UK Unemployment Benefits - General

There are a lot of people in the UK that outright refuse to get jobs and are living entirely from the government. They live from the work of other people and in some cases receive the same or almost the same as working people. If you have a person, who has the [B]ability[/B] to work (no physical or mental conditions stopping it) and the [B]opportunity[/B] (not in a situation where they cannot find a job, they have opportunity) but still refuse to work, should they be given the[B] absolute basic[/B] requirements (food, water, shelter) to live, for free? [B]Please note that I'd rather have this debate strictly around this literal situation above. Basically saying that if they continuously refuse to work then they should receive no help from the government, and if it happens, they die because they have nothing. Not anecdotes about how you're poor and can't be bothered to look for jobs.[/B] I personally think they should not because that money must come from working people who put effort into their lives to better [b]themselves[/b] whilst people make a firm life choice to not work and live from everybody else's work. This is simply not fair. The problems I see with it is that if I get a job and work for it I expect it to benefit myself since it's my time I'm putting in and if it goes to people who do literally nothing for me then that's a waste of my time. Things like the NHS, the Police and other things benefit me so they are acceptable things to use government resources on whereas jobless people statistically contribute to crime and degenerate social trends.

+1 agree

I don't think you should be able to get the unemployment benefits if you're still living in a parent/guardian's house. My brother, whilst trying to get a job admittedly, is still receiving £60 a week to spend on whatever he likes, for no good reason. The system is obviously broken and needs fixing.

We are in this situation because the brainless bitch decided it would be a good idea to remove most of the low skilled working class jobs from our economy, these people couldn't find more work and their children and grandchildren are stuck in a cycle that means they get used to the dole and have too few skills to find a decant job. We honestly need to put some serious investment into getting the children of people on benefits into work. I have a few friends who are in that situation themselves, and their parents gave them no reason to train their skills to help them get a job in the future, I can see how the cycle works first hand, and how difficult it is to break from it. It's depressing when I see some very nice people, who mean the best for everyone they know, lose out on that opportunity because they weren't pushed enough when they where young, and their role-models where on the dole. [editline]18th January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Jasun;34281813]I don't think you should be able to get the unemployment benefits if you're still living in a parent/guardian's house. My brother, whilst trying to get a job admittedly, is still receiving £60 a week to spend on whatever he likes, for no good reason. The system is obviously broken and needs fixing.[/QUOTE] The system isn't the problem, it's the attitude. Also it's easier for politicians at the moment to pay off this underclass than to solve the real problems underneath.

I was going to make a thread on this, but being on JSA myself, I befittingly couldn't be arsed. I think that if it weren't terribly managed, it'd be a good system. It works for the people who need it (To hold the belief that everybody on benefits are claiming them illegitimately would be wholly idiotic), but there are so many people who are just taking advantage of the system. I'd say I'm in-between a sponge and someone who legitimately needs it; I have no work experience and my family's financial situation is on its way down the shitter, so I don't have much choice. On the flip-side of the weekly £50, I've not put much effort into finding a job but if I were told "Here, you get to stack shelves 5 days a week for £5 an hour, you start tommorow", I'd do it, and I'm sure the many people in the same situation would too.

I'm not sure what it's like in the UK, but here in the U.S, are government is having problems paying it's actual employees. Why doesn't the government put them to work (trash collectors, park rangers, etc) and kill two birds with one stone?

[QUOTE=Bawbag;34281787]+1 agree[/QUOTE] why do you agree? learn to debate

There are a lot of people in the UK that would love to get a job but cant find one they should get to live off unemployment benefits. I like knowing that if I ever needed to I could get by like this until I found a new job. as for the one who as you say just don't want a job I feel the best way to deal with them would be to cut off all of there unemployment benefit to anyone who refuses two job offers. If they die if it relay a bad thing? do we want people like that cluttering up our world and having kid who will do the same?

[QUOTE=Jackald;34282318]Benefits shouldn't be abolished, to remove them for people who legitimately need them is a terrible idea, but I think there needs to be an improvement to the system, perhaps improved work placement schemes or something. [editline]18th January 2012[/editline] I think removing it after a year (Hello America!) is a really bad idea though and creates more problems than it solves.[/QUOTE] If you read the scenario it clearly states we're talking about people who are physically and mentally fit, have the opportunity to get a job but still refuse. Disability benefits are perfectly fine they shouldn't die because they have something giving them a handicap.

[QUOTE=AngryChairR;34282374]If you read the scenario it clearly states we're talking about people who are physically and mentally fit, have the opportunity to get a job but still refuse. Disability benefits are perfectly fine they shouldn't die because they have something giving them a handicap.[/QUOTE] pretty sure that if you get a job offer and don't take it you do get them withdrawn

[QUOTE=mike;34282406]pretty sure that if you get a job offer and don't take it you do get them withdrawn[/QUOTE] No you get a strike and it's easily abused but this is [b]not[/b] what I wanted the thread to be about. It's not about what currently happens it's about the morality etc...

[QUOTE=mike;34282406]pretty sure that if you get a job offer and don't take it you do get them withdrawn[/QUOTE] 3,503 posts later and you still can't read...

I think it's really sad that it is accepted that people can go on facebook, after they finish education or whatever and put "just been to got my first benefits check :)!". It seems to just be wrong to me that it something to be happy about.

If I wasn't getting DLA right now I'd be completely fucked, as I'm struggling to find work that's suitable for me (retail is out of it). It helps me survive and actually live a semi-normal life while I try to look for work that's suitable. However, I am all for significantly lowering (but not totally stopping, like 75% / 80% cutting) benefits for people who, after 6-12 months of jobseekers allowance, have foregone or turned down jobs / apprenticeships which they are completely capable of doing just so they can be lazy and mooch off the state. If there are very few opportunities available / the applicant can prove that they're pushing hard to try and get a job but just losing out due to brunt peer pressure, I'm of the view that they should keep those benefits and be encouraged to continue and also to investigate possible adult learning.

Hell, the job centre sent me to do a [i]vocational[/i] placement at a pub and I couldn't even get that.

[QUOTE=Kaze;34282212]why do you agree? learn to debate[/QUOTE] That is debating. I don't disagree with his points; I agree with them all, and don't have any more points to add in. Learn what debating is.

[QUOTE=Jasun;34281813]I don't think you should be able to get the unemployment benefits if you're still living in a parent/guardian's house. My brother, whilst trying to get a job admittedly, is still receiving £60 a week to spend on whatever he likes, for no good reason. The system is obviously broken and needs fixing.[/QUOTE] If that was the rule I wouldn't have been able to go anywhere further than the immediate surroundings of my home, my mum and stepdad could support me with food and bills but nothing else. Much of my jobseekers went on bus fare. I absolutely hated being on jobseekers back in the UK but nobody wanted to employ me due to having no work experience. I was physically and mentally fit but nobody wanted me. It made me feel stigmatized and judged by everyone, at the same time I felt worthless, like I wasn't good enough for anyone to want to hire me. This went on till I moved abroad, I signed off jobseekers about two months before I had to because I hated the meetings every two weeks and the feeling of being judged so much, I just had to ration Christmas and birthday money till the move. Funnily enough I had much better luck finding work after moving to Denmark, I have two jobs now (one is unpaid but it's experience for my dream job). Those who deliberately stay on jobseekers for no reason are a problem, it's just upsetting that everyone gets the same stigma attached when they are on benefits even when they genuinely do want to find work.

If they refuse jobs that they could have had then make them work for their benefits (at minimum wage of course)

[QUOTE=leach139;34282945]If I wasn't getting DLA right now I'd be completely fucked, as I'm struggling to find work that's suitable for me (retail is out of it). It helps me survive and actually live a semi-normal life while I try to look for work that's suitable. However, I am all for significantly lowering (but not totally stopping, like 75% / 80% cutting) benefits for people who, after 6-12 months of jobseekers allowance, have foregone or turned down jobs / apprenticeships which they are completely capable of doing just so they can be lazy and mooch off the state. If there are very few opportunities available / the applicant can prove that they're pushing hard to try and get a job but just losing out due to brunt peer pressure, I'm of the view that they should keep those benefits and be encouraged to continue and also to investigate possible adult learning.[/QUOTE] Wait, are you saying retail isn't good enough? I'm pretty sure the point is to keep you going till you get a job, not until you get the job you want.

I've been on JSA before and it's a lot stricter than you think. You have to apply for a minimum of 3 jobs per week (which isn't hard) but [B]if you turn down 3 interviews with no good reason, then you have the benefits removed for as long as 3 years. [/B] It's the job adviser's job to get you off benefits as fast as possible, not find you your perfect job, they aren't an employment agency. Which means if you went from earning £30,000 a year and they offer you a job at £12,000 a year - you can't turn it down

[QUOTE=Jasun;34281813]I don't think you should be able to get the unemployment benefits if you're still living in a parent/guardian's house. My brother, whilst trying to get a job admittedly, is still receiving £60 a week to spend on whatever he likes, for no good reason. The system is obviously broken and needs fixing.[/QUOTE] I partly disagree with this purely because it's based off the assumptions that the parent/guardian will foot the bill. I still live at home and have been claiming JSA for just over a year (Recently referred to the Work Programme) and in that time I've only received around £10 off my parents to help pay for bus tickets to get to the initial interviews and my first signing appointment. However you're correct in saying something needs doing about it, if the amount was reduced for claimants living with parents then they'd probably manage that money better.

I know that some people live off benefits unfairly, but you can't make the assumption that everyone on unemployment benefits are lazy. These people are the minority. In the majority of cases, the jobs just aren't there. In Tottenham, for example, there are 150 applicants to every job. Instead of removing unemployment benefits we should be expanding the public sector rather than diminishing it, so more jobs are made available.

Seems that all Gold Members on this site are on state benefits as all they are doing is de-railing and completely missing the point. GG.

[QUOTE=leach139;34282945]If I wasn't getting DLA right now I'd be completely fucked, as [B]I'm struggling to find work that's suitable for me (retail is out of it)[/B]. It helps me survive and actually live a semi-normal life while I try to look for work that's suitable. However, [B]I am all for significantly lowering (but not totally stopping, like 75% / 80% cutting) benefits for people who, after 6-12 months of jobseekers allowance, have foregone or turned down jobs / apprenticeships which they are completely capable of doing[/B] just so they can be lazy and mooch off the state. If there are very few opportunities available / the applicant can prove that they're pushing hard to try and get a job but just losing out due to brunt peer pressure, I'm of the view that they should keep those benefits and be encouraged to continue and also to investigate possible adult learning.[/QUOTE] You're happy for people's allowance to be cut because they turn down jobs they are capable of carrying out, yet you refuse to work retail yourself, while unemployed (A job that you are completely capable of doing). Hypocrisy, thy name is leach139

[QUOTE=Jasun;34281813]I don't think you should be able to get the unemployment benefits if you're still living in a parent/guardian's house. My brother, whilst trying to get a job admittedly, is still receiving £60 a week to spend on whatever he likes, for no good reason. The system is obviously broken and needs fixing.[/QUOTE] For you maybe, I pay half of my job seekers to my mum and the rest is for me to get around and look for jobs and I stockpile whats left for when I get interviews.

[QUOTE=sgman91;34293327]Wait, are you saying retail isn't good enough? I'm pretty sure the point is to keep you going till you get a job, not until you get the job you want.[/QUOTE] He probably can't work retail because of whatever disability he has, he said hes on DLA, that's disability living allowance.

[QUOTE=Fagpunch;34312547]Seems that all Gold Members on this site are on state benefits as all they are doing is de-railing and completely missing the point. GG.[/QUOTE] Well said.

[QUOTE=AngryChairR;34314998]Well said.[/QUOTE] What do you mean 'well said'? What he said was entirely baseless nonsense that consisted of "oh they disagree with me they must be on benefits".

If you don't look for jobs or go to the interviews/courses which the job centre sends you to do you have your benefits taken away, the system is way to easy to abuse though, it should be much stricter. Just because someone is mentally and physically capable of getting a job doesn't mean that they are slacking and abusing the benefits system. There is a reason that 22% of youths are unemployed in the UK and it isn't that they are all lazy or disabled.

you don't have a right to somebody else's services, that's coercion