Benefits Street

[sphericalfox]

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/john-wight/these-ceaseless-tory-attacks_b_2252678.html

[MooseBreath]

No we pay more to the workers who are now producing the stuff , we pay less to those who have now become employed to do it rather than giving money away on benefits.

We make the jobs that people don't want to do into jobs that people do want to do.

Surely you can see if you are paying one man to work and one man to sit on his fat arse , it would be better to pay one man more and not import another man from abroad to do the job the man sitting on his arse would do if the pay was better

we accept prices may rise a little to do this , but we may get a better deal on reduced taxation due to lower unemployment

We are in a global market , but we already subsidise farming heavily so maybe that may have to increase or maybe the subsidies could be targeted better. And again we may use some money saved in benefits to increase subsidy

How is paying one man to sit on his arse and one man being paid to work better than just one man getting paid a bit more ? Surely you could give the working man a 50% pay rise and still be better off. it makes no sense whatsoever

Of course it's better not to be paying people to sit on their arse. What we're talking about is motivating people not to sit on their arse, and you're suggesting that offering them better paid jobs is a way to do this, presumably as these people feel they've earned some kind of right never to have to do a low paid job (which is another story). The problem is you're saying we should increase prices to pay for the increased wages. That means those same people won't actually be any better off in real terms, and therefore won't be any more motivated to work than they are now.

[Rincewind]

Good article there.

[Smudge]

 

So let me get this straight .

The Irish came to do the jobs the British wouldn't do , then the West Indians , then the Indians , then the Ugandan Asians ,Nigerians,  Pakistanis then the Philippinos, Chinese.   the Australian backpackers, Vietnamese cockle pickers  , western Europeans and now we seem to be incapable without the eastern Europeans . 

And  somehow all the others that came in to do the jobs we wouldn't do,  don't seem to do them either now ?

Is there a pattern developing here?

 

edit;

but that's enough about it from me now  . Smudge has given me all the info i needed to understand the problem . (his wife's cousins husband is irreplaceable)

i'll leave it there   

 

Cheap shot there mate

[The God Emperor]

err . because you've just admitted they are probably  legally entitled to it and if they're not they'll probably get caught and suffer the consequences.

 

You are paying for a lot of other things in your taxes that you have no say about remember

 I don't particularly like paying for the queen and all her feckless tribe , but i have to put up with it .No one bothers about my opinion regarding how my tax is spent . Do you think we should pick and choose how the gov spends our money  ?

so we should just let the government spend our money and the  money they print and borrow on anything they please no questions asked?

if this is the general attitude we should just throw in the towel now and declare a fascist state.

 

my concern isn't whether the law says they are entitled to it or not. the welfare state is designed to restrict opportunity through legislation sold to people as measures to 'protect the british worker' 'protect british jobs' 'protect british consumers'. they want career benefit claimers, the more there are the more there is a case for their expansion leading to more money circulating through their system and more power over their fellow man.

[bovril]

so we should just let the government spend our money and the  money they print and borrow on anything they please no questions asked?

if this is the general attitude we should just throw in the towel now and declare a fascist state.

 

my concern isn't whether the law says they are entitled to it or not. the welfare state is designed to restrict opportunity through legislation sold to people as measures to 'protect the british worker' 'protect british jobs' 'protect british consumers'. they want career benefit claimers, the more there are the more there is a case for their expansion leading to more money circulating through their system and more power over their fellow man.

 

That's not what he said. I think he raises a good point. If the majority of people on benefits are entitled to it and there are far more things our taxes are wasted on, why is this particular topic so emotive. I think it goes beyond simple economics, the people portrayed seem vulgar and disgusting to the public, which I guess is the point of the programme in the first place.

[Trav Le Bleu]

 

That's a crap Venn Diagram.

[Rincewind]

Anyone else notice that the programme was aired in the same week as Osbourne announced more cuts were to be made at the lower end?

[MooseBreath]

Good article there.

Did you read it? It's over a year old and predicted things like rising unemployment and described the Tories economic policy as illiterate. Since then unemployment has fallen dramatically and we're more or less the fastest growing economy in the developed world.

Yeah, what a brilliant article that was.

[MooseBreath]

Anyone else notice that the programme was aired in the same week as Osbourne announced more cuts were to be made at the lower end?

Did he? Must have passed me by. I heard him saying more cuts will be needed in 2015 but steadfastly refusing to say where they will be.

[Strokes]

Anyone else notice that the programme was aired in the same week as Osbourne announced more cuts were to be made at the lower end?

Yeah because channel 4 and the tories are in cahoots,

[Rincewind]

Never said that but it was very convenient for them.

[Webbo]

err . because you've just admitted they are probably  legally entitled to it and if they're not they'll probably get caught and suffer the consequences.

 

You are paying for a lot of other things in your taxes that you have no say about remember

 I don't particularly like paying for the queen and all her feckless tribe , but i have to put up with it .No one bothers about my opinion regarding how my tax is spent . Do you think we should pick and choose how the gov spends our money  ?

But you're entitled to have your say about the Queen and if you did, even if somebody disagreed with you, nobody would say it was none of your business.

 

You might not believe this but I don't hate people on benefits. I see a system that might be well meaning but is actually making lives worse and I think it ought to be changed.

[ADK]

I don't see how allowing the unemployed (whether due to lack of job, age or disability) enough money to survive can be making their lives worse.

[Harry - LCFC]

I don't see how allowing the unemployed (whether due to lack of job, age or disability) enough money to survive can be making their lives worse.

 

I agree with this. However it starts to become a problem when they are given more than enough to survive.

[purpleronnie]

I agree with this. However it starts to become a problem when they are given more than enough to survive.

what amount is that though? 

[Rincewind]

I don't see how allowing the unemployed (whether due to lack of job, age or disability) enough money to survive can be making their lives worse.

That  is all the money is for. So they can survive. By giving them less so they cannot feed or clothe their families and pay bills could force some into crime, depression, homelessness and suicide.

The amount for a living income is less than the minimum wage but with the cost of living as it is the two are narrowing drawing those on just above the minimum wage through the safety net.

The benefit system was set up to prevent this happening.

[Vacamion]

I don't see how allowing the unemployed (whether due to lack of job, age or disability) enough money to survive can be making their lives worse.

 

 

It's not JUST survival, though.

 

Flatscreen TVs, smartphones, fags, daytime cider drinking and smartphones are not "just" survival.

 

I used to do a job which involved visiting a lot of unemployed council tenants in their homes and they mostly had these. In fact a lot of them had Sky+ HD at a time when I (who was working) didn't.  Most of them ran cars. 

 

It's that sort of thing which made me think the State shouldn't hand out money. It should hand out food vouchers.

[ADK]

It's not JUST survival, though.

 

Flatscreen TVs, smartphones, fags, daytime cider drinking and smartphones are not "just" survival.

 

I used to do a job which involved visiting a lot of unemployed council tenants in their homes and they mostly had these. In fact a lot of them had Sky+ HD at a time when I (who was working) didn't.  Most of them ran cars. 

 

It's that sort of thing which made me think the State shouldn't hand out money. It should hand out food vouchers.

 

I can't argue with that on principal but it isn't what I've seen.

[Webbo]

I don't see how allowing the unemployed (whether due to lack of job, age or disability) enough money to survive can be making their lives worse.

Because you can't do overtime on the dole, there are no promotions, when you get stuck on welfare you're there for life. It's an addiction like drugs. No pride, no ambition, just surviving, believing that someone else is responsible for your life . What kind of life is that?

[Strokes]

I can't argue with that on principal but it isn't what I've seen.

I worked a few years back for norwich council, fitting communal aerial and satelite systems in their flats and tower blocks. Although there was no common theme on the type of person you met, not one person did you feel sorry for in a financial sense. Most if not all had huge televisions (i had to programme them so i know), sky, latest iphones, xboxes, playstations, internet and in some cases 3d glasses lying around. Some had very nice cars, some of which could have came from a time they were in work, its hard to know full details in less than 30 minutes meeting but it really opended my eyes.

[ADK]

I worked a few years back for norwich council, fitting communal aerial and satelite systems in their flats and tower blocks. Although there was no common theme on the type of person you met, not one person did you feel sorry for in a financial sense. Most if not all had huge televisions (i had to programme them so i know), sky, latest iphones, xboxes, playstations, internet and in some cases 3d glasses lying around. Some had very nice cars, some of which could have came from a time they were in work, its hard to know full details in less than 30 minutes meeting but it really opended my eyes.

 

That's fair enough but the maths don't really add up. Can you work and still be in council housing? I can't imagine they were just claiming JSA and affording all that.

[ADK]

Because you can't do overtime on the dole, there are no promotions, when you get stuck on welfare you're there for life. It's an addiction like drugs. No pride, no ambition, just surviving, believing that someone else is responsible for your life . What kind of life is that?

 

I agree with the sentiment but I think people who are genuinely looking for work deserve their benefits and I don't think welfare is addictive at all. It's more that it doesn't really help the person out of their problem. But the answer is extra help for them not taking away their survival money.

[Strokes]

That's fair enough but the maths don't really add up. Can you work and still be in council housing? I can't imagine they were just claiming JSA and affording all that.

I really dont know for certain, lets just say we didnt have to make appointments and we were only allowed to knock 9am-5pm and rarely struggled. I admit certain assumptions have to be made but i dont think some had any problems trading certain substances, they never hid it when we knocked

[Rincewind]

JSA for a single person is £71 per week. I doubt anyone on JSA could afford all those things without going into debt. They could have got the phones Xboxes TV's second hand or had them when in work and unable to get out of a contract. I had to downgrade on my TV and cancel DD on other things and was still overspending. They could also be in debt to lenders and owe on things like electric. Without knowing their full circumstances I cannot say. I am only going on what I have read and heard from people that work in money advisory roles.

I agree that anyone in this position needs urgent financial advice.

 

Shift workers?