To ask what/who the dole should be for?

[Lollipop30]

Just been having this discussion with my brothers and Dad and we obviously disagree totally! By dole I mean any government help excludind child benefit.
So I’m interested to know who you think it should be for and why?

Lollipop, love, i was merely picking up on what you said about it being easy to live on JSA....
I am curious how someone who claims to be too well off to claim CB could possibly find it 'easy' to survive on £70 a week....

..or are you going to start going on about giant pots of lentil stew~?

Don’t knock my lentil stew 🤫

We don’t receive CB now however it wasn’t that long ago that we were on a lot less, our living habits as such have not increased drastically since, certainly not in terms of bills. We have much more savings now as we will buy a house when we can now we’re in a position to save at all, something I’m well aware is a luxury. When I say ‘easy’ I meant more I think everything could be covered ie without debts.

no it really couldnt , trust me.
Food, bills, toiletries, other house stuff like soap powder, lightbulbs and so on, fares,....
a pair of shoes would be a luxury..

The sanctions may be strict if you aren’t looking but if you’re applying (even if they’re things you’re vastly under qualified for) whilst pursuing career plans then you’re fine.

You said this. I merely pointed out that it is not true.

I doubt there are very many people on benefits just hanging on living the life of Riley on the state whilst waiting for the perfect career. It's far more likely people are doing their sums and thinking 'hang on, if I'm in work, I'll have to pay X in childcare - and actually have less money to take home at the end of it. And I don't blame those people for thinking twice.

I'm full time employed, a single parent, on a pretty decent salary (NHS top of band 5, look it up). I'm eligible for a small amount of CTC nevertheless, because life is expensive and hey, marriages break down. If I'm eligible for support, I'm hardly going to question support for people who are working and far worse off than I am.

The discussion was... who do you believe should be in receipt of JSA.

Those who are temporarily out of work and looking to work.

Other benefits for other circumstances

I suppose there are grey areas - the poster upthread who has a sight impairment but is looking for work. That has extra challenges so I’d like to see people in that situation getting JSA and some sort of extra benefit that reflects their actual circumstances.

I don’t think the JSA amount is easy to live off at all - for someone using it as a stopgap maybe but long term, you’d struggle.

@pointythings
If you are applying for things you are obviously not qualified for you do not get sanctioned. This I know to be true. You gave other reasons to why sanctions may apply.

Under 26k you’re entitled to a top up. I don’t disagree with this at all you’re working hard for it. Tbh it’s ridiculous that it’s not within your pay already but again just another tangent.

I know a couple of people who had only worked for a company for a short time, before they were made redundant. Unfortunately, they had been made redundant several times, due to no fault of their own. This situation had knocked their confidence. Also, as you get older it is more difficult to get a well paid job, even with experience. Not everyone has the motivation to retrain to look for work in another type of work.

I have no idea how anyone who was working and paying taxes and national insurance and then, through either sickness or redundancy, loses their job survives on out of work benefits. It's just not enough at all to pay mortgage, bills and food. It seems so wrong that the welfare system is not fit to support taxpayers.

I think that temporary out of work benefits should be increased but that the job centre should do more to get the unemployed in jobs that match their skills and experience. And that help should come directly from the state, not some private company which stands to profit massively from the unemployed.

I also think that those who were on ESA but have been deemed fit to work should remain on a higher rate but they must still search and apply for jobs that they can do with their disability.

I don't think that any taxpayer should be given the option to opt out of contributing to welfare. It is only the same as state education and healthcare. I also think that welfare "benefits" even those who do not ever have to claim it. If we did not provide a basic level of support to the vulnerable and those who fall on hard times what do you think would happen? A few might get jobs. But I think that in time we would see massive increases in street homelessness, slums and crime. We are already seeing homelessness and reliance on food banks increase under the current austerity measures.

Agree totally - the safety net benefits us all.

Societies collapse when certain conditions are met. One of those is a critical level of inequality.

When it was set up it was to help the poorest people get back on their feet. Sadly there is a minority who can't be bothered to work and are happy to take money for doing nothing
It should be a stepping stone to a working self sufficient life though nowadays those working are also struggling. I don't agree those gaining government support should be better off than those working with no support. Again this is a minority before I get flamed.

The thing is I can't even get worked up about those who "can't be bothered to work" firstly because I think if you actually took the time to look at those individuals you would see beyond your assumption they are lazy and see actual reasons why they struggle to get into work / pursue further education inclusive of mental health/addiction/ social issues

And secondly if you truly believe there life is so great then why don't we all just pack our jobs in and live the life of Riley as they surely are for doing nothing .
Thought not .

OP - to open up the debate a bit, have you ever heard of 'Universal Basic Income'? It's an idea being trailed everywhere from Silicon Valley to Finland, where everyone gets a standard income (say £800 per month) regardless of whether they work or not. If you want more than that, you can get a job, but if you're happy to live on that, it'll pay the rent and essential bills. In a world where robots are taking people's jobs, it could represent the future. People like jobbing artists / creatives found that they could thrive much better on occasional work if they weren't struggling to pay bills all the time My personal theory is that UC is a pre-cursor to some sort of UBI. Very interesting concept, sounds very similar to what your family are suggesting. I think it could be the future, definitely.

People would do well to remember that they are likely not more than a few paypackets from being on benefits.
ANYONE can get ill, ANYONE can lose their job. ANYONE can lose a partner. Most people don't have savings that would last that long.
I used to work in Housing benefit and the number of first time claim people who used to complain at the way they were treated by the system, yet they voted for the current government.
What did they think it would be like?
I finished the job as got made redundant. Tbh it was a massive relief as the system had got so cruel and I was getting upset at the amount of bad news I was having to give people and we were struggling to help people who were moved onto universal credit because we hardly understood it. When you rang the DWP to ask a question it was pretty clear that their staff were struggling to understand it either.
Just remember when you criticise "scroungers" there but for the grace of God.

People like jobbing artists / creatives found that they could thrive much better on occasional work if they weren't struggling to pay bills all the time

Yes. The problem with that though, is that if everybody stays home to be creative, who is going to do the boring shit like fix our boilers and clean our sewers? Well the answer is that they will have to raise wages to attract people, which leads to inflation, which will mean the UBI is devalued. UBI has not been tried long term and there is good reasons why it might fail in the long term.

Anyway, there’s more important things right now. Which is that benefits have been frozen at a time when the cost of basics has spiralled. The benefits freeze needs to be ended to recognise that.

I say that as a Tory. I strongly disapproved of the benefit system under New Labour where many people on benefits were wealthier than those on low incomes. But it’s gone too far and made things too difficult now and they need to raise the level of benefits for the out of work, not just tax thresholds for those with work.

When people say "the dole" (or where I live "the bru") they tend to mean unemployment benefits so "the dole" should be for people who are out of work.

If you mean who should social security benefits be for: that's a big question. Lots of situations might merit it. Having children, being disabled, retirement, low pay....

Some people think there should be universal basic income that everyone receives.

I rely fully on benefits. Yes there are a huge host of circumstances that got me here. No it isnt a long term plan. No I dont feel guilty to be a benefits scrounger in the eyes of many

I was on the ‘dole’ for a period. It was the worst period of my life. I’d just had to leave my nursing course due to ill health, I became anorexic, I had to drag myself down to the job centre every fortnight to sign for my £63 a week to live off, spent every second applying for jobs, was sanctioned for failing to attend an appointment due to a seizure even though I physically couldn’t ring them because I had a massive seizure then fell asleep for four hours post ictal, finally got a job and back into college- something I was discouraged from doing by the JobCentre even though the course led to uni and further employment- and still had to claim because it was a zero hours contract and am now finally back in university doing a course I love.

The sanctions may be strict if you aren’t looking but if you’re applying (even if they’re things you’re vastly under qualified for) whilst pursuing career plans then you’re fine.

You are deluded, OP.

I think that I would support a universal basic income too but perhaps with a condition that those who are not working or too unwell to work carry out a certain amount of voluntary work for local councils and charities. The jobs market changes so quickly and companies keep cost cutting or going bust and there is such competition for vacancies. Jobs for life are long gone and most of us could not cope for more than a few months out of work.

I think that the expression came about in the 1920s and 30's ( according to my dad who is 96) as people would say that they had to have the money ' doled ' out to them in cash. ( They also had to sign on twice a day to get it or end up in the 'poor house', thats after having their houses assessed to see what they could sell first - if you had a radio, sell that then claim for example)
If someone said they were on the Dole I would assume they meant JSA as they were unemployed and looking for a job. Other benefits are not usually referred by this name.
Child benefits were universal for years and are now means tested.

'The Dole' aka JSA is a benefit (not an entitlement) for those who are job seeking, hence the name Job Seekers Allowance.

It's only designed to be an allowance to cover bare essentials (not luxuries like Sky, Alcohol, Socialising) whilst job seeking.

Unemployed people don't HAVE to claim it. If they do claim it then they have agreed to meet the mandatory conditionality including availability, travel to work area (90 minutes) and capability. You agree to apply for and take ANY job which you are CAPABLE of doing.

If cleaning toilets is all there is and you don't have a good medical reason why you can't do that role then you should take it and continue to look for your ideal job whilst in a job. JSA is quite rightly not there to fund peoples preferences.

The long term unemployed and unemployable are routed down the Work Programme as quite rightly they are in need of more intervention and support.

Just existing now with your hand out is going to become a lot harder.

@CertainlyChoco - reported. Disgusting that you are suggesting @Snowysky20009 deserved to be disabled in a car accident. I don't agree with the name-calling but that is a horrendous thing to say.