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 .

[Crikeymaccrikey]

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. ?

Not really, is that an accusation?
I pay VAT on all goods and materials. I pay tax on monies left over after all legally allowable expenses have been deducted. It's efficient and it's also within my control.

Communitarianism is often used as a reason to support one another, however, obligations and duty to one's community should also be born in mind. We cannot have vast swathes of people thinking they're entitled to unlimited support.
It's impossible to fund and manage.

Well that's ok then because we don't have "vast swathes of people thinking they're entitled to unlimited support". So all is well.

It was a question. Thank you for your answer.

Could you now answer my other question about how you'd deal with the 30% of society you've described as "not fit for purpose"?

Employers would not want these people working for them because they would be useless.

Yes, like the 1 in 4 people, who leave primary school, without functional literacy! While there are a number of manual labour jobs, where being able to read is not necessary; the truth is people in the 3rd world can do much of that work and cheaper. As Boris says (?) , the UK needs to be a high productive, high wage enonomy - which means a highly educated and skilled work force, because China and India can outcompete us in manufacturing, etc.

My husband used to work in a professional firm in Central London. The local borough council used to ask them to have young people in for work experience. His firm complained that the council sent them people, who could not read - which was useless, when they were going to do filing and other paper based admin jobs. The council asked them if it were necessary for people to be able to read? I do not know what kind of work, they think goes on in professional offices, which does not require being able to read? Young people in Central London are not going to be able to go out and do fruit picking, etc; and I am not aware of a great deal of manufacturing jobs either?

£77 is single person benefit when unemployed. Add housing benefit, council tax benefit, free prescriptions, winter fuel allowance, cold weather payments. A little more than £77. Of course, add in a couple of children, and the benefits are proportionately far more. No questions asked if there is a non resident parent bunging in a few extra quid, or even a working partner living ‘at his mum’s’. If not living together, then mum is assessed as a single parent.

As a previous worker in social housing, and more latterly a volunteer for a charity, I’ve met many women who have lived on benefits since their first child was born. Youngest child reaches a certain age, or leaves home, their benefits plummet to the level of a single person, their housing benefit is reduced, and they realise they might need to earn. More than one has mentioned having children as their reason not to have even considered a job. Its how the other women they know live. Some MNetters will never have met people who live that sort of life, but it does exist.

I honestly don't know why people bother responding to this clown -> Hrpuffnstuff1

All he does is spend his days wandering around Mumsnet spaffing his opinions at women who didn't ask.

I would say this is fair : if you are mentally and physically capable of work the job centre should offer you a choice of three jobs according to circumstances ie childcare - if you don't take one of those jobs then no benefits .

Notice how some people have spaced out having their kids so they can carry on claiming?

Also some people in power are pot calling the kettle black . I bet housing benefit paid for their student accommodation back in the day . Also tax dodgers are just as bad as dole fiddlers

The majority on benefits are genuine. They are working too, or disabled etc. They are genuinely in need.

There are a minority that are not genuine, that refuse to work, and some are claiming fraudulently.

But the ones that don't want to work won't do a good job on anything as they don't want to it. Not much point forcing them.

We don't have vast swathes of people who think that though, the vast majority of people claiming benefits are a)entitled to them b) using them for very warranted reasons and c) are also working some hours. So why are you saying we have vast swathes of people when that's clearly an inflammatory statement that isn't based on truth?

To me tax dodgers are worse because of the sheer amount of tax they are dodging- particularly the wealthy. It always amazes me how so many people seem to identify more with the extremely rich when statistics show the vast majority of us are 3-4 paychecks away from homelessness and debt. Why anyone would want to remove the safety net that exists for us all is beyond me.

And let's not forget the expenses scandal folks when the tories slagged down the idle feckless scroungers . Someone was so enraged they blew the whistle on them . Personally I have no problems with people claiming benefits to make ends meet esp if they are in poor health or have small children. but I have a problem with people who have no intention of working. There are more people claiming to make ends meet than you realise they just keep their mouths shut .

Wow I would have snapped their hand of for a clerical job . When I left school many years ago the careers officer laughed at me and said only the grammar school kids took those .

The Unemployment Bureau was basically a job shop back in the day. Employers sent them vacancies, and claimants had little choice. OH worked in a pretty awful chicken factory when he was young and single, if he hadn’t taken the job his unemployment benefit would have stopped anyway.

An old friend lives near it, the operatives now are mainly Eastern European.

I call bullshit on the women getting pregnant to avoid work.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out what happens when the last child is 4 and your forced to find a job.

We talk about the £77 a lot because that has to pay for a lot. It also hasn't changed in I think 15 plus years. So what £77 bought you in 2007 may have been liveable, it's not now, and with heating your home about to double in cost, i think we can expect some people to die this winter.

Again for the hard of thinking
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

A fair chunk of the 350k will be uneducated, ill but unable to access help to claim disability, just out of prison, and many other reasons.
I think if someone is desperate enough to try surviving on such a paltry amount, we should let them.

2% of the whole benefits bill is spent on jobseekers , why the fuck aren't you angry at the other 98%

I see that @Hrpuffnstuff1 still hasn't answered my question about how he wants the 30% of society he deems not "fit for purpose" to be dealt with.

2% of the whole benefits bill is spent on jobseekers , why the fuck aren't you angry at the other 98%

Meanwhile, the shadow economy is supposed to be £150 billion. Carers save the economy £119 billion plus.

Yet people see benefits fraud as a major problem, when it’s immaterial in the context of sums like this?

As a previous worker in social housing, and more latterly a volunteer for a charity, I’ve met many women who have lived on benefits since their first child was born. Youngest child reaches a certain age, or leaves home, their benefits plummet to the level of a single person, their housing benefit is reduced, and they realise they might need to earn. More than one has mentioned having children as their reason not to have even considered a job. Its how the other women they know live. Some MNetters will never have met people who live that sort of life, but it does exist

This, while already flawed thinking, is also seriously outdated. For years there has been a 2 child limit on benefits in the vast majority of circumstances, so there is no such thing as having a new baby every 5 years to keep your income going. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that even if having a child under 5 allows you to stay at home on the same benefit rate a bit longer, that the cost of doing so in this day and age far outweighs the fact that you don't have to actively seek work with a pre school age child for a handful of years.

@Dreamwhisper its good to know that the change in how children’s ages affects benefits has brought realisation that working is the better option. However, our charity still gets referrals from the job centre for people who haven’t read that memo.