George Osborne can't do this job.

[mattx]

Oh look. A soundbite.

 

Have a picture one too:

 

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-YO_dLnALepM/Ti6RC4tvonI/AAAAAAAAAPc/3hHAbp8b2ik/s1600/osborne2.jpg

[andyturpie]

A two tier problem exists, the welfare state which has become a way of life for most and the corporate tax dodgers. Now a lot of the CEO's will argue that they bring employment to the country, which we cannot argue, but they as a whole bring minimum wage employment, which means these employees are still requiring top ups from the welfare state, provided by the squeezed middle. All I can visage is our national budget disappearing down a hole like sand in an egg timer with no option to turn the glass around... Edited December 6, 2012 by andyturpie
wrong whole (oops)!

[broc]

At last some common sense instead of tabloid-induced rage.

I always thought the Guardian talked a lot of common sense.....

[featured_spectre]

Those people blaming those on Jobseekers or welfare, let me put it too you like this. In August I lost a job that I thoroughly enjoyed and would have probably kept doing had it not been for various factors, I lost the job due the fact that the economy is not as strong as it was, and therefore the company had to downsize...last in, first out. I was also being seen by an ENT for my ear problems. Since then, I was on jobseekers, looking for work.

 

Spending the money from jobseekers on interviews, getting to the jobcentre and help paying my bills. I have since come off job seekers and gone on to employment support allowance due to a condition called Menieres Disease. I don't want to be on ESA or JSA or DLA (which after 13 weeks of ESA I will be transferred onto). I want to work! Many people in my situation want to work but physically can't, I can't go for more than 5 hours without getting vertigo, and to be frank, that on top of the deafness, is not fun at all.

 

Why lumber those of us that want to work and are willing, yet incapable, with those that are work shy.

[mthomas08]

Those people blaming those on Jobseekers or welfare, let me put it too you like this. In August I lost a job that I thoroughly enjoyed and would have probably kept doing had it not been for various factors, I lost the job due the fact that the economy is not as strong as it was, and therefore the company had to downsize...last in, first out. I was also being seen by an ENT for my ear problems. Since then, I was on jobseekers, looking for work.

 

Thats the problem, people like you suffer so should the government just continue to dish out money to everyone or actually review each and every case. My other half was actually making an effort to find work when she was on job seekers and she also admitted that she would have made more effort if she wasnt getting money.

 

I have said this from day one, how about scrap giving out money and start giving out a credit system. Money to pay your bills? That be taken direct from the credit system. Food/travel again paid by a credit system, as a result the money you get keeps you going and prevents you from buying fags, drinks, drugs and anything else you dont actually need. Problem is the government is trying to stop people from relying on the benefit system. And sadly people like your self are going to get affected, this is also all aimed at those who refuse to work and purposely have kids to stay at home and live the easy life. Dont know whats worse having kids for the wrong reasons or taking money just to live it easy with their large 40" TVs.

 

I have sympathy for you but you can't hide the fact that people who do work, pay tax and have done for years get shafted day after day while others refuse to work, just have kids to get a large house where people like me struggle to move out.

[tmcd35]

I have said this from day one, how about scrap giving out money and start giving out a credit system. Money to pay your bills? That be taken direct from the credit system. Food/travel again paid by a credit system, as a result the money you get keeps you going and prevents you from buying fags, drinks, drugs and anything else you dont actually need. Problem is the government is trying to stop people from relying on the benefit system. And sadly people like your self are going to get affected, this is also all aimed at those who refuse to work and purposely have kids to stay at home and live the easy life. Dont know whats worse having kids for the wrong reasons or taking money just to live it easy with their large 40" TVs.

 

While I might agree with your sentiment, I don't necessarily agree with your implementation. I think this crosses a line where we should be free to determine our own fates and not be dictated to by central government. I think there is a minimum amount that an individual could comfortably live on without falling into abstract poverty, and I think as a society we should be proud of the fact that generally we believe in this state supported safety net. But that's what it needs to be, a saftey net. An I think the whole benefits system really should be viewed and means tested as such. The litmus test for me is - how would I want to be treated if I was suddenly made redundant?

[rich_tech]

I think that is the divide though and now it seems to have tipped towards highlighting the bad and tarring everyone with the same brush, we all know the difference I think between the genuine unemployed and the "lifestyle" unemployed, I doubt many people have a problem with the genuine unemployed in this country who want to work and are trying to get work, its just the cases of people on "lifestyle" who bring the bad name too it.

[Pyroman]

I think that is the divide though and now it seems to have tipped towards highlighting the bad and tarring everyone with the same brush, we all know the difference I think between the genuine unemployed and the "lifestyle" unemployed, I doubt many people have a problem with the genuine unemployed in this country who want to work and are trying to get work, its just the cases of people on "lifestyle" who bring the bad name too it.

 

Well said, my other issue with some people is that there are jobs out there but some are deemed beneath them. If I had no job and was desperate i'd take anything going, you can always keep looking for another job while you do something that brings in some money for you

[sparkeh]

Urgh I hate this Daily Mail style 'lets bash the people on benefits' talk. Its ugly and plays straight in to the Governments hands.

 

There's been a lot made over benefits cheats recently which plays to the pitchfork toting masses who feel cheated by people getting stuff for free.

Some facts:

1) The Government's own figures put benefit fraud at 1% of the total welfare bill so works out about £1bn, yes a lot of money but:

2) A conservative estimate of money lost through tax avoidance by the rich is £12bn

 

So rather than kicking the people at the bottom of society why aren't we angry at the people at the top who are avoiding paying what they morally should and getting richer and richer under the Tory Government?

 

The Tory toffs must be laughing at us at right now.

[mthomas08]

While I might agree with your sentiment, I don't necessarily agree with your implementation. I think this crosses a line where we should be free to determine our own fates and not be dictated to by central government. I think there is a minimum amount that an individual could comfortably live on without falling into abstract poverty, and I think as a society we should be proud of the fact that generally we believe in this state supported safety net. But that's what it needs to be, a saftey net. An I think the whole benefits system really should be viewed and means tested as such. The litmus test for me is - how would I want to be treated if I was suddenly made redundant?

 

Well unless some one comes up with a better idea, at the moment they have what as choices?

Scrap the system

Continue on with it as it is

Give it a hefty review

 

Either way they are doomed, because even reviewing each case people are still going to suffer who are victims and not benefit cheats, or having kids just for the sake of it.

 

As far as im concerned those who dont want to be a part of the credit system have a choice of finding a job or taking nothing from the government?

Having been jobless a while back and struggling for money I accepted any job I could find, which was basic manual labour work. It paid the bills. Surely if you are innocent you dont mind at all in taking credit which pays your bills and rent - this is what people are fuming about isnt it?

Unless you are telling me that benefit money is just there for you to do what you want when you want.

 

Either way if people dont want a credit system then I will simply agree with the hefty cuts on the entire system. Personally I would be more than happy to take a system that paid my bills while I try to get another job then I can actually spend what I want on the money I earn. Unless its all just another excuse for people to fiddle a system and use technicality on why they should be given money "Sorry I have bills to pay" then head off own the pub every night.

[Robz]

2) A conservative estimate of money lost through tax avoidance by the rich is £12bn

 

So rather than kicking the people at the bottom of society why aren't we angry at the people at the top who are avoiding paying what they morally should and getting richer and richer under the Tory Government?

 

The Tory toffs must be laughing at us at right now.

 

We live in a capitalist country, the aim of every person is to make money, most of us would probably do the same thing if you were in their position, "ooo look a legal loophole to make more money" - come on you know you would do it if it meant more money for you and your family.

 

On the topic of benefits I favour the credit scheme, and tbh I think if you lose your job, you should receive benefits based on how much you have contributed to the economy - basically your taxes support you i.e. you work 5 years then lose your job so you are entitled to benefits for 2.5 years.

[sonofsanta]

Getting angry at the benefits lifestylers (much nicer phrase than scroungers, that, I like it) or the tax-dodging rich is pointless; they're just playing by the rules of the game. We need to be angry at the political class for such a crap rules system in the first place. Y'know, the rules system that lets them claim inordinate amounts of expenses to just sit on their backside for 5 years and toe the party line.

 

Unfortuantely, whilst the political class is so tightly tied in with so many other interests - private sponsors, friends in corporations, one eye on the after-dinner speaking job post-retirement - we're unlikely to ever break the cycle. The whole political system needs shaking up. What to, though, I don't know.

 

without falling into abstract poverty

 

Abstract poverty: a lack of Picasso prints in one's abode. (probably meant abject poverty )

[sonofsanta]

On the topic of benefits I favour the credit scheme, and tbh I think if you lose your job, you should receive benefits based on how much you have contributed to the economy - basically your taxes support you i.e. you work 5 years then lose your job so you are entitled to benefits for 2.5 years.

 

Could backfire horribly when you have a 19 year old who through no fault of their own are made redundant and, on a last-in-first-out system, are out on their backside in a slow economy. I get your sentiment, but I fear any system would need to be much more complicated to cover all the "what ifs"

[Robz]

Could backfire horribly when you have a 19 year old who through no fault of their own are made redundant and, on a last-in-first-out system, are out on their backside in a slow economy. I get your sentiment, but I fear any system would need to be much more complicated to cover all the "what ifs"

 

I think there should be a safeguard of 1 year default to support those in such situations, difficult subject but to sort the issues fairly the difficult topics need to be covered

[sparkeh]

We live in a capitalist country, the aim of every person is to make money, most of us would probably do the same thing if you were in their position, "ooo look a legal loophole to make more money" - come on you know you would do it if it meant more money for you and your family.

Wow what a thoroughly depressing view point you have.

The aim of every person is to make money? I disagree. Its not my aim at all. Of course I wish to provide for my family but my aim is to lead a happy life.

Truth be told both my wife and I took hefty paycuts to change jobs to lead a much happy, less stressful lives, so no, actually I wouldn't use a morally repugnant loophole to cheat my way to more money.

[localzuk]

We live in a capitalist country, the aim of every person is to make money, most of us would probably do the same thing if you were in their position, "ooo look a legal loophole to make more money" - come on you know you would do it if it meant more money for you and your family.

 

On the topic of benefits I favour the credit scheme, and tbh I think if you lose your job, you should receive benefits based on how much you have contributed to the economy - basically your taxes support you i.e. you work 5 years then lose your job so you are entitled to benefits for 2.5 years.

 

Great, so someone who loses their job after a couple of years working is now not getting benefits because you've deemed them to have worked enough to get any? Ridiculous idea. Lets just make the poor go work in workhouses or better yet, why not as slaves?

 

And as you say 'benefits' I assume you mean jobseekers/unemployment only, as if you are including support for those who are working but not earning enough, or those with disabilities then you are worse than I thought.

 

Its quite simple - there are not enough jobs for all the people who need them, so we can't really penalise those who are trying to get jobs.

 

We can make it tougher for people to be able to just live off benefits forever without trying to get jobs though.

[Robz]

Wow what a thoroughly depressing view point you have.

The aim of every person is to make money? I disagree. Its not my aim at all. Of course I wish to provide for my family but my aim is to lead a happy life.

Truth be told both my wife and I took hefty paycuts to change jobs to lead a much happy, less stressful lives, so no, actually I wouldn't use a morally repugnant loophole to cheat my way to more money.

 

So in order to live a happy life you use no money at all? You have forsaken money altogether? Every person needs to make money to live - hence their aim is to make money, to what extent they make money is down to them.

[Robz]

Great, so someone who loses their job after a couple of years working is now not getting benefits because you've deemed them to have worked enough to get any? Ridiculous idea. Lets just make the poor go work in workhouses or better yet, why not as slaves?

 

And as you say 'benefits' I assume you mean jobseekers/unemployment only, as if you are including support for those who are working but not earning enough, or those with disabilities then you are worse than I thought.

 

Its quite simple - there are not enough jobs for all the people who need them, so we can't really penalise those who are trying to get jobs.

 

We can make it tougher for people to be able to just live off benefits forever without trying to get jobs though.

 

Yes I do mean just those, there are some who swindle the system in regards to the medical side of things but lets not go there as it is less common.

 

How did i say you don't get benefits after a couple of years of working? - I said the opposite, you get out what you put in, if you work then lose your job then you should get benefits, if you never work through laziness then you should get nothing. and as I said to sonofsanta a person coming in to the world of work but can find no job should be supported temporarily.

 

The lack of jobs is partly down to some people believing some jobs are beneath them so leave it for those, namely immigrants, who actually have a work ethic and will take such jobs

[sparkeh]

So in order to live a happy life you use no money at all? You have forsaken money altogether? Every person needs to make money to live - hence their aim is to make money, to what extent they make money is down to them.

Ha! Now you're just being silly.

Of course I need money, however, I refuse to lumped in with your depressing money grabbing view of the UK public.

[Robz]

Ha! Now you're just being silly.

Of course I need money, however, I refuse to lumped in with your depressing money grabbing view of the UK public.

 

I don't see how it is a depressing money grabbing view, its the facts, we are a capitalist country in order to live we need money - therefore the aim of everybody is to make money to live.

[witch]

It is possible to be a capitalist from the point of view of wanting to make money, but also to hold views about the moral responsibility to those less fortunate than ourselves.

[Robz]

It is possible to be a capitalist from the point of view of wanting to make money, but also to hold views about the moral responsibility to those less fortunate than ourselves.

 

Agreed

[pcstru]

I don't see how it is a depressing money grabbing view, its the facts, we are a capitalist country in order to live we need money - therefore the aim of everybody is to make money to live.

 

It's a bit depressing because it has it's sights set so low. My aim is "quality of life", money is a part of that, but actually a relatively small part. I've been on benefits in the past and probably people thought I was a scrounger at that time. I've paid more in tax in my working life than I ever claimed in benefits or cost the country in education. I'm glad to live in a society where people can get free medical care and where we try not to allow people to fall into absolute poverty. I get sickened by the "I don't use it why should I pay for it" attitude that seems to stem from a Republican America, where the rich are fleecing the poor and seem to want the poor to feel gratitude for that. I'm sickened by the attitude of the rich in this country to paying their fair share of taxes.

[tmcd35]

It is possible to be a capitalist from the point of view of wanting to make money, but also to hold views about the moral responsibility to those less fortunate than ourselves.

 

Totally. I believe that capitalism is a necessary evil for society to function but it is best tempered by socialist governance. Shame we don't have a worthwhile lefty party to vote for

[Andrew_C]

I'd quite fancy moving to Bhutan where they put great store in the "Gross National Happiness" rather than GDP. Very few PCs too at a guess.