Benefit sanctions

[Fide]

If Oaksoft genuinely isn't trolling he's an extremely unbalanced character.

Such a lack of empathy, as evidenced with IDS, is suggestive of sociopathy.

Quite how he deems it acceptable for a parent, or even anyone, to be left with NO MONEY for weeks on end beggars belief.

[Benjamin_Nevis]

When the Daily Heil, Express, Sun or whoever fling some pish like this as a splash from time to time, not only does it drag us back to the Victorian deserving/undeserving poor, it deflects away from rich b*****ds fleecing the country with offshore accounts and the like.

Does anyone ACTUALLY know of anyone making several hundred quid a week in benefits?

I sure as f**k know folk who are and have been hounded by the DWP for absolute buttons.

TBH those figures in the main are sensationalist bollocks designed to enrage thick-as-f**k tabloid-reading white van men. There's a fairly obvious media agenda to direct the general public's ire towards those "scrounging" folk on benefits and low incomes and away from the blatant tax avoidance/evasion of big business.

In terms of actual benefits, to be getting a few hundred quid a week you'd need to have a couple of disabled children with their associated disability benefits to access the additional elements in Child Tax Credits etc. IIRC there were a total of 16 families in the whole of Angus affected by the benefit cap when it first came in.

Your average single JSA claimant in a Council house will be getting, at most, £140 a week in benefits (£73.10 JSA, say £55 Housing Benefit and £10 council tax), although in non UC areas the local authority will just apply the Housing Benefit to the rent charge. The claimant doesn't actually physically get it. Obviously this is different under Universal Credit.

Does anyone else think that Oaksoft is unemployed and all this bile is simply self loathing?

Nah. He is however almost certainly in a shite, dead-end menial job with a female boss half his age. Literally no one in a well-paid, satisfying career would be this angry over people scrabbling about on relatively tiny amounts of money.

The self-loathing bit is absolutely bang on.

[Hard Graft]

So you would pay the living wage to those unemployed for an initial period. Is this for all who have never worked or for those who have just lost their job? What would be the initial period? But then surely when you complete the initial period you will be reducing their benefits?

Are you against the concept and if so provide reasons. All you have done is raise questions that is appropriate to any payment regardless of the amount.

No I think it is an interesting concept but the questions I raised are appropriate. It is you who stated that you would pay claiments the living wage for an initial period so the questions are appropriate to that amount.

If you pay the living wage then what incentive is there for someone to go out and get a job that is also paying the living wage? Why should I remain in a job paying the living wage, and probably taking travelling expenses etc out of that sum, when I could stay in the house and receive the same amount of money. Very few of us work because we want to work - we work to earn to live. Granted some do seek better paid jobs to better our lifestyle but that is an individual choice some people are happy with their lot and do not seek additional pressures.

What do you deem to be the initial period because after that period you are going to reduce their payments and cause more hardship?

[kevthedee]

I removed the superfluous text to show what you really mean.

All your words...

Seeing as your good at changing words around how about you do these

Bridge jump road forth go off and the clown

[Benjamin_Nevis]

Seeing as your good at changing words around how about you do these

Bridge jump road forth go off and the clown

I bet you sat counting the words out on your fingers for ages

[Alert Mongoose]

Can Oaksoft please confirm where all these jobs are for people with disabilities? Last I heard most of these companies were being closed down.

[Gordon EF]

You are focussing on the cost. I'm not actually that interested in the financial argument.My argument is based on the social and health implications of being on the dole and also the cycle being passed onto the the next generation. I'm talking about the entire picture of despair and entrapment caused by long term unemployment. I'm talking about the breakdown of families and the destruction of communities which long term unemployment brings.

Many on here may well wish to continue allowing that to happen, and plenty are saying they'd increase it, but there's no socialism in that. Are you really arguing that if someone simply doesn't want to work that this it's acceptable to fund their lifestyle? Again I'm not interested in how many this affects. I'm asking as a general principle. Is this acceptable? I'd suggest not for the reason given above.

This is at leasr twice now that I've made this argument and not a single person has attempted to counter it.

Graduates don't escape this either. Why exactly is it wrong to ask a graduate to take on ANY job if they can't get one they are trained for? Why is that unreasonable?It's possible to take the minimum wage job AND at the same time go home at night and use your spare time to find graduate level jobs. It's way easier to find a job when you already have a job and I can guarantee you that employers like candidates who can demonstrate an positive attitude over this sort of thing because it shows they have real character. I had to do that. Many, many graduates have had to do the same. Supermarket tills and security guard jobs are full of people with degrees because we have vastly more graduates than we have graduate level jobs in the UK. Is this really a shock to you? Your degree is worth what someone will pay you for it. What you are describing is an entitlement complex and it should be challenged.

Your last sentence is putting words in my mouth.

My motivation in this stuff is absolutely irrelevant.

If my points are bullshit then simply challenge them.

It doesn't require abusive responses.

Well you've focused on the cost and the cash unemployed people get quite a lot for someone who doesn't care but we'll disregard this blatant lie for now.

Of course I don't think it's great for people to be long-term unemployed, especially if they'd really like to find work. I wouldn't like it (barring me becoming a millionaire and living a life of paid for luxury). But taking the cash argument completely out of it, if someone actually wants to live like that, who am I to say they shouldn't?

As far as I'm aware, JSA is actually dependent on the recipient looking for work. Of course anyone can get round that but the system at the moment is actually designed to penalize people who receive JSA and aren't actively looking for work. What more would you like it to do to penalize this behaviour?

What's the practical alternative? Unemployed for more than a year? We're sending you out to build a wall or work in Tesco's for your benefits?

I've mentioned graduates (as well as skilled workers who might've found themselves unemployed) to highlight that 'the unemployed' really are not a homogeneous group. Different people have different situations. What will work for some, will not necessarily work for others. My own experience of being unemployed and claiming JSA was in the few months after I graduated so that's my personal perspective on it. There was a real sense of reverse academic snobbery from the DWP. 'Why aren't you applying for menial, min wage jobs?' 'You're not too good for this kind of work.' etc, etc. Well I'm applying for jobs I want because, as far as I'm aware, I still have free will and the right to make my own decisions and I never thought I was "too good" for any job. Who's to say that a part-time job in a shop would be any easier for me to get than a graduate job which specifically asked for someone in my position? In fact, doesn't it make more sense that's I'd focus on jobs where fewer people could realistically apply and I match what they're looking for closer?

I did do a part-time job between getting and starting my job but the idea that it volunteering in the Salvation Army job would have made me a better prospect for my current job is fairly laughable. You keep repeating this tired old line but you're not giving any real argument for it and nobody's going to give much weight to any of your apparent experience here. "Employers" are people like everyone else, some will believe the banal platitudes you're whipping out, others won't.

[strichener]

No I think it is an interesting concept but the questions I raised are appropriate. It is you who stated that you would pay claiments the living wage for an initial period so the questions are appropriate to that amount.

If you pay the living wage then what incentive is there for someone to go out and get a job that is also paying the living wage? Why should I remain in a job paying the living wage, and probably taking travelling expenses etc out of that sum, when I could stay in the house and receive the same amount of money. Very few of us work because we want to work - we work to earn to live. Granted some do seek better paid jobs to better our lifestyle but that is an individual choice some people are happy with their lot and do not seek additional pressures.

What do you deem to be the initial period because after that period you are going to reduce their payments and cause more hardship?

It is my understanding that anyone that resigns from their job is not entitled to out of work benefits immediately. In which case jacking your job in to live on benefits will not work. Additionally is there not already time limits to some benefits?

If you are unemployed then you will have additional costs over those of someone in work such as travelling to your interviews, additional heating etc. I wouldn't want to guess if this would be more or less than someone in work as it would depend on the individual circumstances.

I look at my own situation and of course I would rather not be out of work and never have been. If I did find myself in that position then I feel justified in expecting that my own significant tax contribution should allow a safety net that in some way reflects the actual costs of living.

[strichener]

I would, but the lack of punctuation makes my eyes bleed.

Is that rearranging all the letters as I don't think there are that many 'e's.

[Fide]

Where did I say they should be left with no money at all?

They should be given vouchers for food with their housing and heating paid for automatically.

Nobody will starve so calm down.

Jesus you do like to go off on one don't you.

That's just it, you lunatic.

People ARE starving.

People ARE being left with no money.

These aren't fairy tales. Sanctions leave people with NO money whatsoever.

[Fide]

What ludicrous over the top hysteria.

Going by your performance on this thread, that's some top drawer irony right there.

Have a word with yourself before your aortic chamber implodes.

[Gordon EF]

You are wrong about what employers think.

Pure and simple.

I'm speaking from experience.

Your description of your experience with DWP is a lesson in entitlement and you won't find many adults agreeing with your position that you should simply sit at home until a job worthy of your degree falls on your lap.

No I'm not because essentially all I said is that "employers" are not some kind of fucking hive mind who all think the same thing. Using even the faintest bit of logic, that would make me correct, and you wrong.

OK, I'm done trying to engage with you like a rational human being. I'd forgot what red-faced, spluttering, banal, Telegraph-reading moron you are.

[DA Baracus]

Food vouchers

Why not just force unemployed folk to wear special armbands and be done with it?

I await the next comical accusation from oaksoft thay he has somehow deduced.

Also ONLY his limited experience on things matters and is absolutely applicable to all situations (not that there are any different situations according to the spluttering, seething, shambling, spiteful, sneaky shitebag).

I would like to add that when I was unemployed and claiming JSA (£500 a week) I often bought beer and went to the football using it. There were also loads of jobs I never applied for as they looked shit.*

* One part of this isn't accurate

[Sergeant Wilson]

Actually whilst I agree with the gist of your post, this bit isn't really true at all.

Whenever they do these surveys, they find out that most people actually enjoy their jobs.

Many don't of course, but I read somewhere that over 70% enjoy what they do.

Working, in general, gives people a purpose in life.

I can't see myself ever wanting to retire. I'd be bored shitless within weeks.

I'll probably change what I do over time but giving up the type of work I do permanently? I just can't ever imagine it.

Arbeit macht frei.

[mizfit]

[pandarilla]

That's just it, you lunatic.

People ARE starving.

People ARE being left with no money.

These aren't fairy tales. Sanctions leave people with NO money whatsoever.

Fide your debating style is absolutely dreadful sometimes. You regularly resort to extreme personal insults and that only ever makes you look bad. There's a whole load of group think going on in this thread as numerous posters pat each other on the back and declare oaksoft a 'lunatic' but not much winning of arguments.

Of course there is a media culture to attack benefit claimants and it is intentionally trying to throw us back a hundred years to a deserving / undeserving poor. But if you're not willing to admit that this is based on a bit of truth then you're deluding yourself. The best propaganda is based on truth. There has been a recent (I'm talking recent decades here) trend of individuals and families not bothering to work.

It's a very easy for people to claim that this is a 'miniscule' number of people but that is the crux of the matter. It's almost impossible to tell how many people fall into the category of 'skyvers'.

I think the Tory government are using this issue to dismantle the welfare state and I find that disgusting. But too many folk on the left end up defending the indefensible. It's the genius of the Tory playbook.

[NotThePars]

I'm happy to defend people who have no intention of working because attacking them invariably affects those who physically cannot work. Plus I don't have a problem with those that don't want to work and receive a pittance from the government. I don't think work should merely pay, work should pay well. We should be guaranteeing a minimum amount for people to receive as a progressive, modern and advanced economy.

[Benjamin_Nevis]

I'm happy to defend people who have no intention of working because attacking them invariably affects those who physically cannot work. Plus I don't have a problem with those that don't want to work and receive a pittance from the government. I don't think work should merely pay, work should pay well. We should be guaranteeing a minimum amount for people to receive as a progressive, modern and advanced economy.

To be honest I'm quite surprised anyone can actually be arsed with the effort of avoiding work to claim JSA. You'd almost put as much work to play the system as you would actually fucking working. It's extremely difficult to falsely claim JSA, as all your work-seeking activity is thoroughly checked. You can't just pitch up and say "yeah i phoned like 10 companies a day". Job-seeking activity has to be evidenced. Hell, even people are genuinely putting in the hours to find a job are being sanctioned, often for no other reason than their Work Coach hasn't met their own targets. I genuinely don't understand the mentality of people getting angry at the small group who are fucking about. I literally couldn't care less if a tiny percentage of JSA claimants can't be arsed and are trousering £73.10 a week. It doesn't affect me in the slightest.

Regarding the other benefits, in my experience they are all pretty difficult to obtain under false pretences. ESA and PIP require medical assessments, which are extremely difficult to pass, and always require medical evidence from a GP/specialist. DLA is being phased out for 16-65 (to be replaced by PIP), so isn't really relevant now, other than for children.

Indeed, the "easiest" benefit to claim is probably Attendance Allowance (over 65s) as the weight of evidence required for a claim isn't nearly as great. I've made a lot of successful claims for clients with little more than their word and a copy of their prescription. However governments won't touch age-related benefits with a 10 foot bargepole so this won't change any time soon.

[welshbairn]

I'm happy to defend people who have no intention of working because attacking them invariably affects those who physically cannot work. Plus I don't have a problem with those that don't want to work and receive a pittance from the government. I don't think work should merely pay, work should pay well. We should be guaranteeing a minimum amount for people to receive as a progressive, modern and advanced economy.

It will be interesting to see how the experiments in Finland and Utrecht work out with that, the basic minimum paid out to all and no penalty for working. A lot cheaper to administer for a start.

To be honest I'm quite surprised anyone can actually be arsed with the effort of avoiding work to claim JSA. You'd almost put as much work to play the system as you would actually fucking working. It's extremely difficult to falsely claim JSA, as all your work-seeking activity is thoroughly checked. You can't just pitch up and say "yeah i phoned like 10 companies a day". Job-seeking activity has to be evidenced. Hell, even people are genuinely putting in the hours to find a job are being sanctioned, often for no other reason than their Work Coach hasn't met their own targets. I genuinely don't understand the mentality of people getting angry at the small group who are fucking about. I literally couldn't care less if a tiny percentage of JSA claimants can't be arsed and are trousering £73.10 a week. It doesn't affect me in the slightest.

Regarding the other benefits, in my experience they are all pretty difficult to obtain under false pretences. ESA and PIP require medical assessments, which are extremely difficult to pass, and always require medical evidence from a GP/specialist. DLA is being phased out for 16-65 (to be replaced by PIP), so isn't really relevant now, other than for children.

Indeed, the "easiest" benefit to claim is probably Attendance Allowance (over 65s) as the weight of evidence required for a claim isn't nearly as great. I've made a lot of successful claims for clients with little more than their word and a copy of their prescription. However governments won't touch age-related benefits with a 10 foot bargepole so this won't change any time soon.

As someone who is dependent on the Attendance and Carer's Allowance I was frankly shitting myself about where the 12 Billion cuts were going to come from. Imagine my relief when it turned out they were going to come from the working poor!

[Fide]

Fide your debating style is absolutely dreadful sometimes. You regularly resort to extreme personal insults and that only ever makes you look bad. There's a whole load of group think going on in this thread as numerous posters pat each other on the back and declare oaksoft a 'lunatic' but not much winning of arguments.

Of course there is a media culture to attack benefit claimants and it is intentionally trying to throw us back a hundred years to a deserving / undeserving poor. But if you're not willing to admit that this is based on a bit of truth then you're deluding yourself. The best propaganda is based on truth. There has been a recent (I'm talking recent decades here) trend of individuals and families not bothering to work.

It's a very easy for people to claim that this is a 'miniscule' number of people but that is the crux of the matter. It's almost impossible to tell how many people fall into the category of 'skyvers'.

I think the Tory government are using this issue to dismantle the welfare state and I find that disgusting. But too many folk on the left end up defending the indefensible. It's the genius of the Tory playbook.

Interesting that you'd pick up on my post alone for my "debating style".

I make no apologies for throwing insults in the direction of Oaksoft. He's a deluded sociopath.

No one for one second is denying there are people who "play the system". What I object to are people who support and rub their hands with glee at this Government's treatment of those on benefits, whilst there are innumnerable other things this Government sinks money into that we could save on.

How much money do you think it costs the Government, for example, to run ATOS fit for work tests, to process the administrative side of every benefits sanction, to declare someone fit for work only to have the decision overturned on appeal, compared to the actual savings the Government makes? And that's not even mentioning the £176 billion Trident is now costing.

The war on those on benefits is entirely ideological and it's numpties like Oaksoft and programmes like Benefits Street which feed into and encourage that thinking of those on benefits as being lazy scroungers. It's smoke and mirrors by the Tories and they're fucking delighted at what they can get away with while Britain seethes at the poor.

Funny how we can find money to blow Syria to shite but we MUST shrink the welfare state because we just can't afford it.