The Kintyre Forum

Is it right that certain benefit claimants should have to do 30 hours per week unpaid manual work in order to "earn" their benefits?

In a way, perhaps, but most are unemployed because the jobs aren`t there, so if there`s work to enable them to earn their benefit money, why can`t it be available as proper work with proper wages?
There`s also talk of putting the disabled on the same rates as the unemployed, and getting them back to work. If there isn`t enough work for the able bodied, how are they proposing to find work for the disabled? My eldest daughter, now 46, nearly 47, has been crippled by rheumatoid arthritis since the age of 19, and it`s a struggle for her to even lift a cup of tea, and she can walk just a few yards with the aid of a stick. How they`ll find a job that she can do I have no idea.

Of course there are genuine cases, who can't work, but there are far too many who don't want to work, and find it all to easy to scrounge from all the decent hard working people in this country. This is partly why we are now in the mess we are in, and i am so happy the torries are tackling the work shy. It is fundamentally wrong to choose not to work, how these people can live with themselves is beyond me. Three cheers for the torries.

Hinginboz wrote: It is fundamentally wrong to choose not to work, how these people can live with themselves is beyond me. Three cheers for the torries.

Some would argue that it is fundamentally wrong to exploit the labour of others, for personal gain.

Hinginboz wrote:there are far too many who don't want to work, and find it all to easy to scrounge from all the decent hard working people in this country. This is partly why we are now in the mess we are in, and i am so happy the torries are tackling the work shy.

Could you substantiate.. the official figures, clearly contradict this media fed misconception. Workers are being laid off in their thousands... where is all the jobs ? As far as the workshy are concerned - what about the rich workshy - or are you only picking on the poor in our society ?
Three cheers for the bankers.. hip hip.

They should ad mandatory drug, alcohol and tobacco testing too. Positive test = no benefits

Sweltered wrote:They should ad mandatory drug, alcohol and tobacco testing too. Positive test = no benefits

Such a drastic step - the Monarchy would be wiped out overnight.

ionnsaigh wrote:

Sweltered wrote:They should ad mandatory drug, alcohol and tobacco testing too. Positive test = no benefits

Such a drastic step - the Monarchy would be wiped out overnight.

could fill some of them upcoming open slots in the council employee roster.

ionnsaigh wrote:

Sweltered wrote:They should ad mandatory drug, alcohol and tobacco testing too. Positive test = no benefits

Such a drastic step - the Monarchy would be wiped out overnight.

And yourself?

Sweltered wrote:And yourself?

That's highly personal.
However, I was fortunate enough to hold a senior position, for many years. During this time ( before I became ill ) I paid a fair percentage of my salary to income tax.... I also paid 6% of my income to the pension scheme... so nobody is going to dictate... whether I can have a fag or a pint. feck right off.

not this old chestnut again,lets keep the mail n express readers out of the forum please. How do you live it up on £65.00 a week. Some people will listen to any old shite in the papers. This has gone too far, only a complete tosser would listen to these tall tales,any one whos had to sign on can tell you the social gives you frick all.
If they really want to save money lets start with the war in Afghanistan,then move on to goverment IT schemes etc etc, oh sorry reallity aint quite as much fun as myth is it. So lets continue bashing the poor n workless,be carefull a lot more of you may be needing support soon, but then youll be more than happy picking up rubbish round the toon.

four eyes wrote:lets keep the mail n express readers out of the forum please.

Och, way too late!

four eyes wrote:If they really want to save money lets start with the war in Afghanistan,then move on to goverment IT schemes etc etc.

And there's a whole lot more in these etcetaras like our PM on the telly today wanting millions - nay, billions - to host the World Cup in England for a start But hey, what's a few billion when these lazy shirkers are unable to find work in a recession?

If you are fit and able to work, then you should be working.

Fair enough £65.00 per week is not much, but there is no rent to pay, no dentist bills, no council tax etc etc.

What about the people who have low earning jobs, have to pay council tax, income tax, national insurance, rent et all. Why should they struggle to make ends meet and contribute when Joe Bloggs next door is fit and able to work but doesn't and gets all his "bills" free and is given cash from the labours of his hard working next door neighbour?

As I said, if you are fit and able to work, then work you should be doing!

The answer is simple really....It's not that benefits are too high... it's wages too low.

ionnsaigh wrote:The answer is simple really....It's not that benefits are too high... it's wages too low.

I visited a Work House last year. What I was told was that the jobless / homeless would be given a roof over their heads and food, but they made the people work for their keep. They deliberately made the work so repetitive / boring, that it would be an absolute last resort to go there. The idea being that people would try harder to make a living themselves, as it would be better than the workhouse. I thought that was an excellent idea.

Benefits should be at a subsistence level only. I do not see fags, beer, bookies, Sky, plasma TV's, games consoles as subsistence. Deserving cases where people cannot work should be given a more comfortable level of benefits, but how you determine this, I have no idea.

Someone mentioned £65 per week benefits - but that's not all they get. They get housing benefit, free prescriptions, council tax paid, and probably other benefits too.

ionnsaigh says wages are too low, yet a working couple I know local to us gets their income supplemented by £700 per month child tax credit (tax credits or whatever they're called), so help is there for this transition.

I know if I were to lose my job in February (which is possible due to a shake up), I would only get the £65. I wouldn't get housing benefit / interest on mortgage paid or whatever. Yet people who have not worked for decades will be still getting the full range of benefits. How is that right?

And no, I don't read the Daily Mail. Far too left wing for me