Work for Benefits

trueblue · #1 (**permalink**) 31-07-2008, 09:08 AM

I think most of us will agree that this is a good idea. We'd agree that to get benefits people should be giving something back if they're able.

What do we do with those people who simply refuse to work? I guess the immediate answer would be to stop their benefits. Then what? Will they turn to a life of crime if they simply refuse to work, or will they live in horrible conditions, along with their children, inducing a new cycle of deprivation?

Just what do we do with those who will not work not matter what?

Froix · #2 (**permalink**) 31-07-2008, 02:21 PM

Agreed of course. Wouldn't have it any other way. Encourage work for those who can. Exemption benefits to those who can't, to those who really can't.

I honestly don't think any parent would refuse any job offered but heh! I wouldn't know.

As for those who won't work no matter what, send them to research labs as guinea pigs.

elvenrunelord · #3 (**permalink**) 31-07-2008, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Froix

Agreed of course. Wouldn't have it any other way. Encourage work for those who can. Exemption benefits to those who can't, to those who really can't.

I honestly don't think any parent would refuse any job offered but heh! I wouldn't know.

As for those who won't work no matter what, send them to research labs as guinea pigs.

A prime example of someone who is thinking with their animal brain rather than looking into what the problem really is. I know plenty of people who have just given up on work because whether they work or not they have no chance of actually profiting. Jobs must pay a wage worth earning to get workers who really want to do the job.

liowkc · #4 (**permalink**) 01-08-2008, 09:05 AM

Workfare and not welfare; the American experience may be instructive; some welfare reforms had cut down abuses tremendously - the so called welfare queens

Froix · #5 (**permalink**) 01-08-2008, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elvenrunelord

A prime example of someone who is thinking with their animal brain rather than looking into what the problem really is. I know plenty of people who have just given up on work because whether they work or not they have no chance of actually profiting. Jobs must pay a wage worth earning to get workers who really want to do the job.

That's where 'work for benefits' come in. For the government to help people who help themselves. Quitting work is hardly a solution to problems earning wage. Just not an excuse to get welfare. As for unworthy jobs, it's a wonder some complain of immigrants stealing them.

mandiees · #6 (**permalink**) 01-08-2008, 04:09 PM

People who will not work, no matter what, really should be subject to the life that particular way of living affords them. Yes, this may result in some people living in poor conditions, but what kind of lesson does it teach to offer handouts to everyone that is simply just lazy. If people can work, they should, if there is some sort of reason why they are unable to work, they should be taken care of, but people who do not work because "they do not want to" should be left to fend for themselves; its the hard reality of workfare programs.

peterf · #7 (**permalink**) 02-08-2008, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trueblue

I think most of us will agree that this is a good idea. We'd agree that to get benefits people should be giving something back if they're able.

What do we do with those people who simply refuse to work? I guess the immediate answer would be to stop their benefits. Then what? Will they turn to a life of crime if they simply refuse to work, or will they live in horrible conditions, along with their children, inducing a new cycle of deprivation?

Just what do we do with those who will not work not matter what?

The 'cycle of deprivation' is a term invented by hand-wringing liberals. No one has been 'deprived' of anything. The children of idle, feckless parents tend to grow up to be the same because of their genes - not the relative poverty of their childhood. Throwing ever larger sums of money at their mothers solves no problems.

trance · #8 (**permalink**) 03-08-2008, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peterf

The 'cycle of deprivation' is a term invented by hand-wringing liberals. No one has been 'deprived' of anything. The children of idle, feckless parents tend to grow up to be the same because of their genes - not the relative poverty of their childhood. Throwing ever larger sums of money at their mothers solves no problems.

I don't for one second believe that its due to their genes. It is their upbringing. I do agree throwing money at the problem does not create a solution though. We need to help people help themselves, not just help them.

danwells · #9 (**permalink**) 04-08-2008, 03:52 PM

Whats wrong is Labour think money can solve everything. They think throwing money at the NHS solves it, they think throwing money at education solves it, and they think throwing money at the underclass solves it.

When will they get a clue? The underclass is not suffering from poverty of money, they are suffering from poverty of ambition.

danny0278 · #10 (**permalink**) 07-08-2008, 05:08 PM

I also agree with your idea, that a person should be paid according to amount of work done by him. His salary should be weighed according to his work,