|
Long term Jobless.
:}
Long term jobless. We are I believe at an impasse, wherein those who have an incentive to work are divorced from the down right scroungers. We truly can no longer afford to keep these scroungers year after year at our expense. *(Just watch "Benefit Britain" on demand to see what I mean.) There is a culture within which some folks really believe we actually owe them a constant income which they have NOT earned. My personal advice; "get off your lazy backsides and earn your keep." Life for those whom do actually earn their living is never easy, various diverse examples are those `living from a suitcase' working away from home to those travelling great distances to commute daily from home to work; often at great expense. *To those, we applaud you all. However we have an ugly underbelly of parasites who truly believe they are owed a living at our expense. Wake up, get real and face it, you are leeches upon today's tax payers. Everything from false claims for "Ins fraud i.e.; whiplash to inexplicable health problems, such as back-pains, muscular inefficiencies etc " are as we all know simply cop-outs; for which we all pay dearly. You know who you are and, if this makes you feel uncomfortable or squirm then yes I'm talking about you. Although this may well be simply another `governmental smokescreen' it's also factual. We all know at least one of these parasites so, make that anonymous call, "dob them in", if they're genuine there's no problem, if however they are leeches upon the tax payers then they deserve to be examined. We can no longer afford to carry so much deadwood in their high lifestyles which they now take for granted. Single mums supported secretly by the fathers, unknown to the authorities; to the simply greedy individuals draining our financial blood regardless. There is NO bottomless pit of "government money" which is in fact money from this countries tax payers, ever-pressured as they are. So, all you lazy-asses , work shy cretins, benefit dependant idiots, wake up, smell the coffee, we are sick of carrying you, get to work or loose all your benefits. *Genuine disabled people have nothing to fear, only the leeches upon society need fear this. Mike. :shrug: |
I'm on your side mate and I agree with almost everything you say, but it's a waste of time mate.
The culture in this country is that benefits are there for all and that they can be claimed for as long as you like as long as you can get away with it. This will never change now, it's far, far to late now to change that.. |
I was watching the 1949 Benefits Britain program and found it very interesting, totally different attitudes.
The last episode featured a 19 year old who wanted to be a rapper, who said life was easier back then as "they didn't have the modern day stresses we have". No, they were only still rebuilding the country after a war. Stress, what stress? ;) Overall, the 1949 attitude seemed to benefit (pardon the pun) most of those who took part in the end. |
Quote:
We have a system designed for scroungers.:mad: |
It is a product of the civilised society and western world. It will never change no matter how hard the government in power tries. I spend part of the year in Kenya where no benefit system exsists. To survive, people have to work, do what ever they can to make ends meet or starve or turn to crime. Clearly the benefit system in the UK is in need of a massive overhaul. No government to date has got it right and the resources to manage it effectively are not in place.
The losers know how to play the system, how to do the forms with the key words being correctly added in and how to play the interviews. I think that most of the scoungers manage to get away with it. Scribbler, I did not see the programme you mentioned. |
To some people, knowing how to, and getting the max from benefit depts is their job, or that's how they seem to see it. :shrug: innit..
It can be sorted, the gov just need to change the rules is all.... :shrug: ... |
I've never been out of work and when I see people dressed in designer gear hd tvs new cars etc all on benefits. (some people need the cars but some people clearly arnt ill and get them anyway).
In my job I see it all the time and I wish I could afford half the luxuries these people have. If I was brought into government I don't care how much people hated it I would make people sweep the streets. If they don't do it-no pay. If they are seen to be doing nothing then -no pay. |
Genuine disabled people have nothing to fear! zen the ATOS officer led them to the shower block...............:flame:
|
It is an old debate. I however, have a question. With the slashing of the Benefits Budget (of which about 80% goes to people of pensionable age), how have any of the Taxpayers of this country benefitted? At all? Has food become cheaper? Has fuel lowered in price? Have they reduced Income Tax as a result of their assault on the poorest in society?
At this time I have seen absolutely NO benefit to the wider population of the UK as a result of the Conservatives ideology, barring the setting of the not so well off against the even worse off. Growth is still circling the drain, the national debt has actually increased since the Conservatives slid into power, and the high street continues to die. There are of course people who take advantage of the situation, I'm sure there always will be. But unless their intention is to turn the country against itself, I'd have to say that what they're doing isn't working for anyone apart from the top 1% of the country. And don't get me started on the creeping privatisation of the NHS. :mad: |
Please don't tar all long term unemployed with the same brush! My lady friend was, until last week, unemployed for 11 months after being made redundant last September. Now, a few years ago, she actually worked in a Jobcentre, so she 'knows the system'. To be able to claim JSA (£51 a week in her case) and housing benefits, she had to spend hours every day looking for work, and she had to prove that she had done so by printing off, and keep a written record of, every search and every application she had made, and present it to the little Hitlers, sorry, advisors, at the local Gestapo HQ, sorry, Jobcentre, every fortnight. If they didn't think she was trying hard enough, they threatened to stop her JSA. She had to attend a computer centre 5 days a week (£2.50 a day car parking out of her £51 JSA, not re-claimable) to do nothing more than she could have done at home on her own computer, and was recently sent on a course to try to learn book keeping and Sage accounting. She openly admits to being rubbish with figures!
After 6 months her JSA was stopped and her circumstances had to be re-assesed. That took 10 weeks, during which time she had no income at all, and had to arrange an overdraft and a 'log book' loan so that she could pay her rent and council tax, or risk being evicted. When she advised the Jobcentre that she had found a part-time job, her JSA, rent and council tax allowance, were stopped within 3 days! 10 weeks to organise payment but only 3 days to stop it. Amazing. She has just found a part time job, 22 hours per week, which will make her about £20 a week more than the JSA, so in effect she is going to work for £20 a week. This, she feels, is far more preferable to having to face all the foregoing. So, how do these scroungers get away with it? Or have the authorities given up on them, knowing that most of them are un-employable? Most of them would not be capable of doing what Carol has had to go through. They just don't have the ability to do so. Of course, they may not actually be claiming JSA, because they are making a living some other way, in which case they wouldn't have to do what Carol did. It's a mystery to me. I was getting extremely worried about Carol's mental state I don't mind telling you. Hopefully the new job proves to be ok and possibly lead to full time work in the future. Sorry for the long post, but I get a bit annoyed with all jobseekers being called scroungers! :mad: Chad. :} |
Sadly, I know a few leading a not uncomfortable life never having done so much as a days work since leaving school.
They need their backside given a good kick and be made to work. There should be no option to just sit about and get paid for doing nothing, they should be given the option of working or no income to keep them in their lifestyles. There cannot be any true shortage of jobs, if it worth while for people to come over here and find themselves jobs from eastern Europe. Make the work shy put in at least 20 hours per week, to earn some of their keep. That would make it worth their while to find a proper job. The dole and benefits were set up not to be a lifestyle choice, but to be a safety net. I recently shopped someone who was both claiming and earning on the side, a life style which they and their relatives have followed for decades. The benefits pay for the basics, the work on the side pays for the luxury. The authorities seem not at all bothered in following it up, from what I have seen. |
Whatever system you have, there will always be someone getting the better of it .
Tax havens for some, Big bonuses for some, overseas untaxed profits for some, cash into the back pocket etc . That all goes on and we know about it , and its a big loss to the government . But mention the out of work scroungers, the long term unemployed, the single mums, the benefit brigade, and although the cost to the government may be just as much, the outcry is much louder. The difference is that benefits can be shown as an expense, but loss of income to the government can not be calculated. Lets not discriminate when we get all uptight about benefits, tax dodgers are just as bad . :mad: |
Quote:
Cash all the way then I'll bet Simon |
Quote:
I pay my bills with fully, legal, taxed money. What the recipients do with it is their affair. I stand by the comments in my original post . If the cap fits .... |
There isn't any implying from me, some will pay, and some will make a bit on the side, same goes for ebay, same goes for car booters, etc etc.
To lump these people, as you did, with claimants who have no intention of working is wrong. Most of the above will hold a full time job and pay PAYE Tax on this income. If you wish to say what your definition of a tax dodger is, rather than just generalising, it may help. |
The fundamentals of the benefit system seem to be long forgotten. It was intended to be a safety net below which nobody should be allowed to fall, to keep people out of abject poverty. To my mind that means provide food and shelter.
The number of these scroungers who can afford to drink, smoke, Sky TV, family holidays abroad etc is simply astonishing. Going back to the 1949 system would be a massive step backwards, but to my mind the state does far too much. People can CHOOSE the benefits lifestyle, and I'm sorry but it shouldn't be an option. |
The fundamental fact that no-one mentions when they start this kind of thread is that there aren't enough jobs in this country for everybody to have one and that's the way the powers that be like it because it keeps wages down.
The actual financial burden of these so called work-shy people to tax payers is miniscule compared to the money not collected from tax avoiders and evaders. If you're going to have a go at someone have a go at them. There are, of course, lots of other factors that need to be taken into account when discussing this subject, but for many people it's easier just to take a headline and rant about it. Unsurprisingly the powers that be also like this because it divides people who really ought be sticking together. |
Sikelsh... thank you for your interest and comments, but I do not wish to contribute any further to this thread .
Yes I do, Ive just read Freds post. Its just what I was trying to say at first, but put much better . Over and out . / |
Quote:
|
The fundamental fact that no-one mentions when they start this kind of thread is that there aren't enough jobs in this country for everybody to have one and that's the way the powers that be like it because it keeps wages down.
The actual financial burden of these so called work-shy people to tax payers is miniscule compared to the money not collected from tax avoiders and evaders. If you're going to have a go at someone have a go at them. There are, of course, lots of other factors that need to be taken into account when discussing this subject, but for many people it's easier just to take a headline and rant about it. Unsurprisingly the powers that be also like this because it divides people who really ought be sticking together. Quote:
:wot::iagree: |
Quote:
|
Quote:
If there are jobs enough for east Europeans to find here, there are jobs enough for the locals to find. If there are genuinely not enough jobs to go around, then those jobs there are ought to be time shared out so that everyone gets the chance to develop at least some of a work ethic. There should be no free licence to just sit at home and do nothing, year in year out. At times in my working career I have had some of these people sent along to work with me on work experience, or they have been forced to into taking a job. The difference between those who have simply changed jobs and those who have never worked is like night and day. You give one who has never done any work before a task and they give you the 'who me? You expect me to work?' answer, whereas someone else who is used to working would just crack on with the task. So the problem is not one of simply finding them jobs, but a deeper one of first getting them to understand the basics of what work is. The last one I had sent out to help me, had got his job based on a pack of lies suggesting he had worked on power stations until just before he had got this job. I also happened to have worked on power stations in the dim and distant past, so I was able to ask questions about what he had done there - he knew nothing about the power station apart from its name, not even how many geny sets they had in the station or how it was fired, in a station he was supposed to have worked in. Was not physically able to climb steps, didn't understand how to do the most basic of tasks even when shown step by step. This was a forty something. So simply forcing them into jobs is never going to work. He was slowing me down so much, I had to send him back in before lunch. It does make me wonder about modern management having wool so easily pulled over their eyes during interview, as too just accept what a job candidate says without question. I do feel some what sympathetic towards these long term unemployed people, but simply paying them to sit on their hands is not a solution. There must be something useful they can be taught to do - watching day time TV for the rest of there lives is not the answer. Quote:
Would you place your bet on a horse that had won several races recently, or the miik-man's horse? |
Quote:
Quote:
|
:shrug: Firstly cool down folks this was never intended to start WW3; YES we do have `scroungers', those who choose benefits as a lifestyle which we all pay for and we also have those unfortunate people made redundant or jobless through no fault of their own. My lady is from Eastern Europe but has taken cleaning work even though she has 2 masters degrees and taught in Vilnius University prior to coming here. Even she says the British do not have a healthy work ethic. I applaud her tenacity and dignity in earning her minimal wages each week doing what any English person could do.
When raising such issues as this thread, sadly we can only generalise and not take every individual case into account, however we do nevertheless all know some local `scroungers' living the high life at our expense. :) *I brought one such character to the attention of our local council when he was sub-letting his 3 bed house whilst claiming housing and living with the female next door. (He once worked for me too btw.) Car spraying too whilst claiming. I totally agree our system has many many other anomalies to be addressed but I simply highlighted one such item. :} Mike. |
Quote:
The fact is that there are at least some jobs around and some of those jobs are being taken by people travelling over from the far end of the EU and they find it worth while to make the trip or they would not make the trip. All say they work harder and will do anything to earn money, so why are these jobs not being done by our local people - the employers don't want locals, because they don't want to work and they do not work as hard - they lack the work ethic. I have no issue with people claiming if they genuinely have health issues which prevent them from working. I do have considerable issues with bone idle scroungers. I know of one 'disabled' person who has scrounged for 30 years, goes down to the doctors with an embarrassed grin on his face in a wheel chair. the rest of the time he manages perfectly well on his legs and can walk faster than me. I have suffered back pain most of my life, some would call it severe, but I have never taken a day of work due to it - I just grin, bear it and just get on with it. It is called a work ethic. There is plenty of work needing to be done in this country, much of it not even offered as a job as such. The young, fit and able bodied without any work and claiming, should be made to do some of these jobs. |
As Pete tourer said "walk a mile in their shoes" I suggest people could resign from their jobs and then try to find another, and report back! Empathy and some understanding is probably more helpful.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Harry chose to leave out the third part of my post that he quoted but it contained my most important point so I have quoted it myself below:
Quote:
Look at the history of our welfare state. It started as a safety net, had strict controls to ensure benefits were only paid according to the rules and was new. Over time it developed in some good ways and some bad ways. I doubt anyone would argue against the NHS principle of treatment for all free at the point of delivery. Or pensions that allow older people to live a reasonable life. Or even helping out people who weren't able to get a job, either because there weren't enough, or they weren't capable of doing one. Much that was good was part of the welfare state but it's the case, in my view, that it was hijacked from an early date by politicians to hide the real condition of the economy. The unemployment figures have long been a measure of how well a government were doing and manipulating them was a way to make things look better than they were. Some examples of this manipulation: The very expansion of the welfare state itself, employing more and more people to do things in the public domain whether they were really appropriate within its original concept. Shifting increasing numbers onto the scrapheap of disability regardless of whether they could do some sort of work or not. It should be remembered that until 1994 businesses were required to employ a ratio of disabled people. When that was scrapped it naturally had an effect on the unemployment figures and it was easier to switch people onto a disability benefit, effectively pensioning them off, than to keep them unsegregated in the unemployment total. As well as artificially reducing the unemployment figures it looked like the government cared, a double win for their popularity overall. Moving into the field of education, the school leaving age was raised to 16, every kid then had a right to go to university and 17 and 18 year olds were paid (EMA) to stay at school. All of these examples and many others came at a cost, of course. This cost wasn't met simply by taxation but by governmental borrowing. All political parties had to borrow to meet the ever increasing cost of running the state machine, although some of the cost was met by selling off state assets (another can of worms). Some welfare expansion was instigated by ideology, as was the relationship between the state and private sector. At different times we've swung between some sort of socialism or private enterprise which have either accelerated or slowed the state expansion. But expand it has, whether a good thing all the time or not. One consequence of this system over the time it has been running is the creation of of a group of people who were never likely to get a job, there simply weren't enough. This group were effectively sidelined and, unsurprisingly, their offspring quite naturally fell into the same situation. It is now a multi-generational thing and no-one has the slightest idea how to deal with it. It's not surprising that some people have no motivation, either personal or imposed, to work, or indeed much idea about how to go about getting a job. I am generalising somewhat as some people do get on in life while others slip the other way depending on personal circumstances. I am, however, firmly of the belief that the situation is the fault of successive goverments. In the recent financial crisis, not the fault in any way of the public sector, the majority of the private sector or the habitually sidelined people that are targeted in this and other threads, a situation has arisen where the current government are working hard to set people against each other to switch the blame and, I have to say, they are having a high degree of success. By and large other countries haven't developed a state the way we have. They also aren't as large an economy as we are. We (governments really) have actively built a scrapheap of not much hope but over the same time joined in with Europe and created the conditions where anyone from Europe can come here to work. Given that they don't have the same possibilities of work at home and the conditioning of our welfare state for more than 60 years, it's not surprising their worth ethic is different. That's not to say they shouldn't be allowed to come here. What we really need is an expanding economy. Successive governments have done nothing much about that. We don't encourage and help innovation and enterpise like a lot of other countries do. We don't manage what we've got, whether public or private, very well. And we. the people, don't do anything to change this. The majority of people just buy the message being peddled and spread it with no real thought. Despite all their efforts in these times of austerity the government is still borrowing 10 billion a month. If we had no unemployed and there was zero benefit fraud it wouldn't equal a months borrowing. The biggest share, by a long way, goes on pensions, then income support for low paid people in work, then the disabled. The NHS is its own entity but, of course, another biggie. It's been suggested that everyone should have to do some work. What should that be? You could simply go down the route of undercutting wages which would lead to the majority of peoples' living standards being noticeably reduced. You could make them do unskilled manual work presently done by waged people and increase the unemployment level. Job sharing has been suggested. Does this mean no houshold can have two wage earners while there are unemployed people in the country? Totally unworkable methinks. You could reduce some services, although this would have to be quite extreme. People who are expensive in the medical system could have their treatment withdrawn. Pensioners on only state pensions generally have other benefits. Shall we remove those and expect families to provide accommodation and care, for instance? Shall we refuse any help for disabled people, even preventing them being born in the first place? Should we just allow people involved in serious accidents to die because their treatment is expensive and they might well need support for the rest of their lives? We could go down the route of private pensions being compulsory, but incomes are already reducing noticeably and it would be something a lot of people genuinely couldn't afford. We could introduce compulsory health insurance but, again, most people couldn't afford it. i'd like to hear from the people who have a go at the unemployed what they would be prepared to do to really tackle our problems, given that getting everyone into work just isn't going to happen and the cost of them sitting at home watching daytime TV is miniscule in the overall scheme of things. So come on people give it some real thought and post up your suggestions. Just one rule though, you cannot suggest stopping immigration or suggest repatriation of immigrants already here. That is a whole other matter and a complication we don't need, especially as it's a complete red herring. How about it? Thinking caps on and give us your best suggestions. No prizes though, I'm afraid ..... times are hard ;) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Thanks for that Fred, another angle. I am going to sleep on it but it will not be party political broadcast on how I am going to solve the problems of the unemployed or the welfare state.
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
obviously !!!!!!:getmecoat: |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Don't forget Mental Health!!!!! It is not black and white for workers and scroungers, I have a Social Work Degree but not wanting to talk to much about it I went through Post Traumatic Stress Disorder that wasn't delt with early enough. I have to take handfuls of tablets which I don't like just to stay 'normal'
Please don't tar everyone with the same brush fellow 75 and ZT/ ZTT owners:confused: |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
1 we could start rebuilding all the skill centres that were closed and sold off in the 80,s which resulted in nobody learning the trades, bricklaying, plastering, plumbing, welding etc.
2 schools should have a things you should know & common sense class, most kids don't even know how to change a plug, 3 bring back yts for school leavers if unemployed (so they can actually learn something ) 4 bring back some sort of national service so that the youth of today will learn respect not only for their self's but for others too (this really should be number one ) 5 out of the eu, 6 bring back borstals & detention centers for the short sharp shock :flog2: 7 schools & parents need to take responsibility for the youth of to-day (bring back the cane, slipper ) These are some of the things i would do, & as for do gooders :flame: |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And as for me having a witch hunt against scroungers, well, I don't see how anyone could think that of me given what I've posted on here, if that's what you mean. |
Quote:
During the depression, the US implemented big schemes like the Hoover Dam to give people something to do. We maybe have no need for similar, but there are plenty of minor jobs locally which could occupy some of those claiming for at least a few hours a week, without putting anyone out of a full time job. Sitting about doing nothing isn't good for anyone. |
I read somewhere the annual Benefits bill is £91 bn Per Year.
I also read somewhere that there are 600,000 Motability Cars in the UK. Take into account the price range of these Cars - £8k to £20k - We can then look at an average price, so that would be £14k. £14k x 600,000 Cars = £8400,000,000 Then after 3 Years these Cars are sold for a few Thousand (Less than half the value normally) which goes back to the Motability Scheme (From what I understand) - So technically all at a loss :shrug: --------------------------------- Then consider: How much has the War in Iraq / Afghanistan cost the UK? How many billions have we paid to the EU just for the privilige of being told how to run our Country? How many billions have we funded in Aid, only to be used by Corrupt Gov't of that Country? Whilst I hate seeing those who choose Benefits as a Lifestyle, I also hate seeing my hard earned Taxes being sent to places that shouldn't get it......... Also, the Media have a great time working hand in hand with the Gov't slagging off Benefits Claimants, so we create a Social divide and all fall in love with Cameron the Benefits slasher, meanwhile Cameron is selling our Souls to the Highest bidders. We need to pay attention to what is going on behind the Scenes, not what the latest Gov't driven Media Frenzy is.... |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Uppers . Downers. Or even sidewayers....:D |
Quote:
|
Quote:
And that's using the term apprenticeship loosely, I have been going through it with my son, 17, amazing how many apprenticeships there are in "business admin". for real apprenticeships, like mechanic, plumbing, sparky etc, I would say it must be more like 50 candidates to 1 position Current rate for a 40 hour week seems to be about £100 a week, compared to mine that I did in joinery at £35 a week some 24 years ago. I also recall, when I did mine, I had 7 companies I could choose to work for, so it was more like 1 candidate to 7 jobs, rather than 35 candidates to 1 job as it is today. Simon |
Apprenticeships do seem like cheap labour to me.
I joined my company at full wages, full contract, no 'agency'. I had some experience, but not a huge amount and because of the nature of the work and regulations no one can do actually testing work (I work in a lab) until trained and signed off as competent anyway. We have an Apprentice who basically is going through the same procedure as I did, with the added stress of doing NVQs and whatnot as well at the same time. He gets paid less than 2/3 of what I was earning 5 years ago when i started, thats about half my current wage. It doesn't seem very fair to me and its not hard work, physically or mentally and its not something that requires years of experience. |
Flyer, get your flask and pack-up before you read this ..... you're going to need it. ;)
Quote:
Quote:
The scheme provides reliable motoring to allow disabled people to get about for whatever reason. This might be purely for social or recreational purposes, but it also allows people to get to educational establishments or a place of employment. Quote:
That's still a large sum of money and some of it is, I'm sure, fiddled by those that shouldn't really qualify. However, there is no evidence that it is on a large scale and in the overall scheme of things even if there was no fiddling at all it wouldn't make a significant difference to the tax we pay. --------------------------------- Then consider: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
_____________________________ I've no doubt a lot of things could be done differently which would both be better and more cost effective. I would very much like that to happen. I fully accept we can't afford to do things the way we have. I watched the 1949 benefits programs. Whilst the circumstances depicted were obviously contrived, they did give a good idea what it was like back then. It should also be remembered that the system was devised at a time of full employment so was bound to be a lot less expensive than now. In the early years we had such a labour shortage we encouraged immigration as well. About the only thing that was universal back then was the health service. The range of medical treatments was a lot smaller then and people didn't live as long. There have been massive increases in treatments and people live a lot longer now. The NHS originally included social care for a lot of people as well, but that has become a costly entity in its own right. Most benefits were dependent on having paid 'contributions' but, of course, it wasn't as simple as that even then. For instance, those that didn't qualify for unemployment benefit could get what was called National Assistance. So even then people who hadn't contributed could get benefits, albeit at a lesser rate. Disabled people were assessed on their capabilities, not cast on the scrap heap and, as I've said before, businesses had to employ them if they could do an advertised job. There was a much greater hands-on involvement by Labour Exchange staff in getting people into jobs, both able-bodied and disabled (many will be pleased to know this included single mums too). That would be prohibitively expensive now if done for everyone but I think might reasonably be done for the younger unemployed. Physically going round to where they live to asses their circumstances and to check thy are doing what they are required to do to find a job is what happened then and could happen now. Despite what anyone thinks I do believe people should be required to do things to help themselves. They were then and they should be now. I just temper this with the fact that the people now being stigmatised were put in the position they now hold, by and large, rather than just believe they all chose their way of life. What some now would see as interference was actually genuine help then. People were expected and required to help themselves but were given real assistance. Not like the system now where hopeless people are shuffled around hopeless systems according to the latest half baked scheme someone has thought up. Young people aren't as expensive to employ as older ones. Mention has been made of the minimum wage with no acknowledgement of the fact that it is different at different ages. It's my belief that the minimum wage is too low. I give you the fact that we spend close to £50 billion a year topping up wages for low paid working people. I fully accept that higher pay can price us out of markets but it is a simple fact that one way or another this cost has to be met. Whether or not it really needs to be as much as it is can be argued, but remember, even poor people spend money and much of our economy depends on what we spend. The measure of GDP includes this shuffling around of money in the economies of each country. There is also the huge Elephant in the room that no-one is allowed to mention and remains pretty much untouchable - means testing. Accepting the fact that we can't afford to go on spending as we have been does, in my view, make means testing a necessity. The only argument I hear against it is that people who need the money very often wouldn't claim it to the detriment of their health and well-being. This is a valid point, but if we go back to 1949 systems we would 'interfere' in these peoples lives as well. There was an example of this with a pensioner in one of the programs and it was just as robust a system as it was for the unemployed. I would rather the state had a right and requirement to make sure everyone was alright rather than throw money at huge sections of the community, for whatever reason, whether they need it or not. I'd be willing to bet (not something I do normally) that we could have a much better country that costs us much less if we lived on these lines. Self interest groups, whether these be employers, unions, ethnicity or gender based groups, along lines of class or heritage or any other basis that favours some over others and including the political parties shouldn't be accepted. Some will, by now, have me down as a Communist but that's not the case. People should be allowed, encouraged and helped to do the best they can. They should be able to keep as much of what they earn as the country can afford, but the country is the People, in my view, and not just a plot of land where the resources, including people, can be exploited. If it's not right that people should be allowed to exploit the system to get something for nothing at the bottom of the pile it's equally right that people at the top shouldn't be allowed to exploit it to get more than they are entitled to. I'm going to leave it at that for now because if Flyer hasn't nodded off he must be in danger of wetting himself. ;) |
Quote:
What starts out as seemingly a sensible way of streamlining the pension system at no increased cost ends up being a money saver at the expense of those who paid more in. This will not be a vote winner amongst some which, to my cynical mind, is why they aren't bringing it in till after the next election. Then they do it as quickly as they can, the start of the following tax year, and hope that people have forgotten or got used to it before the next election in 2020. Quote:
The government have used quantitive easing to give money to the finance industry to get them into a healthier financial state and I see no reason why they can't do that in the housing sector. We need significantly more housing stock in the country (whether we have immigrants coming in or not, so don't anybody go there clouding the issue). Money to the construction industry would help finance a building program. At significant levels of building, such as we really need, this would cause a drop in property values. This, of course, would be disastrous, effectively trapping many, many, people in negative equity and having a detrimental affect on the economy. This is, effectively, the bad debt that was such a contribution to the poor state of the economy now. If this bad debt was bought up as necessary by the government with further easing I believe the problem would be nullified. The alternative would be to remain as we are now where the state pays an awful lot of tax-payers money to the private sector to rent largely uncontrolled housing stock. Quote:
|
Quote:
In my day, it was expected that you would be paid just a token, rather than a living wage whilst you were taught a trade and gained your qualifications. The modern apprenticeships are just no longer viable on cost grounds. |
Quote:
It would appear that I had over edited my Post (Shouldn't post when Drinking lol) - The Point I was making is that, the Gov't hand in hand with the Media have us all "Believing" in what they want us to believe in, in order for us to segregate ourselves from one group, the British Public, into a bunch of Haters. All the Points made in the Post have come from Newspapers within the last few weeks that I had read. Something I omitted to write in :o Once we all fall into the trap of believing what is said, written etc, be it about Benefit 'scroungers', Corrupt Gov'ts (One article claimed the Argentinians bought Fighter jets with our Foreign Aid Monies and a 'Corrupt' African President bought a £350 Million Private Plane etc :shrug:) then we are on a gentle and slippery slope into Chaos, which is where the Gov't want us to be, so we do not focus on what is really happening in the Country. Hope I made myself clearer that time and shall refrain from trying to write sensible things when my Mind is infused with Alcohol, or at least Alcohol that has not been Watered Down as per the suggested Gov't authorities in order to encourage me not to drink too much:getmecoat: :D |
Quote:
I've done a quick Google about Argentina and aid and can only come up with the usual suspects, Mail, Telegraph, Sun. The essence of what I've had a quick look at though isn't that we are giving Argentina any aid. All I can see is an EU funded donation of aid, of which they have worked out we have contributed £7 million over a period of 6 years. And, of course, their opinion is that the EU shouldn't give them this money because they don't recognise our sovereignty of the Falklands (no doubt reason aplenty for us to leave the EU for some people). But the EU doesn't do anything just on the say so of one country and I doubt the money went directly to the Argentine government. They also talk about an International Monetary Fund loan and because we are a member of that organisation we are guilty of giving them money. They cite the fact that America votes against this because they consider Argentina to be wealthy enough. Note, not because of any territory sovereignty question. They say we should vote against it as well, which draws one to conclude we haven't. I don't know if that's true but maybe there is a reason. Possibly it's that the Argentines are sabre-rattling at the moment to deflect attention from their economic conditions, which are not great at present. That's one reason suggested, so who knows. I found nothing to do with buying jets of any sort, but it was only a quick look I had. However, I'm of the opinion the stories wouldn't really match up to the bare facts of the headlines. And finally ..... you must be rich or on benefits if you can afford to drink alcohol. ;) |
Quote:
I don't buy Newspapers, the Drivers and Overnight Security staff leave them for me when they are finished. I don't normally read them, but flick through now and again during the Day - I tend mostly to read the sillier stuff in them :p: Not rich and definitely not getting Benefits (Unless you can count my 5 a day and Fibre rich breakfast?) :rofl: |
Quote:
|
Quote:
http://i1096.photobucket.com/albums/...psef55b60b.jpg |
Dont forget we are all in this together, now tell me how the recession and austerity measures have affected those mentioned in the article below
And yes I know its the Daily Mail but nothing in the story is made up as far as i can see http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...Club-2013.html |
Quote:
|
I used to be a social worker standing up for the rights of those with mental health problems. I now unfortunately find myself on the other side of the fence. The government has a lot to answer for for the way they handle those with mental health problems and benefits, shipping them out to private companies with a bonus if they can force them off benefits and on to the streets. Usually those who have problems defending themselves. Its act now and worry about the problem later with the governments attitude I cannot stand:mad: The UK will end up a shanty town for most!!!
|
The only things that surprises me in this thread is that the mods have not closed it because its littered with personal opinions. :getmecoat:
We can't be political, religious or controversial........ or thread closed.....:getmecoat: |
Quote:
I think the theme of the thread is about society, with nothing religious or controversial so far. It's inevitable that politics have a bearing on society so hardly surprising that politics in general are involved. As there's no compulsion to be involved I would have thought those who want a discussion of this nature could be left to get on with it. :} |
I haven't joined in on this thread but what I have read has been interesting and informative.
All views have been put across eloquently without need to deride the other persons views. Over all I cannot see any reason why this thread should be closed. Open, reasoned debate on both sides of the fence and well done to everyone for how it has developed without ridicule or malice :bowdown: |
Quote:
|
Quote:
It is a judgment call on the Mods, generally after a discussion between Mods.:} Where a healthy thread is on-going we allow it. But where it gets personal, for whatever reason, it well can be closed. Similarly for political/religious reasons we would prefer that these remain out of the Club's forums ;) We are, after all, a car oriented forum ;) Saying that, we are a fairly open Club in it's ability to provide a social forum to meet all needs, within reason.... :D Carry on gentlepersons (to remain PC) :D |
OK. I think my previous comment has come across the wrong way. I think its good to see a thread like this with reasoned debate and on what is a potentially volatile subject being left to run its course.
I have not been involved and have bee watching this with interest. I work for a large authority managing the local taxation and benefits computer systems and could argue either way on this but I'm staying out as I leave work at the door these days....... :D Sorry if my original post caused and confusion among members, as it was never intended that way. Dave :D |
Quote:
Don't think it was your post, more likely the other thread discussing a closed thread and why this one has been left to run;) So long as people play nice with each other all is good it would seem:} |
drop in ocean
the amount of benefits which falsely get claimed does not even come close to the amount which is dodged in tax evasion, mostly done by the well off,this is fact
|
Quote:
|
As an employer, I can tell you that in my experience people in the majority do not want to work.
Here is an example of some recent employees, 1, 23 years old, male, English, skilled in his trade, no dependants, living at parents home. Would call in sick at least once a week so he could play Xbox. How did I find this out? His dad told me. :shrug: he came into work one morning walking like he had been hit by a bus, I asked what was wrong, he said he had a bloodshot eye and wanted to go home. I sacked him on the spot. 2, 16 year old, male, English, unskilled, living at parents home, no dependants. After two weeks learning what I expect of him at work, we started a job where I was working with him. 20 minutes into the day he sat down and started playing games on his phone. Gobsmacked, I asked if he was OK, he just replied 'yeh'. Another sacked on the spot. 3, 30 year old, male, English, semi skilled, living in private rented accommodation, 2 children. After getting tired of his lack of interest in simple instruction, he came to work one morning, unshaven, with egg and toothpaste down his uniform. I asked him when he comes to work to take some pride in his appearance, have a wash, wear clean clothes, the response was "if you don't like it, I will **** off now and leave you in the ****". So I sacked him there and then too. 4, 20 years old, male, Polish, semi skilled, living in private rented accommodation, 1 child. On the first day of a two day job, he was left alone to carry on while I had another job to attend to, by 4pm, he had finished the two day job on his own, above the standard I expected. As a reward I still paid him the two days and let him have the second day off with his family. I was gutted when I couldn't convince him to stay in England as he had to go back to his ill mother in Poland. Thankfully I am currently employing a 19 year old lad who works just as hard as the Polish guy, but believe me, if he asks for a pay rise, he will get one. I actually interviewed a skilled guy in his 40's who was clearly made to attend an interview by the job centre, when he asked about the pay he said to my face, "that works out only £40 better than claiming, so I will leave the job thanks". Employees don't know how hard it is finding people that actually want to work. If you don't know what I mean, you probably work hard too. Becoming an employer is definitely the hardest thing I have ever done. But in my short and limited experience, I feel there is an attitude leaning towards employers owing people something for just turning up, and a definite attitude of cannot be botheredness. So my view is definitely that people can be scroungers and prefer it to working, but in the same tongue that there are some great genuine people left too. Can the government support this culture? No. But they will have to find a way because the bone idle layabout scum will do nothing different. I agree that if out of work they should be forced to do something to better society, cleaning up rubbish, graffiti or similar. Or even going to work for free to help support local business, you never know if they make an effort the business will recognise that and offer them a job. I don't accept this "there are no jobs" excuse either. There are plenty of jobs, and if the unemployed were that interested in working they would find a job next day. As an employee I was never out if work for more than a couple of days, and when a house move to a different area fell through, I got myself another job the same day working with some Spanish guys cleaning pots in a kitchen. Eastern Europeans get a bad talk about taking jobs, but they travel very long distances, often leaving their families behind to get a better paid job than they had at home. They come here because there are plenty of jobs to be had, if there wasn't, they wouldn't come, simple really. I know some of this is simplistic, and you may not agree with it, but that is my experience and views, like it or not. |
Quote:
|
on tv
Quote:
|
Thats a sad tale Rich of some peoples attitude to work.
On a lighter note it reminds me of when my wife ran a cafe and we had quite a few candidates sent by the job centre who were either openly not interested in the job, or didnt have any basic skills, one girl we took on a trial basis when asked to slice a banana left it in the skin to slice it ! |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
A quick bit of Googling: This site shows some figures about tax not paid. And this site shows figures about benefit fraud. As with everything it's all more complicated than a quick line with stark figures can portray. However, it does show there is a large difference between what doesn't get paid in tax that should be and what gets claimed wrongly by way of benefits. |
Been long term jobless in past...it didn't agree with me.
|
Been angered by this thread,but you put it in a nutshell.divide and rule.
|
I slept on the problem and have not been able to come up with a solution. I have at last put my cards on the table with no clear answers. Nothing is set in stone and I am not ready to throw in the towel with this country. Fred what can you bring to the party? If you would not wish to go there, no problemo! ;)
|
I think Rich summed up the attitude to work of some people very well indeed, well done Rich. It shows some long term unemployed/unemployable see living on the backs of others as a permanent solution for themselves. Its not about how small the proportion of the overall population these people are, nor how little of the overall money they cost us all, its the simple fact that some of us got out of bed and worked hard for our keep.
The guy who refused the job because it would only pay him £40 more than he was getting, should have had all benefits immediately stopped. It is supposed to be a temporary safety net for those who are unfortunately put out of work, not a permanent life style choice. Any job which pays should be not an option to refuse. In fact even if it pays less than benefits, I understand benefits are made up. Why should the rest of us keep them in a life of permanent leisure? It seems from reading this thread, that they only make life hard for those who have been put out of work recently, these are the only ones who are chased to find a job - the rest, the long term are just left alone to get on with life. That seems very, very wrong to me. Every ones first duty, ought to be to earn their own keep. There should be no easy options. |
Quote:
If I can manage it I'll try to bring a six pack to the party. ;) 1. With regard to this thread and others like it where there is a generalisation that everyone in a particular group of people get tarred with the same brush I would say two things here. Firstly it just isn't true that it is completely the fault of each individual in the group. There are outside forces that create the conditions we live in. Secondly it can be upsetting to a significant number of people who read this type of thing because they feel they are being targeted. I would ask anyone thinking of starting a thread like this to consider whether they really need to or not. If they still want to I would ask they word their post very carefully and back it up with genuine evidence (as opposed to sensational newspaper headlines). I understand people get annoyed, frustrated and even angry about all sorts of things in our society but nothing is ever as simple as it seems. Try to look for reasons why things are how they are as a greater understanding might well mollify your emotions. 2. Never, ever take anything at face value. The world is full of self-interest groups who will tell you anything and everything from genuine facts to absolute bare-faced lies to show they are right. This can range from a one man band with a real bee in his bonnet about something through all aspects of society at large including politics, religion, commerce, ideology and anything else you can think of. 3. A potted history of me which will give you an idea of why I am how I am now. I'm 62 now and through my life my views have changed from fairly extreme one way to fairly extreme the opposite way at different times. I feel I have now settled somewhere in the middle. At times I've been guilty of doing what I'm now asking people not to do - making uninformed judgements. I've lived through a lot, but not all, of the period since the benefit society we've been talking about started in the 1940's. My early years were unremarkable in a caring and reasonably comfortable family. I left school at 15 with no academic qualifications on a spur of the moment decision. That was 1966 and still a time when jobs were plentiful. I had given no thought whatsoever to what I was going to do. I lived with my parents and knew nothing about the benefits system at all. No-one in my family was in it themselves but I did have friends whose families were, on the dole, in social housing, that sort of thing. I walked into a job straight away and have had a quite wide variety of them in the private and public sectors since then. Other than for a period of nearly nine months in the late 80's I have worked ever since I left school. That nine months showed me how much things had changed in the jobs world. Looking at my character I would say I am naturally lazy and unambitious. I rarely do today what I can leave to the last minute of another day and don't want to be in a position where I am responsible for telling other people what to do. Contrasting this though, at work I am a bit of a perfectionist. All the jobs I have done have been to the best of my ability but I do have what some have seen as an annoying habit of telling people who have been ambitious and risen to a higher position where they are going wrong. 4. I've never joined or voted for a political party having never been convinced that enough of what they advocate was a good thing. Generally it has been a matter of voting for the one that will make the least mess of things at any given time. Sometimes I haven't voted at all. The biggest problem with politics is that the parties fundamental objective is to be in power. This, inescapably, means they only have a short-term view. Yes, over a series of periods in power they will achieve more of their vision of what things should be like. Unfortunately along the way they have bought their power with ill-thought out policies that have caused more problems than they can solve. As an example, I've talked about the way they've done things to manipulate the unemployment figures giving rise, in my view, to the situation we are now talking about in this thread. I'll just say that politics need a radical overhaul. While ever we swing to and fro our long term future is stuffed. 5. During my time in the private sector I learned that 20% of your customers generated 80% of your income. While that isn't hard and fast and I know there will be exceptions where it doesn't work, it certainly was the case a lot of the time. For those that persist with insisting that everyone who hasn't got a job should go and get one I must repeat this just isn't possible. I will say again, there just aren't enough jobs available for everyone to have one, even assuming they were all qualified and capable of doing those that are available. A fundamental change in all aspects of society would be necessary to even begin to start this process. And as most of this is about the cost of all this it is relevant how much or how little is involved. There is no point in chasing after relative peanuts rather than focusing on areas that involve much greater amounts. This makes sense, even if only to fund the necessary infrastructure to do something about the situation costing us the smaller amount. It has also been said that benefits should be stopped if someone refuses a job. Other than, perhaps, feeling better because some sort of punishment has been imposed there are consequences that would impact on many more people who are working if this happened. For a start it would be another factor driving down wages. It could very easily lead to people not up to a job actually making things worse for a business - reduced productivity, late and/or incorrect distribution and even theft of stock by those that might well see it as a way of boosting their incomes. There would be additional costs on things like the health service and housing, almost certainly exceeding any money saved. There would, inevitably be a significant increase in crime affecting many people. Burglaries and robberies would go up, with inevitable increases in things like insurance costs. Violent crimes could actually increase the number of people with some dependency on the state. 6 (got there! ;)). What can we do about it? I have made some observations and suggestions in previous posts, particularly no. 54., but here are some other thoughts. Given that I believe we lurch along, with no long-term coherent policies, according to whoever is in power at any given time how about we have some sort of charter or constitution? We could set out both rights and obligations for individuals so as to leave no-one in any doubt where they stand. It could do the same for any government so they have to take a longer term view over their short-term ambitions. Many things could and should be taken out of government hands. Given that it all comes down to money how about we set public spending as a percentage of GDP? It would probably need to be a bracketed figure rather than an absolute, if only to smooth things out a bit. This happens with other things such as foreign aid and qualifying criteria for countries joining the EU. There would, inevitably, have to be a minimum figure set below which it wouldn't be viable and in these circumstances if income (tax) wasn't sufficient to cover the cost we would have to either borrow (to a set level) or increase taxes. Business would also have obligations, such as the minimum wage and paying taxes. I'll repeat the subject of means testing. We can't afford to be nice about this. If we are to look after the whole of society we should only pay according to need. Throwing money around willy nilly is simply wasteful and we can't afford it. Will any of this work? Who knows? Will anything like any of this ever happen? No chance! But before you lose hope I am working on a much, much cheaper final solution involving the diversion of the marksmen currently involved with the Badger cull ..... only kidding ..... or am I? ;) |
Good evening Fred
Thanks for writing up your thoughts, for saying a little of your background and for being open. You are not much older than myself. In passing, I add that you write more eloquently ;) I had a good read and will need to have another good read of what you have written. Stopping someones benefits because they refuse to work, would be a retrograde step. I support the arguements you gave. I have met criminals in Africa who do not have a job and who do not receive benefits, as there are no benefits. They are proud of their status earning a living from robbery and crime. True! Means testing. It is a minefield! I take your point Fred and to some extent it goes on, even though it is resented (Generalisation). I am going to pause here. |
Quote:
Yeah you caught me out. :cool: :drool4: I earn £6.19Ph for 40 hours a week, after paying my Taxes and N.I Contributions I am left with an amazing £908 for a Four week month or £1078 for a five week month.......Gonna be buying my 40ft Yacht next month, with its own Wine Cellar and Crew made up of 28 Year old Female Supermodels.................:rofl: |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Seeing the bigger picture, the benefits system actually works for Britain! (madness, i know!) But you see, where does that £xxx Billions in benefit money go??
It goes straight to British businesses, shops factories, etc, etc - which in turn keeps people in jobs. Take away the benefits = reduction in UK Spending power = loss of jobs. Hope that makes sense! :getmecoat: |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I have a little (well quite a long one really) tale on this subject, which some might find of interest, but due to the sensitive nature of the content, I am not willing to post it publicly, but I will happily post it via email for those interested.
Please don't PM me via the site, because I'm a 'blue' and my inbox is small - use the send email option. Left click on my name on the left, then select 'Send email..' |
As it is a 'career choice' for some, the problem is, it has now rubbed off on their kids. I am happy to pay £**** per month so someone can stay at home watching Jeremy Kyle on their 46" LCD TV that I bought.
NOT Get off your a-rse and get a job you lazy, lazy oxygen thief. :mad::mad: |
I had to laugh the other day, watching Watchdog which is always good for a laugh.
There was a young single mum of several kids, complaining that she was choosing between heating and eating because of the price of electricity and gas. Then they switch to the wide shot of her and the kids sat on the leather 3 piece suite watching the wall mounted massive LCD tv. The kids may have had handheld computer game console things too, but I cannot remember if that was something else I was getting irate at on the telly. She didn't strike me as the working type :mad: |
Quote:
|
Looking at a lot of post and replies in this thread I can agree and disagree with a lot of it, some long term claimers like I was once , couldn't help it, I was out of work for a year and a half, through no fault of my own, and I was desperate to work, I applied for anything and everything.
I was desperate for money to feed my family and make them happy, does that make me or would that have made me a scrounged ? I think not. I have been in this job two years now, and I'm very settled and happy, I make enough to keep us going with some spare change. I work hard 60 to 70 hours a week travelling up and down the country making sure there are goods to be put on shelves, ( there is a point here ) Not I have a couple of friends who I must admit could do better for themselves and I do in a lot of way feel I am supporting them. They have been on benefit for 8 years, now that's what you call long term, I do have a rant to Mrs T at times as I get fed up with it But I won't to know why the people on benefit live quite happy and have everything they need, when I who is earning nearing x amount a month can still struggle, it really bakes my noodle . Someone was saying about not enough jobs, that's frankly not an excuse people retire everyday which opens a vacancy on the market for a job. The most distressing thing about the youth of today, it the horrid attitude towards life family and work. For example. I was in tesco not so long ago and a young chap about 19 or 20 was dancing through the shop singing at the top of his voice "I ain't never gonna work" and I do mean singing. I only held my language because of families and children near by. That's the people you would love to batter without anyone noticing...... They need a new version of national service and drill in to these youngsters the right attitude. That's just my opinion though, ok I know I'm not old enough to have known of national service, but I've heard all the stories from my older relatives, and my dad was also in the army for a short while and I suppose that's where I get my good work ethic from. |
Quote:
PM via email me, if you want to hear of such a tale. |
Dingl, I too have been in your situation, I was unemployed on & off over a 2year period, 14 months in total, but I like you did something about it. My gripe is with those with 'can't do' attitudes rather than a 'can do' attitude. The system was introduced to help people get back on there feet but not now.
|
Trouble is billy, there is no incentive to hold the interest of people who really should be in work, it's is partly the governments fault due to the fact they don't give the help or the funding need to help those who want to work or study to better themselves.
Before this job I wanted to train as a driving instructor, job centre wouldn't fund me , or help me find funding, and it doesn't help when the job centre staff look down their noses at you. It's true it does take two to make a wrong situation government and people attitudes two wrongs don make a right |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 22:05. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright © 2006-2023, The Rover 75 & MG ZT Owners Club Ltd