pap Posted 13 January, 2014 Author Share Posted 13 January, 2014 (edited) Seven reasons to stop b!tching about people on benefits. A top read. http://bit.ly/1axjq5G Edited 13 January, 2014 by pap Changed the link to beat swear filter. Because we're all five years old, naturally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 13 January, 2014 Share Posted 13 January, 2014 Seven reasons to stop b!tching about people on benefits. A top read. http://bit.ly/1axjq5G As we all know, as with most things, not all people on benefits are like the people portrayed on the program. However, they are also not all deserving, hard working people down on their luck. I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. The issue Governments have is being able to accurately distribute benefits to those who deserve it. So either you give to too many people and we waste a certain amount of money on people that don't deserve it, or some people fall through the net. Difficult situation in all honesty, but no-one who deserves benefits should be turned down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 13 January, 2014 Share Posted 13 January, 2014 Doesn't work for me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 13 January, 2014 Share Posted 13 January, 2014 Seven reasons to stop b!tching about people on benefits. A top read. http://bit.ly/1axjq5G No surprise that blog is from a rabid lefty who supports dancing on a dead woman's grave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 13 January, 2014 Author Share Posted 13 January, 2014 Doesn't work for me Edited, WG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 13 January, 2014 Share Posted 13 January, 2014 As we all know, as with most things, not all people on benefits are like the people portrayed on the program. However, they are also not all deserving, hard working people down on their luck. I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. The issue Governments have is being able to accurately distribute benefits to those who deserve it. So either you give to too many people and we waste a certain amount of money on people that don't deserve it, or some people fall through the net. Difficult situation in all honesty, but no-one who deserves benefits should be turned down. Is the correct answer. When used correctly, benefits are a necessary part of living in a civilised society. The issues are with the types of people featured on this programme who have been playing the system and cheating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 13 January, 2014 Author Share Posted 13 January, 2014 No surprise that blog is from a rabid lefty who supports dancing on a dead woman's grave. Are you in favour of benefit claimants living on the streets then, hypo? Is that an acceptable price to pay for your tax bill? Let's not forget; a large proportion of benefits go to those in work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 13 January, 2014 Share Posted 13 January, 2014 The benefits system is wonderful when used correctly but reforms were badly needed. It does appear that the rules have been tightened in recent months (though I admit I do not have an in-depth knowledge of the revised system) and as a consequence, hopefully certain members of society will be unable to falsely make claims they are not entitled to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 13 January, 2014 Share Posted 13 January, 2014 (edited) And all the living wage stuff unfairly penalises certain businesses. If I were forced to pay a living wage to all employees then I would have to close and everyone would be unemployed. I pay what I can afford and have a lower wage myself than many of my employees. It annoys me how all employers are portrayed as money grabbing. We are actually looking at charitable status since we don't do what we do for the money. Edited 13 January, 2014 by hypochondriac Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Sanchez Posted 13 January, 2014 Share Posted 13 January, 2014 And all the living wage stuff unfairly penalises certain businesses. If I were forced to pay a living wage to all employees then I would have to close and everyone would be unemployed. I pay what I can afford and have a lower wage myself than many of my employees. So the the Government in a bizarre way is socialist/capitalist? Pay a living wage tp people and if companies can not compete then they should go to the wall, why should the worker suffer to keep others in business? If we cant compete against overseas cheap labour simply put tariffs on them, they do in other Countries, does not fit in with our Liberal agenda though......................... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 13 January, 2014 Share Posted 13 January, 2014 So the the Government in a bizarre way is socialist/capitalist? Pay a living wage tp people and if companies can not compete then they should go to the wall, why should the worker suffer to keep others in business? If we cant compete against overseas cheap labour simply put tariffs on them, they do in other Countries, does not fit in with our Liberal agenda though......................... Well as I run children's nurseries, my choice would be to put up prices for families that are already struggling. Two of my settings lose money but are kept open because they are in deprived areas where their services are needed. Thankfully there is much more to childcare than simply figures on a balance sheet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 13 January, 2014 Share Posted 13 January, 2014 So the the Government in a bizarre way is socialist/capitalist? Pay a living wage tp people and if companies can not compete then they should go to the wall, why should the worker suffer to keep others in business? If we cant compete against overseas cheap labour simply put tariffs on them, they do in other Countries, does not fit in with our Liberal agenda though......................... That would still make those products and services more expensive and possibly unaffordable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 13 January, 2014 Share Posted 13 January, 2014 Edited, WG Still not working, message reads: Sorry, the page you were looking for in this blog does not exist. - See more at: http://sorrelish.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/7-reasons-why-you-should-stop-*****ing.html#sthash.49lBGt45.dpuf Probably because of the asterisks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 13 January, 2014 Share Posted 13 January, 2014 Still not working, message reads: Sorry, the page you were looking for in this blog does not exist. - See more at: http://sorrelish.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/7-reasons-why-you-should-stop-*****ing.html#sthash.49lBGt45.dpuf Probably because of the asterisks. just change the stars in the address bar to b*tching Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 13 January, 2014 Share Posted 13 January, 2014 That would still make those products and services more expensive and possibly unaffordable. If I wanted to I could streamline the business, make a lot more money than I do and pay everyone a living wage. The problem is we would lose services that are vital for the community. Any profit I make goes straight back into the business which benefits everyone since the bigger we are the more we can afford to pay staff. It isn't as black and white as people make out and being an employer does not make you inherently evil or a money grabber (as some like to make out!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 13 January, 2014 Share Posted 13 January, 2014 Well as I run children's nurseries, my choice would be to put up prices for families that are already struggling. Two of my settings lose money but are kept open because they are in deprived areas where their services are needed. Thankfully there is much more to childcare than simply figures on a balance sheet. There is an article on the costs of childcare on the BBC website today. An extract from the article says: "More of the cost of providing childcare is passed to the parents in England than in other European countries. Generally, here we ask the parents to pay two-thirds of the cost of provision. In other European countries parents are asked to pay more like a third" I think the article is very fair - what do you think Hypo? I'm well aware how expensive childcare is for my two daughters - it cost them each c £400 a month extra when I wasn't able to do my regular childcare for each of them for one day a week. I also know how poorly paid nursery nurses are and it's clear from what Hypo says that he's not profiteering either. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-25685652 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 13 January, 2014 Share Posted 13 January, 2014 So the the Government in a bizarre way is socialist/capitalist? Pay a living wage tp people and if companies can not compete then they should go to the wall, why should the worker suffer to keep others in business? If we cant compete against overseas cheap labour simply put tariffs on them, they do in other Countries, does not fit in with our Liberal agenda though......................... The minimum wage is one big con trick, perpetrated by the Labour party, but everybody turns a blind eye and pretends it's so great social development in this country. How on earth can you set a minimum wage, that people cant live on? What basically happens is companies pay disgracefully low wages that we then top up, saving the said companies millions. If we didn't top those wages up, people wouldn't work for the companies, they'd be better off on the dole. The upshot of this would be that Companies would have to increase their wages to actually get people to work for them. Tesco, B&Q, ASDA, to name 3 make millions of pounds in profit, how much of our money is used to top up their workers pay which they should be paying? Long term the minimum wage keeps workers pay down, and company profits up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 13 January, 2014 Share Posted 13 January, 2014 Of course companies make profits. If they didn't they wouldn't last long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 13 January, 2014 Share Posted 13 January, 2014 (edited) There is an article on the costs of childcare on the BBC website today. An extract from the article says: "More of the cost of providing childcare is passed to the parents in England than in other European countries. Generally, here we ask the parents to pay two-thirds of the cost of provision. In other European countries parents are asked to pay more like a third" I think the article is very fair - what do you think Hypo? I'm well aware how expensive childcare is for my two daughters - it cost them each c £400 a month extra when I wasn't able to do my regular childcare for each of them for one day a week. I also know how poorly paid nursery nurses are and it's clear from what Hypo says that he's not profiteering either. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-25685652 Our view has always been that we would love to pay our staff more and we pay what we can afford. I worked out the other day that for the last three months of the year I lived on £200 a month so I do know how hard our staff work and also how important their job is. I think that article is very fair since it does outline the costs. The government in general are very dismissive of early childcare and are looking to start school style education at an earlier and earlier age yet this contradicts the evidence in front of our eyes. In my view we should do what other countries do and realise that if we can provide proper love, care and learning through play with our youngest in society then we reap the benefits later down the line when we have a generation who have learnt life skills and who are more likely to look after themselves and the world around them. The government paying less into childcare is just another example of how low their view of early childcare actually is. My main gripe at the moment is the waste of money that is the Ofsted inspections. These are now triggered due to a complaint of any nature. Our last three complaints have been early ones and have been malicious in nature. All three were ridiculous complaints either from neighbours making up stuff or parents who rang Ofsted after we asked them to pay what they owed. In every case the complaints were found to be unfounded. Ofsted spend all their time running around checking complaints rather than doing their job and I know this is not just my nurseries. My idea of a utopia for childcare is when there is a recognition (as there is in many countries such as Australia) that early years are as important if not more so than school and where the best nurseries are trusted to provide proper care and stimulation for children based around their interests rather than doing observations in order to satisfy the Early Years curriculum. The importance of learning through play has been denigrated by the government yet studies have consistently proven them to be the most effective and most vital part of a young child's life. Sweden have it cracked- they don't start any sort of academic learning or "school readiness" until they actually start school yet they have the highest literacy rate in Europe once they start secondary school! Unfortunately over here we have a culture of blame that says that when bad things happen someone has to be at fault so it can never happen here. Staff are all scared stiff that they will be accused of negligence so you can never have the same learning experiences or the freedom to do their job. I have always considered it curious that a minister in charge of something like defence or childcare has to be chosen from the cabinet. This means that they are handicapped before they start since they typically have absolutely no experience of the profession they are looking at. I am told that in other countries such as Germany there is no such requirement. It is evident that the current minister in charge of Early Years education (Elizabeth Truss) has absolutely no experience of childcare and how it works. It seems strange to give such a vitally important role to such a complete novice. I do realise this has gone slightly off track and I apologise but it's something I feel strongly about! Edited 13 January, 2014 by hypochondriac Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 13 January, 2014 Share Posted 13 January, 2014 The minimum wage is one big con trick, perpetrated by the Labour party, but everybody turns a blind eye and pretends it's so great social development in this country. How on earth can you set a minimum wage, that people cant live on? What basically happens is companies pay disgracefully low wages that we then top up, saving the said companies millions. If we didn't top those wages up, people wouldn't work for the companies, they'd be better off on the dole. The upshot of this would be that Companies would have to increase their wages to actually get people to work for them. Tesco, B&Q, ASDA, to name 3 make millions of pounds in profit, how much of our money is used to top up their workers pay which they should be paying? Long term the minimum wage keeps workers pay down, and company profits up. Given what I have outlined in my earlier posts, how does that work for my company? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 13 January, 2014 Share Posted 13 January, 2014 If I wanted to I could streamline the business, make a lot more money than I do and pay everyone a living wage. The problem is we would lose services that are vital for the community. Any profit I make goes straight back into the business which benefits everyone since the bigger we are the more we can afford to pay staff. It isn't as black and white as people make out and being an employer does not make you inherently evil or a money grabber (as some like to make out!) Be interesting to know how much the break even is on childcare costs, we pay £600 (or thereabouts) for 2 days a week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 13 January, 2014 Share Posted 13 January, 2014 Be interesting to know how much the break even is on childcare costs, we pay £600 (or thereabouts) for 2 days a week. I assure you, the way we run is not hugely profitable! We make a small profit but as I said that goes back into the business. Things which are killers- business rates, fire safety regulations (tens of thousands of pounds for that), maintenance costs, pest control etc and that is just the last few months. Costs do vary depending on where you are in the country, but a full day for one child for us is about 46 (under 3) and 43 (over 3). Last time I checked anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 13 January, 2014 Share Posted 13 January, 2014 One of the things suggested in the article is greater use of established 'education' buildings such as schools. I know of two schools in my area that run nursery classes as well. I imagine savings could be made there in terms of economies of scale and I suppose it's an easier transition to 'big school' when the time comes. But there are still the staff costs and all the other considerations Hypo mentions. My girls pay £100 a week per session (so about £400 a week each) but I realise that close to London is going to be more expensive than some other areas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Sanchez Posted 13 January, 2014 Share Posted 13 January, 2014 Be interesting to know how much the break even is on childcare costs, we pay £600 (or thereabouts) for 2 days a week. £600 a week on nursery? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Sanchez Posted 13 January, 2014 Share Posted 13 January, 2014 We are looking around at the moment and you obviously want to get the best possible, it varies for us around here between £35 to £43 a day. Probably other areas cheaper/more expensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 13 January, 2014 Share Posted 13 January, 2014 (edited) One of the things suggested in the article is greater use of established 'education' buildings such as schools. I know of two schools in my area that run nursery classes as well. I imagine savings could be made there in terms of economies of scale and I suppose it's an easier transition to 'big school' when the time comes. But there are still the staff costs and all the other considerations Hypo mentions. My girls pay £100 a week per session (so about £400 a week each) but I realise that close to London is going to be more expensive than some other areas. We run pre-schools within two schools. We find that whilst this works for small groups, it is unworkable for larger groups and definitely would not work with younger ages (2 and under). Really school buildings are unsuitable for younger age groups because that isn't who they are designed for. The benefit of having your own building is that you can design things specifically for that age group. Nurseries within schools are fine but they aren't suitable for all age groups or needs. One issue we have found is that typically schools lock up at three. If we were to try to run a nursery that closed at 6 we would run into problems. Additionally, working with a school can be problematic. Typically there is less garden area (our gardens within our own buildings I think are one of our main strengths) and you have to negotiate a lot if you want things like more cupboard or storage space which can be a headache. The cynic in me would suggest that the government are keen for nurseries within schools because that way they can get them operating in a school environment (sitting at tables and "learning") much quicker and earlier. The argument appears to be that rather than letting them adjust in reception, if nursery becomes school-lite then they will behave once they start school. It's a terrible idea. BTF how long is that session and does it include lunch? Edited 13 January, 2014 by hypochondriac Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 13 January, 2014 Share Posted 13 January, 2014 We are looking around at the moment and you obviously want to get the best possible, it varies for us around here between £35 to £43 a day. Probably other areas cheaper/more expensive. I would guess that is about average for the North which is obviously going to be cheaper than down here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 13 January, 2014 Share Posted 13 January, 2014 ........ BTF how long is that session and does it include lunch? Off the top of my head, I think they're there from 8:00 to 6:00 and they have breakfast, lunch and tea at nursery. I'm never quite sure how the sessions work out. Not such an issue at the moment as both babies are just over 15 months old but they start to get subsidised at 2 or 3 (??) but for hours rather than sessions I think. Their nursery is part of a franchise and it's a lovely place. I was a bit anti when the older children, now at school, started but the benefits are so clear to see with their social development. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 13 January, 2014 Share Posted 13 January, 2014 Off the top of my head, I think they're there from 8:00 to 6:00 and they have breakfast, lunch and tea at nursery. I'm never quite sure how the sessions work out. Not such an issue at the moment as both babies are just over 15 months old but they start to get subsidised at 2 or 3 (??) but for hours rather than sessions I think. Their nursery is part of a franchise and it's a lovely place. I was a bit anti when the older children, now at school, started but the benefits are so clear to see with their social development. Yes at 2 they will get 2 year funding for a certain amount of hours per week. That does seem like quite a lot although I'm not familiar with London prices to be fair. I have always felt that a mix of nursery and home care is the best idea. Nursery is important for social development and for developing independence away from parents but leaving a child in a nursery all the time (unless you are forced to due to work etc) is in my opinion negligent parenting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minty Posted 13 January, 2014 Share Posted 13 January, 2014 I think this is the first time ever that a thread has IMPROVED by going off-topic... ;-) Interesting reading - agree entirely with Hypo's opinion about childcare at younger ages and his 'utopia'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Sanchez Posted 13 January, 2014 Share Posted 13 January, 2014 I would guess that is about average for the North which is obviously going to be cheaper than down here. £300 a day seems a tad steep though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Sanchez Posted 13 January, 2014 Share Posted 13 January, 2014 Yes at 2 they will get 2 year funding for a certain amount of hours per week. That does seem like quite a lot although I'm not familiar with London prices to be fair. I have always felt that a mix of nursery and home care is the best idea. Nursery is important for social development and for developing independence away from parents but leaving a child in a nursery all the time (unless you are forced to due to work etc) is in my opinion negligent parenting. That is the reason we are sending our baby in June, for social reasons, that but is worth it but it is very expensive none the less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 13 January, 2014 Share Posted 13 January, 2014 Yes at 2 they will get 2 year funding for a certain amount of hours per week. That does seem like quite a lot although I'm not familiar with London prices to be fair. I have always felt that a mix of nursery and home care is the best idea. Nursery is important for social development and for developing independence away from parents but leaving a child in a nursery all the time (unless you are forced to due to work etc) is in my opinion negligent parenting. I agree with you about a mix. Both girls are finding it much harder second time around to work full time. One spreads her full time hours over four long days so that she's got one day with her baby. Her mother-in-law doesn't help out unfortunately. By persuading her mother-in-law and me to do an extra half day each, my other daughter has worked out that she can to cut down to four days a week. It does seem harsh that both girls, although in well-paid jobs, see half their salaries going to child care provision. Of course they knew this would be the way of the world before they had children but they're between a rock and a hard place really. Wanting to have children but wanting (and needing) to continue their careers. I'm glad I never had that choice to make! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 13 January, 2014 Share Posted 13 January, 2014 £300 a day seems a tad steep though? Definitely but I wasn't sure if he was talking about more than one child. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 13 January, 2014 Share Posted 13 January, 2014 (edited) £600 a week on nursery? Apologies, that's a month for nursery care, 8-6, 2 days per week, under 3. Think it works out at £70 a day or near enough. Edited 13 January, 2014 by Unbelievable Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 13 January, 2014 Share Posted 13 January, 2014 Of course companies make profits. If they didn't they wouldn't last long. But why should the taxpayer increase those profits by keeping their staff costs down? Surely a man's labour should be subject to market forces. Pay too little and you'll not get any staff. At present if you pay too little the mug taxpayer will ensure you've got plenty of staff, without eating in to your profits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 13 January, 2014 Author Share Posted 13 January, 2014 Large families are passed off as typical, even though just 190 out of the 1.35 million claiming an out-of-work benefits have 10 kids or more. I'm being a little picky, but 10 kids isn't where i'd set the bar for a "large" family! Which of course, is fair enough. However, they never really plaster five kid families all over the front page of the Daily Mail. It's all about the families on benefits that can't stop sh!tting kids out, all at taxpayer expense! The article is directly addressing the sensationalism of the Daily Mail pieces. That's fair enough too, surely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Sanchez Posted 13 January, 2014 Share Posted 13 January, 2014 But why should the taxpayer increase those profits by keeping their staff costs down? Surely a man's labour should be subject to market forces. Pay too little and you'll not get any staff. At present if you pay too little the mug taxpayer will ensure you've got plenty of staff, without eating in to your profits. Bang on the money, if people want to run a business they should not do it off the back of the worker, they also should not use they could lose their job bribery, I thought only large companies paying no tax did that, fair wage for all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KelvinsRightGlove Posted 13 January, 2014 Share Posted 13 January, 2014 Watched some on the train home today. Have to say I really don't get the uproar. It's people (mostly lefties) getting up in arms as they like to. Twits like that f***ing Owen Jones. What a douche that guy is. The programme is what it is. It's obviously extreme, and selective, but it doesn't strike me at all as trying to be truly representative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clapham Saint Posted 13 January, 2014 Share Posted 13 January, 2014 Watched some on the train home today. Have to say I really don't get the uproar. It's people (mostly lefties) getting up in arms as they like to. Twits like that f***ing Owen Jones. What a douche that guy is. The programme is what it is. It's obviously extreme, and selective, but it doesn't strike me at all as trying to be truly representative. I've just watched episode 1 and in the main it seemed to be about people genuinely struggling. There is one tw @ t who spent his time shoplifting as much as he could - who rightly spent only a short time out of prison before he went straight back. The couple who I had been told had been "bragging" about benefit fraud were confessing to the camera after they had been caught. I very much hope that tonight's instalment sees them getting their comeuppance ( their benefits have already been stopped) but they were hardly bragging. Their is one stupid and vulnerable drug addict and then the rest of the people featured seemed to me to be genuine people trying to get by with not very much. They talk to their neighbours more than I do too. I was expecting to be outraged by the antics of revolting work shy scum milking money from the tax payer but that really was not the case. End of ramble. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ex Lion Tamer Posted 13 January, 2014 Share Posted 13 January, 2014 The minimum wage is one big con trick, perpetrated by the Labour party, but everybody turns a blind eye and pretends it's so great social development in this country. How on earth can you set a minimum wage, that people cant live on? What basically happens is companies pay disgracefully low wages that we then top up, saving the said companies millions. If we didn't top those wages up, people wouldn't work for the companies, they'd be better off on the dole. The upshot of this would be that Companies would have to increase their wages to actually get people to work for them. Tesco, B&Q, ASDA, to name 3 make millions of pounds in profit, how much of our money is used to top up their workers pay which they should be paying? Long term the minimum wage keeps workers pay down, and company profits up. Surely you're are conflating working tax credits and the minimum wage? It's the government topping up that is the problem, not having a minimum level that companies have to pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KelvinsRightGlove Posted 13 January, 2014 Share Posted 13 January, 2014 Oh Christ the immigrants. Watch the idiots on the right surface. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 13 January, 2014 Share Posted 13 January, 2014 Surely you're are conflating working tax credits and the minimum wage? It's the government topping up that is the problem, not having a minimum level that companies have to pay. Exactly right, Lord D has this wrong, but his underlying point is a good one. The worst benefits scroungers in this country, by some distance, are companies that declare huge profits while paying workers below the threshold at which tax credits are paid. Some of these companies, like Tesco, have recently gone one step further in gross exploitation of its workforce by paying them nothing so that virtually the entire cost of employing them falls on the taxpayer. THIS is benefits scrounging with a (particularly nasty) vengeance. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/nov/16/young-jobseekers-work-pay-unemployment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Sanchez Posted 13 January, 2014 Share Posted 13 January, 2014 Those Romanians deserve a chance, the issue of them being here is moot now as they are here, the system needs to help them more not less, exploited as opposed to protected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 13 January, 2014 Share Posted 13 January, 2014 I think some people owe the programme makers an apology. A largely sympathetic portrayal this week Tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Sanchez Posted 13 January, 2014 Share Posted 13 January, 2014 Oh Christ the immigrants. Watch the idiots on the right surface. Typical ignorant liberal comment based upon nothing other than their own hatred of others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 13 January, 2014 Author Share Posted 13 January, 2014 Fk me, the #benefitsstreet hash tag is grim reading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 13 January, 2014 Share Posted 13 January, 2014 Typical ignorant liberal comment based upon nothing other than their own hatred of others. Are you high? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 13 January, 2014 Author Share Posted 13 January, 2014 IDS is at it already - the excesses of Benefits Street being used to justify further cuts. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/benefits-street-iain-duncan-smith-3019449 The 26K limit on benefits paid out is already under review. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 14 January, 2014 Share Posted 14 January, 2014 Exactly right, Lord D has this wrong, but his underlying point is a good one. The worst benefits scroungers in this country, by some distance, are companies that declare huge profits while paying workers below the threshold at which tax credits are paid. Some of these companies, like Tesco, have recently gone one step further in gross exploitation of its workforce by paying them nothing so that virtually the entire cost of employing them falls on the taxpayer. THIS is benefits scrounging with a (particularly nasty) vengeance. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/nov/16/young-jobseekers-work-pay-unemployment That's exactly what I said. I made no comment as to whether the minimum wage was right or wrong, only that IF you're going to have a minimum wage, it should not be so low that taxpayers have to top it up. My first post described it as a con, I reach that conclusion because it allows Labour to bang on about how wonderful it is, when its so low as to be meaningless. Its not a minimum wage, its a welfare to work scheme that benefits company shareholders and big business. My belief is it either needs to be set at a living wage, or abolished. At the moment we have to worst of all worlds , we dont force companies to pay a decent wage, but we ensure that they can always fill jobs by topping up peoples pay. What is asda's incentive to pay people £9 an hour when they can pay them £7, and the taxman give them the other £2? If i set up a business and budgetted to pay my staff £7 an hour and nobody would work for me at that rate, i either need to increase my wages or my business model is unsustainable. At present government subsidies mean I will fill those jobs and its happy days. Who pays for my happy days, blokes who are in genuine need of welfare, who end up having their benefits cut because the bill is too high and politically its an easier thing to do than insist that people are paid a living wage. 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