.5 million jobs for .5million British scroungers?

Pat_C

Well-known Member
"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.
 

mjn

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

mjn

Distinguished Member
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.
 

Member 55145

Distinguished Member
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 :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!
 

la gran siete

Distinguished Member
"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.
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

Active Member
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

Distinguished Member
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. :confused: :suicide:
 

Pat_C

Well-known Member
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

Well-known Member
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

Distinguished Member
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

Distinguished Member
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

Well-known Member
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

Well-known Member
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?
 

dBrowne

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

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?
 

bouncer

Well-known Member
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.

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
 

Member 55145

Distinguished Member
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
 

Pat_C

Well-known Member
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?
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.
 

dBrowne

Active Member
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.

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.
 

mjn

Distinguished Member
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

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.
 

mij

Well-known Member
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!
 

loz

Distinguished Member
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!

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

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:
 

The latest video from AVForums

LG CX Best Picture Settings
Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Latest News

Samsung rumoured to be buying OLED TV panels from LG Display
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Netflix signs with Sony for first streaming rights in U.S.
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Audio Pro launches C10 MkII speaker
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
THX launches Onyx MQA supporting DAC/Amplifier
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Cambridge Audio introduces Evo all-in-one audio system
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published

Full fat HDMI teeshirts

Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom