# Unemployed to work for benefits.



## Max Power (30 Sep 2013)

Plans are afoot to make the unemployed work for the money they get.
About time. 
The unemployment queues will go down quicker than a pint of beer at an alcoholics convention :lol:


----------



## wizard (30 Sep 2013)

Would you employ a waste of space with tattoos on his face, swears all the time, off his face on drink and drugs, done time for theft and GBH. 
So what happens to them! Give them money to live. Let them go out and rob people. Put them in a gas chamber. Lock them up for the rest of their life at our expense.


----------



## marcros (30 Sep 2013)

can we squeeze a couple more stereotypes in there?


----------



## wizard (30 Sep 2013)

What i am saying is there are people that are not fit for work so just give them the money or get rid of them


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (30 Sep 2013)

nice to see altruism and philanthropy thriving so strongly on the forum


----------



## Jacob (30 Sep 2013)

wizard":7s9gi1oh said:


> What i am saying is there are people that are not fit for work so just give them the money or get rid of them


Like the bankers?


----------



## Sheffield Tony (30 Sep 2013)

This noxious policy, designed to appeal to all that is worst in human nature, just keeps popping up. "Help-to-work" Hah - I bet it will really feel like someone is helping you. Not !

So you force the unemployed to work for their benefits. What jobs will you have them do ?

So you start out with punitive non-jobs that didn't need doing, Soon we can move on to using the forced labour squad to help out some of those public sector workers - street sweepers etc - to keep costs down. Before long you could replace quite a bit of the public sector with a load of co-opted out of work former public sector employees for a fraction of the cost. Slave labour, got to love it.


----------



## Racers (30 Sep 2013)

They are all trying to get votes/headlines, these policy's aren't worth worrying about.

Pete


----------



## davic (30 Sep 2013)

Sell the manufacturing out from underneath the people and then blame them for being unemployed.

"1,701 people apply for just eight barista jobs"

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle ... rista-jobs

Thirty grand for a degree that will never pay for itself. Yes; there is more to education than being prepared for industry


----------



## Steve Maskery (30 Sep 2013)

The vast, vast majority of people who are out of work would love to have a job and be paid for it. I think giving work to the unemployed is an excellent idea. Just make sure they are paid properly for doing it and everyone should be happy.


----------



## Max Power (30 Sep 2013)

This policy is aimed at the long term unemployed ie. that have not worked for at least two years.
If a migrant worker can come over here and gain employment then why cant this group of unemployed ?
People have got to start accepting responsibility for their own lives


----------



## MIGNAL (30 Sep 2013)

I don't really see the point. If there is a job to be done, employ someone. That will immediately cut the unemployment rate. If no one is prepared to pay a living wage (no matter how low) then it's quite obvious that the jobs don't exist. We simply have to get it out of our heads that full employment is possible. It isn't. It hasn't been possible for over 50 years. You just have to look at the unemployment rates across the whole of Europe to realise that. Look at the official unemployment rates and then almost double them to get the true figure! You are in cloud cuckoo land if you think that the jobs exist for all but a tiny percentage of the unemployed.


----------



## davic (30 Sep 2013)

The funny thing is (funny to me at least) is that all those that thought being shat on and having no money are having it happen to them. Living in a affluent part; it amuses me to see ex 40k + professionals complaining about how broke they are.

The best bit is that those that bragged about their house price now have there children living at home 30k in debt, no job and cant afford rent and will be living with mom and pops until they are 50.

The other source of amusement is that when pay and conditions were going down, nobody minded because of house price inflation. Now they are working in dung jobs and cant afford to live in there own house and cant sell it.

The poor did not cause this crisis but are being blamed for it. Sorry if this is not right wing enough for you


----------



## Sheffield Tony (30 Sep 2013)

Max Power":3dgwrzv2 said:


> If a migrant worker can come over here and gain employment then why cant this group of unemployed ?



Because:
-As a migrant worker, they are probably both reasonably young and energetic.
-They will be sending their money home, where it has greater purchasing power than here.
-They are quite probably willing to live in a caravan parked on the edge of a field, sharing with 10 other migrant workers, because they don't intend to do it for ever.
-etc, etc.


----------



## davic (30 Sep 2013)

Max Power":bhxhwzmc said:


> This policy is aimed at the long term unemployed ie. that have not worked for at least two years.
> If a migrant worker can come over here and gain employment then why cant this group of unemployed ?
> People have got to start accepting responsibility for their own lives




I stopped reading the sun after they hacked into a dead child's phone to get a story


----------



## Baldhead (30 Sep 2013)

Hopefully it won't be long before one of the site Mods will spot this tread and removes it.

BH


----------



## Paddywack (30 Sep 2013)

Any facts to go with the assumptions or is it personal rants.


----------



## Max Power (30 Sep 2013)

"Hopefully it won't be long before one of the site Mods will spot this tread and removes it."
Why :? Are attempts to solve the problem of long term unemployment an unmentionable subject ?
Wouldn't you rather attempts were made to get them back into employment


----------



## Racers (30 Sep 2013)

No politics rule on this site.

No6 in the list above.

Pete


----------



## tomatwark (30 Sep 2013)

It will cost more money than letting them stay at home watching daytime tv. 

Someone will have to pay for supervisors, hard hats, hi vis jackets, work boots, risk assessments , legal bills when someone breaks a nail and tries to sue for compensation. 

It may seem a good idea but it will not work in practice, just goes to show that Osborne has never had to do a days work in his life and has not got any idea of how the real world works, unless it involves silver spoons. 

We are now in the silly months of the run up to the next election, with the game of who can come up with the daftest policy.


Tom

I think it will be 7.00pm when this thread is removed, any advance?


----------



## Phil Pascoe (30 Sep 2013)

davic":34zyxw3i said:


> Max Power":34zyxw3i said:
> 
> 
> > This policy is aimed at the long term unemployed ie. that have not worked for at least two years.
> ...



So you admit to reading the Sun in the first place?


----------



## Phil Pascoe (30 Sep 2013)

As mentioned before, the elephant in the room is that there will never, ever again be full employment. This is nothing to do with politics, the world has moved on - the employers of masses of innumerate illiterates no longer exist, nor will they ever again. The big question is what to do with people who will probably never work, and whether it is correct that many of them pick up more in benefits than those working do in wages. That to me is quite wrong. The poorest working person should be richer than richest unemployed one.


----------



## Kalimna (30 Sep 2013)

Nice summary, Phil.p, completely agree with you.

Adam


----------



## t8hants (30 Sep 2013)

_the employers of masses of innumerate, illiterates no longer exist, nor will they ever again._ 

Can't agree with that, because down here that is exactly the type of job that still exists. It was the high skill, manufacturing jobs that have gone. I have been made redundant five time from both shipbuilding and aircraft industries (yes they still exist, but a ghost of their former selves) if I had been a tomato picker - job for life.

G


----------



## Phil Pascoe (30 Sep 2013)

Sorry, even fruit picking doesn't employ hundreds of thousands or millions.


----------



## RogerS (30 Sep 2013)

MIGNAL":3hc75jd6 said:


> I don't really see the point. If there is a job to be done, employ someone. That will immediately cut the unemployment rate. If no one is prepared to pay a living wage (no matter how low) then it's quite obvious that the jobs don't exist. .......



That is not logical. A job can exist but there might not be the budget for it. I see no reason why those on long term unemployment not contribute something for the money that they get. After all, all those of us paying income tax are contributing. 

Regarding migrant workers. There are many jobs such as crop-picking that many people in the UK don't want to do. So why not let migrant workers do it if they want to? One of the interesting things that is going to happen shortly is that the SWA is not being renewed. This was a mechanism for workers from places like Bulgaria and Roumania to come over on a short term basis to work crop-picking. Now with the impending arrival of them in the EU, they will be able to apply with greater ease for other better paid and less onerous jobs. But the SWA is not being replaced or offered to other migrant groups. The result will be that a lot of crops that we take for granted now simply won't be grown because there will be no-one available to pick them. Mind you, the Government that brought in legislation to prevent food being flown in to the UK from places like Peru would get my vote.


----------



## Jacob (30 Sep 2013)

phil.p":2y2g99cb said:


> As mentioned before, the elephant in the room is that there will never, ever again be full employment. This is nothing to do with politics, the world has moved on - the employers of masses of innumerate illiterates no longer exist, nor will they ever again. The big question is what to do with people who will probably never work, and whether it is correct that many of them pick up more in benefits than those working do in wages. That to me is quite wrong. The poorest working person should be richer than richest unemployed one.


I agree more or less.
The whole point of industrialisation, increased productivity, the computer, rationalisation, etc etc is that less work needs to be done for a particular outcome. Unemployment is the whole idea and purpose and widely seen as desirable. 
The inconvenient detail is that the first to be made redundant are usually the least responsible for the new efficiencies - so the inventor of a washing machine doesn't lose his job but hundreds of washer women do.
In an ideal world this should mean comfortable early retirement for millions of washerwomen and their families for generations to come.
But what happens in reality is the newly redundant have to find another way of earning a living. Easy in an expanding economy but difficult vice versa. Economies can't expand forever so provision has to be made for the redundant.
In an ideal world large numbers of unemployed people living a good quality of life would be seen as success.
I'm all for it! Full employment is a sacred cow which should have got the chop a long time ago.

And I think benefits should be high enough to provide a good quality of life and minimum wages should be even higher.
Taxation would be higher too, but that's the price of civilisation.


----------



## Jacob (30 Sep 2013)

t8hants":2n2skatd said:


> .... It was the high skill, manufacturing jobs that have gone. I have been made redundant five time from both shipbuilding and aircraft industries (yes they still exist, but a ghost of their former selves) if I had been a tomato picker - job for life.
> 
> G


What held you back? Highly enjoyable occupation, look at these Spaniards here:







NB this is a tomato festival http://www.valenciatrader.com/valencia/ ... s/tomatina I thought I'd better point this out incase anybody thinks it involves nudity, violence, bloodshed etc. :roll: It's just tomatoes.


----------



## davic (30 Sep 2013)

Reported


----------



## markturner (30 Sep 2013)

If some of the people who are able bodied and otherwise fit for work, but are unlucky enough to not be in employment were able to do something useful for some period of their free time, in return for the state handouts they live on, then why is that a bad thing? There is plenty of voluntary work, local stuff like helping the local elderly or infirm, etc that could be worked around different abilities and suitabilities. Its not slave labour - is that what you call all the work done by genuine community volunteers? It's doing the right thing, not being a leech, giving something back, and we should ask all those able, whether they are happy to do this. The answer would soon show the feckless and idle ones. I cant think of one valid, suitable reason why this is not a good idea. It should not however be forced or compulsory and it needs careful planning etc, but........... it could be a great way to make these people feel part of society instead of marginalised from it. And people like me whose taxes support them might feel better about it.........

As someone who has worked mostly 70 - 80 hour minimum weeks and been self employed for my whole 30 year working life, there is nothing I hate more than people who take advantage of our over generous welfare system because they are simply too lazy or think they are too good for the jobs out there...


----------



## hazel (30 Sep 2013)

what I can't understand is if these jobs exist to force those on benefits to do: then why can I not find more than 4 hours work a week????


----------



## Jacob (30 Sep 2013)

markturner":1ry0qvba said:


> If some of the people who are able bodied and otherwise fit for work, but are unlucky enough to not be in employment were able to do something useful for some period of their free time, in return for the state handouts they live on, then why is that a bad thing? There is plenty of voluntary work, local stuff like helping the local elderly or infirm, etc that could be worked around different abilities and suitabilities. I........


What makes you think people don't do this? There is a massive amount of unpaid voluntary work done by the unemployed of all varieties. There is also a huge amount of care work done for abysmally low wages often involving rip offs from agencies dodging the minimum wage. This is done by people who would rather work for peanuts than not at all.
The main issue is shortage of jobs - made worse by the various benefit traps which make flexible working so difficult and appallingly low wages at the bottom end.


----------



## powertools (30 Sep 2013)

markturner":1rd0hfxx said:


> If some of the people who are able bodied and otherwise fit for work, but are unlucky enough to not be in employment were able to do something useful for some period of their free time, in return for the state handouts they live on, then why is that a bad thing? There is plenty of voluntary work, local stuff like helping the local elderly or infirm, etc that could be worked around different abilities and suitabilities. Its not slave labour - is that what you call all the work done by genuine community volunteers? It's doing the right thing, not being a leech, giving something back, and we should ask all those able, whether they are happy to do this. The answer would soon show the feckless and idle ones. I cant think of one valid, suitable reason why this is not a good idea. It should not however be forced or compulsory and it needs careful planning etc, but........... it could be a great way to make these people feel part of society instead of marginalised from it. And people like me whose taxes support them might feel better about it.........
> 
> As someone who has worked mostly 70 - 80 hour minimum weeks and been self employed for my whole 30 year working life, there is nothing I hate more than people who take advantage of our over generous welfare system because they are simply too lazy or think they are too good for the jobs out there...



That is what I think but could not have explained it as well as you.
For a society to work it needs people to put in what they can and take as little as they can.


----------



## wizard (30 Sep 2013)

In the 1950 sweeping the roads and digging ditches was a high paid job so the not so bright people were better off working than sitting at home


----------



## Sheffield Tony (30 Sep 2013)

markturner":3l00qfo4 said:


> Its not slave labour - is that what you call all the work done by genuine community *volunteers*?



This is the key. We are not talking about making *voluntary* work [My emphasis] available for the unemployed should they want it We are talking about denying people access to benefits unless they do whatever menial job they are told to do. There would be a real temptation to use such a scheme as a cheap alternative to real public sector jobs, and in these days of local authorities desperately seeking to cut costs, how would they resist ?

And when the incapable, unsuitable or idle fail to turn up for their coerced work, what then ? Do we really think it is a good idea to withdraw their benefits and leave them to turn to crime ?


----------



## powertools (30 Sep 2013)

The biggest problem we have at the moment is that local authorities are not desperately seeking to cut costs but are trying to find ways of increasing income to continue the waste of resources at the expense of those who in their eyes are best able to support the gravy train .


----------



## heatherw (30 Sep 2013)

It's probably only since the Industrial Revolution that most of society has had 'jobs' as such. Formerly nearly everyone was self employed or training to be self employed ( the old medieval apprenticeships and journeymen schemes led to this) except for agricultural workers, I suppose. 

I remember seeing a couple of years ago a news item about a school that was training 16 year olds to be entrepreneurs, with a real success rate, around 20% were leaving school with a viable business. The people who ran the course were convinced that there would be no other outlet for the majority of school leavers within a few years time. 

I think we're going to have to return to this in the end; we could look upon the mass employment system as a small hiccup in the history of mankind, along with, (and probably owing to) the exploitation of fossil fuels.


----------



## finneyb (30 Sep 2013)

davic":2sdrqnbi said:


> I stopped reading the sun after they hacked into a dead child's phone to get a story



I never started reading the Sun, why would you read a Murdoch gutter rag with a reading age of 8 years.
Been almost banned in Liverpool since Hillsborough - because they are lying b***ards just to sell the paper.
( And I'm not a football fan in any shape or form) 

A Liverpool Tesco cashier tells a customer not to buy the Sun (26 Sept 2013) - is supported by the Leader of the Council and keeps her job. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-me ... e-24282609

It should go the same was as the NoW - down the pan.

Just my thoughts

Brian


----------



## nanscombe (30 Sep 2013)

Currently we are still paying people to live in their own homes, each paying individual utility and grocery bills etc.

Individual living spaces, with shared amenities like a canteen and laundry, might be a damn sight cheaper. It might go someway to helping the housing shortage as well.

But people don't want to go back to the likes of workhouses.


----------



## Jacob (30 Sep 2013)

nanscombe":2nh66fzd said:


> Currently we are still paying people to live in their own homes, each paying individual utility and grocery bills etc.
> 
> Individual living spaces, with shared amenities like a canteen and laundry, might be a damn sight cheaper. It might go someway to helping the housing shortage as well.
> 
> But people don't want to go back to the likes of workhouses.


And being unemployed and skint isn't a crime - to be punished.


----------



## Max Power (30 Sep 2013)

> And being unemployed and skint isn't a crime - to be punished.



Nor should it be encouraged


----------



## markturner (30 Sep 2013)

Jacob":xtywse50 said:


> markturner":xtywse50 said:
> 
> 
> > If some of the people who are able bodied and otherwise fit for work, but are unlucky enough to not be in employment were able to do something useful for some period of their free time, in return for the state handouts they live on, then why is that a bad thing? There is plenty of voluntary work, local stuff like helping the local elderly or infirm, etc that could be worked around different abilities and suitabilities. I........
> ...




Of Course I am aware that people already do that kind of voluntary work.......please..... :roll: I meant that kind of work would be more socially useful for example than just making people do more mundane and perhaps demeaning ( in their eyes) work. And it may actually have some kind of social benefit as well. So it should be high on the list of choices for people to do if this scheme was adopted.

Re pay: The problem is the market dictates the rates - You mention carers - the problem there is that caring for someone does not actually generate any profit.....it's a complete expense, either for the local authority, government or family member who is funding it. At least if someone works for a business, theoretically, if the basic business model is sound, then their work helps generate income. Not so with carers....And as the population ages, and the numbers of people needing care skyrocket, it's an ever increasing burden on the cash strapped state. So the wages are going to be low. its like the health service...great idea in the 1950's, but pretty much unaffordable now and impossible to fund at its current level of service in 20 years time with the increase in population. Ditto the welfare state. Something has to give. First on my list would be the foreign aid budget. lets look after our own first and then others when we can afford it.

And before you jump in with more great ideas like getting rid of bankers ( The single biggest income generator for the economy........) or taxing the higher earners into oblivion, we need to be a bit more creative. bottom line is that there are too many people, living too long and not generating enough revenue for the government to afford all these great social innovations any more in their present form.


----------



## Jacob (30 Sep 2013)

markturner":3swhbl5d said:


> ....... bottom line is that there are too many people, living too long and not generating enough revenue for the government to afford all these great social innovations any more in their present form.


The standard of living of most of us is vastly superior than anything our parents experienced (or grandparents if you are younger than me!) and we are wealthy enough to end poverty entirely - it's just a matter of politics (and taxes!). Look how much was done immediately after WW2 when the country was on its knees. Are things really worse now?



> ...does not actually generate any profit.....it's a complete expense, either for the local authority, government...


This is true of vast areas of life public and private, roads, police, education, you name it. The profit is in the _value_ of the outcome, not a pile of banknotes.
And of course, these things employ masses of people who go on to spend their money, also generate massive contracts for businesses, also bring about improvements in the quality of life. It's win, win, win. The current "austerity" is unbelievably stupid. Taxation (well spent) is _the_ major wealth generator. Low tax economies are always poverty stricken.


----------



## MIGNAL (30 Sep 2013)

RogerS":2s18rp8y said:


> MIGNAL":2s18rp8y said:
> 
> 
> > I don't really see the point. If there is a job to be done, employ someone. That will immediately cut the unemployment rate. If no one is prepared to pay a living wage (no matter how low) then it's quite obvious that the jobs don't exist. .......
> ...



Oh well by your logic Roger there are 100 million + 'jobs' available. I actually have about 3,000 that I need doing on my house. 
You are free to come and complete them all. I'll provide tea and biscuits but don't expect to be paid any money.


----------



## RogerS (30 Sep 2013)

Sheffield Tony":2wpiiyyz said:


> markturner":2wpiiyyz said:
> 
> 
> > Its not slave labour - is that what you call all the work done by genuine community *volunteers*?
> ...



Sorry but you are missing the point. I pay income tax. That is input to our society. The income tax is in return for my wage. In return for my hours spent at work. Why shouldn't someone getting benefit also put an input into society in exchange for the benefits that they receive?

Mignal....see the above.


----------



## Jacob (30 Sep 2013)

RogerS":2drhye8t said:


> Sheffield Tony":2drhye8t said:
> 
> 
> > markturner":2drhye8t said:
> ...


Find them a job and give them a living wage. What's the problem?


----------



## Cheshirechappie (30 Sep 2013)

Jacob":oeg9otv3 said:


> Taxation (well spent) is _the_ major wealth generator. Low tax economies are always poverty stricken.


[/quote]

I think that's the funniest thing I've seen in all the time I've been posting on this forum! Jacob - you've just re-written most of economic theory, and completely disregarded donkey's years of economc experience!

By that statement, the richest country the planet has ever seen was the USSR!

Just one small question - where does the wealth come from to tax in the first place? I mean, you can't generate any wealth without having some tax revenue to spend, but if there's no wealth, you can't generate any tax revenue...

"Low tax economies are always poverty stricken." - Erm, you mean like Jersey or the Isle of Man?


----------



## Jacob (30 Sep 2013)

Cheshirechappie":woyvbytv said:


> ........
> 
> "Low tax economies are always poverty stricken." - Erm, you mean like Jersey or the Isle of Man?


They are tax havens which isn't quite the same thing - not a real economy. It doesn't do anything for the ordinary working people in either place.


----------



## markturner (1 Oct 2013)

So Jacob, lets see, how well do you think the next party that puts forward a 40% or 50% base tax level to pay for all of this, such as they have in free thinking forward looking model liberal left wing countries such as Denmark and Sweden etc, will get at the next election..........And precisely how long do you think our creaking ecomomy would last before it crashed to the ground, as people who even now at these levels of taxation are finding it impossible to make ends meet, suddenly find they don't have money for the mortgage, the food............ Maybe you can persuade that irritating fool Milliband to take the policy up.........at least we wont have to worry about him getting elected.......
Personally, I like to see a model of existence where hard work and enterprise are rewarded, not used to fund the lower half of society. I have not worked my b*****X off all my working life to pay for some spotty youth to sit at home on his play station because he thinks doing a manual job is beyond him, he is going to be a star DJ or a footballer, or a reality TV star, of course. And why should I also pay for familiies ( many of whom who cant even speak english) with 10 kids and no job to sit in a council house and get free handouts when we can't even afford to pay our old age pensioners who have contributed to this countries economy all their lives, a decent subsistence pension and to keep warm in winter? To be honest, I could not care less about them........and I fully expect the sentiment to be returned. It's human nature. They certainly don't care about me....

High taxes do not promote a healthy economy - I run a building company and since the VAT went up to 20%, I am losing jobs left right and centre to builders taking cash and not charging VAT. I used to get asked to take cash about once every ten jobs ( always refused) but now its approx 3 or 4 out of ten. There must be a huge amount of revenue simply dissapearing into the black economy. People simply wont accept paying higher taxes.
If they reduced VAT on building works and home improvements to 5% it would have a massive effect. Plus its tax on top of tax.......

Of course we are better off than our parents and grandparents generation, where did I say we are not? They did not have the health and welfare service to fund either...

When we have repaid the budget deficit and the government has managed to do more to generate some growth ( Sure, they need to improve in this area) then we look at what we can afford to commit to in terms of social welfare. But only then.


----------



## Jacob (1 Oct 2013)

It's not unlike Monopoly board game. All is well when money is going around and people are buying and selling. But when too much money and property ends up in the hands of too few people, the game stops. The way to get it going again is to issue more money (it used to be matches in the old days in our family) or to redistribute the property and money.
The real economy is not that different.
The money you pay in taxation finds its way back to you in spending on building and other projects. What goes around comes around. You can't sell buildings to people with no money.
The black economy is another entirely separate problem. Very honest of you to admit to discussing cash tax dodging. This is highly illegal and should be stamped out, even if I do sound like a spoil sport!

And "growth" isn't essential. Future economies are going to have to work with no growth i.e. goods, services, money circulating but not necessarily expanding.

PS _And precisely how long do you think our creaking ecomomy would last before it crashed to the ground,_ It has crashed to the ground already and Osborne is now digging a hole!


----------



## Max Power (1 Oct 2013)

What Mark just said (hammer) 
=D> =D> =D>


----------



## Max Power (1 Oct 2013)

*" Very honest of you to admit to accepting cash"*
Once again you are seeing only what you want to see Jacob

What Mark actually said was
*" I used to get asked to take cash about once every ten jobs ( always refused) "*

You should issue an apology and get along to Specsavers


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (1 Oct 2013)

I now understand why the masons have a rule of no religion and no politics!


----------



## Max Power (1 Oct 2013)

Woo Hoo Bob, lets have a bunfight about the Masons (hammer) 
Is it true they ride around butt naked on goats  
 Dont tell Jacob he'll want to join :lol: :lol:


----------



## Dangermouse (1 Oct 2013)

Are we sure this isn't a sharpening thread in disguise ?????


----------



## Max Power (1 Oct 2013)

*No*
But we could make it one :lol:


----------



## wizard (1 Oct 2013)

all we need on here now is jo 90


----------



## Max Power (1 Oct 2013)

Jacob you should have been a politician

What Jacob actually said
*" Very honest of you to admit to accepting cash"*

What Jacob_ says_ he said
*Very honest of you to admit to discussing cash tax dodging*

You couldn't make it up, hes slipperier than a worm in a pot of grease :roll:


----------



## Jacob (1 Oct 2013)

Max Power":76kvpvi3 said:


> Jacob you should have been a politician
> 
> What Jacob actually said
> *" Very honest of you to admit to accepting cash"*
> ...


I misread it first time and edited it. It says "edited" at the bottom of the page. No need to get over excited!

And the unemployed to work for benefits problem is answered if money is spent on projects which pay proper wages and employ people. It's very simple.


----------



## MIGNAL (1 Oct 2013)

Back to the discussion of the original thread. 
Straight question. Who is going to pay for all the extra admin and implementation costs? Who is going to pay for the extra training/supervision? Don't forget these extra costs are over and above what we are already paying at the moment. 
Not only that but all the back to work schemes that have existed over the years have a very poor record. Money down the drain, except of course for the few professionals that earn a very good living running these rubbish schemes.


----------



## Jacob (1 Oct 2013)

MIGNAL":17tzw1gm said:


> Back to the discussion of the original thread.
> Straight question. Who is going to pay for all the extra admin and implementation costs? Who is going to pay for the extra training/supervision? Don't forget these extra costs are over and above what we are already paying at the moment.
> Not only that but all the back to work schemes that have existed over the years have a very poor record. Money down the drain, except of course for the few professionals that earn a very good living running these rubbish schemes.


It's reported today that back to work schemes have not been viable. It should be obvious that you can't get people back to work if there are no jobs. They are not all shirkers and dodgers in spite of the media propaganda. It'd probably make more sense to just raise benefits - improve peoples lives, boost the economy, increase demand for workers, all in one shot


----------



## wizard (1 Oct 2013)

MIGNAL":1fk3ey74 said:


> Back to the discussion of the original thread.
> Straight question. Who is going to pay for all the extra admin and implementation costs? Who is going to pay for the extra training/supervision? Don't forget these extra costs are over and above what we are already paying at the moment.
> Not only that but all the back to work schemes that have existed over the years have a very poor record. Money down the drain, except of course for the few professionals that earn a very good living running these rubbish schemes.


That’s ok they will tax the less well off to pay for it :lol:


----------



## wizard (1 Oct 2013)

Come on mod’s this is getting like diynot


----------



## Baldhead (1 Oct 2013)

Max Power":15ac043c said:


> "Hopefully it won't be long before one of the site Mods will spot this tread and removes it."
> Why :? Are attempts to solve the problem of long term unemployment an unmentionable subject ?
> Wouldn't you rather attempts were made to get them back into employment


Nothing wrong with discussing the unemployed, however this is a political issue and as has already been said, Rule 6 No Politics, also making fun of alcoholics is like kicking someone when their down, alcoholism is an illness, would you make fun of me if you saw me in my wheelchair at the Metro Centre? I think you posted this just to start an argument, this site is for genuine woodworkers who wish to help or ask for the help of others, pontings such as this only bring down the site. I have reported your original posting, as offensive and breaking the rules.

BH


----------



## finneyb (1 Oct 2013)

The objective of working for benefits, as I see it, is to get people responsible for their own lives; there is a similar move going on in the NHS to reduce demand on A&E. 

Whilst support is needed and should be given for an immediate emergency eg losing a job, it should not be available in the longer term. If you give people a crutch long term it erodes their confidence to stand on their own two feet - the nanny State. 

The work for benefits will be for a transition period for the genuine unemployed ie until they get the confidence, work skills etc to get employment. Those 'working for cash' and also claiming benefit will stop claiming benefits pdq as its becomes too inconvenient and interferes with the 'working for cash' job.

Brian


----------



## Cottonwood (1 Oct 2013)

Mr Spanton got banned for being too "political" :roll: Good thing too :lol: 
Reading this "thread" is entirely depressing
I never knew of any instance when argumentativeness ever changed anyones deeply held views. Just saying....


----------



## Noel (1 Oct 2013)

It's 11.29, closing time.


----------

