Except that as well as the 71/week they will still be getting housing benefit/council tax benefit.
Plus there's probably a payment to cover transport.
They don't get the money for rent/ council tax in hand though.
council tenant, you will not be paid Housing Benefit directly. Instead it will be taken off the rent you have to pay so you pay less rent, or no rent yourself.
If you have a private landlord, you will be paid straight into your bank account. Sometimes the council can pay your landlord directly.
And the £71 a week is the amount the Government says single people 25 and over need to live on each week, and out of that £71they have to pay their bills, buy food and clothes and everything else they need to live half decent lives including the money for transport.
I would not argue for a tougher or softer regime but for the process to be run more efficiently in order to respond to the individuals need and assist those who can to find or move towards finding relevant work or contribute in some other way to society.
The big mistake the coalition has made is the one size fits all approach and the slowness in acknowledging or taking responsibility for the anomalies that have arisen
By all means lets punish those who willfully defraud the system, also reviewing each benefit to see what it is designed to achieve and whether the current means are best for achieving that end
When pushed only a few would say that welfare is either all good or all bad, it may need to be reduced in total but the energy should be invested in proper cost/benefit analysis rather than a macho competition to see who is the hardest.
Surely if a job becomes available, then it should be open to anyone, not just parachute someone in by virtue of the fact theyve been unemployed for 2 years. How is that fair on someone who may have only been unemployed for 6 months, and is better qualified and more motivated to taking the job? Just sticking anyone in any old job is just asking for trouble. This seems to be just about shifting a problem rather than trying to resolve it.
Where are all these magic jobs going to come from? Who is going to fund them?
The bankers bonuses will (again) and quite what jobs these will be I have no idea whatsoever. They are just 'guaranteed'. I have seen people claim that Labour are going to build new houses so they will be involved in that, but again, quite HOW that would work seems hasn't been divulged. The entire scheme is laughable, has very little detail and is being funded by spending a tax they have already spent numerous times.
Where are all these magic jobs going to come from? Who is going to fund them?
Amazing how jobs suddenly appear from thin air when a company is paid by the Government to take on taxpayer subsidised labour. I know it'll be a mindblowing and abstract concept for the right wing, but how about the same companies pay a decent wage to someone to do that job?
But still, nice of the right wing commentators to finally admit there are no jobs out there, instead of the usual "you can get a job by clicking your fingers" they tend to patronise jobseekers with.
Amazing how jobs suddenly appear from thin air when a company is paid by the Government to take on taxpayer subsidised labour. I know it'll be a mindblowing and abstract concept for the right wing, but how about the same companies pay a decent wage to someone to do that job?
But still, nice of the right wing commentators to finally admit there are no jobs out there, instead of the usual "you can get a job by clicking your fingers" they tend to patronise jobseekers with.
Erm, there are jobs out there, but no-one is guaranteeing you will get one. This scheme says you WILL get a job, but they haven't said what it will be, how it will be funded (claiming the bankers tax will pay for it is pathetic as they've already spent it loads of times) or for how long the job will be 'guaranteed'.
didn't realise, that people on JSA were getting bills + £71.
Which only shows the cloud cuckoo land that the poster who said that is living in
This is just another way for a party to race to the bottom and show why they shouldn't be elected
After saying IDS is wrong then why copy him and be worse? Why not plan a scheme that is realistic, affordable and will work?
But still, nice of the right wing commentators to finally admit there are no jobs out there, instead of the usual "you can get a job by clicking your fingers" they tend to patronise jobseekers with.
Er - its not the 'right-wing' who are promising that there are all these jobs available for the unemployed.
There's probably plenty of work, but few jobs, out there.
Much needs to be done but no-one seems to have the money to pay people to do it.
Plenty of work. Plenty of available manpower. Little money.
Any Government could possibly solve the problem, or at least alleviate it, on a temporary basis by borrowing more but aren't we supposed to be trying to decrease the national debt rather than increase it?
Dunno - you need to ask Ed Miliband, he seems to think he can guarantee a job for anyone that needs one.
It will be mostly working in the public sector Labour have a track record on this ....it will be creating non jobs...that the taxpayer (whether through council tax....watch council tax go up under Labour like it did before) will have to pay for....and also its their pensions too remember.....
Dunno - you need to ask Ed Miliband, he seems to think he can guarantee a job for anyone that needs one.
If full time jobs were there to be had,even minimum waged jobs, the unemployed would be taking them so what are Labour talking about. Maybe they have finally been brainwashed by Osborn' and IDS into believing that there are jobs but the unemployed are happy to scrounge off the taxpayer. :rolleyes:
If full time jobs were there to be had,even minimum waged jobs, the unemployed would be taking them so what are Labour talking about.
good question - if you ever find out...
Maybe they have finally been brainwashed by Osborn' and IDS into believing that there are jobs but the unemployed are happy to scrounge off the taxpayer. :rolleyes:
Well Ed claims to have rediscovered Socialism so perhaps he is susceptible to brainwashing?
Well Ed claims to have rediscovered Socialism so perhaps he is susceptible to brainwashing?
I don't think he has, unfortunately.
But why must a Socialist be "brainwashed"? I would think such a process is far more likely to have been imposed on those who live in a society who are taught that there is no credible alternative to it, and that any proposed change is in the province of fanatical, dangerous "extremists", who do not take cognisance of "human nature" , and who are, in fact, "evil". Hello UK.
Here is what Labour said in January. The cost was estimated at £1billion.
Initially the guarantee would be for adults who are out of work for 24 months or more, but we would seek to reduce this to 18 or 12 months over time.
There are currently 129,400 adults over the age of 25 who have been out of work for 24 months or more – a rise of 88 percent since the same month last year and a rise of 146 per cent in the last two years.
If you are long term unemployed, you will have to take one of these jobs. You are now back in the "work habit", like it or not. If you have to get up early every day I would suggest that you will soon be looking for a better job.
With regard to the cost of this scheme that so many of you have focused on, are you sure that you are making a fair comparison with the cost of the same person staying on benefits for the remaining 10, 20, or 50 years of his working life? One poster has fairly pointed out that there are Benefit Claimants who receive more than £71! The cost burden of giving those people a min wage job may not be significant - even if you top it up with Working Tax Credit. (You can't have it both ways. )
The Tories want the long term unemployed to experience work to get them get them back into the work habit.
Labour want to make the experience even more realistic by adding a vital element. A wage packet.
It will be mostly working in the public sector Labour have a track record on this ....it will be creating non jobs...that the taxpayer (whether through council tax....watch council tax go up under Labour like it did before) will have to pay for....and also its their pensions too remember.....
Maybe but they may not necessarily be none jobs. There is a shortage of public sector workers now, and by 2015 it could possibly be a lot worse if this government doesn't do something about it
What could be better than offering the long-term unemployed a job that pays at least minimum wage? I'd think many people would jump at the opportunity, it sounds like a brilliant idea.
Rather than finding ways of getting people 'off benefits' (notice Tories never say into work) using ever more convoluted, hoop-jumping regimes in order to justify sanctions to get people off benefits, give them a job with a wage.
Maybe but they may not necessarily be none jobs. There is a shortage of public sector workers now, and by 2015 it could possibly be a lot worse if this government doesn't do something about it
Comments
They don't get the money for rent/ council tax in hand though.
http://www.turn2us.org.uk/information__resources/benefits/housing_costs/housing_benefit_e,_s,_w.aspx
And the £71 a week is the amount the Government says single people 25 and over need to live on each week, and out of that £71they have to pay their bills, buy food and clothes and everything else they need to live half decent lives including the money for transport.
https://www.gov.uk/jobseekers-allowance/what-youll-get
Talking about living in cloud cuckoo land, did you know that working people can claim benefits on top of their wages ?
But if what you say is correct then what does Cameron and co mean when they claim to be on the side of 'hardworking people'.?
Are they referring to the 1% of high earners.
The big mistake the coalition has made is the one size fits all approach and the slowness in acknowledging or taking responsibility for the anomalies that have arisen
By all means lets punish those who willfully defraud the system, also reviewing each benefit to see what it is designed to achieve and whether the current means are best for achieving that end
When pushed only a few would say that welfare is either all good or all bad, it may need to be reduced in total but the energy should be invested in proper cost/benefit analysis rather than a macho competition to see who is the hardest.
Where are all these magic jobs going to come from? Who is going to fund them?
They could enter into a Public Private Partnership with Peter Pan & Wendy and borrow the required resources from Never Never land.
The bankers bonuses will (again) and quite what jobs these will be I have no idea whatsoever. They are just 'guaranteed'. I have seen people claim that Labour are going to build new houses so they will be involved in that, but again, quite HOW that would work seems hasn't been divulged. The entire scheme is laughable, has very little detail and is being funded by spending a tax they have already spent numerous times.
If it wasn't so accurate that would be funny..:(
But still, nice of the right wing commentators to finally admit there are no jobs out there, instead of the usual "you can get a job by clicking your fingers" they tend to patronise jobseekers with.
Erm, there are jobs out there, but no-one is guaranteeing you will get one. This scheme says you WILL get a job, but they haven't said what it will be, how it will be funded (claiming the bankers tax will pay for it is pathetic as they've already spent it loads of times) or for how long the job will be 'guaranteed'.
This is just another way for a party to race to the bottom and show why they shouldn't be elected
After saying IDS is wrong then why copy him and be worse? Why not plan a scheme that is realistic, affordable and will work?
Er - its not the 'right-wing' who are promising that there are all these jobs available for the unemployed.
What are the current available jobs v unemployment figures for the UK ?
Much needs to be done but no-one seems to have the money to pay people to do it.
Plenty of work. Plenty of available manpower. Little money.
Any Government could possibly solve the problem, or at least alleviate it, on a temporary basis by borrowing more but aren't we supposed to be trying to decrease the national debt rather than increase it?
Because it's the Labour Party.
Dunno - you need to ask Ed Miliband, he seems to think he can guarantee a job for anyone that needs one.
It will be mostly working in the public sector Labour have a track record on this ....it will be creating non jobs...that the taxpayer (whether through council tax....watch council tax go up under Labour like it did before) will have to pay for....and also its their pensions too remember.....
If full time jobs were there to be had,even minimum waged jobs, the unemployed would be taking them so what are Labour talking about. Maybe they have finally been brainwashed by Osborn' and IDS into believing that there are jobs but the unemployed are happy to scrounge off the taxpayer. :rolleyes:
good question - if you ever find out...
Well Ed claims to have rediscovered Socialism so perhaps he is susceptible to brainwashing?
I don't think he has, unfortunately.
But why must a Socialist be "brainwashed"? I would think such a process is far more likely to have been imposed on those who live in a society who are taught that there is no credible alternative to it, and that any proposed change is in the province of fanatical, dangerous "extremists", who do not take cognisance of "human nature" , and who are, in fact, "evil". Hello UK.
A bit 1984-ish, actually.
Initially the guarantee would be for adults who are out of work for 24 months or more, but we would seek to reduce this to 18 or 12 months over time.
There are currently 129,400 adults over the age of 25 who have been out of work for 24 months or more – a rise of 88 percent since the same month last year and a rise of 146 per cent in the last two years.
If you are long term unemployed, you will have to take one of these jobs. You are now back in the "work habit", like it or not. If you have to get up early every day I would suggest that you will soon be looking for a better job.
With regard to the cost of this scheme that so many of you have focused on, are you sure that you are making a fair comparison with the cost of the same person staying on benefits for the remaining 10, 20, or 50 years of his working life? One poster has fairly pointed out that there are Benefit Claimants who receive more than £71! The cost burden of giving those people a min wage job may not be significant - even if you top it up with Working Tax Credit. (You can't have it both ways.
The Tories want the long term unemployed to experience work to get them get them back into the work habit.
Labour want to make the experience even more realistic by adding a vital element. A wage packet.
Maybe but they may not necessarily be none jobs. There is a shortage of public sector workers now, and by 2015 it could possibly be a lot worse if this government doesn't do something about it
http://www.theinformationdaily.com/2013/06/14/shortage-of-social-work-staff-casts-doubts-on-the-sector
http://www.nursingtimes.net/nursing-practice/clinical-zones/management/nhs-to-face-chronic-nurse-shortage-by-2016/5059871.article
Rather than finding ways of getting people 'off benefits' (notice Tories never say into work) using ever more convoluted, hoop-jumping regimes in order to justify sanctions to get people off benefits, give them a job with a wage.
It's a stroke of genius...
There are a lot of fully trained social workers and nurses amongst the long-term unemployed?