Alot more companies would pay more than the minimum wage if......well,most of you know what i'm going to say
Should unemployed people be allowed to work? and still keep their benefits....
- Thread starter tbaldwin
- Start date
Alot more companies would pay more than the minimum wage if......well,most of you know what i'm going to say
audiotech
wav, aiff, mp3, ogg, flac
_angel_
.
Perversely, the effect of 'crack downs' and 'tightening up' the rules means it's harder and harder for someone to legitimately take temp or casual work without being royally shafted when that job ends.
No political party seems interested in ending this situation because they're terrified of the press reaction to making life easier for *spongers*.
The why-should-I-pay-for-them brigade ought to realise it is employers that do quite nicely, thankyou, out of our low wages society-- the taxpayer is effectively subsidising their workforce because they refuse to pay a wage that people can live on (especially if they've got children)
The benefit system is totally screwed up IMO.
My mates sister is a single mum. She is doing a training course in being a school assistant whilst bringing up her kid and as part of the couse works a few hours a week. The biggest problem though is her ex-boyfriend. He does absolutly fuck all. He can never hold a job down, and is constantly on JSA fucking off down the pub or smoking weed with his mates. He does bugger all to contribute to his childs upbringing and has managed to have two more kids since he left my mates sis.
The solution is, if he actually worked and pulled his finger out she wouldn't need to claim as much benefit. Unlike wealthy fathers who bugger off and then the CSA catches yup with them, he hasn't got any money to contribute so she is the one on the short end of the stick (ocassionally he might bung her 50 quid, probably when his parents have given him it).
The benefits system should target people like him IMO and give them a kick in the arse.
What is worst is, my mate had to move houses and need a place to stop for a few months whilst he paid of his credit card and got back on his feet. So he stopepd on his sis couch. had the benefits people decided he was "living" there, they would have cut her benefits, regardless of the fact her brother was spending about 70% of his wages paying of his credit card, and a loan on a car so he could actually get to work.
It's all a bit fucked up really how it works, lazy cunts like the dad get away with scrounging, whilst the single mum is the one who brings up the child and get the raw deal.
With regards to being self employed. I did that, I got sick of the fact that companies will charge you out for 600 quid a day, pocket 500 quid and then you would see after tax say 80 quid.
By charging a fraction of what they do you can under cut the bastards and actually have a decent wage.
TomPaine
My mates sister is a single mum. She is doing a training course in being a school assistant whilst bringing up her kid and as part of the couse works a few hours a week. The biggest problem though is her ex-boyfriend. He does absolutly fuck all. He can never hold a job down, and is constantly on JSA fucking off down the pub or smoking weed with his mates. He does bugger all to contribute to his childs upbringing and has managed to have two more kids since he left my mates sis.
The solution is, if he actually worked and pulled his finger out she wouldn't need to claim as much benefit. Unlike wealthy fathers who bugger off and then the CSA catches yup with them, he hasn't got any money to contribute so she is the one on the short end of the stick (ocassionally he might bung her 50 quid, probably when his parents have given him it).
The benefits system should target people like him IMO and give them a kick in the arse.
What is worst is, my mate had to move houses and need a place to stop for a few months whilst he paid of his credit card and got back on his feet. So he stopepd on his sis couch. had the benefits people decided he was "living" there, they would have cut her benefits, regardless of the fact her brother was spending about 70% of his wages paying of his credit card, and a loan on a car so he could actually get to work.
It's all a bit fucked up really how it works, lazy cunts like the dad get away with scrounging, whilst the single mum is the one who brings up the child and get the raw deal.
With regards to being self employed. I did that, I got sick of the fact that companies will charge you out for 600 quid a day, pocket 500 quid and then you would see after tax say 80 quid.
By charging a fraction of what they do you can under cut the bastards and actually have a decent wage.
TomPaine
Bakunin
I am Noodle's bitch.
One of the problems with the CSA is that it simply has few teeth, if any.
My own father lives in a house that was worth a quarter of a million pounds (that was at least ten years ago and before he spent a high five figure sum on improvements), drives a Land Rover and an MG 'B' sportscar, has his own boat and so on. Yet, when the CSA caught up with him about never having paid a penny in maintainance for me, he simply told them he wasn't going to pay and if they took it out of his earnings then he'd simply quit his job and go on the dole. He did this three times until I was too old to have maintainance paid for me any more and thus got away without paying a penny and there was nothing the CSA could do about it. The CSA is just a sop to the people who deserve and need maintainance paid for their children. It's a paper tiger and a toothless one at that.
One thing's for sure, when that toerag dies I'll be challenging the will (if there is one) and cutting myself in for half of everything.
chilango
Ha! Ha! Armageddon
This^
AFAIK the idea of the "social wage" is gaining some currency and might even be the policy of some European Green Parties.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
It's an idea that has been around for a while. Bertrand Russell advocated it 100 years ago in his book Roads to Freedom. It makes sense to me on many different levels, and I've made the case for it here on Urban. Unfortunately even left-leaning posters can't get past the 'why should I pay for you not to work' point of the argument.Green Party policy ^.
_angel_
.
That is just total shit and not the first time I've heard that story (of people going on the dole deliberately ----how??? I guess they just lie, to duck out of parental contributions)
The CSA was set up solely to be able to take money away from single parents (lets not beat around the bush - mainly mothers) on benefit. When they are in work, they seem not to care at all about chasing up the errant parent.
I have a friend who didn't receive a penny from her ex whilst she lived with her boyfriend who was working, the minute she split up and went on to benefits they tracked him down and she received payments.
It is obvious they only bothered looking for him when she became a 'burden' on the public purse.
Bakunin
I am Noodle's bitch.
That's what happens when you have a shitehawk for a father, I'm afraid. My mother claimed child benefit for us all (seven kids so claiming a bit of cash) which, if you're right, would explain why they caught up with him that often.
I know that you can't claim dole if you've deliberately made yourself unemployed, so my guess is he would have either feigned illness (resigned for 'stress' or something, which he's quite capable of) or had plenty tucked away having robbed my grandparents blind before they both died.
I'm not a fan of the CSA at all in it's present form, not surprisingly.
_angel_
.
You can't quit your job on purpose and claim. People who do this basically lie thru their teeth, and make it so harder for the genuine claimant being suspected of doing so.
Bakunin
I am Noodle's bitch.
If only such a right existed and was legally enforceable I'd be all for it. If someone has fallen on genuinely hard times and is having trouble making regular maintainance then I have a certain degree of sympathy. But if they're simply refusing to pay when they're fully capable of doing so then I see nothing wrong in confiscating the owed funds, with interest, by sequestrating their assets or simply freezing them until they pay up.
It doesn't seem to trouble the Inland Revenue too much to do that when someone's been dodging their taxes.
Indeed - all people in work should get full tax credits and benefits as they have, after all, paid for them.
Why should benefits just be paid out to people who aren't working?
_angel_
.
errr have you heard of the recession at all? People who are unemployed have also paid into the system (not popular mentioning this, but not everyone on benefit has never had a job!!)
oh and working people are eligible for benefits (wtc, housing benefit, child benefit) because our government is too scared to ask employers to pay a living wage.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
What you believe is irrelevant. Surely you know that by now.
In other words, you admit defeat again. Too easy these days.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Phil, if you wish to take my statement that your beliefs are irrelevant as an "admission of defeat", that's entirely up to you, and between you and your therapist.
audiotech
wav, aiff, mp3, ogg, flac
Intellegence has feck all to do with it.......Take me for example,I can hardly string together a sentence and I earn nearly double the national minimum wage
You were bleating on the other week about immigrants driving down your wage?
Another fuckin' troll.
Have to say i do think it is an incredibly stupid system that actually deters people from working.
Giving people the option to work 2 days a week without losing benefits would mean that more people would re-engage with the world of work. The govts attempts to get a million people off IB are doomed to failure cos they havent thought any of this through enough.
Good post.
The system should be about helping those in need. But a self feeding bureacracy ensures that those needs often take second place.
Interesting post. I think a lot of people do want to see the benefit system reformed for the better.
At the moment the benefit system gives people barely enough to live and deters them from work. Allowing people to work and keep benefits would help to improve things. The govt has made it better in somweays for people to move off benefits with working tax credits and the minimum income guarantee helping. But both are quite complicated and people are not always aware of their entitlements. Letting people keep their benefits might be less complicated.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
So how do you feel about the banks being bailed out with taxpayers money? The bill for that is likely to exceed the nation's social security bill. But it's the unemployed and those on benefits who are more worthy of ire in the collective mind of the government, the tabloid press and the right.
I'm angry at a system that rewards greedy irresponsible capitalists but attacks the weakest in our society.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
