Millions of people living on welfare should be told: “No work, no benefits”, according to a radical report.

 

The study, produced for a Government consultation on the welfare state, says that all those not suffering “serious disability” should be required to do some form of work.

 

And it could affect up to three million who have been on benefits for more than a year.

 

The report, by centre-Right think tank the Adam Smith Institute, says Government reforms of the welfare state have been “too timid”. It urges ministers to copy a tough welfare-to-work programme pioneered by former US president Bill Clinton, which more than halved welfare dependency in the US in the late Nineties.

 

Source: Daily Express

 

Ridiculous idea

 

If unemployed people are going to do work in return for benefits they should be paid the going rate for the job they are doing i.e at least minimum wage otherwise it is like slave labour, if the job needs doing then pay the bloody going rate not expect unemployed people to do full time work for £50 or whatever the benefit level is a week

Ridiculous idea

 

If unemployed people are going to do work in return for benefits they should be paid the going rate for the job they are doing i.e at least minimum wage otherwise it is like slave labour, if the job needs doing then pay the bloody going rate not expect unemployed people to do full time work for £50 or whatever the benefit level is a week

 

I totally agree, afterall wouldn't all employers try to get involved in this scheme so they could pay their employess less and get rid of those employees earning the minimum wage.

 

this is a bad idea

Ridiculous idea

 

If unemployed people are going to do work in return for benefits they should be paid the going rate for the job they are doing i.e at least minimum wage otherwise it is like slave labour, if the job needs doing then pay the bloody going rate not expect unemployed people to do full time work for £50 or whatever the benefit level is a week

 

Hang on, the Thatcherite cheerleader actually dissing a recommendation from the Adam Smith Institute, which is where Thatch and her cronies got most of their ideas from????!!!! Christ, is this a turn up for the books or what??? :lol: :lol:

 

You seem to forget that your Tory lot actually brought in schemes very much like these in the 80s and 90s - "Training For Work", "Employment Training"; absolute bullsh!t that led to bugger all in the vast majority of cases, excuses for employers to get in a load of dolies to do a job on-the-cheap, claim that it was "training" and then dump them after a year or six months... <_<

 

I have never been a supporter of such schemes, a complete waste of time and money and does not lead to any training or learning of jobs purely a form of cheap labour

 

I am and always have been a supporter of apprentichips and would love to see them bought back on a large scale in this country where people learn a trade like mechanics, plumbing, carpentry or whatever that is far more constructive than bunging in some dole claimant into a call centre or production line or warehouse

Hang on, the Thatcherite cheerleader actually dissing a recommendation from the Adam Smith Institute, which is where Thatch and her cronies got most of their ideas from????!!!! Christ, is this a turn up for the books or what??? :lol: :lol:

 

You seem to forget that your Tory lot actually brought in schemes very much like these in the 80s and 90s - "Training For Work", "Employment Training"; absolute bullsh!t that led to bugger all in the vast majority of cases, excuses for employers to get in a load of dolies to do a job on-the-cheap, claim that it was "training" and then dump them after a year or six months... <_<

 

absolutely spot on...

 

wasnt there a case of a sacked/redundant hospital porter doing his old job for dole money instead of his old wage?... <_<

Maybe I am wrong but wasn't the thing that kicked it all off - YTS - started by Callaghan ? :unsure:

 

Only had 4 hrs sleep so not got my thinking cap on today but I don't recall it being a Maggie scheme

Maybe I am wrong but wasn't the thing that kicked it all off - YTS - started by Callaghan ? :unsure:

 

Only had 4 hrs sleep so not got my thinking cap on today but I don't recall it being a Maggie scheme

 

nope... we aint talking yts... it was thatcher who closed down/privatised hospital services making millions unemployed and it was her who wanted the unemployed to work for their dole.

 

the upshot was that she cut jobs creating unemployment, then expected those unemployed to work doing the very same jobs as they had just lost, for dole money and not the wage they were on. the b**ch.

wasnt there a case of a sacked/redundant hospital porter doing his old job for dole money instead of his old wage?... <_<

 

Yep, I do believe there was actually mate....

 

Maybe I am wrong but wasn't the thing that kicked it all off - YTS - started by Callaghan ? :unsure:

 

YTS is a rather different beast to what we're talking about here.... And it was Maggie's Govt who made it compulsory....

I also believe those too lazy to get off their bums and do something to benefit the world shouldn't receive the money that benefits them. Simple as. You don't want to work, you pay the consequences.

 

Obviously those with serious disabilities should be excused but anyone physically and mentally able to do any job should get one.

 

Basically these people need help to find work, get qualifications and start doing something. It'd be far better for us to do that to just say instead of helping you help yourself we'll just forget the problem and hand you some cash! My parents both work hard, I'm working hard on my education. I pay not be the brightest bulb in the chandelier but I'm trying - I don't see why everyone else can't too.

I think benefits should just be scrapped all together. :rofl We know the type of people who are on them and what they use them for, so whats the point?

I think benefits should just be scrapped all together. :rofl We know the type of people who are on them and what they use them for, so whats the point?

Erm, excuse me, but not everyone who claims benefits is lazy and just trying to sponge from the state. Income support - I'm on full-time education now and unable to make a living, therefore I need income support as I don't have parental income. My mother was on jobseeker's allowance at one point as she couldn't find a decent job (people who claim benefits while unemployed aren't necessarily sponging either!) as well as child benefits as she was a single parent. What would withdrawing benefits have done to benefit our situation, especially as she wasn't earning enough to support us both even when she did have a job? People need to get out of the narrow-minded Daily Mail viewpoint...

I think benefits should just be scrapped all together. :rofl We know the type of people who are on them and what they use them for, so whats the point?

 

 

 

What a ridiculous comment. :angry: Some people depend on them.

I think benefits should just be scrapped all together. :rofl We know the type of people who are on them and what they use them for, so whats the point?

 

 

Cannot agree with this but I do think something should be done and that something is in between the statement above and the current system. People with good reasons for being on welfare is one thing but the free-loaders should get their benefits scrapped. And I do think people able to work that are on welfare should be required to work, let's say after 6 months on welfare, in order to get the money. And I'm not talking about "slavery" but things such as keeping company for lonely elderly people etc "social work". Since the people wouldn't be able to just lay on their backs and receive the benefits I think they would be much willing to get the "real job" and thus real salery.

Erm, excuse me, but not everyone who claims benefits is lazy and just trying to sponge from the state. Income support - I'm on full-time education now and unable to make a living, therefore I need income support as I don't have parental income. My mother was on jobseeker's allowance at one point as she couldn't find a decent job (people who claim benefits while unemployed aren't necessarily sponging either!) as well as child benefits as she was a single parent. What would withdrawing benefits have done to benefit our situation, especially as she wasn't earning enough to support us both even when she did have a job? People need to get out of the narrow-minded Daily Mail viewpoint...

i don't think they mean things like child benefit. :unsure:

what I think should happen with regards to child benefits is this.... far too many people have kids because it gets them quicker council houses and more benefits.

 

I think the first two children should be paid for etc... however, the third child will get no benefits. You just watch the size of jobless families start falling if this happened. Two children when you're not, or never have, been working is two too many in my opinion - but surely the state should stop paying for anything over 2 kids for the unemployed.

 

This, I think, would not only halt the glut of people who can't afford to have kids having them - again and again and again, but it would ease the burden these senseless breeders place on everyone else's pockets (but their own).

Edited November 23, 200717 yr by russt68

what I think should happen with regards to child benefits is this.... far too many people have kids because it gets them quicker council houses and more benefits.

 

I think the first two children should be paid for etc... however, the third child will get no benefits. You just watch the size of jobless families start falling if this happened. Two children when you're not, or never have, been working is two too many in my opinion - but surely the state should stop paying for anything over 2 kids for the unemployed.

 

This, I think, would not only halt the glut of people who can't afford to have kids having them - again and again and again, but it would ease the burden these senseless breeders place on everyone else's pockets (but their own).

 

im not so sure that this would curb breeders... i reckon most are just feckless individuals who'll shag for the sake of it regardless of the outcome. ok, some do deliberately knock out kids to live on benefits... but not all do.