Workshy - General - Facepunch Forum

[QUOTE=livelonger12;39198642]Good. If only everyone else of this thread were just like you, most willing and eager to work as good honest people! [/QUOTE] I don't work because I'm a "good honest person"[sic] I work because I have bills to pay that I can't cover with benefits, get forced to work by my parents (or threatened to be kicked out) and because being at home all day is fucking boring. If I had a choice I wouldn't work, would sit iced out on painkillers all day and be happy.

[QUOTE=livelonger12;39195907]It's not so much that they're "black and white" but rather that during the times when they're feeling well, that they should spend that time doing some sort of work. Then you should try talking with a local employment center or such, and query them of whether they can get you some work to do during the times you feel better. Sure, you don't horde the money or such but you're still getting free food, water, shelter and energy. You should be required to give that back when you're able to do something, even if it's the least of your abilities at those times. The time you spend making these forum posts could be time spent doing some sort of work.[/QUOTE] Hello I am livelonger12 and I know more about RavenQ's situation than RavenQ so let me just say FARRRRRRT (that's you - that's your post)

[QUOTE=livelonger12;39198901]It has already been done. For the UK, these people on benefits are given work placements in both public and private sector areas.[/QUOTE] It doesn't work out brilliantly for the job seekers though, I'm pretty sure that by now there are a bunch of companies keen to have one of them do work placement for them just because they don't have to pay them a wage - wasted opportunity to give someone a job there.

[QUOTE=Boxbot219;39198935]And did it ever occur to you that the costs of whatever system would be required to determine if someone is fit to work at a certain time will outweigh whatever profit you would make from forcing people to work for their benefits? You're going to have to hire a professional to determine if someone is actually able to work. This will only become more complicated and expensive if the person's condition is unstable.[/QUOTE] To determine that I am fit for work/unfit, with the system in the UK requires a medical examiner, a doctor, a lawyer and a judge. [QUOTE=livelonger12;39198723]Exactly! It's your money that's going to workshy scroungers, or at least even the semi-workshy. Your money not being used by you or which is going to the pleasure of someone else. You worked for that money, you gave part of yourself for it - however minuscule - and it is wrong for that money to go to someone who doesn't give the same back for it.[/QUOTE] And if it wasn't going to benefits, it'd be spread across other things that people wouldn't neccesarily see the direct benefit of. Wheras going to those who really can't work, its the difference between living and beinh homeless/dying. [QUOTE=Boxbot219;39198711]I'd like to see you say that if you suffered from something like this. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluster_headache[/url] "Some doctors and scientists have described the pain resulting from cluster headaches as the most intense pain a human can endure — worse than burns, broken bones or child birth."[/QUOTE] Put it this way, the pain I go through on a daily basis and at its lowest levels (which it rarely is) pretty much overrides almost any other pain that my body feels,as in, if i scalded myself, I wouldnt feel the pain from it because the pain from my bakc alone is so much worse! it's that bad. [QUOTE=livelonger12;39198642] Apologies, then keep going trying to convince me. Unfortunately, I see you as being somewhat workshy. Time to play videogames could be time to work, otherwise if you are already working and have been granted a break then that can be opportune time to play videogames.[/QUOTE] Who says I play videogames all that much? When I do play videogames, it isn't so I can enjoy myself, it's to distract me from the often (literally) blinding pain (ever been in so much pain it affects your vision?) and to work help keeping me sane. [QUOTE=Chopstick;39201361]It doesn't work out brilliantly for the job seekers though, I'm pretty sure that by now there are a bunch of companies keen to have one of them do work placement for them just because they don't have to pay them a wage - wasted opportunity to give someone a job there.[/QUOTE] and if the benefits were to act as our wage, we'd be so below minimum wage, it'd be laughable if it wasn't happening. But oh no, as long as we suffer and torture ourselves to suit people like the OP. I'm not disagreeing that there are some people out there on benefits who are work shy, who are on benefits because they don't want to or can't be bothered to work. But to paint everyone with the same brush is the act of a complete and total wanker. As I said, realistically, my condition renders me basically unemployable, because nobody is willing to hire someone who can only work a few hours a week, and whose hours that he could work are so random as to be unpredictable. In this, realistic world, my only two options are to be on benefits or be homeless. God, I'd hate to work for you, what do you do when one of your emloyees is unable to work for an extended period of time? Execute them? I'd hate to see someone like you running the country, homelessness levels would me massive! I assume you're fit and healthy, you have no idea how pain and health problems can affect your work. So, i'll lay it out for you all the problems I have, but hell, even then you'd think i should work my ass off just to please people like yourself - Bad back resulting in all I've described above, including pain so bad so often that sometimes all you want to do is just die already. - Frozen Shoulders, resulting in being able to move my arms minimally - Terrible Joints, resulting in pain and me movng about worse than a 90 year old! - Degenerated muscles, due to me not being able to move around much -Sleeping problems due to the pain. often resulting in me being driven by a couple of hours, if not mere minutes of sleep. But all those, according to you, i should just get over and get to work. Even though the Government has classed me as unfit to work (which, by the way, is really difficult to get the government to do by the way) Ancient Egypt called, they think you're a great candidate for a Slave Driver position they have!

I wonder how the OP expected to come to this place and find people who think like him - The garbage he's spewing is standard conservative/far-right propaganda. If anything he's admitting he's as brainwashed as the rest of them.

Are you honestly fucking kidding me? Claiming that we should all get up and get jobs like there are hundreds of them out there. You're worse than my stepdad who bitches at me constantly for not having a job, besides having sent out over 50 CVs and applied to so many jobs it's fucking ridiculous. I do charity work too, incase you're going to throw that at me. You BARELY SCRAPED your ass into a job at [I]MacDonalds[/I] and haven't been able to move to a better career since, five years on and you're still in Maccy D's, well doesn't that tell you a lot about the jobs available. For a single shelf stacking job at a new supermarket you can have up to [i]200 applicants[/i] and they're so selective it's pathetic. And you talking about disabilities is stupid. You know, they'e called disabilities because they're [i]not treatable[/i] you know, you can't give them an all in one wonder pill and they can go to work the next day. Even then, on the application, the employer is going to want the healthier person, rights or not, because they are out to make money. Oh ye, lord of the jobs, why don't you create up a few million vacancies and watch as every lazy person you refer to JUMPS at the chance [B]Edit:[/B] Oh RavenQ, that's who you are, I saw your thread a long while ago.

Alright, OP, so you force people to get jobs even though they barely can. Now you have to force the employers to employ not qualified employees and not fire them because they're unreliable. Companies will fall apart.

[QUOTE=RayvenQ;39201872]So, i'll lay it out for you all the problems I have, but hell, even then you'd think i should work my ass off just to please people like yourself - Bad back resulting in all I've described above, including pain so bad so often that sometimes all you want to do is just die already. - Frozen Shoulders, resulting in being able to move my arms minimally - Terrible Joints, resulting in pain and me movng about worse than a 90 year old! - Degenerated muscles, due to me not being able to move around much -Sleeping problems due to the pain. often resulting in me being driven by a couple of hours, if not mere minutes of sleep. [/QUOTE] Dude, reading things like this just makes me realise how many little things I take for granted in my daily life. My heart goes out to you, I hope they find some kind of cure or medication to ease your pain and make things a lot better for you, man :c

[QUOTE='Rain [Amber];39203053']Dude, reading things like this just makes me realise how many little things I take for granted in my daily life. My heart goes out to you, I hope they find some kind of cure or medication to ease your pain and make things a lot better for you, man :c[/QUOTE] Essentially, there is no cure, it's never going to get better, only worse, for however many years I have left, and the amount of painkillers I'd need to reduce my pain enough, as i said, basically turns me into a vegetable. But heyho, shit happens and I know there's people worse off than me. Hell, I know a girl who has similar problems, except worse, and she's only been given 20 or so years to live, she's 19. I've been helping her, talking to her and helping her learn how to cope with her debilitating condition, she's fairly new to the condition (a few years or so) so I'm passing on the lessons I've learning in having to cope over the 15 years I've had it. When fully able people push themselves, they may pull a muscle or something, when [I]I[/I] push myself (even if it isn't pushing by relative standards), I feel my spinal cord rubbing against my vertabrae and that is pain like you cannot imagine. Fully able people never quite manage to realise just how much physical disabilities can fuck you up. Hell, I remember Facepunch people donating to try and get me to a hospital in the US to see if anything could be done there, sadly the money wasn't enough (we got around 500-600USD iirc) but I didnt keep the money myself (which i could have easily done and it would have improved my life for a short while) instead I ended up donating it to a friend of a forum member who was getting hammered by stupidly expensive medical bills.

People just can't see past the money trap in the US, they can't grasp other solutions than just taxing people, and giving it to someone else. If you suggest making people find jobs, they think it's rediculous, because theres "no jobs available." Well, how about you stop and ask yourself how we got into this mess? Anyhow, before I get flamed to all hell, there's one thing we can all agree on. If the unemployment rate was lower in the U.S. no one would taxes for welfare. Oh and one more thing, if the welfare system worked, why do we still experience unemployment? I would say poverty is rampant relative to US history, welfare is pretty high at the moment, so what's going on? Also, don't get this confused with me blaming people that actually NEED it, trust me, I understand.. But what you should take from this is that welfare IS NOT working, BUT let me suggest this: Would you rather be in the current state we're in now with welfare OR be in a booming economy where jobs are abundant and you can work and provide for yourself? Now when you answer this, keep in mind the aforementioned: Welfare is a system that has been used for quite sometime now, and in the long run hasn't exactly provided consistent results. [editline]13th January 2013[/editline] Also, in4 Republifag... I'm not republican. [editline]13th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=RayvenQ;39203180]Essentially, there is no cure, it's never going to get better, only worse, for however many years I have left, and the amount of painkillers I'd need to reduce my pain enough, as i said, basically turns me into a vegetable. But heyho, shit happens and I know there's people worse off than me. Hell, I know a girl who has similar problems, except worse, and she's only been given 20 or so years to live, she's 19. I've been helping her, talking to her and helping her learn how to cope with her debilitating condition, she's fairly new to the condition (a few years or so) so I'm passing on the lessons I've learning in having to cope over the 15 years I've had it. When fully able people push themselves, they may pull a muscle or something, when [I]I[/I] push myself (even if it isn't pushing by relative standards), I feel my spinal cord rubbing against my vertabrae and that is pain like you cannot imagine. Fully able people never quite manage to realise just how much physical disabilities can fuck you up. Hell, I remember Facepunch people donating to try and get me to a hospital in the US to see if anything could be done there, sadly the money wasn't enough (we got around 500-600USD iirc) but I didnt keep the money myself (which i could have easily done and it would have improved my life for a short while) instead I ended up donating it to a friend of a forum member who was getting hammered by stupidly expensive medical bills.[/QUOTE] So, if you don't mind, make this case for me then. How has the current economic / governmental situation affected you better as opposed to say, a free market economy? I ask because this will truly test you knowledge on what's going on... Do you settle for accepting handouts because you think it's best? Or because it's what's available?

[quote] Would you rather be in the current state we're in now with welfare OR be in a booming economy where jobs are abundant and you can work and provide for yourself? Now when you answer this, keep in mind the aforementioned: Welfare is a system that has been used for quite sometime now, and in the long run hasn't exactly provided consistent results.[/quote] Ideally it'd be a bit of both, a booming economy, but welfare set up for those who genuinely aren't able to work. If you get rid of welfare entirely, you're going to have a lot more homeless and death and crime resulting from it.Although I can't really comment about the US because I'm English. [quote]Do you settle for accepting handouts because you think it's best? Or because it's what's available? [/quote] If I wasn't on disability, I'd end up homeless, probably going hungry and most lkely succumbing to the cold in a bad winter. I'd rather not be on disability, I'd rather my back be a lot better so that I can work, but I don't have a choice about that, so I'm on benefits for my own survival. If I had any real choice in the matter, I wouldn't be on benefits and I'd be out working, but the things that it depends on are not even in my control at all. Believe me, I'm not living the high life off benefits at all. £2, which some people spend just on coffee in a morning every day, is 1/10th my food budget,I struggle even with that and have before now gone hungry for days, I'm unable to heat the place where I live, thus in winter I'm basically in the same temperature as outdoors, if I want anything, [I]anything[/I] for myself, hell, even like a bar of chocolate, I have to scrimp and save over weeks, if not months for it. I only have the internet because my parents pay that for me, because they know that without it, i'd spiral further into depression and eventually suicide through isolationism.

[QUOTE=livelonger12;39099424]I find it most irritating for those who are workshy. The scroungers on benefits - government handouts - who are generally unwilling or are not fullfilling enough of their work commitments. The individuals who are lacking the complete dedication to find and commit themselves to work. Rather, they seem to rely on social handouts and just simply leech without putting enough back into the system. The system cannot afford to keep up with all their demands, not to mention it is immoral of their behavior also. However, of recent there have been myriad complaints of such kind where they have now fallen homeless and cry that their situation is the prey of government institutions. They whine and moan of how their government's have now decided that they must work to receive their benefits, which not only provides them with plenty of work to commit themselves to, but also the experience necessary to build the skills they need to enter the world of work. "workfare" simply aims to get the economy moving and is an additional attempt at driving the country subject to it out of its recession. Its aim is to simply get things moving. However, these lazy bums simply just want to have free food, water and shelter -- they do not wish to work for it. Or at least don't put enough effort - work - into the system for this. Now that western government's are booting them up the backside to get into work, they cry "slavery!" whereas before they did little work or just simply faked job searches and scrounged through the system. Now most have fallen onto the streets due to their lack of effort and commitment to work. It is simply the fault of their attitude towards work. If they committed themselves to work, then they would have what they needed and wouldn't be omitted from social assistance. Social assistance is to help those who are genuinely disabled and those who have been made redundant from work/are looking and wanting to work. Don't forget that it's the money you pay into the system via taxes that are going to these workshy scroungers. The government has answered your calls and is now booting them into work![/QUOTE] Thats an interesting point of view on the subject. No im lieing your a fucking retard. Where to begin. Well first of all this so called work to get your benefit is actually a good idea that has being implemented incorrectly. Many of these so called benefit thieves are people who actually are unable to find a job because of various reason that do not include laziness, incompetence, and idiocy. I've seen many people who are unable to pay for fuel, food, and other essentials because the only job they could find is not paying them enough. Lets not forget the people who are actually on government handouts for medical reasons that range from major depression, impaling physical conditions, and other medical related reasons. My own mother has being subjected to this disgusting shit. My own mother has major depression problems, eating issues, and many almost crippling physical conditions; it is now looking like she will be entered into this work scheme while putting her already bad health in jeopardy. Lets see how long you last with major problems and being forced to work. I’m sick to death with this idea that everyone on government handouts are thieves and should be working for it and if we fix them we fix the economy. Fucking untrue bullshit. Why are we not fixing tax evasion, its said we are losing hundreds of millions in pounds every year compared to the few million we are losing with [B]actual[/B] benefit thieves. Handouts are there to keep you on your feet and stop you falling over the edge which many people don't have anyone to catch them. Lets punish everyone for the misdeeds of a few shall we? I am sorry that everyone else has being subjected to this almost in compensable rant but it would seem like this guy has not had a taste of what its like to have no job and your only options are to live with family members or sign up to tiny government handouts (life support); not only that but what its like for people more worthy than my sorry ass that have major medical conditions that forces them to not work. Unless your have actually being in the situation only then will understand what it is like.

[QUOTE=livelonger12;39198696]Not everyone shares such views. Taxpayers want others like them to be out working and paying their taxes. Benefits should only go to those of utmost need, else when they're of free time that can be applied working, then they should work. Breaks sure are necessary, to cool off from working. However, they should work as often and for as long as possible. That is what the ordinary citizen must do for their people: to commit themselves to drudgery. There should be no alternative to working.[/QUOTE] man I am glad I probably don't live in the same country as you. [editline]13th January 2013[/editline] I think you'd be a good candidate for a stereotypical communist or conservative. "WE MUST WORK HARDER"

Thankfully there are many who side to prevent rampant abuse of the benefits system. I can sympathize with many homeless and disabled if they tried to work but were unable to, or did work and were made redundant. However, it cannot be denied that there are many who simply didn't pick themselves up hard enough when they could and just quite simply refused to commit to their work ethics demanded by benefit institutions -- it is those of whom that cannot be sympathized. Sure, they're homeless and starving but it's their own damn fault for not prioritizing their work commitments. Now they're brought into the real world, they cry out in the name of some fantasy of human rights (which of course too is being rampantly abused by the likes of Cait Reilly). [url]http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/4205997/Human-Rights-court-win-for-jobless-benefits-girl-Cait-Reilly.html[/url] [url]http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/features/3091717/The-Sun-declares-war-on-Britains-benefits-culture.html[/url] It's gotta stop! [url]http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/4427031/David-Cameron-Idea-of-a-human-right-to-benefits-is-wrong.html[/url] Thankfully a leader is trying to prevent the nation from becoming lazy. Thankfully he's trying to prevent people from having a universal right to their most basic sustenance (free water, food, shelter and energy, and possibly communication!). Many of us working folk, like him too, believe that one should have to work for their survival. If they fall homeless and starving - if they weren't disabled/made redundant for any reason other than not working hard enough - then it's their own damn fault. Why should we the tax payers foot their bill? [editline]13th January 2013[/editline] If everyone had a universal access to free sustenance without a need to work, then who would work? Who would provide you that very sustenance?

Nvm. I'm ranting again.

[QUOTE=Relaxation;39203383]People just can't see past the money trap in the US, they can't grasp other solutions than just taxing people, and giving it to someone else. If you suggest making people find jobs, they think it's rediculous, because theres "no jobs available." Well, how about you stop and ask yourself how we got into this mess? Anyhow, before I get flamed to all hell, there's one thing we can all agree on. If the unemployment rate was lower in the U.S. no one would taxes for welfare. Oh and one more thing, if the welfare system worked, why do we still experience unemployment? I would say poverty is rampant relative to US history, welfare is pretty high at the moment, so what's going on? Also, don't get this confused with me blaming people that actually NEED it, trust me, I understand.. But what you should take from this is that welfare IS NOT working, BUT let me suggest this: Would you rather be in the current state we're in now with welfare OR be in a booming economy where jobs are abundant and you can work and provide for yourself? Now when you answer this, keep in mind the aforementioned: Welfare is a system that has been used for quite sometime now, and in the long run hasn't exactly provided consistent results. [editline]13th January 2013[/editline] Also, in4 Republifag... I'm not republican. [editline]13th January 2013[/editline] So, if you don't mind, make this case for me then. How has the current economic / governmental situation affected you better as opposed to say, a free market economy? I ask because this will truly test you knowledge on what's going on... Do you settle for accepting handouts because you think it's best? Or because it's what's available?[/QUOTE] I agree, there are indeed those who are in need. But they should give back what they took. And when available to work, they should - at any time. That's what the system should do: force people to work, with the added exception of retirement (only if you're too frail/have paid for it -- i.e. have worked for it!) and the wholly incapacitated. RayvenQ is one who's incapacitated quite wholly the majority of the time (or so he claims), and I do indeed sympathize with his major and rampant difficulties. However, he should give back when he's able to - even with the very slight limited abilities of his writing skills perhaps when they are available. It's just simply unfair that there are good honest working people out there paying their taxes and then only for benefits to be taken and not given back. You should be required to give back what you take, so long as you're able to. And thankfully, that's why there's medical assessments now who determine whether you are fit for work or not. Soon the governments will mandate medical treatment for the incapacitated to help get them back into work. [editline]13th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=TheCreeper;39205985]Nvm. I'm ranting again.[/QUOTE] I'm sorry? I'm open to your views so feel free to express them. [editline]13th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=MrJazzy;39202949]Alright, OP, so you force people to get jobs even though they barely can. Now you have to force the employers to employ not qualified employees and not fire them because they're unreliable. Companies will fall apart.[/QUOTE] No, governments give these claimants work to do and continue to give them their benefits if they work for them. This is a solution that seems to be working.

Shouldn't you like be at work right now

I'm just not sure how to reply to any of your posts, by getting rid of benefits you are pretty much looking at saving a bit of money whilst degrading life expectancy, living standards of the majority of the UK, increase in crime and poverty. You're also nuts for thinking that they aren't paying back their benefits because as soon as they've found a job they pay tax some of which will go towards benefits believe it or not. Could it be that this is the sort of thread that belongs in Mass Debate instead?

[QUOTE=livelonger12;39205909]Thankfully there are many who side to prevent rampant abuse of the benefits system. I can sympathize with many homeless and disabled if they tried to work but were unable to, or did work and were made redundant. However, it cannot be denied that there are many who simply didn't pick themselves up hard enough when they could and just quite simply refused to commit to their work ethics demanded by benefit institutions -- it is those of whom that cannot be sympathized. Sure, they're homeless and starving but it's their own damn fault for not prioritizing their work commitments. Now they're brought into the real world, they cry out in the name of some fantasy of human rights (which of course too is being rampantly abused by the likes of Cait Reilly).[/QUOTE] I don't understand this logic, I've never met a sane person who would chose to be homeless and starving over working. [editline]13th January 2013[/editline] It's so strange, what about rich people who own a company but don't work then? They make a bunch of money without working. How is that more right than a disabled person barely making a living without being able to work?

I know this may be a bit of a stretch considering his post count but, could it be that this guy is trolling us?

You're posting the Sun as a source? now we know for sure that you're deluded. As for Cait Reilly, she's right, it is tantamount to slave labour, or at least indentured servitude. Paying someone less than minimum wage is, I'm pretty sure, Illegal, yet it's perfectly fine to make someone who is on benefits work for pretty much the same? At the maximum allowed Jobseekers allowance (£11.45 a week) If you are made to work for more than 18-19 hours a week then guess what, you're working for less than minimum wage, same as if you're on the lower Jobseekers and made to work more than 9 hours a week. Add to that expense of getting to and from work, and the like, and you're recieving an absoloute pittance for being on benefits The second article is more on, it's people like them who give anyone who is legitimately needy of benefits a bad name. The third, well, Politicians are hardly people who live in a wolrd anywhere approaching reality. [quote]No, governments give these claimants work to do and continue to give them their benefits if they work for them. This is a solution that seems to be working. [/quote] Which is basically making a slave class of people which companies will exploit, furthering the slave class. Let's see how well you'd do working for £56 a week, with having to pay your bills and expenses and everything. You're also doing what one of the articles you linked says is wrong [quote]Sometimes people confuse zero tolerance on benefit fraud with zero tolerance for people on benefits. That’s wrong.[/quote] But I bet while you rave against "benefit moochers" you have no problem with politicians that get at minimum around £60,000 a year, PLUS expenses. [quote] If they fall homeless and starving - if they weren't disabled/made redundant for any reason other than not working hard enough - then it's their own damn fault. Why should we the tax payers foot their bill? [/quote] Yep, you're fucking honking insane, Nazi Germany called, they miss you and want you to come back. [editline]13th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=TheCreeper;39206236]I know this may be a bit of a stretch considering his post count but, could it be that this guy is trolling us?[/QUOTE] Pretty much, then again, he's a McDonalds Supervisor, not the most shining example of intellect that there is!

[QUOTE=RayvenQ;39206242]You're posting the Sun as a source? now we know for sure that you're deluded. As for Cait Reilly, she's right, it is tantamount to slave labour, or at least indentured servitude. Paying someone less than minimum wage is, I'm pretty sure, Illegal, yet it's perfectly fine to make someone who is on benefits work for pretty much the same? At the maximum allowed Jobseekers allowance (£11.45 a week) If you are made to work for more than 18-19 hours a week then guess what, you're working for less than minimum wage, same as if you're on the lower Jobseekers and made to work more than 9 hours a week. Add to that expense of getting to and from work, and the like, and you're recieving an absoloute pittance for being on benefits The second article is more on, it's people like them who give anyone who is legitimately needy of benefits a bad name. The third, well, Politicians are hardly people who live in a wolrd anywhere approaching reality. Which is basically making a slave class of people which companies will exploit, furthering the slave class. Let's see how well you'd do working for £56 a week, with having to pay your bills and expenses and everything. You're also doing what one of the articles you linked says is wrong But I bet while you rave against "benefit moochers" you have no problem with politicians that get at minimum around £60,000 a year, PLUS expenses.[/QUOTE] They get more than just JSA. They receive council tax benefit, housing benefit, free prescriptions and NHS care. That's a lot. Politicians work hard and their work is for the greater good. Sacrifices can be necessary and unfortunately, only those trusted to see what intelligence networks provide them are allowed to make decisions based on these. On surface, it may appear awful of what may happen but I trust the leaders to know that what they are doing is for the greater good. Take the war on terror for instance, we now have had no terrorist attacks. They have indeed worked for us and protected us from the threats of terror. With such work, a greater reward is necessary but only to those who are trusted/worthy of such reward. Also, it's those of the second article, i.e. those who believe that working should be an option. That somehow in this deluded fantasy of theirs that somehow other's would work to provide for sustenance (e.g. they'll say something like how money would be focused on those who keep society going rather than on footballers, politicians, bankers, etc, and will also say that this would attract people to work whilst providing an option to working), that everyone wouldn't be able to fall homeless/into poverty. I'm sorry but I disagree: this would not work, period. The system we have now is the best it can be. It's either work for your sustenance or you don't (unless you're wholly incapacitated/have paid for your retirement). [editline]13th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Chopstick;39206195]I'm just not sure how to reply to any of your posts, by getting rid of benefits you are pretty much looking at saving a bit of money whilst degrading life expectancy, living standards of the majority of the UK, increase in crime and poverty. You're also nuts for thinking that they aren't paying back their benefits because as soon as they've found a job they pay tax some of which will go towards benefits believe it or not. [/QUOTE] No, they don't pay back enough. That's what workfare is for. It's to make things fare and to force them to give back. If they find a job whilst on workfare, then good for them. This is the way things should be.

[QUOTE=livelonger12;39206348]They get more than just JSA. They receive council tax benefit, housing benefit, free prescriptions and NHS care. That's a lot. Politicians work hard and their work is for the greater good. Sacrifices can be necessary and unfortunately, only those trusted to see what intelligence networks provide them are allowed to make decisions based on these. On surface, it may appear awful of what may happen but I trust the leaders to know that what they are doing is for the greater good. Take the war on terror for instance, we now have had no terrorist attacks. They have indeed worked for us and protected us from the threats of terror. With such work, a greater reward is necessary but only to those who are trusted/worthy of such reward. Also, it's those of the second article, i.e. those who believe that working should be an option. That somehow in this deluded fantasy of theirs that somehow other's would work to provide for sustenance (e.g. they'll say something like how money would be focused on those who keep society going rather than on footballers, politicians, bankers, etc, and will also say that this would attract people to work whilst providing an option to working), that everyone wouldn't be able to fall homeless/into poverty. I'm sorry but I disagree: this would not work, period. The system we have now is the best it can be. It's either work for your sustenance or you don't (unless you're wholly incapacitated/have paid for your retirement).[/QUOTE] I'm loling pretty hard right here. You know the tories' attendance rate is only about 75%? If [B]you[/B] didn't show up to work 1 quarter of the time, you'd find yourself fired.

[QUOTE=MrJazzy;39206202]I don't understand this logic, I've never met a sane person who would chose to be homeless and starving over working. [editline]13th January 2013[/editline] It's so strange, what about rich people who own a company but don't work then? They make a bunch of money without working. How is that more right than a disabled person barely making a living without being able to work?[/QUOTE] If you're rich, either you worked and were smart with your money and earned it, or you have generous peers who deem you to be worthy of such reward. I do believe that they rightfully should have their money. If someone is given a mansion, then good for them. If someone is homeless but can work and were there's jobs available, then they can work for that mansion.

[quote]No, they don't pay back enough. That's what workfare is food. It's to make things fare and to force them to give back. If they find a job whilst on workfare, then good for them. This is the way things should be. [/quote] Since when is being made to work for,essentially under minimum wage fair? [QUOTE=livelonger12;39206428]If you're rich, either you worked and were smart with your money and earned it, or you have generous peers who deem you to be worthy of such reward. I do believe that they rightfully should have their money. If someone is given a mansion, then good for them. If someone is homeless but can work and were there's jobs available, then they can work for that mansion.[/QUOTE] My parents worked hard for 40 years each and both paid taxes. They see no problem with me being on benefit, therefore my generous peers have deemed me to be worthy of benefits, therefore I'm living off [I]their[/I] tax money, not anyone elses. If I were a malicious person, I'd be wishing for you to have an unfortunate accident which sees you having to, even for brief time, live like I do, but, I'm not that malicious.

[QUOTE=RayvenQ;39206444]Since when is being made to work for,essentially under minimum wage fair? My parents worked hard for 40 years each and both paid taxes. They see no problem with me being on benefit, therefore my generous peers have deemed me to be worthy of benefits, therefore I'm living off [I]their[/I] tax money, not anyone elses. If I were a malicious person, I'd be wishing for you to have an unfortunate accident which sees you having to, even for brief time, live like I do, but, I'm not that malicious.[/QUOTE] Poetic justice is so rare in our time.

[QUOTE=RayvenQ;39206444]Since when is being made to work for,essentially under minimum wage fair? My parents worked hard for 40 years each and both paid taxes. They see no problem with me being on benefit, therefore my generous peers have deemed me to be worthy of benefits, therefore I'm living off [I]their[/I] tax money, not anyone elses. If I were a malicious person, I'd be wishing for you to have an unfortunate accident which sees you having to, even for brief time, live like I do, but, I'm not that malicious.[/QUOTE] It's good that you're receiving support, but I'm only sympathetic of that because of your condition. If you just simply didn't want to commit to hard work (e.g. do 40 hours on workfare in tesco) whilst fit and well, I would have no sympathy and would gladly see someone as such to the streets/starving for refusing to work. I'm sorry, not everyone thinks like they do. There are many taxpayers who believe that others alike them should work to survive. Thankfully this is an age of democracy and quite a majority seem to believe that working should be a mandate for survival. [editline]13th January 2013[/editline] All I'm saying is that people should work to receive something, no matter what it is. Water, food and shelter should not be free. You should have to work for it - to give something society for it. It is indeed unfortunate of the wholly incapacitated and even those who require treatment, and society should help them but ultimately it should focus that help into getting them into work, by whatever means!

[QUOTE=livelonger12;39206666]It's good that you're receiving support, but I'm only sympathetic of that because of your condition. If you just simply didn't want to commit to hard work (e.g. do 40 hours on workfare in tesco) whilst fit and well, I would have no sympathy and would gladly see someone as such to the streets/starving for refusing to work. I'm sorry, not everyone thinks like they do. There are many taxpayers who believe that others alike them should work to survive. Thankfully this is an age of democracy and quite a majority seem to believe that working should be a mandate for survival. [editline]13th January 2013[/editline] All I'm saying is that people should work to receive something, no matter what it is. Water, food and shelter should not be free. You should have to work for it - to give something society for it. It is indeed unfortunate of the wholly incapacitated and even those who require treatment, and society should help them but ultimately it should focus that help into getting them into work, by whatever means![/QUOTE] The fact is, you're giving jobs to people that the healthy job seekers having much ambition and work ethic are competing for. Since these employers have a job being done by these detestable scroungers, the employer no longer has to hire our hypothetical perfect job candidate. In doing this, you put the job seeker out of work. In not finding work, he becomes one of these detestable scroungers. So basically, what you want to do is take and turn a perfectly normal class of job seekers into benefit scroungers? The fuck? The fact is, someone has to be unemployed. Better it be the people that, Darwinistically speaking, deserve to be unemployed, rather than those that deserve to have a job because they're not weak and infirm. No offence meant rayven, but in the model of "only the strong get the jobs," you should not be having a job. Do I think that you deserve one that you could do? Absolutely.

There are practically no people who chose to live on benefits instead of working.

[quote]No offence meant rayven, but in the model of "only the strong get the jobs," you should not be having a job. Do I think that you deserve one that you could do? Absolutely. [/quote] None taken. I'd love a job that I could do, but realistically there's no jobs out there that pay a living wage for a few unpredictabe hours that I could work if i weren't quite in such a bad shape.