Jump to content

The UK Benefit System - Be Prepared To Work For Free!


David

Recommended Posts

First of all, I know it would never happen, but just for the sake of argument, let's imagine that it's been announced that a new Conservative Government is considering scrapping the benefit system as we know it in this country.

 

The current system is widely regarded as one of the most complicated in the world, with so many hoops to jump through to get what you're entitled to that many people simply give up eventually, not to mention the millions of pounds that are lost anually through error and sheer stupidity.

 

Would people favour a switch to a system like the one used in the US? Or are there smaller changes they would like to see in the ways that unemployment and healthcare is run in the UK?

 

Perhaps some other countries have the system running better than any of the so-called "superpowers". If so, who?

 

Anyway, it's Tuesday, it's wet, and it's cold. So feel free to discuss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The system is shocked to hell.

 

trying to get on the correct benefits for a situation is sometimes mindboggling. But the reversal is, once you have the correct benefits in place, plus a few you shouldn`t have, you`ll never leave the benefits.

 

Case in point, I know someone whos on benefits, they`re married and have a child. they have a comfortable council home in a `good` area. This person looked into getting full time employment. they seeked not only benefit advice through the benefit agency but also what other things they could claim through grants and ongoing working benefits (through citizens advice). For them to give up benefits and get a full time job they would be exactly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Judging how well the system works based on the few people who fall through the cracks is a bad way of doing it. It works for millions of people, although it should be easier for people to get hold of the benefits they need.

 

I really, really wouldn't recommend the US system. Ms. Mortimer is American, and back in the day when she lost her job, the unemployment system was scary as hell. For starters, the federal government is so badly funded that it took 7 weeks for her initial claim to be processed. Then there's a limit on the length of time you can claim unemployment benefit for. Then there's the complete absense of anything like the NHS.

 

Jimmy, there are a few people like the ones you described, yes. But they're the exceptions to the rule. Why don't we all tell stories about people we know who the benefit system worked out fine for?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

I think anyone who is able-bodied & supposedly seeking employment should have to work 20hr pw for their benefits. Contributing back to society whilst still having plenty of time to job hunt for a better alternative. Giving someone free money isn't exactly a motivation for the long term unemployed to get off their arses...ever!

And I'm not targeting the short-term unemployed, or disabled, etc - I'm referring to bums who are happy to stay on welfare longterm, exactly for the reasons Jimmy highlighted - at least make them contribute in some capacity, no matter how menial, then they might be more motivated to better themselves & find an actual job!

 

A friend of mine has been on & off benefits for over 10 years. he currently blames the recession, even though he barely worked during the boom times. He'd work a few months, get bored, and sign back on, etc. If he was told "sure, we'll give you your

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jimmy, there are a few people like the ones you described, yes. But they're the exceptions to the rule.

He does have a point though.

 

In many cases, it's actually not worthwhile working at all.

 

I know that this kind of scenario tends to apply in lower paid jobs, such as shop workers, sales assistants etc, where the majority of work these days is also part-time.

 

The main plus point of our current system is the NHS, of that there is no doubt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
Jimmy, there are a few people like the ones you described, yes. But they're the exceptions to the rule. Why don't we all tell stories about people we know who the benefit system worked out fine for?

 

 

I don't know any. But I would actually really like to hear a couple bits of annecdotal evidence of the system working well if you've got 'em.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My experience of being on the dole was that it was a overly-complicated, slow-moving and inflexible system that probably trapped people in benefits as much as it helped them out. I'm afraid to say I don't have any good stories. Most of the people I know on the dole or on incapacity are cheating, or at the very least severely massaging the system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jimmy, there are a few people like the ones you described, yes. But they're the exceptions to the rule. Why don't we all tell stories about people we know who the benefit system worked out fine for?

 

 

I don't know any. But I would actually really like to hear a couple bits of annecdotal evidence of the system working well if you've got 'em.

I can sense I'm fighting a losing battle here, if you genuinely don't know a single person for whom the benefit system has worked out. If y'alls are happy to change things based on your mate, who's screwing the system, or a friend of a friend for whom it'd be better for them not to work than it would be for them to work; rather than the millions of people who claim benefits and who presumably get something out of it, then more power to you.

 

Okay then, a few queries on Herbie's system. This 20 hours a week thing would presumably take quite a lot of organising. Given that it wouldn't be bringing any extra money into the system (if it's just the low level required for people to claim benefits), and they would have to be "jobs" that required no training, if people would be walking away from this system to get proper jobs, who'd be paying for all the substantial organising costs of such a scheme, which would be mobilising Britain's 2 million unemployed people?

 

And Loki, you stated the system was complicated and inflexible, and it was easy to become stuck in it. What do you think would happen if it were made less complicated and more flexible? I would consider the complexity of the system to be a deterrent against people claiming, making getting a job more desirable. Surely the easier the system is to use, the more people will use it and fewer would bother going out and trying to find a job?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay then, a few queries on Herbie's system. This 20 hours a week thing would presumably take quite a lot of organising. Given that it wouldn't be bringing any extra money into the system (if it's just the low level required for people to claim benefits), and they would have to be "jobs" that required no training, if people would be walking away from this system to get proper jobs, who'd be paying for all the substantial organising costs of such a scheme, which would be mobilising Britain's 2 million unemployed people?

Another question would be, if there is an avenue open for unemployed people to do some form of work for 20 hours per week in order to qualify for their benefit, why not just offer them the position as an actual job?

 

For certain people (usually those who aren't claiming housing benefit or child benefit), working 20 hours per week at just above minimum wage would work out at more than they get from JSA.

 

That group will likely consist of young people who still live at home, so it would go some way to reducing unemployment in that demographic, wouldn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll give you an example. I started a claim for JSA and it takes about 4 weeks or so for them to get round to making a first payment. Which is incredibly slow, I might add.

 

So I get an offer of a week's work, and I go into the Job Centre for my appointment and let them know. "Rightio" the chap says "We'll just close this claim then, and you need to fill in the closure paperwork. Then after you've done with the week's work, you can start another claim and wait another 4 weeks for that one to kick in".

 

So basically you're left with 2 choices - turn down the work, or (as I did) just come off JSA altogether and not bother to go back on. It's an incredibly black-and-white system - you're in a full time job or you're not. You need income support or you don't. There's no flexibility that is needed in today's agile employment sector.

 

Another example - you might think, having lost your job, that you might need help with things like paying the rent. Well, not if you have any savings. No, it's better to let people slip into debt first, and then help them out once they've got nothing left. So what the system teaches you is that, if you're someone who has difficulty in staying in long-term employment, don't ever save money. Better to spend it buying things, so that if you end up back in employment you don't immediately have to use it up keeping a roof over your head. They don't ask you to sell your HD tv or motor car.

 

The system assumes you're going to be a liar and a cheat, and so limits opportunity accordingly. That seems to me to have the reverse effect of meaning that you either DO diddle the system (don't tell them about part-time work for eg) or just try and live without it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
Okay then, a few queries on Herbie's system. This 20 hours a week thing would presumably take quite a lot of organising. Given that it wouldn't be bringing any extra money into the system (if it's just the low level required for people to claim benefits), and they would have to be "jobs" that required no training, if people would be walking away from this system to get proper jobs, who'd be paying for all the substantial organising costs of such a scheme, which would be mobilising Britain's 2 million unemployed people?

 

 

Fucked if I know - I came up with it as I typed!

Just tell them where to be each week (e.g. next week you're in Sandymount beach from 9am-1pm - check in with Rob Fuller at 9pm sharp at the Falcon Statue - whatever), and have them tidy a beach or pick up litter in a park or scrub graffiti off a wall: whatever - something menial & no-skilled, but still beneficial to society & the community. Just have a supervisor with a clipboard confirming their attendance & keeping an eye on everyone would likely suffice - low maintenance to monitor. Again, I know it would still cost money to organise & set up, but if kept relatively simple, it would still be surplus value vs. the cost of maintaining it. And consider the fact they're getting paid money now for doing no work: that also entails a lot of admin! At least use the economies of scale - these people are already in the system & getting payments & letters, etc, each week: when they collect their payment each week, they could get assigned to one of the local work zones for the following week. Use your existing admin infrastructure, and keep the work to a no-skill level with basic staffed monitoring.

I reckon you'll also find that after a few weeks of this, a lot of people who "can't" find jobs will suddenly find a job. In a lot of cases (NOT ALL!), it's not that there aren't jobs out there, it's that beggars try to be choosers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
Another question would be, if there is an avenue open for unemployed people to do some form of work for 20 hours per week in order to qualify for their benefit, why not just offer them the position as an actual job?

 

Again, I just made it up as I typed: but it wouldn't be a job - no tax, no benefits, no guarantees, no xmas parties, etc - you're working a shitty job for free in exchange for your welfare payments each week. It's not a job that people will want to do voluntarily.

 

Don't grill me on this, lads - I only thought of it an hour ago, FFS! :p The main premise is that able-bodied people shouldn't get money for free - they should contribute some form of labour in exchange for said payments. My main thought process was that it seems easier & more lucrative for some people to stay on welfare & benefits, considering it works out only

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...