Unemployment

[newwave]

I have read the threads on here tonight and many have stated that those on benefits who can work should work, I have no problem with that at all BUT as the Tory governments policies are destroying tens of thousands of jobs and because of them we have 2.54 million out of work combined with RECORD youth unemployment can I ask those who castigate those on benefits what jobs

2.54 million out of work 424, 000 vacancies, do the math.

The welfare bill is large because many people are unemployed. Cutting the public sector at this time will only make the situation worse. It further reduces spending power across the country, taking us further into the downwards spiral.

How many times do we have to repeat this, the deficit was caused by the banks and the crisis in the financial sector, due to their excessive and irresponsible risk taking.

In fact, I would scrap tax credits but in a fiscally neutral way - use the money to increase the lower tax threshold.

The deficit wasn't caused by the banks - the banking crisis merely laid the extent of the deficit bare. There was a deficit in 2003-2007 before the credit crunch.

Gordon Brown thought it didn't matter as he believed he had abolished boom and bust.

Of course it is true that more unemployed = more welfare bills. However, cutting benefits = lower welfare bills. It is a no-brainer to time-limit most benefits.

The stark truth is also that it is cheaper to pay someone benefits (especially if benefits are cut) than to employ them as a useless diversity co-ordinator, five-a-day consultant, or other idiotic Labour creations.

So if I cannot find a (non existant) job in your time period what happens?

People have to take responsibility for your own destiny. The State is our servant and not our master - it demeans everyone when people are dependent on the State for every aspect of their lives.

If you can't find a job in the time commensurate with your previous contribution to society, the options are to look harder, or to starve. People don't mind hand-ups - second chances by giving you time to look for work. If you squander that time, it is your own fault. People deeply resent the hand-out - just stay out of work forever, and the hardworking taxpayer will foot the bill for your 60" widescreen TVs.

LFN - in the interest of having a proper discussion of the important issues raised, I think we need to deal with one idea at the time. How about answering newwaves question - what would happen after this time period?

After this time period, the State would provide one hot meal a day, and nothing else.

The welfare savings could be used to fund tax cuts - both at the lower-end, making work more worthwhile, and scrapping 50p top rate, which would generate hundreds of thousands of new jobs.

Actually, scrapping the 50p top rate pays for itself, even directly - but what I meant is the associated pension tax relief.

LFN - so you propose that the state provides one hot meal a day. This will require kitchens, a place to eat, staff to make and cook the food, and transport costs either to take the food to the people, or to take the people to the food.

What will people eat for the other 2 meals? Where will people live? What about if they have children?

You think we should just support layabouts forever?

Sometimes you cannot solve problems by throwing money at them.

Of course the other side of the equation is important too. Training, job clubs, better careers advice, not dumbing down education by insisting that IT and Latin A-Levels have the same value.

But ultimately, if people are just happy mooching off the State forever, then their benefits have to be taken away. If they have a crap time as a result, then that is sad, but it is a lot better for the vast majority of benefit claimants in the long-run than just paying them to stay addicted to State cash.

After this time period, the State would provide one hot meal a day, and nothing else.

I suspect rough sleeping and homelessness will increase somewhat.

So, no medical treatment, no housing.

What happens to the children of these people?.

BTW you have never answered "what jobs" bearing in mind we are heading for 4 million unemployed.

Actually, scrapping the 50p top rate pays for itself, even directly - but what I meant is the associated pension tax relief. Are you saying the imposition of the 50p tax band is responsible for the current unemployment crisis?.

Cutting benefits will also encourage foreign scroungers, who come here because of our soft-touch welfare system, to migrate. This will be very welcome.

LFN, in the past although I have opposed most of your views I have judged you to be an intelligent if somewhat unfeeling poster but your latest views are just "hysterical".

If we had zero unemployment I too would want scroungers to get back to work but the party you support is pushing unemployment up and has already pushed youth unemployment to record levels.

You want to punish the poor and vulnerable for the mess caused by the bankers and for the policies of your party.

I say again 2.54 million and rising unemployed and 440,00 vacancies please do the math.

LFN, where do you get these ideas from? Is it Labour's Frank Field?

LFN, you are proposing these new rules, now you have to think them through.

As you suggested, the unemployed people have been applying themselves very hard to finding a job, and ALL the available jobs have been filled. There are now 424,000 fewer people on JSA.

There are still over 2 million unemployed.

The state is providing one meal a day as you suggested.

What do people eat for the other 2 meals?
Where do these people live?
What about if their children?

Youth unemployment was climbing steadily even through the boom years.

A huge part of the solution is better technical colleges, free schools and academies where teachers can be sacked and promoted based on merit, and destroying the teachers' unions. All of which the government is doing.

Another big part of the solution is not landing children with useless GCSEs the way Labour did to fiddle the education attainment figures.

Another big part is to create more jobs by cutting taxes.

Another big part is to cut welfare.

I do have reservations about some of what the coalition is doing. It appears to have caved in on housing benefit reform - still allowing people to get £400 a week. The universal credit will be seen as a state crutch, not allowing the invisible hand of the market to find the true fair price for employment. Their immigration policy is bonkers - the focus should be on expelling crazies Labour let in, not on limiting brain surgeons and entrepreneurs.

However, by and large, it seems much better than the alternative.

Incidentally, if we defaulted (which is what would happen under what little we know of Ed Miliband's economic approach), we would not be able to afford any welfare state at all. Ponder on that, if you will...

HHLimbo. At that stage, France will have a far more attractive welfare state.

Those genuinely addicted to the State will emigrate within the EU, until other European countries also come to their senses.

Newwave - good answers, we would get 2 million hungry people, plus their children, homeless and on the streets.
I expect these people would certainly be begging. We would also see huge increases in

• Theft
• Burglary
• Mugging

Because these people will be starving and their children will be starving, and that causes people to do desperate things.

Huge increases in civil unrest. Huge increases in the risk of running a business.

Some of this thinking sounds like Frank Left Field on steroids

the invisible hand of the market to find the true "fair" price for employment.

What if that price is half the current minimum wage for a non skilled job? Do you think starvation wages are acceptable or will the State need to subsidise these wages with such as:

Tax credits and housing benefits

The shame is that LFN never answers the questions.

I did answer the questions.

Everyone can find work if they look hard enough (though diversity co-ordinators would probably have to ditch their public-sector mindset and union membership to do so.)

The state doesn't owe anyone a job. More pertinently, the world doesn't owe Britain a living - we have to compete to have a dynamic economy.

How would you tackle long-term unemployment? Labour failed miserably because it didn't listen to James Purnell and Frank Field. No doubt your solution is just to give the unemployed more money and make-work schemes like the Future Jobs Fund (where only 2% of the funded jobs were private sector).