What’s the maximum length the state should reasonably be expected to pay unemployment benefit?

Unemployment benefit should be paid for

  • 0 - Abolish it

    Votes: 2 5.9%
  • 1 week

    Votes: 1 2.9%
  • 1 month

    Votes: 1 2.9%
  • 3 months

    Votes: 2 5.9%
  • 6 months

    Votes: 6 17.6%
  • 1 year

    Votes: 5 14.7%
  • 2 years

    Votes: 1 2.9%
  • Indefinitely

    Votes: 16 47.1%

  • Total voters
    34

TFG

Jul 23, 2013
8,094
4,690
Not surprised the UK isn't on that list. It wasn't great before but since universal credit came in it's been a disaster for those most vulnerable in our society.

I mean how the fuck does it take 13-14 weeks to process a claim? How do people live for over 3 months with no income while they wait for benefits? I mean how long do Germans, the French or Americans have to wait for unemployment benefits, surely this can't be the norm. I don't recall waiting that long for benefits the one time I claimed for unemployment during the late 90's.

Same with the new PIP benefits for disabled people. It takes 4 months for a PIP claim to be processed, that's 4 months for someone with a disability or a serious illness without an income. Since 2013 when PIP was introduced some 17,070 people with disabilities or a serious illness have died waiting for their PIP claim to be processed. That means there will likely be over 2400 people will die this year waiting for their benefits.

Yet on the flip side they'll stop your benefits at the drop off a hat. My mum has Parkinson's and is on Universal Credit, they stopped her UC benefits in December because she hadn't registered online. She's not computer literate never used a computer in her life, she barely knows how to use her mobile phone and she had her benefits cut because of this. If it's happening to her, it's happening to many other people who through no fault of their own but because the system is rigged to fuck them over at every given opportunity.
Yep.

This has been explained multiple times and yet you will still get people like @Jack coming in here claiming our benefits system is too soft and promotes scroungers, which is complete unfounded bullshit. I do notice he never actually addresses this though, just repeats it every few weeks.

The system is brutal and in no way is it an easy life living on benefits, regardless of how many children you have. You already get sanctioned if you do not actively seek employment so the op is not much of a threat. What people still don't take into consideration is the wider effect policies like this have on society, everything from unemployment, poverty, crime, death, homelessness suicide etc. Ultimately, long term benefits claimants are a tiny, tiny problem, even within current claimants, but certain people can't stand the idea that they have to work hard whilst someone could be sat at home earning a massive £50 a week for not having a job.

We could not provide any less without ensuring institutionalised poverty and ruining any chances long term claimants have of getting off the system. Funnily enough, not having a house or the ability to buy food usually makes it more difficult to find a job. We provide enough money for someone to stay alive and live, like the vast majority of welfare systems across the planet.
 

Johnstown

Dominant Poster
Jun 4, 2013
22,028
6,012
Swollen and Bach are making beautiful internet economic justice love in here.
 

Jack

P4P Star
Jul 29, 2012
9,075
3,516
This has been explained multiple times and yet you will still get people like @Jack coming in here claiming our benefits system is too soft and promotes scroungers, which is complete unfounded bullshit. I do notice he never actually addresses this though, just repeats it every few weeks.
I've explained this many times and dispelled many of the lies that people on the left, such as yourself, want to repeat. You not being willing to listen to different opinions doesn't mean they don't exist, it just means you'd rather put your fingers in your ears and continue living in a bubble without any expectations or accountability.

We could not provide any less without ensuring institutionalised poverty and ruining any chances long term claimants have of getting off the system. Funnily enough, not having a house or the ability to buy food usually makes it more difficult to find a job. We provide enough money for someone to stay alive and live, like the vast majority of welfare systems across the planet.
Of course we could provide less.

We don't need to provide people with housing that's paid for by the taxpayer, yet for all people want to talk about the housing crisis, there are over 200,000 empty homes in the country and in the poorest areas on the UK, you will have many council areas with high levels of vacancies. I live in a working class town with a supposed homelessness crisis yet I could list you several estates that are full of empty houses and flats, all of which are freely available to people who need assistance. Rightly so too, we do need to provide support but to just blindly pretend that this doesn't exist is bizarre, it factually does, and when you accept that truth, you can go down the rabbit hole of properly examining the homelessness issue.

We don't need to provide people with enough money to live on, without any issues, whilst covering their rent, support for bills and so on. You throw out "not having the ability to buy food" like it's a fact yet it's a blatant lie, there isn't a single person in this country who isn't given enough money by the government to feed themselves. If you want to talk about people who prioritise drugs, alcohol, have debts etc. over buying food for themselves, why is this an issue of the government and, more to the point, why again do you want to remove all level of personal accountability from this? I'm in favour of a social security net, it's a vital part of any modern democracy but I'm not in favour of supporting people who make bad choices and then expect even more than the amount they already get in order to cover their lifestyle choices. If you want to replace the social security net with a foam mattress, Egyptian cotton sheets and a feather pillow, that's fine, but I don't see why I should pay even more tax money so some smackhead loser can prioritise his addiction and then go to a food bank and pretend that the government is the reason he's there. This is my issue with people like you, you have such a low expectation of people and you want to remove all levels of accountability and then you wonder why they end up being thoroughly worthless members of society, drains who will only ever take from the system.

We don't need to provide people with free education, from the basics like adult literacy and numeracy up to university level, we don't need to offer free dental care, free healthcare, child support, money to travel for job interviews, clothing for interviews and eventual jobs, places on back to work schemes, personal guidance on finding work, opportunities for apprenticeships and so much more, and yet we do. We do this because we're a far cry from the country you would like us to be, in this weird masturbatory victimhood fantasy you have where old Etonians are trampling on the poor working class, scrambling around for crumbs. The fact you say "we provide enough for someone to stay alive" is just nonsense, there are opportunities for everyone in society to thrive. All you want to do is remove all forms of accountability and pass the buck from those who deserve it, to those who make the most of what the country has to offer - and that's not just people born with a silver spoon, it is throughout our society.
 
Reactions: Jack McW
May 21, 2013
4,563
2,383
I've explained this many times and dispelled many of the lies that people on the left, such as yourself, want to repeat. You not being willing to listen to different opinions doesn't mean they don't exist, it just means you'd rather put your fingers in your ears and continue living in a bubble without any expectations or accountability.

Of course we could provide less.

We don't need to provide people with housing that's paid for by the taxpayer, yet for all people want to talk about the housing crisis, there are over 200,000 empty homes in the country and in the poorest areas on the UK, you will have many council areas with high levels of vacancies. I live in a working class town with a supposed homelessness crisis yet I could list you several estates that are full of empty houses and flats, all of which are freely available to people who need assistance. Rightly so too, we do need to provide support but to just blindly pretend that this doesn't exist is bizarre, it factually does, and when you accept that truth, you can go down the rabbit hole of properly examining the homelessness issue.

We don't need to provide people with enough money to live on, without any issues, whilst covering their rent, support for bills and so on. You throw out "not having the ability to buy food" like it's a fact yet it's a blatant lie, there isn't a single person in this country who isn't given enough money by the government to feed themselves. If you want to talk about people who prioritise drugs, alcohol, have debts etc. over buying food for themselves, why is this an issue of the government and, more to the point, why again do you want to remove all level of personal accountability from this? I'm in favour of a social security net, it's a vital part of any modern democracy but I'm not in favour of supporting people who make bad choices and then expect even more than the amount they already get in order to cover their lifestyle choices. If you want to replace the social security net with a foam mattress, Egyptian cotton sheets and a feather pillow, that's fine, but I don't see why I should pay even more tax money so some smackhead loser can prioritise his addiction and then go to a food bank and pretend that the government is the reason he's there. This is my issue with people like you, you have such a low expectation of people and you want to remove all levels of accountability and then you wonder why they end up being thoroughly worthless members of society, drains who will only ever take from the system.

We don't need to provide people with free education, from the basics like adult literacy and numeracy up to university level, we don't need to offer free dental care, free healthcare, child support, money to travel for job interviews, clothing for interviews and eventual jobs, places on back to work schemes, personal guidance on finding work, opportunities for apprenticeships and so much more, and yet we do. We do this because we're a far cry from the country you would like us to be, in this weird masturbatory victimhood fantasy you have where old Etonians are trampling on the poor working class, scrambling around for crumbs. The fact you say "we provide enough for someone to stay alive" is just nonsense, there are opportunities for everyone in society to thrive. All you want to do is remove all forms of accountability and pass the buck from those who deserve it, to those who make the most of what the country has to offer - and that's not just people born with a silver spoon, it is throughout our society.

:clap

theres not a government program in existence that is more effective than someone deciding to take personal responsibility for their situation (whether its their fault or not) and decide "i dont want to be poor". you see it time and time again. immigrants who arrived in bare feet and cant string a sentence together in english. fast forward 2 years and theyve got a business, a car, a mortgage and a missus about to pop out their 3rd kid. yet deluded cunts on here will tell you that if only big daddy government would wipe everyones ass for them even harder maybe theyd have a fighting chance.. i mean fuck me, according to hook the government should be paying your loans for you.. :killself just fucking mental.
 
Reactions: Jack McW

Bart

Lord of the Files
Jul 25, 2012
3,928
889
Overhere iT works like that.
With a maximum of 2 years. After that and you still have no job you receive social security

The amount of unemployment money you get is 70% of you’re last earned salary
With a maximum of €36.000 a year. Which is what, €2800 (excluding 8% holiday money)? Pityful.

They should at least double that that maximum amount and slice the duration in half.
 
May 23, 2013
8,493
1,082
tahiti
With a maximum of €36.000 a year. Which is what, €2800 (excluding 8% holiday money)? Pityful.

They should at least double that that maximum amount and slice the duration in half.
Why double iT ??
Example a manager gets salary 90.000 a year. Gets unemployed and then in you’re saying should get 63000.
Then he wil only applie to jobs where he earns more then what he gets sitting ar home.
But if there is no good paid jobs to be found he should simply Seattle for lesser paid.

I know you are educated. But if you lost you’re job and no same level jobs could be found then you should simply take s job below you’re level (and probably lesser paid)
 

Wordup

Stranges creatures, women.
May 16, 2013
6,177
2,729
Rotherham, South Yorkshire
I've explained this many times and dispelled many of the lies that people on the left, such as yourself, want to repeat. You not being willing to listen to different opinions doesn't mean they don't exist, it just means you'd rather put your fingers in your ears and continue living in a bubble without any expectations or accountability.

Of course we could provide less.

We don't need to provide people with housing that's paid for by the taxpayer, yet for all people want to talk about the housing crisis, there are over 200,000 empty homes in the country and in the poorest areas on the UK, you will have many council areas with high levels of vacancies. I live in a working class town with a supposed homelessness crisis yet I could list you several estates that are full of empty houses and flats, all of which are freely available to people who need assistance. Rightly so too, we do need to provide support but to just blindly pretend that this doesn't exist is bizarre, it factually does, and when you accept that truth, you can go down the rabbit hole of properly examining the homelessness issue.

We don't need to provide people with enough money to live on, without any issues, whilst covering their rent, support for bills and so on. You throw out "not having the ability to buy food" like it's a fact yet it's a blatant lie, there isn't a single person in this country who isn't given enough money by the government to feed themselves. If you want to talk about people who prioritise drugs, alcohol, have debts etc. over buying food for themselves, why is this an issue of the government and, more to the point, why again do you want to remove all level of personal accountability from this? I'm in favour of a social security net, it's a vital part of any modern democracy but I'm not in favour of supporting people who make bad choices and then expect even more than the amount they already get in order to cover their lifestyle choices. If you want to replace the social security net with a foam mattress, Egyptian cotton sheets and a feather pillow, that's fine, but I don't see why I should pay even more tax money so some smackhead loser can prioritise his addiction and then go to a food bank and pretend that the government is the reason he's there. This is my issue with people like you, you have such a low expectation of people and you want to remove all levels of accountability and then you wonder why they end up being thoroughly worthless members of society, drains who will only ever take from the system.

We don't need to provide people with free education, from the basics like adult literacy and numeracy up to university level, we don't need to offer free dental care, free healthcare, child support, money to travel for job interviews, clothing for interviews and eventual jobs, places on back to work schemes, personal guidance on finding work, opportunities for apprenticeships and so much more, and yet we do. We do this because we're a far cry from the country you would like us to be, in this weird masturbatory victimhood fantasy you have where old Etonians are trampling on the poor working class, scrambling around for crumbs. The fact you say "we provide enough for someone to stay alive" is just nonsense, there are opportunities for everyone in society to thrive. All you want to do is remove all forms of accountability and pass the buck from those who deserve it, to those who make the most of what the country has to offer - and that's not just people born with a silver spoon, it is throughout our society.
Long story short, stop paying benefits because everyone on them is a smack head loser?
 

Bart

Lord of the Files
Jul 25, 2012
3,928
889
Why double iT ??
Example a manager gets salary 90.000 a year. Gets unemployed and then in you’re saying should get 63000.
Then he wil only applie to jobs where he earns more then what he gets sitting ar home.
But if there is no good paid jobs to be found he should simply Seattle for lesser paid.

I know you are educated. But if you lost you’re job and no same level jobs could be found then you should simply take s job below you’re level (and probably lesser paid)
Yes. 70% with a maximum of about €70.000 (on a yearly basis). But also with a maximum of 6 months.

Remember, I’ve paid a shitload into the system, but for me it’s no safety net whatsoever, whereas it is with people in the lower wage classes.

For example. Someone who makes €100.000 and losses his job and gets €36.000, he’s up shit creek without a paddle.

So double the maximum, but only 6 months, then you’re on your own.
 

Ronsonfly

Toxic White Male
May 8, 2013
8,752
12,169
In a deplorable basket
Why double iT ??
Example a manager gets salary 90.000 a year. Gets unemployed and then in you’re saying should get 63000.
Then he wil only applie to jobs where he earns more then what he gets sitting ar home.
But if there is no good paid jobs to be found he should simply Seattle for lesser paid.

I know you are educated. But if you lost you’re job and no same level jobs could be found then you should simply take s job below you’re level (and probably lesser paid)
Yes. 70% with a maximum of about €70.000 (on a yearly basis). But also with a maximum of 6 months.

Remember, I’ve paid a shitload into the system, but for me it’s no safety net whatsoever, whereas it is with people in the lower wage classes.

For example. Someone who makes €100.000 and losses his job and gets €36.000, he’s up shit creek without a paddle.

So double the maximum, but only 6 months, then you’re on your own.
See what you're up against, @DobyZhee ? Bart soprano is arguing with himself here to confound you, just like MrTony80/his uncle/Abraham did to everyone on here. You can never beat a schizophrenic troll, they've always got something and, more crucially, someone, in reserve.
 

Jack McW

Lets get Brexit done !!!
Nov 23, 2014
3,437
2,440
Tbh on jsa more than a year you’re low life dosser scum and should rope. Serious.
 

Haggis

CHB World Championship People's Champion
May 16, 2013
40,737
17,600
I've explained this many times and dispelled many of the lies that people on the left, such as yourself, want to repeat. You not being willing to listen to different opinions doesn't mean they don't exist, it just means you'd rather put your fingers in your ears and continue living in a bubble without any expectations or accountability.

Of course we could provide less.

We don't need to provide people with housing that's paid for by the taxpayer, yet for all people want to talk about the housing crisis, there are over 200,000 empty homes in the country and in the poorest areas on the UK, you will have many council areas with high levels of vacancies. I live in a working class town with a supposed homelessness crisis yet I could list you several estates that are full of empty houses and flats, all of which are freely available to people who need assistance. Rightly so too, we do need to provide support but to just blindly pretend that this doesn't exist is bizarre, it factually does, and when you accept that truth, you can go down the rabbit hole of properly examining the homelessness issue.

We don't need to provide people with enough money to live on, without any issues, whilst covering their rent, support for bills and so on. You throw out "not having the ability to buy food" like it's a fact yet it's a blatant lie, there isn't a single person in this country who isn't given enough money by the government to feed themselves. If you want to talk about people who prioritise drugs, alcohol, have debts etc. over buying food for themselves, why is this an issue of the government and, more to the point, why again do you want to remove all level of personal accountability from this? I'm in favour of a social security net, it's a vital part of any modern democracy but I'm not in favour of supporting people who make bad choices and then expect even more than the amount they already get in order to cover their lifestyle choices. If you want to replace the social security net with a foam mattress, Egyptian cotton sheets and a feather pillow, that's fine, but I don't see why I should pay even more tax money so some smackhead loser can prioritise his addiction and then go to a food bank and pretend that the government is the reason he's there. This is my issue with people like you, you have such a low expectation of people and you want to remove all levels of accountability and then you wonder why they end up being thoroughly worthless members of society, drains who will only ever take from the system.

We don't need to provide people with free education, from the basics like adult literacy and numeracy up to university level, we don't need to offer free dental care, free healthcare, child support, money to travel for job interviews, clothing for interviews and eventual jobs, places on back to work schemes, personal guidance on finding work, opportunities for apprenticeships and so much more, and yet we do. We do this because we're a far cry from the country you would like us to be, in this weird masturbatory victimhood fantasy you have where old Etonians are trampling on the poor working class, scrambling around for crumbs. The fact you say "we provide enough for someone to stay alive" is just nonsense, there are opportunities for everyone in society to thrive. All you want to do is remove all forms of accountability and pass the buck from those who deserve it, to those who make the most of what the country has to offer - and that's not just people born with a silver spoon, it is throughout our society.
Have you ever worked in a benefits office?

:hat
 
May 25, 2013
7,522
4,110
Tbh on jsa more than a year you’re low life dosser scum and should rope. Serious.
JSA isn't even a thing anymore, it's universal credit now. So you think people with long term illnesses like Parkinson's should just hang themselves if they can't work due to their condition?

Only 0.9% of people on universal credit or JSA as you call it are unemployed for more than 6 months and most of them will be disabled or have long term debilitating health conditions. Stop falling for the BS that there are armies of unemployed just sitting on their arse for years. While there are no doubt some they will likely be so few it's not that significant. I mean of the 0.9% of unemployed how many you think are taking the piss? 10 percent? So that 0.09% of the unemployed in an era where we have very low unemployment numbers.

Also did you know JSA or universal credit for the unemployed accounts for less than 1% of the UK's welfare spending according to the OBR.

You know the biggest drain on the UK in terms of welfare? Pensions then personal tax credits. If the UK wants to make cuts on welfare then it's these areas that will make the biggest impact, but unfortunately it's also the most likely to have an impact at elections if you hit these groups. So less talk about the so called work shy unemployed how about the elderly and those in work getting tax credits, these are the big drains on society. But hey let's keep blaming the unemployed for taking that less than 1% of spending.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: Primate

Wordup

Stranges creatures, women.
May 16, 2013
6,177
2,729
Rotherham, South Yorkshire
JSA isn't even a thing anymore, it's universal credit now. So you think people with long term illnesses like Parkinson's should just hang themselves if they can't work due to their condition?

Only 0.9% of people on universal credit or JSA as you call it are unemployed for more than 6 months and most of them will be disabled or have long term debilitating health conditions. Stop falling for the BS that there's armies of unemployed just sitting on their arse for years. While there are no doubt some they will likely be so few it's not that significant. I mean of the 0.9% of unemployed how many you think are taking the piss? 10 percent? So that 0.09% of the unemployed in an era where we have very low unemployment numbers.

Also did you know JSA or universal credit for the unemployed accounts for less than 1% of the UK's welfare spending according to the OBR.

You know the biggest drain on the UK in terms of welfare? Pensions then personal tax credits. If the UK wants to make cuts on welfare then it's these areas that will make the biggest impact, but unfortunately it's also the most likely to have an impact at elections if you hit these groups. So less talk about the so called work shy unemployed how about the elderly and those in work getting tax credits, these are the big drains on society. But hey let's keep blaming the unemployed for taking that less than 1% of spending.
Yeah, also isn’t it something like 80 odd % of people claiming benefits are in work? The fact that wages are so low that the tax payer need to fund them, never gets brought up by people like @Jack, or if it does it’s lip service before they go on another multiple paragraph rant about dossers and scrounging smack heads.
 
Last edited:

Jack McW

Lets get Brexit done !!!
Nov 23, 2014
3,437
2,440
JSA isn't even a thing anymore, it's universal credit now. So you think people with long term illnesses like Parkinson's should just hang themselves if they can't work due to their condition?

Only 0.9% of people on universal credit or JSA as you call it are unemployed for more than 6 months and most of them will be disabled or have long term debilitating health conditions. Stop falling for the BS that there are armies of unemployed just sitting on their arse for years. While there are no doubt some they will likely be so few it's not that significant. I mean of the 0.9% of unemployed how many you think are taking the piss? 10 percent? So that 0.09% of the unemployed in an era where we have very low unemployment numbers.

Also did you know JSA or universal credit for the unemployed accounts for less than 1% of the UK's welfare spending according to the OBR.

You know the biggest drain on the UK in terms of welfare? Pensions then personal tax credits. If the UK wants to make cuts on welfare then it's these areas that will make the biggest impact, but unfortunately it's also the most likely to have an impact at elections if you hit these groups. So less talk about the so called work shy unemployed how about the elderly and those in work getting tax credits, these are the big drains on society. But hey let's keep blaming the unemployed for taking that less than 1% of spending.
Obviously not the real disabled.. but ive seen countless people in social housing just milking it and there is fuck all stopping them doin basic shit.

And in terms of able bodied scroungers committing suicide, i think they shud jus end it all if u are that much of a loser u cant hold down a basic job, ur scum n should die. Simple as.
 

Jack McW

Lets get Brexit done !!!
Nov 23, 2014
3,437
2,440
Also, as far as tax credits go i would take em away from all the somaliana n Pakistanis who have never worked. Then send em back. The properties would then be sold of to the young working class british whites, who are indigenous to these shores.

Now that, ladies n gentlemen is real white privilege!!!!
 

Jack McW

Lets get Brexit done !!!
Nov 23, 2014
3,437
2,440
Daddy Paul has the right idea. Top fella. Really enjoyed his military training camp in Belfast back in December. Its going to be a great 2020 for Britain First and once we come into power we will stop all this crap.

 
May 25, 2013
7,522
4,110
Obviously not the real disabled.. but ive seen countless people in social housing just milking it and there is fuck all stopping them doin basic shit.

And in terms of able bodied scroungers committing suicide, i think they shud jus end it all if u are that much of a loser u cant hold down a basic job, ur scum n should die. Simple as.
So these "people" you see that are milking it. What are their circumstances, you've obviously spoken to them found out what benefits they are on and why they are on them right, so you must be right. Or have you just assumed these people you see are milking it?

I only know one person who is long term unemployed. Look at him and he seems like a pretty ordinary bloke, articulate, physically able, no reason he shouldn't work from first glance. But he had an awful childhood with an alcoholic parent who abused him mentally and physically, he looks fine but he has serious mental health issues, suffers panic attacks, is an agoraphobic and some cynics may say he's putting it on to scam the system, if he is he's really selling the part he's playing, all those suicide attempts are just another way of cheating the system I guess, at least that's what some heartless cynic would think.

Suffice to say you can't judge a persons circumstances without getting to know them. You really have to be some kind of epic asshole to just pigeon hole people that way without even knowing them.

As for social housing wouldn't be as much of an issue if we hadn't of sold off our social housing and helped cause a property boom which has seen rents rise. Successive governments have helped create a problem when it comes to housing in the UK. There's plenty of new properties being built in my city, whole place is a like a building site, but none of it is affordable housing, it's either all student accommodation or luxury flats. So unsurprisingly there's a lack of affordable housing where I live and this is when social housing can help people find affordable homes when the options are very limited.
 
Reactions: TFG