Cable Forum
Page 18 of 27 « First 814151617 18 19202122 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)
-   Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)
-   -   The state benefits system mega-thread. (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33692770)

Ignitionnet 13-07-2015 21:15
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 35788201)
No, because the inevitable price increases because of ......... the living wage.
The living wage isn't going to profoundly increase the amount of money in the economy so shouldn't make that much of an impression in prices.

The minimum wage didn't make much difference in the grand scheme.

Companies will see their own tax bills drop a bit, and will have to take hits on their bottom line, which many can certainly afford. Those who cannot, well, some are exactly the unproductive 'zombie' businesses that have been kept going on cheap credit and forbearance.

---------- Post added at 20:15 ---------- Previous post was at 20:14 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary L (Post 35788266)
Isn't that what National Insurance is for?
National Insurance is general taxation. It goes into the same pot as the rest. It's income tax under another name.

nomadking 13-07-2015 21:29
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35788232)
Well, with inflation at around 0 to 1%, and expected to stay there for the next couple of years, yes.....

---------- Post added at 17:14 ---------- Previous post was at 17:12 ----------

So we should have the insane situation where low salaries are topped up by the Government, at a time when business profits are at their highest levels in two decades?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/c...e-economy.html
How many full time childless employees have their income topped up? It is part timers and/or those with children that are topped up. The Living Wage is calculated using 9 different scenarios, one of which is a couple with 4 kids. How is that comparable to a single person with no kids? A general Living Wage would be paying too much, even by the measures of the Living Wage itself.
Quote:
The nine non-pensioner households used in MIS are single-unit households (i.e. single adults or couples living with or without dependent children, but nobody else), with up to three children for lone parents and up to four children for couples.

Hugh 13-07-2015 22:05
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Point missed completely.....

Why shouldn't businesses, whose profits (which are a good thing) are at their highest point in two decades, pay their employees a living wage?

When we hired students in their placement year, they got the same salary as trainees (around £18k) - this motivated them, so everyone benefited (more productive, better work experience, happier employees).

We are talking about people, not 'resources' - I treat those who work with me how I would I would like to be treated if I were in their shoes; with dignity, and paid a fair wage.

If your business model can't afford a living wage, the model isn't right.....

martyh 13-07-2015 22:26
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35788267)

National Insurance is general taxation. It goes into the same pot as the rest. It's income tax under another name.
Beats me why we still bother with it ,scrap it and raise the income tax rate

ianch99 14-07-2015 00:30
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35788277)
Point missed completely.....

Why shouldn't businesses, whose profits (which are a good thing) are at their highest point in two decades, pay their employees a living wage?

When we hired students in their placement year, they got the same salary as trainees (around £18k) - this motivated them, so everyone benefited (more productive, better work experience, happier employees).

We are talking about people, not 'resources' - I treat those who work with me how I would I would like to be treated if I were in their shoes; with dignity, and paid a fair wage.

If your business model can't afford a living wage, the model isn't right.....
The best post I have read in a very, very long time :tu:

nomadking 14-07-2015 00:49
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35788277)
Point missed completely.....

Why shouldn't businesses, whose profits (which are a good thing) are at their highest point in two decades, pay their employees a living wage?

When we hired students in their placement year, they got the same salary as trainees (around £18k) - this motivated them, so everyone benefited (more productive, better work experience, happier employees).

We are talking about people, not 'resources' - I treat those who work with me how I would I would like to be treated if I were in their shoes; with dignity, and paid a fair wage.

If your business model can't afford a living wage, the model isn't right.....
"Highest point in 2 decades" is meaningless as in the other 19 years it was lower, but they would still have been expected to pay that wage. And it wasn't for all companies and wasn't just businesses that employ a lot of people, eg financial businesses. Rate of return is not the same as profit.

How does a salary enough to not "need" tax credits etc, for a couple with 4 kids, some or all needing childcare, have any relevance to a single person with no kids living with their parents. That could be in the region of £60,000 minimum wage.:shocked: Try starting up a new business with those sorts of silly costs. Even a couple with 4 kids not needing childcare would apparently need over £35K living wage. A cleaner on £35K?

Being motivated by higher salaries depends on the job and the business. So again using that is completely meaningless.

And why don't we scrap the main tax-free allowance as that is also state aid. The list goes on.

Which planet has a minimum "living wage" enough to not need state aid in one form or another for a large proportion of the population? Double the cost of a business and the "living wage" goes up in response and so on. China and India becoming cheap production powerhouses was a one off. Any benefits from that can't be repeated again.

Hugh 14-07-2015 09:43
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
I call out your 'straw man' argument.

We are talking about £9 per hour, not £30 per hour (your £60,000 figure) - you are moving the goalposts to deflect discussion.

Russ 14-07-2015 09:48
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35788277)
If your business model can't afford a living wage, the model isn't right.....
I've only read the last page or two of this thread but isn't that subjective? Surely a 'living wage' (presumably you mean that in a general context as opposed to the proposed "Living Wage") for one person is different from the next?

Hugh 14-07-2015 10:05
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
I am referring to the proposed Living Wage, rather than a variable hypothetical one.

denphone 14-07-2015 10:09
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35788277)
Point missed completely.....

Why shouldn't businesses, whose profits (which are a good thing) are at their highest point in two decades, pay their employees a living wage?

When we hired students in their placement year, they got the same salary as trainees (around £18k) - this motivated them, so everyone benefited (more productive, better work experience, happier employees).

We are talking about people, not 'resources' - I treat those who work with me how I would I would like to be treated if I were in their shoes; with dignity, and paid a fair wage.

If your business model can't afford a living wage, the model isn't right.....
This.

Julian 14-07-2015 11:40
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35788277)
If your business model can't afford a living wage, the model isn't right.....
To be fair Hugh, not all businesses operate on a high profit basis.

A lot of small businesses will be hurt by this.

Those that have majority low hours workers so pay very little in NI, therefore unable to recover any of the enforced pay rise.

nomadking 14-07-2015 12:26
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35788327)
I call out your 'straw man' argument.

We are talking about £9 per hour, not £30 per hour (your £60,000 figure) - you are moving the goalposts to deflect discussion.
The argument is that the salary should be enough to not need state aid in the form of tax credits, benefits etc. From the Tax credits website you can be earning that sort of figure and still be eligible. Even the official "living wage" calculations say a salary of £53,890 for a couple with 4 kids with childcare.

The 2014 hourly rates range from £5.70 to £21.10. The assumption is made that in a couple, both are working. That ends up with the slightly perverse situation where a single person with one child is said to need around the same as a couple with 4 kids. The 2014 figures give a "required" salary of £41,254 for a single person with 3 kids. Even just single person with just one child is said to "require" £13.88/hour, £27,141/year. The rent levels used seem to be a bit low, ie £100/wk for a couple with 4 kids.:shocked: All these figures are for outside London which will be even higher.

In 1980, you were given and additional £365 on your tax allowance for each child. The 2014 calculations say that you "require" £173.10 each week just for childcare.

The "living wage" calculations may use 9 different household set-ups to come up with a single figure, but even within each set-up there will be differences in requirements, eg a single person with one child needing childcare is different to where the child doesn't need childcare to the tune of £173.10/week. The "living wage" cannot begin to represent the various combination of set-ups, but a tax credits and benefits system can. It is having children that is really being "subsidised". Good luck with getting £21.10/hour because you may or may not have 3 kids.

Ramrod 14-07-2015 12:57
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35788277)
Why shouldn't businesses, whose profits (which are a good thing) are at their highest point in two decades, pay their employees a living wage?
We are talking about people, not 'resources' - I treat those who work with me how I would I would like to be treated if I were in their shoes; with dignity, and paid a fair wage.

If your business model can't afford a living wage, the model isn't right.....
Damn right :tu:

Taf 16-07-2015 16:35
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
The amount asylum seekers and their children receive in state support is to be cut by the government.

There will be a payment of £36.95 per week for each asylum seeker, whether they are adults or children.

A single parent with one child will get £73.90, compared to £96.90 now.

A single parent with two children will receive £110.85, compared to £149.86.

A couple with two children will receive £147.80. They currently receive £178.44.

The changes will take effect from 10 August.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33547767

Kursk 17-07-2015 19:03
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
I hope a further cut follows if the subject has not secured a productive role in their adoptive home within 6 months.

Gary L 18-07-2015 11:40
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
A Home Office spokesman said asylum seekers requiring support were provided with an essential living allowance in addition to free accommodation, including all utility bills and Council Tax, and access to free healthcare and schooling.
They get free gas and electric?
Virgin and Sky are classed as 'utilities'
they get that free too?

land line.
free international calls?

what about an iphone 6 and a mobile contract?
that free too?

Hugh 18-07-2015 12:15
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Yes, no, no, no, no, and no.

Gary L 18-07-2015 12:21
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
You sound unsure.
We'll take it all as yes till someone says otherwise.

free gas and electric?
no wonder there's loads of cables coming out the windows!

papa smurf 18-07-2015 12:26
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
so we buy our gas and electricity supplies from foreigners and give them it back for free what a wonderful system ;)

Kursk 18-07-2015 12:48
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35789279)
Yes, no, no, no, no, and no.
That's one 'yes' too many.

Hugh 18-07-2015 13:25
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Since they are not allowed to earn money, how would you suggest the gas/electric is paid for by the asylum seeker?

Gary L 18-07-2015 13:43
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Out of their benefits like everybody else has to?

Escapee 18-07-2015 16:25
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35789296)
Since they are not allowed to earn money, how would you suggest the gas/electric is paid for by the asylum seeker?
Thank you, that has certainly provided an answer to a niggling question I had.

On Newport road in Cardiff, near Lynx House (Asylum centre) there are a number of large houses that have been converted into flats housing asylum seekers. During the coldest spell of last winter when passing 2 or 3 of these premises it stood out like a sore thumb that despite the very cold weather, the front doors of these properties were left wide open. I guess if you are getting something for free from an over generous benefactor you don't concern yourself with how much you use or waste.

Kursk 18-07-2015 19:25
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary L (Post 35789297)
Out of their benefits like everybody else has to?
:)

If they are not allowed to earn money, what about some voluntary, unpaid community work like collecting litter so that their taxpayer patrons get something practical back (other than the wunnerful- fuzzy-warm-feeling of bailing out others)?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Escapee (Post 35789317)
Thank you, that has certainly provided an answer to a niggling question I had.

On Newport road in Cardiff, near Lynx House (Asylum centre) there are a number of large houses that have been converted into flats housing asylum seekers. During the coldest spell of last winter when passing 2 or 3 of these premises it stood out like a sore thumb that despite the very cold weather, the front doors of these properties were left wide open. I guess if you are getting something for free from an over generous benefactor you don't concern yourself with how much you use or waste.
It beggars belief. Old people are getting hypothermia whilst this lot are having a BBQ.

Ramrod 18-07-2015 21:40
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kursk (Post 35789335)
:)

If they are not allowed to earn money, what about some voluntary, unpaid community work like collecting litter so that their taxpayer patrons get something practical back (other than the wunnerful- fuzzy-warm-feeling of bailing out others)?
Much like my father and uncles were when they were refugees after the war. They were given a place to live and jobs to do.
Two years before they allowed live and work where they wanted. :shrug:

Kursk 19-07-2015 02:39
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
War brings about status change whether or not it is appropriate I suppose. Your family nonetheless became participants in and contributors to the way of life of its host; they will be men used to 'putting in' to the system in the expectation of getting something out. The principle is just as valid today and we shouldn't encourage anyone to expect something for nothing imho especially newcomers.

Osem 19-07-2015 11:50
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
We've done far too much of that, I believe - confering rights without responsibilities or expectations - allowing the majority of hardworking and decent people to be increasingly put upon in order to accommodate the wants and desires of a minority who contribute little or nothing to society and refuse to behave responsibly. Those who need help/support should get it. Those who choose to ride on the back of the system should be shown up for what they are and have concessions removed not added to. Those who come here to contribute to our society should be welcomed. Those who come here purely to abuse the system and even undermine their host society should never be given citizenship (or have it removed) and should be deported. We cannot soak up the world's needy or allow 'asylum' to continue to be a byword for economic migration. There will always be those undeserving who're able to exploit any system but right now ours is far too relaxed about the abuse it's being subjected to whether that be the hordes queueing up in Calais or those who come here under clearly false pretences and then cynically commence a systematic abuse of the asylum/welare system. Refuge, opportunity and welfare here should be earned and seen as a reward not as an entitlement to anyone who wants it.

Chrysalis 19-07-2015 13:16
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
In regards to the private sickness insurance scheme, there is no surprise there.

A certain American health insurance company has long been having input into the sickness benefit assessments this country uses and have probably been lobbying for a while to take over the role from the DWP. So its just another idea to shift taxpayer money to private enterprises.

Chris 23-07-2015 16:10
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrysalis (Post 35789422)
So its just another idea to shift taxpayer money to private enterprises.
You are Jeremy Corbyn and I claim my £5.

Ramrod 23-07-2015 18:23
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osem (Post 35789410)
We've done far too much of that, I believe - confering rights without responsibilities or expectations - allowing the majority of hardworking and decent people to be increasingly put upon in order to accommodate the wants and desires of a minority who contribute little or nothing to society and refuse to behave responsibly. Those who need help/support should get it. Those who choose to ride on the back of the system should be shown up for what they are and have concessions removed not added to. Those who come here to contribute to our society should be welcomed. Those who come here purely to abuse the system and even undermine their host society should never be given citizenship (or have it removed) and should be deported. We cannot soak up the world's needy or allow 'asylum' to continue to be a byword for economic migration. There will always be those undeserving who're able to exploit any system but right now ours is far too relaxed about the abuse it's being subjected to whether that be the hordes queueing up in Calais or those who come here under clearly false pretences and then cynically commence a systematic abuse of the asylum/welare system. Refuge, opportunity and welfare here should be earned and seen as a reward not as an entitlement to anyone who wants it.
:tu: :)

RizzyKing 23-07-2015 18:36
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
I haven't heard one sensible person oppose the idea of those who can work should and that receipt of benefits should come with responsibility as there are those who feel they have a right to money no matter how irresponsibly they act. That doesn't mean the Tories program is achieving any of that beyond sound bites and too many with genuine medical problems both diagnosed and confirmed by medical professionals are getting hit whilst the worst abusers are managing to skate by yet again.

nomadking 23-07-2015 21:15
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RizzyKing (Post 35790156)
I haven't heard one sensible person oppose the idea of those who can work should and that receipt of benefits should come with responsibility as there are those who feel they have a right to money no matter how irresponsibly they act. That doesn't mean the Tories program is achieving any of that beyond sound bites and too many with genuine medical problems both diagnosed and confirmed by medical professionals are getting hit whilst the worst abusers are managing to skate by yet again.
It is not whether you have or allege you, a particular medical problem, it is how it affects you. Often all a GP will do is repeat what the claimant had said.

Depression is the new "back pain". You only have the claimants word for it and often it is a matter of just "feeling down".

RizzyKing 23-07-2015 21:43
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
That's why I'm not on about mental health I agree it's a minefield I'm talking about chronic psychical problems like Parkinson's, arthritis, muscular dystrophy, ankylosing spondylitis and cystic fibrosis. People with chronic forms of all those conditions have been recently classed as fit for work with far more then just a GP to vouch for their condition. Their appeals for those lucky to have a date are in two years time and when they win as they will they will get sent back for reassessment and back on the merry go round we go. There are many good ideas in the world with lousy implementation and these so called reforms are a prime example. Cannot argue with the language or the base principle and if you don't bother to pay attention to the implementation alls good I guess but the reality is these reforms are totally missing the worst abusers of the system and are hitting non abusers.

Please don't give me the "few innocents will be hit" line as when dealing with chronic conditions an abundance of information and evidence is made available problem is many assessors are not doctors or even medical personnel they just went through the company's assessment training course. They don't want to admit they don't understand the information or know it at all so just give a mark regardless. I want reform, I want a system that is fair to both those who receive it and those whose contributions make it possible but this isn't it and everyone deserves better considering the sums of money involved are not small.

nomadking 23-07-2015 22:06
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
And those conditions don't necessarily go from "0-60" overnight. They progress at slow speeds over several years. At the beginning might well be different from 10 years later.

From UK Parkinson's website
Quote:
It's important to remember that everyone's experience of Parkinson's is different. Not everyone will experience all of these symptoms.
The order in which symptoms appear and the way symptoms progress also varies from person to person.
It may take a long time to get to this stage
Quote:
The term 'advanced Parkinson's' usually refers to a time when your symptoms are more complex and have more of an effect on your day-to-day life. You may find that you're no longer able to do tasks such as washing and dressing without help from someone else, perhaps a carer.
Quote:
Healthcare professionals often refer to different 'stages' of Parkinson's. These include:
  • Early or diagnosis stage: the time when someone is first experiencing symptoms, being diagnosed and then coming to terms with this
  • Maintenance stage: when symptoms are controlled, perhaps by medication
  • Advanced stage: often called the 'complex phase'
  • Palliative stage: providing relief from the symptoms, stress and pain of the condition
Everyone with Parkinson's is different and symptoms will progress at a different rate. It's nothing to do with your age or how long you've had Parkinson's.
Michael J Fox was still working in front of cameras more than 20 years after being diagnosed.

RizzyKing 23-07-2015 22:16
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
I guess you just glossed over the word chronic in relation to the progress of their conditions I mentioned it twice the second time denoting the progress of their condition. To be honest I should have known better then to come back here everyone says "they should get it if needed" but don't really believe that and don't really care how it's being implemented my mistake won't bother you again.

nomadking 23-07-2015 22:27
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RizzyKing (Post 35790197)
I guess you just glossed over the word chronic in relation to the progress of their conditions I mentioned it twice the second time denoting the progress of their condition. To be honest I should have known better then to come back here everyone says "they should get it if needed" but don't really believe that and don't really care how it's being implemented my mistake won't bother you again.
Chronic means long term. It is DIFFERENT from acute. 20 years and still able to work in the case of Michael J Fox, does not suggest acute.

Taf 24-07-2015 12:51
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
2 single mums near us have just been referred to slimming and keep fit classes to prepare them both for work. Both have a child each of around 5 years of age.

They appear to be trying for a second child each judging by the flow of different males they bring home recently.

Or maybe they are getting them to do some jobs around the house?

Ramrod 24-07-2015 13:37
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taf (Post 35790258)
Or maybe they are getting them to do some jobs around the house?
In a manner of speaking :D

Osem 24-07-2015 13:59
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taf (Post 35790258)
2 single mums near us have just been referred to slimming and keep fit classes to prepare them both for work. Both have a child each of around 5 years of age.

They appear to be trying for a second child each judging by the flow of different males they bring home recently.

Or maybe they are getting them to do some jobs around the house?
I'm sure their decision has nothing whatsoever to do with continuing a life on benefits and a convenient reason for not working. Possibly they're just supplementing their meagre state income and paying any tax due of course... :rolleyes:

Not a million miles from here we have a couple of large families in a HA owned development. I've lost count of how many kids they have between them but none of those who've left school appear to be working and most of them seem to have already followed their parents' example and wasted no time producing their own offspring. Given that they struggle to look after themselves their only ambition, if you can call it that, appears to be having kids to get benefits and ultimately more social housing. I wonder what their children will aspire to...

Jimmy-J 24-07-2015 16:27
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Why not just leave them to get on with their lives and we get on with ours?

Escapee 24-07-2015 16:55
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osem (Post 35790266)
I'm sure their decision has nothing whatsoever to do with continuing a life on benefits and a convenient reason for not working. Possibly they're just supplementing their meagre state income and paying any tax due of course... :rolleyes:

Not a million miles from here we have a couple of large families in a HA owned development. I've lost count of how many kids they have between them but none of those who've left school appear to be working and most of them seem to have already followed their parents' example and wasted no time producing their own offspring. Given that they struggle to look after themselves their only ambition, if you can call it that, appears to be having kids to get benefits and ultimately more social housing. I wonder what their children will aspire to...
One woman locally married a Turk and had a child with him, she boasted about the money she received and that his business was in her name. Now that the child is in school I get the impression she wants another.... she has been told me and another guy in the pub that she doesn't like to use certain types of contraception, I get the impression she is trying to trick someone into giving her her next meal ticket.

Another young one with 2 kids had been talking about having a third with her current boyfriend, within the past few weeks she appears to have gone a bit quiet on the issue.

Taf 24-07-2015 16:56
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy-J (Post 35790286)
Why not just leave them to get on with their lives and we get on with ours?
In many ways because these are the type of economic leeches that give people with real reasons for support a bad name. And because I often see their offspring develop into forms of life that plague our society.

Escapee 24-07-2015 17:00
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy-J (Post 35790286)
Why not just leave them to get on with their lives and we get on with ours?
I agree with you, let them get on with their lives and pay their own way like those that work. Benefits should only be for the period of helping those that have become unemployed whilst they are making a serious effort to find work, or for those that are unfortunate enough to have a real illness that means they are unable to work.

If the person is healthy and is not making the effort to find work, by all means leave them to get on with their lives but without the benefit money.

Jimmy-J 24-07-2015 17:32
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
But there will always be people like that, no matter what. So wouldn't it be better to forget about them and concentrate on your own life?

Gary L 24-07-2015 17:44
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
The thing is though. we used to just live and let live. take no notice of what everyone was doing. whether they're working or not. where or how they've got their money from. who they're seeing or what they had for breakfast today.

but now we're really nosey and wanting to know all the gossip on anyone and everyone.
but mainly we want to know how the unemployed people are doing because we've heard that they're all loaded.

truthfully. do we really give a fig if the woman next door gets a job at Tescos now?
are we happy for her?
are we going to be pleasant to her now. or are will still going to be grumpy and question her lifestyle still?

I call it a 'Big Social Experiment'

Osem 24-07-2015 17:56
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taf (Post 35790294)
In many ways because these are the type of economic leeches that give people with real reasons for support a bad name. And because I often see their offspring develop into forms of life that plague our society.
:tu:

Their lives are not only dedicated to sponging off others but perpetuating the 'something for nothing' culture that has been handed down to them. If we want to make society better and fairer we need to challenge those who cynically abuse the system and make life harder for the genuinely needy. Turning a blind eye to this sort of nonsense is what has got us into this mess and created another generation of lazy spongers who don't see any reason to better themselves.

Society should protect the needy/vulnerable not reward the feckless.

Jimmy-J 24-07-2015 18:42
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Are these feckless leeches committing benefit fraud?

djfunkdup 24-07-2015 19:11
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy-J (Post 35790305)
But there will always be people like that, no matter what. So wouldn't it be better to forget about them and concentrate on your own life?

They don't have the ability to do that ... The word ' mundane ' exists in their own reality too much to be able to concentrate on doing what you suggest :erm:

Gary L 24-07-2015 19:14
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy-J (Post 35790316)
Are these feckless leeches committing benefit fraud?
LOL claiming what the law says is rightfully theirs. and encouraged by government departments to claim what if any, and all benefits that they're entitled to.

Pierre 24-07-2015 19:26
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy-J (Post 35790305)
But there will always be people like that, no matter what. So wouldn't it be better to forget about them and concentrate on your own life?
I'll forget about them when I stop paying for them.

Jimmy-J 24-07-2015 19:43
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35790326)
I'll forget about them when I stop paying for them.
That'll probably be when you stop paying taxes or when you're dead. If they're claiming what they are rightfully entitled to, what's the problem? And if they are claiming benefits that they shouldn't be entitled to, then do something about it.

Osem 24-07-2015 19:48
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy-J (Post 35790316)
Are these feckless leeches committing benefit fraud?
Some of them very definitely are which is why they get taken to court, found guilty, fined and/or imprisoned. Those who cynically exploit the rules to their own advantage and have kids purely as a route to additional benefits, housing etc. are almost as bad.

Doing what you suggest and letting them get on with it doesn't achieve anything but simply gives them the green light to carry on. Doing something about benefit abuse is why so many people (including non Tory supporters) voted for a government which is at least trying to tackle the problem.

Jimmy-J 24-07-2015 20:04
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Do you think that removing benefits will stop them having kids?

Gary L 24-07-2015 20:12
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy-J (Post 35790331)
Do you think that removing benefits will stop them having kids?
Not really.

but it will subconciously encourage society to hate her baby.

even before it's grown up and learned swear words :)

Osem 24-07-2015 20:13
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy-J (Post 35790331)
Do you think that removing benefits will stop them having kids?
Removing incentives usually has a deterrent effect and vice versa.

Gary L 24-07-2015 20:20
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osem (Post 35790334)
Removing incentives usually has a deterrent effect and vice versa.
It will be interesting to see how society reacts to the '3rd' child.

"tough. it will just have to starve then won't it. you were told"
or
"isn't she beautiful!"

the Big Social Experiment is. the working woman and the benefits woman.
both expecting their 3rd child.
Who Goes? You Decide!

Jimmy-J 24-07-2015 20:50
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osem (Post 35790334)
Removing incentives usually has a deterrent effect and vice versa.
I can't see that having any significant effect.

Osem 24-07-2015 20:54
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Well we'll have to disagree on that.

Gary L 24-07-2015 21:02
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osem (Post 35790347)
Well we'll have to disagree on that.
I think we all know that babies are made by way of sexual intercourse.

you mention 'incentives'

you think not being paid will stop her from having the baby?
you think that all these babies only happen because she gets paid for them?

you must think that they'll be thinking logically from now on. and saying just the 2 and that's my lot.

Jimmy-J 24-07-2015 21:06
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osem (Post 35790347)
Well we'll have to disagree on that.
There would probably be a rise in the list of abortions.

As for members who think they know that benefit fraud is being committed, why don't you tell the DWP?, I'm sure they'll be very interested.

denphone 24-07-2015 21:17
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
My Mum and Step mum both had large families and worked hard all their lives so l would certainly be unhappy if the were labelled as anything other then hard working mothers even though they both got child benefit.

Chrysalis 24-07-2015 21:48
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RizzyKing (Post 35790156)
I haven't heard one sensible person oppose the idea of those who can work should and that receipt of benefits should come with responsibility as there are those who feel they have a right to money no matter how irresponsibly they act. That doesn't mean the Tories program is achieving any of that beyond sound bites and too many with genuine medical problems both diagnosed and confirmed by medical professionals are getting hit whilst the worst abusers are managing to skate by yet again.
if you talking about workfare my issue is two things really.

1 - people are working for less than the legal min wage.
2 - they been put into work in private companies who profit from the work.

Really they should be sent to charities and council's and then only work a set amount of hours where the min wage meets their weekly job seekers allowance, so if e.g. the min wage is £7 then they do 10 hours for the week.

That I would be fine with.

What I am not fine with is someone on £72 a week JSA been made to work 30 hours a week at tesco for it. Now tesco are also having the cheek to claim they cannot afford £25 home delivery with current prices when they using job seekers paid for by the gov to fill the baskets. In my mind if the gov sends them off to do 30 hours a week work then the gov should be prepared to pay them circa £200 a week.

Anyone who backs workfare is double standards, I bet you wouldnt do a full time job for £70 a week.

Pierre 24-07-2015 22:41
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy-J (Post 35790328)
And if they are claiming benefits that they shouldn't be entitled to, then do something about it.
I did, I voted Tory.

---------- Post added at 21:41 ---------- Previous post was at 21:39 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy-J (Post 35790331)
Do you think that removing benefits will stop them having kids?
Might make them think twice.

nomadking 24-07-2015 23:24
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy-J (Post 35790331)
Do you think that removing benefits will stop them having kids?
Then there's no real reason not to find out by stopping their benefits.

IMO completely cutting off benefits is too harsh. Tapering off where the more kids they have, the less money they get for the "extra" ones. Just as happens with Child Benefit. There also needs to be a look at how he benefits cap is applied. By all means exclude disability benefits from being considered as income, but don't exclude ALL benefits and tax credits received on the basis of one person receiving DLA/PIP.

heero_yuy 25-07-2015 10:48
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy-J (Post 35790331)
Do you think that removing benefits will stop them having kids?
No. But what I'd have removed would. :D

thenry 07-08-2015 17:42
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
What is the actual stance on brown envelopes, benefit fraud and such that is? Some clarity would be much appreciated.

Hugh 07-08-2015 19:42
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
HMRC say about £10 billion is lost each year in taxes due to the off-the-books work, and an organisation called Tax Research estimated it at £85 billion a year.

Chrysalis 08-08-2015 08:30
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Not got the figures to hand but I read multiple times the amount DWP save in unclaimed benefits (due to people not claiming for stigma etc.) is more then the amount lost to fraud.

Also as hugh has posted the amount lost to unpaid taxes is way way bigger.

Kursk 08-08-2015 18:25
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrysalis (Post 35792535)
Not got the figures to hand but I read multiple times the amount DWP save in unclaimed benefits (due to people not claiming for stigma etc.) is more then the amount lost to fraud.

Also as hugh has posted the amount lost to unpaid taxes is way way bigger.
Two wrongs don't make a right and unclaimed benefit does not mitigate fraud.

Chrysalis 09-08-2015 03:32
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Correct but resources should be targeted at the areas which will save more money. The amount of things done by recent governments to try and stop benefit fraud is excessive. They have probably spent more money than they saved.

Kursk 09-08-2015 11:38
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrysalis (Post 35792634)
Correct but resources should be targeted at the areas which will save more money. The amount of things done by recent governments to try and stop benefit fraud is excessive. They have probably spent more money than they saved.
Resources should be targeted to areas they are needed. No-one with any human decency wants the needy to suffer and those that defraud the system are taking from people who need it. It is right that the Government should ensure resources are properly targeted.

Ignitionnet 09-08-2015 12:15
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35792483)
HMRC say about £10 billion is lost each year in taxes due to the off-the-books work, and an organisation called Tax Research estimated it at £85 billion a year.
We definitely have a huge issue with off-the-books work. Crossing threads over it is, apparently, one of the big attractions to the UK for illegals.

Chrysalis 10-08-2015 00:05
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kursk (Post 35792647)
Resources should be targeted to areas they are needed. No-one with any human decency wants the needy to suffer and those that defraud the system are taking from people who need it. It is right that the Government should ensure resources are properly targeted.
Its not right when they not saving any money. Its been for ideological reasons not economic.

Its a bit like movie companies claiming they lose money to people who wouldnt buy the product anyway.

So no, the fraudulent are not taking money from those who need it, but anti fraud measures are.

You seem to have been brainwashed by propaganda.

A 0% target on fraud is a unrealistic target.

The amount of money lost on all the legal battles carried out to try and deny people rightful benefits is staggering.

When senior judges from the tribunal service told the government they wasting public resources by their agressive approach to deny benefits, what was the response? to breach human rights laws and add barriers for people to appeal decisions.

So to clarify you think its a good thing e.g. to pay someone £100 to save you £50?

By the way in 2013 the government backed down on the very frequent ESA assessments (temporarily), this is still in affect today, and it has saved quite a lot of money. Ironically what they did is automatically grant existing claimants a 2 year extension on their prognosis time without an assessment. It has saved a ton of money in both fee's paid to private companies to carry out these assessments and the inevitable drop in tribunal cases as well.

I am curious, since noone has commented on my opinion on what JSA claimants should be paid for workfare.

If people disagree they should be paid at least the minimum wage, please explain why.

Gary L 10-08-2015 10:25
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrysalis (Post 35792743)
I am curious, since noone has commented on my opinion on what JSA claimants should be paid for workfare.

If people disagree they should be paid at least the minimum wage, please explain why.
I mentioned this a long time ago that people who commit crimes get a punishment of "unpaid work" as little as 40 hours. that unpaid work is no different to the work benefit claimants are having to do for weeks and months non stop.

it was met with "it gives people work experience"
but we all know that as long as it's not them that is having to do it. then they're fine with it.

people profit from this 'slave labour'
in the real world a government would step in and talk about the minimum wage.
it just so happens that this government condone slave labour.

mrmistoffelees 10-08-2015 10:44
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary L (Post 35792760)
I mentioned this a long time ago that people who commit crimes get a punishment of "unpaid work" as little as 40 hours. that unpaid work is no different to the work benefit claimants are having to do for weeks and months non stop.

it was met with "it gives people work experience"
but we all know that as long as it's not them that is having to do it. then they're fine with it.

people profit from this 'slave labour'
in the real world a government would step in and talk about the minimum wage.
it just so happens that this government condone slave labour.

I a....

I agr......

I agre......

I can't do it...... :D


The issue in my mind is two fold

1) The people who are genuinely busting a gut to try and find work (will this interfere with their job searching? Or, would they be expected to complete that out of hours?

2) The people that make living on benefits a life style choice and have done for years I have no issues with them working. Let's face it, IF someone has say claimed JSA for five years then they probably owe the country a fair few hours.

Gary L 10-08-2015 10:58
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 35792763)
I a....

I agr......

I agre......

I can't do it...... :D


The issue in my mind is two fold

1) The people who are genuinely busting a gut to try and find work (will this interfere with their job searching? Or, would they be expected to complete that out of hours?

2) The people that make living on benefits a life style choice and have done for years I have no issues with them working. Let's face it, IF someone has say claimed JSA for five years then they probably owe the country a fair few hours.
You could have a girl who stacks shelves at Tesco for 30 hours a week for nothing phoning them up from home saying "Hello, I'm enquiring whether you have any vacancies for shelf stackers"

Tesco's would say "LOL"

I've noticed Aldi's (who are not involved with the government run slave labour program) are advertising for shelf stackers and such.
if they were to be talked into taking on free benefit workers by a government representative in the Mercedes. then them signs and adverts would come straight down. and never be seen again.

no need to employ anybody. they do the same job for free.

mrmistoffelees 10-08-2015 15:02
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary L (Post 35792766)
You could have a girl who stacks shelves at Tesco for 30 hours a week for nothing phoning them up from home saying "Hello, I'm enquiring whether you have any vacancies for shelf stackers"

Tesco's would say "LOL"

I've noticed Aldi's (who are not involved with the government run slave labour program) are advertising for shelf stackers and such.
if they were to be talked into taking on free benefit workers by a government representative in the Mercedes. then them signs and adverts would come straight down. and never be seen again.

no need to employ anybody. they do the same job for free.
Should the long term feckless unemployed (and by this I mean those who see benefits as a lifestyle choice) receive their benefits without making a contribution to society?

---------- Post added at 14:02 ---------- Previous post was at 13:59 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary L (Post 35792760)
I mentioned this a long time ago that people who commit crimes get a punishment of "unpaid work" as little as 40 hours. that unpaid work is no different to the work benefit claimants are having to do for weeks and months non stop.

it was met with "it gives people work experience"
but we all know that as long as it's not them that is having to do it. then they're fine with it.

people profit from this 'slave labour'
in the real world a government would step in and talk about the minimum wage.
it just so happens that this government condone slave labour.
So the money for housing benefit, Job seekers allowance, Council Tax discounts, free prescriptions, free school meals comes from where exactly? Why should they not make a contribution?

Hugh 10-08-2015 15:42
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary L (Post 35792766)
You could have a girl who stacks shelves at Tesco for 30 hours a week for nothing phoning them up from home saying "Hello, I'm enquiring whether you have any vacancies for shelf stackers"

Tesco's would say "LOL"

I've noticed Aldi's (who are not involved with the government run slave labour program) are advertising for shelf stackers and such.
if they were to be talked into taking on free benefit workers by a government representative in the Mercedes. then them signs and adverts would come straight down. and never be seen again.

no need to employ anybody. they do the same job for free.
Small, but fairly important flaw in your (for lack of a better word) "reasoning" - if everyone was on benefits, no one could afford to buy all the stuff the shelf-stackers were stacking at Tesco, so they wouldn't be needed.....

mrmistoffelees 10-08-2015 15:45
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35792810)
Small, but fairly important flaw in your (for lack of a better word) "reasoning" - if everyone was on benefits, no one could afford to buy all the stuff the shelf-stackers were stacking at Tesco, so they wouldn't be needed.....

Nail, meet head.

Gary L 10-08-2015 16:46
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 35792797)
Should the long term feckless unemployed (and by this I mean those who see benefits as a lifestyle choice) receive their benefits without making a contribution to society?
No.

Quote:
So the money for housing benefit, Job seekers allowance, Council Tax discounts, free prescriptions, free school meals comes from where exactly? Why should they not make a contribution?
[quote]A contribution in the way of making Tesco's bigger profits by them not having to employ and pay wages?
I'm not against them making a contribution. just them working for free, increasing company profits. and the selective minimum wage laws not applying.

---------- Post added at 15:46 ---------- Previous post was at 15:44 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35792810)
Small, but fairly important flaw in your (for lack of a better word) "reasoning" - if everyone was on benefits, no one could afford to buy all the stuff the shelf-stackers were stacking at Tesco, so they wouldn't be needed.....
Small, but fairly important flaw in your rambling.
it's nonsense.

Hugh 10-08-2015 17:28
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Only to you, Gary, with your special way of "thinking", only to you.... ;)

Kursk 11-08-2015 01:38
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrysalis (Post 35792743)
You seem to have been brainwashed by propaganda.
Rubbish; and I can say that with confidence because I read it in the Daily Mail :D

Chrysalis 11-08-2015 09:36
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 35792797)
Should the long term feckless unemployed (and by this I mean those who see benefits as a lifestyle choice) receive their benefits without making a contribution to society?[COLOR="Silver"]
You havent answered the question.

I will ask it again.

Is there a reason why people doing work should not be paid the legal minimum wage?

Obviously any wage they get would be counted as normal taxable income meaning if they getting housing benefit and council tax help with their JSA, that help would be adjusted downwards so they wouldnt be getting anything more than someone normally employed on the same wages.

A vague "Should the long term feckless unemployed (and by this I mean those who see benefits as a lifestyle choice) receive their benefits without making a contribution to society?" doesnt really answer the question, or are you trying to say you are ok with double standards in society, ie. you benefiting from the likes of tesco not paying a proper wage so you can get food a bit cheaper out of your proper wages.

It seems you are ok with it, but are too ashamed to say so directly.

I will repeat also what I would be ok with as you also havent said if my proposals would be acceptable.

So either

1 - The JSA claimant does the workfare, however they only work the amount of hours that would pay the JSA rate via minimum wage, so e.g. 11 hours work for their £72 JSA. Fair is fair right?
or
2 - They do 30-40 hours work, but they also get paid the min wage for doing that work so e.g. 30 hours per week at tesco increases their JSA to £195. This £195 would either be paid by the company benefiting from the work or the DWP.

It seems you want the best of both worlds, you basically want to benefit from people working for a pittance.

Then you have the motivational side of it, if you actually pay people on workfare what they would get as a job, then they get to see the benefits for themselves (extra money) and then may become more motivated to look for work (if you really believe that everyone on workfare is a workshy scrounger as told to you by the sun and daily mail).

peanut 11-08-2015 10:00
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Maybe if they did work for minimum wage then they could lose the right for other benefits like housing benefits etc so could be worse off. So there is also a chance that working for benefits could also be worth more than working for minimum wage. Too many variables to give a one size fits all answer.

I don't believe that people should work for nothing, maybe a full time job at the end of it but we all know that'll be exploited. And again working full time on minimum wage some could be a lot worse off so a no win situation, who would sign up for that?

It seems some people just want claimants to be punished no matter what the outcome.

mrmistoffelees 11-08-2015 11:15
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrysalis (Post 35792928)
You havent answered the question.

I will ask it again.

Is there a reason why people doing work should not be paid the legal minimum wage?

Yes, if for example they have been on long term benefits, for example five years of JSA, Housing benefit etc. they should work the required hours that it would take to earn the amount (paid at national minimum wage)

Obviously any wage they get would be counted as normal taxable income meaning if they getting housing benefit and council tax help with their JSA, that help would be adjusted downwards so they wouldnt be getting anything more than someone normally employed on the same wages.

Obviously? Do people on the minimum wage pay income tax (I honestly dont know?)

A vague "Should the long term feckless unemployed (and by this I mean those who see benefits as a lifestyle choice) receive their benefits without making a contribution to society?" doesnt really answer the question, or are you trying to say you are ok with double standards in society, ie. you benefiting from the likes of tesco not paying a proper wage so you can get food a bit cheaper out of your proper wages.

It seems you are ok with it, but are too ashamed to say so directly.

Vague in your opinion, I posed a question thats all

I don't see why the long term unemployed should be able to receive a large amount of financial assistance without making a contribution. It doesn't have to be Tesco. How about a project that benefits the communities that they live in?


I will repeat also what I would be ok with as you also havent said if my proposals would be acceptable.

So either

1 - The JSA claimant does the workfare, however they only work the amount of hours that would pay the JSA rate via minimum wage, so e.g. 11 hours work for their £72 JSA. Fair is fair right?
or
2 - They do 30-40 hours work, but they also get paid the min wage for doing that work so e.g. 30 hours per week at tesco increases their JSA to £195. This £195 would either be paid by the company benefiting from the work or the DWP.


OR


3. They work the required hours that pays not only for their JSA but ALSO their benefits received such as housing benefit etc. council tax benefit etc.

It seems you want the best of both worlds, you basically want to benefit from people working for a pittance.

No, I want it to be fair, so that the people who actively decide that benefits is a lifestyle choice don't spend years receiving state assistance whilst making no contribution back to society.

Then you have the motivational side of it, if you actually pay people on workfare what they would get as a job, then they get to see the benefits for themselves (extra money) and then may become more motivated to look for work (if you really believe that everyone on workfare is a workshy scrounger as told to you by the sun and daily mail).
If we need to tell people that having a job or career is a good thing because they will earn more money then there is a serious problem somewhere..........

Gary L 11-08-2015 11:34
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by peanut (Post 35792931)
It seems some people just want claimants to be punished no matter what the outcome.
Some would probably want claimants to come and mow their lawn and do their shopping for them.

Be good though if it worked like that. if and when one of my neighbours loses their job. the dole could tell them that Gary wants his lawn mowing and a few things from Tesco's.

mrmistoffelees 11-08-2015 11:43
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary L (Post 35792943)
Some would probably want claimants to come and mow their lawn and do their shopping for them.

Be good though if it worked like that. if and when one of my neighbours loses their job. the dole could tell them that Gary wants his lawn mowing and a few things from Tesco's.

Or, people wish to see those that are receiving not inconsiderable amounts of the publics purse making some sort of contribution.

Not like you to try and spin the sensationalist angle on it though is it Gary?

nomadking 11-08-2015 11:49
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Paying claimants the minimum wage would bring a whole lot of baggage of employment rights and costs with them. In those circumstance, companies would want to be more fussy about who they took on. The idea is meant to be giving people without job experience some experience so they have something to put on their CV.

Gary L 11-08-2015 11:55
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 35792946)
Or, people wish to see those that are receiving not inconsiderable amounts of the publics purse making some sort of contribution.
Within the first week of claiming the dreaded benefit money?
or a bit longer?
how can you tell how much to despise them for being out of work and claiming benefits?
we don't ask them. we just say **** regardless.
or we say "I don't mean him!"

Quote:
Not like you to try and spin the sensationalist angle on it though is it Gary?
No.

mrmistoffelees 11-08-2015 12:15
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary L (Post 35792951)
Within the first week of claiming the dreaded benefit money?
or a bit longer?
how can you tell how much to despise them for being out of work and claiming benefits?
we don't ask them. we just say **** regardless.
or we say "I don't mean him!"



No.
I'm quite sure I've clearly stated that my stance applies to the long term unemployed. But that wouldn't fit your arguement so therefore you will ignore it.

How about after six months of receiving benefits people are expected to begin to make a contribution? That gives the genuine people a good chance to find gainful employment?

The jobs are there, they may not be peoples ideal role, but they're still there.

Gary L 11-08-2015 12:21
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 35792955)
I'm quite sure I've clearly stated that my stance applies to the long term unemployed. But that wouldn't fit your arguement so therefore you will ignore it.

How about after six months of receiving benefits people are expected to begin to make a contribution? That gives the genuine people a good chance to find gainful employment?

The jobs are there, they may not be peoples ideal role, but they're still there.
But the contribution shouldn't be working for Tesco's doing the job that should pay a wage. and encourages these companies not to employ anybody 'normally' as they have no need to because there's a never ending line of benefit scroungers to choose from.

making a contribution to society.
just how are they keeping you, me and him happy by working for Tesco's?

is it just the satisfaction that they are being punished?

Hugh 11-08-2015 13:28
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Well, since Tesco have over 310,000 employees in the UK in 3,561 stores, I'm not sure the work-experience job-seekers are saving Tesco that much money - do you have any proof that they are not employing staff because they are taking part in this scheme?

Anyway, Tesco the offered unemployed people on jobcentre work experience schemes referred to the company the choice of staying on benefits and completing the placement unpaid, or accepting a four-week paid placement with a guaranteed offer of a job at the end if the trial goes well.

Gary L 11-08-2015 13:32
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35792970)
Well, since Tesco have over 310,000 employees in the UK in 3,561 stores, I'm not sure the work-experience job-seekers are saving Tesco that much money - do you have any proof that they are not employing staff because they are taking part in this scheme?
Yes.
I asked if they had any vacancies for shelf stackers. and they asked if I was on benefits. to ask at the jobcentre about being put on a workfare placement with my local branch of Tesco's.

mrmistoffelees 11-08-2015 13:36
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary L (Post 35792972)
Yes.
I asked if they had any vacancies for shelf stackers. and they asked if I was on benefits. to ask at the jobcentre about being put on a workfare placement with my local branch of Tesco's.
OK, allow me to rephrase, do you have any evidence this is a corporate wide policy? Rather than an individual store?

Gary L 11-08-2015 13:39
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 35792974)
OK, allow me to rephrase, do you have any evidence this is a corporate wide policy? Rather than an individual store?
Yes.
that was Head Office I spoke to.

nomadking 11-08-2015 13:59
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary L (Post 35792976)
Yes.
that was Head Office I spoke to.
Strange that this Tesco website lists 1,720 jobs available.

Hugh 11-08-2015 14:45
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Gary's telling fibs, methinks, as they don't actually have a job called "shelf stacker" - the Customer Assistant job consists of
Quote:
It takes lots of different people to run a store and this is a job for doers, with plenty of variety. Within one shift you could be guiding a customer to a product, serving on the checkouts, helping to fill shelves, taking a delivery or moving stock around the warehouse.

There are also lots of different types of roles on offer, including checkout, store floor and counter roles, picking or delivering home shopping or training up to become a skilled baker. Whatever the specific job you apply for, you’ll also get the chance to try your hand at different tasks, depending on where we need your help.

Our roles are very flexible, with shift patterns for every lifestyle: you can choose to work full-time, part-time, day or night depending on the positions available.

And, of course, you’ll spend plenty of time face-to-face with our customers, who may need you to help out in all kinds of different ways.
And has already been said, they have over 1700 vacancies for Customer Assistants, none of which ask you to apply to the Job Centre...

heero_yuy 11-08-2015 14:51
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35792990)
Gary's telling fibs, methinks, as they don't actually have a job called "shelf stacker" - the Customer Assistant job consists of And has already been said, they have over 1700 vacancies for Customer Assistants, none of which ask you to apply to the Job Centre...
Funny, I can smell burning underwear too. :D

Gary L 11-08-2015 15:24
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35792990)
Gary's telling fibs, methinks, as they don't actually have a job called "shelf stacker"
LOL
Just because I said shelf stacker to the woman?

so if I phoned up a car wash place and said 'car sponger' you'd say we don't have any car sponger jobs but we did have car washer jobs?

---------- Post added at 14:24 ---------- Previous post was at 14:23 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 35792994)
Funny, I can smell burning underwear too. :D
You can't smell over the internet. must be coming from your end ;)

mrmistoffelees 11-08-2015 15:44
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary L (Post 35792999)
LOL
Just because I said shelf stacker to the woman?

so if I phoned up a car wash place and said 'car sponger' you'd say we don't have any car sponger jobs but we did have car washer jobs?

---------- Post added at 14:24 ---------- Previous post was at 14:23 ----------



You can't smell over the internet. must be coming from your end ;)
Would you object to them performing work that benefits the community, litter picking etc?


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 21:10.
Page 18 of 27 « First 814151617 18 19202122 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
All Posts and Content are © Cable Forum