How do you differentiate between cant work and wont work?

First topic message reminder :

For hundreds of years - perhaps since the start of society itself, there has been the problem of people too poor to manage by themselves. From the first hunter gatherers who provided food (if it was available) to those injured, or maybe just too old human society has been willing to support those unable to support themselves.

However as society advanced the question started to arise of those who wished to be supported when perhaps they did not truly need supporting - that saw being supported as easier than supporting themselves. Various systems have been devised through the years to try and make sure that those who need help got it while those who did not were not able to take the "easy" option.

So we arrive at todays modern technologically advanced society complete with its benefit systems - and fierce accusations of both the needy going unsupported and the lazy taking advantage.

So how would you design a system to make sure that those needing help got it while those not needing it were unable to take advantage?

sphinx wrote:

eddie wrote:

That is what I am saying Ragga.

We are made to conform before we are  born.
Everyone bleats on about the fact they hate their job, they hate the rat race etc......so don't work then! Who says you have to?
Who says you have to?

I'm only putting it out there that if you dint want to work you shouldn't have to. Why do something your whole life, that you hate, and then die very dissatisfied?
Why get stigmatised by people who do work?

It's just a different way to look at life.
Before people say it's stupid, perhaps they should think about why they are so programmed to think it's stupid?

People are so programmed because people need food shelter warmth and health care.  In society these things have to be paid for either by money from a job or direct labour in providing them for oneself.

People (as a rule) want the things that money gives them - they want a nice warm home, food in their stomach, and to be healed when ill.  It is not possible to have these things without some one working.  The person without a paid job who grows their own food and builds their own shelter etc is still working - but they are not the issue.  The people who raise children or care for elderly while supported by others are working and they are not the issue.
The issue are the people who want a house to live in, clothes to wear and food to eat all without any effort on their part even where they are capable of effort.

I think that explains it rather well.

eddie - you could try the Shetland Islands.

The thing is though that for some people all those things don't have to be paid for by money from a job or direct labour - they can get it all from the State, and then some still complain that it's not enough.

Raggamuffin wrote:The thing is though that for some people all those things don't have to be paid for by money from a job or direct labour - they can get it all from the State, and then some still complain that it's not enough.

That's the argument from the Conservative Party and it's supporters Ragga.

They argue that it is wrong people can stay at home sitting in their pyjamas all day while others do a 40 hour week only to be left with the same, or less money in their pocket after bills and costs of work are taken in to account.

edit: I may be teaching you to suck eggs - where are you from Ragga?

BigAndy9 wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:The thing is though that for some people all those things don't have to be paid for by money from a job or direct labour - they can get it all from the State, and then some still complain that it's not enough.

That's the argument from the Conservative Party and it's supporters Ragga.

They argue that it is wrong people can stay at home sitting in their pyjamas all day while others do a 40 hour week only to be left with the same, or less money in their pocket after bills and costs of work are taken in to account.

Just the Tory party? Why would any other party think that it's fair? I know that some people who work can get top up benefits so they're not worse off than those who don't work, but they still have to do that 40-hour week.

The thing is not every person is able to work a 40 hour week - or do any basic job - some might not be able to do any work.

Also sometimes there is not the work available.

I am assuming that everyone agrees that in such cases the people should not be left to starve, freeze, or die of neglect.

The problem is how to tell the difference between people who genuinely cannot work, and those who could work but who deliberately pretend they cannot.

sphinx wrote:The thing is not every person is able to work a 40 hour week - or do any basic job - some might not be able to do any work.

Also sometimes there is not the work available.

I am assuming that everyone agrees that in such cases the people should not be left to starve, freeze, or die of neglect.

The problem is how to tell the difference between people who genuinely cannot work, and those who could work but who deliberately pretend they cannot.

Agree with the first 3 lines.

4th line - I've given the answer - it's already in place - regular assessments - it's the only way, it's the fairest way (to all).

Those who complain, I can only assume, are the ones hiding something. Or, it was just too damned easy before and they have got the hump!

BigAndy9 wrote:

sphinx wrote:The thing is not every person is able to work a 40 hour week - or do any basic job - some might not be able to do any work.

Also sometimes there is not the work available.

I am assuming that everyone agrees that in such cases the people should not be left to starve, freeze, or die of neglect.

The problem is how to tell the difference between people who genuinely cannot work, and those who could work but who deliberately pretend they cannot.

Agree with the first 3 lines.

4th line - I've given the answer - it's already in place - regular assessments - it's the only way, it's the fairest way (to all).

Those who complain, I can only assume, are the ones hiding something.  Or, it was just too damned easy before and they have got the hump!

Yes you keep going on about checks and assessments but you never say what form these checks and/or assessments should take. That is what I am trying to get out - what form of check or assessment will show who is lying and who is not?

even if you can get someone who doesn't want to work to an interview for a job they can botch the interview...

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:

Yes and that's why people have a problem with people who choose not to work; they are in a job they hate!
You'll find that those of us who have jobs we love, care very little about those who do not work, because we are fundamentally happy.
Those of us who hates our jobs will moan because they're a little envious that they can't live with the stigma of not working.

We are so conditioned to WANT to work, to WANT to buy a house, to WANT more.

What would happen if we wasn't conditioned?

I can tell you now, I would rather be unemployed and poor, and bring up my children, than do a job I hate so I had more money.

In fact, I wouldn't do a job I hate. I tried that and I was so miserable, I felt like I was wasting my life. So I made myself unemployed and trained myself to do something I loved, then found work.

I don't believe in laying on your death bed with regrets. And I'd regret going to work so that I could live with more money.

Yes, I agree with all that.

It's very difficult for people to distinguish between what they want and what they're supposed to want IMO.

What happens though if a young person leaves school and decides that work is not for them? They would become a bit isolated and be very dependent on their parents - assuming that the parents don't nag them about getting a job. I think most people would get tired of that kind of life and want to stand on their own two feet.

Perhaps the problem is the type of job around these days. A lot of them are absolutely ghastly IMO. It's time that work was more pleasant and less regimented.

I think job-shares are a good idea.

sphinx wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:

Agree with the first 3 lines.

4th line - I've given the answer - it's already in place - regular assessments - it's the only way, it's the fairest way (to all).

Those who complain, I can only assume, are the ones hiding something.  Or, it was just too damned easy before and they have got the hump!

Yes you keep going on about checks and assessments but you never say what form these checks and/or assessments should take.  That is what I am trying to get out - what form of check or assessment will show who is lying and who is not?

Well I think they are doing a good job already, are they not?

The thousands that didn't even bother going through with it - they were lying.

The thousands found fit for some type of work - they were laying it on thick.

The thousands found too sick for work - they are probably honest.

Job done.

Next!

BigAndy9 wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Yes you keep going on about checks and assessments but you never say what form these checks and/or assessments should take.  That is what I am trying to get out - what form of check or assessment will show who is lying and who is not?

Well I think they are doing a good job already, are they not?

The thousands that didn't even bother going through with it - they were lying.

The thousands found fit for some type of work - they were laying it on thick.

The thousands found too sick for work - they are probably honest.

Job done.

Next!

Uh no they are doing a god damn awful job - and using statistics to try and cover up.

There has been no change in the number of people that end their claims before the 13th week from the old incapacity benefit - that is because there is the same number of broken limbs, hernias, strains, injuries and short term illnesses as there was before. There are a considerable number of conditions that last between 3 and 12 months - which considering everything from JSA to SSP make up those who to use the daily mails term "didnt go through with it"

The thousands found fit for "some" type of work never claimed any different - the old incapacity was all or nothing, and they have still not finished transferring people from incapacity to ESA. The problem with being fit for "some" kind of work is that all too often the type of work covered by the "some" is the rarest meaning that people go from spending years on incapacity with no hope of being considered for work to spending years on JSA with no hope of finding work.

There is also a major problem with the fact that people are being found fit for work when they are not (give you a clue when someone dies of cancer, heart disease, or complications of a condition within 6 months of being found fit then the person who found them fit was wrong). A major cause of this is a system that has been made so precise to try and stop fraud has at the same time become so unnatural that it is more likely to stop the genuine than the fraud.

We need a system that pays attention to natural differences in the genuine and the fraudulent (a big one is that the genuine tend to talk down their problems, and not over explain), and that balances what it finds people capable of with what is available - if they are going to find people partially capable they need to make sure there are protected jobs for them (once upon a time employers were legally obligated to take on disabled employees even if they were less productive).

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:

Yes and that's why people have a problem with people who choose not to work; they are in a job they hate!
You'll find that those of us who have jobs we love, care very little about those who do not work, because we are fundamentally happy.
Those of us who hates our jobs will moan because they're a little envious that they can't live with the stigma of not working.

We are so conditioned to WANT to work, to WANT to buy a house, to WANT more.

What would happen if we wasn't conditioned?

I can tell you now, I would rather be unemployed and poor, and bring up my children, than do a job I hate so I had more money.

In fact, I wouldn't do a job I hate. I tried that and I was so miserable, I felt like I was wasting my life. So I made myself unemployed and trained myself to do something I loved, then found work.

I don't believe in laying on your death bed with regrets. And I'd regret going to work so that I could live with more money.

Yes, I agree with all that.

It's very difficult for people to distinguish between what they want and what they're supposed to want IMO.

What happens though if a young person leaves school and decides that work is not for them? They would become a bit isolated and be very dependent on their parents - assuming that the parents don't nag them about getting a job. I think most people would get tired of that kind of life and want to stand on their own two feet.

Perhaps the problem is the type of job around these days. A lot of them are absolutely ghastly IMO. It's time that work was more pleasant and less regimented.

I think job-shares are a good idea.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Beekeeper wrote:

   To be fair, I don't see here where FTL's reference to "loyalty" or "morality" fit into this discussion ~ they have never had anything to do with any volunteer "work" that I have done, and do do ~ ethics and attitude, however, are another matter again...

Sphinx and Ragamuffin have touched on the ideas before, in this thread    ~ with their references to schemes where "work for your benefits/doles schemes" are already used in many areas; (Also, it should be noted that around 15-16 hours a week in many voluntary schemes is sufficient to cover normal unemployment benefits..).

   AT THE SAME time, Catman does still have a couple of good points there in middle of his arguments ~ which I can support AS FACT from personal experience during periods of industrial downturns, and the folio-on economic changes :

* NO MATTER how much BigAndy or Sphinx may be wishing that the jobs were there to back their arguments, the simple fact is that the jobs simply aren't there ~ despite all of the lies that our governments keep on pushing to the contrary;

* EVEN with "work for the dole" schemes, these still need to be thought through properly by the specific government departments/councils and local communities/charities or contractors that are involved, so that both sides are getting solid and worthwhile returns from their relevant investments of time and money..

* SOMETIMES, the authority that has been yoked with carrying the latest scheme doesn't even know what to do with their "conscripted volunteer labourers" (!) ~ when all that some councils can come up with is picking up papers or a bit of road-sweeping, with no skills-adding for the workers then obviously it's time to get a new co-ordinator/manager/facilitator ~ someone who can find the projects that need doing, liaise with local communities and businesses, nominate what training is necessary and/or handy, manage those workers, and bring those projects in within time and under budget !  

Re the last bit, I absolutely agree with that. It's a bit like employers who agree to take on a school kid for work experience, and then have no idea what to do with them. The school kid ends up thinking that work must be really boring and it puts them off.

I wouldn't mind money being spent on proper organisation of unemployed people and volunteer work - I think that would be better than people sitting at home losing their confidence and wondering what to do with their days.

Absolutely Raggamuffin plus people can learn new skills and make new contacts too.  Lots of jobs are found as a result of who you know rather than what you know  ::D::

feelthelove wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Re the last bit, I absolutely agree with that. It's a bit like employers who agree to take on a school kid for work experience, and then have no idea what to do with them. The school kid ends up thinking that work must be really boring and it puts them off.

I wouldn't mind money being spent on proper organisation of unemployed people and volunteer work - I think that would be better than people sitting at home losing their confidence and wondering what to do with their days.

Absolutely Raggamuffin plus people can learn new skills and make new contacts too.  Lots of jobs are found as a result of who you know rather than what you know  ::D::

Exactly. Remember the case of Cait Reilly, a graduate on benefits who had to work in Poundland as work experience? I could see her point about slave labour, but it was only for two weeks, and instead of moaning about it she could have made the most of it and maybe even met people who could help her.

I have posted this before, and got little feed back. The figure quoted are "illustration only" and would obviously depend on many (often unknown at least to me) factors, however .......


So, Just HOW would you run the country?

When we look at whats going on, It is obvious that the old 3 party system is no longer fit for the purpose, and a big change is needed, but who do we look to? The obvious choice is the BNP, but, they are hamstrung by their past, and come to that, the past of nationalism. However we have to realise that just as socialism has changed over the years (and not for the better it might be added) so has nationalism. The BNP are largely marginalized, with their numbers bolstered mainly by discontented and, it has to be said the I’m all right jack…sod you brigade, so much is obvious by the various posts we see on the forum, the attitude displayed by those posters towards disabled, gay and ethnic minorities, is often only marginally short of that displayed by certain people in the 1930’s in another nation. Personally I have a lot of sympathy towards the BNP’s stance on many things….BUT I cannot support them simply because there is an underlying malice that just cannot be removed, a malice that shows in statements that come from various senior members, and that rolls forth on a daily basis from their supporters on this forum. Also, in many areas the BNP’s policy does not go far enough…it is not radical enough and fails to address the issues of today, nor the fact that many of those issues will be worse in the not to distant future

So, how would YOU run the country…well…I would do it like this, and please, bear in mind that in most cases, where I would make monetary suggestions…I have limited information on the amounts of money actually floating around…Lets face it none of us have ANY real idea of the TRUE balance sheet of the nation. I merely propose the ideas for reasonable discussion…..If your input is going to be limited to “wanker
” “pillock” “twat” etc …don’t bother replying, if however you can make CONSTRUCTIVE comment, or back your point with REAL figures, then great…

Financial policy

1, leave the EU as fast as is practicable, if necessary subsidising British interests in order to speed it up

2, cancel ALL foreign aid, except where such aid is clearly and independantly demonstrated to be properly used to the benefit of the intended recipients

3, tear up any and all agreements to pay anyone any “carbon taxes”

4, increase duty on All alcohol and smoking material by 10% per year for 10 years

5, cease all expenditure on anti smoking advertising…if people want to smoke…its up to them…and they bring in more in duty than they cost in health care..

6, reduce vehicle excise duty on all vehicles to a nominal £20 per year to cover registration costs

7 increase the rate of fuel duty by 30p this year and by 10p per year for the next 5 years

8,
9 legalise cannabis and make it duty payed the same as tobacco

10 legalise prostitution, making the bordello owner legally responsible for the health care of the girls. Make street prostitution strictly illegal with severe penalties for breaches of this law…especially for the pimps

Now this is whats gonna bite…..

11…remove ALL state benefits pensions etc

now…stop slavering…..wait….down you dog called the left,

12…replace it with a SINGLE…UNTAXABLE state payment, payable to ALL UK citizens over the age of 16, on a residency basis ONLY…at a level which provides a bare minimum standard of living ( I would guess that’s about at statutory minimum wage level)

13 remove the statutory minimum wage

14 remove all tax allowances

15 All income beyond the state payment to be taxed at 50% up to 150,000

16 over 150,000 taxed at 75%

17 make all tax returns the duty of the EMPLOYER…..with heavy penalties for defaulters


Reasoning:

1 the EU costs us more than it brings to us, both in terms of fixed costs and invisible costs

2 foreign aid is mainly misused, and in the situation we are in…we cant afford it

3 man made climate change is a load of old cobblers…made up to subjugate the west
yes the climates changing…but its been doing that for years…also…an interesting fact…that Icelandic volcano that hiccupped a bit back…wiped out the last 10 years carbon savings…and the next 20 to come….…..no point paying through the nose to fight nature…

4, it’s a good cash cow

5 need I say more, and I’m sick of the nanny state

6 & 7 transfer the VED to fuel duty…he who uses most pays most

8 watch this space…

9 more money to the exchequer…and …ask a cop who he would sooner scrape up from the door way…a drunk or a pothead???

10…why not…about time we caught up with the 21st century…and just think of the income tax…not to mention the vat and duty….

11….17

this is the really serious bit of this….

We have, on all sides of the political divide, to realise that for good or bad, and for whatever reason and regardless of who’s “fault it is , the world has changed mightily.
2-3 generations have lived in a system where there has been little hope of a job, such jobs as are available are seen as demeaning and or unpleasant. It has also to be recognised that many jobs which would have sustained most of these folk have gone for good…exported…destroyed. There is a job gulf bigger than ever before…its either cleaning the loos or a degree position…so we have to recognise that there are a lot, an awful lot, of folks who are going to be loo cleaners….NOT.
It must also be recognised that due to years of poor social education, poor parental and teacher leadership, and the sickening creep of socialist sheeping visible in soaps and the brainless useless celebrity magazines….there are a lot of folks who are psychologically incapable of work in any sustained manner, but who would, if given the chance do some part time work here and there In order to better themselves. Those who WANT to work…will…and despite a higher tax band etc would still be much better of even I suspect than at present.

We should get away from the Victorian “christian work ethic”…that is no longer fit for the purpose, and instead focus on creating a society where fairness means a relaxed attitude to working, where working is as much for self improvement as it is for “stuffing the wallet of the industrialist” and at the same time recognising that not everyone is born to be top man….as Einstein said….”Vell….Ve cant all be first violinners in der orchestra, some of us have to push der vindt through der trombone”

Yes there will be those who will just say oki …I’ll take the state wage and put me feet up….but then that’s where they will stay…...some will say well I want a bit more…and do part time ..here and there jobs…easy to do with no dole office idiots to try to negotiate part time work with… others will as they always have…get on with things and get well paid full time jobs..with the state wage making up for the loss due to higher taxes etc…and with some to spare in the middle bracket…which most of us belong to I suspect.

I strongly suspect that such a move would benefit everyone, providing financial security for all, at the penalty of just retargeting costs and payments.

Finally let me ask you to read carefully and think through the implications of this approach…I know there are things implicit in this that I haven’t made obvious…due to time…and the fact I cant think and type at the same time Things like the cost of providing the present benefits costs as much or more as the benfits themselves…get rid of the benefits and you get back double…

Other than the bit about the BNP which is rather dated - you are now looking at UKIP and to be honest a lot of the stuff you have there is in their manifesto anyway.

I have tried costing out the single payment to everyone regardless of working or not and I am afraid I have been unable to get close to a workable figure (because that idea has occurred to me before as well)

I understand what you are saying about the change in society. One of the things that strikes me is an area early sci fi predictions were wrong. The perception was that the definition of luxury would remain as it was in their time but that technology would mean everyone in society would reach it by working part time and at the same time everyone would have much more leisure time. In fact it has worked the other way - we now how a small minority working even longer hours for luxury not thought possible while the "poor" are proportionately worse off while achieving standards considered luxury before and yet without work.

People talk about job share - the problem is that the average person can spend a full time wage and still hanker after more money - and easy credit delivers the more money. The whole concept of everyone working part time for more similar wages has been shown to not work with the market forces of the current system.

Maybe another area to explore would be that since the link between gold and money is long since disappeared whether a different mathematical model for economics could be developed - using a purely theoretical basis rather than gold standard.