Public Works

[Guest MattP]

Can not people understand that if an unemployed person does a job and is paid JSA for doing it then they are being employed and paid less than if they would be if they were set on by the employers and not the DWP. So why not pay them the correct and going rate for the job they are doing.

Quite simple really.

 

Surely that depends on how much they work?

 

My idea was getting them to litter pick or similar once a week whilst claiming for 8 hours a day, considering the most basic JSA is £150 a week that would mean I am paying them far higher than the minimum wage per hour.

 

The idea isn't to get people working full time for the government, we don't need 5 million litter pickers.

 

It's about getting them back into doing something rather than nothing, it's about giving them an extra kick up the backside to try and find a job and most of all it's about actually finally getting them to make and show a contribution to the rest of community which is supporting them financially whilst they can't find another job.

[MooseBreath]

Can not people understand that if an unemployed person does a job and is paid JSA for doing it then they are being employed and paid less than if they would be if they were set on by the employers and not the DWP. So why not pay them the correct and going rate for the job they are doing.

Quite simple really.

Can not people understand that these people are on more than JSA, so if you want to make a point about the level of monetary recompense then you have to admit that these people will be 'paid' significantly more than people on minimum wage.

If this takes off I can actually see some enterprising minimum wage earners quitting their job and agreeing to do the token jobs for a better overall financial return.

[Parafox]

There is no 'wage' and the benefit cap is £25k. What I posted is plain fact. You undermine yourself by equating fact with ignorance, and further discredit your opinion by responding to fact with an insult.

 

And you never do any of those things, do you.

 

You were making a facetious comment as you only believe totlly that your view is correct. You have no understanding of the issues other people face and you respond to points or posts that you don't like by being trite and insulting. I  well remember when you were slagging my daughter off because you decided that she was a benefit scrounging thug.

 

Get used to it, you're widely disliked on this forum.

[MooseBreath]

And you never do any of those things, do you.

You were making a facetious comment as you only believe totlly that your view is correct. You have no understanding of the issues other people face and you respond to points or posts that you don't like by being trite and insulting. I well remember when you were slagging my daughter off because you decided that she was a benefit scrounging thug.

Get used to it, you're widely disliked on this forum.

Yeah, I just remembered that your daughter will be affected by this. Now it all makes sense.

Have a nice day

[Parafox]

Surely that depends on how much they work?

 

My idea was getting them to litter pick or similar once a week whilst claiming for 8 hours a day, considering the most basic JSA is £150 a week that would mean I am paying them far higher than the minimum wage per hour.

 

The idea isn't to get people working full time for the government, we don't need 5 million litter pickers.

 

It's about getting them back into doing something rather than nothing, it's about giving them an extra kick up the backside to try and find a job and most of all it's about actually finally getting them to make and show a contribution to the rest of community which is supporting them financially whilst they can't find another job.

 

 

Where did that figure come from?

 

From www.gov.uk:

 

Age            Weekly amount

 

16 to 24        £56.80

 

25 or over     £71.70

Yeah, I just remembered that your daughter will be affected by this. Now it all makes sense.

Have a nice day

 

 

Ah, and now you assume my daughter is still on benefits. Breathtaking.

[Guest MattP]

Where did that figure come from?

 

From www.gov.uk:

 

Age            Weekly amount

 

16 to 24        £56.80

 

25 or over     £71.70

 

I meant £140, I do apologise. Didn't know under 25's got different, what's the reason for that?

 

Point still stands mind.

 

Under what I proposed working two days every two weeks for 8 hours and even the low age bracket will be earning more than minimum wage for what they are asked to do.

[MooseBreath]

Oh ok.

[breadandcheese]

I'm not against the PRINCIPLE, but if they can put people in full time jobs why not make them EMPLOYED!!!! Pay them at least the minimum wage and give them the additional rights of an employment contract.

 

So if they were employed and were subsequently fired because they did something wrong, would they not go onto benefits again?  Sounds like no repercussions.

[Parafox]

I meant £140, I do apologise. Didn't know under 25's got different, what's the reason for that?

 

Point still stands mind.

 

Under what I proposed working two days every two weeks for 8 hours and even the low age bracket will be earning more than minimum wage for what they are asked to do.

 

But as I understand it, it is being reported that claimants will be expected to work 35 hours a week. And now it seems the Lib-Dems are saying if claimants can't work they will be expected to spend 35 hrs a week in a Jobcentre!!!  It's laughable.

[Parafox]

So if they were employed and were subsequently fired because they did something wrong, would they not go onto benefits again?  Sounds like no repercussions.

 

Sorry I'm missing the point of this?

 

As I understand it, if you are fired for anything other than redundancy, you aren't entitled to benefits for (I think) 3 months

[Guest MattP]

But as I understand it, it is being reported that claimants will be expected to work 35 hours a week. And now it seems the Lib-Dems are saying if claimants can't work they will be expected to spend 35 hrs a week in a Jobcentre!!!  It's laughable.

 

I'm not advocating that at all, we'll see what happens though.

 

35 hours ina job centre? If we can afford it why not? If they are that incapable and are struggling that much for a job then 35 hours a week in a job centre learning new skills and applying for things is far better than 35 hours at home.

 

Like I say, I am sceptical, but finally we seem to have an administration not content to let people waste away doing nothing with their life but being a burden on others.

[Harry - LCFC]

You are out of your depth on the corporate tax point, stop quoting the tabloids and stick to your conspiracies.

 

In what way exactly? If corporations take their business elsewhere then someone else will fill a gap in the market where there is still a significant profit to be made, that's capitalism isn't it? Demand and supply etc.

 

Also, isn't tax evasion/avoidance a recent thing too? I get the impression we were doing ok all those years ago when taxes were paid on the whole. Or were there just no large businesses back then because they couldn't compete under the weight of the immense costs placed upon them?

 

I'm asking you to explain why demanding corporations to pay taxes, which are not excessive IMO (Osbourne's intends to lower them to 20% I understand), would damage us in anyway.

[ADK]

I meant £140, I do apologise. Didn't know under 25's got different, what's the reason for that?

 

Point still stands mind.

 

Under what I proposed working two days every two weeks for 8 hours and even the low age bracket will be earning more than minimum wage for what they are asked to do.

 

There's a massive difference between 16 hours over 2 weeks and 70 hours over 2 weeks!

[Rincewind]

Sorry I'm missing the point of this?

 

As I understand it, if you are fired for anything other than redundancy, you aren't entitled to benefits for (I think) 3 months

If anyone loses their job I think it is 13 weeks. Even house owners and those with mortgages. There are plans to make it 39 weeks.

If you are 'let go' from your job say from construction because of an operation to a leg/limb all you will receive is possible disability allowance but ATOS in their wisdom will say you are fit but if your only job has been climbing ladders who is going to employe a builder that cannot climb ladders.

[Guest MattP]

If anyone loses their job I think it is 13 weeks. Even house owners and those with mortgages. There are plans to make it 39 weeks.

If you are 'let go' from your job say from construction because of an operation to a leg/limb all you will receive is possible disability allowance but ATOS in their wisdom will say you are fit but if your only job has been climbing ladders who is going to employe a builder that cannot climb ladders.

 

You could specialise in Bungalows.

There's a massive difference between 16 hours over 2 weeks and 70 hours over 2 weeks!

 

Of course, hence why I'm sceptical about it.

[Rincewind]

There's a massive difference between 16 hours over 2 weeks and 70 hours over 2 weeks!

I did agency work litter picking and street cleaning The most I could earn before my benefis changed was £90. The discount the first £5. The most I was asked to do was 2 days. So I earned about the same as JSA. The ones employed by the council were on £2-£3 more ph more plus holidays and other entitlements. The plan is to use all those on JSA at lower wages and no entitlements.

Does not sound a very good deal.

They stopped asking for me as I found it difficult to work at the pace required. It would be no problem for a younger fitter person. Well mainly fitness as there were some similar age to me. But they had been doing the job for a few years.

[Guest MattP]

I did agency work litter picking and street cleaning The most I could earn before my benefis changed was £90. The discount the first £5. The most I was asked to do was 2 days. So I earned about the same as JSA. The ones employed by the council were on £2-£3 more ph more plus holidays and other entitlements. The plan is to use all those on JSA at lower wages and no entitlements.

Does not sound a very good deal.

They stopped asking for me as I found it difficult to work at the pace required. It would be no problem for a younger fitter person. Well mainly fitness as there were some similar age to me. But they had been doing the job for a few years.

 

Ever since I've been on this board every single job you have ever considered or been offered has immediately been met with an analysis of how much of your benefits will be taken away if you do it.

[Jon the Hat]

In what way exactly? If corporations take their business elsewhere then someone else will fill a gap in the market where there is still a significant profit to be made, that's capitalism isn't it? Demand and supply etc.

 

Also, isn't tax evasion/avoidance a recent thing too? I get the impression we were doing ok all those years ago when taxes were paid on the whole. Or were there just no large businesses back then because they couldn't compete under the weight of the immense costs placed upon them?

 

I'm asking you to explain why demanding corporations to pay taxes, which are not excessive IMO (Osbourne's intends to lower them to 20% I understand), would damage us in anyway.

 

I wrote a long post about this the other week.  Essentially the headline rate of corporation tax is only one element of the tax burden on a company, and the UK is competing with other countries to attract and retain companies which employ large numbers of people.  We are talking here primarily about international companies who are able to carry out activities which impact a number of countries from a base in the UK.  Take Vodafone for example, they could do their R&D in the UK or they could do it in Germany.  The tax rate would be a consideration in their decision.

 

Your view of other companies popping up is simplistic.  If you have a higher tax burden in the UK such companies would be starting from a higher cost position in relation to foreign competition.  In many cases the companies which move jobs overseas would have huge brand power, and the capability to continue to sell their goods and services in the UK while paying taxes elsewhere.  This is why a lot of these ideas of increasing tax take from companies would in fact reduce the overall tax take.

 

My post from the other thread:

 

Our tax system has a number of deliberate incentives to encouraged companies to do things which the giovernment believes are favourable. We need to do this becuase companies have options - whereas most people are not in a position to leave and work in another country to reduce their tax burden - companies can do this, and they take this into account in every decision about where to develop intellectual property, where to manufacture, where to base their offices. All these incentives are taken into account when we set the corporation tax rate - this favours big businesses vs small businesses again becuase small business is less mobile. This is becuase the one off impact of losing a major taxpayer / employer is significant both politically and economically, and to put it simply, we dont want to piss off a Vodafone when they have other options and are under pressure from their shareholders to deliver higher returns.

So - The corporation tax rate is set higher than it needs to be is everyone pays it, and we use incentives to lower the effective tax rate to businesses which meet certain criteria. This is a messy business though, and sometimes the law of unintended consequences means that the government misses something which the tax lawyers don't, or they have a different view. In this grey area, sometimes the government wins the argument and sometimes companies do. The idea that you can run an incentive based tax system and avoid this grey area is unrealistic, so this will always occur. The trick is to get the balance between the level at whcih you set corporation tax, what you incentivise and what you choose to fight in the grey area, to ensure you raise the right amount of tax while maintaining your competitive place in the world of trading nations, atracting and retaining business.

Company tax is not like personal tax - you dont guarantee an income by increasing rates - in fact you can have the opposite effect. This is why the comparisons between benefit fraud and "unpaid tax" is nonsense (unless you draw the line at companies which go out of business owing VAT). This is a game of supply and demand, not of a firm and understood tax entitlement against which you can measure your tax revenues. It is a nonsense created by the media to whip up fervour about a story. Of course sometimes the government gets it wrong, sometimes companies get it wrong, but all in all we are weaving a little along a line which probably earns the treasury about the right amount.

[Jon the Hat]

Ever since I've been on this board every single job you have ever considered or been offered has immediately been met with an analysis of how much of your benefits will be taken away if you do it.

 

No one ever said Ken was an idiot.

[Parafox]

I meant £140, I do apologise. Didn't know under 25's got different, what's the reason for that?

 

Point still stands mind.

 

Under what I proposed working two days every two weeks for 8 hours and even the low age bracket will be earning more than minimum wage for what they are asked to do.

 

 

I still think you mean £140 a fortnight, not per week.

[Guest MattP]

I still think you mean £140 a fortnight, not per week.

 

I did mean that.

 

And again, under 2 days of work every 2 weeks I'd make them do, that would still work out as being paid higher than the minimum wage.

[Jon the Hat]

I did mean that.

 

And again, under 2 days of work every 2 weeks I'd make them do, that would still work out as being paid higher than the minimum wage.

 

And excludes all the other benefits they get for housing and council tax.

[Guest MattP]

And excludes all the other benefits they get for housing and council tax.

 

Absolutely, I'm talking about the guy who is 19 years old and walks in whilst still living at home using that scenario and they are still getting payouts at a better rate than minimum wage on what I propose.

 

I can't believe anyone seriously think the system shouldn't have these people doing something, it's and incredible way of thinking and completely encourages a lifestyle of being rewarded for doing absolutely nothing.

[Parafox]

I did mean that.

 

And again, under 2 days of work every 2 weeks I'd make them do, that would still work out as being paid higher than the minimum wage.

 

 

2 days per week is reasonable and hard to argue against. What is coming out of this is that the goverment want the unemployed to work 35 hours a week for £52; the equivalent of £1.50 an hour (or £72 per week, £2.05 per hour, if your over 25) and if not, then they should spend 35 hrs a week in their local Jobcentre looking for work. That, by any reasonable standard, is unfair.

[Parafox]

Absolutely, I'm talking about the guy who is 19 years old and walks in whilst still living at home using that scenario and they are still getting payouts at a better rate than minimum wage on what I propose.

 

I can't believe anyone seriously think the system shouldn't have these people doing something, it's and incredible way of thinking and completely encourages a lifestyle of being rewarded for doing absolutely nothing.

 

A person living at home would not be entitled to housing benefit