1 in 4 living off benefits - Page 8

garinda · 04-09-2007, 15:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by churchfcrules

awfully selective in my quote there dont you think? what happened to the rest of the sentance? it sort of pre-emtied what you just said!

I only quoted the part of your post that I was replying to. You said it.

What sort of state run employment would you suggest for those claiming benefit?

WillowTheWhisp · 04-09-2007, 15:27

If there was something that people could do on a "do as much as you can when you can" basis I'm sure that there are a lot of disabled people who would be happy to do their bit, even if it was only a bit - but you'd still get the layabouts who would manage to avoid doing anything.

I just bought an Observer today and read the article and was interested to see that the distorted statistics include students and housewives amongst "those who do not want to work" making it sound worse than it actually is. Why should a housewife be classed the same as a benefit cheat?

I'm officially working age but I'm a housewife - does that mean I am one of those statistics?

churchfcrules · 04-09-2007, 15:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

I only quoted the part of your post that I was replying to. You said it.

What sort of state run employment would you suggest for those claiming benefit?

i am sure there are many worthwhile causes out there that could benefit from a few more "helpers",

enviromental clean up campaigns
citizens advice
help the aged

i am sure everyone could think of at least 1, yes it would require administration, but that in itself is job creation, and i would rather my taxes where paying someones wage, than just paying them to sit at home with richard and judy!

garinda · 04-09-2007, 15:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillowTheWhisp

I'm officially working age but I'm a housewife - does that mean I am one of those statistics?

Yes it does. It's all very flawed.

Another case of lies, damned lies, and statistics.

garinda · 04-09-2007, 15:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by churchfcrules

enviromental clean up campaigns
citizens advice
help the aged

The first example would result in people who are now employed losing their job, the second two could be done now voluntary, as those claiming benefit can work up to fifteen hours per week.

WillowTheWhisp · 04-09-2007, 15:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

the second two could be done now voluntary, as those claiming benefit can work up to fifteen hours per week.

And quite often are done voluntarily by people who couldn't manage to do a full or part time job but are able to put in a couple of hours in a shop where they can have a sit down if they need to, or sorting out stock where they can stop for a rest if they need it because it is a voluntary job and so they aren't under pressure or anything to meet any targets or achieve any specific results.

garinda · 04-09-2007, 15:40

It maybe another case of statistics being massaged, but this DWP press release makes for more encouraging reading.

'Since 1997, the number of people in work has increased by over 2.5 million and every single day around 250 people have come off out of work benefits.'

DWP Press release: Murphy: number on benefits down, as employment hits record levels 14 Feb 07

We could always cut the non-means tested child benefit, that is paid to all children regardless of how much their paren't earn, to pay for in genuine dire straits.

lancsdave · 04-09-2007, 15:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by churchfcrules

i am sure there are many worthwhile causes out there that could benefit from a few more "helpers",

enviromental clean up campaigns
citizens advice
help the aged

i am sure everyone could think of at least 1, yes it would require administration, but that in itself is job creation, and i would rather my taxes where paying someones wage, than just paying them to sit at home with richard and judy!

Clean up campaigns would be better done by prison chain gangs, at least then they can earn their lavish lifestyle

Lilly · 04-09-2007, 15:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

We could always cut the non-means tested child benefit, that is paid to all children regardless of how much their paren't earn, to pay for in genuine dire straits.

I've often thought it's strange that child benefit isn't means tested. Anyone who has a child gets it don't they? That will include the likes of Madonna and Victoria Beckham. I'm bet they wouldn't even notice whether it was paid in or not.

garinda · 04-09-2007, 15:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lilly

I've often thought it's strange that child benefit isn't means tested. Anyone who has a child gets it don't they? That will include the likes of Madonna and Victoria Beckham. I'm bet they wouldn't even notice whether it was paid in or not.

Yes, it does seem strange that every child gets this benefit, whether your mum is a cleaner on the minimum wage, or the Countess of Wessex.

churchfcrules · 04-09-2007, 15:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

The first example would result in people who are now employed losing their job, the second two could be done now voluntary, as those claiming benefit can work up to fifteen hours per week.

i dont get your point at all, i thought the whole point of what i was saying was to make it mandatory, so yes they can be done at the moment volantary, your point being?, i thought we were talking about the ones who wont do anything, not the minority that already do!

as for enviroment clean up campaigns, i always see adverts asking for unpaid help, so whose job would this take, and also if it meant unemployment it would be nowhere near the 1 in 4 that the thread is titled after

churchfcrules · 04-09-2007, 15:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

and every single day around 250 people have come off out of work benefits.'

and how many of them went on disability, the phrase is out of work benefits, if your sick you arent out of work, the point i tried to make in earlier post

garinda · 04-09-2007, 15:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by churchfcrules

i dont get your point at all, i thought the whole point of what i was saying was to make it mandatory, so yes they can be done at the moment volantary, your point being?, i thought we were talking about the ones who wont do anything, not the minority that already do!

as for enviroment clean up campaigns, i always see adverts asking for unpaid help, so whose job would this take, and also if it meant unemployment it would be nowhere near the 1 in 4 that the thread is titled after

What would you do with the people who currently work at the C.A.B., and Help the Aged, many of whom will be there voluntary and may already be claiming benefits?

You have to find 'work' for five million people on benefits, and so far you seem to be struggling.

churchfcrules · 04-09-2007, 16:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

What would you do with the people who currently work at the C.A.B., and Help the Aged, many of whom will be there voluntary and may already be claiming benefits?

You have to find 'work' for five million people on benefits, and so far you seem to be struggling.

struggling? strange term to use, since it is a comment placed on a local forum, not that i am actually writing a manifesto here or anything!

even though when questioned, i did supply examples

but i am sure if i was to actually canvas the populous, genuine worthwhile causes could be found, the loose term of worthwhile causes should be more than ample to cover a hyperthetical argument, dont you think

as far the current CAB and help the aged, i gaurantee if you were to call either of these organisations this minute and state you wish to donate some of your time they would readily accept.

WillowTheWhisp · 04-09-2007, 16:06

But who would pay the wages?