W1, this one's for you
Comments
-
The one glaring point is this, if she worked (even as a teacher or full time, which is unlikely as she has two kids under 5) it is likely that her salary would be less than the benefits she is receiving.
So where is the incentive to work?Although, if the govt stops paying then in a few years time her kids (and millions others) will be tooled up, angry and looking for fat middle-class hosts to feed off. L:ast year's riots will look like a sunday school picnic. So, maybe the status quo ain't quite so bad...
Utter bollocks. So we are held at ransom and have to pay through our nose (a near unsustainable amount) to be safe.
Again with the jealousy and greed.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:The one glaring point is this, if she worked (even as a teacher or full time, which is unlikely as she has two kids under 5) it is likely that her salary would be less than the benefits she is receiving.
So where is the incentive to work?Although, if the govt stops paying then in a few years time her kids (and millions others) will be tooled up, angry and looking for fat middle-class hosts to feed off. L:ast year's riots will look like a sunday school picnic. So, maybe the status quo ain't quite so bad...
Utter bollocks. So we are held at ransom and have to pay through our nose (a near unsustainable amount) to be safe.
Again with the jealousy and greed.
Well it's not utter bollocks. If you hypothetically cut all benefits to zero tomorrow then I'm sure you would agree there would be massive social unrest. However it seems current bill is unsustainbly high, therefore any reduction without any significant improvement in the chance of employment gives an increased risk of greater unrest and crime imho.<a>road</a>0 -
Crime would increase, yes. But rioting (worse than the recent London riots) becomes mass benefits have been removed wouldn't get anyone anywhere and certainly wouldn't get them back their benefits.el_presidente wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:The one glaring point is this, if she worked (even as a teacher or full time, which is unlikely as she has two kids under 5) it is likely that her salary would be less than the benefits she is receiving.
So where is the incentive to work?Although, if the govt stops paying then in a few years time her kids (and millions others) will be tooled up, angry and looking for fat middle-class hosts to feed off. L:ast year's riots will look like a sunday school picnic. So, maybe the status quo ain't quite so bad...
Utter bollocks. So we are held at ransom and have to pay through our nose (a near unsustainable amount) to be safe.
Again with the jealousy and greed.
Well it's not utter bollocks. If you hypothetically cut all benefits to zero tomorrow then I'm sure you would agree there would be massive social unrest. However it seems current bill is unsustainbly high, therefore any reduction without any significant improvement in the chance of employment gives an increased risk of greater unrest and crime imho.
I'm not in favour of paying benefits purely to keep the great unwashed appeased. Those that aren't who can. Need to work.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
clarkey cat wrote:
the real losers in this sorry affair are the people that bust their balls to take home every month LESS than what she is p1ssing up the wall on Sky TV and smokes.
Although, if the govt stops paying then in a few years time her kids (and millions others) will be tooled up, angry and looking for fat middle-class hosts to feed off. Last year's riots will look like a sunday school picnic. So, maybe the status quo ain't quite so bad...
I was making a point about pitifully low wages - how people actively engaged in wealth creation don't enjoy a fair proportion of the fruits of their labour, hence they end up living on income less than that of what the government pays out the people who do no work. I don't think benefits should be reduced. I think wages at the bottom end should be increased.0 -
W1 wrote:
Citation as requested:notsoblue wrote:Citation needed... That makes no sense to me. The general trend in western Europe seems to be more handouts than the UK (I'm fine to be corrected on this if I'm wrong), so the conclusion would be that the answer *would* be more handouts? Anyway, as has been discussed before, the fact that people can't afford a living wage by working and resort to benefits is only the fault of the government in so far as it hasn't addressed unethical employment practices for the low waged.
As a general point though, I agree with you that indolence has to be discouraged. It does nobody any good, least of all the indolent.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/neilo ... d-we-have/
Is that right? I was under the impression that apart from the Scandi countries that Rick loves, the benefits systems in most European countries are not eas easy or as generous as the UK. Quick google didn't show anything very useful.
Wow, that is interesting (and deserving of better read than I can get away with right now). What would you think about the following solution suggested in the article:
"there is a case for shifting the emphasis of future spend away from some cash benefits and towards services like childcare."0 -
How wonderful that would be.notsoblue wrote:
Wow, that is interesting (and deserving of better read than I can get away with right now). What would you think about the following solution suggested in the article:
"there is a case for shifting the emphasis of future spend away from some cash benefits and towards services like childcare."
The knock on effect is that child care would become more accessible for all (it doesn't have to be free subsidised and companies may also add childcare to their incentives).
What a wonderful society that would be.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:
How wonderful that would be.notsoblue wrote:
Wow, that is interesting (and deserving of better read than I can get away with right now). What would you think about the following solution suggested in the article:
"there is a case for shifting the emphasis of future spend away from some cash benefits and towards services like childcare."
The knock on effect is that child care would become more accessible for all (it doesn't have to be free subsidised and companies may also add childcare to their incentives).
What a wonderful society that would be.
In before Rick mentions Scandinavia...
0 -
notsoblue wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:
How wonderful that would be.notsoblue wrote:
Wow, that is interesting (and deserving of better read than I can get away with right now). What would you think about the following solution suggested in the article:
"there is a case for shifting the emphasis of future spend away from some cash benefits and towards services like childcare."
The knock on effect is that child care would become more accessible for all (it doesn't have to be free subsidised and companies may also add childcare to their incentives).
What a wonderful society that would be.
In before Rick mentions Scandinavia...
Pwned.
0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:
Crime would increase, yes. But rioting (worse than the recent London riots) becomes mass benefits have been removed wouldn't get anyone anywhere and certainly wouldn't get them back their benefits.el_presidente wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:The one glaring point is this, if she worked (even as a teacher or full time, which is unlikely as she has two kids under 5) it is likely that her salary would be less than the benefits she is receiving.
So where is the incentive to work?Although, if the govt stops paying then in a few years time her kids (and millions others) will be tooled up, angry and looking for fat middle-class hosts to feed off. L:ast year's riots will look like a sunday school picnic. So, maybe the status quo ain't quite so bad...
Utter bollocks. So we are held at ransom and have to pay through our nose (a near unsustainable amount) to be safe.
Again with the jealousy and greed.
Well it's not utter bollocks. If you hypothetically cut all benefits to zero tomorrow then I'm sure you would agree there would be massive social unrest. However it seems current bill is unsustainbly high, therefore any reduction without any significant improvement in the chance of employment gives an increased risk of greater unrest and crime imho.
I'm not in favour of paying benefits purely to keep the great unwashed appeased. Those that aren't who can. Need to work.
The Romans tried it - bread and circuses - and look what happened to them.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Scandinavian white chicks!? What do you want me to do, spontaneously combust? I can never go there or I would have done. Ages ago.notsoblue wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:
How wonderful that would be.notsoblue wrote:
Wow, that is interesting (and deserving of better read than I can get away with right now). What would you think about the following solution suggested in the article:
"there is a case for shifting the emphasis of future spend away from some cash benefits and towards services like childcare."
The knock on effect is that child care would become more accessible for all (it doesn't have to be free subsidised and companies may also add childcare to their incentives).
What a wonderful society that would be.
In before Rick mentions Scandinavia...Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:
How wonderful that would be.notsoblue wrote:
Wow, that is interesting (and deserving of better read than I can get away with right now). What would you think about the following solution suggested in the article:
"there is a case for shifting the emphasis of future spend away from some cash benefits and towards services like childcare."
The knock on effect is that child care would become more accessible for all (it doesn't have to be free subsidised and companies may also add childcare to their incentives).
What a wonderful society that would be.
Seriously though, yeah, I think it would probably be a much better use of money. Specifically with regards to single parent families in receipt of benefits. Would make it much easier for people to afford to go into work. Though would we in UK run the risk of the government looking to cut spending on childcare because private sector companies providing the service were taking the p1ss in the same way that private landlords are with housing benefit?0 -
What? Remembered for all time as one of the greatest empires in the history of Mankind?rjsterry wrote:The Romans tried it - bread and circuses - and look what happened to them.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
It would need to be thought out. What harm would it do for a bank/large national/multination to open up a day care/nursery that was free to it's staff and charged non-staff parents to send their kids there.notsoblue wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:
How wonderful that would be.notsoblue wrote:
Wow, that is interesting (and deserving of better read than I can get away with right now). What would you think about the following solution suggested in the article:
"there is a case for shifting the emphasis of future spend away from some cash benefits and towards services like childcare."
The knock on effect is that child care would become more accessible for all (it doesn't have to be free subsidised and companies may also add childcare to their incentives).
What a wonderful society that would be.
Seriously though, yeah, I think it would probably be a much better use of money. Specifically with regards to single parent families in receipt of benefits. Would make it much easier for people to afford to go into work. Though would we in UK run the risk of the government looking to cut spending on childcare because private sector companies providing the service were taking the p1ss in the same way that private landlords are with housing benefit?
Companies in America support/provide day care for kids.
As it stands now, private companies are already taking the piss with childcare/nursery costs
We want to send the little one to nursery from about 10months: http://www.wimbledondaynursery.co.uk/fees.html
If Ms DDD works 3-4 days a week your looking at £700 - £1000.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
I think both.clarkey cat wrote:I don't think benefits should be reduced. I think wages at the bottom end should be increased.
If you don't reduce benefits, there is still little incentive to work. However making work pay better is a "good thing". Hence the minimum wage. From what NSB has said on the subject, it sounds like job security for part time workers is a problem. I'm less convinced by the concept of a living wage - my scepticism means I wonder whether it is used in the same way as "poverty" or "homelessness"....0 -
I certainly think there is a case for it, yes. Whether it would work in practice, I'm not sure.notsoblue wrote:W1 wrote:
Citation as requested:notsoblue wrote:Citation needed... That makes no sense to me. The general trend in western Europe seems to be more handouts than the UK (I'm fine to be corrected on this if I'm wrong), so the conclusion would be that the answer *would* be more handouts? Anyway, as has been discussed before, the fact that people can't afford a living wage by working and resort to benefits is only the fault of the government in so far as it hasn't addressed unethical employment practices for the low waged.
As a general point though, I agree with you that indolence has to be discouraged. It does nobody any good, least of all the indolent.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/neilo ... d-we-have/
Is that right? I was under the impression that apart from the Scandi countries that Rick loves, the benefits systems in most European countries are not eas easy or as generous as the UK. Quick google didn't show anything very useful.
Wow, that is interesting (and deserving of better read than I can get away with right now). What would you think about the following solution suggested in the article:
"there is a case for shifting the emphasis of future spend away from some cash benefits and towards services like childcare."
Some big employees do make arrangements for child care at the workplace, but it's not realistic for every employer to do that.0 -
Within the context, you're right, job security for part time workers is more important than living wage. Its not so much the level of minimum wage as the options that employers have to circumvent having to pay it thats the issue. What we can all agree on though is that people should be better off working than they are on benefits.W1 wrote:
I think both.clarkey cat wrote:I don't think benefits should be reduced. I think wages at the bottom end should be increased.
If you don't reduce benefits, there is still little incentive to work. However making work pay better is a "good thing". Hence the minimum wage. From what NSB has said on the subject, it sounds like job security for part time workers is a problem. I'm less convinced by the concept of a living wage - my scepticism means I wonder whether it is used in the same way as "poverty" or "homelessness"....
Also, from the Telegraph article you posted, W1, I'd definitely be all for changing from a system of giving out money for simply existing to funding services (like childcare) to get people back into work. That way people won't feel like their tax is being spent on the lazy, and those who have found themselves trapped on benefits will find a way to employment and greater self worth. Win win... Easy peasy... NEXT0 -
Excellent, let's close the thread - I don't like seeing my moniker this much. Someone mentioned the WI in the SCR thread, I thought at first glance i'd been "mentioned" too many times for comfort....notsoblue wrote:
Within the context, you're right, job security for part time workers is more important than living wage. Its not so much the level of minimum wage as the options that employers have to circumvent having to pay it thats the issue. What we can all agree on though is that people should be better off working than they are on benefits.W1 wrote:
I think both.clarkey cat wrote:I don't think benefits should be reduced. I think wages at the bottom end should be increased.
If you don't reduce benefits, there is still little incentive to work. However making work pay better is a "good thing". Hence the minimum wage. From what NSB has said on the subject, it sounds like job security for part time workers is a problem. I'm less convinced by the concept of a living wage - my scepticism means I wonder whether it is used in the same way as "poverty" or "homelessness"....
Also, from the Telegraph article you posted, W1, I'd definitely be all for changing from a system of giving out money for simply existing to funding services (like childcare) to get people back into work. That way people won't feel like their tax is being spent on the lazy, and those who have found themselves trapped on benefits will find a way to employment and greater self worth. Win win... Easy peasy... NEXT0 -
0
-
-
Want. To. Believe.clarkey cat wrote:I've seen him. He rides a Hybrid and carries a radio. Rides down NKR.0 -
I've never seen this guy. That means I could be him I suppose - maybe I have Hulk-esque blackouts as soon as I get on my bike?notsoblue wrote:
Want. To. Believe.clarkey cat wrote:I've seen him. He rides a Hybrid and carries a radio. Rides down NKR.0 -
W1 wrote:
I think both.clarkey cat wrote:I don't think benefits should be reduced. I think wages at the bottom end should be increased.
If you don't reduce benefits, there is still little incentive to work. However making work pay better is a "good thing". Hence the minimum wage. From what NSB has said on the subject, it sounds like job security for part time workers is a problem. I'm less convinced by the concept of a living wage - my scepticism means I wonder whether it is used in the same way as "poverty" or "homelessness"....
You're in favour of the minimum wage? You do surprise me. Like, have governments interfere with salaries that people get?0 -
Well, after starting the thread and running for cover, I've enjoyed reading the debate. To be fair to the woman in question, it appears she is taking on board advice about budgeting and has given up smoking.
While it is galling that she spends public money on luxuries whilst her children miss out, she's not taking the p!ss half as much as many at the opposite end of the income scale.0 -
I absolutely agree with all of this. But the level involved in his instance is way over minimum wage. That's closer to an average wage.W1 wrote:
I think both.clarkey cat wrote:I don't think benefits should be reduced. I think wages at the bottom end should be increased.
If you don't reduce benefits, there is still little incentive to work. However making work pay better is a "good thing". Hence the minimum wage. From what NSB has said on the subject, it sounds like job security for part time workers is a problem. I'm less convinced by the concept of a living wage - my scepticism means I wonder whether it is used in the same way as "poverty" or "homelessness"....0
