The return of the hang 'em and flog 'em brigade!

[MrJonno]

I don't know about the US but in the UK you must be actively seeking work (and prove it) to get what is officially called Jobseekers allowance, there are other welfare where this isnt required but thats normally if you are a single mother with small children or arent medically fit to work.

If I remember correctly you can be reasonably fussy about which job you accept for 3-6 months but after that you are expected to take any legal job or you start losing benefits

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Some Ratz have posted their ruses to get around that "proof" rule.

[Coito ergo sum]

Forced as you don't get any benefits of the state not forced as in you get shot of course

Still, who gets forced to work? Everybody, somebody, nobody? Who decides?

Wouldn't that be the same people that decide all classifications under the law? The legislature?

They can write into law rules to cover every situation that might exist? Think of the draft boards in WWII. They were meant to determine if a person was eligible for call up if there was a question. It wasn't "18 and your ass is ours."

But, if the government says, "we have this $X you are eligible for, but to get it, you have to participate the CCC work program." Is that "force?"

No problem with workfare as an option, or even mandatory if there's no good reason the person can't work. But I'm saying there are too many scenarios for a law to cover, and that means something similar to the draft boards would be needed. That's when I really start wondering.

Sure, but that's the problem with the compulsion part. If a person doesn't want to work, it's reasonable not to pay that person, but is it ever reasonable to say "no no - you MUST work?" For all anyone else cares, does it matter of John Smith would rather slack than work?

[Coito ergo sum]

I don't know about the US but in the UK you must be actively seeking work (and prove it) to get what is officially called Jobseekers allowance, there are other welfare where this isnt required but thats normally if you are a single mother with small children or arent medically fit to work.

If I remember correctly you can be reasonably fussy about which job you accept for 3-6 months but after that you are expected to take any legal job or you start losing benefits

Wow - the Brit rule is remarkably similar to the evil, capitalist, anarcho-libertarian-utopia known as the United States? And, here I was under the impression that Europeans all had enlightened, modern ways of doing things. Who knew that your welfare and unemployment compensation is basically the same as ours?

[Atheist-Lite]

I don't know about the US but in the UK you must be actively seeking work (and prove it) to get what is officially called Jobseekers allowance, there are other welfare where this isnt required but thats normally if you are a single mother with small children or arent medically fit to work.

If I remember correctly you can be reasonably fussy about which job you accept for 3-6 months but after that you are expected to take any legal job or you start losing benefits

Wow - the Brit rule is remarkably similar to the evil, capitalist, anarcho-libertarian-utopia known as the United States? And, here I was under the impression that Europeans all had enlightened, modern ways of doing things. Who knew that your welfare and unemployment compensation is basically the same as ours?

There isn't much work about. We've got our version of Wall Street called The Money Mile soaked all the money up just like the United States.

[Coito ergo sum]

I don't know about the US but in the UK you must be actively seeking work (and prove it) to get what is officially called Jobseekers allowance, there are other welfare where this isnt required but thats normally if you are a single mother with small children or arent medically fit to work.

If I remember correctly you can be reasonably fussy about which job you accept for 3-6 months but after that you are expected to take any legal job or you start losing benefits

Wow - the Brit rule is remarkably similar to the evil, capitalist, anarcho-libertarian-utopia known as the United States? And, here I was under the impression that Europeans all had enlightened, modern ways of doing things. Who knew that your welfare and unemployment compensation is basically the same as ours?

There isn't much work about. We've got our version of Wall Street called The Money Mile soaked all the money up just like the United States.

Huh...and here I though you blokes were the enlightened, compassionate ones, living in a reasonably civilized nation....

[MrJonno]

I don't know about the US but in the UK you must be actively seeking work (and prove it) to get what is officially called Jobseekers allowance, there are other welfare where this isnt required but thats normally if you are a single mother with small children or arent medically fit to work.

If I remember correctly you can be reasonably fussy about which job you accept for 3-6 months but after that you are expected to take any legal job or you start losing benefits

Wow - the Brit rule is remarkably similar to the evil, capitalist, anarcho-libertarian-utopia known as the United States? And, here I was under the impression that Europeans all had enlightened, modern ways of doing things. Who knew that your welfare and unemployment compensation is basically the same as ours?

In many ways the UK is far closer to the US than it is to the rest of Europe, despite what a few right wingers would say benefits are generally very poor for the unemployed in the UK and the only ones who are happy on it are generally working illegally

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Sure, but that's the problem with the compulsion part. If a person doesn't want to work, it's reasonable not to pay that person, but is it ever reasonable to say "no no - you MUST work?" For all anyone else cares, does it matter of John Smith would rather slack than work?

Why do you think "doesn't want to work" is the only scenario?

[Coito ergo sum]

Sure, but that's the problem with the compulsion part. If a person doesn't want to work, it's reasonable not to pay that person, but is it ever reasonable to say "no no - you MUST work?" For all anyone else cares, does it matter of John Smith would rather slack than work?

Why do you think "doesn't want to work" is the only scenario?

Where did I state or imply that it was the only scenario. Some people will want to do it, and others won't. Would you advocate forcing the people who don't want to, to do so?

You said you had no problem forcing people to work. If people want to do the work, then they're not being forced.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Sure, but that's the problem with the compulsion part. If a person doesn't want to work, it's reasonable not to pay that person, but is it ever reasonable to say "no no - you MUST work?" For all anyone else cares, does it matter of John Smith would rather slack than work?

Why do you think "doesn't want to work" is the only scenario?

Where did I state or imply that it was the only scenario. Some people will want to do it, and others won't. Would you advocate forcing the people who don't want to, to do so?

You're stuck on that scenario, that's why I asked.

You said you had no problem forcing people to work. If people want to do the work, then they're not being forced.

I have no problem forcing people to earn their money. I do have a problem with cutting people off from aid when they can't work.

[Jesus_of_Nazareth]

I don't see a conflict between the State helping folk who are unable to help themselves - and requiring the able to work for money.

After 3 months you may still be an unemployed Manager / paper pusher / hairdresser etc......after 4 you are simply an unemployed person with a limited (specific) skill set...........and if you want cash from others (via the State) there be at least a broom for you!

Personally I would raise the Minimum wage to the living wage - and drop most of the benefits currently paid to the working poor on the Min Wage. Top of my list would be Housing benefits, which is really a Landlords subsidy - the gap left filled by council houses on rent that is linked to income......only has to cover maintanence costs of the property.

And make entering the country illegal a crime, and actively hunt down illegal immigrants - and deport 'em.

[Audley Strange]

You lack imagination you lot. There are currently around 40,000 heroin addicts in the U.K. As anyone knows heroin addicts are incredibly industrious criminals yet we fail to harness that potential even though we are balls deep in the Skag Basket that is Afghanistan.

Consequently, make them work for basic nutrition, primary healthcare and free heroin rather than keep them like paraplegics doped up on barbiturates. This would have a side effect of causing less crime, supporting less organised criminals and therefore spending less on maintaining the police for... oh wait... I haven't thought it through, thats not likely to happen is it?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You lack imagination you lot. There are currently around 40,000 heroin addicts in the U.K.

Give them all the 100% pure they want. The problem will solve itself quickly.

[Audley Strange]

You lack imagination you lot. There are currently around 40,000 heroin addicts in the U.K.

Give them all the 100% pure they want. The problem will solve itself quickly.

Treat them like shit until they die on their feet and boost your economy the world admires your strength of leadership.
Give them a quick painless death and you're an inhuman monster that needs to be removed usually by killing the same people you were.

[Atheist-Lite]

The coming bird flu pandemic will create loads of work for the survivors and make housing more affordable.