Sterilisation of all unemployed ?

[Double Trouble]

Weird - you say it's a myth then your next comment supports it!

No it doesn't. No one is better off on benefits.

As DS says here...

...It really isn't, even the lowest paid jobs provide a good life. Its hard to buy a house but then thats a new concept in itself - it used to be rare to own a house.

Btw - since when does guilt/feelings have anything to do with cost effectiveness/efficiencies?

I didn't say the two were linked, I just said it was important to me and my personal situation.

[Twirly]

Sterilising the unemployed smacks too much of eugenics and Hitler’s fascist society to ever happen – thank heavens.

The issue of getting parents (i.e. two parent families, or single mothers where the absent father isn’t working either and therefore not contributing to the child’s upkeep) off benefits and into employment is a different one. And a huge stick isn’t going to work.

It would be very hard for the government to cut benefits to such families. One of their aims is to cut child poverty – cutting benefits would effectively increase child poverty.

At present, we hand out money to people on benefits to enable them to buy what they need. How they chose to spend this money is up to them – even if the money is intended to be spent on the children. So whilst junior should be getting new shoes and decent meals, if the family decide to spend it on booze, fags and a new x-box, that’s entirely up to them.

What the state could do is institute a system similar to that used for refugees, where rather than being given cash, they are given vouchers, and so are limited as to how the benefits are spent. This would mean that the government would need to decide what was necessary for a family to survive, and allocate the vouchers appropriately. So for example different amounts could be given for food, rent, power, transport, etc. with maybe a smaller amount allocated in cash that the family can spend on “luxuries”. This would ensure that the children would have adequate basics, housing, food, clothes, etc.

Doubtless there would be a stigma attached to these vouchers, but maybe that would encourage people to get off benefits and out to work. It would be the only way they could get hold of those luxuries that our society deems necessary.

I suspect that this idea is a bit too left wing for any politicians to consider these days however. So it’s not likely to happen.

Essentially you’ve got to change the culture so that people expect to work – education might have a role in this. The idea that you work because you should be a contributing member of society, however lowly the job, and that you should provide for your family seems to have died out in certain circles. However, if you’re at the bottom of the pile in our capitalist society, and the only jobs available to you are low paid and unpleasant, it’s not exactly motivating is it?

[robd]

Or not pay out - then you have to work.

Or commit crime.

[Dreadful Scathe]

Or commit crime.

crime doesn't pay

[robd]

crime doesn't pay

It does if you're a police officer.

[Jivejunkie]

I've really tried my best to bite my lip reading these posts, but I can't
So we unemployed are lazy, selfish, should be sterilised or whatever should we!!!!
I've been made redundant 9 TIMES because all our work goes abroad, I can't get work because I thought it might be a good idea to get a few qualifications, and now I am told that I am too over-qualified. The only work available is on a temporary contract, because the employer doesn't have to bother with holiday pay or the statutory days forced upon us.

Mind you I am living in luxury on my £53 a week, buying my 83p loaf.

As it happens I am starting work next week, I worked there last year and was made redundant after 3 months because it all went to malasia, so I'm not expecting a lot. I'll shut up now!!!!!!

[Husky_Cat]

I read this with interest as I am unemployed at the minute, it is not out of choice really. It is because it can be so hard to get a job when some companies dont bother to look at your cv through fully when they see that you are deaf.

I do understand that the companies are unsure about how to communicate, use technology with a deaf person. It is annoying when i know so many deaf people who are unemployed really want to work but get knocked back from many companies.

Yes i am on benefits but i actually use the money for the bills of my flat, i dont spend it on stuff like xbox or alcohol or anything like that. My benefits actually go on the bills as that comes 1st of all to me. I honestly hate being on benefits but I have been trying to search for jobs for the last 2 years and i am still unemployed.

The only way we can get jobs is if the companies change their attitudes and see what we are able to do. We do have the qualifications for the job we want.

[Double Trouble]

I've really tried my best to bite my lip reading these posts, but I can'tSo we unemployed are lazy, selfish, should be sterilised or whatever should we!!!!

Now, now...don't take things personally, it's just the forum for crying out loud.

Anyone can see your circumstances are not what we are talking about.

Here's an example;

I was speaking to a bloke I work with about the whole issue of claiming benefits today and he basically said that he has spent most of his adult life claiming benefits while sitting at home, playing play station, smoking weed and w@nking.

I asked him if the job centre didn't insist that he looked for work and he said that he used to look through the evening standard the night before he went to the dole office and tell him he's applied for this job and that job (he hadn't), then a few weeks later he'd tell the dole office they wrote to him telling him he was unsuccessful, and the dole office were perfectly happy with that.

I find this completely unacceptable, but his attitude was, if I can get away with it, why not? and who can blame him. He's sorted himself out now, but off his own back...he could have gone on like that for years and years if he wanted to.

I think Twirlys idea of vouchers is brilliant. Rep on its way for an excellent post Twirly.

[Twirly]

Jive Junkie, Husky Cat, from what you're saying, you're both out there actively looking for work, and doing it when you find it. It doesn't sound as if you're the sort of folks that are being discussed.

However, you have just perfectly highlighted the problem with trying to develop any sort of fair benefits system. There are so many people out there with so many different situations and needs, it's almost impossible to find a one size fits all solution. Yet in order to be fair, that's what happens. And some people undoubtedly take advantage of it.

I've been made redundant twice (and, working in finance, am wondering if it'll happen for a third time very soon!) so have sympathy for your situation JJ. Though 9 times must be making you tear your hair out! Good luck with the new job. HC - good luck with finding a job too. Hope you find a more understanding company to work for soon.

[Astro]

It really isn't, even the lowest paid jobs provide a good life.

How do you work that out? Have you tried it?

Hmm, maybe the Tory Councillor would like to live on benefits for a few weeks, Im sure he wouldnt find much use for the word 'greed'.

People maybe unemployed for a variety of reasons: mental health problems, low job prospects, disabilities... or that old fashioned notion of CHOOSING to be a stay at home mum. Some people are long-term unemployed, others are short-term, would he discriminate against these or just send them all to the operating theatre? The idea of sterilising someone for not having a job is disgusting and clearly violates our basic human rights.



To rebalance this, the government need to look at creating social policys aimed at redistributing wealth.



Who would decide who was worthy of benefits or not? Who had been recieving them for too long? Whether A family should have their benefits stopped? There would be ethical implications to consider alongside issues surrounding equality.

magnificent post Zara.

It would be very hard for the government to cut benefits to such families. One of their aims is to cut child poverty – cutting benefits would effectively increase child poverty.

At present, we hand out money to people on benefits to enable them to buy what they need. How they chose to spend this money is up to them – even if the money is intended to be spent on the children. So whilst junior should be getting new shoes and decent meals, if the family decide to spend it on booze, fags and a new x-box, that’s entirely up to them.

I think you will find that these parents have fallen for Loan Sharks. They will be in constant debt due to the 50% interest repayments. I've heard of 75% actually.

What the state could do is institute a system similar to that used for refugees, where rather than being given cash, they are given vouchers, and so are limited as to how the benefits are spent.

Doubtless there would be a stigma attached to these vouchers,

I suspect that this idea is a bit too left wing for any politicians to consider these days however. So it’s not likely to happen.

too right wing IMO

However, if you’re at the bottom of the pile in our capitalist society, and the only jobs available to you are low paid and unpleasant, it’s not exactly motivating is it?

No

I think Twirlys idea of vouchers is brilliant. Rep on its way for an excellent post Twirly.

They have been using this system in the USA for years. They have worse poverty than we do. Remember Hurricane Katrina?

[Double Trouble]

They have been using this system in the USA for years. They have worse poverty than we do. Remember Hurricane Katrina?

Stewart38? Is that you?







Be a bit more random why don't ya.

How do you work that out? Have you tried it?

I dunno if DS has, but I have been on benefits...albeit for a short period & been in very low paid jobs (minimum wage)

I managed just fine. Didn't go out much or go on holiday, but I didn't starve and my son had plenty to eat, a warm house, nappies and clothes to wear.

[Barry Shnikov]

I've really tried my best to bite my lip reading these posts, but I can't
So we unemployed are lazy, selfish, should be sterilised or whatever should we!!!!
I've been made redundant 9 TIMES because all our work goes abroad, I can't get work because I thought it might be a good idea to get a few qualifications, and now I am told that I am too over-qualified. The only work available is on a temporary contract, because the employer doesn't have to bother with holiday pay or the statutory days forced upon us.

Mind you I am living in luxury on my £53 a week, buying my 83p loaf.

As it happens I am starting work next week, I worked there last year and was made redundant after 3 months because it all went to malasia, so I'm not expecting a lot. I'll shut up now!!!!!!

I sympathise, JJ. Good luck with the new job!!

[Barry Shnikov]

Jive Junkie, Husky Cat, from what you're saying, you're both out there actively looking for work, and doing it when you find it. It doesn't sound as if you're the sort of folks that are being discussed.

However, you have just perfectly highlighted the problem with trying to develop any sort of fair benefits system. There are so many people out there with so many different situations and needs, it's almost impossible to find a one size fits all solution. Yet in order to be fair, that's what happens. And some people undoubtedly take advantage of it.

[Barry Shnikov]

Re vouchers instead of benefit payments

They have been using this system in the USA for years. They have worse poverty than we do. Remember Hurricane Katrina?

Too right. 'Food stamps'.

It doesn't work because within hours a black economy springs up where people will swap the food stamps for fags and booze and then sell them to other people to top up their supermarket trolleys. People who work in (or run) shops just buy the food stamps for cash at the back door and then feed them through their own system as if they'd exchanged them for food. Yada yada yada.

[Astro]

Stewart38? Is that you?

Nope, it's me.

I dunno if DS has, but I have been on benefits...albeit for a short period & been in very low paid jobs (minimum wage)

I managed just fine. Didn't go out much or go on holiday, but I didn't starve and my son had plenty to eat, a warm house, nappies and clothes to wear.

There is a huge difference between being on benefits for a short period and being on benefits for years. Just think about it. Short termers already have the good furniture, white goods, carpets, healthy bodies from eating healthy food - which can be expensive - have had some holidays within the past year, have good warm clothes and probably warm decent housing.

Re vouchers instead of benefit payments

Too right. 'Food stamps'.

It doesn't work because within hours a black economy springs up where people will swap the food stamps for fags and booze and then sell them to other people to top up their supermarket trolleys. People who work in (or run) shops just buy the food stamps for cash at the back door and then feed them through their own system as if they'd exchanged them for food. Yada yada yada.

I didn't know that Barry.
Wonder if the same thing happens here with the refugee's food voucher's.
You know we always end up copying the USA systems, even though they are flawed. I think the reason is that they are a bit harsh because they a cost cutting measures, not socially thought out - and our government
seems to like that

Anyway you cannot go on benefits until you are 18. So that's a 2 year void from leaving school to the 18th birthday. Another thing they picked up from good old USA. This is the reason why there are so many homeless teens on the street - parent's can't afford to keep them.

[Double Trouble]

There is a huge difference between being on benefits for a short period and being on benefits for years. Just think about it. Short termers already have the good furniture, white goods, carpets, healthy bodies from eating healthy food - which can be expensive - have had some holidays within the past year, have good warm clothes and probably warm decent housing.

I'm sorry, but that is a gross generalisation.

I went on benefits when I was 7 months pregnant and my partner decided he didn't want to settle down after all and buggered off and left me to it (didn't pay maintenance either)

I was living in rented accommodation and had no 'stuff' of my own. I still managed just fine.

[Astro]

I'm sorry, but that is a gross generalisation.

I went on benefits when I was 7 months pregnant and my partner decided he didn't want to settle down after all and buggered off and left me to it (didn't pay maintenance either)

Snap, that happened to me too. I never got maintainance either.

I was living in rented accommodation and had no 'stuff' of my own. I still managed just fine.

I had secure council rented accommodation - unfurnished. I could only afford second hand "stuff" except the bed - my Dad gave me the money for that. But, suppose all you're relatives are poor and have been for generations. They may not even be on benefits, but have worked all their lives for tiny wagepackets with nothing to show for it except say sistorocis of the lungs.


I found it hard to make my benefit money last all week. I did it though, just.

[Double Trouble]

I found it hard to make my benefit money last all week. I did it though, just.

Of course you did, because you are sensible and made it work for you, the same way I did. The whole 'voucher' thing would probably have worked well for me and you, but as Barry says, there is always the black market traders that will take advantage.

I was only on benefits for 8 months, then I went back to work when my son was 6 months old, but I'm confident that I could have managed indefinitely if I had continued on benefits, I actually didn't find it too bad at all. Like you say, you just have to live to your means.

[Astro]

Of course you did, because you are sensible and made it work for you, the same way I did. The whole 'voucher' thing would probably have worked well for me and you,

I think the voucher system would have made it much harder, because it's all about "juggling" the money.

Plus where can you spend these vouchers?

I've seen folks using them in Tescos and Sainsburys where prices are high.
But can one use them in the street markets where say, fruit and vegetables are cheaper?

[Zara]

If there are unemployed people, is it better for them to be paid to survive by the state, or to be left to their own devices and make a living by petty crime? - think of Fagin and his wild boys.

Great point.

In this era of Jade Goody celebs and Hello magazine, "class" is merely an excuse for your social situation, not a reason.

I disagree, someones social situation is quite likely to be tied to their class, and because lower classes do not recieve equal oppurtunities in life, there employment status may well reflect that. Many people like to think class is a myth and an out of date notion that doesnt exist any more. But I think thats just optimism.


It really isn't, even the lowest paid jobs provide a good life. Its hard to buy a house but then thats a new concept in itself - it used to be rare to own a house.

A good life? Your having a laugh if you think living on the poverty line is a 'good life'.



Or not pay out - then you have to work.

China have had a "one child per family" policy since the 1970s - not without its problems but you can see why they adopted it.

If each family had one child, there would be no state pension.

It would be very hard for the government to cut benefits to such families. One of their aims is to cut child poverty – cutting benefits would effectively increase child poverty.

I'm sorry, but that is a gross generalisation.

I went on benefits when I was 7 months pregnant and my partner decided he didn't want to settle down after all and buggered off and left me to it (didn't pay maintenance either)

I was living in rented accommodation and had no 'stuff' of my own. I still managed just fine.

From my own experience of being on benefits, I could not afford to live. After my rent, utility bills and food, I had -£10 per week. Add onto that having some sort of life and clothing allowance for my son and I, I was soon going £100 into debt a month. Living on benefits was not sustainable for me.