.5 million jobs for .5million British scroungers?

[JagoPlasma]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...3959k&refer=uk

best news in years?

[Pat_C]

"Britain will spend 161 billion pounds on welfare this year, more than on health, defense and transportation combined, government figures show."



This scheme won't make any real difference though, unless there is a plan to reduce benefits to make this low-paid work attractive. And there isn't much sign of that happening.

[mjn]

There are a few benefits which can be knocked on the head for a start.

[bouncer]

Such as?

Im not entitled to anythign from the state, Life sucks

[mjn]

Originally Posted by bouncer

Such as?

Im not entitled to anythign from the state, Life sucks

Seeing as you're 17, and probably put diddly squat in, why should you get anything out, apart from your education?

Plus, the benefit system is there only as a safety net, not for a means to live on.

[JagoPlasma]

Originally Posted by mjn

Seeing as you're 17, and probably put diddly squat in, why should you get anything out, apart from your education?

Plus, the benefit system is there only as a safety net, not for a means to live on.

if only the government would see it that way pity as thats what its supposed to be!

i hope this is the beginning of a hard line against the lazy sods of society today.

maybe all the immigrants get all the jobs because the employers know they will work!

[la gran siete]

Originally Posted by Pat_C

"Britain will spend 161 billion pounds on welfare this year, more than on health, defense and transportation combined, government figures show."



This scheme won't make any real difference though, unless there is a plan to reduce benefits to make this low-paid work attractive. And there isn't much sign of that happening.

The way to help them is by giving them benefits on top of their low pay in order ot make the jobs attractive enough

[dBrowne]

161 billion pounds divided by .5 million scroungers equals... knock off the zeros... divide by 5... erm... a massive Daily Mail headline.

Or should that be £161 billion divided by 7.9 million inactive people being £20,380 per non-worker per year?

Or is it £161 billion spread to differing degrees over the population as a whole?

Do any of these numbers mean anything when the article doesn't say how that huge sum is allocated?

Genuine ignorance. Not making a sarky point.

[mjn]

Originally Posted by la gran siete

The way to help them is by giving them benefits on top of their low pay in order ot make the jobs attractive enough

Why not cut the red tape, and simply take less tax from the lower end of the pay scale?

Why have a system that takes with the left hand, and a gives with the right hand, often resulting in incorrect claims, with over payment, under payment, delays, endless form filling in.

[Pat_C]

Originally Posted by la gran siete

The way to help them is by giving them benefits on top of their low pay in order ot make the jobs attractive enough

Possibly, if you mean reducing existing benefits so that a proportion of benefit claimant's income has to come from working. But however it is structured people should almost always be better off working than not doing so - and never vice versa.

[Pat_C]

Originally Posted by dBrowne

Or should that be £161 billion divided by 7.9 million inactive people being £20,380 per non-worker per year?

I don't know either, but that sounds within the realms of possibility as an average. Or perhaps the £161bn includes child allowance for people who aren't all inactive? Either way I suspect it is a much higher proportion of GDP than many countries.

[loz]

Originally Posted by la gran siete

The way to help them is by giving them benefits on top of their low pay in order ot make the jobs attractive enough

Yes. It should be a top up system.

If you work, then you get these additional credits...

If you don't work, well all you get is this very basic welfare payment.

I don't mind seeing my hard earned tax payments being redistributed to other hard working people - who are just lower paid than me because of a variety of circumstances.

I do object to seeing it going to lazy folk who sit around all day believing the world owes them a living. It doesn't.

[la gran siete]

Originally Posted by Pat_C

Possibly, if you mean reducing existing benefits so that a proportion of benefit claimant's income has to come from working. But however it is structured people should almost always be better off working than not doing so - and never vice versa.

I dont think any government so far has considered this. This new proposal suggests it but only for a short period.

[Phil57]

Originally Posted by loz

Yes. It should be a top up system.

If you work, then you get these additional credits...

If you don't work, well all you get is this very basic welfare payment.

I don't mind seeing my hard earned tax payments being redistributed to other hard working people - who are just lower paid than me because of a variety of circumstances.

I do object to seeing it going to lazy folk who sit around all day believing the world owes them a living. It doesn't.

All well and good, but why are employers allowed to pay low wages, low wages being topped up by the state suggest to me more profit to the employer.

[Pat_C]

Originally Posted by Phil57

All well and good, but why are employers allowed to pay low wages, low wages being topped up by the state suggest to me more profit to the employer.

Or, in a free market, a job existing in the first place. Some employers have always argued that the minimum wage would reduce jobs. I don't know how true that is in reality, but I expect it is true to an extent.

Maybe the question should be why do consumers want everything for next to nothing?