David Cameron suggests cutting housing benefit for under-25s

[Ketchup]

With someone over-25.

[Diver]

It's all feck'd and will remain so until immigration is stopped and there is a negative impact on deliberate single parentage (or Compulsory Birth control for those unable to support a child pre-pregnancy).

[DodgyAgent]

I think they should be paid because there are not jobs for them. Taking the money away would not lead to them having jobs.

Instead of hammering away at those without jobs, why not look at why there are not enough jobs? Unemployment has gone up because jobs have disappeared.

I am however glad that you are now saying that my system leads to misery, rather than implying that it is my dastardly intention. You see, we have a difference in analysis.

The question of disincentive is interesting. Of course if people were paid £2k per week, that would be a disincentive. We must therefore agree that this disincentive diminishes but remains as it reduces. However, the disincentive cannot be looked at in isolation from the job market. Also reducing benefits to reduce the disincentive is a blunt tool which will catch some people you want to and punish some people you don't want to. It's a tricky balance, andone that this country has managed by having low benefits by North European standards.

Taking the money away would lead them to finding jobs however "blunt" you think this is it is a adarn site better than paying people not to work. It is amazing just how motivated people become when they dont have food or shelter (in Africa refugees travel barefoot across an entire continent to reach South Africa) - they would have to. having said that so wretched have some of these multi generation unemployed become that they are unemployable - thanks to your lot taking such a blase view (oh we are not as generous as the rest of Northern Europe -.
The under 25s are not beyond hope which is why they need to be incentivised to work.
the reason there are not enough jobs around is because the left have undermined private sector job creation with their obsessive employment laws and heavy taxation to pay out for unemployment benefit.

I do not think people like you have any idea of what your liberal policies actually do to people. You see the problem as purely a statistical comparison to other countries in "Northern Europe" . You view your own patronising "generosity (I care about the poor) as somehow doing the poor a favour. Not for a minute do you accept that these people were once and still could be as capable of holding down a job as you can. You seem to think in your selfish arrogance that "they" should not be expected to work unless they have "the right job" in "the right "area" .

The results of this liberal left wing dogma is that there are thousands of families imprisoned within the welfare state with no hope of getting out of it. No wonder we have so much crime. Still without them you would have no moral "cause" would you?

[Ketchup]

It is the goverment allowing these spongers to sit on their fat behinds all day which will ultimately mean the country is no longer the economic leader it once was. These degenerate jeremy-kyle oxygen-theives have numerous children to stop themselves having to go to work, the goverment give them money and homes to do this. There is then a defecit in the roles these people would have taken up (generally service sector) so the salaries for these roles are artifically high (compared to other countries) this causes migran workers to come into the country (that is in no means racist, it is fact).

The council estates breed a culture of laziness and work-shyness, so the bastard kids of the original doll-dossers will then do the same, and their kids the same, until this country is the worlds biggest council estate and the economy collapses under its own welfare bill.

There is no easy way to stop it, each goverment is too pragmatic, and the number of voters who claim welfare is such a high percentage, that any dramatic changes to the welfare system making them have to a days work will mean they guarantee they wont get into power at the next election.

[Old Greg]

Taking the money away would lead them to finding jobs however "blunt" you think this is it is a adarn site better than paying people not to work. It is amazing just how motivated people become when they dont have food or shelter (in Africa refugees travel barefoot across an entire continent to reach South Africa) - they would have to. having said that so wretched have some of these multi generation unemployed become that they are unemployable - thanks to your lot taking such a blase view (oh we are not as generous as the rest of Northern Europe -.
The under 25s are not beyond hope which is why they need to be incentivised to work.
the reason there are not enough jobs around is because the left have undermined private sector job creation with their obsessive employment laws and heavy taxation to pay out for unemployment benefit.

I do not think people like you have any idea of what your liberal policies actually do to people. You see the problem as purely a statistical comparison to other countries in "Northern Europe" . You view your own patronising "generosity (I care about the poor) as somehow doing the poor a favour. Not for a minute do you accept that these people were once and still could be as capable of holding down a job as you can. You seem to think in your selfish arrogance that "they" should not be expected to work unless they have "the right job" in "the right "area" .

The results of this liberal left wing dogma is that there are thousands of families imprisoned within the welfare state with no hope of getting out of it. No wonder we have so much crime. Still without them you would have no moral "cause" would you?

Oh you are silly.

However we now know that when a workplace is closed down in a recession, you want the workers reduced to the state of starving African refugees.

[vetran]

I would suggest a good 20% of benefit claims are fraudulent (non existant/eligible claimants/dependants).
Eliminating those would be a good start.

Then make sure its not possible to work while on benefits.

Those that have never worked need to be pushed hard to change.

While doing that it makes sense to give the people hope. Training, work experience, measurable performance reports. So open training venues for those that have done well in the initial work for benefits phase.

Pare away those that are comfortable or do not need the benefit. As you do that encourage new business.

Make sure that it is more profitable to work for fit people (don't tell me this doesn't happen 2 friends have faced the issue where going back to work meant they had less money).

Build small business in the areas where there is deprivation. Not just giving away bribes to large business or moving government agencies there. I'm pretty sure successful business people will want to help set up small business. Create national projects such as the olympics / rail network/ green intiatives etc that are partially restricted to hiring unemployed workers. Lets have a great unwashed quota as well as the BGLT quota.

The transition from working to non working should have a decreasing benefit depending on your contributions. So 2 years out of work you are the same as long term unemployed.

oh and add a tailing off of benefits for 3rd child onwards and close completely for any not conceived yet.
If you are on benefits then don't have more children its simple.

[DodgyAgent]

Oh you are silly.

However we now know that when a workplace is closed down in a recession, you want the workers reduced to the state of starving African refugees.

So this justifies paying out billions in welfare and ruining people's lives does it?

[Old Greg]

So this justifies paying out billions in welfare and ruining people's lives does it?

What, not reducing them to the level of starving African refugees?

[doodab]

I ask again - WHO needs to provide this? And who can?

Why is everyone entitled to 'quality work', and what is it anyway?

"Society" needs to provide it. Government, the private sector, the public sector, entrepreneurs. The system needs to be engineered to encourage the creation of jobs that pay a living wage, provide some sort of fulfillment and actually encourage people to work, rather than low wage pseudo slavery that predominantly benefits large corporations. The alternative is a low wage, low skill, low value add economy that makes work unattractive.

It's not a question of entitlement, it's a question of managing the economy so that the UK is nice place to live and work. Whether you give a **** about the wellbeing of other people or not, cultivating an environment where people are given a choice between a life of crime, subsistence on benefits or eeking out a soul destroying existence devoid of dignity on minimum wage, leaving contributing to society in a meaningful and satisfying way as a luxury option not open to many, doesn't seem like a great idea.

[doodab]

If fruit picking is so unrewarding then make it rewarding by removing benefits.

Removing benefits doesn't make it rewarding. It's still borderline slavery. If companies can't afford to pay a living wage and the shortfall has to be made up from benefits then they are being subsidised and should instead be left to fail.

If someone spends a year picking fruit they are much more likely to have the confidence to aspire to other better paid jobs.

Spoken by a man who clearly has **** all idea what a year of surviving on £50 quid a week, stripped of ones dignity and being unable to support ones family actually does to a person's psyche.