Unemployed earning more than working households

Ret. posted

I doubt if that happens on any significant scale. A few hundreds perhaps.

The reason they do that is because the authorities make it difficult for them to continue claiming unemployment benefit (or whatever it is called this month). So they get moved off the jobless statistics onto a different benefit.

And do you know why that is? Because there *are* no jobs that provide anything like a living wage, unless you already have desirable skills and experience. There just *aren't*. You look. Go and find some and cite them here. You'll see.

What there are, are part-time, temporary and agency jobs where you get paid minimum wage, you get a day here and a day there. Often you get paid a short day. Often they book you for a day and then they ring and cancel you at 7am and you don't get paid at all. Or they book you for three days and you get the work done in two and so they don't employ you for the third day.

One of my sons - who I know to be an excellent and punctual worker - is going through exactly this at the moment, after he lost his previous job when the building firm he worked for went bust. He is being treated disgustingly by these agencies, but it is normal practice because there are no full time jobs available locally. They can treat people like this, so they do. And it is not just a result of the "downturn" - it's been going on for years.

You're lucky, Kev. Other people aren't. Don't be too smug about it.

I agree, but so long as there are nowhere near enough proper jobs to go round, there must be a financial safety net for the unemployed.

Reply to
Big Les Wade
Loading thread data ...

Andy Pandy posted

It's not really cluelessness, it's more fear of the sheer size and endless ramifications of anything other than cosmetic change. Of course there are many alternative models for a benefits system (for example the much-trumpeted "citizen's wage"). Each one, however, would have its own downside, its own injustices, its own unintended consequences, its own vulnerabilities to fraud and abuse.

Moreover, switching from the current system to anything significantly different would be a huge challenge, costing a fortune, and in the transition period there would be disruption and hardship to some claimants and overpayments to others. Why do all that if the new system might not be any better and might even be worse? And it would take years, so it wouldn't help your re-election prospects.

Yes, perhaps they should still try, but you can see why they don't.

Reply to
Big Les Wade

Indeed we do.

Reply to
Alang

I didn't say that, nor do I believe it. It is an inescapable fact, however, that the number of people claiming incapacity benefit has risen alarmingly over the past decade. The number of people claiming incapacity benefit for five years or more has climbed to 1.5 million and the number of claimants had risen from just 67,000 in 1997. Now can *you* explain just why we have seen this massive increase? Do you think it remotely feasible that all these additional claimants are genuine?

In fact, although many disabled people claiming

Now I would ask *you* to think. I am not railing against genuine claimants - I am railing against the huge number of non-genuine claimants who are, indeed, scroungers. These people simply do not *want* to work- and the level of benefits available to them creates no incentive for them to do so.

Ret.

Reply to
Ret.

The poster you replied to has spent his whole adult life living off the taxes of the more productive and still does

Reply to
Alang

The big profit comes from supplementing the sick with some work. Even a tenner a day with no tax pushes up the net income of the unskilled to way over what many skilled get. How do we know there are loads of fake sick? Because the number are four times what they used to be despite increased life expectancy.

Reply to
MikeinCamden

And your evidence for this? Can you explain why the number of incapacity benefit claimants has risen from 67,000 in 1997 to 1.5 million by last year? Even you must find this increase astonishing and ludicrous!

and unlike you they haven't sponged off the taxpayer all

I'm not going to bite - by your criteria, every public sector worker including all NHS workers are 'spongers' - a typically stupid comment from you.

Well that was a well considered and carefully reasoned response to my arguments wasn't it?

Ret.

Reply to
Ret.

Indeed - but there is far less fraud and injustice with non-means tested benefits, such as the state pension and child benefit, than there is with means tested benefits. Non means tested benefits don't create poverty traps.

Like with tax credits? The farce with tax credits was because the system was fundamentally flawed from the start. The idea of using an annual tax type assessment on low income people without the instant reactivity of the sort PAYE can do (because it's directly linked to the income source) was just sheer stupidity. Some of us predicted it on uk.gov.social-security before it was even implemented.

They don't do it mainly because it would be a massive political risk. A "citizen's wage" would necessarily result in a big rise in tax rates, and most people would be too stupid to be able to work out that they might actually be be tter off. After all the promise of not raising tax rates seems to have worked for this government, even though most people are paying more tax now.

Reply to
Andy Pandy

But there are possible "revolutionary" changes that don't have to add enormous costs.

One possible example would be a -ve income tax. If, for example, the first 3000 was taxed at -100% and then the other tax bands were increased by 10% then I'd guess there would be an approximately zero net tax effect to the treasury.

For higher rate taxpayers who decide to employ a gardner, a cleaner for a few hours per week this is then effectively paying them out of pretax income (which is how I think it ought to be anyway)

If benefits are then reduced by 1 pound for each pound earned (which is what i think happens at the moment) you still come out better off working for a few hours per week. If you reduce benefits by less than a pound (say 70p) for each pound earned then there's an incentive for everyone to declare their casual income.

Personally, I think it's all unlikely because governments are terrified of all the people entitled to small amounts of benefit that aren't aware and aren't claiming. Make it too transparent and straightforward and everybody will get what they're entitled to with no fuss.

Tim.

Reply to
Tim Woodall

Actually it's fairly easy to understand for anyone who's been unemployed in the past few years.

The constant harassment, 'counseling with menaces' sessions and general unpleasant attitude displayed towards unemployed people in our society drives a reasonable proportion of them insane.

There's a 'depression epidemic' amongst the unemployed for some very good reasons.

Reply to
William Black

Nonsense. When the US made draconian changes to single mother benefits, the number of young girls getting themselves pregnant fell significantly - as they would do over here.

Is it beyond the wit of some of these scroungers to actually go out and

*get* some of these desirable skills? My 19 yr old grand-daughter recently gave up a good job in Cheshire to move down to Hatfield to live with her boyfriend who is on a college course down there. She has financial commitments (car loan for example) and her parents (and me!) counselled caution in view of the current employment situation. She went down to Hatfield a couple of weeks prior to moving down there and pre-arranged several job interviews. She was offered three and started work the day after she moved South. The first one she didn't like and so moved to another. She has already been offered a permanent job there. She is an administrator with office/computer skills. She left school at 17 and didn't go on to higher education - but she has had no difficulty in obtaining work at all. The simple fact is that our benefits system is so generous that it acts as a disincentive to anyone who has no real interest in going to work. Why on earth do you think that so many foreigners are living rough in Calais trying to get over here?

Whilst some people may regard me as 'lucky' - I would refute that and argue that I have worked damned hard for the situation that I am in. I left school at 16 with a single GCE in English Language. I have never been out of work, however, and never claimed a day's dole. I have studied hard to get through entrance exams and promotion exams, and also undertaken six years voluntary study to obtain a HND and BA(Hons) degree (both while I was working full rotating shifts). Luck didn't come into it - I knew that promotion would not only increase my working wage - but also my ultimate pension and I worked damned hard to achieve that promotion. If people really want to get well paid work - then they have to work hard to get it. If there is no work in their chosen field - then they need to begin getting training and qualifications in an alternative field.

I have no arguments about that at all - my argument is about an 'out of control' benefits system that totally undermines the will to work for a large minority of people. The benefits system should indeed provide a safety net for those unfortunate enough to need it. It should not provide a disincentive to find work.

Ret.

Reply to
Ret.

As have teachers, doctors, nurses, ambulance drivers, firemen, street cleaners, dustmen, prison officers, probation officers, health visitors, etc. etc. etc. All useless scroungers eh Alan?

Ret

Reply to
Ret.

LMAO! Yep, that explains it. :-)

Reply to
Theodore

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interesting. I've just done a calculation for our family (2 adults, 4 children), assuming no disability or income at all, and we would get a total of £238.90/week (£12456.92) *including* council tax benefit. We wouldn't get anything for housing as we have a mortgage. It's the housing benefit that puts it so high. Still, it's mad that basic housing costs around half minimum wage take-home pay, even in low housing-cost areas. What else can we expect? Should basic rent be as much as half take-home pay (more if you need a three bed property)?

Reply to
Maria

Do you think it likely that all but a very small minority are not genuine given the checks made? Or are you not aware of the stringent medical assessments made before anyone goes on long term IB, the numbers turned down, the numbers appealed?

Yes you are. Every time you or the rest of your kind raise your voices against those who are sick or disabled you dehumanise them all.

First step before rolling out the cattle trucks

"A huge number of non genuine claimants" Says it all really. No knowledge of the people involved except a couple of carefully selected examples by the nazi press which extrapolates into 'huge numbers'.

You will be proposing work and re-education camps for them next.

Reply to
Alang

The fact that every claimant for long term IB is medically assessed by a state employed doctor.

I found the increase in police of 50000 over the last few years astonishing and ludicrous snd they cost the taxpayer a lot more in the long term

Most NHS workers are doing something that benefits society.

No. It was a well considered and carefully reasoned opinion of your character based on your writings over the last couple of years.

Reply to
Alang

He did not say that.

Reply to
JNugent

Caused by an unwillingness to work, perhaps?

Reply to
®i©ardo

Most of them do something that benefits society

Reply to
Alang

There are pragmatic reasons for not employing ill people even if they are fit for purpose - they often take days off for treatment or just because they are ill. Clinical depression is a serious matter in the respect - someone may be Given how difficult it is to let sick employees go, who would want to employ them if they end up taking too much time off?

Reply to
Maria

BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.