I think that people who are in receipt of JSA should have to do work to be entitled to claim their benefit, i also think that couples with families jointly in recepit of IS should have to have one partner doing the same. I dont think that people in receipt DLA or single mothers should have to for obvious reasons, although i think they should be given the choice to. I dont see why money should be thrown at people who are capable of working but simply dont want to, it's not fair on those who have to work and pay taxes, it's not just the JSA its all that comes with it too, housing benefit, council tax benefit, free prescriptions etc etc. I think the DSS should make people in recepit of JSA do some kind of community services, since it's the communities taxes that go towards paying for all their benefits!! I think some people on JSA have no intention of seeking a job although i know lots of them really really do and i think its unfair on those that do get tarred with the same brush.
2007-06-05 12:09:11 · 9 answers · asked by Mrs Jones 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Sorry i ran out of space so
JSA is job seekers allowance
IS is income support
DSS is department of social security
DLA is Disabilitly Living Allowance
2007-06-05 12:36:02 · update #1
Adding to your proposal, if the recipients of public assistance test positive for drug use--they enter rehab and their benefits are cut. Their children will remain in the home after a first offense. On the second offense, they are banned from PA programs and their children are placed in protective service.....where of course the parents will be required to work to pay their child support.
Full benefits (for able bodied people) should be limited to 6 months (while recipients received job training), cut by 25% for the next 3 months, another 25% after that and finally cut off. You can not reapply until you've been in the work force for at least 2 years (with provisions made for mass-layoffs, plant closings etc).
Absolutely NO able bodied person should receive a lifetime of benefits. And absolutely NO benefits for illegals. If they are not self supporting--let THEIR OWN government take care of them. These programs were suppose to help those who are injured or ill and can not work. If they would limit benefits, they would be able to help those who are falling through the cracks and work like it was intended to.
2007-06-05 12:39:39 · answer #1 · answered by Cherie 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Here Here!!!, I think most people are on this wavelength, those in obvious need should get it. The system is lax in forcibly encouraging people back to work, a review board should be set up for long term claimants and action in place to get them back in the work force through re-training. The government is quick enough to come up with great ideas to squeeze even more money out of the tax payers (taxing us on large gardens) for example than dealing with the likes of this lot.
Confidence probably plays a big part in some people not actively seeking work after a long spell outside the workplace, but thats no excuse for the majority of idle shirkers who think its their god damn right to scrounge every penny from anything going!.
2007-06-05 12:59:36 · answer #2 · answered by christine m 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I agree totally, assuming of course they are of able body they should be working, i.e litter picking, painting, clearing ponds, whatever work in the community which needs doing. After all, it is the community which is paying for them to sit at home. Of course for those genuine people who can't find work, surely a short window of time (2/3 months) should be allowed to find job on their own first. If after this time they still haven't found employment, I feel after this time they should me given work to do, even if it just part-time hours (though full-time preferable), to do at least. If they don't agree, then withdraw all benefits and chuck em out of wherever they get their freebie board and lodging. Benefit scroungers would be sorted out in no time at all, a simple solution. And for those not on any kind of benefits, who work for a living, can have some respect and hold some dignity for those who aren't working.
2007-06-05 12:37:41 · answer #3 · answered by rikerlock 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yeah quite right. I've been on jobseekers allowance for about a maximum of two weeks between jobs, shouldn't take any longer if you're really trying to find one. Too many people would rather scrounge than get off their ars*es and look for work, then they have the cheek to complain about immigrants doing the work. If they made them spend 8 hours a day picking up litter it might change their minds!
2007-06-05 12:25:34 · answer #4 · answered by nick 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
despite if very severe and persons shouldn't scrounge or cheat, it is basically the top of the ice berg once you look in any respect of city hall pensions that we are going to no longer discover the money for to pay from now on, and once you look on the MP's expenses and each and all of the wastage that is going on in quangos and city hall non-jobs. it is the place we could desire to continually be attempting to decrease the main. earnings fraud, even though it desires tackling is tiny in comparrison to all that different government waste.
2016-11-26 02:49:57 · answer #5 · answered by latshaw 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree and this is what a certain Presidential candidate is going to force a lot more to do, she likes people depending on the government hand outs. That way, the government has more control.. and lazy people is who she is targeting for votes.
2007-06-05 12:21:43 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Whats with all the acronyms? In short, only those that deserve bene's should get them! WTH is the matter with our politics?
We need a new deal for America and quick!
2007-06-05 12:15:46 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
everyone on here needs to go and get a job!
2007-06-05 20:42:41 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes we could send them round all the pubs to clean up all the stubs from cigarettes.
2007-06-05 12:41:46 · answer #9 · answered by Aonarach 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋