I mean I’ll happily have a debate about the merits of UBI in a world where we’re rushing towards mass unemployment, but that’s aside it’s a very very small segment of people on welfare who are “playing the system”.
It’s bullshit rhetoric designed to get people shouting down at the poorest in our society whilst the richest get away with stealing from us all.
UBI changes the game too though as you don’t lose if if you are working. Its always there so you don’t have to navigate a beurocratic process instead of being able to look for work.
It’s a very small segment, if you assume everybody that is labelled as “sick” are actually unable to work in any way (doubtful). But even without that it’s close to a million
Plenty would happily work “a bit” or “in some way”, but there’s not a lot in the system to support assisted/flexible/partial working etc.
If you have injuries, ailments, illnesses, they’re still asking you to work 40 hours or go fully on sick, rather than supporting a “however many hours you can manage” and a small topup to maintain a basic standard of living.
These used to be part of the system, in the earlier part of the “working tax credits” era.
How many of those who claim to be happy to work also happen to be incredibly picky about the work they would choose to do and when it comes to it in reality are actually happier cashing in benefits?
I’m sorry to hear that - and I don’t doubt they exist, but i don’t think it’s in the numbers that sometimes get portrayed, more in “statistically irrelevant” sort of numbers - though it will depend vastly on where you live in the country. I’m sure it’s a visible problem in some specific areas or communities.
However, I also think people (and the job centre) should be picky about the work people are applying for, at least for a while. This was also formerly part of the system, where they pretty much gave you a year of looking for relevant work, before enforcing other options.
When someone better qualified (like when a large employer in an area suddenly closes) is forced to do an entry level job, especially through one of those “supporting you back to work” scams, where you work 40 hours in exchange for your dole & landlord benefit (i.e. working for ~£3 an hour) - you’re blocking all the entry level work from people who can currently only apply to it.
Personally, I’d rather let the handful of gleeful scroungers skip joyously down the road with their £70 in hand and do nothing, than punish millions of genuinely struggling people “just in case”.
I mean I’ll happily have a debate about the merits of UBI in a world where we’re rushing towards mass unemployment, but that’s aside it’s a very very small segment of people on welfare who are “playing the system”.
It’s bullshit rhetoric designed to get people shouting down at the poorest in our society whilst the richest get away with stealing from us all.
UBI changes the game too though as you don’t lose if if you are working. Its always there so you don’t have to navigate a beurocratic process instead of being able to look for work.
It’s a very small segment, if you assume everybody that is labelled as “sick” are actually unable to work in any way (doubtful). But even without that it’s close to a million
Plenty would happily work “a bit” or “in some way”, but there’s not a lot in the system to support assisted/flexible/partial working etc.
If you have injuries, ailments, illnesses, they’re still asking you to work 40 hours or go fully on sick, rather than supporting a “however many hours you can manage” and a small topup to maintain a basic standard of living.
These used to be part of the system, in the earlier part of the “working tax credits” era.
How many of those who claim to be happy to work also happen to be incredibly picky about the work they would choose to do and when it comes to it in reality are actually happier cashing in benefits?
I know my father is exactly that.
I’m sorry to hear that - and I don’t doubt they exist, but i don’t think it’s in the numbers that sometimes get portrayed, more in “statistically irrelevant” sort of numbers - though it will depend vastly on where you live in the country. I’m sure it’s a visible problem in some specific areas or communities.
However, I also think people (and the job centre) should be picky about the work people are applying for, at least for a while. This was also formerly part of the system, where they pretty much gave you a year of looking for relevant work, before enforcing other options.
When someone better qualified (like when a large employer in an area suddenly closes) is forced to do an entry level job, especially through one of those “supporting you back to work” scams, where you work 40 hours in exchange for your dole & landlord benefit (i.e. working for ~£3 an hour) - you’re blocking all the entry level work from people who can currently only apply to it.
Personally, I’d rather let the handful of gleeful scroungers skip joyously down the road with their £70 in hand and do nothing, than punish millions of genuinely struggling people “just in case”.
You’ve brought your father up a couple of times in this thread. It feels like you’re projecting a bit.
I get having a shit dad, but not everyone is the same