JSA once the kid hits 7

[eFestivals]

Its ok, sit in and watch Jeremy and leave others to do the work is the right sort of image for parents to show their children ? and is fair to the family next door who will ultimately go out and work and pay for them ?

What part of this aren't you getting.....?????>??

1. there are at least 2M more people unemployed than there are jobs.

2. this means that no matter if all unemployed wanted jobs, the numbers unemployed would be no different, no extra jobs would be created and no extra tax would be raised.

3. the same number of children will be exposed to parents who do not work (and in your view are idle and lazy).

4. for each "unwilling worker" that gets a job, a "willing worker" is denied a job - and those "willing workers" see unemployment as far more detrimental to their life than they do the amount they contribute in benefits paid to those not working.

"Fair" only exists in the jobs market and its related welfare payments when there are jobs for all that want them. We're millions of jobs from that 'fair'.

Edited October 25, 2010 by eFestivals

[Paul ™]

Its ok, sit in and watch Jeremy and leave others to do the work is the right sort of image for parents to show their children ? and is fair to the family next door who will ultimately go out and work and pay for them ?

[ampersand]

Would you do a 40 hour week for an extra £20?

[Steve P]

Yeah cause going out to work full time and being £20 a week better off for a 40 hour week is so tempting ain't it.

[eFestivals]

The difference will be in the aspirations and mindset of their children... Seeing a parent trying to find work is more healthy than a parent living off the statae... IMO...

will those aspirations and mindset make a jot of difference to this country as a whole? Nope.

Any person can only reach those aspirations if there's the opportunity to reach those aspirations - and for each person who does, that's one less opportunity for another person.

So are you able to give any benefit for the country via such a policy, or not? I'd say that given your continually failing attempts, the answer is 'not'.

So what we have is a policy backed by the dim and stupid for no purpose other than the likes of you thinking that those people should work when they (on average) simply cannot.

If a 'non-willing' worker gets the job, that's a willing worker without a job - it evens up. You pay no less taxes towards welfare payments whether the 'uinwilling' are forced to work or not.

What you actually object to is your taxes paying for people to be not working and therefore idle, rather than people simply being not working and therefore idle.

What you are is tory scum, without a jot of intelligence.

[Steve P]

Its not £20 though... Its the whole salary, independence, example setting to your children... etc etc

Why should one family have to go out and work for the same thing as you want for free ? Answer that...

If you can't find work you will be supported... If you are able to work why should you be able to sit back, not even try to find work, but not the other family ?

Well ?

Then the same people, like you, piss and f**king moan when people like me dare to reap some of the benefits of not operating your mentality... Not only do you want a free ride, you want everything I go out and work for... f**k off...

[eFestivals]

Why should one family have to go out and work for the same thing as you want for free ? Answer that...

I don't know Oaf, so do please tell us why some people have to go out and work for the things you get for free - 'free' via the extra money that makes you rich enough to buy you the things that other people's effort has created.

It's your own high income that denies others the same opportunities as you. If your wage is twice the average (tho in fact it's greater than that) then that means that your high wage is causing another to be the 'scum' that you hate so much.

It's YOUR fault more than it is theirs.

[eFestivals]

If it wasn't for my own family imposing such aspirations and mindset I would of no doubt be living a similar existence to some of the people I grew up with.

if you were, would someone else have taken the place you now occupy? Yep.

So your aspirations have caused another with no lesser aspirations to fail.

It seems anyone who dosen't want to give people the options of a free ride for life is tory scum in your eyes

No.

Unless they have that free ride, they have to starve.

They can only have a job if there's a job for them. When there are 3M without jobs and less than 1M jobs, not everyone can have a job.

Which part of "When there are 3M without jobs and less than 1M jobs, not everyone can have a job" are you finding so very hard to understand????

Anything you say on this subject around what you've been saying only starts to have a meaning to anyone when there is a national benefit by forcing the few who prefer to not work to work. Otherwise all that is happening is that the people you currently regard as worthless scum because they don't work are replaced by the exact same number of 'worthless scum' who aren't working.

[eFestivals]

You don't half spout some total bollocks...

I see you still don't have the most basic grasp of the most basic economics.

How exactly will income be better distributed so that people can have an income that isn't welfare payments if people like you with an income many times above the average won't allow that wealth to be distributed to them?

I've met chickpeas with more brain power than you.

[Steve P]

You keep mentioning your wife...

[eFestivals]

Not going to bother replying to you... Gets a bit pointless when you keep saying I think people are worthless scum when I never say such things... You need to grow up a bit Neil...

You've certainly made clear that you see them as worthless - you want them to work so that they have, in your eyes, some worth as a human.

As you get to show so very often that you can't join up the dots in your own thinking, I've given you some help by adding 'scum'.

Yet you're not able to say how that can come about, because for each person who gets some 'worth' by getting a job another is made 'worthless' because the job they'd otherwise have has been taken.

[eFestivals]

Piss off Neil... Never said anything remotely like that... That is just you twisting...

sorry, I did get that wrong - you want them to have some worth to you, so you're not supporting them.

Yet you're too dim to realise that for each one you force into work, you are forced to support another person in their place. Making them work does not create one extra job or a penny more in tax and does not reduce the taxes you pay towards welfare.

So why is it so desperately important to you to make some people work who would rather not work when for each success you make someone NOT work who would rather work?

[eFestivals]

You know, not many people sign up to your fag packet economics...

But lets say I do for a second... Its about fairness... Something you say you believe in but you clearly don't...

There's no such nothing as any single 'fairness'.

If things were 'fair', the people with jobs wouldn't do their hardest to ensure that others don't have jobs, via the high wages they pay themselves or accept from others.

If things were 'fair', then the likes of you would be happy to go with your own choices without trying to force them onto others, which is by & large the case for those you are trying to force your ideas upon.

'Fair' would be enough jobs for everyone at all points, so that a culture of people not working and a belief that they chose to not work thru laziness didn't develop in the first place.

If things were 'fair', we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Forcing people to work when there are no jobs for them to work in is not 'fair', it's fecking counter-intelligent. It's f**king stupid.

As a statement of principle, the idea that people should 'earn their keep' on this planet is a sound one. We don't get any closer to that principle by implementing stupid ideas.

The unemployed are the responsibility of all of society: it is via society's choices that they exist. Society needs to realise that its responsibility doesn't start and end with the tax people within it might pay to help lessen some of the consequences of those choices.

[eFestivals]

All I am saying is if you can work then you should try to work... It really shouldn't be a big deal...

That's very different to a system that says it's compulsory and a must-do whilst making it impossible in reality, yet gives financial penalties to any who won't along with that pointless compulsion.

[the real new messiah]

I've read a lot of whats been written, skimmed through some but one thing that keeps being repeated is that there aren't enough jobs to go round. True on a national scale however you can walk into a job center in my local area and there will be hundreds of jobs advertised, some for weeks with no takers whys this? The street i live on has about fourty houses and i would say that thirty five of them the entire house is living on benefits when there is work out there for them to do. Instead they sit around all day drinking stella with the money they have "earned" from drug dealing/shoplifting etc and yes most are parents/single parents and most with small children (like myself i have four) Both me and my wife work fulltime and manage all be it sometimes struggle to drop off pick up children from school/nursery/clubs. My point being is why should one eighth of my street work hard and struggle with balancing work/home/kids whilst the remainder are quite happily paid for by the state?

[eFestivals]

How very true... So you have to deal with each case as it comes in... Instead of your approach of banging on about 50 other things when any single thing is mentioned...

If you want people at the top to pay more taxes... THen it is fair people taking the piss at the bottom are stopped...

Its all trades off...

Only if the 'giving' by those at the top is a fair giving.

The simple fact is that those 'at the top' only have that income as a consequence of those they've forced 'to the bottom'.

It only becomes fair if the are the jobs for them to do - and as a whole there's over 2M less jobs than there needs to be, before these 'willing unemployed' are added to the equation.

Without those jobs it can never be fair, because what is being asked of them is an impossibility.

[eFestivals]

I've read a lot of whats been written, skimmed through some but one thing that keeps being repeated is that there aren't enough jobs to go round. True on a national scale however you can walk into a job center in my local area and there will be hundreds of jobs advertised, some for weeks with no takers whys this? The street i live on has about fourty houses and i would say that thirty five of them the entire house is living on benefits when there is work out there for them to do. Instead they sit around all day drinking stella with the money they have "earned" from drug dealing/shoplifting etc and yes most are parents/single parents and most with small children (like myself i have four) Both me and my wife work fulltime and manage all be it sometimes struggle to drop off pick up children from school/nursery/clubs. My point being is why should one eighth of my street work hard and struggle with balancing work/home/kids whilst the remainder are quite happily paid for by the state?

Because, very simply, it is MUCH better for the state that they are happy to be poor and idle than not happy to be poor or idle.

If you wish for them to be something other than poor and idle then give them the opportunity to be that other. That opportunity is only there when the jobs REALLY are.

[ampersand]

'Fair' would be enough jobs for everyone at all points, so that a culture of people not working and a belief that they chose to not work thru laziness didn't develop in the first place.

[eFestivals]

Just more boring rhetoric...

PMSL.

The rhetoric is yours, where you wish to force people to work because you care so much about them, but while not actually caring enough about them for there to be jobs for them to do as you say they should do.

And you believe that's 'fair'

[eFestivals]

and how exactly is that fair? jeremy kyle and matthew wright would be out of a job!

so they'd get to do some real productive work for the first time in their lives. It's all good.

[eFestivals]

I don't force anyone to do anything... I do what I need to do to provide for my family

You are agreeing with a policy of forcing people into work.

And where, funniy enough, thy are doing what they need to do to provide fror their family.

If you want to present a blue print for changing the world and want me to vote it in then do so... Oh wait, you have already declared yourself to lazy to do that... So while people like you piss and f**king moan, but won't do anything, I will have to keep playing the game the best I can..

But yeah, its me and all those deducted taxes at fault... and not you with the ideas yet no motivation....

Lazy twat

The ideas I subscribe to are out there and able to have your direct support, if you'd like to give them your support. But you don't like.

That's because while you sometime make pleasant noises, at heart you dimly believe that all you have is possible for all. You believed Thatcher when she said we can all be millionaires.

[the real new messiah]

Because, very simply, it is MUCH better for the state that they are happy to be poor and idle than not happy to be poor or idle.

If you wish for them to be something other than poor and idle then give them the opportunity to be that other. That opportunity is only there when the jobs REALLY are.

[Kizzie]

I work full time and I travel hundreds of miles every day to do it. I'm now having a ten minute tea break and a minute on here.

What bugs me is all the people who do have jobs, yet never do any work because they are pontificating on forums all day. Your productivity must be nil, do you go home at night and feel you have contributed to society at all ?

I know....maybe do someone a favour, step aside and let someone else have the bloody job, I'm sure any productivity can only be beneficial for the economy

[eFestivals]

Trust me the jobs REALLY do exists so yes the opportunity for them to be something other than poor and idle is there.

On mass it simply doesn't - unless you'd like to explain how 3M can do 1M jobs (while getting the full-time wage they each need)...?

Please don't we would end up with a society of worthless,idle,poor,lazy drug dealing thieving scum! But hey at least they would be happy because as neil pointed out it is much better for the state

YOU benefit from their happiness, I assure you.

And of course, everyone on benefit is worthless, idle, poor, lazy, drug dealing, and scum. It's cos they're not as clever as you are at making those 1M jobs go round all 3M of them.

[ampersand]

I am currently earning £0 per hour if it makes you feel any better