Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think the able bodied / mind/ non carer/ non low wage s worker on benefits, benefit population that claim benefits should contribute somehow to the community/ get the money for WORK .

495 replies

Crikeymaccrikey · 02/08/2022 15:16

Yes this may be costly to set up such as enhanced dbs checks etc.

I feel that this would both give a purpose and a contribution. And lead to jobs possibly/ develop cv / show work ethic.

In addition , it may stop the resentment and the benefit bashing if the claimants are seen to be contributing to society.

This is not necessarily a tory notion.
Karl Marxs idea about each to ones own ability... encompasses this idea of people working together for the whole of society accordi ng to ability. A quick google implies this is actually a socilaist idea of all doing what they can . This is what i am suggesting.

And before anyone says they would be pushed into things.. maybe there could be a choice of ways to contribute ,like on a data base.

Also, I am a cleaner myself. I literally clean poo off loos. I do not feel less worthy than others . I do the job because I can no longer work in my profession , as I get older, ( burnt out nhs) and see nothing but value in my ( ? Seen as some,lowly work). It gives me structure, a decent wage, and I contribute. All good. No shame in doing a good job , whatever that job if it is in my ability.

How can this idea, properly managed be other than reasonable. ?

OP posts:
FilePhoto · 03/08/2022 10:08

Those who are unwilling to work would no longer receive financial assistance but be offered free lodging in a controlled environment, a kind of secure hospital type of place. They'd get basic accommodation and food, they'd have access to a communal TV with Freeview, that type of thing. Family units wouldn't have to be split up like in the old workhouse days but they would be prevented from having more children as far as is possible. They'd be free to leave once they could satisfy the authorities that they had somewhere to live and were able to support themselves, e.g. have a job offer. They could have the opportunity to earn "pocket money" by doing menial tasks in order to earn privileges like tobacco, strong lager or Sky Sports.

A type of secure hospital place? Yep. That's gonna do my MH the world of good. And my teens. I'm sure they'll be fine and dandy being locked up because Mum is poor and sick.

I don't want tobacco, Lager or Sky sports (shock horror. Not all scroungers waste money on that shit)

Discovereads · 03/08/2022 10:10

@Dotjones

There would of course need to be a big building programme to construct the housing centres so would help that industry. A side benefit would be that these structures could easily be converted to prisons (and vice versa)

I can’t get over the fact that you’d re-purpose prisons to house “those unwilling to work” and “those unable to work”. So a disabled person with no relative to house them, gets forcibly removed from their home and put in a prison cell but has the “privilege” to “receive visitors” and “more freedoms”(I suppose to go to all those annoying medical appointments)

You think this is a benefit to the whole of society, when really the only benefit of this is “There would be a lot more social housing available as people got cleared into the housing institutions, this could be given to those who are working or be sold off privately.” and

“Crucially those who wanted to work would be able to have an acceptable standard of living.” - Except for those who want to work but are unable to work, as you’ve already said all the disabled deserve is a prison cell.

Sockwomble · 03/08/2022 10:15

Dotjones- I don't even know where to start with your post but I hope you don't have a family because if you are happy to see them in a workhouse for the 'crime' of being disabled or unable to look after themselves, you shouldn't have one.

Boiledbeetle · 03/08/2022 10:17

I know this thread is supposed to be about the able bodied but as always it has descended into a the disabled are all lying thread.

So for those who still think you can just lie your way onto PIP with a quick "I feel depressed, I've got nothing to back that up but I did go to the doctors once in 1988 brigade". Take a look at the attached.

my last PIP claim form was 185 pages.

No one is being given PIP with no evidence to back their claim up. No one!

To think the able bodied / mind/ non carer/ non low wage s worker on benefits, benefit population that claim benefits should contribute somehow to the community/ get the money for WORK .
To think the able bodied / mind/ non carer/ non low wage s worker on benefits, benefit population that claim benefits should contribute somehow to the community/ get the money for WORK .
onthefencesitter · 03/08/2022 10:22

Dotjones · 03/08/2022 09:43

I'd adopt a multi-faceted approach as there is no "one size fits all" solution. People should be grouped into those who are able and willing to work, those who are able but unwilling, and those who are unable/unfit.

  1. People who are able and willing to work should be given jobs that need doing - be it picking litter or fruit picking, any honest task available. They should have course get their skills matched to jobs that require them wherever possible, but this group would be obliged to take the work offered to them. If it meant travel or staying away from home, their expenses would be paid. Crucially this group would be paid an acceptable minimum wage, say £20,000 per year. They would still be paid if no work could be found for them but would have to take it when offered.
  2. Those who are unwilling to work would no longer receive financial assistance but be offered free lodging in a controlled environment, a kind of secure hospital type of place. They'd get basic accommodation and food, they'd have access to a communal TV with Freeview, that type of thing. Family units wouldn't have to be split up like in the old workhouse days but they would be prevented from having more children as far as is possible. They'd be free to leave once they could satisfy the authorities that they had somewhere to live and were able to support themselves, e.g. have a job offer. They could have the opportunity to earn "pocket money" by doing menial tasks in order to earn privileges like tobacco, strong lager or Sky Sports.
  3. Those who were unable to work but had someone willing to support them would be allowed to stay in the community. A degree of benefits would still be available to this group to enable them to live with friends or relatives.
  4. Those who were unable to work but not able to live in the community would be housed in a similar environment to those in (2) above, but with greater freedom and privileges such as days out or being able to receive visitors.
This system would be beneficial to the whole of society and have lots of positive knock on effects. There would be a lot more social housing available as people got cleared into the housing institutions, this could be given to those who are working or be sold off privately. There would of course need to be a big building programme to construct the housing centres so would help that industry. A side benefit would be that these structures could easily be converted to prisons (and vice versa) as demand for one service grows. It would cut down on a lot of "petty" crime because people would no longer steal to feed their families now they have a legal option. Crucially those who wanted to work would be able to have an acceptable standard of living.

This sounds horrifying.

DizzyWhoreI804 · 03/08/2022 10:25

Dotjones · 03/08/2022 09:43

I'd adopt a multi-faceted approach as there is no "one size fits all" solution. People should be grouped into those who are able and willing to work, those who are able but unwilling, and those who are unable/unfit.

  1. People who are able and willing to work should be given jobs that need doing - be it picking litter or fruit picking, any honest task available. They should have course get their skills matched to jobs that require them wherever possible, but this group would be obliged to take the work offered to them. If it meant travel or staying away from home, their expenses would be paid. Crucially this group would be paid an acceptable minimum wage, say £20,000 per year. They would still be paid if no work could be found for them but would have to take it when offered.
  2. Those who are unwilling to work would no longer receive financial assistance but be offered free lodging in a controlled environment, a kind of secure hospital type of place. They'd get basic accommodation and food, they'd have access to a communal TV with Freeview, that type of thing. Family units wouldn't have to be split up like in the old workhouse days but they would be prevented from having more children as far as is possible. They'd be free to leave once they could satisfy the authorities that they had somewhere to live and were able to support themselves, e.g. have a job offer. They could have the opportunity to earn "pocket money" by doing menial tasks in order to earn privileges like tobacco, strong lager or Sky Sports.
  3. Those who were unable to work but had someone willing to support them would be allowed to stay in the community. A degree of benefits would still be available to this group to enable them to live with friends or relatives.
  4. Those who were unable to work but not able to live in the community would be housed in a similar environment to those in (2) above, but with greater freedom and privileges such as days out or being able to receive visitors.
This system would be beneficial to the whole of society and have lots of positive knock on effects. There would be a lot more social housing available as people got cleared into the housing institutions, this could be given to those who are working or be sold off privately. There would of course need to be a big building programme to construct the housing centres so would help that industry. A side benefit would be that these structures could easily be converted to prisons (and vice versa) as demand for one service grows. It would cut down on a lot of "petty" crime because people would no longer steal to feed their families now they have a legal option. Crucially those who wanted to work would be able to have an acceptable standard of living.

Imprisonment for people who can't find work, and for disabled people who have no support, then.

Dear fucking god.

alibongo5 · 03/08/2022 10:32

worriedatthistime · 02/08/2022 23:54

@alibongo5 you are aware of where most tax comes from? Normally the well paid who pay a lot more taxes

Yeah like Jacob Rees Mogg who's £6.8 billion company pays no UK tax because it's managed from the Cayman Islands? And all the other Corporations (and individuals) who do likewise?

creamwitheverything · 03/08/2022 10:53

Aye OP i get you entirely..
Step forward fit young men form a chain gang
Young mothers step forward and pick fruit with your kid in a sling
Disabled people step forward you can sit in your wheelchair and type with your one good hand
Mums with kids step forward you can answer phones while your kids play on tablets
Anyone who can stand unaided go pack something on a production line
Anyone who cannot stand sit and do admin
Breakfast at 7 lunch at 12 ask if you need the bathroomput your hand up someone will get to you shortly
Look now all of you are productive and arent you just so happy and glad?
2 pm everyday we all stand up if we can and sing the National Anthem
Sounds a bit like North Korea or Nazi Germany to me
Would people get ranked too.I think this would be a good idea and sadly missing from your post
So say a specific kind of job for the blonde haired blue eye lot
Tag us all and then force those refusers to play a GB version of the Squid Games where only the strongest survive...excellent missed bit this..
Totally read some shit on mn but this ffs, benefit bashing.poor bashing.make em eat gruel and be happy to do so and shove the kids up chimneys when they are 5..
I would imagine you sat clutching your gin and tonic in your marigolds,and well done YOU for being a cleaner,stay there please and for gods sake never enter politics please and coming up with policies that would fix the world readily but I have an opinion too..people like you spout shit and are dangerous and to quote a much loved mn phrase I do wish you would fuck off dear. You and your ideas disgust me. For the record my husband works 60 hrs a week on nights so I dont have to,we take nothing.Your compassion for fellow human beings who seem to fall short of your judgement and ideas is outstanding

Frequency · 03/08/2022 10:54

I don't understand why tax avoidance is not only acceptable but actively encouraged. When I was self employed anyone who knew anything about taxes encouraged me to become a limited company and pay myself a menial amount to avoid paying tax on my entire income. I've seen plenty of people on MN admit to doing the same and/or threatening to take pay cuts if the tax rate rises.

Why is that anymore acceptable than claiming a benefit which you are entitled to?

Hrpuffnstuff1 · 03/08/2022 10:54

Festoonlights · 03/08/2022 09:29

Business barons?! I have never met a business ‘baron’ but I have met lots of intelligent, ambitious people taking responsibility for themselves.
Worked to an early death? Are you referring to Victorian times? Literally centuries.
We NEED money makers, inventors and big business to pay for all of these benefits. Where exactly do you think all of the money to prop up the bloated system comes from?
Take a long hard look at Sri Lanka and tell me this how you want to end up?
And what exactly are YOU contributing?

The stupidity and absurdity of some pp is eye opening.

You have to remember those making arguments against reform or attempting a solution have the most to lose.
Economics isn't just about money, it's about behavior. The current model isn't sustainable, there's always an assumption that people will choose to work. However a public good even with exclusions always becomes overused and in the case of money will run out if the system becomes overwhelmed by those who take it.

Business barons.😂

PinkFrogss · 03/08/2022 10:58

Dotjones · 03/08/2022 09:43

I'd adopt a multi-faceted approach as there is no "one size fits all" solution. People should be grouped into those who are able and willing to work, those who are able but unwilling, and those who are unable/unfit.

  1. People who are able and willing to work should be given jobs that need doing - be it picking litter or fruit picking, any honest task available. They should have course get their skills matched to jobs that require them wherever possible, but this group would be obliged to take the work offered to them. If it meant travel or staying away from home, their expenses would be paid. Crucially this group would be paid an acceptable minimum wage, say £20,000 per year. They would still be paid if no work could be found for them but would have to take it when offered.
  2. Those who are unwilling to work would no longer receive financial assistance but be offered free lodging in a controlled environment, a kind of secure hospital type of place. They'd get basic accommodation and food, they'd have access to a communal TV with Freeview, that type of thing. Family units wouldn't have to be split up like in the old workhouse days but they would be prevented from having more children as far as is possible. They'd be free to leave once they could satisfy the authorities that they had somewhere to live and were able to support themselves, e.g. have a job offer. They could have the opportunity to earn "pocket money" by doing menial tasks in order to earn privileges like tobacco, strong lager or Sky Sports.
  3. Those who were unable to work but had someone willing to support them would be allowed to stay in the community. A degree of benefits would still be available to this group to enable them to live with friends or relatives.
  4. Those who were unable to work but not able to live in the community would be housed in a similar environment to those in (2) above, but with greater freedom and privileges such as days out or being able to receive visitors.
This system would be beneficial to the whole of society and have lots of positive knock on effects. There would be a lot more social housing available as people got cleared into the housing institutions, this could be given to those who are working or be sold off privately. There would of course need to be a big building programme to construct the housing centres so would help that industry. A side benefit would be that these structures could easily be converted to prisons (and vice versa) as demand for one service grows. It would cut down on a lot of "petty" crime because people would no longer steal to feed their families now they have a legal option. Crucially those who wanted to work would be able to have an acceptable standard of living.

That’s a joke right?

Why the hell do MN let threads like these stand Confused

Terfydactyl · 03/08/2022 11:09

Hrpuffnstuff1 · 03/08/2022 10:54

You have to remember those making arguments against reform or attempting a solution have the most to lose.
Economics isn't just about money, it's about behavior. The current model isn't sustainable, there's always an assumption that people will choose to work. However a public good even with exclusions always becomes overused and in the case of money will run out if the system becomes overwhelmed by those who take it.

Business barons.😂

Show quote history

I set up my entire life so I could live cheaply, I own a cheap house in a cheap area, well insulated, minimal gardening, close enough to everywhere I want to go that i can walk it, and on and on. I did this so I could work part time til I retire.
Even I can tell you £77 a week wont pay my bills.

So some poor fucker in a shitty bedsit, trying to live on such a paltry amount deserves his paltry amount even if 10 other people take the piss and somehow also get an extra £77 a week.
And posting again for those who didnt see it last time

There were around 803,000 people in the United Kingdom who had been unemployed for less than six months, compared with 129,000 unemployed for between 6 and 12 months, and 353,000 who were unemployed for more than a year

from www.statista.com/statistics/284187/uk-unemployment-figures-by-length/

Those 350k are hardly raking it in and in the scheme of how much money we spend elsewhere this is a drop in the ocean. Even then, some will be disabled without support to claim everything they could claim, some will be carers, some will be uneducated etc.

Patsy400 · 03/08/2022 12:01

Why should anyone get money for nothing IF they are physically/ mentally able to work. If you choose to work part time regardless of how frugal your lifestyle, that is your choice of course, but you should not be entitled to a government top-up. And I emphasise NOT disabled in any capacity or those single parents/carers who have to juggle childcare care.

Frequency · 03/08/2022 12:12

Patsy400 · 03/08/2022 12:01

Why should anyone get money for nothing IF they are physically/ mentally able to work. If you choose to work part time regardless of how frugal your lifestyle, that is your choice of course, but you should not be entitled to a government top-up. And I emphasise NOT disabled in any capacity or those single parents/carers who have to juggle childcare care.

Because none of the alternatives are ethical, reasonable or feasible. You either leave them to starve or force them into slave labour thus providing massive corporations with cheap/free labour and which will push unemployment rates up as business opt to use the slave labour instead of paying a living wage.

DizzyWhoreI804 · 03/08/2022 13:31

Patsy400 · 03/08/2022 12:01

Why should anyone get money for nothing IF they are physically/ mentally able to work. If you choose to work part time regardless of how frugal your lifestyle, that is your choice of course, but you should not be entitled to a government top-up. And I emphasise NOT disabled in any capacity or those single parents/carers who have to juggle childcare care.

People aren't getting 'money for nothing'. They will have contributed via their taxes, and will have undertaken a commitment to look for work and do any and all courses the Jobcentre decides they must. They also must not turn down an offer of work.

DizzyWhoreI804 · 03/08/2022 13:33

Patsy400 · 03/08/2022 12:01

Why should anyone get money for nothing IF they are physically/ mentally able to work. If you choose to work part time regardless of how frugal your lifestyle, that is your choice of course, but you should not be entitled to a government top-up. And I emphasise NOT disabled in any capacity or those single parents/carers who have to juggle childcare care.

If you think nobody should get 'money for nothing', why do you believe that employers should get staff for nothing?

Free labour means lower wage bills, hence money for nothing.

With that in mind, I take it you also agree that nobody should have to work for free?

ddl1 · 03/08/2022 13:34

Dotjones · 03/08/2022 09:43

I'd adopt a multi-faceted approach as there is no "one size fits all" solution. People should be grouped into those who are able and willing to work, those who are able but unwilling, and those who are unable/unfit.

  1. People who are able and willing to work should be given jobs that need doing - be it picking litter or fruit picking, any honest task available. They should have course get their skills matched to jobs that require them wherever possible, but this group would be obliged to take the work offered to them. If it meant travel or staying away from home, their expenses would be paid. Crucially this group would be paid an acceptable minimum wage, say £20,000 per year. They would still be paid if no work could be found for them but would have to take it when offered.
  2. Those who are unwilling to work would no longer receive financial assistance but be offered free lodging in a controlled environment, a kind of secure hospital type of place. They'd get basic accommodation and food, they'd have access to a communal TV with Freeview, that type of thing. Family units wouldn't have to be split up like in the old workhouse days but they would be prevented from having more children as far as is possible. They'd be free to leave once they could satisfy the authorities that they had somewhere to live and were able to support themselves, e.g. have a job offer. They could have the opportunity to earn "pocket money" by doing menial tasks in order to earn privileges like tobacco, strong lager or Sky Sports.
  3. Those who were unable to work but had someone willing to support them would be allowed to stay in the community. A degree of benefits would still be available to this group to enable them to live with friends or relatives.
  4. Those who were unable to work but not able to live in the community would be housed in a similar environment to those in (2) above, but with greater freedom and privileges such as days out or being able to receive visitors.
This system would be beneficial to the whole of society and have lots of positive knock on effects. There would be a lot more social housing available as people got cleared into the housing institutions, this could be given to those who are working or be sold off privately. There would of course need to be a big building programme to construct the housing centres so would help that industry. A side benefit would be that these structures could easily be converted to prisons (and vice versa) as demand for one service grows. It would cut down on a lot of "petty" crime because people would no longer steal to feed their families now they have a legal option. Crucially those who wanted to work would be able to have an acceptable standard of living.

Been reading too much Dickens lately?

PearlclutchersInc · 03/08/2022 13:34

Are you a Liz Truss acolyte in disguise 🙄

Tillsforthrills · 03/08/2022 14:35

Dotjones · 03/08/2022 09:43

I'd adopt a multi-faceted approach as there is no "one size fits all" solution. People should be grouped into those who are able and willing to work, those who are able but unwilling, and those who are unable/unfit.

  1. People who are able and willing to work should be given jobs that need doing - be it picking litter or fruit picking, any honest task available. They should have course get their skills matched to jobs that require them wherever possible, but this group would be obliged to take the work offered to them. If it meant travel or staying away from home, their expenses would be paid. Crucially this group would be paid an acceptable minimum wage, say £20,000 per year. They would still be paid if no work could be found for them but would have to take it when offered.
  2. Those who are unwilling to work would no longer receive financial assistance but be offered free lodging in a controlled environment, a kind of secure hospital type of place. They'd get basic accommodation and food, they'd have access to a communal TV with Freeview, that type of thing. Family units wouldn't have to be split up like in the old workhouse days but they would be prevented from having more children as far as is possible. They'd be free to leave once they could satisfy the authorities that they had somewhere to live and were able to support themselves, e.g. have a job offer. They could have the opportunity to earn "pocket money" by doing menial tasks in order to earn privileges like tobacco, strong lager or Sky Sports.
  3. Those who were unable to work but had someone willing to support them would be allowed to stay in the community. A degree of benefits would still be available to this group to enable them to live with friends or relatives.
  4. Those who were unable to work but not able to live in the community would be housed in a similar environment to those in (2) above, but with greater freedom and privileges such as days out or being able to receive visitors.
This system would be beneficial to the whole of society and have lots of positive knock on effects. There would be a lot more social housing available as people got cleared into the housing institutions, this could be given to those who are working or be sold off privately. There would of course need to be a big building programme to construct the housing centres so would help that industry. A side benefit would be that these structures could easily be converted to prisons (and vice versa) as demand for one service grows. It would cut down on a lot of "petty" crime because people would no longer steal to feed their families now they have a legal option. Crucially those who wanted to work would be able to have an acceptable standard of living.

Wtf did I just read.

Patsy400 · 03/08/2022 15:38

@DizzyWhoreI804 what you on about? I never mentioned free labour.. but yes work for NMW, why not? If it’s ok for some why not everyone?

@Frequency so you’ve essentially said that you think it is an ok choice because it’s not ethical to work for NMW. Even though 4.8 million people currently do so.
As someone on NLW I’m all for higher wages but in reality that won’t happen, Just like many politicians/ famous people find loopholes and evade tax, will continue to do so.
What I would like to see happen is anyone working at NMW/NLW being entitled to some of the benefits those on U/C get e.g free prescriptions, free dental treatment (if you can find one!) free school meals, winter fuel discount and access to free/ discounted college courses etc..

when you add it all up, many low income families have less to live on than those living on benefits. How can anyone think that is ok and acceptable?

pointythings · 03/08/2022 16:00

@Patsy400 your post may not have been entirely clear - there have been people on here suggesting people should work for their benefit, that is for their £77 a week. At full time hours that would be slave wages.
If you're suggesting claimants should work however many hours @ NMW would pay for their benefits you're slightly less unreasonable, but logistically it would be an absolute nightmare and the actual cost of each employee would be far higher.
And of course the point stands that if it is work that needs doing, it should be properly paid and funded instead of being done by someone on a metaphorical chain gang.

XenoBitch · 03/08/2022 16:55

Those who are unwilling to work would no longer receive financial assistance but be offered free lodging in a controlled environment, a kind of secure hospital type of place. They'd get basic accommodation and food, they'd have access to a communal TV with Freeview, that type of thing. Family units wouldn't have to be split up like in the old workhouse days but they would be prevented from having more children as far as is possible. They'd be free to leave once they could satisfy the authorities that they had somewhere to live and were able to support themselves, e.g. have a job offer. They could have the opportunity to earn "pocket money" by doing menial tasks in order to earn privileges like tobacco, strong lager or Sky Sports

This has to be a joke. No one can possible think that this is a suitable suggestion for people who are unemployed.
What if someone has an appointment they need to get to? Will they have be accompanied? What if they don't come back? Will the police get them and bring them back?

Patsy400 · 03/08/2022 17:07

@pointythings If you're suggesting claimants should work however many hours @ NMW would pay for their benefits you're slightly less unreasonable, but logistically it would be an absolute nightmare and the actual cost of each employee would be far higher.

what is unreasonable is thinking this.

It appears that the majority don’t seem to think they should work for NMW either.. so who will? Who will do these job’s if 4.8 million down tools and move to benefits?

I don’t know what the £77 figure is related to, is that some standard rate U/C? because of course that is very unreasonable.

You’re attitude speaks volumes of certain benefits claimants, and sense of entitlement amongst them.

Frequency · 03/08/2022 17:34

To start, you cannot just leave a job and claim benefits. There has to be genuine reason you have become unemployed eg redundancy, a change in circumstances which makes working in your current job impossible. If you simply leave you need to wait until you can claim (I believe 3 months but I may be wrong). No-one on NMW would have enough savings to go without pay for up to 3 months. Most live month to month.

Secondly, if employers are unable to fill roles they need to look at why and it is not because the workforce is lazy and getting more on benefits. The benefits cap makes it impossible to be better off out of work. It's usually because the pay doesn't reflect the skills or training needed for the job eg nurses and carers.

Blossomtoes · 03/08/2022 17:39

I don’t know what the £77 figure is related to

It’s standard Job Seekers’ Allowance. I fail to see how anyone could be entitled if they were attempting to live on that.