bridge too far Posted 2 October, 2013 Share Posted 2 October, 2013 If they live within a certain distance, say 2 miles, then they can walk. It takes 30 minutes maximum to walk that distance. Over that then they should be given a bus pass. Why do you think they wouldn't take things like that into account? Would he? got an insight into his finances have you? Dont schools to after school clubs these days? There will always be some people who it doesn't suit 100% or will wail "IT'S NOT FAIR!!" but if people want a job they'll do what they can to get one. Glad to see youre doing your usual and being outraged and objecting for everyone else. Who pays for the bus pass? The friendly local bus company that's supposed to make a profit ? Local councils pay for pensioner bus passes - maybe the councils should pay? Aah that might mean a rise in council tax, surely. And yes, I do have an insight into my friend's personal situation. We've known him for years. Not all schools have after school clubs (my grandson's doesn't for example although my granddaughter's does but this has to be paid for, understandably) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 2 October, 2013 Share Posted 2 October, 2013 (edited) Who pays for the bus pass? The friendly local bus company that's supposed to make a profit ? Local councils pay for pensioner bus passes - maybe the councils should pay? Aah that might mean a rise in council tax, surely. And yes, I do have an insight into my friend's personal situation. We've known him for years. Not all schools have after school clubs (my grandson's doesn't for example although my granddaughter's does but this has to be paid for, understandably) With 1.4m people claiming JSA how many of them live more than 2 miles froma job centre? I would put money on a fraction of them. What's a bus pass, £30-£40 a month? So with people claiming c£200 a month JSA plus other benefits if this scheme gets them back into work the bus pass will pay for itself very quickly, you do the maths rather than being so quick to be outraged and wail about how tough it is that out of work people should make an effort to get a job. Edited 2 October, 2013 by Turkish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 2 October, 2013 Share Posted 2 October, 2013 Turkish, you should re-read your stupid diatribe. Nowhere have I said that is tough that unemployed people should make an effort to get a job. Nowhere at all. But hey, you cherry-pick the bits that suit your agenda. I am saying, quite simply, that a blanket rule will not cover individual situations and that it will be difficult for JC staff to devcote the time that the individual needs. And since so many more will have to be 'monitored', presumably that will come as an extra cost for the service. So will it pay for itself? Well the much-vaunted work programme hasn't so far, has it? Indeed, one of the private providers of this scheme has been 'sacked' for failure to meet targets. No doubt others will follow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tony13579 Posted 2 October, 2013 Share Posted 2 October, 2013 One thing I have found being on a reduced income as a carer is I spend a fair amount of my time trying to cut costs, fill forms etc. if you are only receiving about £500 a month you shop around, you spend time fixing something. You spend time trying to source the cheapest fuel, phone. Etc. you spend time getting a small refund you would not bother with. You spend time cooking. I fix my own car, fence, I could not cut my costs as much if I was doing 30 hours per week job hunting. Then there is the cost of lunch. It's not just transport. Although 70% of the unemployed get a free bus pass.( If I was un employed I would get no bus pass or benifits as I own another property.. People who own a buy to let as a "pension fund" will find that if they get sick or unemployed they will be forced to spend thier "pension fund" before they get any help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecuk268 Posted 2 October, 2013 Share Posted 2 October, 2013 With 1.4m people claiming JSA how many of them live more than 2 miles froma job centre? I would put money on a fraction of them. What's a bus pass, £30-£40 a month? So with people claiming c£200 a month JSA plus other benefits if this scheme gets them back into work the bus pass will pay for itself very quickly, you do the maths rather than being so quick to be outraged and wail about how tough it is that out of work people should make an effort to get a job. According to the latest ONS figures there are about 500000 vacancies. So what's going to happen to the remaining 900000 (assuming that the vacancies are in the same areas as the unemployed)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holepuncture Posted 2 October, 2013 Share Posted 2 October, 2013 According to the latest ONS figures there are about 500000 vacancies. So what's going to happen to the remaining 900000 (assuming that the vacancies are in the same areas as the unemployed)? There is plenty to do: Stack shelves FOC for poundland (who are raking in big profits and expanding rapidly BTW!), Tescos, Lidl and the like - or lose benefits The skates have taken a load of unemployed on and they are using them as free labour. Pick up litter, scrub graffitti, weed flowers on roundabouts. Plus all the walking to and from the JC. Hardly Roosevelts New Deal, and you could argue this is just standard Tory ideology at work here. Just like granting petty criminals community service, I expect this will actually deliver a negative net benefit to the tax payer, this will cost millions in the short term. With community service, where you have to pay managers, social workers and security to police a bunch of petty crooks who dont like doing work or being told what to do, it would be far more cost effective to employ a professional company to do the work, I imagine this will be the same. So I see this as a political PR campaign, which will cost us a lot of money in the short term, and upset a lot of the scroungers that BTF et al keeps defending with ridiculous examples. As with the NHS, pensions, policing and many other parts of our state, it really is completely unsustainable in the modern world and it wont be able to carry on based on taxes and Keynesian debt. The Tories know this, the elite wont fund it (no chance, even though they could a dozen times over), this conservative term is setting the path for the demise of the welfare state, its every man for himself or as they like to put it "if you want to get on and work hard". We have millions of undesirable British people in the UK, the state would struggle to service those as it is.. Then, the combination of the EU and Labour importing millions upon millions upon millions of foreginers into the country has condemmed the state IMO ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 2 October, 2013 Share Posted 2 October, 2013 What a shame some people don't understand how to conduct debates. A bit like the Daily Mail - attributing thoughts and words to people that they've never actually expressed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearsy Posted 2 October, 2013 Share Posted 2 October, 2013 the most feckless mumblies who can't find their own work should get government jobs. Obviously something where they can do as little damage as possible tho. I would make them MPs. A nice idea, but not v.practical. Who is gonna give them bus fair to House of Commons? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 2 October, 2013 Share Posted 2 October, 2013 Turkish, you should re-read your stupid diatribe. Nowhere have I said that is tough that unemployed people should make an effort to get a job. Nowhere at all. But hey, you cherry-pick the bits that suit your agenda. I am saying, quite simply, that a blanket rule will not cover individual situations and that it will be difficult for JC staff to devcote the time that the individual needs. And since so many more will have to be 'monitored', presumably that will come as an extra cost for the service. So will it pay for itself? Well the much-vaunted work programme hasn't so far, has it? Indeed, one of the private providers of this scheme has been 'sacked' for failure to meet targets. No doubt others will follow. Oh look, now she gets all insulting, bless. BTF coming up with all sorts of excuses and reasons why people cant make an effort to get a job, Wail wail wail "Who will pay their bus fares?" - Wail, wail, wail "it wont suit everyone" If it was me out of work i'd do anything i could to earn money and make every effort to get a job, if that means i have to make a bit of extra effort then sobeit. Certainly wouldnt be a proffesional apologist like you try to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 2 October, 2013 Share Posted 2 October, 2013 What a shame some people don't understand how to conduct debates. A bit like the Daily Mail - attributing thoughts and words to people that they've never actually expressed. Like people who get all shirty because their view was challenged and the only response they could come back with was to throw around insults. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 2 October, 2013 Share Posted 2 October, 2013 Again, Turkish, you demonstrate your inability to interrogate prose. I asked who would pay for people having to travel to the Job Centre daily rather than weekly. I didn't imply that it was wrong that they had to do so. Just wondering who picked up the tab - the person on £54 a week or the council tax payer. And just wondering what, if any, arrangements would be made for people who had practical difficulties in attending on a daily basis. I remember years ago a film editor friend of mine who was out of work (his studio folded during the last recession). He presented himself daily at haunts in London, where his industry was based, in the hope of picking up freelance work. He's retired now but I guess he wouldn't be able to do that under these proposed rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 2 October, 2013 Share Posted 2 October, 2013 Like people who get all shirty because their view was challenged and the only response they could come back with was to throw around insults. But you see my "view" wasn't challenged was it? Because I hadn't expressed a "view". I'd just asked a question or two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 2 October, 2013 Share Posted 2 October, 2013 But you see my "view" wasn't challenged was it? Because I hadn't expressed a "view". I'd just asked a question or two. You asked a question, one which was a preventative measure to the "work for benefits" campaign. I came up with a viable solution and then you got all arsey about it!! Saying i cant debate and i should reread my "stupid diatribe" You may not like the solution or think its workable but the hilarious assertation that people cant debate follows you throwing around insults, absolutely brilliant stuff!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holepuncture Posted 2 October, 2013 Share Posted 2 October, 2013 Like people who get all shirty because their view was challenged and the only response they could come back with was to throw around insults. Its the same in public with the liberal elite, as soon as you challenge the utopian-guardian ideal with just a small dose of realism and reality, you are met with fist stomping, raised voices, insults and the general loss of rationale that goes with this behaviour. If you back a rat into a corner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 2 October, 2013 Share Posted 2 October, 2013 I'm in favour of making work shy losers sign-on everyday if only to get Turkish off his fat arse to stop him posting his inane drivel on here all day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 2 October, 2013 Share Posted 2 October, 2013 I'm in favour of making work shy losers sign-on everyday if only to get Turkish off his fat arse to stop him posting his inane drivel on here all day. ha ha ha!! I'm glad you've turned up on this thread. Every now and again you think that BTF is the most idiotic person ever to have an internet connection and then you turn up to remind us she'll only ever be second. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 2 October, 2013 Share Posted 2 October, 2013 (edited) Again, Turkish, you demonstrate your inability to interrogate prose. I asked who would pay for people having to travel to the Job Centre daily rather than weekly. I didn't imply that it was wrong that they had to do so. Just wondering who picked up the tab - the person on £54 a week or the council tax payer. And just wondering what, if any, arrangements would be made for people who had practical difficulties in attending on a daily basis. I remember years ago a film editor friend of mine who was out of work (his studio folded during the last recession). He presented himself daily at haunts in London, where his industry was based, in the hope of picking up freelance work. He's retired now but I guess he wouldn't be able to do that under these proposed rules. More patronsing. Good to see. Before i could answer, which i would have you started stamping your feet, bashing your keyboard and throwing around insults. On another note, another "friend" story. If the government introduced a scheme that if you fill out a form they'll give you a £1m you'd no doubt have "a friend" who would find it impossible to do such a thing as they didn't have a pen that worked and it was a disgrace that they should be asked to use their own pen on a government form for one of their schemes. Edited 2 October, 2013 by Turkish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 2 October, 2013 Share Posted 2 October, 2013 You'd probably be more productive and successful if you applied yourself to the job you're paid to do instead of wasting your employer's time by posting on here. Because you're not being very productive or successful on here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 2 October, 2013 Share Posted 2 October, 2013 You'd probably be more productive and successful if you applied yourself to the job you're paid to do instead of wasting your employer's time by posting on here. Because you're not being very productive or successful on here. More insults, oh dear oh dear. You really have let yourself down on this thread. I'd have thought you'd have leartn a bit of self control at your age. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugwash Posted 2 October, 2013 Share Posted 2 October, 2013 Turkish, stop behaving like a knob. You started the mudslinging and moaned about 'insults' when btf came back with her retort. Stop baiting and start debating. As it happens your original point is valid. Develop it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelk Posted 2 October, 2013 Share Posted 2 October, 2013 You'd probably be more productive and successful if you applied yourself to the job you're paid to do instead of wasting your employer's time by posting on here. Because you're not being very productive or successful on here. Was just think this was all gong on during the middle if the day and don't you lot have jobs to do. Disciplinary where I work stealing so much from your employer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 2 October, 2013 Share Posted 2 October, 2013 Was just think this was all gong on during the middle if the day and don't you lot have jobs to do. Disciplinary where I work stealing so much from your employer I can plead not guilty m'lud - I'm retired and squash my comments in between taking my grandchildren to and from school and nursery. Can't speak for the rest though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 3 October, 2013 Share Posted 3 October, 2013 I can plead not guilty m'lud - I'm retired and squash my comments in between taking my grandchildren to and from school and nursery. Can't speak for the rest though It doesn't usually stop you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tony13579 Posted 3 October, 2013 Share Posted 3 October, 2013 One day a week with this crew would be a fair way to justify benefits http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-24275092 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 5 October, 2013 Share Posted 5 October, 2013 Anyone else seen this? http://stupidsanctions.tumblr.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 9 October, 2013 Share Posted 9 October, 2013 I like this quote from this article http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/09/middle-class-people-child-benefit-fraudsters?CMP=fb_gu "Poor people CLAIM benefits. Middle-class people RECEIVE benefits." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 9 October, 2013 Share Posted 9 October, 2013 I like this quote from this article http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/09/middle-class-people-child-benefit-fraudsters?CMP=fb_gu "Poor people CLAIM benefits. Middle-class people RECEIVE benefits." You really do see the world as "Them" against "Us" don't you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 9 October, 2013 Share Posted 9 October, 2013 You really do see the world as "Them" against "Us" don't you. No - but the article makes a very valid point. It's a quote BTW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KelvinsRightGlove Posted 9 October, 2013 Share Posted 9 October, 2013 Anyone else seen this? http://stupidsanctions.tumblr.com/ Sadly, I can speak from experience. So many of these really are true. I got some ridiculous ones: 2 weeks for not taking my Degree off my CV. 3 weeks for not getting a job @ Poundland - seriously the Job Centre sent 10 people for 1 role, wtf did they expect?! Various other bull**** ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted 9 October, 2013 Share Posted 9 October, 2013 I like this quote from this article http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/09/middle-class-people-child-benefit-fraudsters?CMP=fb_gu "Poor people CLAIM benefits. Middle-class people RECEIVE benefits." But if you read the Guardian's own article, it shows that those that haven't complied will be penalised, so the article you quote doesn't make sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 9 October, 2013 Share Posted 9 October, 2013 But if you read the Guardian's own article, it shows that those that haven't complied will be penalised, so the article you quote doesn't make sense. "But in a stark contrast to families being evicted from their homes by local councils for failing to pay the bedroom tax – sorry – spare room subsidy, form-shy high-earning parents are instead being given a wagged finger and a gentle reminder to file their tax assessments by the 31 January. If they do so, then "any penalties will be disregarded"." The article does make sense because it draws a contrast between being penalised and being demonised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ex Lion Tamer Posted 9 October, 2013 Share Posted 9 October, 2013 You really do see the world as "Them" against "Us" don't you. Well done for completely ignoring the point in hand and getting personal instead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 9 October, 2013 Share Posted 9 October, 2013 Well done for completely ignoring the point in hand and getting personal instead It's water off a duck's back these days - and no more than I expected TBH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 9 October, 2013 Share Posted 9 October, 2013 (edited) This "child tax" is a disgrace! Ah, hang on, scratch that... it's not a 'tax', it's the removal of an unnecessary benefit. Easy mistake... Edited 9 October, 2013 by trousers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted 9 October, 2013 Share Posted 9 October, 2013 "But in a stark contrast to families being evicted from their homes by local councils for failing to pay the bedroom tax – sorry – spare room subsidy, form-shy high-earning parents are instead being given a wagged finger and a gentle reminder to file their tax assessments by the 31 January. If they do so, then "any penalties will be disregarded"." The article does make sense because it draws a contrast between being penalised and being demonised. So they are being given an insentive to do what they're meant to do or they'll be punished, sounds right to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 9 October, 2013 Share Posted 9 October, 2013 Anyone else seen this? http://stupidsanctions.tumblr.com/ Sickening. But I suspect this information - and the experiences of those who've reported these abuses - is wasted on the thrusting Victorian pretend-"entrepreneurs" (aka southern provincial smugs) on here. The frequency with which these stories turn up suggests that job centres are under pressure to deliver a set number of sanctions per week/month (or at least I'd rather think that than believe that job centre staff, who I'm sure are decent people, relish dishing out this abuse on defenceless people). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 9 October, 2013 Share Posted 9 October, 2013 I like this quote from this article http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/09/middle-class-people-child-benefit-fraudsters?CMP=fb_gu "Poor people CLAIM benefits. Middle-class people RECEIVE benefits." By using the self assessment system, the government chose the cheapest implementation method. How much extra tax payers' money would have been required to migrate from a universal system to a claim based system for child benefit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 9 October, 2013 Share Posted 9 October, 2013 Many of you are still missing the salient point of the article, namely if you're an unemployed / disabled benefit claimant you're somehow a shirker to be demonised whereas if you're a well paid parent who hasn't declared income in relation to child benefit you're only likely to gently penalised, if at all. It's hypocritical and smacks of double standards, don't you see? Trousers, I'm surprised that you, of all people, haven't understood the basic tenet of the article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted 9 October, 2013 Share Posted 9 October, 2013 Many of you are still missing the salient point of the article, namely if you're an unemployed / disabled benefit claimant you're somehow a shirker to be demonised whereas if you're a well paid parent who hasn't declared income in relation to child benefit you're only likely to gently penalised, if at all. It's hypocritical and smacks of double standards, don't you see? Trousers, I'm surprised that you, of all people, haven't understood the basic tenet of the article. Isn't this deadline just for paper applications and the on-line deadline is the end of Next January? So we don't know how manyhave avoided what they're meant to be doing, so we don't even know what we're meant to be angry about yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KelvinsRightGlove Posted 9 October, 2013 Share Posted 9 October, 2013 Sickening. But I suspect this information - and the experiences of those who've reported these abuses - is wasted on the thrusting Victorian pretend-"entrepreneurs" (aka southern provincial smugs) on here. The frequency with which these stories turn up suggests that job centres are under pressure to deliver a set number of sanctions per week/month (or at least I'd rather think that than believe that job centre staff, who I'm sure are decent people, relish dishing out this abuse on defenceless people). I don't want to sound like a broken record, but in my 2 years dealing with the JCP the impression I got was that they just wanted to get the amount paid out down by any means necessary. Everything they do is so short-sighted it is untrue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcjwills Posted 9 October, 2013 Share Posted 9 October, 2013 Somebody answer the $64,000 question if there is work for these people on benefits, why is there not at least a minimal wage job for the same work, or are the govt just trying to bring back slavery. One of the other issues is somebody with a mortgage who needs a certain level of income to sevice the payments, is expected to take a minimum wage, have his mortgage protection stopped as he has started work only to get into mortgage arrears because he is not earning enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 9 October, 2013 Share Posted 9 October, 2013 Many of you are still missing the salient point of the article, namely if you're an unemployed / disabled benefit claimant you're somehow a shirker to be demonised whereas if you're a well paid parent who hasn't declared income in relation to child benefit you're only likely to gently penalised, if at all. It's hypocritical and smacks of double standards, don't you see? Trousers, I'm surprised that you, of all people, haven't understood the basic tenet of the article. Possibly because I didn't read it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 9 October, 2013 Share Posted 9 October, 2013 Possibly because I didn't read it I suspect you're not alone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 9 October, 2013 Share Posted 9 October, 2013 I suspect you're not alone At least I'm honest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted 9 October, 2013 Share Posted 9 October, 2013 Somebody answer the $64,000 question if there is work for these people on benefits, why is there not at least a minimal wage job for the same work, or are the govt just trying to bring back slavery. One of the other issues is somebody with a mortgage who needs a certain level of income to sevice the payments, is expected to take a minimum wage, have his mortgage protection stopped as he has started work only to get into mortgage arrears because he is not earning enough. Because there would be no business case for employing someone to do a small amount of litter collection or work in a charity shop (who usually don't pay any wages to a lot of their workers anyway). Whether the scheme is implemented fairly and effectively is another question, but does anyone actually disagree with the principle of "To still qualify for jobseeker's allowance they will have three options - work placements, such as cleaning up litter; daily visits to a job centre; or taking part in compulsory training, for example, to improve their literacy."? Re. your mortgages example - are you suggesting that it is right that the state continues to subsidise someone not to work while he has opportunities for employment but does not want to give up a certain standard of living he/she has become accustomed to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KelvinsRightGlove Posted 9 October, 2013 Share Posted 9 October, 2013 Somebody answer the $64,000 question if there is work for these people on benefits, why is there not at least a minimal wage job for the same work, or are the govt just trying to bring back slavery. One of the other issues is somebody with a mortgage who needs a certain level of income to sevice the payments, is expected to take a minimum wage, have his mortgage protection stopped as he has started work only to get into mortgage arrears because he is not earning enough. I'd really like to know how these companies (usually rather big companies that can probably afford to pay at least the minimum wage) get chosen to. Employ these people whilst the govt pays their benefits. Again my experience (sorry, I don't have much else to go on), I worked as an intern full-time for a small music company, as it was the only job offer I'd come close to getting. I had to stop claiming JSA. I was very fortunate that my stepdad was kind enough to loan me some money to help with travel costs. But how would anyone ene do that. Ultimately, that internship was far more valuable than stacking shelves unpaid in poundland/tesco - or standing at a photocopier all day unpaid for the nhs. If you are going to make people work unpaid, really at the cost of the tax payer, does it not make sense to get them doing something that is going to help them long term, ie getting experience/skills that will give them the opportunity to gain employment afterwards, and maybe even further themselves, and thus contribute more in tax? Or is that just far too sensible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted 9 October, 2013 Share Posted 9 October, 2013 I'd really like to know how these companies (usually rather big companies that can probably afford to pay at least the minimum wage) get chosen to. Employ these people whilst the govt pays their benefits. Again my experience (sorry, I don't have much else to go on), I worked as an intern full-time for a small music company, as it was the only job offer I'd come close to getting. I had to stop claiming JSA. I was very fortunate that my stepdad was kind enough to loan me some money to help with travel costs. But how would anyone ene do that. Ultimately, that internship was far more valuable than stacking shelves unpaid in poundland/tesco - or standing at a photocopier all day unpaid for the nhs. If you are going to make people work unpaid, really at the cost of the tax payer, does it not make sense to get them doing something that is going to help them long term, ie getting experience/skills that will give them the opportunity to gain employment afterwards, and maybe even further themselves, and thus contribute more in tax? Or is that just far too sensible? What extra training or experience would liked to have been offered by the government while unemployed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcjwills Posted 9 October, 2013 Share Posted 9 October, 2013 Re. your mortgages example - are you suggesting that it is right that the state continues to subsidise someone not to work while he has opportunities for employment but does not want to give up a certain standard of living he/she has become accustomed to? So they are forced to take a job that they know will lead to them losing their house. That is really going to inspire them to wasn't too keep that job. That is why they pay their mortgage insurance to cover the costs until they can get suitable employment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted 9 October, 2013 Share Posted 9 October, 2013 So they are forced to take a job that they know will lead to them losing their house. That is really going to inspire them to wasn't too keep that job. That is why they pay their mortgage insurance to cover the costs until they can get suitable employment. But how many jobs can they turn down and how fussy should they be allowed to be? Why should the taxpayer subsidise him/her to sit at home for 6 months until a particular job that suits their situation comes along? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 9 October, 2013 Share Posted 9 October, 2013 But how many jobs can they turn down and how fussy should they be allowed to be? Why should the taxpayer subsidise him/her to sit at home for 6 months until a particular job that suits their situation comes along? Why should the taxpayer underwrite mortgages for second homes under the latest 'inspired' Government initiative ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now