£53 a week

[Zingari]

Not all of it, but it's not like it's only benefits that are being cut.

Don't worry, Dagger will be here in about an hour to call me a benefit scrounging cvnt.

The only thing worse than being insulted by Daggers is not being insulted by Daggers

He doesn't bother with me much anymore , I don't know what i've not done to upset him

[I am Rod Hull]

Perhaps if companies were 'incentivised' further to take people on, there wouldn't be the need to cut benefits as much fewer people would need to be on them.

How many blows to the head does it need to demonstrate to this Government (or any Government for that matter) that mass employment is a good way out of the hole we are in? Get people working, get the money circulating by spending, get them off benefits, get them paying taxes. It's not rocket science.

Where are the damn jobs?

Eastern European migrants have them

Its about time we started to look after our own people instead of Jonny Foreigner, but hey, that`ll mean wages go up and a cut in company profits, the share holders sitting on their fat arses wont have that

[leicsmac]

We pay over £200 billion a year in welfare payments, that's more than we collect in income tax. The money has to come from somewhere and we're not earning it.

Welfare budget 2013 c.£117 billion - http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/year_spending_2013UKbn_12bc1n_40#ukgs302

(Around £10 billion of this is unemployment benefit, so roughly 8-9%)

Income tax 2010 c.£150 billion. - http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/apr/25/tax-receipts-1963

[Webbo]

Then why has it only now become a problem?

It dramatically rose under the last govt and it is continuing to grow because of the economic situation.

[Guesty]

Then why has it only now become a problem?

You can only lose money for so long until there's not much left.

[I am Rod Hull]

Not all of it, but it's not like it's only benefits that are being cut.

Don't worry, Dagger will be here in about an hour to call me a benefit scrounging cvnt.

You`re just a cvnt

[Zingari]

It dramatically rose under the last govt and it is continuing to grow because of the economic situation.

But the tory party are implying that it's the unemployed who are to blame , not the economic situation.

If they get the economic situation right the problem will disappear. Shouldn't that be their priority , rather than blaming the victims

[leicsmac]

It dramatically rose under the last govt and it is continuing to grow because of the economic situation.

Looking at the figures you'll get no disagreement from me there, but like Zing says this Government are going after the wrong targets.

[Webbo]

Welfare budget 2013 c.£117 billion - http://www.ukpublics...bc1n_40#ukgs302

(Around £10 billion of this is unemployment benefit, so roughly 8-9%)

Income tax 2010 c.£150 billion. - http://www.guardian....x-receipts-1963

Total Spending £715.3 billion Pensions £144.6 billion Health Care £130.2 billion Education £99.3 billion Defence £44.6 billion Welfare £114.7 billion

It depends how you define welfare, if you include pensions it's over £250billions. £206 billion was the figure quoted by the BBC in their budget coverage.

[Webbo]

But the tory party are implying that it's the unemployed who are to blame , not the economic situation.

If they get the economic situation right the problem will disappear. Shouldn't that be their priority , rather than blaming the victims

No one is blaming the unemployed, or at least I'm not. I don't blame people if they can get away with but at the same time I don't feel sorry for them if their if they have to tighten their belts a bit same as I have.

[leicsmac]

No one is blaming the unemployed, or at least I'm not. I don't blame people if they can get away with but at the same time I don't feel sorry for them if their if they have to tighten their belts a bit same as I have.

Again agreed, but the lack of equality in treatment is the problem. Cut welfare if you have to, but get a further cut from the richer areas of society too. The Government has made it a big thing that 'we're all in this together', so prove it. It seems to be intent on going after 'soft targets'.

And if you want to lower the welfare bill further, get companies to take on staff to get people working and get companies to pay them a living wage!

[Zingari]

No one is blaming the unemployed, or at least I'm not. I don't blame people if they can get away with but at the same time I don't feel sorry for them if their if they have to tighten their belts a bit same as I have.

I'm not saying that you personally is saying anything of the kind and I do agree that there needs to be a degree of belt tightening ,

But the point I'm trying to make though is that unemployment costs are only a big problem at times of high unemployment or austerity.

Unless there is some massive conspiracy among the unemployed , I think it's safe to assume most of them don't choose the lifestyle but are merely victims of it.

The government want us to believe that it's the fault of the unemployed and they can easily get jobs if they want and the problem will be solved

They can't .

[Webbo]

I'm not saying that you personally is saying anything of the kind and I do agree that there needs to be a degree of belt tightening ,

But the point I'm trying to make though is that unemployment costs are only a big problem at times of high unemployment .

Unless there is some massive conspiracy among the unemployed , I think it's safe to assume most of them don't choose the lifestyle but are merely victims of it.

The government want us to believe that it's the fault of the unemployed and they can easily get jobs if they want and the problem will be solved

They can't .

We had 10 years of boom under Labour and the long term unemployment figures barely moved.The fact is a lot of people were better off on benefits than working and given the choice a lot of people, quite understandably, choose to stay on benefits. The problem is you can't get any overtime or promotion on benefits. Once you get stuck in that lifestyle it's like a trap.

[Webbo]

Again agreed, but the lack of equality in treatment is the problem. Cut welfare if you have to, but get a further cut from the richer areas of society too. The Government has made it a big thing that 'we're all in this together', so prove it. It seems to be intent on going after 'soft targets'.

And if you want to lower the welfare bill further, get companies to take on staff to get people working and get companies to pay them a living wage!

The more expensive you make people to employ the less likely you make it that they will be employed.

Btw according to the IFS on the BBC news today the higher earners will have been hit hit hardest by the tax and benefit changes over the course of this parliament.

[I am Rod Hull]

Btw according to the IFS on the BBC news today the higher earners will have been hit hit hardest by the tax and benefit changes over the course of this parliament.

Gutted

[Zingari]

We had 10 years of boom under Labour and the long term unemployment figures barely moved.The fact is a lot of people were better off on benefits than working and given the choice a lot of people, quite understandably, choose to stay on benefits. The problem is you can't get any overtime or promotion on benefits. Once you get stuck in that lifestyle it's like a trap.

I don’t know, but most of the people I know unfortunate enough to lose jobs haven’t been better off on benefits. Far from it, in many cases it’s caused loss of home, dramatic changes in lifestyle and even causing many marital breakdowns etc.

Maybe we move in different circles

Sure there are those that will work the system and seemingly doing very well , but I’m fairly confident they are doing it illegally and I think they should have targeted these rather than tarring all the unemployed ( and now the disabled ) with the same brush

Good to see you've got you're old fighting political mojo back though

[leicsmac]

The more expensive you make people to employ the less likely you make it that they will be employed.

Btw according to the IFS on the BBC news today the higher earners will have been hit hit hardest by the tax and benefit changes over the course of this parliament.

Why? Because of international undercutting caused by what is essentially slave labour in other parts of the world?

The way I see it, if you pay people more, they will buy more products and in so doing keep other businesses afloat. If other businesses follow suit, your product will get more sales from increased disposable income too (if you run a service-oriented business anyway).

It comes down to keeping the money circulating IMO. Right now the culture of fear has got people keeping money locked away, and that does nothing good for any economy anywhere.

[Webbo]

Why? Because of international undercutting caused by what is essentially slave labour in other parts of the world?

The way I see it, if you pay people more, they will buy more products and in so doing keep other businesses afloat. If other businesses follow suit, your product will get more sales from increased disposable income too (if you run a service-oriented business anyway).

It comes down to keeping the money circulating IMO. Right now the culture of fear has got people keeping money locked away, and that does nothing good for any economy anywhere.

Call it what you like it's still true.

Even in this country there would be consequences. My wife works for Asda for a little less than £7ph, I believe this living wage campaign wants the minimum wage to be £10,or something like that. That would mean giving most of their staff a £3ph raise. The only way they could pay for that would be a massive rise in prices that we all pay for our food. This would inevitably lead to inflation which reduces the value of money meaning that you would have to increase the living wage still further just to stand still, which would in turn lead to more inflation.It's a silly idea.

[leicsmac]

Call it what you like it's still true.

Even in this country there would be consequences. My wife works for Asda for a little less than £7ph, I believe this living wage campaign wants the minimum wage to be £10,or something like that. That would mean giving most of their staff a £3ph raise. The only way they could pay for that would be a massive rise in prices that we all pay for our food. This would inevitably lead to inflation which reduces the value of money meaning that you would have to increase the living wage still further just to stand still, which would in turn lead to more inflation.It's a silly idea.

No worries, I was agreeing with you there. Believe me, the situation in China and other countries annoys the hell out of me both because of its sadistically exploitative nature and because it causes these knock-on effects for employment here.

You make a good point in the second paragraph too - I guess it comes down to the balance between wages and cost of living. No point in having a pay rise when costs of essentials goes up as a result. There has to be a better balance struck - perhaps a dynamic minimum wage based on a % cost of essentials, rather than a flat rate that cannot be changed easily? At the moment the gap between minimum cost of living and minimum wage is dangerously close - so much so that people are having to take benefits just to supplement their income, which quite frankly is ridiculous.

[Charl91]

I don't think minimum wage is an issue, if you're working 40 hours a week. It's people that are working 15 - 30 that are particularly screwed.

[Zingari]

I don't think minimum wage is an issue, if you're working 40 hours a week. It's people that are working 15 - 30 that are particularly screwed.

How would that be a problem if you can easily live on £53 a week ?

[Charl91]

How would that be a problem if you can easily live on £53 a week ?

Because those people don't have the government paying for them to sit on their bloody arses all day and do bugger all, since they actually have to pay their own rent, and buy their own food. They actually have to go out and work, and still aren't significantly better off then those who lie around on their fat backsides, expect everything to be handed to them on a plate and then moan that they aren't well off.

£53 is a GREAT wage if you're getting it for doing nothing. But people who are actually working 3/4 days a week for their money should be earning significantly more to spend on extra perks. Because, y'know, people should actually be rewarded for doing work, as alien a concept as that may seem to many people.

[Zingari]

Because those people don't have the government paying for them to sit on their bloody arses all day and do bugger all. They actually have to go out and work 4/5 days a week and still aren't significantly better off then those who lie around on their fat backsides and expect everything to be handed to them on a plate.

£53 is a GREAT wage if you're getting it for doing nothing. But people who are actually working for their money should be earning significantly more to spend on extra perks. Because, y'know, people should actually be rewarded for doing work, as alien a concept as that may seem to many people.

Because those people don't have the government paying for them to sit on their bloody arses all day and do bugger all, since they actually have to pay their own rent, and buy their own food. They actually have to go out and work 4/5 days a week and still aren't significantly better off then those who lie around on their fat backsides, expect everything to be handed to them on a plate and then moan that they aren't well off.

£53 is a GREAT wage if you're getting it for doing nothing. But people who are actually working 3/4 days a week for their money should be earning significantly more to spend on extra perks. Because, y'know, people should actually be rewarded for doing work, as alien a concept as that may seem to many people.

Even someone on £6 per hour working for 15 hours would make nearly double what you think is an ample amount to live on

Regardless of that, most people claiming benefits are the the employed but low paid , not just the unemployed , that's the whole point of why this is a stupid argument and just typical of the divide and rule agenda .

[Charl91]

Even someone on £6 per hour working for 15 hours would make nearly double what you think is an ample amount to live on

Regardless of that, most people claiming benefits are the the employed but low paid , not just the unemployed , that's the whole point of why this is a stupid argument and just typical of the divide and rule agenda .

But they don't make twice as much do they? I'll admit 15 hours is a bad example, since you still get Gov. support. I probably should have said 20 - 25 hours.

Say you work 24 hours a week (I'm pretty sure at that rate you get no housing/council tax benefits). That's £144 a week, or roughly £575 a month . Now lets say your rent is £250 a month, since the government aren't paying your rent for you. That's £325 a month you're making, or about £81 a week.

So - you work for 24 hours a week, and you only make about £28 a week more than those who don't work at all allowance. 24 more hours and only earning an extra £28?! Working out their extra work at an hourly rate, they are £1.16 an hour better off than if they weren't working. And that's assuming the benefit claimers are receiving the lowest possible allowance. Say they're earning £70 a week on JSA then you make just over £10 more than they do a week.

And I haven't even factored in council tax yet, since people on benefits have that paid for them. Assuming you get £10 a week council tax allowance (it's less than that at 24 hours though, since I'm pretty sure I was only allowed £5 a week working less than 24 hours). That's still another £9 a week or so, taking your £81 a week down to £72.

Now would I rather work 24 hours a week for £72 or work 0 hours for £53 a week? It's a no brainer. I might have missed a little out here or there, but it's roughly right - I know because I was working at minimum wage for those kinds of hours just a few months back. And people think that those who work at minimum wage for 20 - 30 hours are better off? Don't make me laugh!

[danny.]

Can you even rent somewhere for £250!!?