To ask for a view on this ? If someone gets benefits and are not a carer / single parent etc .. then they should contribute to society in order to receive benefits ?

[Ooola]

I think in society we should all support orhers.
The taxpayers contribute by paying taxes .
Vulnerable people such as disabled , carers etc should be supported by others .
Those who can’t find work and get benefits .. should be required to give something back for the money they get ...not be forced to work for a big co operation but to contribute . Things like park maintenance , listening services , support to the struggling public services . There could be matching service so that they could chose to gain experience or use the skills they have to benefit others .
Any police checks , as are required in other jobs , would be funded . Does this sound fair ? If we all give what we can then it may be of benefit to all , including the claimant who could use this to build c v , etc . Surely it’s win win in principle ? If someone gets benefits say at a level of 10 k , 13 k , 20 k
.. it feels fair that they give something for that especially as it is comparable to someone working and getting minimum wage ?
Clearly time would need to be given off for job interviews etc .

I've NRTFT, but you do realise that everyone pays tax?

It's called VAT and it's a regressive tax,so the less you earn the higher percentage of your income is used to pay this.

Poor idea .

It doesn’t work in practice.

I care for my disabled son. I also volunteer because I WANT TO.

I volunteer with parents who need someone to listen, usually they have children being investigated for autism/ADHD or other developmental issues.

I also help people complete DLA and PIP forms and support them through the claim. I’m good at it too.....everyone I help gets awarded eventually. Equally they are all entitled to the award and I wouldn’t be filling in forms for those who don’t qualify. I am about to help an 18yr old young man who has dyslexia and learning difficulties complete a form. He’s a very disadvantaged young man too....at 18 he’s in supported accommodation, had little to no parenting and is a father. Contrast that with my 17yr old still at home, still being supported by parents and who has everything he needs. It’s sad to see someone near similar age without that support. So yes I will do all in my power to help this youn man.

For me volunteering works well. I’m retaining skills and gaining experience. When I eventually return to work I have skills I can offer.

So yes volunteering can be great and give valuable skills, however who wants a volunteer who doesn’t want to be there.

And yes care work is not a good option for people who are indifferent to it. The clients deserve better than that.

No, what we need is to give money unconditionally to the poor. We will afford this by first: taxing the rich, raising and collecting corporation tax and secondly by doing away with the not-fit-for-purpose private companies who cost the tax payer vast amounts of money by botching the assessments of benefit claimants whose cases then go to court.
When poor people have more money, they spend it, putting it directly into the local economy, which benefits the local community.

All this punitive, dehumanising bullshit about putting the poor in cells and making them do tasks that are either meaningless or should be done by paid employees is an indication that the person airing it is both mean-minded and stupid.

Compulsory volunteering? Capital idea! Let's put them in a nice brightly-coloured uniform while we're at it - fluorescent pink, why not - so everyone can see how much they are contributing.

Also, we need to give the programme a name - something like State Compulsory Unemployment Mitigation - and put its initials on the back and front of the uniform in big block letters.

And AND we could have a sort of Big Brother-style diary room for them, so that they can record short video messages expressing appreciation for the opportunities they have been given, of which we can broadcast a short selection every night after the news and before the weather forecast. That'll do nicely!

FFS.

This thread makes me absolutely despair. Where did empathy and compassion for people less fortunate go? And to use a much used term these days: benefits is not a quid pro quo. What about people on the other end of the scale, the ones enjoying massive tax breaks? Also state provided. I would like to see them in a hi vis jacket in my local park. If you look at the actual numbers, benefits are paid in great numbers to people IN WORK. And much of the money goes to private landlords cashing in because there no longer is any affordable housing. Many have made the point already but YABU.

I haven't rtft. Yes I agee, it is unfair people can choose to be unemployed and with receiving housing too, they are probably better off financially than a working couple. If benefit claimants were expected to do this work I bet they'd find the will to get a paid job.
They do it in many other countries unless disabled or a single parent, you can only receive benefits for a year, it gives you 12 months to find paid work.

Actually, if people are better off on benefits than taking a low-paid job, the answer is to increase wages. One issue for people who are unemployed but capable of work is the difficulty in getting any kind of secure work. Far too many employers who pay the minimum wage will not guarantee hours and state they require 'flexibility' which means your shifts change at short notice (a major issue for anyone with dependents) and you can't be sure what you are going to earn in any given week/month. Flexible work is pretty much beyond the capabilities of the DWP to cope with, so they stop your benefits and make you reapply, or suddenly decide they over paid you last year and therefore are halving what you get now... people not wanting to risk this is not 'laziness' it's fear.

When poor people have more money, they spend it, putting it directly into the local economy, which benefits the local community
That would make sense if it improved their life, it would certainly go back into the local economy, the 100% Christmas bonus in Ireland showed that.
BUT I live in an area which is fairly poor, there is plenty of work for those who want it, on a Thursday pay day you can't get into McDonalds, there is in cue in the off licence, the coke and weed dealers are hanging about.
By getting people out to actually work will give them a sense of purpose.
By giving poor people lots of money it won't help the overall situation, by giving them access to budgetting classes, community involvement, gardening etc.
The ones who refuse too should be giving the right help to make changes for their DC.
Society keeps going in the same circle. Poverty, addiction, crime, it is mostly boredom people need something to do.

Oh fuck off. Another one living in fairy land thinking a single mum gets 20k in benefits. I’m a solo parent after my husband died, I work and am just about keeping afloat. It’s my absolute fear that One day im out of work. Fuck and I’m working for a few hundred quid per month- that wouldn’t even cover food. If there’s work available then you can pay me. Must be so nice to look down on all those struggling.

Also, for the really fucking stupid, once again: many benefit recipients are ALREADY WORKING. But their wages are too low for them to be able to feed and house themselves. This is because wages are held down to benefit shareholders.

Actually, if people are better off on benefits than taking a low-paid job, the answer is to increase wages
Or invest in employment oppurtunities over 5 years in the less economical places then stop benefits for abled bodied adults.
Let the government employ them pay them a prooer wage through community building.

More funding for addiction support would not be a bad idea, @EmeraldShamrock. Funding for mental health care is already cut to the bone, though, which impacts on poor people more (as well as the fact that poverty is very bad for mental health and an adequate income would cure a lot of people's MH issues.)

However, it is not the state's job to police poor people's choices of food and leisure activities.

Funnily enough Emerald the queue at the local McDonalds here is often out the door. But generally they are workers stopping for a quick meal.

You do know that Thursday isn’t “pay day” right? On Universal Credit (when I claimed it) it was on the 28th of each month (and it’s a different day for everyone) and I paid rent and council tax out of that. It didn’t stretch to McDonalds.

Years ago a friend (Chartered Accountant, large house, big mortgage)

Was made redundant.

He had his mortgage insured (as the government recommended people do) so that for a year approximately £1400 per month of his mortgage was paid,

He duly signed on so that the insurance could see he was looking for a job and he made a claim on his mortgage insurance.

He applied for several jobs and got several 1st interviews and some 2nd interviews and because of the level he was on companies did 3rd interviews and then there was the psychometric tests and medicals etc so not exactly a short process.

After 6 weeks the job centre told him if he didn’t find work in the next 2 weeks he would have to work in Mac Donald’s for free until he found work or be signed off unemployment

The problem was if he was working in MacDonalds or signed off unemployment then his mortgage insurance became null and void.

How would telling people that instead of looking for work and being temporarily in employed they end up being employed as litter pickers in the local park.

It would totally work against people who have mortgage insurance just as a start.

What about those people who have the job as litter pickers. Would they be made redundant and then told they had to do their job for benefit money until they hound another career

And yes most claimants are already working.

Nobody these days can choose not to work either. They have to prove they are looking for work and demonstrate it.

Those working with top ups are working. Let the government top all the low earners up or increase wages.
The problem with increasing wages with companies is they leave, my job has been around 20 years, for 5 years now all new staff in our call centre are employed in Pakistan.
For anyone who thinks i am being arsey I am not, im employed with in a low paying job.

Anyone who is not a carer or disabled has to spend 35 hrs a week looking for work - when do you suggest they do this contribution?

I have paid taxes for 35 years - I expect to receive benefits unconditionally if I need them and I expect my family and friends to as well.

According to figures I read about 6 months ago there are less than 50,000 households in the UK where no one has ever worked. that includes those headed by people too disabled to ever work or caring for those too disabled to ever work and those headed by young people who will almost certainly work in the future.

The actual number of households were none has ever worked for no obvious reason is estimated to be below 10,000 in the entire UK. All those people you 'know' who fit this category almost certainly do not.

So virtually everyone contributes to society and everyone pays taxes so I'm not too sure who you are talking about - oh yes I do all those rich bastards sitting there getting tax relief and never working who inherited their money from mummy and daddy.

You do know that Thursday isn’t “pay day” right?
Thursday is benefits day for many in Ireland as is Tuesday and Monday depending on your payment.

Ah you’re in Ireland....that’s different. Here payments can be any day.

We have had volunteers in our charity threatened with sanctions as volunteering takes them away from job hunting. Madness.

To be fair this hasn’t happened for the past year so perhaps things are changing with regards to this,

Also, the obsession with 'work' as in 'earning a wage' is a stupidity-indicator. Sure, most people want to spend their time doing things which are productive and rewarding but being employed is no longer any guarantee of this.
There are three purposes to work:
the undertaking of necessary tasks (eg producing food, producing or maintaining necessary products or services)
redistribution of resources (wages - or fees charged by the self-employed)
feeling that you have done something useful

Unfortunately all three of those factors are now... not there, in many cases. A lot of necessary tasks are automated and require fewer actual workers to do them. Wages, as stated upthread, are stagnant.
And many, many jobs give no feeling of worth or satisfaction because they are utterly fucking pointless.

The rise of the rentier/agent class is also a problem when it comes to employment - there are companies (think of all the 'disruptive' apps for example) whose profit comes from inserting themselves into the relationship between worker and customer and taking a slice of each transaction. If you want to boost your income by some of those MN favourites like cleaning, dog-walking or taking in ironing,. these days, you will end up having to work for an agency, because the agencies will undercut what you would charge as a sole trader, and the agency will pay you much less than what they are charging the client...

ReanimatedSGB we don’t always agree but your posts here have been excellent.

“people not wanting to risk this is not 'laziness' it's fear.” I especially thank you for this!

When I was first looking for work after finishing uni and having been affected by car crash inc mental breakdown I had primary age dd to consider as well as myself. In theory there were plenty of jobs I could have done but which were temp contracts (mostly covering maternity leave so the potential to become permanent) or varying hours. As a single mum I was too scared to risk our income (and home!) on these. I already knew as I had by this time 4 years experience dealing with the various benefits agencies and knew changes in circs took AGES to sort out. In addition the ones with varying hours also included hours outside when childcare was available, so even if my core hours were within childcare availability I knew I’d have to turn down the ones that weren’t and that would have likely led to me being let go anyway!

EmeraldShamrock you’re really looking quite foolish nrtft and therefore not understanding it’s not as simple as “there’s plenty jobs round here”

In fact comments like “By giving poor people lots of money it won't help the overall situation, by giving them access to budgetting classes, community involvement, gardening etc.” You also sound incredibly arrogant, ill educated and uninformed. Also hugely prejudiced against “poor people”

What exactly do you think makes you better than them?!

I’m poor, I’m disabled not working and on benefits.

I also hold 2 degrees, post grad qualifications, and am by no means stupid as you are implying “poor people” are.

How old are you? What’s your circumstances? Are you independently wealthy? How much do you have left over at the end of the month? Do you have much in savings?

“im employed with in a low paying job”

Then you are just as likely to end up in my position as ANYONE. Probably more easily than most from sounds of things.

Aged 30 I was married, working full time in a well paid job with a work pension, fit and healthy and in relatively secure housing (ex was army).

5 years later I was divorced, disabled, mentally ill, working in a nmw job as it was only job I could get that was “office hours” and so fitted with childcare for dd, getting in work benefits to get by.

Shelter estimates half of working renters are ONE pay cheque away from homelessness.

Life can turn on a sixpence! You never know what’s around the corner, disability, sickness, divorce, redundancy, bereavement can all leave you high and dry.

You say there’s plenty jobs where you are, do you actually know how many vs how many people unemployed? Plus I doubt they’re all full time and well paid!

You sound like my dad did about 10 years ago until my sister and I educated him that just because he was seeing “plenty jobs in the paper” that

A there weren’t enough jobs for the number of unemployed in our area at a basic arithmetic level

B most of them were part time nmw and so not enough for even a single childless person to live on

C most were temp contracts 3 months or less

D but somehow the employers still demanded high levels of qualifications (highers to be a shelf stacker? Really?) and experience beyond what was necessary for the role

OR

E they were for jobs many in the area didn’t have the training, qualifications or experience for and nowhere local/affordable to gain that training etc eg engineers, highly specialised IT work etc

And I really don’t know where the fuck you get the idea Thursday I’d pay day for benefits recipients - not how it works at all! - and later it becomes clear you’re talking nonsense.

Actually @Emeraldshamrock if you're in a low paid job BUT according to you there's plenty jobs where you are why can't you get a better one?

Perhaps they should also write weekly Thankyou notes to the taxpayers who think they are funding a lifestyle choice 🤔😬

Actually @Emeraldshamrock if you're in a low paid job BUT according to you there's plenty jobs where you are why can't you get a better one?
Because I have two autistic DC. The older High functioning but entering teen years.
DP works fulltime. My youngest is low functioning and won't stay with anyone but his parents.
I work evenings and weekends around DP.
I am capable of a better job, but I'd rather do the one that fits my schedule.
Does that satisfy your interest @Graphista