.5 million jobs for .5million British scroungers?

Discussion in 'General Chat' started by Member 55145, Sep 10, 2007.

  1. Member 55145

    Member 55145
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2005
    Messages:
    12,082
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +3,483
  2. Pat_C

    Pat_C
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2006
    Messages:
    2,827
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Berkshire
    Ratings:
    +219
    "Britain will spend 161 billion pounds on welfare this year, more than on health, defense and transportation combined, government figures show."

    :eek::mad:

    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.
     
  3. mjn

    mjn
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2001
    Messages:
    24,286
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    Herts, England
    Ratings:
    +13,029
    There are a few benefits which can be knocked on the head for a start.
     
  4. bouncer

    bouncer
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2005
    Messages:
    3,608
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Location:
    Glasgow
    Ratings:
    +257
    Such as?

    Im not entitled to anythign from the state, Life sucks
     
  5. mjn

    mjn
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2001
    Messages:
    24,286
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    Herts, England
    Ratings:
    +13,029
    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.
     
  6. Member 55145

    Member 55145
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2005
    Messages:
    12,082
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +3,483
    if only the government would see it that way :suicide: 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!
     
  7. la gran siete

    la gran siete
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2003
    Messages:
    25,275
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    West Sussex
    Ratings:
    +1,984
    The way to help them is by giving them benefits on top of their low pay in order ot make the jobs attractive enough
     
  8. dBrowne

    dBrowne
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,315
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Ratings:
    +172
    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.
     
  9. mjn

    mjn
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2001
    Messages:
    24,286
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    Herts, England
    Ratings:
    +13,029
    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. :confused: :suicide:
     
  10. Pat_C

    Pat_C
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2006
    Messages:
    2,827
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Berkshire
    Ratings:
    +219
    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.
     
  11. Pat_C

    Pat_C
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2006
    Messages:
    2,827
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Berkshire
    Ratings:
    +219
    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.
     
  12. loz

    loz
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2001
    Messages:
    13,062
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +1,787

    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.
     
  13. la gran siete

    la gran siete
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2003
    Messages:
    25,275
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    West Sussex
    Ratings:
    +1,984
    I dont think any government so far has considered this. This new proposal suggests it but only for a short period.
     
  14. Phil57

    Phil57
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2005
    Messages:
    3,893
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    The Vale of Evesham
    Ratings:
    +621
    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.
     
  15. Pat_C

    Pat_C
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2006
    Messages:
    2,827
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Berkshire
    Ratings:
    +219
    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?
     
  16. dBrowne

    dBrowne
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,315
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Ratings:
    +172
    Two identical plasmas in Tesco's. First made in China in slave-factory conditions that are still better than being part of the floating 200 million unemployed in the countryside: £800. Second made in the UK with a fair trade sticker on it detailing the workers' paradise that it was assembled in: say £1400. Which to choose? A guilt-free plasma or rationalise the guilt and keep that handy extra £600?
     
  17. bouncer

    bouncer
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2005
    Messages:
    3,608
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Location:
    Glasgow
    Ratings:
    +257
    I know you posted this a few hours ago but I need a safty net, I need to get 500 bucks from know where to pay rent and stuff this month, I dont get money from anywhere some saftey net, Ill end up homeless and then in like 10 years time end up with a crummy house from the council casue they coudnt help in the first place and that would just screw up my life
     
  18. Member 55145

    Member 55145
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2005
    Messages:
    12,082
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +3,483
    actually just because you havent paid in yet doesnt mean your not entitled to benefits. you got plenty of time later to be squeezed for every penny ;)

    its how job seekers allowance works. if youve contributed you get contributions based and less hassle. if you havent got any contributions you get income based and a supposedly good kick up the arse to get you a job
     
  19. Pat_C

    Pat_C
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2006
    Messages:
    2,827
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Berkshire
    Ratings:
    +219
    Indeed. My point was simply that in a competitive free market goods will be made down to a price, and that in turn has the effect of forcing down rates of pay. So we can't on one hand be suggesting that employers should be paying more (in this context to mitigate the need for benefits to supplement income) whilst on the other hand feeding the problem by buying as cheaply as possible.
     
  20. dBrowne

    dBrowne
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,315
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Ratings:
    +172
    Globalisation, the great leveler; it does impose a few constraints on what you can realistically demand or concede. Dim of me not realise you were being rhetorical.
     
  21. Hairy

    Hairy
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2006
    Messages:
    590
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    31
    Location:
    Newcastle upon Tyne
    Ratings:
    +29
    What is this five million figure?
     
  22. mjn

    mjn
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2001
    Messages:
    24,286
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    Herts, England
    Ratings:
    +13,029
    Personally, if i was you, i'd rent the house out, and get a bedsit. You're a student, you need to live like a student, that means beans on toast twice a day, and living in a bedsit or 7 bedroom house share.
     
  23. RugbyAl

    RugbyAl
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2006
    Messages:
    547
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Location:
    Yeovil
    Ratings:
    +360
    Its HALF a million, not five million, there's a decimal point there!
    Have you got an A* GCSE in maths? :D
     
  24. mij

    mij
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    3,884
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    London
    Ratings:
    +999
    I agree with most of the posts in this thread, but :D

    Why do so many people have such strong feelings towards the most disadvantaged part of our society? But almost never complain about the amount of money the royal family take from our taxes (Makes the dole look ridiculous)? Or the fact that the very rich can legally pay much lower taxes than many of us on here? Or that many many companies make massive profits whilst their workforce are made to claim state benefits like working tax credits? Politicians/Euro MP's expenses? Europe? Trident? Ken Livingstone? Council Tax? Mayors/Councillors costs? The TV licence?

    I could go on and on and on...It genuinely puzzles me why so many of us along with so many TV & radio programmes mainly seem to concentrate on what the poor cost us!
     
  25. loz

    loz
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2001
    Messages:
    13,062
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +1,787
    Because individually, none of those compare to how much is spent on welfare.
    As was quoted earlier on in the thread from the bloomberg report
    Also, as I said earlier, I have no problem with hard working people benefiting from the redistribution of my wealth (getting tax credits), but I do object to lazy folk getting handouts for doing nothing. Though I do take your point about companies not paying a decent wage which making profits (especially when those profits go abroad...)

    As for the Royal Family, well that is just a drop in the ocean compared to 161 billion on welfare. But most of that goes to cover their costs, it isn't a handout for them to sit on their backsides doing nothing all day...

    As for "Politicians/Euro MP's expenses? Europe? Trident? Ken Livingstone? Council Tax? Mayors/Councillors costs?", well yes they are all objectionable, and I see no shortage of complaints (not necessarily here) about how much those things cost us, so not sure why you think people ignore them and pick on the poor. :confused:
     
  26. la gran siete

    la gran siete
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2003
    Messages:
    25,275
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    West Sussex
    Ratings:
    +1,984
    because they are an easy target for people's prejudices and tendency to want to despise those who are down the social scale. It happens the world over but probably less here than in many other nations as at least we do have a benefits system and we are by and large a fairly liberal society who dont wish Dickensian conditions to return. Witness the plight oif the Dahlits( untouchables) in India:eek:.In Argentina the poorest live in tin shacks and receive no handouts hence crime is high and there are many beggars. The better off ,like here ,dismiss them as lazy, good for nothings and refuse to help them on the grounds "well they can afford to smoke. and they've got tv aerials" etc
    You are also corrrect about the Royal family who are the biggest scroungers of the lot nad why oh why do we continue to venerate them??
     
  27. la gran siete

    la gran siete
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2003
    Messages:
    25,275
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    West Sussex
    Ratings:
    +1,984
    are they not allowed a healthy diet?
     
  28. mrtbag

    mrtbag
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    3,657
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Location:
    Anywhere I want
    Ratings:
    +394
    Sorry bouncer, but this is probably going to spound harsh.

    You chose to be a student, you chose to live somewhere that costs 500 to rent. Society owes you nothing. If you can't afford to live the lifestyle you do, then either:

    1) Change your livestyle
    2) Get a job that means you can afford it
     
  29. loz

    loz
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2001
    Messages:
    13,062
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +1,787
    But that surely is the point.
    We do have a welfare system. We do have a safety net for the most disadvantaged of our society, and don't want them living in shanty towns.

    The problem is though, why are so many people on it? Why does it cost us so much?

    Like many people I guess, I don't begrudge helping the genuinely disadvantaged, but I do believe that many on welfare are not, and instead are taking advantage of a generous welfare system.

    Get those back to work, and we could actually afford to give the genuinely disadvantaged more.

    What is the problem with that?
     
  30. mjn

    mjn
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2001
    Messages:
    24,286
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    Herts, England
    Ratings:
    +13,029
    Whats wrong with beans on toast? :confused:
     

Share This Page

Loading...