Would you support this policy?

[MK Shrimper]

Fine - If my Mr Taffy cant find work in his local supermarket or whatever it may be he can go and clean the beaches under my scheme cant he. I fail to see the problem.

If he has worked in this pit he is no doubt big and strong and hence has no reason to be sitting on his **** all day.

Has to be one big beach for thousands of Mr & Mrs Taffy's to clean... and how about the kids who leave school with ABSOLUTELY no future unless they move to a big city only to find they can't afford to buy a shoebox with the ridiculously inflated house prices?

 

[Interpol Shrimper]

It's not - but the need for children of unemployed people to be well looked after will always throw this kind of situation up.

That was her flimsy defence "I need to be available for my kids in case anything happens to them at whatever time and working won't allow me to do that."

Problem was her kids were 3 of the most sullen ignorant problem children I've ever seen in any of these programmes! A happy day for that family was to sit on their flabby arses watching TV all day with the occasional grunt to each other to change the channel or get some more biscuits!

 

[Groyne Strain]

In which case we should properly fund the benefit fraud investigation department so they can look into everything thoroughly rather than the rag-bag under-funded section we now have. it's not right to punish the innocents as well as the benefit cheats in this instance.

For starters investigate everyone who appears on the Jeremy Kyle Show. Once they had their fraudulent benefits taken away the cost to taxpayers would drop by about 90%. Shares in Greggs the Bakers would plummet by a similar amount too.

 

[ldnfatso]

Who'd clear Camp Bling? Overall, I'm in favour!

 

[DTS]

Has to be one big beach for thousands of Mr & Mrs Taffy's to clean... and how about the kids who leave school with ABSOLUTELY no future unless they move to a big city only to find they can't afford to buy a shoebox with the ridiculously inflated house prices?

Having just looked at Monster there are today for example 103 new full time jobs added today (Its only 1pm) which have wages of under £15k. Now this must be better pay than the minimum wage ( So I am assuming they arent that hard to get rightly or wrongly).

Therefore there are 103 people that are in my jobs club that dont need to be and thats just today. I accept its not that easy but my point in there are jobs out there at a lower level.

At a higher level I think it is a lot harder.

And the average house price in South Wales accorinding to this weeks mortgage manager magazine is £72k - So they are hardly out of reach are they baring in mind you would need a joint income of £14,400 to afford one.

 

[Interpol Shrimper]

So you want to take the unemployed, and employ them without paying them a wage, and still call them unemployed?

Yeah, I can see how you think it's a vote winner.

Well you wouldn't call them unemployed would you (surely another boost for this policy, the unemployment figures would be slashed)? No doubt there would be some thinktank employed to come up with a PC non-threatening, non-superior name for everybody.

Community Action Operatives or something like that no doubt!

 

[Napster]

Shares in Greggs the Bakers would plummet by a similar amount too.

Shares in Greggs have plummeted since Dave pointed out the North/South price bias anyway

:)

 

[Interpol Shrimper]

Having just looked at Monster there are today for example 103 new full time jobs added today (Its only 1pm) which have wages of under £15k. Now this must be better pay than the minimum wage ( So I am assuming they arent that hard to get rightly or wrongly).

Minimum wage is around £5.20 an hour IIRC.
Assume standard working week of 37.5 hours, therefore that equals 1,950 hours a year.
Therefore approx £10k pa.

 

[Firestorm]

If they can prove they have an interview then of course they can have an afternoon off. They can look for jobs after 5pm in the same way most of us do.

But they are not recieving benefit for being unemployed...its now a Job seekers allowance. If they are seeking jobs doing after 5 o/c then so am I and i want my allowance.

That said it is a step in regulating the fraudsters, Alternatively your colleague could have taken her details , reported her and let the repayment and prison sentence act as a deterrent to others.

Again , regulate employers, stop them paying cash in hand to save on employers NI etc and then fraud will be cut down

 

[DTS]

But they are not recieving benefit for being unemployed...its now a Job seekers allowance. If they are seeking jobs doing after 5 o/c then so am I and i want my allowance.

That said it is a step in regulating the fraudsters, Alternatively your colleague could have taken her details , reported her and let the repayment and prison sentence act as a deterrent to others.

Again , regulate employers, stop them paying cash in hand to save on employers NI etc and then fraud will be cut down

Call it what you will but I am talking about any form of support for people that are unemployed. The unemployed can have a job hunt anytime they want as they are not working. I guess it is harder for an employed person as they have work traditonally in the week.

Needless to say she would not give her details. If we here of ths we would always report it as I think everyone is against benefit fraud.

 

[DTS]

But they are not recieving benefit for being unemployed...its now a Job seekers allowance. If they are seeking jobs doing after 5 o/c then so am I and i want my allowance.

That said it is a step in regulating the fraudsters, Alternatively your colleague could have taken her details , reported her and let the repayment and prison sentence act as a deterrent to others.

Again , regulate employers, stop them paying cash in hand to save on employers NI etc and then fraud will be cut down

Call it what you will but I am talking about any form of support for people that are unemployed. The unemployed can have a job hunt anytime they want as they are not working. I guess it is harder for an employed person as they have work traditonally in the week.

Needless to say she would not give her details. If we hear of ths we would always report it as I think everyone is against benefit fraud.

 

[Mad Cyril]

Times are slow in the world of mortgage broking at the moment. We did however have a call today from a potential customer who called up on the off chance.

This customer basically told Anna in the office that she was claiming full unemployment benefit as she was unable to find work. As she had no job Anna quite rightly told her we wont be able to find a lender to help her.

She then revealed that she also works 30 hours a week in a hairdressers in Morecombe but she dosent declare that as its cash in hand and would stop her getting benefits.

We all agreed this is wrong. So we have come up with this policy which I think will be a real vote winner for the Tories/Labour/ MK lefty party etc etc.

If you are unemployed you have to report to Monday to Friday 9-5pm to a goverment run scheme (unless you have an interview). This scheme would be there to do commuity jobs such as clean parks, streets etc - Any job that basically benefits the community that is supporting it.

If the unemployed turn up they get there benefits. If they miss a day there money is pro-rate down. This would also be paid at the rate of minimum wage. There are no holidays except public holidays whilst unemployed.

At the end of a year if you still have not found work then you are forced to work saturdays too. If you claim you too ill to work then you have to undergo an thorough and tough examination.

I reckon this is a vote winner. Is there anyone out there that does not agree. If you can see any flaws in this scheme again I would welcome the feedback. I think the hardest bit will be proving people can work.

I will mail it to Dave Cameron at 5pm and I expect it to be in the papers next week.

We in the office beleive this hard work would make the unemployed

I watched a program the other night about sub prime lending and it basically said that all mortgage brokers were a bunch of shysters.

Why didn't you sort this person out with a NINJA mortgage and trouser your fee?

:)

 

[Usual_Suspect]

Anything that stops people claiming benefits that they aren't due is a good plan in my eyes. People who haven't got jobs/claiming benefits because they are too lazy/happy taking the benefits and sitting in the Last Post should be made to do local work, why should they get paid to sit around doing **** all everyday when the rest of us have to work for our money?

 

[Firestorm]

But they can be doing the work that our already strecthed public services cant do. For example how often is the local park cleaned properly. Once every few months - Under my scheme we would have an army of workers.

Then councils who are struggling to meet budget, dispense with the "employed" contactors who are currently cleaning the park (albeit only once a month as the council can't afford it any more frequently) so that they can do it even cheaper , (thus saving the Council tax for those who are working) . These Unemployed Gardeners then sign on , only to find themselves down the same park, two weeks later doing their own job at 9/10ths of the pay, no pension etc . whilst trying to look for a job when every Council is doing the same thing.

How about increasing income tax by 5p in the pound over 50k pa and 10p over 100k and then using the money to pay councils more so that they can gainfully employ more of these people to cut the park, sweep the streets etc

 

[MK Shrimper]

Firestorm wins sensible solution post of the day.

 

[Mad Cyril]

All very well to blame the poor - look at the obscenely rich who hire accountants to stash huge sums of money away from the tax man in off shore accounts, MP's with vast expense accounts, premiership footballers.

The gap between rich and poor is growing ever wider every year.

Imprisoning U2 would be a good start.

I know they are Irish but that is just a technicality.

 

[MK Shrimper]

Mad Cyril for PM!

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

The trouble with any scheme like this would be the cost of implementing it.

You'd need to raise taxes in order to organise suitable schemes. The amount of administration needed to provide jobs for one and a half million people would be immense. You'd need to find suitable projects, vet candidates (you couldn't send a sex offender to help kids learn to read at a school), provide the necessary equipment (you'd need 3 million gloves and 1.5 million bin bags if you are going to send them to tidy beaches and parks), you'd need to employ people to supervise people doing all this (otherwise what is to stop someone turning up, signing something to say they've done it, and buggering off home?) etc etc.

Employing all those people would make the Employment Agency the third biggest employer in the world, behind only the Red Army and the Indian Railways. It would be an even bigger organisation than the NHS, and so the costs of running it would likely be along the lines of running the NHS. You'd have to raise income tax a couple of per cent to pay for this scheme.

 

[Mad Cyril]

'Return of the Mac' star Mark Morrison paid a look alike to do his community service for him.

Unfortunately for him he was caught out and sent to prison.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

All very well to blame the poor - look at the obscenely rich who hire accountants to stash huge sums of money away from the tax man in off shore accounts, MP's with vast expense accounts, premiership footballers.

The gap between rich and poor is growing ever wider every year.

Yeah, Pol Pot had the right idea. The way to stop the gap between rich and poor is to turn the economy back to the dark ages. On an agrarian collectivist economy (particularly if you start killing the intellectuals who might figure out how to make life better for themselves) there's no gap between rich and poor. Much fairer than the West at the moment, when if people do well for themselves they may be able to buy a third or fourth car, instead of the mere two cars that a not so well off family would have.