Discussion in 'General Chat' started by Member 55145, Sep 10, 2007.
best news in years?
"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.
There are a few benefits which can be knocked on the head for a start.
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.
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!
The way to help them is by giving them benefits on top of their low pay in order ot make the jobs attractive enough
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
I dont think any government so far has considered this. This new proposal suggests it but only for a short period.
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?
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?
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
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
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.
What is this five million figure?
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.
Its HALF a million, not five million, there's a decimal point there!
Have you got an A* GCSE in maths?
I agree with most of the posts in this thread, but
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
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.
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.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??
are they not allowed a healthy diet?
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
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?
Whats wrong with beans on toast?
Separate names with a comma.