Nov 072010
How in the hell did this happen???
In the most radical clampdown on the work-shy yet, Iain Duncan Smith will announce that the unemployed will be found compulsory 30 hour-a-week work placements and if they fail to turn up they will lose their Jobseekers’ Allowance for at least three months. … Under the plans, claimants face a new 12-month cap on their benefits, if ruled able to work.
Wow. Expecting people to work for their pay? What a concept!!!
Credit where it’s due: this is a really, really good idea. Good on the Brits if they pull this off.
10 Responses to “Astonishing Welfare Reform In Britain”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
One of the comments (by “liamronan”)is that something similar was tried in Pennsylvania in the 70s. Keeping track of everyone in the program was just not worth it.
Uh…weren’t you looking for work also?
That if you find out that you are being ordered to shovel up cat crap down at the animal shelter for 30 hours a week at minimum wage?
Certainly no government tyranny there, is there?
> Certainly no government tyranny there, is there?
Certainly doesn’t seem to be. Best as I can tell, they’re not demanding that the unemployed work gubmint-appointed jobs for no pay; they’re demanding that those drawing welfare funds work to keep getting those funds.
Or is it your position that people have the right to goodies without being expected to provide some form of compensation for them? If so, I look forward with great anticipation to hearing about your forthcoming expedition to Best Buy with the intent of walking out with a 60″ HDTV without paying for it, because expecting you to compensate them would be “corporate tyranny.”
> Keeping track of everyone in the program was just not worth it.
The WPA seemed to work well enough.
Job Corps works the same way the WPA worked, as far as I can tell from the one person I know in Job Corps. The difference between the Pennsylvania scheme and both the WPA and the Job Corps is that the WPA and Job Corps persons live(d) communally where they are working.
Okay, this is where I say what ?
If you want unemployment insurance payments, then you have to have a job, but then you wouldn’t need unemployment insurance payments ?
Or maybe they are giving the UI payment to people that are employed,
and not to the people who are unemployed ? or … wait… I think my brain hurts.
If we are talking welfare, it’s generally a child care issue. Making people punch a clock for free is really not going to pay the kids daycare while you are putting in your 30 hours because you can’t take a low paying job that won’t cover daycare. (People don’t get welfare, single parents do.)
There is no question that some people abuse the systems. The trick is to stop those people while enabling the honest people to use it as intended.
-Gar.
Rather than using the stick, a carrot will achieve much greater ends. Instead of forcing them to work, provide them with incentives to go to work. Don’t penalise them. One of the great discentives for long-term unemployed to get back into the work force is that they will be penalised heavily by the welfare system as soon as they start to earn even minor amounts of money.
Of course, its just much easier for society to blame the victim and penalise them for being unemployed.
The problem is, society, both the US and UK, have used the “carrot” of welfare to keep people out of work for years. By creating a large number of people who are now dependant upon the State, and who have become accustomed to not working, and who have the vote, the State creates a permanent voting bloc that will forever vote to maintain the State’s power to control and tax.
It’s not the welfare recipient’s fault that they are being used in this manner. But it is their responsibility to recognize this fact, and to try to get themselves out of it. It’s the taxpayers responsibility to also recognize this fact, and to try to end the system. The only people who truly benefit from welfare states are those in the bureaucracy.
Your theory fails because in the US and the UK voting is voluntary and invariably the poor and the unemployed do not vote. In both countries, you’re lucky if you get a voter turnout of 45% of those eligible. So, this voting bloc simply exists in your imagination.
In reality, society blames the unemployed for their predicament. It penalises them at every turn. It provides a pittance as a safety net and then when they do gain employment, unless it is well paid job they find they are penalised again both by the welfare system and the tax system on top of it. According to society it is their fault they are unemployed, its their fault they lost their job in the first place.
> society blames the unemployed for their predicament. It penalises them at every turn. It provides a pittance as a safety net …
You do realize that you’ve just massively contradicted yourself, yes? If society were to actually “penalize” the unemployed, it would *fine* them for being unemployed, not give them stuff.
Agreed, though, that the tax system is onerous. An elimination of all income taxes (personal and corporate) and replacing it with some form of end-user sales tax would be by far a more fair way to go.