Blocking Benefits

[TheAnimus]

So the tories have been banging on about their benefit reform plans again.

What do you guys think about it? Whilst the forced volunteer work for people who've been on benefits for more than 1 year is really an excellent idea, and i fail to see how anyone could suggest otherwise (4 weeks change from job hunting would probably be a good thing, a mini holiday anyway...)

But forcing people to not refuse job offers seams to be like a sound byte idea:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7644845.stm
If i didn't want to get offered a job, i wouldn't have a hard time failing interview.

But what do you think the benefits system should offer? How do you stop abuse, and poeple who feal that they are somehow "better" than the jobs on offer?

[floppybootstomp]

Ah, the benefits bogey man.

The money this nation spends on benefits is peanuts to the money squandered in the greater UK budget.

Yes, it annoys me that people claim fraudulently, but what the hell, they must really be sad little feks, let 'em live with it, although I suppose it doesn't bother them.

Really, though, it doesn't matter. It really doesn't. It's not worth getting high blood pressure over.

Just smile.

Time was, when you signed on, they had to offer you a job that suited your occupation.

I came back to London from Cornwall, visited Greenwich Labour Exchange/Job Centre/Whatever and they asked me my occupation.

I thought about the last job I'd done in the West Country and replied 'Shepherd'

'Not a lot of call for Shepherds in Greenwich, son'

'I know, just sign me up'

'Ok'

[Saracen]

I see no problem at all in principle with cutting benefits to those that won't work. For the state to support those that fall on hard times, or can't get work, or can't do a job, is one thing, but for it to support those that won't work is something else.

If you can work, and are offered work, and won't do it without good reason, then I see no problem with the state letting you starve.

The problem is how to implement that in a way that's firm but still fair. It's not whether the system should do it, but whether it adequately can. I guess it comes down to how the system interprets "reasonable offer".

[ajones]

The benefits system should be there to support people between jobs or unable to work. But what about those reports of single parent families who allegedly have children only to secure council housing and benefits? How can you cut benefits to those (who imho are out of order) without effecting the lives of the children?

I agree with the sentiment above that the trick will be legislating against those who are just taking the system for a free ride whilst protecting those who actually need it.

[b0redom]

Well I always thought that issuing vouchers which could only be redeemed against essentials was a good idea. You can have mince, but not steak. You can buy a book, but not a LCD telly. You can buy water, but not booze... would be a good place to start.

You still provide people with the ability to live a reasonably comfortable existance, but if you want any luxuries, you have to get off your ass and work.

Seems reasonable to me.

[Barrichello]

This happens in other countries. Its called Activation. A job is offered, and without a valid reason to not take it (ie. it contravenes your religious beliefs) you basically have to take it or your benefit is cut out completely. I can not see this happening in Blighty though, we far to much a easy touch and "politically correct" to treat people like this sadly.

[Splash]

It's always interesting when this comes up. I've lived on benefits for periods in the past and they were possibly the least pleasant times I can easily recall. That alone (other than the fact that I can't be doing with daytime TV) had me off my arse and applying for pretty much any job I could even conceive taking (I did have a line that I really, really didn't want to cross, but had I been on the dole much longer I'd probably have ended up flipping burgers).

And then the part that makes me laugh - because of our esteemed welfare state (and I mean that in all seriousness, our welfare state is something to be proud of) there will always be people who will take without ever wanting to give back. And these are among the first people to complain about "illegal immigrants, coming over here and taking our jobs (which we wouldn't take ourselves, but that's beside the point)"

Yes, there should be a point at which the state says "enough is enough" however defining where that point lies is the next challenge.

[Amalie]

I used to think that the system should be tougher on people who claimed the dole because they did not want to work but then a friend of mine lost his job - he didn't get much in the way of redundancy and it soon ran out, he had no choice but to sign on. I believe he had to wait six weeks until his claim was processed and the money he got did not cover his basic living - he wasn't living the high life - just the basic food, rent, etc. After some months he was so depressed he took any job - it was very low paid factory work - he worked from 7.30 am until 7.30 pm with hardly a break and then they told him he was required to work the nightshift - without any break inbetween. He pointed out that he had already worked a long day without a break and it was surely against the law. He was promptly dismissed! When he went back to the job centre and told them they shrugged and said beggars can't be choosers. Because he had taken that job he had to start the process of claiming all over again. He was lucky, he did find another job and has never needed to sign on again. He said those months on the dole were the worst of his life. I don't know if his experience was typical or whether he simply did not know how to "play the system" but, it didn't seem like a life anyone would actually choose.

[G4Z]

I also have a dole story, years back I lost a job and went on the dole for 2 months with only a (already quite abused) overdraft to my name. I was jobless for 2 months with only my missus bringing in any cash and even then it was only £500 a month. Our rent was £550 so already things were not looking good. When I went to the dole office I filled in the forms only to be rejected because my g/f (not married, imo I don't think she should be under any obligation to support me just because we sleep together any more than a housemate) worked too many hours. They were not interested in how much money, just the fact she worked more than 16 hours. I scrapped by and eventually found some contracting work, shortly after the housing benefit for the 2 months finally came through which meant I wasn't completely screwed. Still, it really was one of the most depressing times of my life, and at the moment I fear I could end up going through it again at some point in the next 12 months.

Personally I would like to see the system being more generous for those that have just lost jobs. For example I don't think £10k (pro rata) a year would be unreasonable for the first 6 months and then start cutting it back to discourage abuse. In reality compared with the money being spent on ID cards, war, bailing out banks and MP's expenses the benefits system costs nothing.

note : just kidding on that bit at the end there, I realise MP's expenses are a tiny fraction of the budget.

[TheAnimus]

I think the argument goes something like, benefits are of no use to me because i have a job, if i lost it i'd have to wait 3 months or something, my rent/mortgage/bills are more than it.

So should it be the state that supplies the cash to tide us over, or us ourselfs?

I don't like the idea of a state that forces some amount of rainy day money to be saved. It seams to open for abuse.

But it is interesting to see how useless the benefits system was for these people who actually try to work!