if people are capable of work but refuse should all their benefits be stopped?

Answer 1

Their benefits ARE stopped in this situation.

Answer 2

No. It mignt actually make economic sense to pay people not to work. However, that does not mean that people should not be asked to make a contribution.

Every employer wants the best person for the job, and will take pains to select the right person. Employing the wrong person is not profitable. The days of just get a job are over. Factories go where the cheap labour is and it is not here.

We are now in a service driven economy, particularly on what you buy, and this has to be serviced by people willing to serve you and supply the goods.

There are some people who will not fit in with this picture, they are capable of working, but there actual chances of being employed are slim, because despite how many jobs they apply for their chances of being selected for interview are low. Their chances of employment diminish the longer they are out of work.

The person in work has to foot the bill and it causes resentment because they see people faring well for no effort.

The social services such as the Department of Work and Pensions are doing therir best to apply the regulations and administer the system, and there is awareness of fraudulent claiming and counter measures are in place.

Now generally where you have a system that is to be a benefit it will be abused, people will take advantage, they will cheat.

However, just because people are not employed, does not mean they should be unoccupied. Nor is it necessary that they should spend all their time looking for work, unless they have a high probabilty factor of finding work, at last the help is given on this from the word go, when keeness for finding a job is at its height.

There are tasks that are not economically viable but which need to be done. There are things which could be done, but no body bothers about. There are organistaions such as charities that need volunteers.

Now instead of a means test, if claimants were assessed by their local Chamber of Commerce, say, on their employability, that would do two things, it would show the individual where they stood, what chances they have, and would indicate generally where failing were so that they can be rectified.

The main problem a job seeker faces is that it entails very little social interaction, and often being able to interact socially is the key to employment. People who are in work gernrally are put in a highly socialised structure with plenty of opportunity for social interaction. So, evern though most people only get paid enough to go home eat, pay a few bills, and come back to work again, there is a greater chance they feel more fulfilled than a person out of work.

Therefore to get the best there would also have to be some sort of social structure to alternative occupation, and I think if such a sytem were in place, organisations that needed volunteers and Councils, say that need jobs doing but the budget never reaches that far, can actually tap into it, so that the benefit can actually be seen and appreciated, there would be less resentment to paying tax for people out of work and claiming benefits.

This of course is a political quagmire, with accusations of cheap labour that should be done by persons properly trained and paid the going rate, and there is also the 'Community Service; aspect. but I'm not asking for the perfiect world, so when I say. some people should be paid not to work, there should also be value for money.

Answer 3

You LOOK at a person and say---"GEEZ HE LOOKS CAPABLE OF WORKING" and you see him going to his mailbox to get his monthly social security disability check... what you DON'T see is that this man had Congestive Heart failure, Pulmonary Hypertension, which is destroying his liver and kidney (he was only born with ONE but you KNEW that because you can SEE his disaibility RIGHT?), and his bladder is all messed up due to the lack of oxygen to his vital organs due to the congestive heart failure---but WAIT, he LOOKS normal!!!!! I am on Social Security Disability and I ALSO worked for the GOVERNMENT for 35 YEARS... I AM the person who LOOKS normal but has all those things mentioned above---and oh yeah ----IT's TERMINAL so the next time you stick your nose into someone else's business and ACCUSE them of RIPPING OFF THE GOVERNMENT, remember this---it takes 6 ENTIRE MONTHS from the time you APPLY for disability until the time you get your first check--IF you get a check at all---a LOT of people are denied!!!! You have to have complete DOCUMENTATION presented to the Social security administration from ALL of your doctors showing test results, conditions and diagnosis's AND the prognosis (for those of you who have no clue---that's the doctor's best estimate as to whether or not this is a PERMANENT CONDITION, a TERMINAL CONDITION or a condition that COULD improve with time).... Ok after all THAT, those documents are then sent to someone in the Social Security Administration who analyses EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF PAPER submitted and you are sent a packet of 6 pages of questions that you MUST answer in regard to your disabiling condition... After all that, you COULD actually be DENIED benefits.... My cardiologist (heart doctor) AND pulmonologist (lung doctor) both filled out their portions of the application and stated that my prognosis was NOT GOOD... TERMINAL... so I was NOT denied benefits---now here's the thing---I WORKED for 35 YEARS paying into the SYSTEM so I am ENTITLED if I am proven disabled to these monthly checks---my FAMILY cannot take care of me and in THIS COUNTRY that doesn't much happen any more----elders are cast away like yesterdays garbage to nursing homes ... by the way I'm only 57 and only have one child and I will NOT burden him with the expense of MY drugs and MY machines when I WORKED all those years to be able to RECEIVE the benefits IF and when I needed them.... SO, the next time you THINK you see someone who looks like the PICTURE OF HEALTH and want to complain about him or her receiving benefits---it's NOT THAT EASY TO GET THE BENEFITS in the FIRST PLACE and second---just because you don't LOOK sick, doesn't mean you AREN'T.... it's like some people may LOOK intelligent, and we all know SOME people just aren't......

What I DO have a gripe about and CAN agree with is the people who are ABLE BODIED and on WELFARE only because they are too lazy or not intelligent enough to get a job..... THOSE people I agree should not receive a free ride...

Answer 4

if they are capable to work .yes there benefits should be stopped all people on the dole should be made to do some kind of work like tidying up grave yards or cleaning graffiti or cleaning the streets .this will help get them back into work.

Answer 5

er yeah, I'm not paying for these lazy, scrounging layabouts.

I don't get it, there's people in my home village on the dole driving around in 4x4's and in the best of clothes and they know every trick in the book to get even more out of the DHSS while there are people that work all the hours god sends just to keep their head above water.

Cut their giro the world doesn't owe them a living!

Answer 6

The obvious answer is yes, but who decides whether someone is capable of work?

I think a better approach to this issue is to keep government out of it all together. The role of government should be to protect our liberty, not provide us the things that work can provide.

People who are unable to work must depend on family and others who voluntarily contribute to their support.

Answer 7

Yes, i know a few ppl like this but they manage to keep their benefits by fobbing the job centre off. Its very easy .

Answer 8

Yes, IF:
1. There are real jobs for them that pay decent wages;
2. Transportation to the jobs is available; and
3. They don't have kids they have to take care of (otherwise the child care fees eat up a huge chunk of income).

Answer 9

YES. If people who just don't want to work get benefits, then why don't we all just sit on our butt and get them?

Answer 10

yes they should,
there are far to many people claiming and yhey get all sorts of benifits and then every three years they get a brand new car.
i know at least three people who have nothing wrong with them and claim all the benifits that are available,then they do a few jobs on cash in hand it makes me cringe.