Member 55145
Distinguished Member
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Messages
- 12,085
- Reaction score
- 3,495
- Points
- 2,139
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.
The way to help them is by giving them benefits on top of their low pay in order ot make the jobs attractive enough"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
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.The way to help them is by giving them benefits on top of their low pay in order ot make the jobs attractive enough
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.Or should that be £161 billion divided by 7.9 million inactive people being £20,380 per non-worker per year?
The way to help them is by giving them benefits on top of their low pay in order ot make the jobs attractive enough
I dont think any government so far has considered this. This new proposal suggests it but only for a short period.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.
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.
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.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.
Maybe the question should be why do consumers want everything for next to nothing?
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.
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.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.
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
What is this five million figure?
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!
Britain will spend 161 billion pounds on welfare this year, more than on health, defense and transportation combined, government figures show.