Unemployed to work for benefits.

[Max Power]

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

Nor should it be encouraged

 

[markturner]

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.

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]

....... 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]

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.

.

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]

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 ?

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]

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 ?

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.

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

 

[Cheshirechappie]

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]

........

"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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Max Power]

" 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]

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

 

[Max Power]

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]

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

 

[Max Power]

No
But we could make it one :lol:

 

[wizard]

all we need on here now is jo 90

 

[Max Power]

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]

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:

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]

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 crap schemes.