I've just had a BRILLIANT idea

[bradc]

nope, you need people qualified for those particular jobs, in the same way lots of people couldn't do the work I do.

[Fully]

It costs about $20k to train someone, just to get the basics.
Then the problem is they have to want to do it. Be fit as its a demanding on the body.

[Physician]

Brad makes a very interesting proposition in his initial post. But actually, nothing particularly new nor unique in his suggestion as it has been muted many, many times before - well, similar suggestions.

As I'm sure Brad would agree, it's also a very simplistic argument and needs considerable attention to the detail in order to try and accommodate multiple unique situations - situations which make it very, very hard, if not impossible, to administer fairly.

There is nothing wrong with a caring social system which will look after you if you are unable to work, for whatever reason. The problem is that you will always get the scroungers who will milk the system for every penny then can get - and couldn't give a monkey's if they are caught ............ as they are unable to pay fines etc anyway. It's a catch 22 situation.

However, I agree with the principal behind your proposals Brad ....... we need SOME sort of policing of the 'hand-outs' to cut down on the scroungers. Only today in the Telegraph (Newspaper) over here I was reading about a foreign woman with 5 children who is being put up in a seven bedroom house at a cost of £144,000 a year to the taxpayers PLUS her other benefits ....... which will add another £50k at least p.a. Pfffft!

[Robotnik123]

The problem I have with Brad's original idea is that it would have the state make value judgements on people based on what seem like fairly arbitrary criteria. And just because someone loses their job they lose some of their rights and freedoms as a citizen - this is just unfair.

People should be free to spend their dole on whatever they want, just like you're free to spend your pay cheque on whatever. I think it is very bad when society starts to make value judgements on who is deserving of benefits and who is not. Sure we can judge smoking, drinking and illicit drugs as being bad, but what next, homosexuals, people of different races etc. could get judged as unworthy too. The next thing you know, you're down the same road as Nazi Germany.

[Throbbe]

It costs about $20k to train someone, just to get the basics.
Then the problem is they have to want to do it. Be fit as its a demanding on the body.

Agreed. Not sure what the situation in your part of the world is, but in the UK more and more highway work can only be done at night/weekends/public holidays to reduce traffic impact, so you're also looking for people who can be relied on to work unsociable shifts.

The guys that do it now had the choice, but I wouldn't fancy trying to get meaningful work out of someone that had been forced to turn out on Christmas day.

I'm going to disagree with what appears to be the majority and say that while it's annoying, I'd rather have a system that some people take advantage of but still looks after the people that need it most, than no welfare and a corresponding tax reduction.

[Nutter_John]

well my views on this are quite strong but one view i have is that if you are claiming benefit because you are out of work then to claim this you must be available to work

So in this case monday to friday 9 am til 5pm all people seeking work must attend a walk in center where you are expected to turn up in a fit state to work ( so not p!ssed or high ) . Failure to attend for any reason other than mdeical or a job interview then you get one days benefit withdrawn

other options is to double the amount of benefit and make them sort rubish and clean the streets etc etc

with either option it would withdraw the abillity for people who can't be arsed to work to sit there all day in the pub or at home watching tv

I have no issue with people who are seeking work or have a genuine reason they can not work , but I do not want my tax to pay for people to do naff all

[SGHOM]

Only today in the Telegraph (Newspaper) over here I was reading about a foreign woman with 5 children who is being put up in a seven bedroom house at a cost of £144,000 a year to the taxpayers PLUS her other benefits ....... which will add another £50k at least p.a. Pfffft!

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...cle1780948.ece

[elnevio]

Think I'm with NJ on this one. It probably still wouldn't be 100% fool-proof, and detractors will say that it will cost more money in admin and facilities, but I wouldn't be surprised if any extra outlay is more than offset by the savings in either benefit fraud or plain immorally-claimed dole money (i.e. the 'people doing naff all'). However, I haven't done costings (unsurprisingly!), but there has to be an improvement available somewhere in the current system.

As for the level of benefit being dependent on the number of years spent paying tax already - this is inherently flawed. What if you are a perfectly acceptable and upstanding member of the community, but you are young, and you are made redundant in your first year of employment? Why should the benefit you get be less than the same person if they were twenty years older and had contributed twenty years' worth of tax? Just wouldn't work.

Brad's original post lumped all the benefits in together, but I think the main UK issue, apart from benefit fraud generally, is with the unemployment benefits system and the 'something for nothing' attitude seemingly adopted by many of those receiving dole money who feel that they don't actually need to look for work.

Incentivisation is the key, but there's not a one-size-fits-all solution.

[Wodjno]

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...cle1780948.ece

Don't it just wanna make you UP STICKS AND FECK OFF OUTOVIT

[SGHOM]

Just some approx figures for you Brad.

I'm currently out of a job, so I've signed on to claim the benefits I'm entitled to as a tax payer.

The goverment say's, as a single person, I can live on £56.45 per week. out of that.....

£125 rent
£15 gas
£15 elec
£25 poll tax... etc

Then there's food.... car ins.... car tax... TV licence... etc, etc.

[Wodjno]

Just some approx figures for you Brad.

I'm currently out of a job, so I've signed on to claim the benefits I'm entitled to as a tax payer.

The goverment say's, as a single person, I can live on £56.45 per week. out of that.....

£125 rent
£15 gas
£15 elec
£25 poll tax... etc

Then there's food.... car ins.... car tax... TV licence... etc, etc.

Get out off your lazy ass and go get a feckin job you waster

[Physician]

Just some approx figures for you Brad.

I'm currently out of a job, so I've signed on to claim the benefits I'm entitled to as a tax payer.

The goverment say's, as a single person, I can live on £56.45 per week. out of that.....

£125 rent
£15 gas
£15 elec
£25 poll tax... etc

Then there's food.... car ins.... car tax... TV licence... etc, etc.

Well ...........

You'd better move in with me then - I'll ask my wife to move over

[The Vee]

Don't it just wanna make you UP STICKS AND FECK OFF OUTOVIT

Don't it just

[fatmikenz]

I completely agree. Nature is based on survival of the fittest, if you can't put dinner on the table, you go hungry. Extreme I know, and there are exceptions, but there you have it.
I reckon food stamps is a winner. Amazing how many people $10 worth of rice will feed !

[djb160]

It's not like it would be much different from a food grant which stipulates no tobacco/alcohol

[Ryan]

I agree on certain aspects of your post Brad. Where I come from, there is no "benefit". If you don't have a job, or some other means to support yourself, you're pretty much f**ked.

Whilst proposing draconian conditions on receiving a "benefit" might win votes, it still fails to address the root cause of the problem.

I can't emphasise the importance of receiving a good education, whilst education is not a panacea for alleviating poverty, it is certainly a step in the right direction because it is a very important part of a person's character development.

Of course if you are at the bottom of the ladder and receiving a "benefit" of some kind, alcohol and drugs are a no-no and should be dealt with harshly but starving people is not the way to do this. More more should be done to ensure that increasing amounts of people are educated (read /write / basic arithmetic) or to learn a skill of some kind. That way society might at least head towards being equal... but at a higher level.

Not everyone out there can be a rocket scientist but even the services that are regarded as being "menial" such as garbage collection, are still important cogs in the giant machine of life. Lots of people around here (not on the site but in general) would be amongst the first to sit in their rocking chairs bemoaning the fact that the streets are covered in garbage if they weren't around!

Of couse, a paradigm shift will be required to actually implement this sort of plan... *sigh*

[Subaru ETA]

work for the dole shouldnt be road works etc because that is skilled work. they should be out picking up rubbish etc. you get 2 months to find a job and after that you are working for the dole.

a mate of mine who worked in finance constantly had young single mums coming in wanting money and giving her the sob story about baby needs nappies. yet shhe just saw them getting out a WRX and putting out a fag... now i dont have a problem said person claiming the benifit to look after baby but when they are spending that money on cars and fags.... well...

[Munta]

i agree with brad there are plenty of jobs out there... i work hard just to see alot of it go to tax... there are jobs like ppl that go round our CBD and sweep the foot path every day that does not take skill and clean toilets etc. even i had the opportunity to drive a van and go pick dirty towels from retailers if you have a drivers license that's a job that takes no skill and pays alot more than min wage (i didn't take that job tho)

[SiliconAngel]

I think the people fixating on the whole 'roadworks' thing are missing the point entirely - I suggested it was an idea that had merit, not that it should be implemented verbatim FFS. Why do people always fixate on trivialities instead of looking at the actual topic being discussed?

What Brad and a number of other people are trying to say is people who are LIVING off government benefits without contributing and are thus a drain on society as a whole should be required to 'pay their way' like the rest of us. This isn't a discussion about abolition of social support systems, as they are CLEARLY a good idea for many of the reasons already discussed - sometimes people need assistance due to unforeseen circumstances such as redundancy, accidents, career changes, disability or whatever. Such systems are GOOD for society.

Its people who are bleeding society for their own selfish, unethical benefit who are a problem, and such people should be made accountable and be required to contribute in repayment for society's generosity. Yes, it costs a lot of money to live, buy food, pay rent, afford fuel etc. That's life, the rest of us have to work out how we can afford our existence, get over it - if you can't afford to support yourself off your own bat and society is willing to lend you a helping hand you SHOULD have to get off your ass and do something productive in reciprocation. TBH IMHO if you're able-bodied and you're not prepared to do anything to earn your way and expect the state to pay for your existence you deserve to starve on the street.

[danwins224]

TBH IMHO if you're able-bodied and you're not prepared to do anything to earn your way and expect the state to pay for your existence you deserve to starve on the street.

What if that bone idle slob has a baby?