Daily Mail
- Thread starter p_ps_sock
- Start date
You're a wonderful human being.
I don't think I'd have a problem with people being "forced" into jobs if they are claiming benefits, but only if the jobs paid more than the benefits (which should always be the case) and not for companies like Tesco to gain free manual labour.
Labour are talking about guaranteed jobs for any young person out of work for a year. It's an interesting idea, but in this age of public sector job cuts I'm not sure how likely we are to ever see it.
I know how difficult it is Chabon, and at least you have made the efforts, I take my hat off to you. However, what I disagree with are those who gain their benefits whilst doing f-all whilst you are either sweeping floors and cleaning toilets. You are paying into the system doing a job that not many would do, however, it gives you independance and it also gives you some time perhaps to give yourself a long-term goal for a better job. I have been there, done that, and it isn't easy, but if you want a job, then you will get one, it is just a matter of time. Good luck with it Chabon.
I agree with this most of this.
Surely a good solution would be for the government to invest more into stopping people who abuse the system. Not only would this reduce the amount lost to the true spongers, it would create new jobs, meaning the genuine job seekers would have more opportunities and the economy would be boosted. Huzzah!
Funny how policies like these tend to benefit business...must be a coincidence.
Aye, read this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...-A-disturbing-dispatch-Manchester-estate.html
And then ponder why there is not a single suggestion as to what to do about the problem. The strong implication is that life on benefits should be made even less attractive by driving anyone on benefits into poverty, but why should it be all stick, why not the carrot of a substantially higher minimum wage, for example?
Oh yeah, because every political party has the CBI's cock firmly planted in their cheek.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...-A-disturbing-dispatch-Manchester-estate.html
And then ponder why there is not a single suggestion as to what to do about the problem. The strong implication is that life on benefits should be made even less attractive by driving anyone on benefits into poverty, but why should it be all stick, why not the carrot of a substantially higher minimum wage, for example?
Oh yeah, because every political party has the CBI's cock firmly planted in their cheek.
We should work on making the rich even richer so they provide more jobs and make the economy strong again.
And the poor even poorer so they have to work long hours and we can compete with China and Mexico.
What part of the 80% for two months didn't you get? Also as I said they were very very rough figures, but yes I think that if after working all my life I lost my job and was a month or two looking for a new one I should be paid more on my welfare than some fecker who hasn't seen a job in three generations. Maybe if we did things like this then there wouldn't be so many generations of lazy useless scourges on society gobbling up all the nations resources. Not only Benefits but also police time, hospital resources, social housing etc etc etc.
Yes, I think I deserve to get a soft landing if I lose my job.
Small businesses will suffer very badly indeed with a higher minimum wage.
Pah. I made a mistake in my excel sheet.
Anyway. You have crazy suggestions! You'd pay less tax in, working for a year, than you get back by "taking a year off".
Why does a banker deserve to paid more to be unemployed?
Yep, small businesses already pay enough taxes to cripple most without having to support a forced increase in wage.
No, what you're saying is giving the more well-off people more benefits than those working in shit jobs earning shit money. Your posts make out as if everyone below the middle class is a lazy benefit cheat.
When people make the same claim every time wages go up, and it never proves to be the case, it rather loses its credibility.
Yeah because small businesses are doing great right now!
Small businesses are doing shit for the same reason everyone else is doing shit. There's feck all money in the economy, because everyone who isn't rich is presently getting absolutely fecked, and the rich are, as per usual, Scrooge McDucking all their wealth.
There was a thing in the Telegraph yesterday saying that the average family with one working parent will be four grand worse off after all the changes made since 2010. It's a huge amount of money that's been taken out of the economy and, at least to some extent, siphoned back into the accounts of those who earn a fortune. Out of those two options who do you think is more likely to be making use of small businesses?
There was a thing in the Telegraph yesterday saying that the average family with one working parent will be four grand worse off after all the changes made since 2010. It's a huge amount of money that's been taken out of the economy and, at least to some extent, siphoned back into the accounts of those who earn a fortune. Out of those two options who do you think is more likely to be making use of small businesses?
Source: Joseph Rowntree Foundation
You could pay for that kind of income insurance yourself though couldn't you?
Quite. As far as I am concerned, it doesn't matter how much you earned in your last job, you should get the same amount as someone who got fired from cleaning the toilets. As far as I am concerned, a jobseeker is a jobseeker, they are on level playing field and as such, should be paid the same. To say that those who earn more should get more, is a bit like those millionaire tax dodgers, always wanting more. Parasites!!!
Agreed
Not at all. It's just that generally if you are earning more you will have more of a mortgage and higher bills. Also, generally the higher paid will pay much more tax than the lower paid. Clearly there would have to e some sort of a cap over which no-one can be paid.
I'm working class and have been paid very badly all my life for very hard work. Recently I've been getting a little better paid but that's not effecting my opinions. I think that even if we have everyone on the same benefit payment that it should still be on a sliding scale with those recently unemployed paid better than those long term giving people a chance to get back on their feet and encouragement not to fall into the benefit trap.
I know people who can't afford to go back to work, and the last (and only time) I was on the dole I actually took a pay cut to go back to work but I would always rather work.
Given that the current minimum wage falls below the cost of living, if you're dead against raising it then well it's a bit foolhardy to complain about the 0.7% of welfare that goes to benefit cheats.
The dole in the UK is miles less than Ireland so I'm kinda talking about here.
Personally I'd be even more annoyed at my taxes legally going to someone with a bigger house than me, a better car and a better education than I would if they were going to some scroat pissing it away in the pub and fiddling the system.
I agree with the idea that recently unemployed people could get more in the short term as a safety net in comparison to the long-term unemployed, but I wouldn't agree with it being based on their previous salary.
That's fair enough. There are generations of people who have never even looked for work and they are a plague IMO. I think it's fundamentally unfair that someone who works and falls gets less than them.
Oh definitely, I just don't think there's any easy way to root out these people without ultimately spending more than the government would recoup. Some have mentioned cutting the red tape and letting individuals use their judgement to determine the cheats, but that could potentially be a disaster with prejudices and whatnot.
IMO going after the tax avoiders is a more viable option for now.
If you work and haven't saved money, it's your fault. If I lost mine, I'd immediately have to move out the house I'm renting and move in with my parents. C'est La Vie. If you don't have a job, you are the exact same as everyone else. Unemployed and looking.
I'm all for making sure the employed are getting more money than the unemployed. I wish I could spend my life at home and not at work.
But honestly, you are just talking about ways of making the rich stay rich. It might not be a terrible idea to give the recently unemployed a small percentage extra for the first few months, but 60% of the annual salary? All UK benefits are "wealth" tested anyway.
Is Job Seekers back-tracked? I think not and I imagine that most of the short term unemployed don't even both signing on. It is demoralising (I've sat in on others doing it, never signed on).
I'm all for making sure the employed are getting more money than the unemployed. I wish I could spend my life at home and not at work.
But honestly, you are just talking about ways of making the rich stay rich. It might not be a terrible idea to give the recently unemployed a small percentage extra for the first few months, but 60% of the annual salary? All UK benefits are "wealth" tested anyway.
Is Job Seekers back-tracked? I think not and I imagine that most of the short term unemployed don't even both signing on. It is demoralising (I've sat in on others doing it, never signed on).
Yeah I wasn't referring to Ireland here.
The Mail Online's two main frontpage stories:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ce-rant-queue-jumping-man-medical-centre.html
I can't be the only one disturbed by the tone of this piece, right?
I can't be the only one disturbed by the tone of this piece, right?
It's the usual 'pc gone mad - foreign chancers after a load of compensation' routine.
"Because of her age she has had limited direct contact with those who had been familiar with the discovery of the horrors of the holocaust or the attitudes which had led to these events."
It's the kind of outburst some make when they think they'll get away with it, without repercussions; but she hasn't got away with it & now the Mail is drying her tears and claiming outrage.
Nah but Steve, because of her age she didn't know that the Jews have had it rough..
She's 34!
She's 34!
I take it all back then, WP - clearly she should be the one being given lots of money; the sudden revelation of the facts of the Holocaust must've traumatised her!
I don't really see why knowledge of the holocaust is relevant
There's a kind of rule these days, 'Don't make disparaging comments about ethnic, religious, national or regional groups, except Scousers, in the workplace'. You don't need much more than that.
There's a kind of rule these days, 'Don't make disparaging comments about ethnic, religious, national or regional groups, except Scousers, in the workplace'. You don't need much more than that.
I know you're attached to that Petrov comment but this is my favourite non sequitur of the decade so far.
Don't judge an entire race of people by the actions of one man is a good rule to live by too.