Voluntary work or lose benefits

[Marjoriew]

Government intend to cut benefits of claimants on JSA who refuse to do voluntary work of 30 hours a week over a 4-week period.
Benefits could be stopped for up to 3 months if claimants refuse to comply.

So, what is the answer?? On this thread I have seen people say:

1. What about childcare? Who is going to pay for it?
2. What about the fact that you earn more on benefits than you do working?
3. Dont give the crap jobs to the unemployed.

Well, we cannot carry on like this, some people are choosing to have a benefits lifestyle, maybe they are fussy about what they want to do, maybe the hours dont suit them, maybe they just cannot be bothered, maybe they dont choose to move around to look for work. I dont know, but what I do recognise is that during the golden years those same people were still on benefits, still choosing to live this life and no one stopped them.

In some instances there are no incentives to work. That has got to change, if you mess around at school, have children very young without really thinking about the consequences and who you are having them with then your options will be more limited.

Maybe the answer, is not to believe everything the Tories want you to believe

If these people dont really exist then there wont be an issue will there!

The way I see it, this proposal really will do nothing to tackle the problem of the long term unemployed, those who choose to live their lives on benefits rather than take work.

I think it will cost more money to administer than it will ever save, it won't result in any new jobs and it won't change the mindset of those determined to avoid work. On the contrary, I think it will reduce the real jobs available to those genuinely seeking work.

How to solve the problem? In the first instance, we need to know how big the problem really is. Seperate those people who do actually want to avoid work at all costs from those who face genuine difficulty in finding in employment, whether it be financial reasons, childcare issues, undiagnosed mental health problems or educational and training failings.

In my mind, it's not a matter of one solution fits all, it's a very complex issue that will require real thought and, I'm afraid, investment to overcome.

Wubbly - Agree. We do need to seperate people out. Do the people without qualifications want to gain some, are they willing to meet half way, they need to make an effort too, they need to turn up to the training. My sister is looking for a role having been made redundant. She should get something shortly living in the south east but people who cannot be bothered to go for interviews, who are constantly wondering what is in for them, who wont do what they consider 'crap' jobs - those are the people to target.

We just cannot allow the benefits system to carry on in the same way rewarding young girls for getting pregant with some no- mark. I am sorry if this sounds harsh but I do agree with the hostels for young mums. Make it less attractive, more consequences. There really is no reason these days to have a child without it being planned. If you choose to have a number of children on benefits you dont get more and more...

Rocky, I'm not against homes for young mums, I actually think it could work well, it all depends on the intention behind it.

I think to do it well, to make a difference and give these girls and their babies an opportunity to change their future, it will cost money.

Would it be cheaper than the current system, in the long run I think it would, in the short term, probably not.

Is there the will to invest money into such schemes? Am I unbearably cynical to think that some people would rather like these homes to be used as a punitive measure and would object to any increase in government funding to actually make them a positive experience?

People are mixing up the plan. It is only for people with school age children and only in certain cases.

We have a benefits bill we can't afford. If we can get the economy going again their will be more jobs but even so we don't really want incentives to people not to work.

if you make it less attractive such as housing benefit capped and capped at £21k as year is ludicrously high. Housing benefit should be for awful small spaces which you work jolly hard to ensure you never end up in not £20k a year.

I'm not sure what to think of these proposals. The proposed voluntary work would undoubtably boost the employability of the long term unemployed but depending on what they are asked to do they could end up undercutting some low paid workers.

Xenia, you can work your arse off 18 hours on minimum wage, you're still never going to be able to afford a nice place in London or many major cities, with wages/rents/house prices as they are.

Someone, somewhere will always have to sweep the streets, make the espressos, serve the burgers.

Don't confuse hard work with financial success, they don't always come hand in hand.

I nkow they don't and plenty of people don't have the luck or even the ability to earn more but if they make intelligent decisions in their teens then that can affect their future life and we need to ensure daughters are aware of this.

Most people even on my income can't afford to live in Central London. I certainly can't. I slum it out on the suburbs like most workers. A very few benefits people can afford to because those of us working out in less desirable areas are working very hard to pay the housing benefits bills of those living in those unaffordable areas. it's ridiculous. And even the £21k cap isn't really going to change it.

Even if we all got a first from Oxford, someone still has to make the coffee.

HB claimaints don't set the rents, they couldn't (generally) care how much it costs, they just want a home for their families.

Buy to let landlords have contributed massively to the problem, buying up affordable housing, increasing house prices and rents in the process.

Perhaps we doing something about that? Radical I know.

wubblybubbly we can't stop people buying propertys

It's a free market and free markets tend to ensure the poor are best provided for. They indeed will always be with us but they are very lucky in the UK that they have an NHS and benefits. They certainly don't need to live in places where rents are high.

Many of us have moved for work now and our ancestors in the past.

I remember the days when private rented accommodation was virtually unobtainable. You couldn't have an assured shorthold. No one would let. if you let your tenant had security for life and miniscule Rent act controlled rents. It was a total total failure. People found there was nothing to let. They had to live with parents for decades. It was a disaster. The in about the early 180s the system was changed for the better and we arwe lucky to have it as we have it with no rent controls. If rents were controlled again the supply of property woudl totally dry up and landlords would invest in a different asset class.

I don't remember there being a housing disaster prior to the 80's? To my mind, homelessness began to become a significant problem during the 80's?

I'm not sure I understand how the supply of property would dry up if we had rent controls. It might not be such an attractive prospect to private landlords, but given that house prices are falling (and rent controls would no doubt exacerbate that) then I would imagine that a) landlords would have to make a smaller profit, where the rent charged would only cover their mortgage payments b) sell up at a potential loss or c) sign the mortgage and property over the government/LHA who could take over the tenancy.

Now obviously, I've just made c) up, but if it were possible, then I think it might be an interesting option.

However, I am extremely tired and may well be talking complete bollocks

At least buy to let landlords are doing something to provide for their future. I don't understand why they get such a hard time on here. They are not completely to blame for high rents, and more often than not, the rent does no more than cover their mortgage. People see it as an investment for their future retirement or to provide for their children. Which really isn't a bad idea if you can do it, considering the amount of state pension our elderly are entitled to. And let's not forget that pensions take up a huge chunk of the benefit budget.

I am a ll thanks to a property I have that was bought from an inhertance. If I didn't have that income, I would be claiming tax credits and the like, so in cases such as mine, being able to rent out a property has prevented me having to claim anything other than CB.

who needs more than one home?

really?

i love you wubbly

Being a ll is not about having two homes. It's about investing money that you are lucky enough to have so that you don't have to rely on the state. Or is that not allowed? And at the same time, it's providing a home for someone else. Not all ll's are crap. Or do you really think that the only place people should be allowed to rent from is the government?

Curlymama, the intention is one thing, the actual effect of the buy to let craze is another.

Property prices rocketed, rents went up accordingly. That doesn't actually help anyone and it's the taxpayer who are contributing to the pensions of landlords, through HB.

It is rather amusing that you talk of either owning a second property or being on benefits. What about all those jobs just for the taking?

Riven - the last government did pump in a record amount of cash into education.

And yet, as you say, the levels of basic literacy and numeracy are appalling.

Pumping more cash in cannot be the answer.

I'm beginning to ask myself whether the idea that the state can equalise children's prospects via education, is in fact utterly misguided.
Can education overcome inequalities in the homelife?

Not expecting you to have the answers, btw, just musing...

no education cannot overcome inequalities in the homelife.
the rich/poor divide in the UK is one of the largest in the world. That has to be closed for the kids in poverty to catch up with the more privileged children in the educational stakes.

Curlymama

The reason why BTL should get a hard time is that BTL is an leveraged investment, exactly the same as buying equities, corporate bonds, private equity on margin. However, unlike these, I offset mortgage costs against rental income on BTL. This unfair disparity makes buying houses far more attractive than other speculative investments.

The impact of high property prices is a noose around this countries neck. It increases the cost of living dramatically, raising wages, making companies less competitive and reducing growth and employment. Moreover, all that money used buying/renting houses could be used for investment in businesses, saved for the future or used to increase consumption.

The UK needs to lose it obsession with property fast or we will price ourselves out of the global economy.