Anyone looking forawrd to the slave labour that the government will be making us do?

[NC30]

Originally Posted by flowergirl

I don't think anyone will slate you for it, but if they do, then they're just idiots anyway.

Hmmmmmm. :hmmm:

[Terence]

Originally Posted by Grinder

John Prescott..

I'm still at the age where I base my judgement of many millions of people on loud, brash, maniacal, left wing-pie-scoffing-clowns like him. To my own detriment of course.

John Prescott ? Him of the Ermine robes who sit's in the house of lords is no socialist I assure you. He may have begun as one but the day he became a new labour politician was the day he finally sold out then he resold when he remortgaged when they made him lord Prescott. They all sold out, lots of them did but then again socialism could no longer provide an answer to any of the problems faced pre Magraret Thacher era so who can truly blame them.

Originally Posted by Cynic

WORK IS FREEDOM, remember!

Work Is FREEDOM if it's economically viable and it's not spin from a fascist porker the likes of what appears in 1984.

What I'd love to know really love to know is there any difference from what is coming and being what they used to call a peasant. A feudal lords property by any other description.

And if your paying 65p in the pound but keeping just 35p of what you earn what makes Ian Duncan Smith think this is an attractive offer and a real viable incentive to make people want to bother. The wealthy only pay 50 percent and keep the other 50 percent of their earnings. That's a laugh though earnings, who earns what for who ?

Are we supposed to say to our bosses:

"Please Sir may I have some more."

What is the difference between this and real slavery I really cannot work it out.

[karl-32]

this is for those on jobseekers , not income support/esa

[яemus]

Originally Posted by karl-31

this is for those on jobseekers , not income support/esa

Yup true, they are going to make us into soap and buttons intead

[gSteve]

When I was unemployed years ago I worked voluntary in a charity shop but wasnt allowed to do more than about 16 hours as they said that would mean you wouldnt have time to look for work. I think doing something like that is a good idea as it helps you get out and meet people and improve confidence but I dont think forcing people to work 40 hours a week would be fair

[wintertulip]

Work placements probably will be good experience for a lot of people, but i think they should be paid at minimum wage. Otherwise it's just slave labour. Besides, if the point of the idea is to convince the long-term unemployed that work is rewarding, then it makes sense to let them experience the primary reward of working - the money!

[José Raúl Capablanca]

Wonder if those work shy , Imigrant benifit scrougers the Windsors will be included in this they have been living off the state for years without working.

[Terence]

The minimum wage will be next. Insane asylums I can see being opened once more. Maybe even work houses. Who knows.

You can't legislate for these things.

I couldn't work in a charity shop or do care work I don't have that sort of nature. In fact most forms of voluntary work I find v unappealing and highy unstimulating. Probably why they are voluntary in the first place because nobody wants to do them.

[Sea]

Originally Posted by Terence

I couldn't work in a charity shop or do care work I don't have that sort of nature. In fact most forms of voluntary work I find v unappealing and highy unstimulating. Probably why they are voluntary in the first place because nobody wants to do them.

Coming from the same guy who wrote in another thread "I wouldn't work if you paid me", this sadly does not surprise me. However, it is a pretty ignorant statement all the same. Lots of people do voluntary work and find it highly stimulating and very rewarding, because they enjoy contributing to society and doing something useful. Clearly unlike your good self .

[karl-32]

Originally Posted by Terence

I couldn't work in a charity shop or do care work I don't have that sort of nature. In fact most forms of voluntary work I find v unappealing and highy unstimulating. Probably why they are voluntary in the first place because nobody wants to do them.

voluntary work is very very rewarding , plus its a fantastic way for people like many on this forum and other people with other illnesses , to get used to a work environment . Alot of people who have been out of work for long periods , may find the getting up at 6am , doing 40 hours a week and the pressure of it being mandatory , to much to bare. This is where voluntary work proves so so useful . Also it looks good on a CV

[catlover]

For me, being forced to get out of the apartment (flat) would be beneficial. As long as the hours were restricted (say, less than 20 hours per week, so i could look for long-term work) and the pay were at or above minimum, I would have no problem with a work requirement.

If I were to sit home, I would sink deeper and deeper into the abyss of anxiety/depression.

But I can relate to those for whom the kind of work that would be assigned would be difficult to handle given their health situation.

[blubs]

did anyone see the program last night on the uk's £trillion debt? I only caught 10 minutes, but it was enough to make me feel utterly miserable about living here.

In the part I saw it compared us to Hong Kong, where the majority of people don't pay any tax, only the well off. Because of that it's prospered as people have more disposable income & so there's growth & everyone benefits.

In this country we have an enormous welfare system thats totally unsupportable, but even the poorest pay tax through all the millions of things we're taxed on. That then goes back to the poor in benefits, in a loop which costs loads of money, pisses off everyone working paying tax on their salaries, but without stopping the poor being poor.

Those with jobs are taxed so much on salaries, & then anything else you can think of, we're not left with a pot to piss in.

I'm not well up on economics, but just that 10 minutes was enough to see if the government would just stop taxing us all so bloody much, we'd have a bit of money to spend, which would create industry & jobs, so people could actually work & earn, instead of being expected to work for benefits. What happenned to the libdem proposal of upping the amount you can earn before you get taxed?? Has it dissappeared?

[Rubik]

Originally Posted by blubs

What happenned to the libdem proposal of upping the amount you can earn before you get taxed?? Has it dissappeared?

The libdems have pretty much seized to exist, if not now but in the near future now they have lost most of their support. Sad, i feel sorry for the likes of Vince Cable who have the balls to say what they think is morally right.

[indiegirl1980]

2 things I don't understand
1. People are employed by the council/private companies to sweep the streets, clean, pick up litter, empty bins etc. If the unemployed do this for free, who is going to keep on the staff that have to get paid?
2. If there are people with multiple degrees who can't get jobs, where are all the jobs for the unemployed coming from?

[Phool]

I think its been shown before. Another one they did was called The Ascent of Money by Niall Fergusson which was accompanied by a book. Vince Cable's The Storm is also very good but my fave is 'Freakonomics' It just riducules the structure of the global economy...its great fun until you realise that it's not funny it's f@#&ed! Sorry don't swear much but that book was a real eyeopener.

I've never studied economics, but I was so angry with the bankers getting away with bankrupting the world and all because us mere mortal don't understand what they do...that I decided to educate myself a bit on the subject.

[Medea]

I keep being astounded at how much pensioners get for free. I only recently discovered they get all their prescriptions for free!!! WTF. Some pensioners are the wealthiest people I know and yet they seem to get money thrown at them. One thing that is not often told is that 75%+ of the wealthfare bill goes towards pensions. I think it's time to means test pensioners, not necessarily on their basic pension, but on things like free prescriptions, free bus passes, free eye tests, heating allowance and the free tv licence. If they can afford to pay then they should. When did being over 60 become a disability?

Having said that I know that no party will ever touch pensions because pensioners vote in numbers far greater than most people.

[mils]

Originally Posted by Medea

I keep being astounded at how much pensioners get for free. I only recently discovered they get all their prescriptions for free!!! WTF. Some pensioners are the wealthiest people I know and yet they seem to get money thrown at them. One thing that is not often told is that 75%+ of the wealthfare bill goes towards pensions. I think it's time to means test pensioners, not necessarily on their basic pension, but on things like free prescriptions, free bus passes, free eye tests, heating allowance and the free tv licence. If they can afford to pay then they should. When did being over 60 become a disability?

Having said that I know that no party will ever touch pensions because pensioners vote in numbers far greater than most people.

Some pensioners may be the wealthiest people you know medea, but an awful lot more don't have a pot to piss in. Pensioners are generally unable to work and often do have disabilities, hence the things like free prescriptions, free bus passes, free eye tests, heating allowance and the free tv licence. Bringing up the heating allowance seems particularly callous! You are probably right that no party would go after pensioners, perhaps because they are more inclined vote, but also because it would be indefensible.

[Sea]

Originally Posted by mils

Pensioners are generally unable to work and often do have disabilities, hence the things like free prescriptions, free bus passes, free eye tests, heating allowance and the free tv licence. Bringing up the heating allowance seems particularly callous!

Originally Posted by snooping_around

Those that have savings and can afford prescriptions etc are usually the ones who worked their entire lives and paid into the system and entitled to these things for FREE. Let them keep their savings for the luxories which they deserve.

Totally agree
Many pensioners have contributed to society their entire lives and spent a lifetime saving hard specifically to cover their retirement. I don't remotely agree with removing the few perks that they get in their old age. We're all going to be pensioners one day. One thing I will say though, is that possibly the age at which people receive pension (and all associated 'perks') might have to be delayed by a few years (e.g. 65 instead of 60) in the future, since people are now living for longer and in better health later into their old age.

[Phool]

Originally Posted by Dory

Totally agree
Many pensioners have contributed to society their entire lives and spent a lifetime saving hard specifically to cover their retirement. I don't remotely agree with removing the few perks that they get in their old age. We're all going to be pensioners one day. One thing I will say though, is that possibly the age at which people receive pension (and all associated 'perks') might have to be delayed by a few years (e.g. 65 instead of 60) in the future, since people are now living for longer and in better health later into their old age.

Agree

Although I do getted irritated when people like Michael Winner tote around their bus pass on chat shows and then drive around in a Rolls Royce! I know millionaires have worked for their money but they don't need these benefits and if they put the money back in the pot there should be more available for people who really need it.

[Medea]

Originally Posted by mils

Some pensioners may be the wealthiest people you know medea, but an awful lot more don't have a pot to piss in. Pensioners are generally unable to work and often do have disabilities, hence the things like free prescriptions, free bus passes, free eye tests, heating allowance and the free tv licence. Bringing up the heating allowance seems particularly callous! You are probably right that no party would go after pensioners, perhaps because they are more inclined vote, but also because it would be indefensible.

I'm not talking about poor pensioners (which means testing would cover and provide for) but pensioners who have money and do not need the freebies. By all means give to the poorest and most vulnerable but not to rich people who just happen to be pension age. I'm not arguing against the pension btw, just against the non-means tested perks. It would be far better to give people who need it £500 winter fuel allowance than £200 to every pensioner be they poor or extremely rich.

To clarify: I'm advocating means testing on all the "perks" and not the actual pension. If a pensioner is poor they should, in my opinion, receive more than they get now instead of a universal free for all given to everyone, even those who are rich enough to afford to pay.

[Sea]

Originally Posted by Medea

If a pensioner is poor they should, in my opinion, receive more than they get now instead of a universal free for all given to everyone, even those who are rich enough to afford to pay.

I sort of agree in principle. But at the same time, there is a big difference between those people who have spent their entire lives working hard and have specifically saved to ensure that they have enough money to retire comfortably, versus those people that spend, spend, spend and never bother to save a penny throughout their lives, just assuming that the state will support them. Presumably the former will be seen as 'rich' pensioners and the latter as 'poor' pensioners. I don't then think its fair at all in those circumstances to give the 'poor' people more than the 'rich'. So the question becomes how you distinguish between the rich and the poor I suppose (or maybe you just mean the super-rich with hundred of thousands of pounds or more, in which case I agree)..

[indiegirl1980]

Originally Posted by Medea

I keep being astounded at how much pensioners get for free. I only recently discovered they get all their prescriptions for free!!! WTF. Some pensioners are the wealthiest people I know and yet they seem to get money thrown at them. One thing that is not often told is that 75%+ of the wealthfare bill goes towards pensions. I think it's time to means test pensioners, not necessarily on their basic pension, but on things like free prescriptions, free bus passes, free eye tests, heating allowance and the free tv licence. If they can afford to pay then they should. When did being over 60 become a disability?

Having said that I know that no party will ever touch pensions because pensioners vote in numbers far greater than most people.

All of the older generation of pensioners (those in their 80's and 90's) fought the war to save this country from the Nazis.
I think they deserve to be given a comfortable old age free from having to worry about money and whether they can afford to buy their medication, fuel, bus fares and TV licence.
They experienced such hard times before the War as well.
Means testing that proud generation seems like a harsh idea to me.

I agree that some of the baby boomer generation of pensioners don't really need it though. I think that even Paul McCartney and Mick Jagger get their winter fuel allowances paid. They are probably better off than the older ones.
Maybe the age limits for these things should go up when the retirement age goes up, as if everyone's still working at 65, it seems silly for them to still get the old age pensioner's benefits as well.

[Terence]

Originally Posted by Dory

Coming from the same guy who wrote in another thread "I wouldn't work if you paid me", this sadly does not surprise me. However, it is a pretty ignorant statement all the same. Lots of people do voluntary work and find it highly stimulating and very rewarding, because they enjoy contributing to society and doing something useful. Clearly unlike your good self .

Me saying I wouldn't work if you paid me was a pun and a joke so lay off with the being sadly surprised stuff if you don't mind.

I don't find voluntary work highly rewarding. I find being paid cash money highly rewarding. That's just an opinion though each to their own.

Lastly I probably do sound ignorant but where I come from that's a bonus probably keep you alive in some cases Lol !

[Terence]

Basically you can do all the voluntary work you want for all I care. Make a big ****ing voluntary pie and i'll give you a fork and leave you to eat it. You moral bastions of society.

What I resent to **** though is people taking me over and forcing me to be some kind of moral example for the rest when i never broke this country the bankers did that. And nobody will be forcing them to be good citizens full of morality and shit now will they ?

But looky here. Look what's happened people like me have been conveniently turned into a scapegoat and it stinks to **** and I'm no happy about it.

But I doubt anybody with a better standing in life and who has been more fortunate in their career will help me to defend my civil rights.

Well good but when they finally aim their sights on you send me a letter and tell me how it feels I'll send you one back that says I told you so.

[Sea]

Yay for the 'ignore' list.

[Terence]

lightweight.

[Terence]

Originally Posted by Cynic

You don't work and they do pay you.

Your lucky your clan man or I'd nevah speak to you again for saying that to me Cynical : I do about twenty to thirty hours looking for and applying for jobs for that money Cynic.

Anyway I worked it oot my benefit for the last ten years on average has been about £8000 quid per year. £80,000 smackeronies over a decade and for a good part of that I was genuinely unwell.

Anyway Fred the Shred has been paid millions in a pension deal by a bank owned by the taxpayer when it was paid out to him, a bank he ****ed up because rather than being the brainy boy made good from Paisley he got found out for the idiot and dimwit he proved himself to be and probably always has been all along (flash git). So then various public servants have also been paid more than that a year and walked off with two and three times that for a pension called a golden handshake. In many cases because they had to be got rid off because they were bloody awful at the job and ****ed it up.

Wayne Rooney and others snort that up their nose at the weekend and the house of lords and Westminster used to spend that on tea cakes in their over subsidised canteen and drinking boys clubs. Let's not go into how much Prince Andrew spends when he takes an MOD helicopter to go out to the shops for a packet of biscuits or what the Queen get's paid per hour. I wonder ?

So do I feel guitly, do I feel the need to prove my sense of morality to anyone, do I need to make ammends for being ill at times and also having too many ties in a deprived area raped by Maggie thatchers government to want to move away and be even more isolated than I already feel. ????

I do feel guilt but it's in the range below zero.

See the day I pick up a piece of litter while Fred the Shred and others who have made themselves phenomenally rich while others suffer real hardships and they sit on their backsides making no ammends for actual misdemeanours that's the day I stop putting my litter in the bin. That's the day I drop a piece each to make sure I put the filth dropped by lard asses whom I've been forced to clean up after back were it belongs.

I live in an immoral world but it's not me who needs looking at it should work from the top down let them lead by example if they can. Give David Cameron a brush and i'll follow on.

Amen !

Oh I forgot they can't lead by example. Well then they should shut the **** up instead Lol.

[Ben]

Trying to justify that you should not be punished or judged negatively for behaving in a certain way because somebody else has done the same (milked the taxpayer unfairly in this case) and has got away with it, is typically the reasoning displayed by children and adolescents.

E.g a 14 year old smoking dope and saying his/her friends parents dont mind, in response to his/her parents objecting, so child says "what is your problem?". Or a 8 year old who has punched someone in the head in the playground, and who justifies it by saying that the kid that does that every week is given his own counsellor and goes on special trips to Alton towers with all the other naughty kids, so why should he/she not do it?

You are responsible for your own behaviour, the fact that others have done worse than you and have got away scott free is irrelevant. To argue otherwise is to say that the worst standards of human behaviour are justifiable for the sole reason that someone, anyone, has sunk to that level and escaped retribution.

[Terence]

Forget about it.

I'm obviously up to illegal activities now for drawing unemployment benefit.

Glad you let me know I never realised

[Terence]

Originally Posted by Cynic

From what you've described moving away might not be such a bad idea, would it?:

Doubt it you can take people out of the slum but ye canny take the slum oot ma heid I'd miss it too much !

I positivley enjoy being poor in a strange masochisitic way I'm so used to it now. Probably that requires therapy Lol.