens people who have not chosen any of their circumstances. I'll remind you at this point why you had to name change before - your opinions were a little extreme weren't they?

You took the words out of my mouth or should I say key board, Dawn.

Daisy

OK then read this:

You’re a 60-year-old army veteran who volunteers to sell poppies for the Royal British Legion in memory of fallen comrades. You’ve applied for dozens of jobs – including the supermarket where you sold the poppies – but without success. You are sanctioned for four weeks.

Source: Daily Mirror

You get a job interview. It’s at the same time as your job centre appointment, so you reschedule the job centre. You attend your rearranged appointment and then get a letter saying your benefits will be stopped because going to a job interview isn’t a good enough reason to miss an appointment.

Source: Daily Mail

Your gran dies during the night. The next morning your partner calls the job centre and asks if you can come in the following day instead. The centre agrees, and you sign in the next day. Then you get a letter stating that you failed to sign in and would be sanctioned if you don’t reply within seven days. You reply, explaining the situation. The job centre gives you a six-week sanction for not replying.

Source: Mari-claire M at Netmums

You’ve signed in on time, been to interviews and applied for work. Your job centre advisor suggests you make a two-line change to your CV, which you do, but fail to give the updated CV to the job centre (you weren’t told you had to). You are sanctioned for four weeks.

Source: nciaw36 at MoneySavingExpert

You work for 20 years and then miss a job centre appointment because you haven’t had the process clearly explained. You are sanctioned for 3 weeks.

Source: Councillor John O’Shea

You get a job that starts in two weeks time. You don’t look for work while you are waiting for the job to start. You’re sanctioned.

Source: The Guardian

You are forced to retire due to a heart condition, and you claim Employment and Support Allowance. During your assessment you have a heart attack. You are sanctioned for not completing your assessment.

Source: Debbie Abrahams MP

It’s Christmas Day and you don’t fill in your job search evidence form to show that you’ve looked for all the new jobs that are advertised on Christmas Day. You are sanctioned. Merry Christmas.

Source: Poverty Alliance

You are given a training appointment that clashes with your job centre appointment. The job centre is unwilling to rearrange its appointment and tells you to get a letter from the training organisation. The training organisation says it doesn’t provide letters.

Source: Russell Brown MP

You apply for three jobs one week and three jobs the following Sunday and Monday. Because the job centre week starts on a Tuesday it treats this as applying for six jobs in one week and none the following week. You are sanctioned for 13 weeks for failing to apply for three jobs each week.

Source: Pontefract and Castleford Express (via Benefit Tales)

You miss your job centre appointment due to the funeral of a close family relative. You are sanctioned.

Source: Derek Twigg MP

You’ve been unemployed for seven months and are forced onto a workfare scheme in a shop miles away, but can’t afford to travel. You offer to work in a nearer branch but are refused and get sanctioned for not attending your placement.

Source: Caroline Lucas MP

You have a job interview which overruns so you arrive at your job centre appointment 9 minutes late. You get sanctioned for a month.

Source: jsdk at Consumer Action

You can’t afford to travel to look for work so you get sanctioned.

Source: Citizens Advice Bureau

Your job centre advisor suggests a job. When you go online to apply it says the job has “expired” so you don’t apply. You are sanctioned for 13 weeks.

Source: Penny at Yahoo! Answers

Not Tory bashing just sourced facts.... from across Tory and other political favouring media.

I would LOVE not to have to rely on tax credits to top up our income and I have a good work ethic thank you very much.

And in my experience there has never been an abundance of jobs.

In an ideal world everyone would be working, Daisy but this is not an ideal world, and if miraculously tomorrow all JSA claimants find a job well that your pals out the job center with a job because they won't be needed will they. Some might say the unemployed who you have such a downer on are keeping JC workers in work

The "benefits" whilst on JSA, no matter how many children (you do get that each child costs money, right?) barely cover your bills, never mind food or anything else!

they get benefits whilst job seeking so nobodies starving the children

But you just recommended they not be given money for all of the children because they had too many.

But I expect Daisy will still refuse to read it or claim it isn't true.

Still waiting to hear about your first hand experience in employability advice and support Daisy...