UK Wants Unemployed Youth to Do Unpaid Work for the State. State Sponsored Slavery or.....?

originally posted by: doobydoll
a reply to: MysterX

I'm just baffled with some people's way of thinking. They hate the fact their taxes are spent on benefits for the unemployed,

I think the crux of the matter is, They hate their own existence and will lash out at those who dont appear share their misery....ie, someone who doesn't have a 25 year mill stone tied around their neck.

I never joined the property market for one simple reason. I dont ever wish to be tied to any job i abhor with a passion.
A existence where one transfers everything that is wrong about your life choices into a inveterate hatred for those who appear to you to live a free and easy lifestyle.

If you hate the Unemployed so much and believe the crap you hear about how they jet off on exotic holidays two and three times a year, buy 52" plasma TV's, Iphones, latest gaming stations and designer clothes and can afford to sit in a pub all day, 7 days a week whilst snorting a Everest sized mountain of Colombian go fast powder, then pack yer job in a go join them...
Come back here is 6 months and tell us all about the Unemployed Utopia you have found.

originally posted by: blupblup
Thank god... a string of sensible posts and posters, I wondered where you were?

You appeared to be holding yer own, not for a minute did i think of taking off my Stiletto's and jumping in screaming.. "Leave them Blupblup, they're not worth it,".

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
You appeared to be holding yer own, not for a minute did i think of taking off my Stiletto's and jumping in screaming.. "Leave them Blupblup, they're not worth it,".

Hahaha..... man, that was good - cheers mate.

originally posted by: PaddyInf
Why is work being considered as a punishment? It is an opportunity

While I agree that it is not particularly attractive to have to work for less than minimum wage it does address some issues. It gives the claimant work experience and allows them to justify how they have spent their time, which are commonly used reasons for people saying they were rejected at interview stage.

It is good for mental and physical health, reducing the levels of depressive mental health conditions.

It creates a work for your money attitude that is often lacking.

As for the 1.9 million people out of work, that includes all people of working age. The proposed scheme is only aimed at those aged 18-25 to break the 3rd gen benefits chain. These are the people with the most difficult time getting a first job due to lack of experience.

I doubt that we will ever agree on this subject. It tends to polarise opinion too much.

But the jobs will inevitably replace the jobs of the people who are already working.

Suddenly the government is becoming a supplier of cheap labor, at a cost less than the market rate. The only thing that can accomplish is to lower the wages for everyone.

originally posted by: Aazadan
But the jobs will inevitably replace the jobs of the people who are already working.

Suddenly the government is becoming a supplier of cheap labor, at a cost less than the market rate. The only thing that can accomplish is to lower the wages for everyone.

I can't believe that this future scenario is not obvious to everyone. Those people who lose their jobs to those on the low-wage scheme will inevitably want to be on that scheme; a low wage is better than no wage.

So they'll demand that the government remove the age restrictions on the scheme, probably arguing that it's against their human rights to be discriminated against for not being 18-21 years old.

The Gov will huff and puff and give in, placing every unemployed person on the scheme, because 'It's the right thing to do'.

That instantly cuts the numbers unemployed by a nice big number and the Gov parade these figures claiming to have solved all our problems. At the same time, because there's far fewer officially unemployed there's far less for the treasury to pay out in unemployment benefit, so they can sweeten the deal to the public by cutting taxes.

And of course every employer will be doing their upmost to turn every existing full-wage job into a job that is on the half-wage scheme. Every day there'll be fewer people employed on full wage and more people employed within this scheme on half-minmum wage. From that point i'd give it perhaps little more than a decade before this New Sefdom is fully established.

If you watched the MSN primetime political tv debate i watched, then you'll realise that very few will see this trap and those that do will be shouted down.

This is the most insidious proposition that any 'democracy' has suffered IMO.

Exactly, this is what is most frustrating - I mean people will always call others lazy and will always hate the poor, that just is the way it is... but even after all of that, people honestly can't see that getting people to work, for free or without minimum wage, is a very dangerous thing indeed.
They seemingly don't have the mental capacity to see where this is heading or that if the government and companies are saying there are jobs for people and they want people to do these jobs, then they need to pay them.

Remember the guy who was let go of his temporary job... and then the Job Centre ordered him to go back and work at the same company, for FREE??

www.theguardian.com...

www.independent.co.uk...


I mean come on....

originally posted by: Soloprotocol

originally posted by: doobydoll
a reply to: MysterX

I'm just baffled with some people's way of thinking. They hate the fact their taxes are spent on benefits for the unemployed,

I think the crux of the matter is, They hate their own existence and will lash out at those who dont appear share their misery....ie, someone who doesn't have a 25 year mill stone tied around their neck.

I never joined the property market for one simple reason. I dont ever wish to be tied to any job i abhor with a passion.
A existence where one transfers everything that is wrong about your life choices into a inveterate hatred for those who appear to you to live a free and easy lifestyle.

If you hate the Unemployed so much and believe the crap you hear about how they jet off on exotic holidays two and three times a year, buy 52" plasma TV's, Iphones, latest gaming stations and designer clothes and can afford to sit in a pub all day, 7 days a week whilst snorting a Everest sized mountain of Colombian go fast powder, then pack yer job in a go join them...
Come back here is 6 months and tell us all about the Unemployed Utopia you have found.

I got on the property ladder. Eventually lost my job and got into arrears with the mortgage. I had over £30,000 equity in my house, and within 6 months the mortgage provider repossessed and sold it at auction not only for far less than market value, but also for less than the outstanding balance on the mortgage. They made me homeless then billed me for £18,000 which was left outstanding after they purposely sold it way too cheap. I am repaying the shortfall at £1 a month and that's all they're getting, as long as I live.

I am 57 and currently unemployed, but I live on an annuity policy which pays me a monthly income for life, so I am lucky that I don't have to jump through the various government hoops to prove I am worthy of being kept barely alive whilst I look for work.

If it weren't for the monthly annuity income, I can tell you right here and now I would end my life in a New York minute rather than be subjected to the same inhumane treatment and vilification that this parasitic, un-elected fraud of a government, is inflicting upon UK unemployed people.

a reply to: blupblup

No, i hadn't seen John McArthur's situation - it's unbelievable.

It's the kind of news story that should be initiating public enquiries to fix what's broken in the system.

But the fact that it's not a bigger ongoing headline shows that there's little chance of the masses seeing the trap before it's sprung.

a reply to: doobydoll

I'm very sorry to hear about your situation. It'd be interesting to know who bought it at auction -- someone's making a tidy sum out of this con.

ETA: I'm far from an expert in the shadowy world of mortgages, but surely if the bank allowed you to sell on the open market, then get back far more - probably all - of what you owed them (had it's value increased?). By selling it cheap they lose money and banks hate to lose money!

Unless they somehow make an added back end after the cheap auction (that's why i asked who'd bought it - a small company with a profit tie to the bank perhaps?).

The bank is either very dumb, crooked, or prefer to keep you in debt than get back what's owed now.

originally posted by: McGinty
a reply to: doobydoll

I'm very sorry to hear about your situation. It'd be interesting to know who bought it at auction -- someone's making a tidy sum out of this con.

ETA: I'm far from an expert in the shadowy world of mortgages, but surely if the bank allowed you to sell on the open market, then get back far more - probably all - of what you owed them (had it's value increased?). By selling it cheap they lose money and banks hate to lose money!

Unless they somehow make an added back end after the cheap auction (that's why i asked who'd bought it - a small company with a profit tie to the bank perhaps?).

The bank is either very dumb, crooked, or prefer to keep you in debt than get back what's owed now.

I could have sold my house myself, but I would then be homeless because the mortgage provider had by now black-listed my credit-rating and I failed the credit-checks for a rental property to move on to. When I'd made inquiries to Estate Agents to sell my house, they informed me that I needed to spend a few grand on improving my house to freshen it up ready for sale before they would even list it - which I didn't have. So that was off the cards.

So I inquired about social housing. I was told there that if I put my house up for sale myself, then I will have 'made myself homeless' and they wouldn't help me. However, if my home was repossessed by the mortgage provider, then they would help me if they had a suitable property available.

So my options were, either sell my un-improved home myself at auction and make myself homeless, with no guarantee of a sale there, and no guarantee the sale proceeds would clear repaying the mortgage, missed payments, added interest, admin charges, Estate Agents fees, auction charges, solicitor's fees, etc. - and put myself on the streets.

or

Let the mortgage company repossess and go into social housing. At least I wouldn't be walking the streets. This is the option I took, I saw it as the lesser of the two evils.

The stress of it all almost killed me. I never want to go there again. I wouldn't wish it on anybody.

Edit to add: I live a few streets away from my repossessed home - it was bought by a private landlord who added it to his rental property portfolio. He has tenants renting it at £550 per month.

a reply to: doobydoll

It sounds to me like your house should have been the target of a random arsonist.

a reply to: doobydoll
Sounds like you were out of options and made the same choice most of us would have. I'm glad you're not homeless and are able to post your story here, it's a very valuable contribution in that it's a real case in point of how unjust and corrupt the system is that it allows the banks to take advantage of hard time so ruthlessly, yet when the pendulum swings the other way they rescued wholesale by the tax payer.

Why don't we all say sod it, pack our jobs in and go live as a scrounger on benefits. I for one would love £26,000 of free money for doing nothing but watching Jeremy Kyle.

originally posted by: Aspie
Why don't we all say sod it, pack our jobs in and go live as a scrounger on benefits. I for one would love £26,000 of free money for doing nothing but watching Jeremy Kyle.

I think your problem is, you watch too much Jeremy Kyle.

Please feel free to pack your job in and head to the Joke (sanction) Centre and ask for £26,000 pounds please...you will get it, they just hand it over in a large brown envelope with a nod and a wink not to tell everyone.

As i said in a previous post, come back here in 6 months time and let us know how you are getting on.

a reply to: Aspie

Yeh good idea.

Jack your job in, go on the dole, and live the life of Riley.

Come back and tell us of all the fabulous brand new luxuries you can buy on £70 quid a week.

Crack on.

originally posted by: doobydoll
a reply to: Aspie

Yeh good idea.

Jack your job in, go on the dole, and live the life of Riley.

Come back and tell us of all the fabulous brand new luxuries you can buy on £70 quid a week.

Crack on.

B..b...b...b..b.b.but, Jeremy and the Daily Heil said it's £500 a week. Confusednow.com ?

a reply to: jude11

Has this been posted?

originally posted by: Aspie
Why don't we all say sod it, pack our jobs in and go live as a scrounger on benefits. I for one would love £26,000 of free money for doing nothing but watching Jeremy Kyle.

Awesome.... thanks for doing this research for ATS, please be sure to keep a vlog and let us know how it goes ok?

a reply to: blupblup
It's even more ridiculous when you consider that the client group described in the OP are single (no children) 18-24 year olds. The actual figures for them are:
£57 per week Jobseekers Allowance
£65 per week (LHA) rent payments for a room in a shared house. My local authority is £65pw but Birmingham's is only £56 at present.
So yep, the argument "living the good life" is not true for most single folk.
Of course, pop a few kids out, and get hold of cheap rent social housing for life and it aint so bad, what is the incentive to work minimum wage then when you'll be say £30 a week better off than doing nothing. Especially when you would lose the free school meals, free precriptions, free dental health care going down the working road.
Single 18-24 year olds though? Yep the benefit rate is subsistence at best.

*Edit*
Most rented rooms in a house share are around the £80 per week mark in my area, so after using some of the JSA money to meet the shortfall, a typical 18-24 year old will have £42 per week to feed and clothe themselves, £6 per day.

a reply to: grainofsand


Exactly... single people on benefits with no kids are really screwed, can't even claim working tax credits as far as i know.