We can't afford alternatives were everyone has access to free sustenance, universally. There's no fantasy world here where people would work for the sustenance of others, where work would become an option. Where not working (if you're not already wholly incapacitated) would throw you into poverty. The deluded fantasies of such will speak of how money would reward most for those who provide sustenance, and they stupidly believe that this would attract people into work yet whilst apparently providing an option. I'm sorry, like I said before this is just a fantasy of theirs and cannot work, period.
Again, no one would work if this fantasy system was present. No one would provide food, water or shelter. It would be a free for all - chaotic. So unfortunately, this system we have now is the best we can afford.
So livelonger are you going to answer me about how you would deal with the costs of verifying whether or not someone can work at a given time? Considering this sort of thing will give someone minimum wage work at best and the kind of professionals who would be required to check up on someone will be taking in a rather hefty paycheck something like what you are suggesting would actually bleed money from the system, not earn it.
If anything you would make someone on that sort of system an even bigger burden to society which is your biggest concern from what I've seen.
[QUOTE=Boxbot219;39206927]So livelonger are you going to answer me about how you would deal with the costs of verifying whether or not someone can work at a given time? Considering this sort of thing will give someone minimum wage work at best and the kind of professionals who would be required to check up on someone will be taking in a rather hefty paycheck something like what you are suggesting would actually bleed money from the system, not earn it.
If anything you would make someone on that sort of system an even bigger burden to society which is your biggest concern from what I've seen.[/QUOTE]
It might cost a bit at first but as the assessments figure how to wean out the scroungers from those of true legitimate and dire need, it will become cheaper to run. Not to mention, it provides jobs for such professionals to run! It's all good.
So you think that having them unemployed for 12 months, with no work, and paying their sustenance, you think that this would be cheaper? Cheaper than providing a job/disability assessment process to determine of whether they're fit for work/to give them work to do?
[QUOTE=livelonger12;39206958]It might cost a bit at first but as the assessments figure how to wean out the scroungers from those of true legitimate and dire need, it will become cheaper to run. Not to mention, it provides jobs for such professionals to run! It's all good.[/QUOTE]
but technically speaking your tax dollars are still going to someone's free meal, because otherwise they wouldn't have a job.
[editline]13th January 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=RayvenQ;39206875]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.[/QUOTE]
You having your issues makes me feel bad that my issues prevent me from having steady work. Sure, I can get a job, but I wind up getting let go not long after.
I really don't get it. You are complaining about how the system is draining money from taxpayers and you are suggesting things that will actually make it even more expensive.
[QUOTE=Irkalla;39206970]but technically speaking your tax dollars are still going to someone's free meal, because otherwise they wouldn't have a job.
[editline]13th January 2013[/editline]
You having your issues makes me feel bad that my issues prevent me from having steady work. Sure, I can get a job, but I wind up getting let go not long after.[/QUOTE]
The other guy has a more legitimate and dire need for benefits. Unfortunately, I do not readily sympathize as much with your situation. You can work and should work. My advise is that you should work, and hopefully that the government of your locale will take action to mandate you some work activity.
[editline]13th January 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Boxbot219;39206984]I really don't get it. You are complaining about how the system is draining money from taxpayers and you are suggesting things that will actually make it even more expensive.[/QUOTE]
The money the doctor spends in the system is taxed anyway, so the very movement of money generates money itself (via VAT taxes on purchases). So long as the citizen is loyal to their nation and doesn't try to distribute it outside the country, the money spent will eventually find its way back to the tax payer.
[QUOTE=livelonger12;39206958]It might cost a bit at first but as the assessments figure how to wean out the scroungers from those of true legitimate and dire need, it will become cheaper to run. Not to mention, it provides jobs for such professionals to run! It's all good.[/QUOTE]
Except it's not all good. If you have a doctor coming to visit someone who is disabled every day to verify that they can't work and that person indeed cannot work then you just create a system that bleeds out money from taxpayers for nothing.
[QUOTE=Boxbot219;39206984]I really don't get it. You are complaining about how the system is draining money from taxpayers and you are suggesting things that will actually make it even more expensive.[/QUOTE]
It will work. How can it not? A simple assessment process that might cost a bit at first but which would reduce in cost the longer it runs, which determines whether someone is fit for work and which also finds work for the unemployed to do. It also gives them the skills they need to enter the world of work and forces them to give back, i.e. they then work for their sustenance.
I think the best system is to have state housing where the occupants are indentured to the state. All expenses are paid and they get a pittance for food.
It's not a very friendly system at all, but if I were homeless I would be on that like a fly on shit.
[QUOTE=livelonger12;39207004]
The money the doctor spends in the system is taxed anyway, so the very movement of money generates money itself (via VAT taxes on purchases). So long as the citizen is loyal to their nation and doesn't try to distribute it outside the country, the money spent will eventually find its way back to the tax payer.[/QUOTE]
Do you realize how dumb this logic is?
Going by this logic welfare isn't a drain on taxpayer money at all because the people receiving the money will end up spending it and putting it back in the economy.
You just destroyed your own point.
[QUOTE=Boxbot219;39207024]Except it's not all good. If you have a doctor coming to visit someone who is disabled every day to verify that they can't work and that person indeed cannot work then you just create a system that bleeds out money from taxpayers for nothing.[/QUOTE]
Assessments would be lessened for those who are more disabled than others; the lesser disabled will require more assessments to determine that they're receiving treatment and trying to get themselves better/manage their condition better to help get them back into work.
[editline]13th January 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Boxbot219;39207051]Do you realize how dumb this logic is?
Going by this logic welfare isn't a drain on taxpayer money at all because the people receiving the money will end up spending it and putting it back in the economy.
You just destroyed your own point.[/QUOTE]
That's just the money part. With this updated system, they will be giving something for that money. It will offset them receiving free sustenance, so someone who's fit and able to work will always be working as often as they can (as the state deems to also, so they can work 40 hours if fit and well and have a day off each week) to receive their benefits. It's much better than paying taxes for them to receive free food, water, shelter and energy.
[quote]The other guy has a more legitimate and dire need for benefits. Unfortunately, I do not readily sympathize as much with your situation. You can work and should work. My advise is that you should work, and hopefully that the government of your locale will take action to mandate you some work activity.
[/quote]
No sympathy? Can't you read? He does want to work, and he does work, but because of his issues his employers terminate his employment. As in, he doesn't chose not to work.
You don't have any sympathy because you can't get off your fucking high horse and see it from other peoples point of view.
[QUOTE=RayvenQ;39207081]No sympathy? Can't you read? He does want to work, and he does work, but because of his issues his employers terminate his employment. As in, he doesn't chose not to work.
You don't have any sympathy because you can't get off your fucking high horse and see it from other peoples point of view.[/QUOTE]
He could do charity work instead. Solutions are open to him.
[QUOTE=livelonger12;39207093]He could do charity work instead. Solutions are open to him.[/QUOTE]
Charity work nets you no pay, so how are you supposed to live off that? And don't say by getting benefits, because, as pointed out very early on in the thread.
[quote] Oh, you can only work casually? Good enough, you're working, so no benefits.[/quote]
Pretty much on JSA and any other form of benefit, if you do any kind of work at all, you're deemed fit for work and taken off said benefits.
[QUOTE=livelonger12;39207055]
That's just the money part. With this updated system, they will be giving something for that money. It will offset them receiving free sustenance, so someone who's fit and able to work will always be working as often as they can (as the state deems to also, so they can work 40 hours if fit and well and have a day off each week) to receive their benefits. It's much better than paying taxes for them to receive free food, water, shelter and energy.[/QUOTE]
You seem to be forgetting the sort of management nightmare that would result from having such an unreliable employee that can only work some of the time.
So basically the only way this would work is if employers are forced by law to employ such a person, damaging their business, or if they receive substantial benefits for doing so, costing massive taxpayer money on top of your verification system.
[QUOTE=livelonger12;39207093]He could do charity work instead. Solutions are open to him.[/QUOTE]
You gain no financial income from charity work. You know that thing people call money? Well you apparently need it to pay for food, utilities, and rent. You also have to factor in travel costs to the place of work.
[QUOTE=RayvenQ;39207129]Charity work nets you no pay, so how are you supposed to live off that? And don't say by getting benefits, because, as pointed out very early on in the thread. [/QUOTE]
It would seem he's suggesting that its possible to live off thin air.
Livelonger12 did you forget it costs money to pay for rent/food/bills? It almost seems like you did.
[QUOTE=RayvenQ;39207129]Charity work nets you no pay, so how are you supposed to live off that? And don't say by getting benefits, because, as pointed out very early on in the thread.
Pretty much on JSA and any other form of benefit, if you do any kind of work at all, you're deemed fit for work and taken off said benefits.[/QUOTE]
No, you're not. All one has to do is beg their work advisers to let them work and to let them know that they need that benefit otherwise they couldn't work. Also, one is allowed to work whilst on benefits for a certain number of hours anyway, it's if one works for over 15 hours per week that they are deemed to lose access to their JSA.
So he can do charity work while he's on benefit. All he would be doing is doing something - giving back - by honest virtue of his choice, for what he's receiving.
[editline]13th January 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Ninx;39207632]Livelonger12 did you forget it costs money to pay for rent/food/bills? It almost seems like you did.[/QUOTE]
I said that benefit claimants should be required to work for said benefits to offset their receipt so they're not getting free sustenance - i.e. so they're working for it.
[editline]13th January 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Boxbot219;39207132]You seem to be forgetting the sort of management nightmare that would result from having such an unreliable employee that can only work some of the time.
So basically the only way this would work is if employers are forced by law to employ such a person, damaging their business, or if they receive substantial benefits for doing so, costing massive taxpayer money on top of your verification system.[/QUOTE]
No, the claimants are forced to do charity work for their benefits. This helps them develop the skills they need to enter the world of work (as I've mentioned before quite often throughout this thread). Employers aren't forced to employee these claimants, and they can be rewarded for doing so too.
[editline]13th January 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Irkalla;39207042]I think the best system is to have state housing where the occupants are indentured to the state. All expenses are paid and they get a pittance for food.
It's not a very friendly system at all, but if I were homeless I would be on that like a fly on shit.[/QUOTE]
I disagree. You sound like you believe that everyone should have a minimum living allowance, with no mandate to work and that work should be an option to acquire luxuries. This will not work and there's no such place of this fantasy in this world. Nothing should be free.
[QUOTE=livelonger12;39209246]
No, the claimants are forced to do charity work for their benefits. This helps them develop the skills they need to enter the world of work (as I've mentioned before quite often throughout this thread). Employers aren't forced to employee these claimants, and they can be rewarded for doing so too.
[/QUOTE]
Lol you're going to have tax payers pay for doctors to verify if someone can or can't work on a given day and pay for employer benefits just so they can do work that is worth less than minimum wage? Did you completely forget that we are talking about people with unrecoverable disabilities?
I think you seriously need a reality check.
you're a real piece of shit, op.
[editline]14th January 2013[/editline]
[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).
[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?[/QUOTE]
Oh you're actually just a troll, as you were.
This thread has convinced me that the social safety net should be expanded vastly and paid for entirely with tax hikes on livelonger12 and anyone who agrees with him
Unfortunately I have a quite nasty sleep disorder which makes it near impossible to maintain a proper sleeping cycle, I work from home but get help from the government to pay my rent. When they change everything around (in the UK) I will loose out and will become homeless, I believe I have about a year left of 'life' before it gets like that. I am genuinely worried as I am only 27 and by the time I'm 29 I'll be on the streets (I don't have parents to help me out). It's a worrying situation for the people who fall through the cracks. Hopefully something changes.
I don't mind working... or working hard but due to my sleeping disorder I can't maintain normal hours.
[QUOTE=joe588;39213825]you're a real piece of shit, op.
[editline]14th January 2013[/editline]
Oh you're actually just a troll, as you were.[/QUOTE]
I'm just putting out there my beliefs of working. There are those fit and able to work or who are just partially incapacitated who are unemployed for over 12 months with no work at all. They could of at least underwent some charitable work - 15 hours per week - and still look for work. They've gotta start somewhere, at the bottom even if it is, but they can climb if they hold on to the ideal that they'll make their way towards the top.
[editline]14th January 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Chaoss86;39213976]Unfortunately I have a quite nasty sleep disorder which makes it near impossible to maintain a proper sleeping cycle, I work from home but get help from the government to pay my rent. When they change everything around (in the UK) I will loose out and will become homeless, I believe I have about a year left of 'life' before it gets like that. I am genuinely worried as I am only 27 and by the time I'm 29 I'll be on the streets (I don't have parents to help me out). It's a worrying situation for the people who fall through the cracks. Hopefully something changes.
I don't mind working... or working hard but due to my sleeping disorder I can't maintain normal hours.[/QUOTE]
There are hostels throughout the UK which charge an utmost pittence of rent, so if it comes to that you do have that as an option. It's good that you let the very least of your work ethic thrive however, despite your condition. Keep it up -- keep trying to get into the realm of 40 hour/week employment! (now that is work!)
[editline]14th January 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Boxbot219;39209460]Lol you're going to have tax payers pay for doctors to verify if someone can or can't work on a given day and pay for employer benefits just so they can do work that is worth less than minimum wage? Did you completely forget that we are talking about people with unrecoverable disabilities?
I think you seriously need a reality check.[/QUOTE]
I did mention that there are treatments to help them manage those conditions, and so if they are at any time found to be feeling well for work they could be given some work to do no matter how long it's for - as long as they're fit and able to do it, at any time.
Disabilities are not COMPLETELY MANAGEABLE. They are not like a headache in the morning, knock back an aspirin and go about your merry business. Why are you even still arguing this?
[QUOTE=livelonger12;39215934]
I did mention that there are treatments to help them manage those conditions, and so if they are at any time found to be feeling well for work they could be given some work to do no matter how long it's for - as long as they're fit and able to do it, at any time.[/QUOTE]
You know what whatever. I'm done arguing with an idiot and/or troll.
Have fun constantly trying to make up ways to justify holding the benefits that an irrecoverably disabled person needs in order to survive hostage because you think they should either give back to society every ounce of labor you could possibly squeeze out of their pained bodies or otherwise die on the streets.
[QUOTE=Boxbot219;39217715]You know what whatever. I'm done arguing with an idiot and/or troll.
Have fun constantly trying to make up ways to justify holding the benefits that an irrecoverably disabled person needs in order to survive hostage because you think they should either give back to society every ounce of labor you could possibly squeeze out of their pained bodies or otherwise die on the streets.[/QUOTE]
Labor was given to them. If something can be done to help them work, however minute that work committed is, to alleviate their condition - however debilitating it may be - and to free whatever ethic of work they may have and to allow it to exercise however more freely than before (the ethic imprisoned by the bondage of incapacity), then it should be done.
I'm not saying that it's imprisoned intentionally, but rather that the ethic of work is just simply imprisoned.
[editline]14th January 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=eurocracy;39217079]Disabilities are not COMPLETELY MANAGEABLE. They are not like a headache in the morning, knock back an aspirin and go about your merry business. Why are you even still arguing this?[/QUOTE]
Of course not, but if they're at least partially manageable then perhaps some ethic of work can be free'd to be exercised and to enable them to give back some labor (even if it's partially).
[QUOTE=livelonger12;39217838]Labor was given to them. If something can be done to help them work, however minute that work committed is, to alleviate their condition - however debilitating it may be - and to free whatever ethic of work they may have and to allow it to exercise however more freely than before (the ethic imprisoned by the bondage of incapacity), then it should be done.
I'm not saying that it's imprisoned intentionally, but rather that the ethic of work is just simply imprisoned.[/QUOTE]
How about we give them the choice to work if they want to instead of making a massively expensive system that only serves to make a disabled person's life as miserable as possible without even making a profit.
Seriously read the summary of your idea to yourself.
"Make disabled people work whenever they possibly can or be cut off from benefits and spend way more money than their labor would ever produce to verify their ability to work."
[QUOTE=Boxbot219;39217940]How about we give them the choice to work if they want to instead of making a massively expensive system that only serves to make a disabled person's life as miserable as possible without even making a profit.
Seriously read the summary of your idea to yourself.
"Make disabled people work whenever they possibly can or be cut off from benefits and spend way more money than their labor would ever produce to verify their ability to work."[/QUOTE]
If you're going to do that for disabled people, then it wouldn't be fair for everyone else. And if you did it for everyone else, no one would want to work. There would be no one to provide that sustenance. Like I said, this fantasy idea of the workshy won't work.
[QUOTE=livelonger12;39218020]If you're going to do that for disabled people, then it wouldn't be fair for everyone else. And if you did it for everyone else, no one would want to work. There would be no one to provide that sustenance. Like I said, this fantasy idea of the workshy won't work.[/QUOTE]
Life isn't fair. If life was fair people wouldn't become disabled in the first place.
And you kind of forgot to give this post purpose. I see you comparing disabled people and "everyone else". I'm not talking about people who aren't disabled if that's what you're referring to, and I don't know what you're talking about because why would giving disabled people disability benefits mean you have to give everyone else disability benefits?
[QUOTE=Boxbot219;39218068]Life isn't fair. If life was fair people wouldn't become disabled in the first place.
And you kind of forgot to give this post purpose. I see you comparing disabled people and "everyone else". I'm not talking about people who aren't disabled if that's what you're referring to, and I don't know what you're talking about because why would giving disabled people disability benefits mean you have to give everyone else disability benefits?[/QUOTE]
If you give them the right to choose of whether to work or not, then you should do the same to everyone else. Yet if you did that, the system would collapse.
[editline]14th January 2013[/editline]
Seriously now, this is sounding like some argument of the venus project or some money-less fantasy. The world cannot live without money and people must work for that.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
