Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 03 Apr '13 23:01 / 3 edits
    He has proved it is possible!

    http://image1.masterfile.com/em_w/00/93/47/600-00934719w.jpg

    Calorie control, thats whats called for!

    But unemployment benefit in the UK is frankly stingy, we are the country that won ww2 and the jobcentre treat its 'clients' like pigs on a treadmill . and a very odd treadmill it is too - a ton, 2 tons of totally useless inane paper work for £57 a week. I have to say throughout my 20s this volume of paperwork meant i never applied for benefits cos it was easier down south, much easier to get a job. But its not that way for everyone and I know people in Scotland who are trying really hard and not getting one, and get further bogged down, not helped at all, with all the paper work - if they put that time into a cv they would have better chances.

    Also there is this gap on the net - few people on £57 a week have access so no one puts there case across, whilst you have lots of young thatcherites saying how bad they are as they've never needed them.

    To respond to IDS - £57 a week. Actually yes that is just about enough for the supermarket - try paying any bill tho and it has gone, these people live with no gas, no heating, no electric, almost 3rd world - it does not leave enough for the net by a long way and that is very useful for finding jobs.

    I think it is time for benefits for the unemployed go up a bit, not down they have been squeezed really hard - you could double it and a job still pays a lot more. Also the disparity between ESA and JSA creates a lot of people wanting to get sick for better benefits , its sad but i see it happen.

    One idea i have to up benefits that might work is issue £20 a week as 'supermarket vouchers' i hate the idea of food stamps its degrading . but govt benefits are basically an indirect supermarket subsidy. If IDS could do a deal where a £20 voucher is issued weekly (plus £50 cash) but the govt only pay £10-£15 and the supermarkets put in the rest, they just might as the govt would be printing millions of them. Well thats a possible cheap way to put up benefits.

    I also think he should take an axe to the jobcentre forms - can you do it on one page and store that data? yes? well do! credit card companies manage that fine.

    Anyway what do you think? can you live on £57? what are the benefits like where you are?
  2. 03 Apr '13 23:05
    The problem with free money from the government is that it will raise prices. The more the government gives, the more people can spend and stores adjust their prices accordingly.

    People who don't understand the law of supply and demand end up taking painful roads of discovery.
  3. 03 Apr '13 23:17
    Originally posted by Eladar
    The problem with free money from the government is that it will raise prices. The more the government gives, the more people can spend and stores adjust their prices accordingly.

    People who don't understand the law of supply and demand end up taking painful roads of discovery.
    True, but i suspect benefits make up c25% of the takings at supermarkets anyway (near 100% in some towns)

    How much do you get in the USA, just if your unemployed?
  4. 03 Apr '13 23:25 / 4 edits
    to be fair / precise local coucil forms are usually the most attrocious i got a 47 page form in london .
    i would put the person who created that in a catapult if i was in charge! ... 'a new chair? for me?'

    But the jobcentre ones need simplifying too - if they have the persons NI number why on earth do they need much more data.

    Edit- Here is a news story about IDS refusing to live on £53 a week, was in the news and papers this week.

    Article;
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/02/iain-duncan-smith-petition-stunt
  5. Subscriber divegeester
    Nice suit...
    04 Apr '13 11:38
    Originally posted by Eladar
    The problem with free money from the government is that it will raise prices.
    And taxes.

    Part of the problem here in the UK is that a large group of younger people are working and living at home with parents because they can't afford to get access to the property ladder, while another large group live in benefit supported accommodation and are too well provided for [overall] to be bothered to work. The tipping point is somewhere between these two, but I'm darn sure the solution isn't to give the can't be bothered's more money.
  6. 04 Apr '13 13:58
    Originally posted by divegeester
    And taxes.

    Part of the problem here in the UK is that a large group of younger people are working and living at home with parents because they can't afford to get access to the property ladder, while another large group live in benefit supported accommodation and are too well provided for [overall] to be bothered to work. The tipping point is somewhe ...[text shortened]... these two, but I'm darn sure the solution isn't to give the can't be bothered's more money.
    There are plenty of places where those on benefits get a lot more money, and at the same time there are far fewer people on those benefits.

    Of course, the main problem in the UK is low social mobility.
  7. 04 Apr '13 17:28
    Originally posted by divegeester
    And taxes.

    Part of the problem here in the UK is that a large group of younger people are working and living at home with parents because they can't afford to get access to the property ladder, while another large group live in benefit supported accommodation and are too well provided for [overall] to be bothered to work. The tipping point is somewhe ...[text shortened]... these two, but I'm darn sure the solution isn't to give the can't be bothered's more money.
    Artificially increasing costs while artifically decreasing income is not a good combination. Governments should not be allowed to do that to its citizens.
  8. 04 Apr '13 23:44
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    There are plenty of places where those on benefits get a lot more money, and at the same time there are far fewer people on those benefits.

    Of course, the main problem in the UK is low social mobility.
    The problem in most welfare states is that the low skilled worker, and minimum wage, don't pay as much as welfare, or if they pay more, it is not enough more to justify the effort of getting up and going to work every day.

    Often costs like transportation to and from work are ignored as are non monetary benefits of welfare recipients.

    In short, there are incentives to staying on the dole, and if there are incentives for the ambitious, they are to work underground, and to hide the income, and to keep getting the dole.
  9. 05 Apr '13 16:45
    Originally posted by normbenign
    The problem in most welfare states is that the low skilled worker, and minimum wage, don't pay as much as welfare, or if they pay more, it is not enough more to justify the effort of getting up and going to work every day.

    Often costs like transportation to and from work are ignored as are non monetary benefits of welfare recipients.

    In short, there ...[text shortened]... ambitious, they are to work underground, and to hide the income, and to keep getting the dole.
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-04-05/people-not-labor-force-soar-663000-90-million-labor-force-participation-rate-1979-le

    Thought about Norm's post as I read this from the link:

    Things just keep getting worse for the American worker, and by implication US economy, where as we have shown many times before, it pays just as well to sit back and collect disability and various welfare and entitlement checks, than to work .The best manifestation of this: the number of people not in the labor force which in March soared by a massive 663,000 to a record 90 million Americans who are no longer even looking for work.

    I'm sure a vast majority of these people are walking around with cell phones and living it up, relatively so.
  10. 06 Apr '13 03:22
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    There are plenty of places where those on benefits get a lot more money, and at the same time there are far fewer people on those benefits.

    Of course, the main problem in the UK is low social mobility.
    Speaking of mobility. Go to one of the colleges in Cambridge or Oxford and see all the bicycles the students use for transportation. Not knocking them but they do get by on a lot less than americans. Of course the bikes are of the 1950s era.
  11. 06 Apr '13 07:22
    We have a working tax credit system here in the UK , where low paid workers get benefits from the government even though they are in full time work. Does this distort the immutable laws of supply and demand. It always seemed to me that people cherry pick economic laws ,depending on their social and political philosophy, if this is true what does it say about economics .
  12. 06 Apr '13 08:07
    Originally posted by joe beyser
    Speaking of mobility. Go to one of the colleges in Cambridge or Oxford and see all the bicycles the students use for transportation. Not knocking them but they do get by on a lot less than americans. Of course the bikes are of the 1950s era.
    What does the average (non-trustfund) Ivy League student get by on?
  13. 06 Apr '13 09:15
    Originally posted by Eladar
    The problem with free money from the government is that it will raise prices. The more the government gives, the more people can spend and stores adjust their prices accordingly.

    People who don't understand the law of supply and demand end up taking painful roads of discovery.
    Bollox, quantative easing has a disproportionately greater impact than help for the poor. There's plenty of cake to go around if everyone had an equal slice, the problem is, the bosses have the knife.
  14. 06 Apr '13 09:45
    Originally posted by Dewi Jones
    Bollox, quantative easing has a disproportionately greater impact than help for the poor. There's plenty of cake to go around if everyone had an equal slice, the problem is, the bosses have the knife.
    Can someone tell me what quantative easing is, sounds like its just been made up. That's the trouble I've got a feeling all this financial stuff is made up when it suits , I've got a feeling I'm being deceived . Dewi is right , the benefits paid out are a drop in the ocean compared with the trillions traded in say derivatives by the city, I want to see a proper balance sheet.
  15. 06 Apr '13 09:58
    Originally posted by kaminsky
    Can someone tell me what quantative easing is, sounds like its just been made up. That's the trouble I've got a feeling all this financial stuff is made up when it suits , I've got a feeling I'm being deceived . Dewi is right , the benefits paid out are a drop in the ocean compared with the trillions traded in say derivatives by the city, I want to see a proper balance sheet.
    Quantative easing is the equivalent of printing extra money, goving it to the banks to buy government debt. Essentially imrproving the balance sheets of banks and governments, and making the working classes assets and wages worth proportionally less.

    Its a scam to prop up capitalism, and it can't last forever. Globalisation and the inventoions of bankers have propped up capitalism for decades, eventually everyone will be a consumer, they'll run out of countries who's workers are willing to work for peanuts, and once there's no cheap labour to produce the goods, the essential problem with capitalism will come home to roost. Workers are paid less than the value of their labour so that bosses can take a profit, and we cannot afford to buy back the goods we produce.