L00b 441 #37 Posted December 11, 2008 But then they have less chance of finding a job than those who put more into the pot as you call it and thus stay even longer on benefits. Your argument only makes sense if you are more bothered about 'punishing' people for being on benefits (and it is not a crime) than getting them off benefits and into payed work. The intent is certainly not to 'punish', but to incentivise (for instance, I'd never consider that people on incapacity or disability benefits should fall into this model). You have to look at it as a system of communicating tubes or vases: you need to keep topping up the system with fresh cash increasingly frequently (more & more unemployed = more & more benefits to pay) , but there's only so much accounting trickery the GVT can do to find this extra cash (more & more unemployed/companies bust or making a loss = less & less tax money in). So you need people to stay on benefits as shortly as possible, since when they're not on they are putting in. Who are the people likely to stay on benefits for the shortest time? People with useable/marketable skills. I think you're describing (or basing your point on) a socialist labour market, I'm looking at it from a pragmatic point of view. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
*_ash_* 87 #38 Posted December 11, 2008 Mods. can we have a "bitching about benefits" megathread please? This probably the 5th thread this week on the subject! Maybe it is the 5th. It just shows that people from both sides have a lot to say. I reckon because people tend to be a little skint at Christmas, people notice their wages more. I just did loads of overtime so I'd have some extra money over Christmas, and saw £120 of my wage go in tax. Should people not be allowed to discuss where the money might be going?, or how it should be spent?, whether it makes any difference at all. I can think of a thousand things I'd rather spend my full wage on. And I suspect a lot of others feel the same. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
TESTPASS 10 #39 Posted December 11, 2008 Isn’t JSA a short term benefit, I have been on it but I wanted to work,any work and that included agencies so I can’t vouch for what happens when it runs out, isn’t that when the other schemes kick in, sorry I cant be more specific, we all know it goes on, don’t bury your head in the sand please. You know sod all about the benifits system it seems. as for agencies, well the Gov have set another barrier for the un employed where you need a passport ect to even reg with an agency now. show me a person on the dole that has money to spare to need a passport. I think as working people are starting to struggle they are looking at people on benifits as living the life of riley Well I put it to any of you who think the life is good to do a swap. your jobs for benifits. Beleve me, there are a few bad eggs on the dole but the majority are the same as yourselves when you find yourselves out of work, the majority would love to be doing the job that any of you reading this do and have your lifestyle rarther than the humiliation and bordom and depression that ensues for the long term un employed. Lets debate it but keep it real, not slagging people off to realieve a bit of the days tention Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
epiphany 10 #40 Posted December 11, 2008 I agree with OP regarding corporations avoiding tax. An important issue that needs to be addressed. Another reason to vote Lib Dem. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
willman 10 #41 Posted December 11, 2008 It is no coincidence though that in times of recession one suggestion to drive the economy and influence employment is to employ more public service employees. This reduces unemployment figures and payments and increases tax revenue. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
L00b 441 #42 Posted December 11, 2008 It is no coincidence though that in times of recession one suggestion to drive the economy and influence employment is to employ more public service employees.This reduces unemployment figures and payments True (Of course. Duh!) and increases tax revenue. False. Public service employee wage > Benefits amount paid to same person when unemployed Both benefits and public service employee wage come entirely from tax money, originally. Tax levied on public service employee wage = tax money paid back in tax. It's just going round and round and not generating real value = no economic growth. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Waddle 10 #43 Posted December 11, 2008 Double post Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Waddle 10 #44 Posted December 11, 2008 It is a very interesting situation we have, the Government claim they have over 3000 inspectors out tracking down Benefit Cheats. Amazing, at a cost of £25000 per year each Inspector (conservative estimate), the cost would be around £75million a year! Plus other admin costs. I wonder just how much they save? Not really sure why this should be a factor A crime is a crime, in this case theft/fraud We wouldnt use the same argument about the Police would we ? As they cost us £Xm per year but only recover £Ym from criminals, lets not bother with them Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Digsy 10 #45 Posted December 11, 2008 It is a very interesting situation we have, the Government claim they have over 3000 inspectors out tracking down Benefit Cheats. Amazing, at a cost of £25000 per year each Inspector (conservative estimate), the cost would be around £75million a year! Plus other admin costs. I wonder just how much they save? At the same time, of the Top 700 Corporations in this Country, at least 150 of them paid no Tax last year. Perhaps if the Governemt allocated one Inspector to each of those Corporations, it would be far more cost effective! Another side to this 'attack' on 'poor' people - We are obviously sliding into a deep recession and, when we come out of it, there will be a need for very 'cheap' Labour. This is another tool being used by a 'LABOUR' Government to force wages even lower. Everything this Government has done has been done to support the Rich & Wealthy, people like Bono, who pays no Tax in this Country ( there are others like him), all at the cost of the Workers! Even the so-called ' Middle Classes' are being seriously hit now, along with the 'Working Classes'. Wake up UK to what is happening!! Lets say jobseekers is £65 a week, I don't know if that is right but lets just use that figure. 52x65= 3380 lets say that person is then doing a job that pays 12,000 a year and he should pay 20% tax, he'd be paying 2400 a year. 2400+3380= £5780 + backpayments, legal fees, property obtained. So the answer to your quest is maybe, just maybe they could break even with just the one person depending how much they can legally claim back from them. So why bother, because you would not expect it to take one agent a year to catch one person, they'll probably have a target to meet, and you can guarantee that target will be profitable. You don't honestly think for a second that our system was built by a bunch of idiots that squander money with one hand and place you under the thumb of the other hand do you. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Grandad.Malky 11 #46 Posted December 11, 2008 I wouldnt get out of bed for a fiver an hour never mind work for it,I can earn a hell of a lot more than that without going out of the house Now we are getting somewhere, perhaps you would like to tell us what you would get out of bed for, £10 an hour? Testpass – thanks for your input:rolleyes:, but where did I slag anyone off or suggest that claimants were “living a life of riley”,hope I spelled your name correctly this time Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Thebanginman 10 #47 Posted December 11, 2008 Now we are getting somewhere, perhaps you would like to tell us what you would get out of bed for, £10 an hour? Testpass – thanks for your input:rolleyes:, but where did I slag anyone off or suggest that claimants were “living a life of riley”,hope I spelled your name correctly this time To actually work for somebody else?..they couldnt pay me enough Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
TESTPASS 10 #48 Posted December 11, 2008 Now we are getting somewhere, perhaps you would like to tell us what you would get out of bed for, £10 an hour? Testpass – thanks for your input:rolleyes:, but where did I slag anyone off or suggest that claimants were “living a life of riley”,hope I spelled your name correctly this time well i wont have spelt your name wrong because I dont recall posting anything directly at you ? Im saying that its a misconception that everyone on the dole are scrounging no good low lifes. and that benifits themselves dont pay enough for anyone to live it up on a particular lifestyle without giving something up to pay for it. meaning people that turn to alcohol ect do so at the expence of clothing and food, having free view or cable on the dole is not such a bad thing when you realise that people on the dole dont go on holidays, buy clothing every other week ect. enough money to get buy on is benifits but once the money is in peoples pockets the gov dont have a say how its spent. even if the gov gave food stamps or clothing vouchures they woulkd still be used as curreny but at a lower value than what they would be worth so the poor would become poorer for such a scheme. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...