Then you have a funny way of arguing it, if you think that by tinkering with or 'reforming' benefits, you can address the fundamental issues, which are how we organise society to address the problems created by capitalism.
I was setting benefits in a wider context than your's and Ret's tedious points about 'incentives'.
Yawn. Go start a revolution.
Erm, your rant was *in reply* to a point about incentives. If you want to reply to or raise a different issue then find an appropriate point to reply to or start a new thread.
So would agree X that the appallingly low wages paid to British employees at the bottom of the pile create a disincentive to work?
Not bright enough? Too old to aquire the qualifications?
I have no idea. But it isn't easy on a low income to get a qualification. There are things called course fees and many qualifications depend on being employed in the business
Disingenuous. The minimum wage is an *hourly* rate. When you can only get a job for 15 hours a week then you only get 90 pounds a week. And your benefits are withdrawn pound for pound (whereas you still incur travel and other costs of working.
Eh? The Poles have been "flooding in" since 2004.
You simply don't know what you are talking about - not surprisingly, because you have never been in the position yourself of having to look for such a job. There have been very, very few full time, steady, reasonably paid jobs for many years, except for those with skills and experience. The Polish influx starting in 2004 made things a great deal worse, but they were already very bad.
Andy Pandy posted
I agree. I don't even blame employers for moving to this exploitative casual-labour system. Any employer who didn't would be undercut by all his competitors who did.
The blame lies entirely with the government.
Again, I agree. However, the authorities ("The Man" as WM calls them) will not adopt this because it is not what they want to achieve.
Absolutely agreed. I have nothing whatsoever against part time or seasonal jobs, they are an essential part of any economy. I *do* object to people like Ret claiming that nobody ought to be on benefits because they should all be taking any available part-time temporary work instead.
No. The present tax/benefit/employment system creates a deterrent to work for those on the lowest incomes. I would have no hesitation in continuing to work in the circumstances I described were it not for the demands of council tax. If all regressive taxes were abolished the deterrent effect would be close to zero.
There have always been low paid jobs - and in the past Brits were prepared to do them. When the welfare system makes it financially more attractive to claim benefits - then of course they will.
Ret.
I'm sorry but I have never said that *nobody* should be on benefits. I do believe, however, that there are many people on benefits who are fully capable of obtaining work if only they would pull their fingers out.
Ret.
Ret. posted
The trouble with that admission is that you now have to answer much more difficult questions. So you admit that some people can't get off benefits. So, how many people *are* capable of obtaining this work? What does it pay? Who specifically should be able to get it? How do they get it?
These questions require *facts* to answer, not prejudiced general statements. You don't have these facts; you don't know how many jobs are available, nor how many people are capable of doing them, nor what they pay, nor anything apart from newspaper cliches. Try getting out and finding such a job yourself. Then report back here and let us know how you got on.
.
TY WM
[The jobs do not exist. Yes they do]
Show any of worth to ?me?, bearing in mind, I am an active jobseeker and partake in online and offline searches (and notifications), every week.
[That's another matter, but in many cases this is not the fault of the 'employer'. If his customer demands a certain price then that's the price he has to work to or lose the business. We live in a global economy where some people will work for 2 buttons an hour.]Easily solved. *Everyone?s* income (not wage) in the UK capped at £100,000/y (less, if you like) ? all remainder goes into kitty. Anyone does not like it, they leave ?indeed, they are obliged to do so, in law, as anything else is antisocial. There is always someone who will work for £100,000/y of buttons and be just as effective and successful.
[We can't (as an economy) go on pretending that people don't have to do minimum wage jobs and pay them from state funds to decide not to].Not only can we, we have to.
WM
Yes, your posts facilitate my responses to all readers and posters.
WM
. [WTF is this "Man" you keep wittering about?]
It appears it may be you, certainly so, if I need to explain it further.
How many people receive 'IB' and JSA? (millions, as you well know).
As I said - most. You are only considering 'average families' (140,000 tops, by this report, and that is a gross distortion, for reasons given in the report, itself.).
[snip to every other of your posts, thus far, to me]No matter, Andy, no matter.
Simply put, this it not a time of carrots, it is one of sticks (unless one is a banker or senior manger etc). The proles don?t respond to incentives, it appears.
WM
That means-tested benefits may be more expensive to pay than non-means-tested benefits does not mean that the "extra" adminitration cost is in any sense wasted.
Without means-testing, benefits (eg, for unemployment, irrespective of whether it is genuine) could not be afforded.
Any and every supported child-rearing housewife in the country (and every analagous house-husband) could claim to be "unemployed" and without the mechanism for such claims to be properly tested and for the means of the family unit to be taken into account, the benefit bill would be unlimited.
The rules are not there to annoy you - they are there to allow the economy to function.
That's rather like saying that crime would fall if theft were made legal. Benefit theft would fall if making false statements to obtain them were decriminalised. Whoopy-do.
Because they have to be in order to do their job - which is helping the economy to function.
I know a millionaire (aged over 60) who gets it.
Your income should make no difference.
It's strange that an intelligent person like you has made this post. What I said was perfectly clear but you have misrepresented it. Let me explain again.
Universal money-benefits *could* be afforded if not means tested, because they would be funded through general taxation. Just like the NHS or the MOD.
They wouldn't need to claim. They'd get it automatically, unemployed or not. The cost of doing this for every family would be recovered by taxing everyone's total income at the necessary rate.
In what way is this not clear?
I have personal experience of it. I suffered it thirty years ago and my children suffer it now. Ask anyone who is on the dole and you will hear the same story. In fact you already have on this thread.
Except that making theft legal would have many ill effects. My proposal has none as far as I can see. Point them out by all means, but please don't waste time on the "we can't afford to do it" one again, unless you can produce calculations showing that we can't.
Yes, that would be stupid, but it's your proposal, not mine.
Because if everyone is getting a high level of benefit, regardless of whether they are in employment or not, there would be an even greater disincentive to go out to work for many people. Because of that the taxation of 'earned income' (as opposed to benefits) would fall dramatically and your 'benefits for everyone' system would fail through lack of funding. You seem to be inventing some sort of 'perpetual motion machine'. Pay everyone benefits which is paid for by taxing those benefits!!
Ret.
I retired from the police in June 2001 at age 54. Because I had completed 30 years police service, and retired as an Inspector, I was entitled to a full index-linked final-salary pension which is very close to the average annual wage. Because of that, and because I never very much enjoyed going out to work, I gave up work at that point and live on my police pension.
In actual fact I am fairly unique in that respect because the vast majority of retiring police officers immediately move into another job. Some of them started a family later than I did and still have kids just about to go to university - and so they need the money. Others just don't like the idea of retirement and want to carry on working (silly sods!).
The fact is, however, that I have never known a retiring police officer to say that he cannot find another job. Those who want another job never have any difficulty in finding one. The types of job they move onto vary considerably from high paid to low paid. Another retired Inspector I bump into occasionally now works for Tesco delivering internet-ordered groceries. Some go into security, some get jobs with their old force as civilians (property officers, front-desk clerks, etc). Some get jobs with the local authority - others get jobs delivering cars across the country, etc.
Bearing in mind that so many on uk.legal regard police officers as thick and stupid - they certainly don't seem to have the slightest difficulty in moving on to alternative employment - and often onto jobs that had little comparison with their jobs as police officers - so skills and experience don't come into it.
The jobs *are* there, and I feel quite confident that if I wanted to return to work I would have no great difficulty in finding something to do (although at almost 62 I may find my age an increasing problem)!
Ret.
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.