Unbelievable Jeff Posted 14 January, 2014 Share Posted 14 January, 2014 http://www.hazemagazine.co.uk/benefit-street-the-facts-infographic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint si Posted 14 January, 2014 Share Posted 14 January, 2014 http://www.hazemagazine.co.uk/benefit-street-the-facts-infographic A few points/observations from me. I'm not trying to argue any particular point... could probably try and work them into a coherent argument, but really haven't got the inclination this morning! - Few people begrudge the existence of benefits. It's a valuable safety net. We are a better nation for having it. We should not end up like the US. - It is, however, only supposed to be a safety net. It is absolutely supposed to be hard to live on benefits. It is supposed to be an absolute last resort, not an entitlement or a choice. - The fact that "only" £x is spent on benefits is missing the point. There are absolutely communities where being on benefits is considered the norm. There are also people that actively choose benefits over working ... not saying this is necessarily as prevalent as some parts of the media would imply, but there's no denying it exists. This should be completely unacceptable to anyone in their right mind. Not just for the taxpayer burden, but for the good of communities, social fabric, and quality of life of those caught up in it (and their children). - The fact that £x more is lost through tax avoidance/evasion is also not the point. That also needs sorting out but doesn't make some of the problems associated with benefits any less real. - "I've paid in for X years" is a really irritating argument. Yes, and that's what paid for the police, NHS, defence, judiciary, fire service, etc etc that you have had the benefit of since you were born. - I'm glad to see that minimum wage pays better than benefits. That argument is often trotted out. Perhaps the bigger problem here is underemployment. It's one thing to go to a job that provides 30+ hours a week. But what about one that only provides 15 or 20 (or no guarantee at all)? Zero hours contracts potentially need some regulation as they are acting as a barrier to entering the workforce for many. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 14 January, 2014 Share Posted 14 January, 2014 http://www.hazemagazine.co.uk/benefit-street-the-facts-infographic Duplicate post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ex Lion Tamer Posted 14 January, 2014 Share Posted 14 January, 2014 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. Even at its current low level, the minimum wage has mean a "significant fall in wage inequality": http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/5412 If you get rid of it, there will be more people living in worse poverty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KelvinsRightGlove Posted 14 January, 2014 Share Posted 14 January, 2014 Having watched both eps last night, and having a little time to reflect I can't help feel this is a TOWIE/Made in Chelsea does Shameless if I'm honest. Not even the worst example of voyeurism on C4 - The Undateables anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 14 January, 2014 Share Posted 14 January, 2014 Even at its current low level, the minimum wage has mean a "significant fall in wage inequality": If you get rid of it, there will be more people living in worse poverty The significant fall has been achieved by the welfare part, nothing to do with the "minimum wage". Meanwhile companies get a government subsidy to ensure that they keep their payroll down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 14 January, 2014 Share Posted 14 January, 2014 The significant fall has been achieved by the welfare part, nothing to do with the "minimum wage". Meanwhile companies get a government subsidy to ensure that they keep their payroll down. Er... the companies don't actually receive anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cryoman1965 Posted 14 January, 2014 Share Posted 14 January, 2014 Er... the companies don't actually receive anything.[/quote The point L D is making is companies can pay staff a crap wage knowing that some will get it subserdised (sp) by the welfare system allowing them to have larger profits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 14 January, 2014 Share Posted 14 January, 2014 Er... the companies don't actually receive anything.[/quote The point L D is making is companies can pay staff a crap wage knowing that some will get it subserdised (sp) by the welfare system allowing them to have larger profits. That's a very convoluted argument. There are companies who can't afford to pay any more and aren't making any profits. Anyway, how does this differ from raising personal allowances in order to take the lower paid out of taxation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 14 January, 2014 Share Posted 14 January, 2014 That's a very convoluted argument. There are companies who can't afford to pay any more and aren't making any profits. Anyway, how does this differ from raising personal allowances in order to take the lower paid out of taxation? If a business can only make money by relying on government money to top up staff wages, then I suggest that they need to look again at their business model. If I had a cleaning company and paid people the minimum wage, which was not topped up by the government, I would have trouble finding staff to fulfill my contracts. I would have 2 options, pay my staff more to attract people or go to the wall. How i find the money to pay for the extra staff costs will depend on my ability as a business man. I could pass the costs onto my customers, risking them going elsewhere (but remember they'll have the same issues i have, with no top up from taxpayer) . I could take reduced profits or i could become the "John Lewis" of cleaning companies, paying my staff well, and attaracting the best cleaners around. People would pay a premium to have my well paid staff clean for them, and they have the satisfaction of not receiving hand outs from the state. At the moment there's no incentive at all to pay more than the bare minimum. The other thing these government wage subsidies do, is keep people at the bottom. I have experiance of this at work. Trying to promote people to supervisor level, but the loss of top up benefits means, they dont take any extra money home. Now, some people are happy with the chance, but most say why bother with the extra hassle and hours for the same money? Surely the best way to cut the benefit bill is to slowly move towards no more in work benefit, and I include child benefit in that. The first step in this long journey should be to raise the minimum wage to a living wage. Your point about tax thresholds is very leftie . It is our money, by reducing tax and thresholds the governemnt is not giving us money, it is taking less of our money, a completely different thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 14 January, 2014 Share Posted 14 January, 2014 If a business can only make money by relying on government money to top up staff wages, then I suggest that they need to look again at their business model. If I had a cleaning company and paid people the minimum wage, which was not topped up by the government, I would have trouble finding staff to fulfill my contracts. I would have 2 options, pay my staff more to attract people or go to the wall. How i find the money to pay for the extra staff costs will depend on my ability as a business man. I could pass the costs onto my customers, risking them going elsewhere (but remember they'll have the same issues i have, with no top up from taxpayer) . I could take reduced profits or i could become the "John Lewis" of cleaning companies, paying my staff well, and attaracting the best cleaners around. People would pay a premium to have my well paid staff clean for them, and they have the satisfaction of not receiving hand outs from the state. At the moment there's no incentive at all to pay more than the bare minimum. The other thing these government wage subsidies do, is keep people at the bottom. I have experiance of this at work. Trying to promote people to supervisor level, but the loss of top up benefits means, they dont take any extra money home. Now, some people are happy with the chance, but most say why bother with the extra hassle and hours for the same money? Surely the best way to cut the benefit bill is to slowly move towards no more in work benefit, and I include child benefit in that. The first step in this long journey should be to raise the minimum wage to a living wage. Your point about tax thresholds is very leftie . It is our money, by reducing tax and thresholds the governemnt is not giving us money, it is taking less of our money, a completely different thing. OK then how does that work then for a children's nursery? Please name a children's nursery that pays the living wage and is financially viable. Your solution would be to charge parents more. How would that work considering how much they are already charged? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 15 January, 2014 Share Posted 15 January, 2014 OK then how does that work then for a children's nursery? Please name a children's nursery that pays the living wage and is financially viable. Your solution would be to charge parents more. How would that work considering how much they are already charged? I can't name one, because there is no need for any nursery to pay the living wage. People will work there for a minimum wage because of the taxpayers top up. Do you think that the money nurseries cost is in anyway linked to the child care portion of the wftc. If the government is going to help with peoples child care costs, where is the market pressure to reduce costs going to come from If the government decided to help people pay for their food, it wouldn't be too long before the supermarkets started increasing their prices. Same principle applys to rents, paying housing benefit drives the cost of rent up, because the market is not allowed to punish people for overcharging, via a loss of customers. Im not saying that we should cut all state aid in one swift kick in the balls. But we need to move towards a goal of welfare only for the few needy people temporary down on their luck and with no work. In work benefits can not be right. It is not sustainable to just chuck money at a problem, its a never ending cycle of debt. How does paying someone in work' s rent, keep rent prices down. How does susbsidising child care , keep prices down. What keeps prices down is people voting with their feet." Im not paying that " and "Im not working for that". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 16 January, 2014 Author Share Posted 16 January, 2014 Hehe. Parasite Street. Coming soon to Channel 4? http://www.parasite-street.co.uk/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Who? Posted 16 January, 2014 Share Posted 16 January, 2014 This program reminds me of when I was living in Cranbury Avenue. In the one shared B&B. A bloke with a knife fettish, a man with a very sheepish dog, a hooker and a serious drug addict. At the top of this B&B me, my mum and dad and my sister. I was 15 (what a way to grow up). Over the way was a bloke in his 40's who lived in a garage who used to do inappropriate things through the window! Weird avenue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 17 January, 2014 Share Posted 17 January, 2014 Great balanced article from Frasier Nelson in this weeks Spectator. Don't know how to post a link, or even if I can cause I use the app , but people should have a look if they get half a chance. There's normally a decent podcast each week , so I expect the article to feature in that as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 22 January, 2014 Share Posted 22 January, 2014 http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/01/podcast-benefits-street-vs-the-left-camerons-euro-mission-and-our-1964-expose/ Some real common sense on this podcast from Frank Field on the show and the problems of the benefit trap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solentstars Posted 22 January, 2014 Share Posted 22 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. good post i have not watched the program and have no interest has i expect its been heavily edited to appeal to certain sections of our society who reinforces the views they hold and tars all those on benefits the same . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ex Lion Tamer Posted 22 January, 2014 Share Posted 22 January, 2014 The significant fall has been achieved by the welfare part, nothing to do with the "minimum wage". Meanwhile companies get a government subsidy to ensure that they keep their payroll down. Working tax credits are a completely different thing to the minimum wage and have been around in one form or another for much longer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_tax_credit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Minimum_Wage_Act_1998 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 11 March, 2014 Author Share Posted 11 March, 2014 They're looking to do season two in Merseyside. Already been knocked back. http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/controversial-channel-four-show-benefits-6797582 Guess that's what happens when you fool people into appearing on something like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 12 March, 2014 Share Posted 12 March, 2014 They're looking to do season two in Merseyside. Already been knocked back. http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/controversial-channel-four-show-benefits-6797582 Guess that's what happens when you fool people into appearing on something like this. It was interesting tv, but for the wrong reasons. Shouldn't show it as it encourages lazy stereotyping. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastleighSoulBoy Posted 12 March, 2014 Share Posted 12 March, 2014 It was interesting tv, but for the wrong reasons. Shouldn't show it as it encourages lazy stereotyping. But it feeds the frenzy and keeps people's minds off of what this government is doing, not just by stealth but quite openly. In the thirties the German government blamed all their woes on the Jews. In this day and age ours blames the sick, the unemployed (grouping the shirkers and the genuine cases as one) and gets the kippers to blame the immigrants. When is this going to end? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Sanchez Posted 12 March, 2014 Share Posted 12 March, 2014 A few points/observations from me. I'm not trying to argue any particular point... could probably try and work them into a coherent argument, but really haven't got the inclination this morning! - Few people begrudge the existence of benefits. It's a valuable safety net. We are a better nation for having it. We should not end up like the US. - It is, however, only supposed to be a safety net. It is absolutely supposed to be hard to live on benefits. It is supposed to be an absolute last resort, not an entitlement or a choice. - The fact that "only" £x is spent on benefits is missing the point. There are absolutely communities where being on benefits is considered the norm. There are also people that actively choose benefits over working ... not saying this is necessarily as prevalent as some parts of the media would imply, but there's no denying it exists. This should be completely unacceptable to anyone in their right mind. Not just for the taxpayer burden, but for the good of communities, social fabric, and quality of life of those caught up in it (and their children). - The fact that £x more is lost through tax avoidance/evasion is also not the point. That also needs sorting out but doesn't make some of the problems associated with benefits any less real. - "I've paid in for X years" is a really irritating argument. Yes, and that's what paid for the police, NHS, defence, judiciary, fire service, etc etc that you have had the benefit of since you were born. - I'm glad to see that minimum wage pays better than benefits. That argument is often trotted out. Perhaps the bigger problem here is underemployment. It's one thing to go to a job that provides 30+ hours a week. But what about one that only provides 15 or 20 (or no guarantee at all)? Zero hours contracts potentially need some regulation as they are acting as a barrier to entering the workforce for many. Top post give that man a beer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 15 April, 2014 Author Share Posted 15 April, 2014 Sequel to Benefits Street coming to Southampton? Shít just got interesting! http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/11148701.Benefits_Street_sequel_in_Southampton_/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Sanchez Posted 15 April, 2014 Share Posted 15 April, 2014 Sequel to Benefits Street coming to Southampton? Shít just got interesting! http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/11148701.Benefits_Street_sequel_in_Southampton_/ Southampton is far too nice a City to have such issues, it has the New Forest nearby after all............................ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 15 April, 2014 Author Share Posted 15 April, 2014 Don't think Southampton should entertain it, if Love Productions decide to use the same (ahem) editing tricks as they did in Brum. My middle bro lives there and I visit quite a bit. I love the area. Proper mix of nationalities, religions and even sub-cultures. The Hells Angels are based down that way; they put a firework show on every year. Judging from Benefits Street, this show will make Derby Road look like complete sh!t and stir up the racists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mack rill Posted 15 April, 2014 Share Posted 15 April, 2014 Oh my,,,,so its not pikey island that keeps Man@matterland in the green with guv benifits:rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golden Balls Posted 16 April, 2014 Share Posted 16 April, 2014 Bad news if this goes ahead. Not only in Southampton but anywhere. Will just produce racists. I'm sure some fame hungry people will accept being filmed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Essruu Posted 22 April, 2014 Share Posted 22 April, 2014 They've filmed loads of footage over a fair few weeks already. Filming was taking place tonight in the Road and in The Old Farmhouse too. I've seen some of the people they've been talking to: This is going to be embarrassing. 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