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 .

Today 23:07 Justmuddlingalong
Aware that they are jumbled . It’s a very complex issue.it was the premis I was asking about .. I wasn’t saying I knew how the idea would be applied .

@Ooola you said “I don’t know much about the system” so perhaps do some research or ask questions as opposed to trotting out some weird ideas that have in fact been unsuccessfully administered many years ago under a series of crap government schemes.

That, my love is blatantly obvious.

ghostofharrenhal
Agreed . I do need that !
👍

If people want volunteer roles they can already do this. Forcing volunteer roles will mean they will be badly done. Elderly people ( one of your examples) and other vulnerable people deserve better than having someone who doesn't want to do the role,

jesus fucking christ

Justmuddlingalong

That, my love is blatantly obvious.

Oops , a comma missing ?😂

But Ooola that is not happening in the current system at all, and I believe its something like 75% of all cases that go to tribunal get overturned.

But under the system you are suggesting all those that get turned down in the assessment, then turned down on the 2nd review and are having to wait will have to do some volunteer work.

Maybe, rather than go after the people that are claiming at the moment, a massive overhaul of the benefit system should happen, that is not universal credit, which is an equal shitstorm

Sleepyblueocean
But what if they wanted to do it ? I did say that no one should be forced , but that they should have a choice / be matched to interest or skill set?

Yeah. I thought you'd understand it better if the punctuation was shite.

Ghosts. Obviously oversimplifying my idea and making it look much bleaker...

Not independently wealthy and this was my suggestion after a generous support for a year or so for those not getting back on their feet. I lived like this for a long time whilst training and when junior in my career. It strikes me as better and cheaper than independently living but barely getting the basics on sanctions etc. Children often miss out in current set up.

Just increasing amounts given doesn't help as that just means wages aren't better, inflation etc.

It is unpopular and yes would be hard to get started and do well but the essence of fairness is that those able to work should be at least a bit better off in work than out.

I am definitely in favour of high tax, high spend and good support for those who need it. Also childcare, transport to support employment. However where this hasn't worked I just think we could do better giving actual stuff efficiently and less cash to landlords etc.

Sobeyondthehills
I agree that a better system than the one you describe above should be in place. It leaves people in very vulnerable positions . I think people at the very front line in benefits work should be very skilled multi disciplinary assessors ( or at least have access to them ) , as mistakes , assumptions , lack of knowledge , can have disastrous effects - as you describe .

I agree that providing forced-labour would just mean that the employers would use them instead of emplying people, resulting in a less skilled, less motivated workforce caring for our most vulnerable citizens and greater numbers of unemployed.

I think it would be far more beneficial to support those who are unemployed to improve their skills via college courses and opportunities to shadow employed people.

Poppinjay
Good idea .

Tbh this thread is basically a great example of politics

The OP is basically Ian Duncan Smith.

“This is my plan”
“It won’t work because A, B and C”
“We’ll fit it to work”
“But you’ve misunderstood D, E and F”
“That’s ok, it’ll be fine”

And so we end up with Universal Credit and the likes because people with no clue get to make all the big decisions

Ooola, the decisions being made and the rate of overturn at tribunal, might indicate something different, perhaps that targets were being met at the start.

"But what if they wanted to do it ?"

They already can do it. There are lots of volunteer opportunities. When you put pressure on you get the wrong people.

The vast, vast majority of benefits claimants in this country are in some form of paid work, and receive top up benefits such as tax credits, to supplement their poor wages. Many families receive benefits because one member of the family needs additional help, such as a child on dla, or an adult who is short or long term unable to work. For families, benefit claims are joint claims, which makes things more complex still.

For example say I work 40 hours a week, earn a crap wage, and have a dh with chronic treatment resistant mental health problems (so not a visible disability). We jointly claim benefits as a result. Are you seriously suggesting that on top of my 40 hour week, caring for my children, caring for my husband when he is in a bad spell, and generally keeping the house and family going, as the only family member fit enough and old enough to work, I should be picking up a few hours of enforced 'voluntary' work in exchange for receiving the benefits which allow me to go to work in the first place? It's clear you have no understanding of the benefits system, and your suggestion, OP, is insulting on more levels than I have the time to point out, for all of the aforementioned reasons.

What would make a difference and truly help people move away from benefits is a decent living wage, affordable childcare, affordable housing, genuinely flexible working, access to education throughout life, and enough jobs, not just to go around, but to match the skills people have available, or alternatively upskilling people to match the jobs needing filled.

One other thing. There are more unemployed people in the uk, than there are jobs. Of those vacancies, 100,000 are nhs jobs. Which no one either wants to do, or is qualified to do. Hundreds of those vacancies are teaching jobs, as people leave the teaching profession in droves. There are 1.3 million unemployed people, and of the 750,000 jobs, a huge chunk are jobs where people are fleeing the professions because they have been run into the ground. It's not as simple as number of jobs equals number of people.

This kind of system is too open to abuse- rouge bosses will just have people working for free rather than advertising jobs, which will just take more jobs away from job hunters.
And since so many people are being assessed as fit to work despite being seriously unwell, would you be happy with someone who was dying being forced to work?
And when are people meant to have time to job hunt if they are being forced to work for free full time?

MesmorisedByTheLights
Absolutely not re the unwell people . Of course not .
Re the voluntary work . I did not say it should be full time at all . I said it could be a few hours only , and to fit around commitments - job hunting being perhaps one of them .

I see that , at present , 42 % do not think this idea would be unreasonable . I would be interested to hear from those in that 42 % .

You don't understand the meaning of the word "voluntary". It's not voluntary work if people have to do it. It's unpaid work.

I think it would be far more beneficial to support those who are unemployed to improve their skills via college courses and opportunities to shadow employed people.

I’m not sure where to start.
But simply:

1. unemployed doesn’t mean unemployable and uneducated
2. what the fuck is anyone going to gain from following around someone with a job?
3. what is the person with a job going to gain from someone following them around?
4. what is the company employing the person going to gain from having someone follow an employee around?

What an out-of-touch comment.

Sleepyblueocean
Ok .. ‘ required contribution ‘ .??..
Not voluntary . I was incorrect .

Why have you name changed in the middle of a thread?