To think that this is unacceptable in this day and age

[nighttrains]

• An estimated 14.3 million people are in poverty in the UK
• 8.3 million are working-age adults, 4.6 million are children, and 1.3 million are of pension age
• Around 22% of people are in poverty, and 34% of children are
• Just under half (49%) of those in poverty are in “persistent povertyy_” (people who would also have fallen below the poverty line in at least two of the last three years). This is as of 2016/17

This is from fullfact.org/economy/poverty-uk-guide-facts-and-figures/

It's appalling for a so called civilised country

@eaglejulesk so you are a fit and healthy adult? Why should you not "work" for your benefits after 12 months?

Oh, I guess you are in for the easy ride, with a high sense of entitlement!

They tried working for benefits with the Workfare scheme. It didn't work- companies were happy for people to work for benefit wage taking away minimum wage jobs from the market. People were omises jobs at the end of the scheme which never materialised Asia was cheaper to take on another workfare person.

There are a lot of people that have had disability benefits denied that would be forced to work without being well enough for do so. Tribunals where the vast majority of the claims are reinstated are taking over a year to be heard - these people would have to work in the meantime.

To put it in context, I had a life changing medical incident last year which has left me unable to walk dress cook or even make it to the bathroom. Despite having reams of consultant based evidence including specific letters written by my consultant stating how disabled I am and how little I can do, my claim was denied and I'm waiting for tribunal. Not sure how I could do this work with the magical amount of jobs that would have to become available when mist days I spend around 23 hours in bed.

@Ylvamoon - how stupid are you?? With a system like that why would employers bother to actually pay a wage at all, they would simply ask for benefit recipients to do the work instead. (sorry, people like you don't make me inclined to answer in a polite way as @dorispiffle has, but she basically said the same thing).

[quote Ylvamoon]@eaglejulesk so you are a fit and healthy adult? Why should you not "work" for your benefits after 12 months?

Oh, I guess you are in for the easy ride, with a high sense of entitlement![/quote]
I don’t thInk it would work in reality. Those that wanted to work wouldn’t mind it and it’s something to add to their cv and employers like recent work experience.

Those that don’t want to work or just do a few hours would find ways round it.

It would be better to make all benefits, bar disability/serious illness, time capped and contribution based if we don’t want long term dependency on them.

@eaglejulesk & @dorispiffle - if you actually read my "proposal" rather than making assumptions, you would have seen that I would use council/ government services (like litter picking and other council activities) as well as charity (= not for profit sectors) to provide work placement.

I work with volunteers in my current job (in the charity sector), and we provide an essential service for people who need help with getting back into the workplace. We work closely with rehabilitation services to offer placements while the charity is one providing local hospices care. It works, so why not build on it?

@IceCreamAndCandyfloss - that's why I would give people 12 months without having to work. After that people should be able to work. If they don't, or look at ways around it, benefits are gone. A bit like the probation service.

@Ylvamoon but the fact remains that there are thousands of people that should be on disability benefits that are waiting for tribunal that would be forced to do this or not receive any money. I have a life threatening condition that is made worse by any movement that including walking or just standing up. I'm essentially a ticking time bomb and if I was made to choose between no money or litter picking I'd have to choose the starvation route as whilst it'd be slower, I would live longer

Which employers don't pay a living wage? The average salary is something like £29K. Most skilled jobs start at £16-£18K. That's around £1200 take home pay, just as a starting point. Perfectly liveable as a single person in most parts of the country, and with 2 adults working that's well over £2000. If you're a single parent you get government help. My SIL as a single stay at home parent of 2 kids gets £1500 in benefits.
The jobs that you don't have to study for are paid at minimum wage, which isn't much but that's why it's called minimum wage. How much should employers be expected to pay for a basic job that requires no qualifications? And you can still live on minimum wage, it's just going to be a basic no frills life.
Someone earlier said that what used to be called a modest lifestyle is now considered poverty and what used to be luxury is now modest, and I agree. I buy everything second hand, bring a packed lunch to work, shop at Aldi and walk everywhere. I don't feel poor but now keep quiet about my lifestyle because of the pitying looks I get...from people who regularly complain about being skint and say they're desperate for a council house (but have turned down the ones they've been offered...not that desperate then). Also the number of people that seem surprised I live in a flat with children and keep asking me when I'm going to move to a house because kids "need" a garden...erm no, no one NEEDS a garden, it's nice to have but it's a luxury.
We've come to expect a certain lifestyle as the "norm"...3 bed family house with a garden, new clothes every month, new phone every 2 years, pub every weekend. If you don't have that you're "poor", when actually most of that is a luxury.

@pineapplepizzas: my original post: I am thinking of fit and healthy people.
In case of disability, that would depend, with some, people can work limited hours, for some having work/ structure it would be beneficial. For others work is impossible.

We already on page 10 and nobody has yet proposed what they think should be done to eliminate poverty, and what measures be put in place to ensure it's only ever a stopgap rather than a lifestyle choice. And crucially, how is government to pay for all this

Two things
1) make companies pay an actual living wage that doesn't require a government top up, freeing up some money
2) get fit and healthy people that have been over 12 months on benefits to do min 30 hours / week community work like little picking or volunteering for a chosen charity in order to receive their benefits. For mothers it should be around school hours or when the allocated free childcare hours kick in... So 30 free hours = 25 hours of work to allow for travel time

Anyway this whole thing is theoretical, I don't think that the government would have the guts to develop something like this. To much hard work as you can't get a easy structured 3 box system, you would actually have to be human for the system to work.

@Ylvamoon

What would your solution be for the areas where there are no jobs available that people can do? For example, where I used to live the only work for people without qualifications was retail, care, or factory work. Every single job listing wanted flexible people who could work weekends (retail) or shifts including nights (the factories and care homes). This is not an exaggeration. They could demand total flexibility because they were the only jobs available. What does a single parent with no access to weekend or evening childcare do? What job can they apply for?

I suppose you could argue they should get qualifications and get a job that but the sad truth is not everyone is able to for a whole range of reasons (money, childcare, availability of courses locally, the ability to pass a course). Or you could argue they move to where the work is but then there’s the logistics of how they move, the financials of moving, and whether the job situation will be any better there.

Would these people be sentenced to a life of litter picking until their children are old enough to stay home alone?

Which employers don't pay a living wage?

The ones which operate zero hours contracts, the ones that pay below minimum wage, the ones whose employees qualify for universal credit - the list goes on. Some of you live in la la land.

Let's not also forget employers who use zero hours contracts as a means of controlling their workers. On the manager's good side? Lots of hours for you. On their bad side? Sorry, no shifts this week.

get fit and healthy people that have been over 12 months on benefits to do min 30 hours / week community work like little picking or volunteering for a chosen charity in order to receive their benefits. For mothers it should be around school hours or when the allocated free childcare hours kick in... So 30 free hours = 25 hours of work to allow for travel time

1. There are already conditions attached to unemployment benefits. They're called claimant commitments and if you break them you get sanctioned. These commitments include spending a minimum amount of time each week looking for work, sending out a minimum number of CVs on speculation, completing a minimum number of job applications, going on relevant training courses, and attending meetings with a work coach.

1. If a role exists on a voluntary basis then it should exist on a paid basis.

1. Employers who can get labour for free from the Jobcentre have no incentive to hire actual employees. This happened with Workfare where I believe Poundland or some similar company laid off a load of staff due to "cost cutting" and then took those exact same staff back on for free via Workfare. This is one of the many reasons why Workfare was a pile of shite and got scrapped.

1. People who are unemployed are as deserving of dignity and humane treatment as everyone else. Othering them only serves to deepen the divide between "them" and "us".

1. As unpalatable as it may be, there are some people for whom dysfunction runs too deeply and no amount of volunteering with a charity or picking litter will fix this.

1. Such a scheme would cost more in public funds to implement and manage than the current benefits system. DBS checks alone would cost a fortune not to mention liability insurance, then there are the admin/HR/management costs.

1. Would you really want someone who definitely doesn't want to be there doing charity work reading Take a Break to your Nana in the care home? Or ringing up your purchases in the British Heart Foundation shop? Or picking litter in the park where your children are playing?

1. Lots of disabled people or people with health conditions are suited to working in, for example, an office or a school but would unable to pick litter or tarmac roads. Thankfully in this country we don't force people into roles for which they are not suited.

1. It's inhumane. Do we force someone to pick litter in their little yellow hi-vis so everyone knows they're a scummy dole-waller and they can be the butt of a million jokes? Then do we force them to do that day after day, rain or shine, as they get more and more downtrodden? At what point would it stop? When they become unwell? When they have a breakdown? When they attempt suicide?

10. Many people, particularly women, have caring responsibilities. There are approximately 5.4 million unpaid carers in the UK. Forced "volunteering" (hint: its not voluntary when its compulsory) would not be suitable for them.

11. When are these people supposed to look for work in between their full time "volunteering", caring for their children, and looking after themselves?

Stupid, ill thought out, inhumane idea.

@VinylDetective I don't live in lala land, I live in an area classed as deprived, where a high number of people are on benefits or in lower paid jobs. No one is living a life of luxury but equally no one is wailing and starving, as some of the OTT posts suggest.

If you know of employers paying under minimum wage then that's illegal and you should report them if you're concerned. Legitimate jobs pay at least minimum wage. Zero hour jobs have always existed, they used to be called cash in hand or casual jobs. I've worked many of them, they're meant to be a stop gap.

Zero hours contracts may be supposed to be a stop gap. They’re not though. They’re a standard employment model now. You might want to check out wage rates in some of the sweat shops in Leicester, there were women working there for £3 an hour.

My brother in law lost his job (no fault ) he had wife two small kids and a mortgage. Tried very hard to find something else in his field but nothing came his way si then spread his search for anything that would cover his bills. Stupid WOMAN in job centre, suggested he apply for Avon lady. How can I cover my Bill's with that he asked, not my problem she replied. It's my job to get a job any job

@SheepandCow
The benefits system was designed to incentivise work those in work included. Whether that’s been effective is another question. As far as the last figures I heard, pre the Covid unemployment effect, it was and I personally know a number of long term unemployed able bodied people who having been asked to show evidence of job seeking or knowing they would be expected to, adjusted their choices and now work and are happier for it with more self worth. As I said though, in a time or area of widespread unemployment, out of work benefits and longer term support measures are needed, if jobs aren’t there, though better still job creation investment, as well as benefits and additional support for sick and vulnerable people and for those affected by shorter term unfortunate circumstances. It’s worth bearing in mind that many people on low or modest incomes, leading pretty frugal lives, not able to afford their own place etc. e.g, some young single people, still have to pay taxes to fund the lifestyles of others who may have their own home paid for by taxes. These types of anomalies and the perceptions to which they give rise, lead to disenchantment with the idea of more generous benefits policies as reflected in voting patterns for particular political parties. Welfare spending is a huge portion of overall public spending. It’s not ‘The Government’ its workers taxes that pay and they need to be incentivised to carry on working for the benefits system to work. The reality is that we are now living and paying for our public sector out of rapidly increasing debt so further damaging the life chances of young tax payers through increased taxes as well as cuts to pension and services (austerity is inevitable and will be forced upon us eventually by lending authorities like the IMF if we don’t get a grip) and raiding what people, who’ve worked hard all their lives, have put aside for a comfortable retirement. Relative poverty is already becoming an outdated concept in the context of benefit provision, when we have queues at food banks. As for getting the huge transnational corporations to pay more it sounds good but how would that be done when they are so powerful, I don’t think any government in the world has managed it?

There will always be people that cannot work due to disability, illness, caring for others etc. There will likely be others who could but won't work for various reasons - laziness, lack of education/skills, feeling that some jobs are beneath them, benefits being easier than working, lack of confidence etc.

The first category need the most help and the second category need help to understand what they can do to improve their situation - training/education/help to search/apply etc. However, some will never want to work and need an incentive or a kick up the bum to move from what they know (it could also be multi generational) to supporting themselves if they can.

I don't what the answer is but I am happy to pay taxes to support the ill, disabled and children who live with people that don't work since it's not their fault at all.

People who say things like "well this is the tories fault" and "this is what you voted for," are talking nonsense. Like Labour did anything better..

@CherryCocktails

People who say things like "well this is the tories fault" and "this is what you voted for," are talking nonsense. Like Labour did anything better..

They did.

Ok then 🙄

@Gancanny - you obviously think the concept of working for your long term benefits is a Stupid, ill thought out, inhumane idea ... what's there to argue if you can get a lifestyle for free? (While others do that inhumane thing and bow to their employer for their living?)
Just don't get involved in any discussions about being in poverty and not enough money given out on benefits...

you obviously think the concept of working for your long term benefits is a Stupid, ill thought out, inhumane idea

I do yes, that's why I posted those exact words. There are already conditions attached to claiming benefits and consequences for not meeting those conditions. There are not swathes of people who have been unemployed for over 12 months, less than 250000 people in fact which is a drop in the ocean compared to how many people claim benefits, and that number is dropping year on year (although may now rise due to operable rises in unemployment due to coronavirus). The largest group of benefits claimants are those in paid work who are claiming top-up benefits.

Just don't get involved in any discussions about being in poverty and not enough money given out on benefits...

I'll get involved in whatever discussions I want, I don't need your permission or your approval.

A number 12 for my above list.

12. The people being forced to "volunteer" would, in effect, be receiving less than minium wage for their efforts. This would mean benefits need to rise to the same levels as minimum wage in which case the inhumane, stupid scheme is not economically viable as it will cost a lot more than the current scheme. If benefits weren't raised to the same level as minimum wage then you would have a group of people employed in state-sanctioned underpaid, basically discrimination and a form of modern day slavery where benefit claimants are treated less favourably then employed counterparts.

I stand by my earlier comments.

Gancanny I work with and alongside volunteers in the charity sector. Some are long term unemployed, for whatever reason. They are treated with the highest regard, there is no "then & us"...
I'm glad there are people who don't share your views...