Bradford unemployed may lose relief on council tax (From Bradford Telegraph and Argus)

bcha wrote:
all the unemployed will vote no and all the employed will vote yes, theres more people working so the winning vote will be yes.

Apollo wrote:
I hope the badly written comments made on this story thus far are not an indication of the educational standards in Bradford.

You could put a monkey on a typewriter and get a better argument and fewer spelling mistakes.

vax2002 wrote:

Apollo wrote: I hope the badly written comments made on this story thus far are not an indication of the educational standards in Bradford. You could put a monkey on a typewriter and get a better argument and fewer spelling mistakes.

Go away, stop trolling, if you have no point to be made other than attacking the fact that not everyone has an English degree, then but out ! Troll !

wobbley-bob wrote:
I work, but having been a 'doley' in the past, I voted no.

Oh, btw carpet washer, there's 2 t's in Butt out!. ;)

theazbo wrote:

wobbley-bob wrote:
I work, but having been a 'doley' in the past, I voted no.

Oh, btw carpet washer, there's 2 t's in Butt out!. ;)

Hope the your boys are well long time since seen them pass on my best

thebrownsauceman wrote:
I'm unemployed having left university and so is all 46 who graduated on my course 3months ago. I hate the way people say everyone on the dole is a doser or sponges when it's not the way at all. People are struggling and the 70pound a month is around 60% of a 2weeka dole, how are families supposed to feed there kids? It's a joke and anyone who voted yes have clearly never been in the position of the dole. Regardless of what you say the dole is not a nice place to be on for most but it's a simple matter of recession and no jobs around.

The Legion wrote:
I have voted Yes. I have been unemployed and I am a family man. I do not believe everyone on benefits are spongers or sitting back doing nothing. I do know that some are genuine, but sadly a lot aren't. When I've been unemployed I've worked hard to get another job. I would pretty much do any legal job and have put my hand down toilets and cleaned up the disgusting mess people leave. If every able person went out with the same thinking we would have a massive drop in unemployment levels. There are loads of hotels in Bradford which we all like to moan about, most of which are currently looking for staff that want to work. Its not nice and its hard but it pays a wage.
So in short I believe I have to say yes because there is too many who can work, but my heart does go out to those who genuinely can't.

jip2012 wrote:
well it's about time. we are on benefits and have to pay 90% of our council tax bill and 90% of our rent so why can't other people on benefits contribute towards these things. hope it goes ahead

dazp wrote:
the ones that say no in the poll are the ones that sponge off the government

dannywho2 wrote:
Just the kick in the pants the workless and the ebenfit scroungers need to get back into work.

But then again if theres no jobs out there what do you expect peopel to do.
And how do you het blood out of a stone, personally i think t his could be illegal and challenged in court, seems a clear breach of basic human rights, how can you hound someone with no fixed or reliable income with council tax

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

The Legion wrote: I have voted Yes. I have been unemployed and I am a family man. I do not believe everyone on benefits are spongers or sitting back doing nothing. I do know that some are genuine, but sadly a lot aren't. When I've been unemployed I've worked hard to get another job. I would pretty much do any legal job and have put my hand down toilets and cleaned up the disgusting mess people leave. If every able person went out with the same thinking we would have a massive drop in unemployment levels. There are loads of hotels in Bradford which we all like to moan about, most of which are currently looking for staff that want to work. Its not nice and its hard but it pays a wage. So in short I believe I have to say yes because there is too many who can work, but my heart does go out to those who genuinely can't.

Then you're an idiot. The tax won't get paid.

The Legion wrote:

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

The Legion wrote: I have voted Yes. I have been unemployed and I am a family man. I do not believe everyone on benefits are spongers or sitting back doing nothing. I do know that some are genuine, but sadly a lot aren't. When I've been unemployed I've worked hard to get another job. I would pretty much do any legal job and have put my hand down toilets and cleaned up the disgusting mess people leave. If every able person went out with the same thinking we would have a massive drop in unemployment levels. There are loads of hotels in Bradford which we all like to moan about, most of which are currently looking for staff that want to work. Its not nice and its hard but it pays a wage. So in short I believe I have to say yes because there is too many who can work, but my heart does go out to those who genuinely can't.

Then you're an idiot. The tax won't get paid.

The council have a simple and affective way of collecting tax. I'm pretty sure the collections services are not getting cut back. But whats the solution, give everything for free. And I say again some people a genuine and can't work, which means this is a slap in the face to them but those who can work need to be brought to pay too. I now work and pay loads of tax just like everyone else who lives a normal life. There are jobs out there, just some of the unemployed believe the jobs are beneath them. So how do you push them towards re addressing their values.

Billyboyarnold wrote:
AW your a disgrace, age 26 been unemployed 7 years, are you telling me you couldn't find a job in 7 years, your a waste of space, get looking scrounger.

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

dazp wrote: the ones that say no in the poll are the ones that sponge off the government

The ones who say yes in the poll are the ones who will one day answer to God for their mean-spirited selfish attitude and will inevitably have to repay their karma in one way or another.

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

Billyboyarnold wrote: AW your a disgrace, age 26 been unemployed 7 years, are you telling me you couldn't find a job in 7 years, your a waste of space, get looking scrounger.

Because when you apply for jobs the employer will always favour someone who has worked recently, who is still in the habit of getting up early, who is still in the routine of working life, and who has recent work experience, up to date skills, and references, and anyone who is on the dole will simply have their application/CV chucked in the bin. So please stfu unless you have anything intelligent to contribute.

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

The Legion wrote:

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

The Legion wrote: I have voted Yes. I have been unemployed and I am a family man. I do not believe everyone on benefits are spongers or sitting back doing nothing. I do know that some are genuine, but sadly a lot aren't. When I've been unemployed I've worked hard to get another job. I would pretty much do any legal job and have put my hand down toilets and cleaned up the disgusting mess people leave. If every able person went out with the same thinking we would have a massive drop in unemployment levels. There are loads of hotels in Bradford which we all like to moan about, most of which are currently looking for staff that want to work. Its not nice and its hard but it pays a wage. So in short I believe I have to say yes because there is too many who can work, but my heart does go out to those who genuinely can't.

Then you're an idiot. The tax won't get paid.

The council have a simple and affective way of collecting tax. I'm pretty sure the collections services are not getting cut back. But whats the solution, give everything for free. And I say again some people a genuine and can't work, which means this is a slap in the face to them but those who can work need to be brought to pay too. I now work and pay loads of tax just like everyone else who lives a normal life. There are jobs out there, just some of the unemployed believe the jobs are beneath them. So how do you push them towards re addressing their values.

"So how do you push them towards re addressing their values." You don't. You can't. No one can push me into readdressing my values. It is society and government that needs to readdress its values. The vast majority of longterm unemployed are, by now, completely unemployable, myself included. So, no, the jobs are not out there, and this barmy plan will not, and can not, push people into finding work.

Farsley Bantam wrote:

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

Billyboyarnold wrote: AW your a disgrace, age 26 been unemployed 7 years, are you telling me you couldn't find a job in 7 years, your a waste of space, get looking scrounger.

Because when you apply for jobs the employer will always favour someone who has worked recently, who is still in the habit of getting up early, who is still in the routine of working life, and who has recent work experience, up to date skills, and references, and anyone who is on the dole will simply have their application/CV chucked in the bin. So please stfu unless you have anything intelligent to contribute.

Agreed but he has sat on his ar$e for 7 years. 7 years takes us back to the boom years where there were plenty of jobs around. He has rendered himself (virtually) unemployable and this is entirely his own making.

Farsley Bantam wrote:

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

Billyboyarnold wrote: AW your a disgrace, age 26 been unemployed 7 years, are you telling me you couldn't find a job in 7 years, your a waste of space, get looking scrounger.

Because when you apply for jobs the employer will always favour someone who has worked recently, who is still in the habit of getting up early, who is still in the routine of working life, and who has recent work experience, up to date skills, and references, and anyone who is on the dole will simply have their application/CV chucked in the bin. So please stfu unless you have anything intelligent to contribute.

Agreed but he has sat on his ar$e for 7 years. 7 years takes us back to the boom years where there were plenty of jobs around.
He has rendered himself (virtually) unemployable and this is entirely his own making.

BD16 wrote:

Farsley Bantam wrote:

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

Billyboyarnold wrote: AW your a disgrace, age 26 been unemployed 7 years, are you telling me you couldn't find a job in 7 years, your a waste of space, get looking scrounger.

Because when you apply for jobs the employer will always favour someone who has worked recently, who is still in the habit of getting up early, who is still in the routine of working life, and who has recent work experience, up to date skills, and references, and anyone who is on the dole will simply have their application/CV chucked in the bin. So please stfu unless you have anything intelligent to contribute.

Agreed but he has sat on his ar$e for 7 years. 7 years takes us back to the boom years where there were plenty of jobs around. He has rendered himself (virtually) unemployable and this is entirely his own making.

Ask arsoc why he couldn't get a job when the government let in 500k people from eastern Europe to do jobs nobody here would take. There were jobs it's just that people like him wouldn't do them.

BD16 wrote:

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

dazp wrote: the ones that say no in the poll are the ones that sponge off the government

The ones who say yes in the poll are the ones who will one day answer to God for their mean-spirited selfish attitude and will inevitably have to repay their karma in one way or another.

I hope I don't have to come back as you for any of my sins.

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

BD16 wrote:

Farsley Bantam wrote:

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

Billyboyarnold wrote: AW your a disgrace, age 26 been unemployed 7 years, are you telling me you couldn't find a job in 7 years, your a waste of space, get looking scrounger.

Because when you apply for jobs the employer will always favour someone who has worked recently, who is still in the habit of getting up early, who is still in the routine of working life, and who has recent work experience, up to date skills, and references, and anyone who is on the dole will simply have their application/CV chucked in the bin. So please stfu unless you have anything intelligent to contribute.

Agreed but he has sat on his ar$e for 7 years. 7 years takes us back to the boom years where there were plenty of jobs around. He has rendered himself (virtually) unemployable and this is entirely his own making.

Ask arsoc why he couldn't get a job when the government let in 500k people from eastern Europe to do jobs nobody here would take. There were jobs it's just that people like him wouldn't do them.

Actually, seven years ago I was on Incapacity Benefit.

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

The Legion wrote:

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

The Legion wrote: I have voted Yes. I have been unemployed and I am a family man. I do not believe everyone on benefits are spongers or sitting back doing nothing. I do know that some are genuine, but sadly a lot aren't. When I've been unemployed I've worked hard to get another job. I would pretty much do any legal job and have put my hand down toilets and cleaned up the disgusting mess people leave. If every able person went out with the same thinking we would have a massive drop in unemployment levels. There are loads of hotels in Bradford which we all like to moan about, most of which are currently looking for staff that want to work. Its not nice and its hard but it pays a wage. So in short I believe I have to say yes because there is too many who can work, but my heart does go out to those who genuinely can't.

Then you're an idiot. The tax won't get paid.

The council have a simple and affective way of collecting tax. I'm pretty sure the collections services are not getting cut back. But whats the solution, give everything for free. And I say again some people a genuine and can't work, which means this is a slap in the face to them but those who can work need to be brought to pay too. I now work and pay loads of tax just like everyone else who lives a normal life. There are jobs out there, just some of the unemployed believe the jobs are beneath them. So how do you push them towards re addressing their values.

"So how do you push them towards re addressing their values."

You don't. You can't. No one can push me into readdressing my values. It is society and government that needs to readdress its values.

The vast majority of longterm unemployed are, by now, completely unemployable, myself included. So, no, the jobs are not out there, and this barmy plan will not, and can not, push people into finding work.

The Legion wrote:

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

The Legion wrote:

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

The Legion wrote: I have voted Yes. I have been unemployed and I am a family man. I do not believe everyone on benefits are spongers or sitting back doing nothing. I do know that some are genuine, but sadly a lot aren't. When I've been unemployed I've worked hard to get another job. I would pretty much do any legal job and have put my hand down toilets and cleaned up the disgusting mess people leave. If every able person went out with the same thinking we would have a massive drop in unemployment levels. There are loads of hotels in Bradford which we all like to moan about, most of which are currently looking for staff that want to work. Its not nice and its hard but it pays a wage. So in short I believe I have to say yes because there is too many who can work, but my heart does go out to those who genuinely can't.

Then you're an idiot. The tax won't get paid.

The council have a simple and affective way of collecting tax. I'm pretty sure the collections services are not getting cut back. But whats the solution, give everything for free. And I say again some people a genuine and can't work, which means this is a slap in the face to them but those who can work need to be brought to pay too. I now work and pay loads of tax just like everyone else who lives a normal life. There are jobs out there, just some of the unemployed believe the jobs are beneath them. So how do you push them towards re addressing their values.

"So how do you push them towards re addressing their values." You don't. You can't. No one can push me into readdressing my values. It is society and government that needs to readdress its values. The vast majority of longterm unemployed are, by now, completely unemployable, myself included. So, no, the jobs are not out there, and this barmy plan will not, and can not, push people into finding work.

How do you define unemployable????? A good friend of mine has just got a job at the age of 43 after never having any solid work at any time in his life. But now he needs to support people he cares for he has re addressed his values and got him self a job in Bradford that he found in the job centre that no one else wanted to go for.
If your values are "I'll work but I haven't done for ages AND I'm not doing a low level job" then you are now unemployable but if you look at your situation and think "Right! I need a job at any legal cost" you will find one.
I know, I've been there myself. I even lived on the streets for 4 months before turning my life around.
I'm glad I did becauseI'm typing this from a lovely office and have 9 staff I'm in charge of.

saywhat12 wrote:

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

The Legion wrote:

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

The Legion wrote: I have voted Yes. I have been unemployed and I am a family man. I do not believe everyone on benefits are spongers or sitting back doing nothing. I do know that some are genuine, but sadly a lot aren't. When I've been unemployed I've worked hard to get another job. I would pretty much do any legal job and have put my hand down toilets and cleaned up the disgusting mess people leave. If every able person went out with the same thinking we would have a massive drop in unemployment levels. There are loads of hotels in Bradford which we all like to moan about, most of which are currently looking for staff that want to work. Its not nice and its hard but it pays a wage. So in short I believe I have to say yes because there is too many who can work, but my heart does go out to those who genuinely can't.

Then you're an idiot. The tax won't get paid.

The council have a simple and affective way of collecting tax. I'm pretty sure the collections services are not getting cut back. But whats the solution, give everything for free. And I say again some people a genuine and can't work, which means this is a slap in the face to them but those who can work need to be brought to pay too. I now work and pay loads of tax just like everyone else who lives a normal life. There are jobs out there, just some of the unemployed believe the jobs are beneath them. So how do you push them towards re addressing their values.

"So how do you push them towards re addressing their values."

You don't. You can't. No one can push me into readdressing my values. It is society and government that needs to readdress its values.

The vast majority of longterm unemployed are, by now, completely unemployable, myself included. So, no, the jobs are not out there, and this barmy plan will not, and can not, push people into finding work.

what have you applied for today?

Look up and to your right, the first navigation button says "Jobs", dont be a stranger to it.

pweibj67 wrote:
silly question .. but how can they afford this ... ?

£70 per week .. utility bills £30 .. travel £10 .. food £20 to £30? er confused??

and "saywhat12" ... what a vile and nasty comment about somebody you know nothing about!

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

jip2012 wrote:
well it's about time. we are on benefits and have to pay 90% of our council tax bill and 90% of our rent so why can't other people on benefits contribute towards these things. hope it goes ahead

If you have to pay 90% of your Council Tax there must be a reason for iut, such as your savings or low earnings. But someone who has absolutely nothing other than the pittance of dole money coming in, they will not be able to pay, and therefore won't pay. Simple as that. They can't have what I haven't got, and if they want to jail me they can do, at least I'll get fed and have a roof over my head (and no bills to pay), so bring it on.

jip2012 wrote:

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

jip2012 wrote:
well it's about time. we are on benefits and have to pay 90% of our council tax bill and 90% of our rent so why can't other people on benefits contribute towards these things. hope it goes ahead

If you have to pay 90% of your Council Tax there must be a reason for iut, such as your savings or low earnings. But someone who has absolutely nothing other than the pittance of dole money coming in, they will not be able to pay, and therefore won't pay. Simple as that. They can't have what I haven't got, and if they want to jail me they can do, at least I'll get fed and have a roof over my head (and no bills to pay), so bring it on.

we have nothing but our benefit to live on but we are punished for having seperate claims both of us are disabled and don't earn anything else or have savings. i have offered on numerous occasions to give my benefit up.but was told we would be worse off if my partner was to claim for me.

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

The Legion wrote:

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

The Legion wrote:

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

The Legion wrote: I have voted Yes. I have been unemployed and I am a family man. I do not believe everyone on benefits are spongers or sitting back doing nothing. I do know that some are genuine, but sadly a lot aren't. When I've been unemployed I've worked hard to get another job. I would pretty much do any legal job and have put my hand down toilets and cleaned up the disgusting mess people leave. If every able person went out with the same thinking we would have a massive drop in unemployment levels. There are loads of hotels in Bradford which we all like to moan about, most of which are currently looking for staff that want to work. Its not nice and its hard but it pays a wage. So in short I believe I have to say yes because there is too many who can work, but my heart does go out to those who genuinely can't.

Then you're an idiot. The tax won't get paid.

The council have a simple and affective way of collecting tax. I'm pretty sure the collections services are not getting cut back. But whats the solution, give everything for free. And I say again some people a genuine and can't work, which means this is a slap in the face to them but those who can work need to be brought to pay too. I now work and pay loads of tax just like everyone else who lives a normal life. There are jobs out there, just some of the unemployed believe the jobs are beneath them. So how do you push them towards re addressing their values.

"So how do you push them towards re addressing their values." You don't. You can't. No one can push me into readdressing my values. It is society and government that needs to readdress its values. The vast majority of longterm unemployed are, by now, completely unemployable, myself included. So, no, the jobs are not out there, and this barmy plan will not, and can not, push people into finding work.

How do you define unemployable????? A good friend of mine has just got a job at the age of 43 after never having any solid work at any time in his life. But now he needs to support people he cares for he has re addressed his values and got him self a job in Bradford that he found in the job centre that no one else wanted to go for. If your values are "I'll work but I haven't done for ages AND I'm not doing a low level job" then you are now unemployable but if you look at your situation and think "Right! I need a job at any legal cost" you will find one. I know, I've been there myself. I even lived on the streets for 4 months before turning my life around. I'm glad I did becauseI'm typing this from a lovely office and have 9 staff I'm in charge of.

Good for you. Some of us, however, are deemed to be over-qualified for "low level jobs", and so don't get considered. On the other hand, many jobs specify that previous experience is a must, I have even seen cleaning jobs advertised that say this. Some people are considered unsuitable for certain jobs because of their personality, you're not likely to get a shelf-filling job at ASDA if you have a degree in Philosophy.

Gypsy Wolf wrote:
I worked for 26 year before I lost my job due to ill health. In that time I paid full national insurance contributions every month which amount to far more money paid into the system than I have taken out of it. So all you idiots who brand people on benefits as dossers and scroungers can go to hell. I am neither. I continue to look for work within the constraints of my ill health and will take a suitable job if I can find one.
This latest crackpot idea from Bradford Council is bordering on insanity. How much money do they think people get in benefits? The standard rate for job seekers allowance at present is just over £65 a week for a single person which has to cover all your bills, food, clothing, transport etc etc. Hardly the life of Riley that some sanctimonious morons seem to think it is. What exactly are we supposed to give up to pay for this? Food perhaps? Go without heating when the weather is cold? Get real, Bradford Council. Most people on benefits are struggling to make ends meet as it is and this idiotic proposal will just force another tranche of people below the poverty line and leave them unable to feed or clothe themselves and their families.

BILLTILL wrote:
The bottom line is they will be able to collect it ,if people do not pay they will simply deduct the money from their remaining benefit .
These people have much greater powers to collect this type of debt than any other, watch out !!

The Legion wrote:

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

The Legion wrote:

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

The Legion wrote:

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

The Legion wrote: I have voted Yes. I have been unemployed and I am a family man. I do not believe everyone on benefits are spongers or sitting back doing nothing. I do know that some are genuine, but sadly a lot aren't. When I've been unemployed I've worked hard to get another job. I would pretty much do any legal job and have put my hand down toilets and cleaned up the disgusting mess people leave. If every able person went out with the same thinking we would have a massive drop in unemployment levels. There are loads of hotels in Bradford which we all like to moan about, most of which are currently looking for staff that want to work. Its not nice and its hard but it pays a wage. So in short I believe I have to say yes because there is too many who can work, but my heart does go out to those who genuinely can't.

Then you're an idiot. The tax won't get paid.

The council have a simple and affective way of collecting tax. I'm pretty sure the collections services are not getting cut back. But whats the solution, give everything for free. And I say again some people a genuine and can't work, which means this is a slap in the face to them but those who can work need to be brought to pay too. I now work and pay loads of tax just like everyone else who lives a normal life. There are jobs out there, just some of the unemployed believe the jobs are beneath them. So how do you push them towards re addressing their values.

"So how do you push them towards re addressing their values." You don't. You can't. No one can push me into readdressing my values. It is society and government that needs to readdress its values. The vast majority of longterm unemployed are, by now, completely unemployable, myself included. So, no, the jobs are not out there, and this barmy plan will not, and can not, push people into finding work.

How do you define unemployable????? A good friend of mine has just got a job at the age of 43 after never having any solid work at any time in his life. But now he needs to support people he cares for he has re addressed his values and got him self a job in Bradford that he found in the job centre that no one else wanted to go for. If your values are "I'll work but I haven't done for ages AND I'm not doing a low level job" then you are now unemployable but if you look at your situation and think "Right! I need a job at any legal cost" you will find one. I know, I've been there myself. I even lived on the streets for 4 months before turning my life around. I'm glad I did becauseI'm typing this from a lovely office and have 9 staff I'm in charge of.

Good for you. Some of us, however, are deemed to be over-qualified for "low level jobs", and so don't get considered. On the other hand, many jobs specify that previous experience is a must, I have even seen cleaning jobs advertised that say this. Some people are considered unsuitable for certain jobs because of their personality, you're not likely to get a shelf-filling job at ASDA if you have a degree in Philosophy.

A degree is only good if you need to use it. I found myself unemployed with 2 degree level qualifications both in Project Management for IT but I don't have any IT skills at all. I sold my soul at the interview by pointing out I was clever enough to learn just about anything and I could deal with large complicated projects. You play to your strength. When going for a pub job I barely covered my CV, the whole interview was about my people skills, which is a strength of mine. From that lowly step (sorry to people who work in pubs I have a lot of respect for you guys) I worked up to a point of a Team Leader in an office using each step behind me to show the skills developed to help me get the job in front. Shelf stacking needs no qualifications, so don't mention them, same with Hotel Cleaner, Warehouseperson, Trainee Sales, etc. So start at the rubbish end and work upwards. I did it. Unemployable and Over Qualified are states of mind that need to be climbed over. Sat waiting for an employer to knock on your door needing a person with your exact qualifications id never going to happen. Walking up and down industrial estates knocking on ever door asking for email addresses or asking to work doing anything in any department.... will.

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

The Legion wrote:

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

The Legion wrote:

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

The Legion wrote:

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

The Legion wrote: I have voted Yes. I have been unemployed and I am a family man. I do not believe everyone on benefits are spongers or sitting back doing nothing. I do know that some are genuine, but sadly a lot aren't. When I've been unemployed I've worked hard to get another job. I would pretty much do any legal job and have put my hand down toilets and cleaned up the disgusting mess people leave. If every able person went out with the same thinking we would have a massive drop in unemployment levels. There are loads of hotels in Bradford which we all like to moan about, most of which are currently looking for staff that want to work. Its not nice and its hard but it pays a wage. So in short I believe I have to say yes because there is too many who can work, but my heart does go out to those who genuinely can't.

Then you're an idiot. The tax won't get paid.

The council have a simple and affective way of collecting tax. I'm pretty sure the collections services are not getting cut back. But whats the solution, give everything for free. And I say again some people a genuine and can't work, which means this is a slap in the face to them but those who can work need to be brought to pay too. I now work and pay loads of tax just like everyone else who lives a normal life. There are jobs out there, just some of the unemployed believe the jobs are beneath them. So how do you push them towards re addressing their values.

"So how do you push them towards re addressing their values." You don't. You can't. No one can push me into readdressing my values. It is society and government that needs to readdress its values. The vast majority of longterm unemployed are, by now, completely unemployable, myself included. So, no, the jobs are not out there, and this barmy plan will not, and can not, push people into finding work.

How do you define unemployable????? A good friend of mine has just got a job at the age of 43 after never having any solid work at any time in his life. But now he needs to support people he cares for he has re addressed his values and got him self a job in Bradford that he found in the job centre that no one else wanted to go for. If your values are "I'll work but I haven't done for ages AND I'm not doing a low level job" then you are now unemployable but if you look at your situation and think "Right! I need a job at any legal cost" you will find one. I know, I've been there myself. I even lived on the streets for 4 months before turning my life around. I'm glad I did becauseI'm typing this from a lovely office and have 9 staff I'm in charge of.

Good for you. Some of us, however, are deemed to be over-qualified for "low level jobs", and so don't get considered. On the other hand, many jobs specify that previous experience is a must, I have even seen cleaning jobs advertised that say this. Some people are considered unsuitable for certain jobs because of their personality, you're not likely to get a shelf-filling job at ASDA if you have a degree in Philosophy.

A degree is only good if you need to use it. I found myself unemployed with 2 degree level qualifications both in Project Management for IT but I don't have any IT skills at all. I sold my soul at the interview by pointing out I was clever enough to learn just about anything and I could deal with large complicated projects. You play to your strength. When going for a pub job I barely covered my CV, the whole interview was about my people skills, which is a strength of mine. From that lowly step (sorry to people who work in pubs I have a lot of respect for you guys) I worked up to a point of a Team Leader in an office using each step behind me to show the skills developed to help me get the job in front. Shelf stacking needs no qualifications, so don't mention them, same with Hotel Cleaner, Warehouseperson, Trainee Sales, etc. So start at the rubbish end and work upwards. I did it. Unemployable and Over Qualified are states of mind that need to be climbed over. Sat waiting for an employer to knock on your door needing a person with your exact qualifications id never going to happen. Walking up and down industrial estates knocking on ever door asking for email addresses or asking to work doing anything in any department.... will.

I suppose if you're that desperate...I'm not.

The Legion wrote:
I have voted Yes. I have been unemployed and I am a family man. I do not believe everyone on benefits are spongers or sitting back doing nothing. I do know that some are genuine, but sadly a lot aren't. When I've been unemployed I've worked hard to get another job. I would pretty much do any legal job and have put my hand down toilets and cleaned up the disgusting mess people leave. If every able person went out with the same thinking we would have a massive drop in unemployment levels. There are loads of hotels in Bradford which we all like to moan about, most of which are currently looking for staff that want to work. Its not nice and its hard but it pays a wage. So in short I believe I have to say yes because there is too many who can work, but my heart does go out to those who genuinely can't.

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

Gypsy Wolf wrote:
I worked for 26 year before I lost my job due to ill health. In that time I paid full national insurance contributions every month which amount to far more money paid into the system than I have taken out of it. So all you idiots who brand people on benefits as dossers and scroungers can go to hell. I am neither. I continue to look for work within the constraints of my ill health and will take a suitable job if I can find one.
This latest crackpot idea from Bradford Council is bordering on insanity. How much money do they think people get in benefits? The standard rate for job seekers allowance at present is just over £65 a week for a single person which has to cover all your bills, food, clothing, transport etc etc. Hardly the life of Riley that some sanctimonious morons seem to think it is. What exactly are we supposed to give up to pay for this? Food perhaps? Go without heating when the weather is cold? Get real, Bradford Council. Most people on benefits are struggling to make ends meet as it is and this idiotic proposal will just force another tranche of people below the poverty line and leave them unable to feed or clothe themselves and their families.

Crime will undoubtedly increase.

To quote Bob Dylan;

"A lot of people don't have much food on their table But they got a lot of forks and knives And they gotta cut something"

Talkin' New York Blues

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

BILLTILL wrote:
The bottom line is they will be able to collect it ,if people do not pay they will simply deduct the money from their remaining benefit .
These people have much greater powers to collect this type of debt than any other, watch out !!

Then we will eat the rich.

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

BILLTILL wrote: The bottom line is they will be able to collect it ,if people do not pay they will simply deduct the money from their remaining benefit . These people have much greater powers to collect this type of debt than any other, watch out !!

Then we will eat the rich.

The Legion wrote:

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

The Legion wrote:

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

The Legion wrote:

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

The Legion wrote:

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

The Legion wrote: I have voted Yes. I have been unemployed and I am a family man. I do not believe everyone on benefits are spongers or sitting back doing nothing. I do know that some are genuine, but sadly a lot aren't. When I've been unemployed I've worked hard to get another job. I would pretty much do any legal job and have put my hand down toilets and cleaned up the disgusting mess people leave. If every able person went out with the same thinking we would have a massive drop in unemployment levels. There are loads of hotels in Bradford which we all like to moan about, most of which are currently looking for staff that want to work. Its not nice and its hard but it pays a wage. So in short I believe I have to say yes because there is too many who can work, but my heart does go out to those who genuinely can't.

Then you're an idiot. The tax won't get paid.

The council have a simple and affective way of collecting tax. I'm pretty sure the collections services are not getting cut back. But whats the solution, give everything for free. And I say again some people a genuine and can't work, which means this is a slap in the face to them but those who can work need to be brought to pay too. I now work and pay loads of tax just like everyone else who lives a normal life. There are jobs out there, just some of the unemployed believe the jobs are beneath them. So how do you push them towards re addressing their values.

"So how do you push them towards re addressing their values." You don't. You can't. No one can push me into readdressing my values. It is society and government that needs to readdress its values. The vast majority of longterm unemployed are, by now, completely unemployable, myself included. So, no, the jobs are not out there, and this barmy plan will not, and can not, push people into finding work.

How do you define unemployable????? A good friend of mine has just got a job at the age of 43 after never having any solid work at any time in his life. But now he needs to support people he cares for he has re addressed his values and got him self a job in Bradford that he found in the job centre that no one else wanted to go for. If your values are "I'll work but I haven't done for ages AND I'm not doing a low level job" then you are now unemployable but if you look at your situation and think "Right! I need a job at any legal cost" you will find one. I know, I've been there myself. I even lived on the streets for 4 months before turning my life around. I'm glad I did becauseI'm typing this from a lovely office and have 9 staff I'm in charge of.

Good for you. Some of us, however, are deemed to be over-qualified for "low level jobs", and so don't get considered. On the other hand, many jobs specify that previous experience is a must, I have even seen cleaning jobs advertised that say this. Some people are considered unsuitable for certain jobs because of their personality, you're not likely to get a shelf-filling job at ASDA if you have a degree in Philosophy.

A degree is only good if you need to use it. I found myself unemployed with 2 degree level qualifications both in Project Management for IT but I don't have any IT skills at all. I sold my soul at the interview by pointing out I was clever enough to learn just about anything and I could deal with large complicated projects. You play to your strength. When going for a pub job I barely covered my CV, the whole interview was about my people skills, which is a strength of mine. From that lowly step (sorry to people who work in pubs I have a lot of respect for you guys) I worked up to a point of a Team Leader in an office using each step behind me to show the skills developed to help me get the job in front. Shelf stacking needs no qualifications, so don't mention them, same with Hotel Cleaner, Warehouseperson, Trainee Sales, etc. So start at the rubbish end and work upwards. I did it. Unemployable and Over Qualified are states of mind that need to be climbed over. Sat waiting for an employer to knock on your door needing a person with your exact qualifications id never going to happen. Walking up and down industrial estates knocking on ever door asking for email addresses or asking to work doing anything in any department.... will.

I suppose if you're that desperate...I'm not.

But that then is the point..... People dont see the value, but Gypsey Wolf should be taken into consideration..... but people who want to be unemployable usually are. People who can't work need the protection. The problem is that the people who wont work and can are letting them down, and us who work do pay taxes to pay for them. I have no problem in paying my tax for it to be used to help people who can't work but not for people who will not work.

Foolroy wrote:
What about the motability cars that seem to come as standard when you are unemployed and have loads of athsmatic children thru' passive smoking? I voted yes and and I have been unemployed too.

yezboss wrote:
I understand the most that anyone unemployed could be asked to pay is £5 per month as a levy on benefits. Not a lot to ask but surely would cost more to administer than ignore.

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

Foolroy wrote: What about the motability cars that seem to come as standard when you are unemployed and have loads of athsmatic children thru' passive smoking? I voted yes and and I have been unemployed too.

WTF? I am unemployed, as are all my friends, neighbours and associates, yet I know no one who has a "motability car", nor any children, "athsmatic" or not! If you only had a brain...

Andy2010 wrote:

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

BILLTILL wrote: The bottom line is they will be able to collect it ,if people do not pay they will simply deduct the money from their remaining benefit . These people have much greater powers to collect this type of debt than any other, watch out !!

Then we will eat the rich.

You complete idiot

You can clearly afford an internet connection so can therefore contribute towards your taxes like everybody else

Also you state people wont pay...fine dont pay...I shall look forward to the increase in bailiff work. Not doubt the scroungers wont be too happy once their Xbox's, Routers, Laptops, Plasma's start getting removed

About time someone did something about this and normally cant stand Labour but well played to our council for even proposing this.

There is NO excuse for not working. Only last month we employed someone classed as "disabled" to assist on our reception. Its more a case of people being too bone idle to do any work...take away their benefits they are left with little choice. I agree this will probably lead to an increase in crime but at least there would be more money in the pot to increase funding to the poilce to deal.

Hats off to you Mr Green I applaud you

Farsley Bantam wrote:

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

Billyboyarnold wrote: AW your a disgrace, age 26 been unemployed 7 years, are you telling me you couldn't find a job in 7 years, your a waste of space, get looking scrounger.

Because when you apply for jobs the employer will always favour someone who has worked recently, who is still in the habit of getting up early, who is still in the routine of working life, and who has recent work experience, up to date skills, and references, and anyone who is on the dole will simply have their application/CV chucked in the bin. So please stfu unless you have anything intelligent to contribute.

Agreed but he has sat on his ar$e for 7 years. 7 years takes us back to the boom years where there were plenty of jobs around.
He has rendered himself (virtually) unemployable and this is entirely his own making.

dellorri wrote:
Curiously enough, this is not one that can be blamed on Bradford Council, it actually follows a decision from our beloved (hah) Eric Pickles to turn the responsibilities of council tax over to local authorities rather than central government. The funding then presented to local governments to do this has now been cut by 10% and local authority have to decide how to make up the shortfall, though they have been told they are NOT allowed to raise coiuncil tax rates, the first two towns to propose details such as this were manchester and barnett who respectively were going to make EVERYONE pay at least 15% or 25% except in the case of pensioners, those working of course would still pay full council tax. this was announced by Grant Shapps MP and I posted it on the T&A forum a couple of weeks ago. Do you believe me now?

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

dellorri wrote: Curiously enough, this is not one that can be blamed on Bradford Council, it actually follows a decision from our beloved (hah) Eric Pickles to turn the responsibilities of council tax over to local authorities rather than central government. The funding then presented to local governments to do this has now been cut by 10% and local authority have to decide how to make up the shortfall, though they have been told they are NOT allowed to raise coiuncil tax rates, the first two towns to propose details such as this were manchester and barnett who respectively were going to make EVERYONE pay at least 15% or 25% except in the case of pensioners, those working of course would still pay full council tax. this was announced by Grant Shapps MP and I posted it on the T&A forum a couple of weeks ago. Do you believe me now?

If we get hungry we can spit-roast Eric Pickles, and there'll be no firemen or Police to stop us.

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

Andy2010 wrote:

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

BILLTILL wrote: The bottom line is they will be able to collect it ,if people do not pay they will simply deduct the money from their remaining benefit . These people have much greater powers to collect this type of debt than any other, watch out !!

Then we will eat the rich.

You complete idiot You can clearly afford an internet connection so can therefore contribute towards your taxes like everybody else Also you state people wont pay...fine dont pay...I shall look forward to the increase in bailiff work. Not doubt the scroungers wont be too happy once their Xbox's, Routers, Laptops, Plasma's start getting removed About time someone did something about this and normally cant stand Labour but well played to our council for even proposing this. There is NO excuse for not working. Only last month we employed someone classed as "disabled" to assist on our reception. Its more a case of people being too bone idle to do any work...take away their benefits they are left with little choice. I agree this will probably lead to an increase in crime but at least there would be more money in the pot to increase funding to the poilce to deal. Hats off to you Mr Green I applaud you

I get free internet actually. And as for the bailiffs, good luck to them! There is NOTHING of any value in my house! My computer is so old it is worthless, and no, I don't own a laptop or an xbox either. And seeing as you applaud Mr. Green, I take it you are now a Labour voter?

Farsley Bantam wrote:

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

dellorri wrote: Curiously enough, this is not one that can be blamed on Bradford Council, it actually follows a decision from our beloved (hah) Eric Pickles to turn the responsibilities of council tax over to local authorities rather than central government. The funding then presented to local governments to do this has now been cut by 10% and local authority have to decide how to make up the shortfall, though they have been told they are NOT allowed to raise coiuncil tax rates, the first two towns to propose details such as this were manchester and barnett who respectively were going to make EVERYONE pay at least 15% or 25% except in the case of pensioners, those working of course would still pay full council tax. this was announced by Grant Shapps MP and I posted it on the T&A forum a couple of weeks ago. Do you believe me now?

If we get hungry we can spit-roast Eric Pickles, and there'll be no firemen or Police to stop us.

I'd rather spit roast Louise Mensch but each to their own!

Andy2010 wrote:

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

Andy2010 wrote:

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

BILLTILL wrote: The bottom line is they will be able to collect it ,if people do not pay they will simply deduct the money from their remaining benefit . These people have much greater powers to collect this type of debt than any other, watch out !!

Then we will eat the rich.

You complete idiot You can clearly afford an internet connection so can therefore contribute towards your taxes like everybody else Also you state people wont pay...fine dont pay...I shall look forward to the increase in bailiff work. Not doubt the scroungers wont be too happy once their Xbox's, Routers, Laptops, Plasma's start getting removed About time someone did something about this and normally cant stand Labour but well played to our council for even proposing this. There is NO excuse for not working. Only last month we employed someone classed as "disabled" to assist on our reception. Its more a case of people being too bone idle to do any work...take away their benefits they are left with little choice. I agree this will probably lead to an increase in crime but at least there would be more money in the pot to increase funding to the poilce to deal. Hats off to you Mr Green I applaud you

I get free internet actually. And as for the bailiffs, good luck to them! There is NOTHING of any value in my house! My computer is so old it is worthless, and no, I don't own a laptop or an xbox either. And seeing as you applaud Mr. Green, I take it you are now a Labour voter?

Free internet...please explain unless you are using someone elses wireless connection for your own means in which I would class as theft

No not at all. Never voted Labour never will

I will however vote for whichever party promotes working and doesnt support the unemployed. I Agree its not anyone's fault initially why someone is unemployed but there is no excuse whatsoever for not having a job after six months albeit any job. Ive been down and out myself taking the worst jobs you would imagine to make some money as I didnt want to sponge off society and gradually over the years worked my way up to a decent life. Anyone can do it with hard work but alas few have any ambition when its all handed to them on plate. The Panorama program last night (watch on iplayer) highlighted this exact issue and showed exactly everything wrong with society today

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

Andy2010 wrote:

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

Andy2010 wrote:

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

BILLTILL wrote: The bottom line is they will be able to collect it ,if people do not pay they will simply deduct the money from their remaining benefit . These people have much greater powers to collect this type of debt than any other, watch out !!

Then we will eat the rich.

You complete idiot You can clearly afford an internet connection so can therefore contribute towards your taxes like everybody else Also you state people wont pay...fine dont pay...I shall look forward to the increase in bailiff work. Not doubt the scroungers wont be too happy once their Xbox's, Routers, Laptops, Plasma's start getting removed About time someone did something about this and normally cant stand Labour but well played to our council for even proposing this. There is NO excuse for not working. Only last month we employed someone classed as "disabled" to assist on our reception. Its more a case of people being too bone idle to do any work...take away their benefits they are left with little choice. I agree this will probably lead to an increase in crime but at least there would be more money in the pot to increase funding to the poilce to deal. Hats off to you Mr Green I applaud you

I get free internet actually. And as for the bailiffs, good luck to them! There is NOTHING of any value in my house! My computer is so old it is worthless, and no, I don't own a laptop or an xbox either. And seeing as you applaud Mr. Green, I take it you are now a Labour voter?

Free internet...please explain unless you are using someone elses wireless connection for your own means in which I would class as theft No not at all. Never voted Labour never will I will however vote for whichever party promotes working and doesnt support the unemployed. I Agree its not anyone's fault initially why someone is unemployed but there is no excuse whatsoever for not having a job after six months albeit any job. Ive been down and out myself taking the worst jobs you would imagine to make some money as I didnt want to sponge off society and gradually over the years worked my way up to a decent life. Anyone can do it with hard work but alas few have any ambition when its all handed to them on plate. The Panorama program last night (watch on iplayer) highlighted this exact issue and showed exactly everything wrong with society today

Unfortunately I am unable to watch Panorama as my computer is too old to run iplayer. I've usually voted Labour, but seeing as all the parties seem to want to promote working, rather than supporting the unemployed, I no longer vote for anyone. I don't see claiming Benefits as "sponging", and I don't see having a job as being any kind of progression. I guess we have different interpretations of what constitutes having a "decent life".

Farsley Bantam wrote:

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

Billyboyarnold wrote: AW your a disgrace, age 26 been unemployed 7 years, are you telling me you couldn't find a job in 7 years, your a waste of space, get looking scrounger.

Because when you apply for jobs the employer will always favour someone who has worked recently, who is still in the habit of getting up early, who is still in the routine of working life, and who has recent work experience, up to date skills, and references, and anyone who is on the dole will simply have their application/CV chucked in the bin. So please stfu unless you have anything intelligent to contribute.

Agreed but he has sat on his ar$e for 7 years. 7 years takes us back to the boom years where there were plenty of jobs around. He has rendered himself (virtually) unemployable and this is entirely his own making.

Reality001 wrote:
I thought the reason I have been paying national insurance and taxes was so that if I became unemployed I would be helped by my country. So it now appears if I became unemployed and lived in social housing with a spare bedroom I would have to pay £22 a week, and now the Council would be adding a £71 a month charge as well. No wonder food banks are on the up.

Andy2010 wrote:

Reality001 wrote:
I thought the reason I have been paying national insurance and taxes was so that if I became unemployed I would be helped by my country. So it now appears if I became unemployed and lived in social housing with a spare bedroom I would have to pay £22 a week, and now the Council would be adding a £71 a month charge as well. No wonder food banks are on the up.

No £71 is the charge for Grade A

You wouldnt pay anything like that amount. The T&A are just showing the top figures to make the story more juicy

Reality001 wrote:

Andy2010 wrote:

Reality001 wrote:
I thought the reason I have been paying national insurance and taxes was so that if I became unemployed I would be helped by my country. So it now appears if I became unemployed and lived in social housing with a spare bedroom I would have to pay £22 a week, and now the Council would be adding a £71 a month charge as well. No wonder food banks are on the up.

No £71 is the charge for Grade A

You wouldnt pay anything like that amount. The T&A are just showing the top figures to make the story more juicy

I thought Band A was the cheapest ????

Andy2010 wrote:

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

Andy2010 wrote:

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

Andy2010 wrote:

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

BILLTILL wrote: The bottom line is they will be able to collect it ,if people do not pay they will simply deduct the money from their remaining benefit . These people have much greater powers to collect this type of debt than any other, watch out !!

Then we will eat the rich.

You complete idiot You can clearly afford an internet connection so can therefore contribute towards your taxes like everybody else Also you state people wont pay...fine dont pay...I shall look forward to the increase in bailiff work. Not doubt the scroungers wont be too happy once their Xbox's, Routers, Laptops, Plasma's start getting removed About time someone did something about this and normally cant stand Labour but well played to our council for even proposing this. There is NO excuse for not working. Only last month we employed someone classed as "disabled" to assist on our reception. Its more a case of people being too bone idle to do any work...take away their benefits they are left with little choice. I agree this will probably lead to an increase in crime but at least there would be more money in the pot to increase funding to the poilce to deal. Hats off to you Mr Green I applaud you

I get free internet actually. And as for the bailiffs, good luck to them! There is NOTHING of any value in my house! My computer is so old it is worthless, and no, I don't own a laptop or an xbox either. And seeing as you applaud Mr. Green, I take it you are now a Labour voter?

Free internet...please explain unless you are using someone elses wireless connection for your own means in which I would class as theft No not at all. Never voted Labour never will I will however vote for whichever party promotes working and doesnt support the unemployed. I Agree its not anyone's fault initially why someone is unemployed but there is no excuse whatsoever for not having a job after six months albeit any job. Ive been down and out myself taking the worst jobs you would imagine to make some money as I didnt want to sponge off society and gradually over the years worked my way up to a decent life. Anyone can do it with hard work but alas few have any ambition when its all handed to them on plate. The Panorama program last night (watch on iplayer) highlighted this exact issue and showed exactly everything wrong with society today

Unfortunately I am unable to watch Panorama as my computer is too old to run iplayer. I've usually voted Labour, but seeing as all the parties seem to want to promote working, rather than supporting the unemployed, I no longer vote for anyone. I don't see claiming Benefits as "sponging", and I don't see having a job as being any kind of progression. I guess we have different interpretations of what constitutes having a "decent life".

I have no problem with anyone who doesnt want to work or cant be bothered at all but as they are not contributing to society why should they be entitled to handout's?

And before you start bleeting on about the "rich should pay" blah blah blah most of the "rich" worked hard to get their wealth. why should they give up even more of it to support people who cant even be bothered working ?

I remember an earlier topic when you stated the rich shoudl support all the unemployed etc etc and never answered the question

What happens when all the "rich" people's money has gone?

Who pays for anything then?

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

Andy2010 wrote:

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

Andy2010 wrote:

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

Andy2010 wrote:

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

BILLTILL wrote: The bottom line is they will be able to collect it ,if people do not pay they will simply deduct the money from their remaining benefit . These people have much greater powers to collect this type of debt than any other, watch out !!

Then we will eat the rich.

You complete idiot You can clearly afford an internet connection so can therefore contribute towards your taxes like everybody else Also you state people wont pay...fine dont pay...I shall look forward to the increase in bailiff work. Not doubt the scroungers wont be too happy once their Xbox's, Routers, Laptops, Plasma's start getting removed About time someone did something about this and normally cant stand Labour but well played to our council for even proposing this. There is NO excuse for not working. Only last month we employed someone classed as "disabled" to assist on our reception. Its more a case of people being too bone idle to do any work...take away their benefits they are left with little choice. I agree this will probably lead to an increase in crime but at least there would be more money in the pot to increase funding to the poilce to deal. Hats off to you Mr Green I applaud you

I get free internet actually. And as for the bailiffs, good luck to them! There is NOTHING of any value in my house! My computer is so old it is worthless, and no, I don't own a laptop or an xbox either. And seeing as you applaud Mr. Green, I take it you are now a Labour voter?

Free internet...please explain unless you are using someone elses wireless connection for your own means in which I would class as theft No not at all. Never voted Labour never will I will however vote for whichever party promotes working and doesnt support the unemployed. I Agree its not anyone's fault initially why someone is unemployed but there is no excuse whatsoever for not having a job after six months albeit any job. Ive been down and out myself taking the worst jobs you would imagine to make some money as I didnt want to sponge off society and gradually over the years worked my way up to a decent life. Anyone can do it with hard work but alas few have any ambition when its all handed to them on plate. The Panorama program last night (watch on iplayer) highlighted this exact issue and showed exactly everything wrong with society today

Unfortunately I am unable to watch Panorama as my computer is too old to run iplayer. I've usually voted Labour, but seeing as all the parties seem to want to promote working, rather than supporting the unemployed, I no longer vote for anyone. I don't see claiming Benefits as "sponging", and I don't see having a job as being any kind of progression. I guess we have different interpretations of what constitutes having a "decent life".

I have no problem with anyone who doesnt want to work or cant be bothered at all but as they are not contributing to society why should they be entitled to handout's? And before you start bleeting on about the "rich should pay" blah blah blah most of the "rich" worked hard to get their wealth. why should they give up even more of it to support people who cant even be bothered working ? I remember an earlier topic when you stated the rich shoudl support all the unemployed etc etc and never answered the question What happens when all the "rich" people's money has gone? Who pays for anything then?

This is an abundant world, with enough for everyone, but the problem is that wealth and resources are being hoarded by the rich. And no, not all of them have got rich through hard work (how naive can you get?), but have dishonestly or unjustly acquired it. Wealth is an obscenity. There is a current conservative estimate of £13 Trillion owed in unpaid taxes by the rich, which would take us firmly out of Depression (forget recession) and render the austerity measures unnecessary.

Andy2010 wrote:

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

Andy2010 wrote:

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

Andy2010 wrote:

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

Andy2010 wrote:

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

BILLTILL wrote: The bottom line is they will be able to collect it ,if people do not pay they will simply deduct the money from their remaining benefit . These people have much greater powers to collect this type of debt than any other, watch out !!

Then we will eat the rich.

You complete idiot You can clearly afford an internet connection so can therefore contribute towards your taxes like everybody else Also you state people wont pay...fine dont pay...I shall look forward to the increase in bailiff work. Not doubt the scroungers wont be too happy once their Xbox's, Routers, Laptops, Plasma's start getting removed About time someone did something about this and normally cant stand Labour but well played to our council for even proposing this. There is NO excuse for not working. Only last month we employed someone classed as "disabled" to assist on our reception. Its more a case of people being too bone idle to do any work...take away their benefits they are left with little choice. I agree this will probably lead to an increase in crime but at least there would be more money in the pot to increase funding to the poilce to deal. Hats off to you Mr Green I applaud you

I get free internet actually. And as for the bailiffs, good luck to them! There is NOTHING of any value in my house! My computer is so old it is worthless, and no, I don't own a laptop or an xbox either. And seeing as you applaud Mr. Green, I take it you are now a Labour voter?

Free internet...please explain unless you are using someone elses wireless connection for your own means in which I would class as theft No not at all. Never voted Labour never will I will however vote for whichever party promotes working and doesnt support the unemployed. I Agree its not anyone's fault initially why someone is unemployed but there is no excuse whatsoever for not having a job after six months albeit any job. Ive been down and out myself taking the worst jobs you would imagine to make some money as I didnt want to sponge off society and gradually over the years worked my way up to a decent life. Anyone can do it with hard work but alas few have any ambition when its all handed to them on plate. The Panorama program last night (watch on iplayer) highlighted this exact issue and showed exactly everything wrong with society today

Unfortunately I am unable to watch Panorama as my computer is too old to run iplayer. I've usually voted Labour, but seeing as all the parties seem to want to promote working, rather than supporting the unemployed, I no longer vote for anyone. I don't see claiming Benefits as "sponging", and I don't see having a job as being any kind of progression. I guess we have different interpretations of what constitutes having a "decent life".

I have no problem with anyone who doesnt want to work or cant be bothered at all but as they are not contributing to society why should they be entitled to handout's? And before you start bleeting on about the "rich should pay" blah blah blah most of the "rich" worked hard to get their wealth. why should they give up even more of it to support people who cant even be bothered working ? I remember an earlier topic when you stated the rich shoudl support all the unemployed etc etc and never answered the question What happens when all the "rich" people's money has gone? Who pays for anything then?

This is an abundant world, with enough for everyone, but the problem is that wealth and resources are being hoarded by the rich. And no, not all of them have got rich through hard work (how naive can you get?), but have dishonestly or unjustly acquired it. Wealth is an obscenity. There is a current conservative estimate of £13 Trillion owed in unpaid taxes by the rich, which would take us firmly out of Depression (forget recession) and render the austerity measures unnecessary.

So what if the rich are "hoarding" their wealth? why shouldnt they?

Its their money after all.

And you state about this 13 trillion in unpaid taxes. Well the unemployed are contributing either so I guess they are all as bad as each other then really by your thinking expect the rich are relying on the working class to prop them up

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

Andy2010 wrote:

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

Andy2010 wrote:

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

Andy2010 wrote:

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

Andy2010 wrote:

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

BILLTILL wrote: The bottom line is they will be able to collect it ,if people do not pay they will simply deduct the money from their remaining benefit . These people have much greater powers to collect this type of debt than any other, watch out !!

Then we will eat the rich.

You complete idiot You can clearly afford an internet connection so can therefore contribute towards your taxes like everybody else Also you state people wont pay...fine dont pay...I shall look forward to the increase in bailiff work. Not doubt the scroungers wont be too happy once their Xbox's, Routers, Laptops, Plasma's start getting removed About time someone did something about this and normally cant stand Labour but well played to our council for even proposing this. There is NO excuse for not working. Only last month we employed someone classed as "disabled" to assist on our reception. Its more a case of people being too bone idle to do any work...take away their benefits they are left with little choice. I agree this will probably lead to an increase in crime but at least there would be more money in the pot to increase funding to the poilce to deal. Hats off to you Mr Green I applaud you

I get free internet actually. And as for the bailiffs, good luck to them! There is NOTHING of any value in my house! My computer is so old it is worthless, and no, I don't own a laptop or an xbox either. And seeing as you applaud Mr. Green, I take it you are now a Labour voter?

Free internet...please explain unless you are using someone elses wireless connection for your own means in which I would class as theft No not at all. Never voted Labour never will I will however vote for whichever party promotes working and doesnt support the unemployed. I Agree its not anyone's fault initially why someone is unemployed but there is no excuse whatsoever for not having a job after six months albeit any job. Ive been down and out myself taking the worst jobs you would imagine to make some money as I didnt want to sponge off society and gradually over the years worked my way up to a decent life. Anyone can do it with hard work but alas few have any ambition when its all handed to them on plate. The Panorama program last night (watch on iplayer) highlighted this exact issue and showed exactly everything wrong with society today

Unfortunately I am unable to watch Panorama as my computer is too old to run iplayer. I've usually voted Labour, but seeing as all the parties seem to want to promote working, rather than supporting the unemployed, I no longer vote for anyone. I don't see claiming Benefits as "sponging", and I don't see having a job as being any kind of progression. I guess we have different interpretations of what constitutes having a "decent life".

I have no problem with anyone who doesnt want to work or cant be bothered at all but as they are not contributing to society why should they be entitled to handout's? And before you start bleeting on about the "rich should pay" blah blah blah most of the "rich" worked hard to get their wealth. why should they give up even more of it to support people who cant even be bothered working ? I remember an earlier topic when you stated the rich shoudl support all the unemployed etc etc and never answered the question What happens when all the "rich" people's money has gone? Who pays for anything then?

This is an abundant world, with enough for everyone, but the problem is that wealth and resources are being hoarded by the rich. And no, not all of them have got rich through hard work (how naive can you get?), but have dishonestly or unjustly acquired it. Wealth is an obscenity. There is a current conservative estimate of £13 Trillion owed in unpaid taxes by the rich, which would take us firmly out of Depression (forget recession) and render the austerity measures unnecessary.

So what if the rich are "hoarding" their wealth? why shouldnt they? Its their money after all. And you state about this 13 trillion in unpaid taxes. Well the unemployed are contributing either so I guess they are all as bad as each other then really by your thinking expect the rich are relying on the working class to prop them up

All property is theft.

Mumby was the best wrote:
Most of them can afford to smoke and drink and even take drugs so why not get them paying something into the system after all It's only money we have given them.

thebrownsauceman wrote:

Mumby was the best wrote: Most of them can afford to smoke and drink and even take drugs so why not get them paying something into the system after all It's only money we have given them.

See thats what annoys me. Where is your evidence for this? Most of them? Theres no evidence to show this. Im unemployed after leaving uni. Im either under experienced or over qualified so what am I and the 1000s of graduates in my position supposed to do? I hate generalising and its not fair that people like me are out of work but yet we get generalised with the people who can't be arsed

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:

thebrownsauceman wrote:

Mumby was the best wrote: Most of them can afford to smoke and drink and even take drugs so why not get them paying something into the system after all It's only money we have given them.

See thats what annoys me. Where is your evidence for this? Most of them? Theres no evidence to show this. Im unemployed after leaving uni. Im either under experienced or over qualified so what am I and the 1000s of graduates in my position supposed to do? I hate generalising and its not fair that people like me are out of work but yet we get generalised with the people who can't be arsed

Have you tried temporary work in order to build up experience? Get signed up with every agency under the sun. If you have just left Uni you are probably in a position that is different to many others, especially the guy in the picture at the top who should not be out of work or unemployed for 7 years. Many people are overqualifed to cut grass, stack shelves etc but it's stuff like this that sometimes get you into a company and many then look after their own. Maybe companies offer jobs to current employees before putting them on the general market, so if your stacking shelves at Morrisons and an IT Technician job becomes avalible, chances are you'll have a better chance of getting that job from being somone on the inside of the company than someone on the outside.

Andy2010 wrote:

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:

thebrownsauceman wrote:

Mumby was the best wrote: Most of them can afford to smoke and drink and even take drugs so why not get them paying something into the system after all It's only money we have given them.

See thats what annoys me. Where is your evidence for this? Most of them? Theres no evidence to show this. Im unemployed after leaving uni. Im either under experienced or over qualified so what am I and the 1000s of graduates in my position supposed to do? I hate generalising and its not fair that people like me are out of work but yet we get generalised with the people who can't be arsed

Have you tried temporary work in order to build up experience? Get signed up with every agency under the sun. If you have just left Uni you are probably in a position that is different to many others, especially the guy in the picture at the top who should not be out of work or unemployed for 7 years. Many people are overqualifed to cut grass, stack shelves etc but it's stuff like this that sometimes get you into a company and many then look after their own. Maybe companies offer jobs to current employees before putting them on the general market, so if your stacking shelves at Morrisons and an IT Technician job becomes avalible, chances are you'll have a better chance of getting that job from being somone on the inside of the company than someone on the outside.

This is true and an excellent post. I was recently recruiting for an accounts admin position and saw about 10 different people. 9 of them I would say could do the job easily and had bucketloads of experience but the other one was a graduate. They all interviewed well but the graduate in interview showed herself to be extremely keen and willing to work and learn. She explained she just wanted a foot in the door of our company and had done her research well. On this basis we offfered her the role as I saw the determination in her to suceed whereas the others were just going through the motions. No job is out of reach and shoudl you sell yourself correctly by showing drive and commitment you will eventually find a role for yourself. On paper she was the worst but on interview if you can appeal to the employer's needs then you stand a good chance.

Mumby was the best wrote:
Most of them can afford to smoke and drink and even take drugs so why not get them paying something into the system after all It's only money we have given them.

Andy2010 wrote:

Andy2010 wrote:

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:

thebrownsauceman wrote:

Mumby was the best wrote: Most of them can afford to smoke and drink and even take drugs so why not get them paying something into the system after all It's only money we have given them.

See thats what annoys me. Where is your evidence for this? Most of them? Theres no evidence to show this. Im unemployed after leaving uni. Im either under experienced or over qualified so what am I and the 1000s of graduates in my position supposed to do? I hate generalising and its not fair that people like me are out of work but yet we get generalised with the people who can't be arsed

Have you tried temporary work in order to build up experience? Get signed up with every agency under the sun. If you have just left Uni you are probably in a position that is different to many others, especially the guy in the picture at the top who should not be out of work or unemployed for 7 years. Many people are overqualifed to cut grass, stack shelves etc but it's stuff like this that sometimes get you into a company and many then look after their own. Maybe companies offer jobs to current employees before putting them on the general market, so if your stacking shelves at Morrisons and an IT Technician job becomes avalible, chances are you'll have a better chance of getting that job from being somone on the inside of the company than someone on the outside.

This is true and an excellent post. I was recently recruiting for an accounts admin position and saw about 10 different people. 9 of them I would say could do the job easily and had bucketloads of experience but the other one was a graduate. They all interviewed well but the graduate in interview showed herself to be extremely keen and willing to work and learn. She explained she just wanted a foot in the door of our company and had done her research well. On this basis we offfered her the role as I saw the determination in her to suceed whereas the others were just going through the motions. No job is out of reach and shoudl you sell yourself correctly by showing drive and commitment you will eventually find a role for yourself. On paper she was the worst but on interview if you can appeal to the employer's needs then you stand a good chance.

Sorry can I also add is you dont suceed then you just keep trying. Something will always come along be that shelf stacking to management. If your honest and hardworking a lot of employers like myself see "something" in a person and take them on

Rambo wrote:
Of course there are people who genuinely need help. But there are too many who have it comfortable. Example -

A relative of mine is a 20 year old single mum to 2 young kids. She's a dole mum - gets virtually everything paid for.
She admitted to us to having a £400 a month smoking habit and has just booked a winter holiday in the sun for the three of them. She also has a £60 a month phone contract that gives her an iphone and ipad.

I know she's a relative, but dammit, something is grossly wrong with the system that allows someone in that position to spend money like that. Me and my partner both work, have no kids and can't afford a holiday or £700 a year phone bill.

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

Andy2010 wrote:

Andy2010 wrote:

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:

thebrownsauceman wrote:

Mumby was the best wrote: Most of them can afford to smoke and drink and even take drugs so why not get them paying something into the system after all It's only money we have given them.

See thats what annoys me. Where is your evidence for this? Most of them? Theres no evidence to show this. Im unemployed after leaving uni. Im either under experienced or over qualified so what am I and the 1000s of graduates in my position supposed to do? I hate generalising and its not fair that people like me are out of work but yet we get generalised with the people who can't be arsed

Have you tried temporary work in order to build up experience? Get signed up with every agency under the sun. If you have just left Uni you are probably in a position that is different to many others, especially the guy in the picture at the top who should not be out of work or unemployed for 7 years. Many people are overqualifed to cut grass, stack shelves etc but it's stuff like this that sometimes get you into a company and many then look after their own. Maybe companies offer jobs to current employees before putting them on the general market, so if your stacking shelves at Morrisons and an IT Technician job becomes avalible, chances are you'll have a better chance of getting that job from being somone on the inside of the company than someone on the outside.

This is true and an excellent post. I was recently recruiting for an accounts admin position and saw about 10 different people. 9 of them I would say could do the job easily and had bucketloads of experience but the other one was a graduate. They all interviewed well but the graduate in interview showed herself to be extremely keen and willing to work and learn. She explained she just wanted a foot in the door of our company and had done her research well. On this basis we offfered her the role as I saw the determination in her to suceed whereas the others were just going through the motions. No job is out of reach and shoudl you sell yourself correctly by showing drive and commitment you will eventually find a role for yourself. On paper she was the worst but on interview if you can appeal to the employer's needs then you stand a good chance.

Sorry can I also add is you dont suceed then you just keep trying. Something will always come along be that shelf stacking to management. If your honest and hardworking a lot of employers like myself see "something" in a person and take them on

Yes, that's happened to me in the past. Several times I have had a temporary job through an agency, just to earn some dosh, and had zero interest in the actual job or company, yet because I am an hard worker they ended up offering me the bloomin' job permanently! I only worked hard so I didn't get too bored and to make the time pass quicker.

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

The Legion wrote:

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

The Legion wrote:

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

The Legion wrote:

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

The Legion wrote: I have voted Yes. I have been unemployed and I am a family man. I do not believe everyone on benefits are spongers or sitting back doing nothing. I do know that some are genuine, but sadly a lot aren't. When I've been unemployed I've worked hard to get another job. I would pretty much do any legal job and have put my hand down toilets and cleaned up the disgusting mess people leave. If every able person went out with the same thinking we would have a massive drop in unemployment levels. There are loads of hotels in Bradford which we all like to moan about, most of which are currently looking for staff that want to work. Its not nice and its hard but it pays a wage. So in short I believe I have to say yes because there is too many who can work, but my heart does go out to those who genuinely can't.

Then you're an idiot. The tax won't get paid.

The council have a simple and affective way of collecting tax. I'm pretty sure the collections services are not getting cut back. But whats the solution, give everything for free. And I say again some people a genuine and can't work, which means this is a slap in the face to them but those who can work need to be brought to pay too. I now work and pay loads of tax just like everyone else who lives a normal life. There are jobs out there, just some of the unemployed believe the jobs are beneath them. So how do you push them towards re addressing their values.

"So how do you push them towards re addressing their values." You don't. You can't. No one can push me into readdressing my values. It is society and government that needs to readdress its values. The vast majority of longterm unemployed are, by now, completely unemployable, myself included. So, no, the jobs are not out there, and this barmy plan will not, and can not, push people into finding work.

How do you define unemployable????? A good friend of mine has just got a job at the age of 43 after never having any solid work at any time in his life. But now he needs to support people he cares for he has re addressed his values and got him self a job in Bradford that he found in the job centre that no one else wanted to go for. If your values are "I'll work but I haven't done for ages AND I'm not doing a low level job" then you are now unemployable but if you look at your situation and think "Right! I need a job at any legal cost" you will find one. I know, I've been there myself. I even lived on the streets for 4 months before turning my life around. I'm glad I did becauseI'm typing this from a lovely office and have 9 staff I'm in charge of.

Good for you. Some of us, however, are deemed to be over-qualified for "low level jobs", and so don't get considered. On the other hand, many jobs specify that previous experience is a must, I have even seen cleaning jobs advertised that say this. Some people are considered unsuitable for certain jobs because of their personality, you're not likely to get a shelf-filling job at ASDA if you have a degree in Philosophy.

A degree is only good if you need to use it. I found myself unemployed with 2 degree level qualifications both in Project Management for IT but I don't have any IT skills at all. I sold my soul at the interview by pointing out I was clever enough to learn just about anything and I could deal with large complicated projects. You play to your strength. When going for a pub job I barely covered my CV, the whole interview was about my people skills, which is a strength of mine. From that lowly step (sorry to people who work in pubs I have a lot of respect for you guys) I worked up to a point of a Team Leader in an office using each step behind me to show the skills developed to help me get the job in front. Shelf stacking needs no qualifications, so don't mention them, same with Hotel Cleaner, Warehouseperson, Trainee Sales, etc. So start at the rubbish end and work upwards. I did it. Unemployable and Over Qualified are states of mind that need to be climbed over. Sat waiting for an employer to knock on your door needing a person with your exact qualifications id never going to happen. Walking up and down industrial estates knocking on ever door asking for email addresses or asking to work doing anything in any department.... will.

I suppose if you're that desperate...I'm not.

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

Andy2010 wrote:

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

Andy2010 wrote:

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

Andy2010 wrote:

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

Andy2010 wrote:

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

BILLTILL wrote: The bottom line is they will be able to collect it ,if people do not pay they will simply deduct the money from their remaining benefit . These people have much greater powers to collect this type of debt than any other, watch out !!

Then we will eat the rich.

You complete idiot You can clearly afford an internet connection so can therefore contribute towards your taxes like everybody else Also you state people wont pay...fine dont pay...I shall look forward to the increase in bailiff work. Not doubt the scroungers wont be too happy once their Xbox's, Routers, Laptops, Plasma's start getting removed About time someone did something about this and normally cant stand Labour but well played to our council for even proposing this. There is NO excuse for not working. Only last month we employed someone classed as "disabled" to assist on our reception. Its more a case of people being too bone idle to do any work...take away their benefits they are left with little choice. I agree this will probably lead to an increase in crime but at least there would be more money in the pot to increase funding to the poilce to deal. Hats off to you Mr Green I applaud you

I get free internet actually. And as for the bailiffs, good luck to them! There is NOTHING of any value in my house! My computer is so old it is worthless, and no, I don't own a laptop or an xbox either. And seeing as you applaud Mr. Green, I take it you are now a Labour voter?

Free internet...please explain unless you are using someone elses wireless connection for your own means in which I would class as theft No not at all. Never voted Labour never will I will however vote for whichever party promotes working and doesnt support the unemployed. I Agree its not anyone's fault initially why someone is unemployed but there is no excuse whatsoever for not having a job after six months albeit any job. Ive been down and out myself taking the worst jobs you would imagine to make some money as I didnt want to sponge off society and gradually over the years worked my way up to a decent life. Anyone can do it with hard work but alas few have any ambition when its all handed to them on plate. The Panorama program last night (watch on iplayer) highlighted this exact issue and showed exactly everything wrong with society today

Unfortunately I am unable to watch Panorama as my computer is too old to run iplayer. I've usually voted Labour, but seeing as all the parties seem to want to promote working, rather than supporting the unemployed, I no longer vote for anyone. I don't see claiming Benefits as "sponging", and I don't see having a job as being any kind of progression. I guess we have different interpretations of what constitutes having a "decent life".

I have no problem with anyone who doesnt want to work or cant be bothered at all but as they are not contributing to society why should they be entitled to handout's? And before you start bleeting on about the "rich should pay" blah blah blah most of the "rich" worked hard to get their wealth. why should they give up even more of it to support people who cant even be bothered working ? I remember an earlier topic when you stated the rich shoudl support all the unemployed etc etc and never answered the question What happens when all the "rich" people's money has gone? Who pays for anything then?

This is an abundant world, with enough for everyone, but the problem is that wealth and resources are being hoarded by the rich. And no, not all of them have got rich through hard work (how naive can you get?), but have dishonestly or unjustly acquired it. Wealth is an obscenity. There is a current conservative estimate of £13 Trillion owed in unpaid taxes by the rich, which would take us firmly out of Depression (forget recession) and render the austerity measures unnecessary.

So what if the rich are "hoarding" their wealth? why shouldnt they?

Its their money after all.

And you state about this 13 trillion in unpaid taxes. Well the unemployed are contributing either so I guess they are all as bad as each other then really by your thinking expect the rich are relying on the working class to prop them up

All property is theft.

BierleyBoy wrote:
Councils that are hugely inefficient and wasteful should have no problem in making up any shortfall. That clearly applies to Bradford Council. The waste of money on the puddle would provide 6 years of cover for benefit shortfall. How about a review of unimportant unproductive unnecessary jobs at the council? How about a review of resource & asset management? A review of productivity & sickness leave of council workers? There is huge waste & inefficiency, which if tackled would make Bradford Council a leaner more sustainable and effective operation.

cockadoodledo wrote:
Seems so unfair!
I see that all our Bradord Local councillors are to receive a 28% rise in their expenses I suppose the money has to come from the Council Tax.

so again the unemployment are made to suffer. what I cant understand why we keep paying all this money to India when they clearly dont need or want it.
Time to look after our own!!
Always voted Conservative in the past and delivered thier leaflets but never again !!!!!!!

legallyblonde wrote:
The problem is how many are actually unemployed and therefore entitled to benefit and how many are actually working cash in hand claiming and turning up at the job centre in BMW's etc - poor jobless my a*se I'd tax the lot of 'em.

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:
People need to refrain from branding their comrades as "scroungers", and see who the real scroungers are, ie. the rich parasites at the top.

State Benefits are NOT a gift, they are a RIGHT!

Do they owe us a living? Of course they **** do!

http://youtu.be/xhjp

FBGbtvY

allannicho wrote:
1.You cannot help people who cannot help themselves, 2. The poor will always be there.

Brer fox wrote:

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:
People need to refrain from branding their comrades as "scroungers", and see who the real scroungers are, ie. the rich parasites at the top.

State Benefits are NOT a gift, they are a RIGHT!

Do they owe us a living? Of course they **** do!

http://youtu.be/xhjp


FBGbtvY

State Benefits are not a Right. They exist.But why should somebody,be they male or female,who is capable of working not work to support themselves and their family? Your attitude disgusts me.

Prisoner Cell Block A wrote:
Could always line up and shoot anyone who has been unemployed for five years or more. That covers the pre-recession time and there were jobs then.

allannicho wrote:
Has A.W. got a jack Russell on a piece of string I wonder?

More Ham wrote:
Band A £851.59 per year, minus 25% single person discount = £638.6175 let’s call it £638.62 for cash. £638.62 – 75% leaving a quarter i.e. 25% is 159.655 once again let’s call it £159.66 for cash, 159.66 per year, divided by 12 months = £13.305 you it already don’t ya! £13.31 per month for cash and by direct debit, please, that’s only £3.070384 let’s say £3.08 per week. An unemployed couple would pay slightly more, so the unemployed are ask to pay a contribution of £3.08 per week. How many comments on here now? Ed.

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

More Ham wrote: Band A £851.59 per year, minus 25% single person discount = £638.6175 let’s call it £638.62 for cash. £638.62 – 75% leaving a quarter i.e. 25% is 159.655 once again let’s call it £159.66 for cash, 159.66 per year, divided by 12 months = £13.305 you it already don’t ya! £13.31 per month for cash and by direct debit, please, that’s only £3.070384 let’s say £3.08 per week. An unemployed couple would pay slightly more, so the unemployed are ask to pay a contribution of £3.08 per week. How many comments on here now? Ed.

I don't have £3.08 to spare. At this moment in time my total life savings amount to just 35p, and I have just enough food for one more meal. How much will it cost to pursue 20,000 people for £3 a week? How much will it cost to obtain 20,000 individual Court Orders to deduct that amount from Benefits? How much will the paperwork alone cost to write to everyone? As you can see (I hope) it is completely unworkable and simply won't happen. Nice try.

Andy2010 wrote:

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

More Ham wrote: Band A £851.59 per year, minus 25% single person discount = £638.6175 let’s call it £638.62 for cash. £638.62 – 75% leaving a quarter i.e. 25% is 159.655 once again let’s call it £159.66 for cash, 159.66 per year, divided by 12 months = £13.305 you it already don’t ya! £13.31 per month for cash and by direct debit, please, that’s only £3.070384 let’s say £3.08 per week. An unemployed couple would pay slightly more, so the unemployed are ask to pay a contribution of £3.08 per week. How many comments on here now? Ed.

I don't have £3.08 to spare. At this moment in time my total life savings amount to just 35p, and I have just enough food for one more meal. How much will it cost to pursue 20,000 people for £3 a week? How much will it cost to obtain 20,000 individual Court Orders to deduct that amount from Benefits? How much will the paperwork alone cost to write to everyone? As you can see (I hope) it is completely unworkable and simply won't happen. Nice try.

Who cares if it actually costs to administer. As long as it gets the jobless contributing and even if it makes even one of the people that feel benefits are a "right" figure out they are better off working then its an excellent idea for me

Andy2010 wrote:

Andy2010 wrote:

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

More Ham wrote: Band A £851.59 per year, minus 25% single person discount = £638.6175 let’s call it £638.62 for cash. £638.62 – 75% leaving a quarter i.e. 25% is 159.655 once again let’s call it £159.66 for cash, 159.66 per year, divided by 12 months = £13.305 you it already don’t ya! £13.31 per month for cash and by direct debit, please, that’s only £3.070384 let’s say £3.08 per week. An unemployed couple would pay slightly more, so the unemployed are ask to pay a contribution of £3.08 per week. How many comments on here now? Ed.

I don't have £3.08 to spare. At this moment in time my total life savings amount to just 35p, and I have just enough food for one more meal. How much will it cost to pursue 20,000 people for £3 a week? How much will it cost to obtain 20,000 individual Court Orders to deduct that amount from Benefits? How much will the paperwork alone cost to write to everyone? As you can see (I hope) it is completely unworkable and simply won't happen. Nice try.

Who cares if it actually costs to administer. As long as it gets the jobless contributing and even if it makes even one of the people that feel benefits are a "right" figure out they are better off working then its an excellent idea for me

Also and seeing as you only have £3 to your name I would suggest you get rid of your cat as you clearly cant afford a pet

Andy2010 wrote:

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

More Ham wrote: Band A £851.59 per year, minus 25% single person discount = £638.6175 let’s call it £638.62 for cash. £638.62 – 75% leaving a quarter i.e. 25% is 159.655 once again let’s call it £159.66 for cash, 159.66 per year, divided by 12 months = £13.305 you it already don’t ya! £13.31 per month for cash and by direct debit, please, that’s only £3.070384 let’s say £3.08 per week. An unemployed couple would pay slightly more, so the unemployed are ask to pay a contribution of £3.08 per week. How many comments on here now? Ed.

I don't have £3.08 to spare. At this moment in time my total life savings amount to just 35p, and I have just enough food for one more meal. How much will it cost to pursue 20,000 people for £3 a week? How much will it cost to obtain 20,000 individual Court Orders to deduct that amount from Benefits? How much will the paperwork alone cost to write to everyone? As you can see (I hope) it is completely unworkable and simply won't happen. Nice try.

Who cares if it actually costs to administer.

As long as it gets the jobless contributing and even if it makes even one of the people that feel benefits are a "right" figure out they are better off working then its an excellent idea for me

Farsley Bantam wrote:

Andy2010 wrote:

Andy2010 wrote:

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

More Ham wrote: Band A £851.59 per year, minus 25% single person discount = £638.6175 let’s call it £638.62 for cash. £638.62 – 75% leaving a quarter i.e. 25% is 159.655 once again let’s call it £159.66 for cash, 159.66 per year, divided by 12 months = £13.305 you it already don’t ya! £13.31 per month for cash and by direct debit, please, that’s only £3.070384 let’s say £3.08 per week. An unemployed couple would pay slightly more, so the unemployed are ask to pay a contribution of £3.08 per week. How many comments on here now? Ed.

I don't have £3.08 to spare. At this moment in time my total life savings amount to just 35p, and I have just enough food for one more meal. How much will it cost to pursue 20,000 people for £3 a week? How much will it cost to obtain 20,000 individual Court Orders to deduct that amount from Benefits? How much will the paperwork alone cost to write to everyone? As you can see (I hope) it is completely unworkable and simply won't happen. Nice try.

Who cares if it actually costs to administer. As long as it gets the jobless contributing and even if it makes even one of the people that feel benefits are a "right" figure out they are better off working then its an excellent idea for me

Also and seeing as you only have £3 to your name I would suggest you get rid of your cat as you clearly cant afford a pet

Or eat it. That would help you with your food proplem too!

Andy2010 wrote:

Andy2010 wrote:

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

More Ham wrote: Band A £851.59 per year, minus 25% single person discount = £638.6175 let’s call it £638.62 for cash. £638.62 – 75% leaving a quarter i.e. 25% is 159.655 once again let’s call it £159.66 for cash, 159.66 per year, divided by 12 months = £13.305 you it already don’t ya! £13.31 per month for cash and by direct debit, please, that’s only £3.070384 let’s say £3.08 per week. An unemployed couple would pay slightly more, so the unemployed are ask to pay a contribution of £3.08 per week. How many comments on here now? Ed.

I don't have £3.08 to spare. At this moment in time my total life savings amount to just 35p, and I have just enough food for one more meal. How much will it cost to pursue 20,000 people for £3 a week? How much will it cost to obtain 20,000 individual Court Orders to deduct that amount from Benefits? How much will the paperwork alone cost to write to everyone? As you can see (I hope) it is completely unworkable and simply won't happen. Nice try.

Who cares if it actually costs to administer. As long as it gets the jobless contributing and even if it makes even one of the people that feel benefits are a "right" figure out they are better off working then its an excellent idea for me

Also and seeing as you only have £3 to your name I would suggest you get rid of your cat as you clearly cant afford a pet

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

Andy2010 wrote:

Andy2010 wrote:

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

More Ham wrote: Band A £851.59 per year, minus 25% single person discount = £638.6175 let’s call it £638.62 for cash. £638.62 – 75% leaving a quarter i.e. 25% is 159.655 once again let’s call it £159.66 for cash, 159.66 per year, divided by 12 months = £13.305 you it already don’t ya! £13.31 per month for cash and by direct debit, please, that’s only £3.070384 let’s say £3.08 per week. An unemployed couple would pay slightly more, so the unemployed are ask to pay a contribution of £3.08 per week. How many comments on here now? Ed.

I don't have £3.08 to spare. At this moment in time my total life savings amount to just 35p, and I have just enough food for one more meal. How much will it cost to pursue 20,000 people for £3 a week? How much will it cost to obtain 20,000 individual Court Orders to deduct that amount from Benefits? How much will the paperwork alone cost to write to everyone? As you can see (I hope) it is completely unworkable and simply won't happen. Nice try.

Who cares if it actually costs to administer. As long as it gets the jobless contributing and even if it makes even one of the people that feel benefits are a "right" figure out they are better off working then its an excellent idea for me

Also and seeing as you only have £3 to your name I would suggest you get rid of your cat as you clearly cant afford a pet

I don't have £3 to my name, I have 35p. I wish you'd pay attention.

Andy2010 wrote:

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

Andy2010 wrote:

Andy2010 wrote:

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

More Ham wrote: Band A £851.59 per year, minus 25% single person discount = £638.6175 let’s call it £638.62 for cash. £638.62 – 75% leaving a quarter i.e. 25% is 159.655 once again let’s call it £159.66 for cash, 159.66 per year, divided by 12 months = £13.305 you it already don’t ya! £13.31 per month for cash and by direct debit, please, that’s only £3.070384 let’s say £3.08 per week. An unemployed couple would pay slightly more, so the unemployed are ask to pay a contribution of £3.08 per week. How many comments on here now? Ed.

I don't have £3.08 to spare. At this moment in time my total life savings amount to just 35p, and I have just enough food for one more meal. How much will it cost to pursue 20,000 people for £3 a week? How much will it cost to obtain 20,000 individual Court Orders to deduct that amount from Benefits? How much will the paperwork alone cost to write to everyone? As you can see (I hope) it is completely unworkable and simply won't happen. Nice try.

Who cares if it actually costs to administer. As long as it gets the jobless contributing and even if it makes even one of the people that feel benefits are a "right" figure out they are better off working then its an excellent idea for me

Also and seeing as you only have £3 to your name I would suggest you get rid of your cat as you clearly cant afford a pet

I don't have £3 to my name, I have 35p. I wish you'd pay attention.

And why exactly should my taxes pay not only to support you but also your pet you look after?

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

Andy2010 wrote:

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

Andy2010 wrote:

Andy2010 wrote:

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

More Ham wrote: Band A £851.59 per year, minus 25% single person discount = £638.6175 let’s call it £638.62 for cash. £638.62 – 75% leaving a quarter i.e. 25% is 159.655 once again let’s call it £159.66 for cash, 159.66 per year, divided by 12 months = £13.305 you it already don’t ya! £13.31 per month for cash and by direct debit, please, that’s only £3.070384 let’s say £3.08 per week. An unemployed couple would pay slightly more, so the unemployed are ask to pay a contribution of £3.08 per week. How many comments on here now? Ed.

I don't have £3.08 to spare. At this moment in time my total life savings amount to just 35p, and I have just enough food for one more meal. How much will it cost to pursue 20,000 people for £3 a week? How much will it cost to obtain 20,000 individual Court Orders to deduct that amount from Benefits? How much will the paperwork alone cost to write to everyone? As you can see (I hope) it is completely unworkable and simply won't happen. Nice try.

Who cares if it actually costs to administer. As long as it gets the jobless contributing and even if it makes even one of the people that feel benefits are a "right" figure out they are better off working then its an excellent idea for me

Also and seeing as you only have £3 to your name I would suggest you get rid of your cat as you clearly cant afford a pet

I don't have £3 to my name, I have 35p. I wish you'd pay attention.

And why exactly should my taxes pay not only to support you but also your pet you look after?

*rolls eyes* yet another banal comment from the "I pay my taxes" brigade. People pay tax, quite rightly, according to their income, in order that we all enjoy a better society. Do you comprehend?

Andy2010 wrote:

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

Andy2010 wrote:

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

Andy2010 wrote:

Andy2010 wrote:

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

More Ham wrote: Band A £851.59 per year, minus 25% single person discount = £638.6175 let’s call it £638.62 for cash. £638.62 – 75% leaving a quarter i.e. 25% is 159.655 once again let’s call it £159.66 for cash, 159.66 per year, divided by 12 months = £13.305 you it already don’t ya! £13.31 per month for cash and by direct debit, please, that’s only £3.070384 let’s say £3.08 per week. An unemployed couple would pay slightly more, so the unemployed are ask to pay a contribution of £3.08 per week. How many comments on here now? Ed.

I don't have £3.08 to spare. At this moment in time my total life savings amount to just 35p, and I have just enough food for one more meal. How much will it cost to pursue 20,000 people for £3 a week? How much will it cost to obtain 20,000 individual Court Orders to deduct that amount from Benefits? How much will the paperwork alone cost to write to everyone? As you can see (I hope) it is completely unworkable and simply won't happen. Nice try.

Who cares if it actually costs to administer. As long as it gets the jobless contributing and even if it makes even one of the people that feel benefits are a "right" figure out they are better off working then its an excellent idea for me

Also and seeing as you only have £3 to your name I would suggest you get rid of your cat as you clearly cant afford a pet

I don't have £3 to my name, I have 35p. I wish you'd pay attention.

And why exactly should my taxes pay not only to support you but also your pet you look after?

*rolls eyes* yet another banal comment from the "I pay my taxes" brigade. People pay tax, quite rightly, according to their income, in order that we all enjoy a better society. Do you comprehend?

No no I dont at all....Please explain how me paying taxes to feed your cat is improving society

This should be interesting

Also you stated earlier that the proposal is unworkable...well based on the number of council tax benefits being paid out x the estimate of £159 a year above that actually equates to about £6m a year to be collected through this scheme.

I'd say £6m to help fund the schools, fire, police etc in Bradford would be welcomed wouldnt you

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

cockadoodledo wrote: Seems so unfair! I see that all our Bradord Local councillors are to receive a 28% rise in their expenses I suppose the money has to come from the Council Tax. so again the unemployment are made to suffer. what I cant understand why we keep paying all this money to India when they clearly dont need or want it. Time to look after our own!! Always voted Conservative in the past and delivered thier leaflets but never again !!!!!!!

Hahaha, I would NEVER even consider voting Conservative under any circumstances whatsoever, but I won't be voting Labour again either! What's the point of voting?

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:
Everyone I have asked so far have simply either laughed or just shrugged and said "I won't pay". It is a barmy plan that cannot be implemented. Only the thickest of dullards could fail to see that.

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

Andy2010 wrote:

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

Andy2010 wrote:

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

Andy2010 wrote:

Andy2010 wrote:

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

More Ham wrote: Band A £851.59 per year, minus 25% single person discount = £638.6175 let’s call it £638.62 for cash. £638.62 – 75% leaving a quarter i.e. 25% is 159.655 once again let’s call it £159.66 for cash, 159.66 per year, divided by 12 months = £13.305 you it already don’t ya! £13.31 per month for cash and by direct debit, please, that’s only £3.070384 let’s say £3.08 per week. An unemployed couple would pay slightly more, so the unemployed are ask to pay a contribution of £3.08 per week. How many comments on here now? Ed.

I don't have £3.08 to spare. At this moment in time my total life savings amount to just 35p, and I have just enough food for one more meal. How much will it cost to pursue 20,000 people for £3 a week? How much will it cost to obtain 20,000 individual Court Orders to deduct that amount from Benefits? How much will the paperwork alone cost to write to everyone? As you can see (I hope) it is completely unworkable and simply won't happen. Nice try.

Who cares if it actually costs to administer. As long as it gets the jobless contributing and even if it makes even one of the people that feel benefits are a "right" figure out they are better off working then its an excellent idea for me

Also and seeing as you only have £3 to your name I would suggest you get rid of your cat as you clearly cant afford a pet

I don't have £3 to my name, I have 35p. I wish you'd pay attention.

And why exactly should my taxes pay not only to support you but also your pet you look after?

*rolls eyes* yet another banal comment from the "I pay my taxes" brigade. People pay tax, quite rightly, according to their income, in order that we all enjoy a better society. Do you comprehend?

No no I dont at all....Please explain how me paying taxes to feed your cat is improving society

This should be interesting

Also you stated earlier that the proposal is unworkable...well based on the number of council tax benefits being paid out x the estimate of £159 a year above that actually equates to about £6m a year to be collected through this scheme.

I'd say £6m to help fund the schools, fire, police etc in Bradford would be welcomed wouldnt you

You're obviously not very intelilgent. Let's leave it at that.

Andy2010 wrote:

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

Andy2010 wrote:

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

Andy2010 wrote:

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

Andy2010 wrote:

Andy2010 wrote:

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

More Ham wrote: Band A £851.59 per year, minus 25% single person discount = £638.6175 let’s call it £638.62 for cash. £638.62 – 75% leaving a quarter i.e. 25% is 159.655 once again let’s call it £159.66 for cash, 159.66 per year, divided by 12 months = £13.305 you it already don’t ya! £13.31 per month for cash and by direct debit, please, that’s only £3.070384 let’s say £3.08 per week. An unemployed couple would pay slightly more, so the unemployed are ask to pay a contribution of £3.08 per week. How many comments on here now? Ed.

I don't have £3.08 to spare. At this moment in time my total life savings amount to just 35p, and I have just enough food for one more meal. How much will it cost to pursue 20,000 people for £3 a week? How much will it cost to obtain 20,000 individual Court Orders to deduct that amount from Benefits? How much will the paperwork alone cost to write to everyone? As you can see (I hope) it is completely unworkable and simply won't happen. Nice try.

Who cares if it actually costs to administer. As long as it gets the jobless contributing and even if it makes even one of the people that feel benefits are a "right" figure out they are better off working then its an excellent idea for me

Also and seeing as you only have £3 to your name I would suggest you get rid of your cat as you clearly cant afford a pet

I don't have £3 to my name, I have 35p. I wish you'd pay attention.

And why exactly should my taxes pay not only to support you but also your pet you look after?

*rolls eyes* yet another banal comment from the "I pay my taxes" brigade. People pay tax, quite rightly, according to their income, in order that we all enjoy a better society. Do you comprehend?

No no I dont at all....Please explain how me paying taxes to feed your cat is improving society

This should be interesting

Also you stated earlier that the proposal is unworkable...well based on the number of council tax benefits being paid out x the estimate of £159 a year above that actually equates to about £6m a year to be collected through this scheme.

I'd say £6m to help fund the schools, fire, police etc in Bradford would be welcomed wouldnt you

You're obviously not very intelilgent. Let's leave it at that.

I would argue the letters after my name and well paid job I enjoy would challenge your preconception.

Someone with no desire to work, make a better life for themselves than their 54p life savings and sponge off the rest of us as their "right" for a lifetime....thats a moron

collos25 wrote:
Everyone I have asked so far have simply either laughed or just shrugged and said "I won't pay". It is a barmy plan that cannot be implemented. Only the thickest of dullards could fail to see that.

Only goes to show what a set of idiots there are running this city everything they touch ends up as a disaster and they get money for doing it.

Andy2010 wrote:

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

Andy2010 wrote:

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

Andy2010 wrote:

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

Andy2010 wrote:

Andy2010 wrote:

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

More Ham wrote: Band A £851.59 per year, minus 25% single person discount = £638.6175 let’s call it £638.62 for cash. £638.62 – 75% leaving a quarter i.e. 25% is 159.655 once again let’s call it £159.66 for cash, 159.66 per year, divided by 12 months = £13.305 you it already don’t ya! £13.31 per month for cash and by direct debit, please, that’s only £3.070384 let’s say £3.08 per week. An unemployed couple would pay slightly more, so the unemployed are ask to pay a contribution of £3.08 per week. How many comments on here now? Ed.

I don't have £3.08 to spare. At this moment in time my total life savings amount to just 35p, and I have just enough food for one more meal. How much will it cost to pursue 20,000 people for £3 a week? How much will it cost to obtain 20,000 individual Court Orders to deduct that amount from Benefits? How much will the paperwork alone cost to write to everyone? As you can see (I hope) it is completely unworkable and simply won't happen. Nice try.

Who cares if it actually costs to administer. As long as it gets the jobless contributing and even if it makes even one of the people that feel benefits are a "right" figure out they are better off working then its an excellent idea for me

Also and seeing as you only have £3 to your name I would suggest you get rid of your cat as you clearly cant afford a pet

I don't have £3 to my name, I have 35p. I wish you'd pay attention.

And why exactly should my taxes pay not only to support you but also your pet you look after?

*rolls eyes* yet another banal comment from the "I pay my taxes" brigade. People pay tax, quite rightly, according to their income, in order that we all enjoy a better society. Do you comprehend?

No no I dont at all....Please explain how me paying taxes to feed your cat is improving society

This should be interesting

Also you stated earlier that the proposal is unworkable...well based on the number of council tax benefits being paid out x the estimate of £159 a year above that actually equates to about £6m a year to be collected through this scheme.

I'd say £6m to help fund the schools, fire, police etc in Bradford would be welcomed wouldnt you

You're obviously not very intelilgent. Let's leave it at that.

I would argue the letters after my name and well paid job I enjoy would challenge your preconception.

Someone with no desire to work, make a better life for themselves than their 54p life savings and sponge off the rest of us as their "right" for a lifetime....thats a moron

Traceyk2 wrote:
Once again it is the disabled and the unemployed who are having to pay for the mess caused by the feckless bankers. I am sick of hearing how well off people on benefits are. My husband and I have worked all our lives and out of interest I checked to see how much we would be entitled to if we both lost our jobs. After receiving contribution based job seekers allowance of £71 each for 6 months we would have to claim Income based Job seekers allowance which would entitle us to £111.45 per week as a couple. The only other help available would be Council Tax benefit as we are fortunate enough to have paid off our mortgage. Hardly living the life of Riley on £111.45 per week after paying Income Tax and National insurance contributions for 40 years! Then again some of you contributors are taken in by the right wing propaganda that anyone on benefits is a workshy lazy good for nothing scumbag. I am not saying there aren't some that fit this description but there are many people who are desperate to work and provide for themselves but the jobs are not there.

shaunp2112 wrote:
Before I say anything, I am employed and voted no to the poll. I did this because I work vlosely with the unemployed and can only see this as having a negative impact on everyone. It is clear that we are currently in a state of crisis (we all know this). We as a nation are struggling with employment, debt etc. How does the council expect those not working and claiming who receive approx £120 every two weeks to be able to afford anything other than the basics. When unemployment is high, and people cannot afford to live, it is well documented that business begin to struggle (as nobody can afford to spend), and the crime rate goes up. So in this case, crime in Bradford will rise, shops within the city centre and surrounding areas will slowly begin to close and we will end up in an even worse state than we are now. Come on Bradford Council, WISE UP, look up from your desks and your meeting rooms and see what you are doing to this city and its people. I would also like to state that yes, some people on benefits etc do not want work, but it is the system as a whole that needs changing with job trials, training courses etc being abused by employers and JCP working to a "numbers game" rather than a best fit strategy. Wake up, look at the people you are trying to help and see that in fact, the majority of time you are not helping at all.

yorkshiredude wrote:
Council tax needs to change. Like VAT it is a regressive tax that hits the poor far more than the rich.

I'm employed but voted no.

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

Andy2010 wrote:

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

Andy2010 wrote:

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

Andy2010 wrote:

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

Andy2010 wrote:

Andy2010 wrote:

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

More Ham wrote: Band A £851.59 per year, minus 25% single person discount = £638.6175 let’s call it £638.62 for cash. £638.62 – 75% leaving a quarter i.e. 25% is 159.655 once again let’s call it £159.66 for cash, 159.66 per year, divided by 12 months = £13.305 you it already don’t ya! £13.31 per month for cash and by direct debit, please, that’s only £3.070384 let’s say £3.08 per week. An unemployed couple would pay slightly more, so the unemployed are ask to pay a contribution of £3.08 per week. How many comments on here now? Ed.

I don't have £3.08 to spare. At this moment in time my total life savings amount to just 35p, and I have just enough food for one more meal. How much will it cost to pursue 20,000 people for £3 a week? How much will it cost to obtain 20,000 individual Court Orders to deduct that amount from Benefits? How much will the paperwork alone cost to write to everyone? As you can see (I hope) it is completely unworkable and simply won't happen. Nice try.

Who cares if it actually costs to administer. As long as it gets the jobless contributing and even if it makes even one of the people that feel benefits are a "right" figure out they are better off working then its an excellent idea for me

Also and seeing as you only have £3 to your name I would suggest you get rid of your cat as you clearly cant afford a pet

I don't have £3 to my name, I have 35p. I wish you'd pay attention.

And why exactly should my taxes pay not only to support you but also your pet you look after?

*rolls eyes* yet another banal comment from the "I pay my taxes" brigade. People pay tax, quite rightly, according to their income, in order that we all enjoy a better society. Do you comprehend?

No no I dont at all....Please explain how me paying taxes to feed your cat is improving society

This should be interesting

Also you stated earlier that the proposal is unworkable...well based on the number of council tax benefits being paid out x the estimate of £159 a year above that actually equates to about £6m a year to be collected through this scheme.

I'd say £6m to help fund the schools, fire, police etc in Bradford would be welcomed wouldnt you

You're obviously not very intelilgent. Let's leave it at that.

I would argue the letters after my name and well paid job I enjoy would challenge your preconception.

Someone with no desire to work, make a better life for themselves than their 54p life savings and sponge off the rest of us as their "right" for a lifetime....thats a moron

If you have such a well-paid job then you won't mind paying your fair share of taxes then will you? Oh, and you're not the only one to have letters after their name.

thelastmanstanding wrote:

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

Andy2010 wrote:

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

Andy2010 wrote:

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

Andy2010 wrote:

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

Andy2010 wrote:

Andy2010 wrote:

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

More Ham wrote: Band A £851.59 per year, minus 25% single person discount = £638.6175 let’s call it £638.62 for cash. £638.62 – 75% leaving a quarter i.e. 25% is 159.655 once again let’s call it £159.66 for cash, 159.66 per year, divided by 12 months = £13.305 you it already don’t ya! £13.31 per month for cash and by direct debit, please, that’s only £3.070384 let’s say £3.08 per week. An unemployed couple would pay slightly more, so the unemployed are ask to pay a contribution of £3.08 per week. How many comments on here now? Ed.

I don't have £3.08 to spare. At this moment in time my total life savings amount to just 35p, and I have just enough food for one more meal. How much will it cost to pursue 20,000 people for £3 a week? How much will it cost to obtain 20,000 individual Court Orders to deduct that amount from Benefits? How much will the paperwork alone cost to write to everyone? As you can see (I hope) it is completely unworkable and simply won't happen. Nice try.

Who cares if it actually costs to administer. As long as it gets the jobless contributing and even if it makes even one of the people that feel benefits are a "right" figure out they are better off working then its an excellent idea for me

Also and seeing as you only have £3 to your name I would suggest you get rid of your cat as you clearly cant afford a pet

I don't have £3 to my name, I have 35p. I wish you'd pay attention.

And why exactly should my taxes pay not only to support you but also your pet you look after?

*rolls eyes* yet another banal comment from the "I pay my taxes" brigade. People pay tax, quite rightly, according to their income, in order that we all enjoy a better society. Do you comprehend?

No no I dont at all....Please explain how me paying taxes to feed your cat is improving society

This should be interesting

Also you stated earlier that the proposal is unworkable...well based on the number of council tax benefits being paid out x the estimate of £159 a year above that actually equates to about £6m a year to be collected through this scheme.

I'd say £6m to help fund the schools, fire, police etc in Bradford would be welcomed wouldnt you

You're obviously not very intelilgent. Let's leave it at that.

I would argue the letters after my name and well paid job I enjoy would challenge your preconception.

Someone with no desire to work, make a better life for themselves than their 54p life savings and sponge off the rest of us as their "right" for a lifetime....thats a moron

If you have such a well-paid job then you won't mind paying your fair share of taxes then will you? Oh, and you're not the only one to have letters after their name.

I don't think he would mind paying his taxes if they were spent on improving the NHS, Education system, armed forces, fire brigade, etc.

But no, what they are not giving away to parasites overseas in "Foreign Aid", they are giving to parasites like yourself for not working.

billalongbong wrote:
vacancies where?

MarkS1 wrote:
There are jobs for those that want them, they may pay minimum wage but thats still a few hundred pounds a week - I know this as we have vacancies that we cannot fill!

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

MarkS1 wrote:
There are jobs for those that want them, they may pay minimum wage but thats still a few hundred pounds a week - I know this as we have vacancies that we cannot fill!

National Minimum Wage is NOT "a few hundred pounds a week" !

After deductions and expenses it is less than I would get in Benefits. If I took a job at Min. Wage and worked 40 hours, and spent £20 per week on travel, I would be approx. £10 per week WORSE OFF than on the dole!

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

MarkS1 wrote: There are jobs for those that want them, they may pay minimum wage but thats still a few hundred pounds a week - I know this as we have vacancies that we cannot fill!

National Minimum Wage is NOT "a few hundred pounds a week" ! After deductions and expenses it is less than I would get in Benefits. If I took a job at Min. Wage and worked 40 hours, and spent £20 per week on travel, I would be approx. £10 per week WORSE OFF than on the dole!

glue ear wrote:

a reasonable sort of chap wrote:

MarkS1 wrote: There are jobs for those that want them, they may pay minimum wage but thats still a few hundred pounds a week - I know this as we have vacancies that we cannot fill!

National Minimum Wage is NOT "a few hundred pounds a week" ! After deductions and expenses it is less than I would get in Benefits. If I took a job at Min. Wage and worked 40 hours, and spent £20 per week on travel, I would be approx. £10 per week WORSE OFF than on the dole!

your trying very hard to justify being a lazy fecker. why not work for your dole in poundland??