JSA once the kid hits 7

[Barry Fish]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11617421

Surely once a child hits school age then its time to start looking for work ? I am quite surprised you are allowed up to seven!

What do people think ?

[sifi]

I think that you must get some kind of wired perverse kick out of getting shouted at by Rabun.

[Steve P]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11617421

Surely once a child hits school age then its time to start looking for work ? I am quite surprised you are allowed up to seven!

What do people think ?

[Steve P]

When you go on JSA then you are only expected to apply for jobs which you can reasonably do... You are not going to be forced into full time work. You are just expected to apply and go for the jobs you can do.

Lots of schools do pre and post school clubs etc these days as well.

[RABun]

I think that you must get some kind of wired perverse kick out of getting shouted at by Rabun.

[ampersand]

It's not really until kids get to secondary school that you can really think of leaving them on their own for any stretch.

[Steve P]

If there isn't any jobs then they will just continue to get the money they are currently getting...

[the real new messiah]

If there isn't any jobs then they will just continue to get the money they are currently getting...

Life is tough isn't it... Kids cost money... I think its hard to expect one family to be paying out for their kids and another to live off the state... Both me and the wife have to work to cover the bills and our commitments. Up at 5:30am on the days she is in the office... Kid gets dropped of before 7am and picked back up at 4:45pm... Its tough but millions of families have to do it and I think its just a matter of getting on with it to be frank.

People HAVE become far too dependent on the state.

[eFestivals]

The benefits system is giving people the option of living on benefits because there is no work.

corrected for you.

[Steve P]

They will get exactly the same payment until they find suitable work...

Now you see... I will get bored with plebs like you. First of all it is living off the state... and where did I say it was a "cushy affluent world"...

Anyone who says, ok I can see the sense in that, regarding the restriction of benefits is labeled in this way by silly people like you. I am totally behind parents getting support until the kid goes to school. You seem to ignore that. Then once the kids goes to school and the state looks after them during the day, then get off your arse and look for work. When you find it you will get all those lovely tax credits and other help you need.

I have had periods when I have had no work and no money claiming what little I could get. And when I need help now I have a family I am sure it will be there. But it will be given to me with the understanding I LOOK FOR WORK. and there is nothing wrong with that.

The benefits system is giving people the option of choosing to live on benefits rather than looking for work. That needs to change. I don't sign up for the Tory ideologies like you and some of your chums want to brand anyone who talks about this stuff but I do believe with a bit of a tougher line on the issue.

[eFestivals]

If there really are no jobs

Maths not your strong point then?

3+ million are unemployed. Plus many more who will shortly be added to that figure, those being shifted from invalidity benefit,

500,000 people to be made redundant from public sector jobs, plus another 1M private sector jobs to go say the CBI as a result of those 1/2M public sector jobs.

There's less than 1M jobs currently available (and the majority of those are part time jobs when most people want and need full time work).

There really are no jobs. Pushing people off benefits makes no difference to that.

Edited October 25, 2010 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

where the bone ideal and lazy get applauded

no, it's where the idiot ideas get shown up as being those idiot ideas.

Jobs are not created by pushing people off benefits. It's no answer to any problem.

[sifi]

Where the bone ideal and lazy get applauded

[ampersand]

I think it is ideal to have bones. Otherwise you'll just be a jelly type mess on the floor.

[gratedenini]

...a (loose) scenario...

3 kids 10, 4 & 2.

8.50am.. Jordan to school.

9.15... King Lar to nursery

9.30...Hendrix to childminder

couple hours to get some work done

12.30..collect Lar from nursery and take to school

1pm..collect Hendrix from childminder

(thereafter impossible to do any meaningful work)

3.15 collect King Lar from school

3.30 collect Jordan from his school

Day Gone!!!

Iknow the above could raise a million and one questions etc... but point I`m making is that it aint easy with kids in todays society.

Years ago, this scenario just wouldn`t be an issue because more often than not, Mum would be at home with the kids (no sexism here...cos thats how it was).

So, re above--until it gets to a point where they are all at school "properly"... its a case of The Parent Taxi.

And--then theres the cost implications. Nursery aint cheap--nor is the childminders.

Everyday becomes a constant juggle and half the time, its impossible to get owt done anyway. Running a business under these circumstances is very very difficult.

den

[jump]

Oafish reminds me of this...Ian Duncan Smith, telling 1670 people in a village of 39 jobs to get the bus to Cradiff where there are 1700 jobs for 15000 people.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/oct/25/job-vacancy-duncan-smith-bus

Edited October 25, 2010 by jump

[eFestivals]

No one is being "pushed" off benefits you dip stick... They are being asked to look for work

But will it help anything?

The answer is no, not unless there's jobs for them to do. All it's doing is adding a layer of those who don't want to work to the layer of those who do within the jobs market - mak8ing it harder for those who do want to work to be able to work.

It's an utterly pointless idea until there's extra jobs for these extra people.

[eFestivals]

I have spent most my working life going to where the work is...

I moved to Macclesfield for work... I moved to Warrington for work... If I had stayed where I was born I would never of found any work for what I do..

what did your moving result in?

It resulted in a job for you, and no job for someone else.

Care to point out where the national benefit is?

[eFestivals]

Taxes you total moron and given Labour created public sector jobs shows what an utter moron you are

Some of us work, and some of us don't... Yet its the workers who get called the c**ts

Taxes? Are you meaning extra tax money for the govt? From where?

I asked what national benefit there is by forcing an extra (say) one million people to be looking for work when there's far too few jobs for those already looking for work.

[eFestivals]

A lot of people will find work, no doubt a lot of people won't... be if you keep looking and trying then work will turn up in the end...

yes, thsat might be the case for an individual, but what it also causes is for another individual to not have a job.

So where's the national benefit?

Just because there isn't many jobs out there at the moment I don't think one family should be able to sit back while the family next door look for work and try to keep the jobs they have...

yet the idea you're putting forwards makes it less likely for that "family next door" to keep their job or get a job.

For someone who doesn't have a job, what is most important to them? Getting a job themselves, or ensuring that their neighbour has a job?

Join up the frigging dots!

[RABun]

Taxes you total moron and given Labour created public sector jobs shows what an utter moron you are

Some of us work, and some of us don't... Yet its the workers who get called the c**ts

[eFestivals]

Corporation Tax, Employees Tax... If I am working I am paying into the national... f**k me you are a pleb...

Try turning your brain on.

If someone - the person you regard as a scrounger - gets a job, then another person who wwant a job with all their being does not.

The national benefit from doing that is lower than zero. (Lower than zero because of decreased national happiness).

There is no extra person employed, and no fewer people on benefits - and so there is no extra corp tax, employees tax or anything else.

It about fairness... It is not fair that one family at number 48 gets everything paid for while the family at number 49 has to go out to cover their existence and the existence of the perfectly fit and able family at 48...

Fair enough .... but it's also not fair that the family at number 49 don't get the job they desperately want because the person at number 48 has been forced into taking a job they don't want.

[eFestivals]

You get a job, you work, you earn yourself and the company money, the company grows, it takes on more people...

What a kipper!

Someone who wants that job works, earns themselves and the company money, the company grows, it takes on more people.

Where's the difference? Where's the national benefit?

There's no difference; there is no national benefit. The same number of people are working, the same number of people are claiming benefits.

You a pushing an idea that does NOTHING for the country, while f**king up people's lives.

[eFestivals]

I work hard for the luxurious lifestyle...

Why are you thinking that others aren't prepared to work just as hard to have the same luxurious lifestyle as you have?

Do you think someone digging a hole for 8 hours a day is thinking "this work is much easier than the work oaf does, so I deserve less", in the same but opposite way as you believe you deserve that extra.

and I have made many sacrifices others havent had the opportunity of making...

corrected for you.

Edited October 25, 2010 by eFestivals

[RABun]

My first job out of Uni was for £15k in Macclesfield, I got a loan to cover the relocation costs.

Edited October 25, 2010 by RABun