So who recognises Britain as it is today?

rjsterry

Surrey Commuter wrote:

WTC were an invention of a career politician who had no concept of the law of unintended consequences.

Or possibly a way to ease the problems of those on very low incomes without having to push through more fundamental changes to the tax system. If you are paying minimal income tax in the first place then raising the threshold is going to make little difference - your biggest tax burdens will likely be council tax and VAT on fuel.

coopster_the_1st

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

WTC were an invention of a career politician who had no concept of the law of unintended consequences.

Or possibly a way to ease the problems of those on very low incomes without having to push through more fundamental changes to the tax system. If you are paying minimal income tax in the first place then raising the threshold is going to make little difference - your biggest tax burdens will likely be council tax and VAT on fuel.

The biggest unintended consequence I see from WTC is that it becomes a wage subsidy for employers to pay low wages

rjsterry

Coopster the 1st wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

WTC were an invention of a career politician who had no concept of the law of unintended consequences.

Or possibly a way to ease the problems of those on very low incomes without having to push through more fundamental changes to the tax system. If you are paying minimal income tax in the first place then raising the threshold is going to make little difference - your biggest tax burdens will likely be council tax and VAT on fuel.

The biggest unintended consequence I see from WTC is that it becomes a wage subsidy for employers to pay low wages

Oh it certainly has issues, and the above plus the administration costs are big ones, but just raising the income tax threshold doesn't solve the problem either.

surrey_commuter

Coopster the 1st wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

WTC were an invention of a career politician who had no concept of the law of unintended consequences.

Or possibly a way to ease the problems of those on very low incomes without having to push through more fundamental changes to the tax system. If you are paying minimal income tax in the first place then raising the threshold is going to make little difference - your biggest tax burdens will likely be council tax and VAT on fuel.

The biggest unintended consequence I see from WTC is that it becomes a wage subsidy for employers to pay low wages

you inadvertently agreed with me

surrey_commuter

Coopster the 1st wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

WTC were an invention of a career politician who had no concept of the law of unintended consequences.

Or possibly a way to ease the problems of those on very low incomes without having to push through more fundamental changes to the tax system. If you are paying minimal income tax in the first place then raising the threshold is going to make little difference - your biggest tax burdens will likely be council tax and VAT on fuel.

The biggest unintended consequence I see from WTC is that it becomes a wage subsidy for employers to pay low wages

you inadvertently agreed with me

surrey_commuter

Rolf F wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Personally I would remove as many benefits as possible and use the savings to increase the tax free allowance. This would reduce admin costs which would free up more money and reduce disincentives to work.

Have you done the maths on this or is it just one of those ideas that sounds superficially ingenious but would be basically disastrous? Eg the amount of money saved would be a fairly small benefit to low income workers but the very worst off would be massively penalised (as they'd be paying for it).

pension tax relief is anywhere between £35-50bn so plenty of room there. When I say benefits I am eyeing this up as well as Married mans allowance, child benefit (£11bn) , tax credits (£30bn), housing benefit (£26bn). Oh and stop paying heating allowance and free bus passes and TV licences to every pensioner (£5bn)

You lift loads out of the tax net and stop many universal benefits to replace them with new schemes to target money where it is needed.

DeVlaeminck

Surrey Commuter wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

Something needs to be done, I don't know what or how. On a couple of occasions I've heard people in the warehouse say they are leaving becasue they might as well stay at home and collect benefits. Then they just get themselves sacked so they can sign on. Then there are others that have a work ethic, I've heard them say they'd much rather work and pay their own way than claim. How do you change the attitudes of people?

Make them less rational you mean ?

The Japanese take what they need from the state - we take what we can so yes you need to make them less rational by changing people's attitude.

Very hard for the state to change social norms in such a simplistic way. I'm not against people having a pride in working over claiming benefit but it's hard to have a pride in working in some of the jobs about these days. I think there is a role for unions in all this - a more heavily unionised workforce would provide some counter balance to the driving down of wages and conditions so we avoid the Sports Direct kind of experience of work. Yes it may mean we also need to regulate the unions to avoid the abuses of the 1970s but I'm sure that isn't beyond the wit of man to achieve.

coopster_the_1st

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Personally I would remove as many benefits as possible and use the savings to increase the tax free allowance. This would reduce admin costs which would free up more money and reduce disincentives to work.

Have you done the maths on this or is it just one of those ideas that sounds superficially ingenious but would be basically disastrous? Eg the amount of money saved would be a fairly small benefit to low income workers but the very worst off would be massively penalised (as they'd be paying for it).

pension tax relief is anywhere between £35-50bn so plenty of room there. When I say benefits I am eyeing this up as well as Married mans allowance, child benefit (£11bn) , tax credits (£30bn), housing benefit (£26bn). Oh and stop paying heating allowance and free bus passes and TV licences to every pensioner (£5bn)

You lift loads out of the tax net and stop many universal benefits to replace them with new schemes to target money where it is needed.

We have similar thinking around benefits so I have no problem with agreeing with you. It gives balance.

I'm not sure about Pension tax relief, the less relief the less saved via pension, and that long term leads to higher state pension requirements. I do agree it can be trimmed at the top end but not sure how much that would yield.

Child benefit should be for 2 children only so there is scope there.

Agree on tax credits as above, same for housing benefit but any immediate savings on HB should be put into a state run house building company.

I agree that pensioner benefits should be means tested so not sure how much of that £5bn you would see

The biggest problem with any of the above is having the balls to actually go through with implementing it against the noise created

mamba80

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Personally I would remove as many benefits as possible and use the savings to increase the tax free allowance. This would reduce admin costs which would free up more money and reduce disincentives to work.

Have you done the maths on this or is it just one of those ideas that sounds superficially ingenious but would be basically disastrous? Eg the amount of money saved would be a fairly small benefit to low income workers but the very worst off would be massively penalised (as they'd be paying for it).

pension tax relief is anywhere between £35-50bn so plenty of room there. When I say benefits I am eyeing this up as well as Married mans allowance, child benefit (£11bn) , tax credits (£30bn), housing benefit (£26bn). Oh and stop paying heating allowance and free bus passes and TV licences to every pensioner (£5bn)

You lift loads out of the tax net and stop many universal benefits to replace them with new schemes to target money where it is needed.

We have similar thinking around benefits so I have no problem with agreeing with you. It gives balance.

I'm not sure about Pension tax relief, the less relief the less saved via pension, and that long term leads to higher state pension requirements. I do agree it can be trimmed at the top end but not sure how much that would yield.

Child benefit should be for 2 children only so there is scope there.

Agree on tax credits as above, same for housing benefit but any immediate savings on HB should be put into a state run house building company.

I agree that pensioner benefits should be means tested so not sure how much of that £5bn you would see

The biggest problem with any of the above is having the balls to actually go through with implementing it against the noise created

As i said, it shouldnt be about cutting out of work benefits, tbh they are low enough already, what is needed is a contributory system for starters, encourage to people to pay IN, knowing they ll be helped when on hard times.
Allow people to study and still claim benefits, at the moment, unless its a Gov scheme you lose out.
Allow people to work extra hours and keep the money, even doing a few hours per month, stuffs benefits like HB, its easier to say NO to your employer than work the occasional extra.

Why does a farmer have to employ workers from the EU ? we ve 1.5m on the dole and 100s of 1000s aged under 24 not in work or in any "training" (the gov apprentice scheme is in many cases just cheap labour)

Means tested free further education, we need to break the cycle of kids with zero aspiration because thats what their parents are like, its super hard for a poor kid to see that by going into debt by 27k is a great idea in the longer term

We need to push/drag people up, improve education, improve skills and reduce the benefits paid out.

slowmart

Why don't you make the job seekers allowance conditional upon a set amount of hours worked in the community?

No work equals no allowance. In simple terms you need to socially engineer the people who suck the state tits dry to alter their perceptions and ability to shirk their responsibility to their community.

rjsterry

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Personally I would remove as many benefits as possible and use the savings to increase the tax free allowance. This would reduce admin costs which would free up more money and reduce disincentives to work.

Have you done the maths on this or is it just one of those ideas that sounds superficially ingenious but would be basically disastrous? Eg the amount of money saved would be a fairly small benefit to low income workers but the very worst off would be massively penalised (as they'd be paying for it).

pension tax relief is anywhere between £35-50bn so plenty of room there. When I say benefits I am eyeing this up as well as Married mans allowance, child benefit (£11bn) , tax credits (£30bn), housing benefit (£26bn). Oh and stop paying heating allowance and free bus passes and TV licences to every pensioner (£5bn)

You lift loads out of the tax net and stop many universal benefits to replace them with new schemes to target money where it is needed.

We have similar thinking around benefits so I have no problem with agreeing with you. It gives balance.

I'm not sure about Pension tax relief, the less relief the less saved via pension, and that long term leads to higher state pension requirements. I do agree it can be trimmed at the top end but not sure how much that would yield.

Child benefit should be for 2 children only so there is scope there.

Agree on tax credits as above, same for housing benefit but any immediate savings on HB should be put into a state run house building company.

I agree that pensioner benefits should be means tested so not sure how much of that £5bn you would see

The biggest problem with any of the above is having the balls to actually go through with implementing it against the noise created

Much as the country needs more investment in social housing, flooding the housing market would require a fairly suicidal government.

Also the reason WFA, free bus passes, etc aren't means tested is because the means testing would cost more than was saved.

rjsterry

Slowmart wrote:

Why don't you make the job seekers allowance conditional upon a set amount of hours worked in the community?

No work equals no allowance. In simple terms you need to socially engineer the people who suck the state tits dry to alter their perceptions and ability to shirk their responsibility to their community.

Because this gets hijacked by some employers as free labour.

coopster_the_1st

rjsterry wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Personally I would remove as many benefits as possible and use the savings to increase the tax free allowance. This would reduce admin costs which would free up more money and reduce disincentives to work.

Have you done the maths on this or is it just one of those ideas that sounds superficially ingenious but would be basically disastrous? Eg the amount of money saved would be a fairly small benefit to low income workers but the very worst off would be massively penalised (as they'd be paying for it).

pension tax relief is anywhere between £35-50bn so plenty of room there. When I say benefits I am eyeing this up as well as Married mans allowance, child benefit (£11bn) , tax credits (£30bn), housing benefit (£26bn). Oh and stop paying heating allowance and free bus passes and TV licences to every pensioner (£5bn)

You lift loads out of the tax net and stop many universal benefits to replace them with new schemes to target money where it is needed.

We have similar thinking around benefits so I have no problem with agreeing with you. It gives balance.

I'm not sure about Pension tax relief, the less relief the less saved via pension, and that long term leads to higher state pension requirements. I do agree it can be trimmed at the top end but not sure how much that would yield.

Child benefit should be for 2 children only so there is scope there.

Agree on tax credits as above, same for housing benefit but any immediate savings on HB should be put into a state run house building company.

I agree that pensioner benefits should be means tested so not sure how much of that £5bn you would see

The biggest problem with any of the above is having the balls to actually go through with implementing it against the noise created

Much as the country needs more investment in social housing, flooding the housing market would require a fairly suicidal government.

If aimed at reducing the HB bill, I think a lot of people would support this if it fed through to lower taxes which after a few years the option would be there.

It's quite clear the private sector does not want to step up to solve the housing issues this country has.

sungod

the uk housing market is insane

a massive program of public sector housing development, heavily biased to rental, would help everyone needing/with a home - having a 5 million house is no benefit if moving costs 6 million - we need property prices to fall vs. earnings, they're only so high because of the decades of underinvestment, lunatic sell-offs, and widespread exploitation for gain rather than housing

stabilisation in price together with inflationary erosion will be gradual, probably 20 years, plenty of time for investors to exit smoothly and without pushing buyers into negative equity

the private sector will never solve it because any real solution would drive down prices

ballysmate

mamba80 wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Personally I would remove as many benefits as possible and use the savings to increase the tax free allowance. This would reduce admin costs which would free up more money and reduce disincentives to work.

Have you done the maths on this or is it just one of those ideas that sounds superficially ingenious but would be basically disastrous? Eg the amount of money saved would be a fairly small benefit to low income workers but the very worst off would be massively penalised (as they'd be paying for it).

pension tax relief is anywhere between £35-50bn so plenty of room there. When I say benefits I am eyeing this up as well as Married mans allowance, child benefit (£11bn) , tax credits (£30bn), housing benefit (£26bn). Oh and stop paying heating allowance and free bus passes and TV licences to every pensioner (£5bn)

You lift loads out of the tax net and stop many universal benefits to replace them with new schemes to target money where it is needed.

We have similar thinking around benefits so I have no problem with agreeing with you. It gives balance.

I'm not sure about Pension tax relief, the less relief the less saved via pension, and that long term leads to higher state pension requirements. I do agree it can be trimmed at the top end but not sure how much that would yield.

Child benefit should be for 2 children only so there is scope there.

Agree on tax credits as above, same for housing benefit but any immediate savings on HB should be put into a state run house building company.

I agree that pensioner benefits should be means tested so not sure how much of that £5bn you would see

The biggest problem with any of the above is having the balls to actually go through with implementing it against the noise created

As i said, it shouldnt be about cutting out of work benefits, tbh they are low enough already, what is needed is a contributory system for starters, encourage to people to pay IN, knowing they ll be helped when on hard times.
Allow people to study and still claim benefits, at the moment, unless its a Gov scheme you lose out.
Allow people to work extra hours and keep the money, even doing a few hours per month, stuffs benefits like HB, its easier to say NO to your employer than work the occasional extra.

Why does a farmer have to employ workers from the EU ? we ve 1.5m on the dole and 100s of 1000s aged under 24 not in work or in any "training" (the gov apprentice scheme is in many cases just cheap labour)

Means tested free further education, we need to break the cycle of kids with zero aspiration because thats what their parents are like, its super hard for a poor kid to see that by going into debt by 27k is a great idea in the longer term

We need to push/drag people up, improve education, improve skills and reduce the benefits paid out.

As much as I agree with you, it is a scandal that our own unemployed turn their noses up at some jobs, and at the risk of overlapping threads, we have free movement within the EU. Eastern Europeans are happier to come here and work for next to FA.
Perhaps shows why the vote in places like Lincs was convincingly Brexit.

mamba80

Ballysmate wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Why does a farmer have to employ workers from the EU ? we ve 1.5m on the dole and 100s of 1000s aged under 24 not in work or in any "training" (the gov apprentice scheme is in many cases just cheap labour)

Means tested free further education, we need to break the cycle of kids with zero aspiration because thats what their parents are like, its super hard for a poor kid to see that by going into debt by 27k is a great idea in the longer term

We need to push/drag people up, improve education, improve skills and reduce the benefits paid out.

As much as I agree with you, it is a scandal that our own unemployed turn their noses up at some jobs, and at the risk of overlapping threads, we have free movement within the EU. Eastern Europeans are happier to come here and work for next to FA.
Perhaps shows why the vote in places like Lincs was convincingly Brexit.

Well, the Tories have not helped or done anything about this, someone on benefits cannot just work for a few weeks, weather dependant, a day or 2 here or there, the barriers to dipping in/out of benefits like HB are immense, and if the law on min wages isnt being enforced, who s fault is that, not the EU's is it?

We need a root and branch reform on social security and it should nt be about saving money either.

ballysmate

But immigration hasn't depressed wages. Must be true, we've been told, haven't we?

verylonglegs

There is a minimum wage so it can't depress them. It can however make rises a lot less likely with extra labour being available.

pinno

Coopster the 1st wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

WTC were an invention of a career politician who had no concept of the law of unintended consequences.

Or possibly a way to ease the problems of those on very low incomes without having to push through more fundamental changes to the tax system. If you are paying minimal income tax in the first place then raising the threshold is going to make little difference - your biggest tax burdens will likely be council tax and VAT on fuel.

The biggest unintended consequence I see from WTC is that it becomes a wage subsidy for employers to pay low wages

Yep but it has deeper implications.

Tesco for example employ many on part-time contracts. Part-time workers are not paid the same in terms of pensions, holiday and redundancy entitlements. Some of the people working part-time are not paying any tax at all and negligible National Ins. Contributions. I wonder how many people working on part-time positions are claiming Working Tax Credits? The consideration is that the state is indirectly propping up the profits of these company's.

(I gave Tesco as an example because it's a large employer).

rolf_f

sungod wrote:

the uk housing market is insane

a massive program of public sector housing development, heavily biased to rental, would help everyone needing/with a home - having a 5 million house is no benefit if moving costs 6 million - we need property prices to fall vs. earnings, they're only so high because of the decades of underinvestment, lunatic sell-offs, and widespread exploitation for gain rather than housing

As we are moving back 50 years with Brexit, one of the few good outcomes is that all of a sudden we'll end up with a large stock of council houses. These Remoaners just refuse to see the positive.

pinno

Rolf F wrote:

sungod wrote:

the uk housing market is insane

a massive program of public sector housing development, heavily biased to rental, would help everyone needing/with a home - having a 5 million house is no benefit if moving costs 6 million - we need property prices to fall vs. earnings, they're only so high because of the decades of underinvestment, lunatic sell-offs, and widespread exploitation for gain rather than housing

As we are moving back 50 years with Brexit, one of the few good outcomes is that all of a sudden we'll end up with a large stock of council houses.

Will it?!

How do you incentivise builders to build for rental purposes? Unless you empower and finance Councils, relying on the Private sector to fill the void is a complete waste of time.

In the private market, there mus be legislation on start and finish time as well as a period between end of building and Sales. So much property with planning permission is currently just being sat on.

rolf_f

Pinno wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

sungod wrote:

the uk housing market is insane

a massive program of public sector housing development, heavily biased to rental, would help everyone needing/with a home - having a 5 million house is no benefit if moving costs 6 million - we need property prices to fall vs. earnings, they're only so high because of the decades of underinvestment, lunatic sell-offs, and widespread exploitation for gain rather than housing

As we are moving back 50 years with Brexit, one of the few good outcomes is that all of a sudden we'll end up with a large stock of council houses.

Will it?!

No - that was a ludicrous joke. Pretty much like Brexit and Trump.

pinno

Rolf F wrote:

Pinno wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

sungod wrote:

the uk housing market is insane

a massive program of public sector housing development, heavily biased to rental, would help everyone needing/with a home - having a 5 million house is no benefit if moving costs 6 million - we need property prices to fall vs. earnings, they're only so high because of the decades of underinvestment, lunatic sell-offs, and widespread exploitation for gain rather than housing

As we are moving back 50 years with Brexit, one of the few good outcomes is that all of a sudden we'll end up with a large stock of council houses.

Will it?!

No - that was a ludicrous joke. Pretty much like Brexit and Trump.

I get you now.

bobmcstuff

rjsterry wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

Why don't you make the job seekers allowance conditional upon a set amount of hours worked in the community?

No work equals no allowance. In simple terms you need to socially engineer the people who suck the state tits dry to alter their perceptions and ability to shirk their responsibility to their community.

Because this gets hijacked by some employers as free labour.

Additionally getting rid of jobseekers is basically p*ssing in the wind as unemployment benefits are only 1% of welfare spend as it is.

mamba80

bobmcstuff wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

Why don't you make the job seekers allowance conditional upon a set amount of hours worked in the community?

No work equals no allowance. In simple terms you need to socially engineer the people who suck the state tits dry to alter their perceptions and ability to shirk their responsibility to their community.

Because this gets hijacked by some employers as free labour.

Additionally getting rid of jobseekers is basically p*ssing in the wind as unemployment benefits are only 1% of welfare spend as it is.

...and what do you do with those people who wont work but have kids? starve them? have them on the streets begging, in prostitution?

You need to carry people with you, a lazy bloke turning up to work is someone who may as well go home.
Flexible benefits, Training and better education, is the key, it wont work for everyone but the system today is a complete failure.

bobmcstuff

mamba80 wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

Why don't you make the job seekers allowance conditional upon a set amount of hours worked in the community?

No work equals no allowance. In simple terms you need to socially engineer the people who suck the state tits dry to alter their perceptions and ability to shirk their responsibility to their community.

Because this gets hijacked by some employers as free labour.

Additionally getting rid of jobseekers is basically p*ssing in the wind as unemployment benefits are only 1% of welfare spend as it is.

...and what do you do with those people who wont work but have kids? starve them? have them on the streets begging, in prostitution?

You need to carry people with you, a lazy bloke turning up to work is someone who may as well go home.
Flexible benefits, Training and better education, is the key, it wont work for everyone but the system today is a complete failure.

First off I agree that training and better education is key.

However looking at the stats a bit further, I'd need a bit more convincing that long term unemployment is really that big a problem here.

For June to August 2016, there were:

1.66 million unemployed people, 962,000 (57%, the majority) people who had been unemployed for up to 6 months (short term unemployment), little changed compared with a year earlier. The total rate is 4.9% which is historically speaking very low - not been seen since the mid-2000's - and also in the region that's considered "full employment" (OECD says the "healthy" rate is 4-6.4%).

251,000 (15%) people who had been unemployed for between 6 and 12 months, 36,000 fewer than for a year earlier
443,000 (27%) people who had been unemployed for over 12 months, 85,000 fewer than for a year earlier

Stats from http://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabo ... employment with my butchery and commentary added.

Although I might add that some of what the current government is doing to force the headline claimant rate down is a little unsavoury if the stories are to be believed, particularly the one about the guy who got sanctioned for not completing his assessment, because he had a heart attack during the assessment e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobseeker ... _sanctions - these aren't isolated either. I think the concept is absolutely correct (sanctioning people who don't turn up at jobseekers or don't look for work) but applying pressure to job centres to make them sanction more people is obviously going to lead to unpleasant consequences (standard case of unintended consequences... hopefully anyway).

The other thing I think they should be doing is instead of some of the more stupid workfare schemes and training incentives they should be providing people with training that is actually useful in getting a new job and gives some sort of reputable or recognised qualification.

pinno

Having managed a Voluntary Organisation for 11 years, we got quite a few placements. They got £10 a week extra in benefits for 'working'. Most resented the placement - they didn't have a choice. As I couldn't guarantee work for them, they quickly became de-motivated.
Sanctions are wholly destructive. I know of many individuals who got sanctioned. 90% of the time, they are overturned after appeal. The appeals then compensate the individual. I would love to know the full cost of reversing sanctions are because I bet it's astronomical. The things that people got sanctioned for are unbelievable. In one case, I ended up buying a bag of shopping for someone who got sanctioned.

mamba80

bobmcstuff wrote:

First off I agree that training and better education is key.

However looking at the stats a bit further, I'd need a bit more convincing that long term unemployment is really that big a problem here.

For June to August 2016, there were:

1.66 million unemployed people, 962,000 (57%, the majority) people who had been unemployed for up to 6 months (short term unemployment), little changed compared with a year earlier. The total rate is 4.9% which is historically speaking very low - not been seen since the mid-2000's - and also in the region that's considered "full employment" (OECD says the "healthy" rate is 4-6.4%).

251,000 (15%) people who had been unemployed for between 6 and 12 months, 36,000 fewer than for a year earlier
443,000 (27%) people who had been unemployed for over 12 months, 85,000 fewer than for a year earlier

Although I might add that some of what the current government is doing to force the headline claimant rate down is a little unsavoury if the stories are to be believed, particularly the one about the guy who got sanctioned for not completing his assessment, because he had a heart attack during the assessment e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobseeker ... _sanctions - these aren't isolated either. I think the concept is absolutely correct (sanctioning people who don't turn up at jobseekers or don't look for work) but applying pressure to job centres to make them sanction more people is obviously going to lead to unpleasant consequences (standard case of unintended consequences... hopefully anyway).

The other thing I think they should be doing is instead of some of the more stupid workfare schemes and training incentives they should be providing people with training that is actually useful in getting a new job and gives some sort of reputable or recognised qualification.

from the end of ww2 until the late 1970's the rate was around the 1.5 to 2% mark and remember, no long term sick or kids in "training schemes" had they been applied the rate would have been even lower.
1.6m unemployed, who are classed as fit and actively seeking work... yet we have net immigration rates of 300k per year? many of whom are coming here to work!!!
Anecdotally. a mate of mine, a Pole working as a factory manager in wales, says the uk workers who he interviewed are fine to work day shifts, the problem is w/e and night shifts, they dont want to do them, so they predominately employ EU workers, he also said (the uk workers) lack basic skills like being able to read or write!
Incidentally, he also told of the daily racial abuse they would both suffer every morning walking to work things like "xxxx off back to where came from and stop taking our jobs" was one that made them smile, these arent recent either, this has been the case for years, they are now back in Poland, after deciding they didnt want their new baby being bought up in the UK, they also say the health service in Poland is head and shoulders above the NHS......

bit of an indictment on our society isnt it?

rjsterry

mamba80 wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

First off I agree that training and better education is key.

However looking at the stats a bit further, I'd need a bit more convincing that long term unemployment is really that big a problem here.

For June to August 2016, there were:

1.66 million unemployed people, 962,000 (57%, the majority) people who had been unemployed for up to 6 months (short term unemployment), little changed compared with a year earlier. The total rate is 4.9% which is historically speaking very low - not been seen since the mid-2000's - and also in the region that's considered "full employment" (OECD says the "healthy" rate is 4-6.4%).

251,000 (15%) people who had been unemployed for between 6 and 12 months, 36,000 fewer than for a year earlier
443,000 (27%) people who had been unemployed for over 12 months, 85,000 fewer than for a year earlier

Although I might add that some of what the current government is doing to force the headline claimant rate down is a little unsavoury if the stories are to be believed, particularly the one about the guy who got sanctioned for not completing his assessment, because he had a heart attack during the assessment e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobseeker ... _sanctions - these aren't isolated either. I think the concept is absolutely correct (sanctioning people who don't turn up at jobseekers or don't look for work) but applying pressure to job centres to make them sanction more people is obviously going to lead to unpleasant consequences (standard case of unintended consequences... hopefully anyway).

The other thing I think they should be doing is instead of some of the more stupid workfare schemes and training incentives they should be providing people with training that is actually useful in getting a new job and gives some sort of reputable or recognised qualification.

from the end of ww2 until the late 1970's the rate was around the 1.5 to 2% mark and remember, no long term sick or kids in "training schemes" had they been applied the rate would have been even lower.
1.6m unemployed, who are classed as fit and actively seeking work... yet we have net immigration rates of 300k per year? many of whom are coming here to work!!!
Anecdotally. a mate of mine, a Pole working as a factory manager in wales, says the uk workers who he interviewed are fine to work day shifts, the problem is w/e and night shifts, they dont want to do them, so they predominately employ EU workers, he also said (the uk workers) lack basic skills like being able to read or write!
Incidentally, he also told of the daily racial abuse they would both suffer every morning walking to work things like "xxxx off back to where came from and stop taking our jobs" was one that made them smile, these arent recent either, this has been the case for years, they are now back in Poland, after deciding they didnt want their new baby being bought up in the UK, they also say the health service in Poland is head and shoulders above the NHS......

bit of an indictment on our society isnt it?

There has been a small minority who don't want to put in the effort since we lived in caves. Yes, as well as supporting those who need it, a welfare system will inevitably also make life a bit easier for those who don't really need it, but I think that's a small price to pay for not slinging people in the workhouse. I think that actually says something good about our society.

ballysmate

An earlier post of mine outlining a similar experience to that in Mamba's post.

Re: EU Referendum - In/Out or will we even get one?
Postby Ballysmate » Wed Oct 05, 2016 12:41 pm

I was talking to a company director last week who had relocated a factory to I think Maldon in Essex. The company went through over 600 staff in 2 years, filling 200 vacancies until the workforce settled down with a high proportion of foreign workers. His experience, and I admit it is a sample of 1, was that a lot of UK unemployed attended because they were forced to by the job centres and deliberately made themselves unsuitable.
I would hope that such people are in for a rude awakening post Brexit.