Could you live on £7.50 a day?

[vetran]

Or the wonderful free market could try creating some decent-paying jobs for ordinary folks who aren't the next Alan Sugar or Richard Branson, then they could cut all benefits after a year or two.

They did:

Immigrants take 75% of all jobs created over last 15 years | The Times

Unfortunately for some reason they didn't go to the unemployed on benefits. Wonder why? oh yes it isn't worth going to work because benefits are more generous (have 3 friends who fell into this trap).

How many? Does your "evidence" come from the Daily Mail?

Actually know 2 that milk benefits and 4 others that work. The 2 that milk benefits could work if they chose to. One of the two is on her fifth child 4 of those are actually fathered by the same man (who also has a council flat and doesn't work officially).

I know a number who have gone from pregnant to council housed & benefit funded, in fact a colleague remarked to me 'I was the only girl in my class who didn't get pregnant to get a flat'. (she succumbed at 22).

Of course these are only anecdotes, there is no chance that the official figures will agree, one of us must be wrong of course.

The benefit of being a single mother - Telegraph

Mick Philpott was a scrounger (As well as an all round git), but his wife and mistress worked. Scumbags come in rich and poor, worker and shirker versions.

yes but he preyed on abused women who weren't protected.

[MyUserName]

National Service - what a laugh - how expensive do you think that would be to administer?

Nope, how much? Is it more than the long term effect of having the equivalent people locked into benefits?

What, like jobs?

Well ... yes. As explained else where in the thread, including the rest of my post.

I'm out

Probably for the best

[doodab]

The trouble with this jbs for benefits / workhouse business is that it will cost more than simply giving them cash. Even painting railings will need paint, paintbrushes, railings and supervisors. Not to mention the inevitable health and safety issues.

The largest part of the bill is the state pension. The only way to get it down is to not give the money to the old people. This would be political suicide.

Therefore we are ****ed.

[DodgyAgent]

Or the wonderful free market could try creating some decent-paying jobs for ordinary folks who aren't the next Alan .

Here we go! The affluent priviliged man sneering at the system that puts him into the planets elite (1 per cent? - more like .001%?) earners and richest individuals. Let me remind you that it is free market capitalism that allows you to be a wealthy contractor. And if you would like to also proffer a suggestion as to what better system there is for creating wealth (I presume there must be one otherwise you wouldn't stoop to such hypocrisy) please feel free to tell us what it is.

[formant]

Could you live on £7.50 a day?

I think most people are proposing workfare

Workfare - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which has the following advantages.
1. Rebuilds the persons confidence (if done correctly).
2. Retrains / rehabilitates people who have become institutionalised in unemployment.
3. reduces the chance of working illegally on benefits. 3- 6 months of workfare will kill most cash in hand jobs.
4. Forces claimants to physically appear reducing ghost claimants.
5. Dissuades long term unemployed languishing on benefits.
6. Pacifies the people who are paying for benefits.

Yeah, but as the recent court case showed, that's basically forced labour, unless you run it within minimum wage legislation and only make people work the number of hours their benefits are worth. Making someone work a 40 hour week for £71 in JSA is pretty disgusting. Although no doubt some people milk the system, as long as there also aren't enough jobs for everyone, you can't penalise everyone who happens to be unlucky enough to be temporarily out of work.

[doodab]

If the free market won't create jobs because it's not economic to do so then what makes you think the government can or should?

Assuming they can, will doing so not distort the labour market and make Britain uncompetitive?

If the government needs to create jobs because the market has failed, then where does it stop? Is it not contradictory to advocate a free market in healthcare or education?

Free market idealogues shouldn't resort to communist policies when it suits them. It makes them look silly.

[GB9]

BBC / Labour stunt

Of course it wasn't real, was it Man earns rather more than he said.

[DodgyAgent]

If the free market won't create jobs because it's not economic to do so then what makes you think the government can or should?

Assuming they can, will doing so not distort the labour market and make Britain uncompetitive?

If the government needs to create jobs because the market has failed, then where does it stop? Is it not contradictory to advocate a free market in healthcare or education?

Free market idealogues shouldn't resort to communist policies when it suits them. It makes them look silly.

How does the government create jobs?

The governments job should be to create and preside over conditions for enterprise to flourish and exert controls on excesses within the market system. The government should also be shaping how businesses that are vital to the lives of its people are run, and much as it grieves me to say it profit on certain types of services (health, education power) should not be the main driving force of such businesses.
It is also the governments job to ensure that people are properly prepared for the world of work and that our streets are safe and that housing is available - people should have a comfortable standard of living without having to pay extra for decent education and to live in safe areas.
It fails on every count because its services are run primarily for the benefit of the politicians in power and those that work in them.

We are entrenched in a political game where tax is deemed a punishment for anyone who dares to become rich, where vested interests of the rich and powerful are served within monopolistic institutions (banks, energy companies, NHS) and where public services are patronised by the left for political gain- they remain largely unchallenged.

It is not a question of free market vs public services. It is a question of what works - showering public sector workers in secure jobs and early retirement is wrong just as is shifting a public service monoploy into a private service monopoly is also wrong.

The discussions should be on making everything work not about ideology

[doodab]

How does the government create jobs?

The governments job should be to create and preside over conditions for enterprise to flourish and exert controls on excesses within the market system. The government should also be shaping how businesses that are vital to the lives of its people are run, and much as it grieves me to say it profit on certain types of services (health, education power) should not be the main driving force of such businesses.
It is also the governments job to ensure that people are properly prepared for the world of work and that our streets are safe and that housing is available - people should have a comfortable standard of living without having to pay extra for decent education and to live in safe areas.
It fails on every count because its services are run primarily for the benefit of the politicians in power and those that work in them.

We are entrenched in a political game where tax is deemed a punishment for anyone who dares to become rich, where vested interests of the rich and powerful are served within monopolistic institutions (banks, energy companies, NHS) and where public services are patronised by the left for political gain- they remain largely unchallenged.

It is not a question of free market vs public services. It is a question of what works - showering public sector workers in secure jobs and early retirement is wrong just as is shifting a public service monoploy into a private service monopoly is also wrong.

The discussions should be on making everything work not about ideology

I agree.

[vetran]

Judges playing politics deemed it illegal in the way it was implemented. Just as they said we had to retain Qatada or Philpott got '7' years for stabbing someone thirty times. Implement it right and the judiciary will have no need to approve it.

I'm pretty sure the cost of running workfare repays itself in reduced claimants, improved tax take, improved health outcomes and lower cost running benefits.

We aren't condemning claimants to workfare with most we are lifting them up out a life of depression, ill health and desperation. Yes some will see it as slave labour but many will see it as an opportunity.

workfare should be reserved for those that haven't been helped by retraining, aggressive support to get people work and the worker being unable / unwilling to use the opportunities offered them. Say at 18 months.