Neets to do community work for benefits

Great news. After 6 months of community work you are now qualified for a zero hours, minimum wage job in a chicken gutting warehouse.

What do you suggest T&C?

Just pointing out the reality of the situation and why many choose to play the system when they look at the alternatives.

Yeah, stay in bed and let everyone else pay for their upkeep.

Its human nature.  Those at the top end of the social scale play the system in a different way.

It's all going nicely to plan.

Theres's a plan

That's exactly why this something for nothing mentality needs to be challenged - at long last.

The problem with introducing draconian measures re benefits is that you have to offer a credible alternative lifestyle.  If whats being offered isn'rt people resit.

Push it too far and you get social disorder.  I heard Duncan Smith saying something like this a while ago.  So although they'd love to cut benefits to the bone, which would be very popular, they know they'd risk a repeat of the riots of 2011 on a much larger scale.

if they are doing community work for benefits then they are working,so should get minimum wage at least

In a way benefits are are price worth paying to keep a passive lower class.

I finally got round to watching a recorded programme on bbcfour...Rare footage of The Clash in 1977.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04w08p6

I was amazed to see the situation of today was no different to the 70's. Oh, except everything is pretty much privatised now.

Let's not forget that this is for people not in employment OR education. It may be hard to get a job but it's easy to enrol on a college course.

They will be getting minimum wage if you calculate how much they get in benefits and LHA and divide that by the number of hours they will have to work.

They won't work a full week at a time or all the year round so they'll be well inside the minimum wage.

For each tax year that is.

£70 dole plus 80 LHA = £150 a week = £7,800 a year.

Do community work for six months - 30 hours a week = 780 hours work for £7,800 a year.

That's £10 an hour.

What a counsel of despair you advocate Thin And Crispy. Give em what they want or they'll murder us in our beds. Good job you weren't running things when The Hun came calling.

whats LHA ?

Local Housing Allowance = Housing benefit

so they all get that ?

What do they get an hour now?
Is it sign on every two weeks?

That would be about 26 hours a year spent signing on, for £7,800.

£300 an hour.

No wonder they won't get a proper job.

so they all get that ?

Some get less some get more.

Free food from the food bank as well.
I haven't included that.

most people who go to food banks are working

Why the need for food banks?
What happened to neighbourly love and looking out for each other in times of hardship?
When's the last time anyone on this thread did a good deed?
Learn to cook the basics and money manage better. Instead of buying a sandwich for £1 buy a whole loaf for £1. Benefits are there for food, bills, and clothes for the young un's, not smoking and pissing it up the wall.

Be rude not to mention the former leader of the nasty party so I won't.

Maggie Thatcher Specials - YOP or YTS early 80's, paid £25 weekly for 6 months, or was it a year? At a fraction of what the work force got paid for doing the same job. It's now called "3 months probationary period" where you're again paid a lower rate than your fully employed colleague for which you're more likely not to be taken on as the conveyer belt of suckers rolls on.

Workfare is 35-40 hrs per week for your benefits of £72. You do the sums?

P.S. I'd have said "do the math" but it infuriates some on here.

* More people were renting in the 1970s than do now.
* Public services are overburdened because they've decimated
* There ARE existing street cleaners and others whose jobs would surely have to go if the unemployed did them - irrespective of supervisory needs.
* JSA is £3.775 a year ("for signing on" as if that's all that's required) NOT £7,880, not everyone gets LHA, but if they did it would just cover their rent, wouldn't it? - This amount would just about cover gas electric and food.
* Free food from a food bank is NOT an enjoyable experience.

(just to explode some of the pieces of utter drivel which pervade this thread)

When the workhouse stuff is being carried out, will it end with a job of some sort for the penalised unemployed person to rightfully do for a proper wage?
I think not, because jobs tend to be filled as soon as they become available. The unemployed are not the enemy. The enemy is the people who have all of our money (Banks, corporations, people earning Millions a year, agents of all these and others).

Why the constant defence for the rights of the super rich - those people who earn and have more money than they could possibly spend or need - yet seem to think of tax as an unreasonable drain on their resources?
Just a few dozen of the wealthiest could easily relax this country's problems, whilst remaining fabulously wealthy, but Nah, they want to keep it and there always wamkers and grovelers around (witness this thread for example) who will aid these people by backing up the publicity about the 'work-shy' and blaming austerity and poverty on those who are suffering most from it.

Shame about this forum, it used to be brilliant.
Now its just the same old twunts (some of whom escaped from the politics forum) spouting the same old crap.

btw, dartsnbooze, I frequently do what you would definitely consider "good deeds" and am proud to mention it, just this once.

* JSA is £3.775 a year ("for signing on" as if that's all that's required) NOT £7,880, not everyone gets LHA, but if they did it would just cover their rent, wouldn't it? -

The same applies to people who work.
Or don't you include any rent they have to pay in their wages?

Claimers receive their money in the same way that workers do, and pay the rent in the same way that workers do.
The cheques they get now includes the rent.

LHA £80 a week, eh? How much is rent in most places?
£72 a week JSA - for food, bills, clothes. Let alone any luxuries - (eg why should the scroungers have a TV, smoke, have a phone, etc etc blah blah?)

Why not make the feckers get out and suffer more indignity, eh? Serve their betters and shine the shoes of their masters (the employed? the wealthy), after all they have the temerity to not be working (whatever the reason).

Giving them non-existent jobs won't solve anything. It'll just make the plebs club together for certain politicians' sake, against other plebs.

How does somebody leave school and be able to rent a house, so that he can claim benefit for it?

^Get a partner and make her pregnant.

Oh of course...

him : I left school last week, I'm skint, with no prospects, fancy going half each on a baby?

her: Sounds like a good idea.

It's quite common.

They can get the single room allowance if they are single.

Would you have one as a lodger?

Absolutely not.

Why not?
Your rent is guaranteed.

No it's not.
The rent comes via the claimant.
If they don't cough up you have to chase them for it.
Anyway if they've spent it you'll never get it.

I'm not sure how the lodger system works regarding LHA.

I know a lodger has got few legal rights.

What would you do if you took one in who was initially working, but he lost his job?

Lodging is different to the single room allowance where they share the bathroom and kitchen, but have their own room in a multi occupied purpose built building

I wouldn't take a lodger in at all.

... for the rich not to get richer you would have to completely re -programme the human race which isn't possible - the human race go back a long way .

You would have to get rid of colleges ,schools,in fact reward failure.

Men are highly competitive by nature - to pathetic levels imo ,but that's how it is - it's each man for himself. He can't help how he is .

Dog eat dog and all that ,very few folk out there will have any sympathy for the poorest members of society - who will be likely be looked on as losers or runts of the litter .

No one celebrates a loser - folk support winning rich teams .

Pretty girls also go for fat wallets .

long term folk on benefits have conditioned themselves to there lifestyles -or made a way of feathering their nest (whichever applies) and have opted out of this evolutionary process (if you like )

their  -

The only thing exploding is your trousers when you screech about the rich studyform and your comment about "workhouse" can be filed amongst the drivel you accuse others of. Public services haven't been decimated. They have been lavished with money and continue to be so with us still overspending to the tune of a hundred billion a year. You need to take a remedial maths course. It is also not the case that you are for on and against rich or poor. It is quite a legitimate position to expect politicians who we elect to make the rich pay the tax which is due and also make people who are workshy do something for the money they get off taxpayers.

You are such a tit, EO.
Nowhere near as bright as you think you are and completely blinkered.
Debate, discussion or attempted reasoning with you is pointless.

(eg why should the scroungers have a TV, smoke, have a phone, etc etc blah blah?)

Absolutely, why should they have anything other than the basics that they can't pay for with their own money.
Just why should other people be forced to pay tax that is used to keep an army of scroungers in comfort?

As for alcoholics and junkies getting Disability Benefit, they shouldn't be able to afford their addictions let alone be given extra money to fund them.

I am sure it depends on where you live, who you know, what 'circles' you move in etc, but I know or know of loads, and I mean loads of people who are perfectly able to do some sort of job but who have taken the Benefits Lifestyle Option.  I know families of them, generations of them.  In fact, many more people like this than those who I would consider long term ill or needy or in desperate desire of a job.

They know exactly how the system works.

An example, boyfriend and girlfriend, about 18 years old.  No jobs.  Never had jobs.  Their benefits money covers a nice small one bedroom flat.  Going rate for working people about £450 pcm.  A single person on low pay would struggle to manage the outgoings for it.  Council tax paid for them.  Probably not a lot of money, but no pressures, no need to set the alarm for 5 a.m.  All the modern conveniences, gadgets etc.  They probably got their parents to lie and say them threw them out on the street.  Should we, as a society, really be paying for them to live like this?  Is it good for them?  Good for society?  I would hazard a guess that within 2 years she will be pregnant and soon they will be moving up the housing chain.

I dont know many millionaires, but all the wealthy people I do know have all worked hard.

The point is I am making my comments based on personal knowledge rather than assumptions.

I think you are the one making assumptions about the people I know!!!

Probablies…
'
Probably not got a lot of money; ? OK, then.  I don't know that.  Maybe they have a lot.
Probably got their parents to lie and say they were thrown out.   OK then.  Maybe they offered that them a room in their house - which they failed to take up because of what the state offers.

Does that alter anything?  If anything, and I am wrong, it makes it worse!

How much "tax payers money" goes to MP's, Judges, Military hierarchy, royalty etc, to live the life of luxury.
If you think these are all deserving of it, you are naïve.


So would you be.

I-phone
I-pad
X-Box
Sky television
Drink beer all day
Buy and take drugs all day
Buy and smoke ciggies all day
Place bets in local bookies all day
Buy and eat food
Pay electricity and heating bills

All on £75 a week single persons JSA

Where do I sign?

they don't have loads of children

but they do have loads of the children
Two-thirds of parenting is taking place on welfare ( not even including child benefit here as that's not means tested up to 50k )

^^no wonder they're taxing us up to the hilt.

Here's another one they've slipped in:

If you own a property and it's unoccupied, despite the owner being liable for the full amount of council tax.  After two years of being empty the council tax goes up to 150%.

What if you're an old timer who can't sell the property and can't let it either?

You might as well pay someone to burn it down for you.

Seems a good idea, too many properties standing empty.

Most of the empty properties are council owned.

Ordinary people can't afford to keep empty properties.

Well then there are lots of extra ordinary people owning property.

What if you can't sell the property and can't let it either?

Lots of properties like that around areas with old mine workings

Well whats the point of owning it, give it away.

Who to?

That's the kind of situations people find themselves in when they deal with property.

Benefit scroungers don't know they're born.
They think that BTL is all about making easy money.

No wonder they've all got f'all.

They know f'all and are worth even less.

They depend on hard working landlords to provide them with homes and pay the taxes that keep them alive.

Not a lot of mine works in London thousands of empty properties, 1000's in B&B absentee landlords content to sit on an empty home.

If a house is empty there should be no council tax payable.

They depend on hard working landlords to provide them with homes and pay the taxes that keep them alive.

Now I really know your taking the piss

^^In between tenants no doubt.

Isn't it the truth?

Do landlords not provide people with homes?

Do they not pay taxes?

They solve the councils housing problems for them at a bargain price.

Gee I never foufht of it that way what we need are more landlords.

What about putting a statue of the unknown landlord on the spare plinth in Trafalger Sq?  so tenants can pay homage.

Houses are worth a lot more in London, and the council tax is less of an issue where the value of the property is appreciating all the time.

It's certainly a big issue in other parts of the country.

You are perfectly free to debate, discuss and reason studyform and if you make a good case I'm one of the first to concede a point which is more rational than my own. The fact you are yet to do so doesn't mean it can't happen. One thing you can't do is argue with simple arithmetic and there are a hundred billion reasons why you are talking nonsense about austerity.

So when you pay your landlord his rent TaC.

Don't forget to thank him kindly for all the favours he's granting you.

disgraceful having to pay tax on an empty property...sheer theft.

You assume I pay rent?  why on earth would you think that?

That was just in case you did.

it's the mega-rich who have all our money.

Our money?

When did your money become theirs?

How can they take your money when you've never had anything.

Any idiot can be a landlord these days.  I know a few who think its the route to riches after watching too much property porn on day time tv.

Any idiot can be a landlord these days.

Absolutely if they've got the money.

The difficult part is getting the money together in the first place.

That usually roots out most of the idiots.

The fact that an empty property is taxed at 100% whereas a single person pays 75% is scandalous.  I didn't know about the 150% rate, but to be honest, if somewhere is empty for that long they need to get rid of it.  And if they want too much for it, they need to get more realistic about the price.

Everything has a price.  It makes me laugh when people say they have had their property on the market for 12 months, but they can't sell it.  They are asking too much!

There are many reasons why a property can't be sold.

One reason could be that it's on a lease and not have many years left.
Try and get out of that.

You can't mortgage it so it can only be sold to a cash buyer.

It might want doing up and you haven't got the money to do it up with.

So you can't sell it.
You can't let it, and you can't do it up. 

And the council tax goes up to 150% after two years of it standing empty.

Nothing wrong with professional landlords the problem is that this industry has always seemed to attract a certain sort of git who treats thier tenants with contempt and is of the opinion that they should be some how grateful to them as if its an act of charity.

Remind you of anyone?

I've been away for a while and T and C has become almost rational(I said almost).  Whatever happened to the T and C of yesteryear, scourge of egos and super egos like sdk? World's gone mad. I preferred the old persona, me.

who treats thier tenants with contempt

I've never met one of them.

You've certainly got the last bit right about the act of charity though.
Where would we be without our private landlords?

Living on the streets that's where.

Im surprised you're not involved with Care Homes.  Lots of money to be made exploiting old and vulnerable people, seems right up your street.

Feb 19, 2015 -- 9:43AM, Eeternaloptimist wrote:

You are perfectly free to debate, discuss and reason studyform and if you make a good case I'm one of the first to concede a point which is more rational than my own. The fact you are yet to do so doesn't mean it can't happen. One thing you can't do is argue with simple arithmetic and there are a hundred billion reasons why you are talking nonsense about austerity.

One thing you can't do is argue with simple arithmetic and there are a hundred billion reasons why you are talking nonsense about austerity.

Did you mean this to be ironic?  I don't think you did, did you?

Do the words budget deficit mean anything to you luddite?

Lots of money to be made exploiting old and vulnerable people

One man's view of a chance to exploit people, is seen by a better man as an opportunity to help other people.
You obviously only see profit in the exercise.

You're what they call ''the wrong type'' for that kind of work.
They wouldn't give you a license.

Dr Crippen

'There are many reasons why a property can't be sold.

One reason could be that it's on a lease and not have many years left.
Try and get out of that.'

Wrong! Properties with not many years left on the lease CAN be sold, they are simply worth less than if they had a long lease.  They are not unsaleable.

You can't mortgage it so it can only be sold to a cash buyer.

Make your mind up, in the last message you said they can't be sold!

Wrong!  They are normally cash buyers, but they can often be mortgaged depending on the length left on the lease, length of mortgage, LTV and other considerations.

Stroll on Jack talk about misunderstanding a post.
If there are no buyers you can't sell it regardless. Get it now?
You still misunderstood even after this.

[b]You can't mortgage it so it can only be sold to a cash buyer.[/b

You need to sharpen up your act mate.

A property with 60 years or under on the lease will have difficulty finding a lender. Even with special rates.

I don't know the exact cut off point I've never been in that position.

A buyer should be wary of any property with less than 80 years left on the lease.
And an extension to the lease should be sought immediately if the deal goes through.
The longer it is left the more expensive it becomes, and the harder it is to sell until it is extended.
Until you get to the point where a mortgage can't be obtained.   
Cash buyers only.

Oops I've done it again.

Cash buyers only.

For Jack:

Should be - Then it's cash buyers only.

You are digging yourself into a hole.

Why not just accept that all property has a price.

Property doesn't have to be mortgageable to be able to be sold.

You probably should have accepted my straightforward reply to your assertion.

'I don't know the exact cut off point I've never been in that position.'  There isn't an exact cut off, it is up to the lenders.

A buyer should be wary of any property with less than 80 years left on the lease.
And an extension to the lease should be sought immediately if the deal goes through. Wrong, you can't apply for an extension within 2 years of  purchase.

Of course it should be to extend it immediately you are able to.
Of course there is a definite cut off point for every company where a mortgage can't be obtained, do you think lenders are stupid or something?

Property doesn't have to be mortgageable to be able to be sold.

Nobody said it had to be sold on a mortgage.

Why are you trying to score petty points out of everything I write?
Are you staking me or just got your arse in your hand today?

It sounds like you're sitting on a lemon to be honest Jack.

You've bought a dud and you can't sell it.

You blithely make statements that are wrong.
You are pulled up on them.
You don't like your errors pointed out to you.
You are rude.
You come over as the big man, twist what was written and try distraction techniques.
You then go on the offensive.
And, in a final attempt to salvage some credibility you try make some sort of point by taking a stab in the dark that is completely wrong, making you come over as an even bigger fool.
Bye!

So you were stalking me.