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 .

E.g. Housing in halls of residence type buildings where all heating, water, furniture, laundry room, canteen style meals etc can be provided with economy of scale. Then a smaller individual fund for some chosen extras. This would ensure children always receive what they need. Reduce stress and debt and food banks. The material provision between working and not working would be similar but more choices if contributing through work.

You have just described a workhouse.

There is a reason they no longer exist.

Pardonwhat Because I was thinking that the gaps could be met and paid for by the benefits system . In an ideal world , yes , job creation in the longer term would be better .

There is a privately owned nursing home in my town who give unemployed benefit claimants "work experience." I think it's a six week stint. Then they give someone else "work experience" and the next and next. The company get an endless supply of free labour. The claimants get their hopes built for a job only to be dumped for the next poor sod falling for the scam.

What makes you think this hasn't already been tried? Young people used to have to work for their benefits and all that happened was that older people got sacked, because employers could get labour for £30 a week.

Was it Pound World who laid off a load of their staff and then a couple of weeks later had those exact same staff back in store working for free under the Workfare scheme? I'm sure it was. And the government paid them a per person fee for that bullshit.

But Ooola. If people have paid their Taxes or if their parents etc have. It’s their money.
They’re not getting any for nothing.
Why are people paying their taxes if (heaven forbid one day they may need them) but can’t claim the back without people ie you making them feel bad.
I tell you what The Tories would have a right wank fest over your idea.
Good on you for feeling guilty if you had to claim back YOUR money. Act all noble if it makes you feel better. However don’t lay your power trip on the rest of us as it won’t wash.

Ooola

So you admit that these roles being advertised as jobs and not mandatory slave labour is preferential?
So haven’t you just negated your whole proposal?

What you mean is “let’s create jobs so people on benefits have a chance at gaining proper meaningful employment”?

Surely you don’t think unemployed people lack a skill base, empathy , legal backgrounds , child protection backgrounds , they will be a multi skilled group .. unless they are being stereotyped as something else ??Many skilled and able people are unemployed .

Oh there is definite stereotyping going on here but it isn't me doing it.

Greysparkles No of course not . My idea is a premis .. to discuss the idea of this system being a possibility and a good idea with hopefully multiple benefits .
I am not a policy maker and admit I do not understand the technical application of a view I hold .

Fucking hell. So now we are going to move benefit claimants out of their homes into 'halls of residence'.

So the plan is to spend millions on these 'halls of residence' plus the additional cost associated with running them. Will people who work get transported to their jobs?

What will happen if they start earning enough, can they get their old house back? In fact what will happen to all the houses of benefit claimants whilst they are in these 'halls of residence'

Fucking genius idea, that.

Then what happens if the Halls of Residence are full but new residents need to be moved in? Particularly after Brexit when employment levels will turn to shit. Should the older residents be gotten rid of somehow...?

Soylent green

But could you live claiming 20k if your rent was 13k?
Can we agree its not fucking desirable

Pardonwhat
I don’t feel I have contradicted myself
I do not think it should be slave labour . If a person can do , for example 4 hours a week for the fair exchange of benefits of say £200 a week .. that’s not ‘ slave wages ‘ it’s the equivilant of £50
Per hour ..
As I said there would be a choice of what you did , but the agreement would be to do something . I did not say 30 hours a week in something you hate ( which is what some employed people do day in and day out anyway ) .

But could you live claiming 20k if your rent was 13k? Can we agree its not fucking desirable

And can we also agree that the £13k in rent is not going to the claimant, it's going to the landlord therefore the claimant is not getting £20k a year. They are getting £7k.

Thing is, where does this stop?

If people on benefits need to “top up” their contribution to society with voluntary work, why not others who are net beneficiaries of the state?

So those earning under £38k a year (or thereabouts) are considered not net contributors. So should people earning less than £38k have to do voluntary work too.

But surely that’s unfair too. Because some people on over £38k will due to personal circumstances draw more out of the system than they put in.

Like people who need a lot of medical care. Or people who have large families (state education for the children, births on the NHS etc). Or people who live in remote areas. Or who drive a lot on the roads. Who live in an area where flood defences have been built.

Should they have to do voluntary work too? Or should the state just stop providing things like medical care, education, roads etc and everything be private.

And some people on below £38k will, due to personal circumstances draw a lot less out of the system. Because they don’t use medical care, or have children or use any public services except maybe enjoying the fact that having a police force keeps crime down and having an army means you don’t get invaded. Although they do benefit from things like herd immunity from free vaccinations, regulation of financial products.

Why not just keep individual accounts for everyone about what they put in and take out of the state. But who pays for the administration of that system? The state? And how do you make sure people report what they use accurately? 24hr surveillance of everyone? A network of informants? Scannable barcodes on wrists so everytime you walk down a street some money is debited from your account?

About 60% of the population are net beneficiaries, so should 60% if the population be doing voluntary work to “give back”? Who is supervising and setting all this work?

I don’t see how this is any less a Road to Serfdom or a totalitarian state than communism is. Just measured in money not party loyalty.

Be careful what you wish for.

We have seen people on TV, who make a living out of having a very large amount of children, as is deemed their right, to be kept on benefits by the rest of us who work damn hard., people who say "why should I get a job". Did you see how many tons of vegitables went to waste because there was no-one to pick them. I have cleaned toilets, whatever was necessary to keep my family fed and a roof over our head. I know people who have boasted about being on benefits, and do not intend to look for work.

Your a paycheck away from this yourself OP.
What unemployed people need is proper help and support and retraining if needed regarding finding employment. Not being forced to work for their money.

I did not say 30 hours a week in something you hate ( which is what some employed people do day in and day out anyway )

This is what it keeps coming back to isn’t it? You hating your job.
Well get a new one.
You honestly sound jealous of people on jobseekers and it’s very odd

Boysey45 I am aware of that fact . I would expect to do some work for my ( benefit ) money .

The only way I can think is that for those who haven't recovered from using benefits as a temporary safety net (e.g. 1year) and excluding those with medical need etc should have a more efficient use of funds. E.g. Housing in halls of residence type buildings where all heating, water, furniture, laundry room, canteen style meals etc can be provided with economy of scale. Then a smaller individual fund for some chosen extras. This would ensure children always receive what they need. Reduce stress and debt and food banks. The material provision between working and not working would be similar but more choices if contributing through work.

This made me cry a bit. Maybe Helix is being goady or maybe he/she really thinks that way. Whichever it is, it's so upsetting to know that there are people out there who are cruel and lacking in empathy. No wonder this country is so fucked up.

l was on benefits for maybe 18 months before and after major surgery. Prior to that l was in a job (with a police force) for 28 years. l paid a lot of tax and NI in that time.
When l was on benefits l ended up having to use every penny of my savings just to exist and having to rely on the goodwill of friends. l'd have been lost without them. l was looking for work, but l'm in my early 60s and l have two serious conditions, one limiting, one life threatening. l'm working now but only part time because of one of my conditions. l was very lucky to get my job, and even luckier to have a fantastic manager who is very understanding.
l think it's insulting and degrading to expect people who are getting a pittance to do jobs that they would otherwise get paid a wage for, and as PP have said, it affects the availability of 'proper' jobs.

I would expect to do some work for my ( benefit ) money .

Why the “( benefit )”? Why not just ‘money’?
You’re honestly trying to dehumanise the poor aren’t you?
Let’s hope the tables never turn.

Its work in itself looking for work, so you would be doing something.

Pardonwhat ? I love my job . !!
Yes , a long time ago , I was in a job I hated . I was citing that fact to highlight that sometimes we have to tolerate doing what we don’t like .
My current , nmw job is enjoyable and doesn’t even feel like work .
I do not need to change my job .

You attitude on the other hand...