are we still a fair country

[mister man]

What is the cause of UK's unemployment benefits to be so low?
Why are the payments to the unemployed the most ungenerous out of all advanced economies in Europe? Is it because British people are selfish or is it because we allow our government to treat them badly?

In the following table you can see the amount of unemployment benefit a single person gets for a fortnight in that country.

Country Amount
Denmark £644.48
Belgium £644.42
Finland £464.50
Luxembourg £450.11
Sweden £392.45
France £390.31
Germany £363.56
Spain £340.32
Ireland £319.11
Netherlands £309.97
Austria £307.93
Switzerland £307.87
Norway £211.96
Greece £138.54
UK £130.73
Cyprus £122.22
Portugal £115.20
Iceland £112.73
Italy £80.66

In the second table you can see how much percentage of the GDP that country spends in looking after the unemployed:

as % of GDP
Belgium 3.4
Spain 2.6
Finland 2.2
Denmark 2
France 2
Germany 1.7
Sweden 1.6
Austria 1.6
Netherlands 1.4
Ireland 1.3
Portugal 1.2
Greece 1.1
Cyprus 1.1
Luxembourg 1
Switzerland 1
UK 0.6
Italy 0.5
Norway 0.4
Iceland 0.3


Why is Britain's share so tiny and why does the Uk's jobcentres engage in practices that humiliate and degrade the job-seeker?

[Ferru123]

Sorry, but if the Danes and the Belgians paid nearly £650 per fortnight just for being unemployed, there'd be no-one available to do low-paid jobs. Why work when you can make better money on the dole? So I suspect that those stats don't tell the full picture. Do they take into account child and housing benefit, for example, or are they only available for a very short period?

As for the percentage of GDP spent on unemployment benefits, that stat is pretty meaningless on its own, given that different countries have different proportions of people claiming benefits. However, it would be interesting to compare the amount spent per claimant in percentage GDP terms.

BTW, if you think things are bad here, it's even worse in Italy. Enzabella once told me that over there you get benefits for 180 days, and only if you've worked previously.

If money were unlimited, I don't think many people would object to spending far more money on the unemployed. But it's not, and if we give more money to the unemployed, we need to give less money to someone else. Which budget would you cut to fund greater payments to the unemployed? The police? The NHS? Education? Personally, I'd pull out of the EU and end foreign aid, but neither of those things are going to happen anytime soon...

Jeff

[mister man]

yes italy is the lowest figure as you can see, but as gdp its equivalent to us, but then their economy is and has been since the war in a far worse state than ours, so they really can afford less than us, relatively speaking we are probably treating our unemployed worse than them, the % job seeking are similar.
the bonuses paid to bankers every year alone would mean a saving greater than the benefit cuts will achieve.
Severe pruning of public service pensions for teachers,police,fire service, local government/council workers and civil servants would save a huge amount its now accounting for 18% of GDP, or 36 times (36 times!) that which we spend on the unemployed.

[superfrank]

it depends by what you call fair. in most countries there is no such thing as unemployment benefit.

my biggest gripe about the UK's treatment of the unemployed is not the level of benefits but the fact that we allow all and sundry to come here to work to drive down labour costs which has exacerbated the dependency culture of the native underclass and caused massive social problems and costs that far outweigh any cost savings to business.

[mister man]

the names may change from jsa in other countries, but the underlying principle is the same, in that payments are made to the economically inactive parts of the popultaion as a safety net to allow them time to find work in times of plenty and to support them in times of famine as now. not as a benign gesture but to facilitate social cohesion, avoid civil unrest and anarchy.
I agree that if we had a system that paid those who have paid 30/20/10 years into the system a proportional higher level of benefits for being jobless than those just off the boat from wherever it would be a fairer system.
i also agree that succesive governments have allowed the high immigration levels they have to drive labour costs ever lower, and make bigger profits for individuals at the top of companies,in the guise of making us competitive.
this government particularly although labour did it to a lesser extent,are keen to focus when it suits them on the scandinavian model of social policy, quoting them in their education and health, reforms, policy studies, penal reform and a whole raft of areas,whilst totally ignoring the fact that to make their version of social underpinning work,they offer some of the most generous benefits in europe and have a far smaller differencial between the lowest and highest paid in society. as a result they are happier, healthier, and better educated and better trained for work.
this government will be increasingly under pressure this summer,unless things change for many, the riots last summer were blamed on feckless youth,the truth as they know was far more complex, and will undoubtedly happen again in a different format.
18% of our GDP goes into pensions for public sector workers, 0.5% of our GDP into supporting the unemployed, its unjustifiable and plain barmy to put 36 times more resource into the retired than those seeking work,its also hard to justify benefit levels for many (not all I admit) at 40% below the governments and independent bodies, definition of poverty, only the ongoing media bias and the inefectual state of our very poor crop of parliamentarians allows them to dupe the ignorant, and they wont be able to do that forever.

[Ferru123]

the bonuses paid to bankers every year alone would mean a saving greater than the benefit cuts will achieve.

If you're proposing a greater tax on bonuses, that could also ruin London's position as the world's leading financial centre.

We'd just be handing over a lot of revenue to the taxman in New York, Tokyo or Singapore, or wherever the bankers relocate to, and there'd be even less money available with which to pay benefits.

I don't see that as a desirable outcome, from a British perspective...

Severe pruning of public service pensions for teachers,police,fire service, local government/council workers and civil servants would save a huge amount its now accounting for 18% of GDP, or 36 times (36 times!) that which we spend on the unemployed.

So you'd rob someone of the pension entitlement they'd paid for all their life, just to fund benefits for the unemployed (many of whom have taken far more out of the system than they'll ever put in)?

Jeff

[enzabella2009]

You get paid every 2 weeks, they pay you the rent, they pay you the council tax, they pay you medical care ( dentist etc), they pay you your dog expense, they pay you transports expense, they pay you college expense, etc etc
What do you want more? People do not lose their dignity thanks to your benefit system.
In Italy you only get benefit if you have worked during the year and you can only claim it for a short time. Bare in mind that you only get it if your contract was a temporary contract and you have not been renewed. If you get sucked you are in title of compensation for the remaining months of the contract. If you hand a dimission and the company don`t accept it you will have to pay a compasation to the company for the remaining months and you will not be in title to claim benefit.
If you have a permant contract, you can be suspended but very unlikely be sucked. If the company is struggling and need to cut jobs they can`t fire you but they will pay you a lower wage to stay @ home. You only lose your secure wage if you hand dimission and find an other job.
However all this may soon change. MR Monti is pushing to introduce the benefit and change the law that so far have secured people jobs...

[mugsgame]

As a nation I think we have lost sight of what constitues the welfare state.
When introduced social security as it was know was just that. A mechanism to support you if you hit rough times. A temporary solution.

What it has turned into (for some) is a career. Why work when you can get it for free? Why contribute when others can pay for you?

There are few countries in the world where you can live your whole life without ever working.
You come into the world with nothing. Straight away you get free healthcare. I don't care what anyone says about the NHS, it is a world class service and it's FREE.
You then get free nursery and a FREE world class education. By the way, if you play the game you can even get a university education for free.
You leave education and have no job, ok we then give you money to live on. What about somewhere to live? OK we can give you accommodation too! FREE.
So you could pretty much up to this point not have contributed a penny.
In my experience these "non contributors" are the ones whining. I guess it's lucky for them they were not born a country, and there are plenty of them, Where they would have died as infants due to the lack of basic care.

On the other side there are many now who are caught in a trap of unemployment and debt. I blame successive governments for this. Starting with Thatcher. There is always going to be massive unemployment if you wilfully destroy the source of jobs for hundreds of thousands of people. (Manufacturing, Mining etc). Then make it more attractive to stay at home rather than find a job (whatever the pay). Then open our borders to millions of economic migrants who mostly will compete with the unskilled labour market.
This may have been great for British business, who lined their pockets. But it has destroyed the standard of living of the UK. We are in decline and will be for the foreseeable future.
The latest brainwave by dopy Dave and his crew (Milliband is even dopier) is to send people on JSA into placements. Brilliant!!!!!
These folks are working at Tescos now for JSA + expenses. What does that mean then? It means that the workers Tesco were employing at minimum wage and slightly above now will have to claim JSA. All it has done is fuck the people who actually wanted a job and give their job to someone who is being forced to work. Meanwhile Tesco's are wanking in the land of green ginger, filling their pockets with tax payers cash. The government has created much of what they are sowing. Every political party is to blame. They gave a contract that would have provided 1000's of jobs for years in Derby (Bombardier) to a German company (because it slightly benefitted the tax payer). Those were high quality jobs. How does that benefit the business of Derby? The countless small business that will suffer because another couple of thousand local people are now on JSA, or instead of earning £12 an hour they are earning £6. This is inexcusable. Philip Hammond hang your ugly head in shame. When will these aresholes learn that the UK is just that. Not London.
I'm from Coventry, as a teenager there was a song released by a local band called The Specials about Coventry. It was called Ghost Town, It needs to be rereleased because it is more relevant today than 30 years ago.

So are we a far Country?
Do we give Millions away in aid to countries that are richer than us? India, Brazil (btw - Brazil will not let ships from the Falklands dock in their ports That's pretty fair.
We let pretty much anyone in and give them what we get. _ FREE
That seems pretty fair too.
We send our brave soldiers to any Country who is being oppressed and needs liberation. We pay in blood and considerable financial cost. While many of our European neighbours do nothing.
That's quite fair isn't it?
We look after our citizen's from cradle to grave (FFS we even pay to bury them!)

In my book we are a little too fair.

Just ro reinforce my point have a look at this - What a disgrace
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17127488

[mister man]

some "fair" points their mugsgame, but what about the 2.2M that arent choosing this as a career option, its just they cant get a job, with 2.2M fewer vacancies than unemployed currently. They cant live on £65 a week after housing and council tax, just do a quick reckonup and you will see they are on the road to theft or worse if they cant find work, which they cant.
as well as the money from bankers bonuses and the savings from public sector workers pensions that i repeat account for 18% of our GDP, 0.5% of our GDP is spent on jsa claimants, so a retired council worker gets 36 times the investment that an out of work teenager or middle aged manager does, come on thats not fair or a produtive use of money.
what about the 7billion in overseas aid, we could help our people back into work with that, and the Indians who we give billions to say they dont need it,its a peanut in their economy according to their finance minister.
What a disgraceful way to treat many who have paid into the system for many years, reducing them to a subservient, subsistance level existance to satisfy the comfortably well off who would soon change their tune if they had to go through the ritual humiliation, and degradation that the job centres habuitually hands out to its clients.
scandalous. most of the 2.8m about 2m of them are deperate for work.Ghost town is a great record, the 80's are back again, funny how its just like the last time we got a tory government. or as many call them the nasty party.

[Ferru123]

some "fair" points their mugsgame, but what about the 2.2M that arent choosing this as a career option.

If and when I regularly see businesses when signs in their window saying 'No job vacancies', because they've been inundated by people calling in on spec, then I might believe that those people are merely victims of circumstance. Similarly, my point of view might be changed if I suddenly start seeing people stood by the roadside holding up a sign saying 'Looking for work - Talk to me'.

I'm sure many of those 2.2 million unemployed people are busting a gut to get back into work, and stand on their own two feet. But I think we both know that there are also many, many of them who are happy just to accept their Giro cheque every fortnight and do the bare minimum to find work. And I have to admit that I was once one of them, but I'd like to think I'd behave differently if I had my time again...

You have to make your own luck...

They cant live on £65 a week after housing and council tax, just do a quick reckonup and you will see they are on the road to theft or worse if they cant find work, which they cant.

When was the last time someone knocked on your door offering to do odd jobs or wash your car for cash? It hasn't happened to me either. There's more than one way to skin a cat, but some people go through life taking what they incorrectly perceive to be the easy option...

a retired council worker gets 36 times the investment that an out of work teenager or middle aged manager does, come on thats not fair or a produtive use of money.

So if you were George Osborne, how much would a single man or woman with no dependants receive in JSA?

Jeff