Channel 4, Britain's benefits scandal.

[bfcjg]

Britain operates in a global market, the world doesn't owe us a living, the naivety of some people that disproportionately increasing wages without an increase in productivity will get the feckless into work isn't an option,prices have to go up so people will buy elsewhere including importers of British goods, so we all suffer because of the workshy.
How to get them into work ? Totally free childcare from birth paid for by massively slashing benefits, the deliberately unemployed get no childcare, in work benefits increased to make it attractive.

[RMutt]

I think if you’re going to have self interest as the motivating factor in a society (or is there no such thing?) then you’ve got to expect that some people’s version of that will to be work the benefit system, dodge their tax or profiteer in their businesses.
It’s a consequence of our system and we have to take the bad with the good or change the system.

[Inchy]

Can we force the feckless into work and tax the avoiders?

Can we be annoyed at both?

[dsr]

Surely the money paid to claimants finds its way back into the broader economy and benefits us all?

So the bigger the payments the better I'd have thought.

The money paid to claimants comes out of the wider economy as well. If they take £1,000 off you to give to someone who is out of work, the wider economy benefits not at all.

[bfcjg]

Tax avoiders are a curse, that said I bet everyone on here has happily paid cash for a job to avoid VAT, and to split the tax liability with the provider, lots of barbers are cash only as well. Not all tax avoiders live on yachts. I am as guilty as I'll pay cash if asked.

[IanMcL]

You're way overestimating how much money billionaires have.

Better to get a tenner off scumbag of Skelmersdale then?

[ClaretOfMancunia]

Pensioners have to manage on less than half that.

... if a pensioner has only the state pension as income, then that suggests they didn't work/save toward a private pension when they were of working age. It also means they're entitled to lots of additional benefits, including housing benefit and pension credits. Both things not relevant to the young person earning a meagre £24K. Not really sure what your point is here given the topic of the thread.

[NL Claret]

Haven’t watched the programme or read many comments on here.

Have read posts on other social media platforms who point out this was the Channel 4 acting like the Daily Mail.

Perhaps there could be a programme on tax fraud / evasion that costs the country far more than benefit fraud?

Too much divisive rubbish in the media to be able to get a balanced view.

[IanMcL]

What should they pay?
You have a tax system where some relatively high earners lose 62p for every £1 they earn over £100 k and in that £100k they have paid over £32k

They are the ones that pay. It is the massively wealthy who somehow pay next to nothing.

[Dyched]

I’ve often wondered what people actually spent their disposable income on in the 70s/80s/90s.

My generation to me spend a fortune on what are luxuries. Smart phones, netflix, amazon, spotify, justeat (takeaways), sky.

I see it with my mates, they’ll be earning minimum wage but have the majority of all those things. At least £200. That’s before the spend £100s on a car and insurance and rent/mortgage.

So my question is what did people buy in older times? As I’ve said £200 and that’s before even going out for a drink and some food, holidays etc etc.

[dsr]

Better to get a tenner off scumbag of Skelmersdale then?

That's not what I said. I was just explaining that your hopes that there would be no problems if billionaires paid more tax, are forlorn hopes. Even the most public-spirited billionaires wouldn't have enough money to cure the UK's economic woes.

[CaptJohn]

I'd love for a government to actually implement a balanced budget without any borrowing. We'd probably have to close down vast swathes of public services and slash benefits and any kind of giveaways but at least we'd be acting responsibly. Right now the country is bankrupt financially and is fast becoming bankrupt morally as well.

[JohnMcGreal]

One woman is desperate to employ a steel cutter, £24 k a year, 25 applied, 5 turned up for interview, guy who got it quit after 4 hours as he got as much on benefits.

The last time I checked we lived in a capitalist system where the free markets ought to dictate things like wages.

If an employer can't hire someone to do a job on £24k they need to offer a more competitive compensation package for the role.

If you're being outbid even by the state's miserly benefits system then you really are trying to take the **** and don't deserve the staff.

[NewClaret]

I have worked in the care industry for the last 17 years for admittedly poor pay(employed by the Priory Group). Two or three years ago, my boss could have two or three applicants lined up for an interview and every single one would be a no show.
Some people just do not want to work. I hate the fact that my taxes are being paid to subsidise the life of the idle.
And before you have a go at me for daring to criticise these people, I hate the tax dodgers as well. And I have nothing but contempt for politicians from either side who allow all these practices to continue. It might not be illegal but it’s certainly immoral.

Great post.

I personally have no idea how anyone can have anything but contempt for benefits fraudsters, of which their are undoubtedly a lot and from my perspective aren’t just stealing from me but are stealing from the genuinely disabled and other public services where the money could be better invested. Or pensions, etc.

Yes, there are millionaires who structure their affairs to minimise their taxes. In fairness, in the main they’ll be paying a lot of tax and creating wealth in lots of areas too (if they’re an employer, etc) so I would argue they are at least making some contribution to society, but that is also immoral and wrong too. It’s pleasing to see HMRC cracking down on stars like Lineker and the Harry Potter actor recently.

Both are simply wrong and theft.

Thanks for all the work you do in the care sector by the way. Incredible people doing incredible work and the country quite literally couldn’t cope without you.

[mdd2]

Top 10% of earners pay over 60% of income tax and top 50% pay over 80%.
And as a generalisation those who put most in take the least out, although i have been taking out since 2009 but still paying my taxes

[rincon]

My dad is 94, worked and paid taxes all his life and struggles with mobility issues and is almost deaf. We applied for attendance allowance to help him out financially, it was denied, we appealed and it was denied again.
Meanwhile there is a career criminal lives near me with 5 kids. He has never worked and never will. Gets sufficient benefits to have a better house than most and his kids have all the best designer clothes and fancy bikes.
How can this be right?

[HurstGrangeClaret]

Great post.

I personally have no idea how anyone can have anything but contempt for benefits fraudsters, of which their are undoubtedly a lot and from my perspective aren’t just stealing from me but are stealing from the genuinely disabled and other public services where the money could be better invested. Or pensions, etc.

Yes, there are millionaires who structure their affairs to minimise their taxes. In fairness, in the main they’ll be paying a lot of tax and creating wealth in lots of areas too (if they’re an employer, etc) so I would argue they are at least making some contribution to society, but that is also immoral and wrong too. It’s pleasing to see HMRC cracking down on stars like Lineker and the Harry Potter actor recently.

Both are simply wrong and theft.


Thanks for all the work you do in the care sector by the way. Incredible people doing incredible work and the country quite literally couldn’t cope without you.

Thanks NewClaret. I consider myself very fortunate as I have a pension from my first job but almost all the people I work with rely on a sub standard wage meaning they have to supplement it with overtime. I’m lucky to work with such committed and dedicated people. And yet these are the very ones having their pockets picked to pay for the workshy.
I think it is quite legitimate for our blood to be boiling and no one will make me feel guilty for that.

[BigAlClaret]

All my adult life I have heard every main political party threaten the 'workshy' and 'lazy' but nothing has ever really been done. Government after government just tells people what they want to hear it seems. Could it be this section of society is actually tolerated so the next layer up ie the low paid working class feels better off rather than being at very bottom? It holds wages and inflation down for millions. Perhaps the solution should be to improve the prospects for the working class enough to widen the gap a bit more.

[bfcjg]

My dad is 94, worked and paid taxes all his life and struggles with mobility issues and is almost deaf. We applied for attendance allowance to help him out financially, it was denied, we appealed and it was denied again.
Meanwhile there is a career criminal lives near me with 5 kids. He has never worked and never will. Gets sufficient benefits to have a better house than most and his kids have all the best designer clothes and fancy bikes.
How can this be right?

That just sums up society today,decent people are just cash cows for the feckless, and if you read through this thread the feckless have plenty of supporters anyone who criticises them are nasty.
Hope your dad gets the support he deserves,hope the **** career criminal has the support he doesn't deserve removed.

[bfcjg]

The last time I checked we lived in a capitalist system where the free markets ought to dictate things like wages.

If an employer can't hire someone to do a job on £24k they need to offer a more competitive compensation package for the role.

If you're being outbid even by the state's miserly benefits system then you really are trying to take the **** and don't deserve the staff.

Her current workforce seemed happy working there but appeared to paraphrase Gregg Wallace "Gentlemen of a certain age" the £24k was the training wage. Do you want her to put her wages up,make her less competitive,
lose customers and close ? They could all go on the dole then and take money from the dwindling number of cash cows.

[dsr]

My dad is 94, worked and paid taxes all his life and struggles with mobility issues and is almost deaf. We applied for attendance allowance to help him out financially, it was denied, we appealed and it was denied again.
Meanwhile there is a career criminal lives near me with 5 kids. He has never worked and never will. Gets sufficient benefits to have a better house than most and his kids have all the best designer clothes and fancy bikes.
How can this be right?

Does he have a disabled parking badge? If not, it might be useful to apply for one of them, and then you can use that as evidence for the next attendance allowance claim. If one official mind knows that another official mind accepts the disability, it can't do any harm.

[JohnMcGreal]

Her current workforce seemed happy working there but appeared to paraphrase Gregg Wallace "Gentlemen of a certain age" the £24k was the training wage. Do you want her to put her wages up,make her less competitive,
lose customers and close ? They could all go on the dole then and take money from the dwindling number of cash cows.

I think that's how the system we all live under operates, yes.

If a company can't compete it will rightly go out of business and the gap in the market will be filled by a more competitive and enterprising outfit.

Supposedly this is the best we can do. No other alternatives are available.

[fidelcastro]

Seriously, who is going to employ all these, supposedly thousands of feckless unemployed people?

Employers want staff who they can rely on.

[Rowls]

The best thing a government has managed to do in recent years to get people off benefits and into work was the coalition government.

What did they do? They raised the tax threshold where you start paying income tax.

This meant the lowest paid in society received the biggest percentage gain. It made legitimate lower paid jobs a better prospect than trying to fiddle the dole.

Massive credit needs to go to the Lib Dems whose policy it was originally.

Since then, successive different governments have frozen the threshold.

The only other policy that had a really significant impact was only a trial. It was at the very end of John Major's government. He introduced a pilot scheme called 'Project Work'. It was a mandatory work scheme for people who'd been on the dole for years. People were made to go on work placement schemes or lose their benefits. A lot of genuine claimants on the scheme got jobs but a large number of them simply ended their claim. Who knows why?

We need to massively raise the threshold where people start paying income taxes (including NI) to incentivise work and ensure it pays more than dole and state handouts. We also need to reintroduce schemes like John Major's Project Work scheme.

[NewClaret]

All my adult life I have heard every main political party threaten the 'workshy' and 'lazy' but nothing has ever really been done. Government after government just tells people what they want to hear it seems. Could it be this section of society is actually tolerated so the next layer up ie the low paid working class feels better off rather than being at very bottom? It holds wages and inflation down for millions. Perhaps the solution should be to improve the prospects for the working class enough to widen the gap a bit more.

This is a reasonable point and for what it’s worth, the new government have just announced their plan in the last week.

From what I can tell it’s more of the same: reduce NHS waiting lists, ‘reform’ job centres to be fit-for-purpose, more mental health support, have a ‘youth guarantee’ so that everyone 18-21 is guaranteed an apprenticeship or training… but be very tough on people who don’t engage. To your point, I’ll believe it when I see it, but I hope it works this time.

To your other point, I don’t think the ‘low paid working class’ appreciate this at all. Without wanting to label HurstGrangeClaret, have a read of their post. I find this group are typically the ones most infuriated by the problem because they’re the ones working incredibly hard for little more than they’d receive in benefits.

And therein lies the problem. We actually have one of the most generous welfare systems in Europe but if the income on welfare is near the average salary, you will get those to whom get trapped in welfare.

You do have to therefore find ways to create more well paying jobs, which can only be done in a growing economy and governments don’t want big jumps wage growth because they lead to inflation they like to cap. The other way is to reduce welfare which no government will really do.

I personally hold the view that welfare should be a safety net and not a hammock. I think it should be time limited in all but the most severe disability cases (who should receive far more) and to continue receiving welfare beyond that period should have to work in a government role tailored to what people can do. I think people can always do something. That introduces them training, in to the workplace, opens future opportunities and means they give back to the society that is supporting them.

I think you’d find that halved the burden over night but no government would have the wherewithal to do it.

[NewClaret]

Dupe.

[NewClaret]

Brilliant post Rowls. Agree also with your point about raising the tax threshold. Spot on and suggest the two schemes you suggest would have far greater impact than the recently proposed plan.

[Rowls]

All my adult life I have heard every main political party threaten the 'workshy' and 'lazy' but nothing has ever really been done. Government after government just tells people what they want to hear it seems. Could it be this section of society is actually tolerated so the next layer up ie the low paid working class feels better off rather than being at very bottom? It holds wages and inflation down for millions. Perhaps the solution should be to improve the prospects for the working class enough to widen the gap a bit more.

It's not that they aren't trying. There's all sorts of tinkering that goes on.

The main problem is one that few people (and zero politicians) are willing to accept:

If you have a welfare dole system, lots of people will game it and lots of people will cheat it. The only way to prevent this from happening is to not have any welfare dole at all.

Britain doesn't have the stomach for that and it would cause real, genuine poverty. The kind not seen in this country since the 30s. It's not feasible and it wouldn't be right.

Policing and limiting entitlement to welfare dole only every goes so far. It's basically a game of whackamole. You can only achieve so much with this.

The best solution is to ensure that lower paid jobs are far more enticing than welfare dole. Yet somebody on the 'minimum wage' is expected to pay thousands in tax and for many people, they're either better on getting dole or they're only a couple of quid better off working. Who in their right mind would do a full time job in order to be a couple of quid better off?

[ClaretOfMancunia]

We need to massively raise the threshold where people start paying income taxes (including NI) to incentivise work and ensure it pays more than dole and state handouts. We also need to reintroduce schemes like John Major's Project Work scheme.

Agree with the first part, disagree with the second.

If there is a job to be done - then it should be paid at NMW (which itself should be set at a level actually be enough to sustain yourself on). Otherwise it's simply a reversal of who the benefits are paid to - the employer becomes the beneficiary. The "workfare" disaster of a few years ago is a good example of this - forcing benefit claimants to work (unpaid) for their benefits. It had no positive impact on unemployment rates as far as I'm aware.

Claimants are often required to perform work that would otherwise be done by paid employees, effectively creating a pool of unpaid labor. Some employers became almost reliant on this free labor, instead of creating genuine jobs. In addition, many workfare participants did not receive the protections or benefits (e.g., sick pay, holidays) afforded to regular employees, even though they performed the same jobs.

These types of programs often assume that unemployment is due to a lack of motivation, but many regions simply lack sufficient **quality** job opportunities, especially those offering fair wages or suitable conditions.

[basil6345789]

In lots of cases the people who work have less than those who don't , that's why they don't work.

Minimum Wage is to blame - it just dragged everyone down to the lowest common denominator

[elwaclaret]

As someone looking for work, although not claiming Universal Credit; I find many of the work shy arguments delusional.

As someone who re-qualified in history and English Literature after a career in management positions I have discovered no interest out there for employing people from the humanities, so started applying for lower management only to be told I’m over qualified for everything I’ve applied for. How many people are trapped in the same loop I am… employers look at my qualifications and Cv and think a) He won’t stay, or b) He will soon be challenging for the jobs I have/want.

In the meantime I keep researching/ writing hoping the world realises there is value in good Historians/ Classic Literature. Yet the media are obsessed with people ‘screwing the system’ because while everyone is looking at those below them in the payment structure they are not looking at those enjoying the benefits of exploiting the system at the other end.

[ClaretOfMancunia]

Minimum Wage is to blame - it just dragged everyone down to the lowest common denominator

Any evidence to support that claim?

[Rowls]

Agree with the first part, disagree with the second.

If there is a job to be done - then it should be paid at NMW (which itself should be set at a level actually be enough to sustain yourself on). Otherwise it's simply a reversal of who the benefits are paid to - the employer becomes the beneficiary. The "workfare" disaster of a few years ago is a good example of this - forcing benefit claimants to work (unpaid) for their benefits. It had no positive impact on unemployment rates as far as I'm aware.

Claimants are often required to perform work that would otherwise be done by paid employees, effectively creating a pool of unpaid labor. Some employers became almost reliant on this free labor, instead of creating genuine jobs. In addition, many workfare participants did not receive the protections or benefits (e.g., sick pay, holidays) afforded to regular employees, even though they performed the same jobs.

These types of programs often assume that unemployment is due to a lack of motivation, but many regions simply lack sufficient **quality** job opportunities, especially those offering fair wages or suitable conditions.

Interesting stuff ClaretOfMancunia.

A few points to put the Project Work scheme into a better context:

The participants on the Project Work scheme were paid for their work. It had a very positive effect on claimant rates. Large numbers found work, even larger numbers disappeared from the claimaint stats.

It didn't replace paid work - it provided paid work. With regards to worker rights, the participants were still classed as claimants when they were on the scheme but those who found employment through the scheme were entitled to workers rights the same as anybody else.

The scheme didn't rely on any kind of guessing at motivations of claimants for not finding work - it simply ensured they were given the opportunity to work in return for their welfare dole payments.

With regards to **quality** job opportunities hopefully that's where we agree! There shouldn't be any such as a job "not worth doing" when we have one of the highest minimum wages in the world. What we need to ensure the minimum wage works properly to incentivise people to work is far lower taxes to go hand in hand with it.

[Colburn_Claret]

Everyone seems to talk about minimum wage as if it's the end of the road. Why can't it be a platform to build on, a starting point.
People can apply for other jobs while already employed. There are night schools to attain your grades, if you didn't take the chances offered at school. Night classes for trades. Take on extra training your low paid job might offer.
There are many ways to climb the ladder, none of them start with sitting on your couch claiming benefits.
People who use minimum wage as an excuse for avoiding work are conning themselves, but sooner or later a government has to deal with it, and they'd be very popular for doing it.

Much of it now is passed on from generation to generation. Parents grew up on benefits, children grow up on benefits, their children will probably go the same way. It's a hard cycle to break, but the incentive has to be provided, not by minimum wage rising, but benefits being tailored to a person's ability and willingness to work.

[Rowls]

People who use minimum wage as an excuse for avoiding work are conning themselves, but sooner or later a government has to deal with it, and they'd be very popular for doing it.

There's a lot in what you (an enormous LOT) but it's not the only side of the story.

Imagine you fall ill with a genuine illness. You 'go on the sick'. Your benefits go up as you're awarded the status of being disabled too.

Later on, your condition gets better and/or you adapt and learn to live better with it. You get bored of watching Homes Under the Hammer and sitting around the house all day.

So you start looking for work. But the only jobs you're reasonably likely to get are on or around minimum wage. You currently get IRO £800/month for doing nothing and your rent and council tax are paid too.

If you work 40 hours a week you'll be better off by how much?

There's every chance you'll be worse off.

You might be better of by tens of pounds. Let's imagine you're "better off" by £100 which is a stretch.

So who in their right mind would give up their dole payments and work 40 hours a week for £100? That's £2.50 per hour!

Then think of everything else it entails:

Applying for jobs, going to interviews, ending your claim properly (maybe losing the additional rights of being classed as 'disabled'), having to pay rent, having to council tax, not being entitled to all the other help that is only given to people on mean-tested dole handouts.

Then you'll be working 40 hours a week. That's perfectly normal but it'll knacker you if you've been on the sofa for 5 years.

All for the honour of working at an effective rate of £2.50 per hour?

I'm very much of the opinion that work brings dignity and purpose in life, but it's entirely understandable why somebody in the above position wouldn't take a low paid job.

[dsr]

There's a lot in what you (an enormous LOT) but it's not the only side of the story.

Imagine you fall ill with a genuine illness. You 'go on the sick'. Your benefits go up as you're awarded the status of being disabled too.

Later on, your condition gets better and/or you adapt and learn to live better with it. You get bored of watching Homes Under the Hammer and sitting around the house all day.

So you start looking for work. But the only jobs you're reasonably likely to get are on or around minimum wage. You currently get IRO £800/month for doing nothing and your rent and council tax are paid too.

If you work 40 hours a week you'll be better off by how much?

There's every chance you'll be worse off.

You might be better of by tens of pounds. Let's imagine you're "better off" by £100 which is a stretch.

So who in their right mind would give up their dole payments and work 40 hours a week for £100? That's £2.50 per hour!

Then think of everything else it entails:

Applying for jobs, going to interviews, ending your claim properly (maybe losing the additional rights of being classed as 'disabled'), having to pay rent, having to council tax, not being entitled to all the other help that is only given to people on mean-tested dole handouts.

Then you'll be working 40 hours a week. That's perfectly normal but it'll knacker you if you've been on the sofa for 5 years.

All for the honour of working at an effective rate of £2.50 per hour?

I'm very much of the opinion that work brings dignity and purpose in life, but it's entirely understandable why somebody in the above position wouldn't take a low paid job.

Agreed. And taking a part time job would be worse still. As well as the danger that if you even apply for jobs you are at risk of being taken off the sick list and having benefits reduced, whether you get a job or not.

[Stonehouse]

I’ve often wondered what people actually spent their disposable income on in the 70s/80s/90s.

My generation to me spend a fortune on what are luxuries. Smart phones, netflix, amazon, spotify, justeat (takeaways), sky.

I see it with my mates, they’ll be earning minimum wage but have the majority of all those things. At least £200. That’s before the spend £100s on a car and insurance and rent/mortgage.

So my question is what did people buy in older times? As I’ve said £200 and that’s before even going out for a drink and some food, holidays etc etc.

When we were around 13 or 14 most of us had sod all apart from one of the lads whose dad had a couple of Chemist shops ,the only difference between us was that we had a cheappo plastic football from woolies and he had a case ball.there were no real luxury item to buy every seemed to get along together and if you were fortunate enough to have a car in the village you’d general pick folks up at the bus stops if you only new them vaguely ,now if you’ve a nice car there’s always some envious no mark who run a nail along it and it looks like 2 Tier Keir and his mob are governing with politics of envy .

[IanMcL]

That's not what I said. I was just explaining that your hopes that there would be no problems if billionaires paid more tax, are forlorn hopes. Even the most public-spirited billionaires wouldn't have enough money to cure the UK's economic woes.

No limit they steal more from the system than the few quid scumbags. I accept your point. It is the way the Establishment puts wee folk against wee folk. Divide and rule.

[Hipper]

I saw the programme. It didn't talk about scroungers and wasn't anything like something that would be published in the News of the Word or Daily Mail.

It seemed to me a well presented and researched programme which was about long term sickness benefits.

A summary on what I learned from it was:

1. 69% of those on long term sickness benefit were for mental health issues.

This is partly because there is no allowance for temporary mental health issues (where people recover and can resume their working life) and also because it is GPs with limited time that do the diagnoses.

2. Once you are assessed as long term sick it is very difficult to get back to work.

This is because it appears that the DWP or companies it employs are not particularly interested in dealing with this and of course that these benefits pay quite well compared to possible employment income. It is also unclear for those that wish to train for new work whether they will lose benefit whilst training.

In those circumstances it was understandable that those on benefit that they spoke to were having various difficulties making the step back to employment. Both the Labour and Conservative politicians spoken to confirmed all this as did those working in the business.

There will of course be those that fool the system - indeed it seems there is advice on using keywords in your claims - such as 'suicidal' or better 'suicidal every day' - to be found on social media. However I don't see why genuine claimants should suffer because of some fraudulent cases - no numbers were mentioned on fraud.

The metal work company job which was for a trainee paid £26,000 but it wasn't mentioned what could be earned once trained.

https://www.channel4.com/programmes/bri ... /76935-001

It's not an easy problem to solve but it seems both parties want to deal with it.

[Colburn_Claret]

There's a lot in what you (an enormous LOT) but it's not the only side of the story.

Imagine you fall ill with a genuine illness. You 'go on the sick'. Your benefits go up as you're awarded the status of being disabled too.

Later on, your condition gets better and/or you adapt and learn to live better with it. You get bored of watching Homes Under the Hammer and sitting around the house all day.

So you start looking for work. But the only jobs you're reasonably likely to get are on or around minimum wage. You currently get IRO £800/month for doing nothing and your rent and council tax are paid too.

If you work 40 hours a week you'll be better off by how much?

There's every chance you'll be worse off.

You might be better of by tens of pounds. Let's imagine you're "better off" by £100 which is a stretch.

So who in their right mind would give up their dole payments and work 40 hours a week for £100? That's £2.50 per hour!

Then think of everything else it entails:

Applying for jobs, going to interviews, ending your claim properly (maybe losing the additional rights of being classed as 'disabled'), having to pay rent, having to council tax, not being entitled to all the other help that is only given to people on mean-tested dole handouts.

Then you'll be working 40 hours a week. That's perfectly normal but it'll knacker you if you've been on the sofa for 5 years.

All for the honour of working at an effective rate of £2.50 per hour?

I'm very much of the opinion that work brings dignity and purpose in life, but it's entirely understandable why somebody in the above position wouldn't take a low paid job.

It's a stretch to include sickness benefits when we were talking about people capable of work, but don't want to. That said, I do accept that some people could fall into your bracket.

Either way if you accept benefits you are on benefits for the rest of your life. Your circumstances, and that of your family, will never improve. If you accept a minimum wage job, even if it is less money, then the opportunities are there for you to better those circumstances. To make a better life for yourself and your family.

On the otherside of the coin if you have been on benefits a long time, but only seek jobs that offer significantly more money, your condemning yourself to failure. Nobody is going to give a well paid job to someone who has shown they are work shy, they'll give it to someone who has earned the role.


As I told my kids, if the only job you can get is shovelling **** in the street, then do it, because any future employer would be far happier giving a job to someone willing to shovel ****, than someone who thought it was beneath them.

[Dyched]

Everyone seems to talk about minimum wage as if it's the end of the road. Why can't it be a platform to build on, a starting point.
People can apply for other jobs while already employed. There are night schools to attain your grades, if you didn't take the chances offered at school. Night classes for trades. Take on extra training your low paid job might offer.
There are many ways to climb the ladder, none of them start with sitting on your couch claiming benefits.
People who use minimum wage as an excuse for avoiding work are conning themselves, but sooner or later a government has to deal with it, and they'd be very popular for doing it.

Much of it now is passed on from generation to generation. Parents grew up on benefits, children grow up on benefits, their children will probably go the same way. It's a hard cycle to break, but the incentive has to be provided, not by minimum wage rising, but benefits being tailored to a person's ability and willingness to work.

That’s a great idea. But how much are these classes and qualifications going to cost someone who’s on the NMW?? Can they afford to do that?

[ClaretOfMancunia]

Interesting stuff ClaretOfMancunia.

Appreciate the considered response.

A few points to put the Project Work scheme into a better context:

The participants on the Project Work scheme were paid for their work. It had a very positive effect on claimant rates. Large numbers found work, even larger numbers disappeared from the claimaint stats.

It didn't replace paid work - it provided paid work. With regards to worker rights, the participants were still classed as claimants when they were on the scheme but those who found employment through the scheme were entitled to workers rights the same as anybody else.

The point I was making is - who paid for this work? Were the claimants paid a wage by the employer or were they simply entitled to benefits from the state? If the taxpayer was footing the bill then this is simply another form of welfare - corporate welfare. The taxpayer absolutely should not be subsidising paid work for multinational businesses. If you say it didn't replace paid work, what work were the claimants actually doing?

The scheme didn't rely on any kind of guessing at motivations of claimants for not finding work - it simply ensured they were given the opportunity to work in return for their welfare dole payments.

I don't disagree with work placement schemes in principal. I do, however, think the participants should be paid a *full* wage for doing a *full* job. Anything else distorts the labour pool and reduces the amount of actual paid work available for those looking for it. How could it not? This work didn't appear out of thin air, it must have needed doing.

With regards to **quality** job opportunities hopefully that's where we agree! There shouldn't be any such as a job "not worth doing" when we have one of the highest minimum wages in the world. What we need to ensure the minimum wage works properly to incentivise people to work is far lower taxes to go hand in hand with it.

Perhaps we agree in some fashion. I don't think you can say a job is worth doing if it doesn't pay enough to put a roof over one's head or enough food on the table. In-work poverty is a huge problem, see the astronomical rise in the usage of food banks by those in paid work. This is keenly felt by those on casual or zero hour contracts and on minimum wage.

[ClaretOfMancunia]

That’s a great idea. But how much are these classes and qualifications going to cost someone who’s on the NMW?? Can they afford to do that?

To add, night classes to learn trades don't even really exist any more in many areas. Not since higher education budgets for vocational training were decimated around a decade ago. If you're already working you might not even be entitled to the training that is on offer in most cases.

It's easy to tell people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, but if you take away their ladder out of those situations, how do they do it?

[Colburn_Claret]

That’s a great idea. But how much are these classes and qualifications going to cost someone who’s on the NMW?? Can they afford to do that?

It has been a while since I went to night school myself, but I would expect they would be free to everybody still, especially someone on benefits.

[Colburn_Claret]

To add, night classes to learn trades don't even really exist any more in many areas. Not since higher education budgets for vocational training were decimated around a decade ago. If you're already working you might not even be entitled to the training that is on offer in most cases.

It's easy to tell people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, but if you take away their ladder out of those situations, how do they do it?

Build your own ladder.

Lets face it, in life bad things happen to everybody not just the chosen few. How we react to those bad things, whether it's illness, redundancy, an accident can define the type of person we are. Some people pick themselves up, dust themselves off and roll their sleeves up and go again. Others just lie on the floor kicking and screaming and feeling sorry for themselves.
The ones who pick themselves up tend to succeed both at work and in life, and probably own their own home, the ones who feel sorry for themselves tend to end up on long term benefits. Simplistic but you know what I mean.

We all have it in our own hands to make a better life, there is no unwritten law that you have to accept your lot. It isn't even that benefit scroungers are letting the country down, if they have dependants they are letting their kids down. The only example they are setting is to leave their children sitting at the bottom, staring up enviously. People who act like that, think like that, might as well come from Mars. I can't empathise with them, it's alien to everything I was brought up believing and I'd be ashamed quite frankly.

[ClaretOfMancunia]

It has been a while since I went to night school myself, but I would expect they would be free to everybody still, especially someone on benefits.

They are not. Refer to my previous posts. Very few, if anywhere, offers night school training any more. Certainly there is no night school provision in Burnley.

[ClaretOfMancunia]

Build your own ladder.

You are literally saying people working in low wage jobs should take courses at night schools that don't exist any more. Funding for them was decimated a decade or more ago.

I'm not saying it's impossible (I retrained into a new career myself a couple of years ago as a network engineer), however it's not as easy as it used to be.

[bfcjg]

There are on line courses, there are funded courses,and if you are unemployed why should you not train during the day ? There are evening courses not to far away also, some secondary schools run adults learning as well.

[Claretincraven]

There are on line courses, there are funded courses,and if you are unemployed why should you not train during the day ? There are evening courses not to far away also, some secondary schools run adults learning as well.

I was about to say just the same. Maybe if I went on one of the IT courses I could put up a link to them!

[elwaclaret]

There are on line courses, there are funded courses,and if you are unemployed why should you not train during the day ? There are evening courses not to far away also, some secondary schools run adults learning as well.

Correction there are a lot of on-line courses that offer not usable qualification. Have you tried applying for funding while you take several steps backwards on the education ladder to try to retrain…. Again?