Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Benefit scroungers ?


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Benefit scroungers ? Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Benefit scroungers ? - 6/30/2010 2:57:35 PM   
juliaoceania


Posts: 21383
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

It really comes down to this, what you are really advocating is sacrificing the social net to save the capitalist system.



Seems you've drawn your conclusion.....Julia.....so that's that on the matter.


You are saying it is unsustainable... it is unsustainable because the capitalist system cannot "support" it, so people must be forced off the social safety net to save the system that caused the trouble in the first place.... if that is not an accurate depiction of your position, I apologize.,.. but it surely reads that way here

_____________________________

Once you label me, you negate me ~ Soren Kierkegaard

Reality has a well known Liberal Bias ~ Stephen Colbert

Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

(in reply to NorthernGent)
Profile   Post #: 61
RE: Benefit scroungers ? - 6/30/2010 2:57:47 PM   
lobodomslavery


Posts: 2477
Joined: 1/17/2008
Status: offline 		Society is totally and utterly damaged. it is favouring the rich outrageously so . The people who do most of the work are punished the hardest. The gap between rich and poor is increasing all the time. The low and middle income earners are taxed the heaviest. The rich get tax breaks. How can one possibly argue that there is social cohesion there . More like social injustice. Ive said it before and I will say it again. What we need is a wealth tax, those on 150,000 pay twenty per cent extra those on 500,000 and more pay 30 per cent extra on top of existing taxes. Why ? Because they can afford to and its called LEADERSHIP .  But it will never happen the rich get more corrupt and more unaccountable and the lower and middle income earners continue to take the hit because of the incompetence of their bosses
kevin

(in reply to NorthernGent)
Profile   Post #: 62
RE: Benefit scroungers ? - 6/30/2010 5:31:59 PM   
Aneirin


Posts: 6121
Joined: 3/18/2006
From: Tamaris
Status: offline 		I am off work due to long term illness, depression and all it brings. My latest health review recommended I continue with what I am doing, as slowly I am beginning to understand there is more to life than a job. You see my understanding is if one is single what is the point of being here except to work and pay taxes so governments can screw us further. I choose to be single, I have learned to enjoy my own company and I have learned to depend upon myself. Benefits have taught me what is important in life and how to live effectively on a small income.

You understand my greatest fear is myself, for I know what I can be like, my only option is self employment as working for others definately invites that which I am trying so hard to rid, depression, for it is a veritable killer. My history is being sacked for not sucking up to the boss, I do what I feel is right and that based upon principles of humanity not business mentality. The other side of me is an effective autocrat a side I don't like, good for business, but it is not nice to be hated and I have been there on that.

Of businesses where I have been involved where my inclusion worked  were businesses that invited a mentality that was different, I pushed a small business to greatness from pure aceptable interest and belief in the job, only to be rewarded with an attitude that I was paid too much when after five years of 16k I sought a pay rise. The end result I left on principle and felt the fire, the frying pan died as a business,  for their expertise went with me. I am aware of the energy I can put in, but that energy from experience is not worth spending working for others, so I hold it back for me.

Take any job, work to a minimum all fine and good, but know it, the way I am, I have to put everything in and be personally satisfied with the end result, good for employers but not good for me in the pay they have agreed to provide. often it is I feel cheated for agreeing to work for such a small amount, but when the option is nothing, what is there left, for low paid work is definately a form of slavery.

I see it this way, which I understand might not be seen by most, when I worked twenty years including serving in the armed forces, I paid via taxes the education of people like myself  now, therefore I expect the same as what was given to others then. I know times have changed, but like pensions, I expect the same good will I and many others gave to others.

Maybe it is how I think is due to my diagnosed learning inability, intelligent but with no knowledge of my true ability, from a schooling that put me down as a waster who would amount to nothing, I remember those words so well from a person at a young age I trusted.

School I see as the culprit in my inability to see my potential as for years I have sought to be put down by others, a continuance of what I was taught to expect and there take whatever job was offered to me and hang onto it with finger nails when the push out was obvious.

But because of my work interest, I sought perhaps what would be akin to an old apprenticeship, I kept searching to find that status was more about a skivvy than the learning, no wonder apprenticeships died a death, for I was a metalworker in an age of information technology, I was out of time for my learning and ability, school had trained me for apprenticeship, but out of school then find the position, my experience was only family of workers got the breaks in the 1980's.


_____________________________

Everything we are is the result of what we have thought, the mind is everything, what we think, we become - Guatama Buddha

Conservatism is distrust of people tempered by fear - William Gladstone

(in reply to NorthernGent)
Profile   Post #: 63
RE: Benefit scroungers ? - 6/30/2010 5:35:05 PM   
juliaoceania


Posts: 21383
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Status: offline 		The first challenge for you is to change everything you just wrote to be positive... we create ourselves and our realities by how we tell our stories... we recreate our reality every time we tell a story about ourselves.

The story you just told is filled with other people's labels, define yourself.

_____________________________

Once you label me, you negate me ~ Soren Kierkegaard

Reality has a well known Liberal Bias ~ Stephen Colbert

Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

(in reply to Aneirin)
Profile   Post #: 64
RE: Benefit scroungers ? - 6/30/2010 5:44:00 PM   
Aneirin


Posts: 6121
Joined: 3/18/2006
From: Tamaris
Status: offline 		I understand I am full of negativity, it is something I am used to from a negative source, but being unemployed on a low income, I am learning to value myself as myself and not an asset for others to use.

I am at college not entirely for the purpose of gaining a BA, but for what college really is and that is personal development, a development that has confronted me hard, for it is very hard to accept when one has been trained through a life of a different idea.

College is full of potential and positivity, but I revile against it as it is not what I am used to. But to give college it's dues, it has found the problem I suffer where school , doctors and industry have been ignorant, which leads me to think of the institutions mentioned they neither care nor have the ability to help others.

College is my break, I am learning a lot about myself, my foibles and my fortes, the end result has now become irrelevant as I am at last understanding what higher education is really about.


_____________________________

Everything we are is the result of what we have thought, the mind is everything, what we think, we become - Guatama Buddha

Conservatism is distrust of people tempered by fear - William Gladstone

(in reply to juliaoceania)
Profile   Post #: 65
RE: Benefit scroungers ? - 6/30/2010 7:11:48 PM   
jennileigh8182


Posts: 173
Joined: 8/1/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: lobodomslavery

Society is totally and utterly damaged. it is favouring the rich outrageously so . The people who do most of the work are punished the hardest. The gap between rich and poor is increasing all the time. The low and middle income earners are taxed the heaviest. The rich get tax breaks. How can one possibly argue that there is social cohesion there . More like social injustice. Ive said it before and I will say it again. What we need is a wealth tax, those on 150,000 pay twenty per cent extra those on 500,000 and more pay 30 per cent extra on top of existing taxes. Why ? Because they can afford to and its called LEADERSHIP .  But it will never happen the rich get more corrupt and more unaccountable and the lower and middle income earners continue to take the hit because of the incompetence of their bosses
kevin



Before I go into my rant here, let me say that I am probably currently in the lowest tax bracket, so my impending rant has nothing to do with my own status.

You seriously want to penalize people for being successful? That's fucked up. As a simple figure, say everyone pays 10% in taxes. That means:

guy making 10k per year pays 1k
guy making 50k per year pays 5k
guy making 100k per year pays 10k
and so on.

The rich WOULD pay in more on a simple percentage. I find it absolutely ludicrous that you believe we should penalize those who do well for themselves by making them pay a higher percentage. All that will do is drive EVERYONE to be underachievers. Why push to better yourself when you're just going to get shafted for it? I swear, I hate being youngish in today's society, because all of my contemporaries tend to have this ridiculous sense of entitlement, and feel that the world is owed to them. Guess what? You have your freedom, you have opportunity to seek whatever work you like, you have relative safety, and, as the original point of this post, you even have some government benefits to take care of people who may or may not need it. Let me restate that I am not saying disabled, disadvantaged, elderly, recently unemployed, etc do not need or deserve assistance. I AM saying that healthy, able-bodied, condescending, elitist jackasses who refuse to work "beneath them" do not deserve assistance.

I am working my ass off to better myself for the sake of my son and, yes, for my own enjoyment. I want to do better, I want to have more and bigger, I want that American dream of working hard and achieving. I get that low-income households have it rough, trust me. With my ex and currently, I fit that bill. But, you know what? Those low income families get just about every penny they pay into taxes back with their return. It's like a savings plan for them. Forced savings, and they get that big check in Feb-April and can use it for whatever the hell they want. Me? I put it in savings, except this last year when I had to put 2k into a root canal and crown, but then the rest went to savings against car insurance (I live in a rural area with no bus service, no way around it), Christmas gifts for my family next year (yes, i actually save income taxes to put toward holiday gifts the following year because some years, I don't have it at Christmas and it's important to me), school in case my loans don't cover it all, or just unexpected expenses. So, point being with this paragraph: sure, the low income are taxed, but they get almost all of it back, so it's like having no tax in the end, just a savings plan. As you move up the income scale, you get a lower an dlower percentage of what you paid in back. I'd be willing to bet that those upper echelons get a VERY time fraction of what they paid in back as a return. Their actual return might be bigger than the low income guy, but if you look at percentage returned....it wouldn't even compare.

Let's take that 10% model again.

guy making 10k per year pays in 1k, gets 1k back...net taxation: 0%
guy making 50k per year pays in 5k, maybe gets 3k back...net taxation: 4%
guy making 100k per year pays in 10k, maybe gets 2k back...net taxation: 8%

Sure, the guy making 100k has more business write-offs...but he has a hell of a lot more business expenses, too. In the end, the disparity is not really what you're making it out ot be. Already, in the US at least, lower income individuals pay in a smaller percentage in taxes AND get a higher percent returned.

So, really, it's already set up that way. We all pay taxes IN, but we get different amounts BACK based on our income level. For you to suggest that we increase the rate paid IN for higher incomes...ridiculous. I don't care what income bracket I'm in, I will never agree with this philosophy. Someone should NEVER be punished for being successful. Some of those folks had it handed to them, sure, but others worked their hands to the bone, took every odd job they could, scraped and pinched and invested and it finally paid off. You want to punish them because they were willing to work at McDonald's and put those extra $2 a week aside to invest in their future? You want to penalize someone who chose their priorities, who put their financial well-being ahead of other things, who worked and built themselves up? Screw that.

(in reply to lobodomslavery)
Profile   Post #: 66
RE: Benefit scroungers ? - 6/30/2010 7:56:33 PM   
LafayetteLady


Posts: 7683
Joined: 5/2/2007
From: Northern New Jersey
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jennileigh8182

This is part of the issue. A job is a job. If you feel you're too good for it, then it's your problem, not the government's.


Actually, your statement does nothing more than show your ignorance. I have a college degree, and I'm a certified paralegal. At this point in my life, I am also disabled with a nearly crippling back injury and several other health issues.

Prior to my injury, when I was out of work, I did apply to "where ever." I applied to Walmart and they won't hire me. They probably wouldn't hire juliaoceana either. Why? Because they view us as taking the job just until something better comes along. Of course they aren't wrong, but they still aren't going to give me a job. Other jobs, I was consistently told I was "over qualified." That's a PC way of saying, "We really don't want to pay you a decent salary."

You applied for food stamps and day care assistance, because those are the areas where you couldn't seem to make ends meet. Well not everyone has family that can take them in an provide a roof over their head. In order to qualify for food stamps, I know for a fact that you needed to provide documentation that you cooked separate meals from your parents and kept all food separate. That's the FEDERAL guidelines. I'm sure that you use your food stamps to benefit your parents as well. So you are ripping off the system you are saying so many people are so lazy to stay on. Actually, the problem with the system and with benefits is because people like you are abusing it.

Had you been forced to provide for your own housing and utilities, you really wouldn't be able to do it with a part time job while you pursued a SECOND degree. If you weren't living with your parents and wanted assistance for everything (which you would need with a part time job, you wouldn't qualify. Why not? Because you admit that your part time job pays "significantly" higher than minimum wage. If you make more than about $150 a week, you surpass the the income for qualification. Not only that, they aren't going to support you while you pursue a SECOND degree. You say you were embarassed to go and seek that help, and you should be. Not for the reason you give, but because you decided to change careers and return to school when you couldn't afford to support yourself to get a second degree and are getting assistance instead of working full time.

Since you are pursuing this second degree, and even though you are deluded about the level of education and skills that "everyone" surely must have, I would assume that you have received enough education at this point to recognize that I just showed you a whole different perspective on whether or not YOU are doing the right thing getting any assistance while you complain about others.

(in reply to jennileigh8182)
Profile   Post #: 67
RE: Benefit scroungers ? - 6/30/2010 8:40:40 PM   
juliaoceania


Posts: 21383
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Status: offline
quote:

Before I go into my rant here, let me say that I am probably currently in the lowest tax bracket, so my impending rant has nothing to do with my own status.


Oh sure it does, you want to align yourself with what you see as the interests of the upwardly mobile, and you obviously believe that you have what it takes to be on that path.


You know, I understand the view that productive lives are better lived lives, etc, and I strongly think that people working at McDees are entitled to respect... but the subtext of your posts on this thread bespeaks some contempt for the poor that you claim to champion...Most poor are the working poor. They aren't living on the dole, they are working. In my opinion the words "working poor" should not be presented side by side. Anyone that works a job should have the dignity of being able to make a living.


Now I haven't looked at your profile to determine your age, but you sound extremely young. You sound like someone who is parroting others much older than yourself. Your ideas might change as you get older, after you have suffered a few more setbacks despite your education...

Unfortunately you seem to disrespect yourself because of your circumstances, instead of looking at the structure that created the necessity for you to seek aid.... others have it harder than you and they wouldn't begrudge you the help you receive

_____________________________

Once you label me, you negate me ~ Soren Kierkegaard

Reality has a well known Liberal Bias ~ Stephen Colbert

Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

(in reply to jennileigh8182)
Profile   Post #: 68
RE: Benefit scroungers ? - 6/30/2010 8:55:21 PM   
LafayetteLady


Posts: 7683
Joined: 5/2/2007
From: Northern New Jersey
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: RCdc

Sure, poorly paid jobs exist and it sucks.  But you are still working.  Fine, suck at your McDs job if you want.  Do the bare minimum and sod your own pride.  But it's still work.  You don't 'work' on benefits.  You get to sit at home.  How many benefits people volunteer whilst on benefit?  How many actively look for work?  Maybe you and kevin are exceptions, but many people on benefit do not do these things.



I notice that you live in the UK, and I don't know how things work over there. In the US, when someone is receiving either TANF or GA assistance (welfare), they must, by law participate in the "work first program" unless they are medically excused. The work first program consists of several different things, based on need. There is job training, job search, and something called "CWEP" (which I can't at the moment remember what that stands for). CWEP is actual on the job experience where the welfare recipient is sent to "work" at an organization, which must be non profit, such as a government office. The concept is that they will learn what it is like to be in a "work environment." Social Services tells those people that they may even end up being offered a permanent position with their CWEP "employer." Out of the several thousand people each year that do the CWEP, the records indicate that perhaps 2 people were able to get permanent employment at one of those CWEP employers over approximately a FIVE YEAR PERIOD. Why? Because there is no benefit to the government or non profit office for hiring the person. The welfare recipient must continue to report to their CWEP employer until they find permanent employment, at which time, another CWEP person is ready and waiting to take their unpaid job. Incidentally, the welfare recipient who is doing any of these various work first tasks will be reported "absent" and face sanctioning of their benefits if they go to an interview during the time they are scheduled for these tasks, which is typically between 9am and 4pm.

So now that you (and the others here who are misinformed about how the US welfare system works), you can see that the problem isn't necessarily the welfare recipient not wanting to work, but rather the system making it as difficult as possible to seek out work.

As I also mentioned in an earlier post, anyone who does take a job paying over about $150 a week has their benefits cut significantly and more than likely terminated completely. I knew a woman who was living in something called "Samaritan Inn" which is kind of a shelter, although the residents each have their own apartments. This is only available for families with children. She had 3 children under the age of 10, and did not recieve significant child support (when she received it at all). She got a job at a local supermarket, part time for $7.50 an hour. Samaritan Inn required her to call and "check in" at specific times and there was no flexibility to that. They wanted her to call at 9am. She explained that she did not receive her break at the supermarket until 10am. She was told to lie to her supervisor at her job and say that her child was sick and she needed to contact the sitter. Every day? Anyone can logically see that being flexible and allowing her to call in during her schedule break would be much better all around. Because she was unable to make those phone calls, she was not permitted to continue to stay at the Samaritan Inn (which is supposed to allow people to save for an apartment of their own). She got help to get an apartment, but then all her other assistance was cut because she was told she made too much money. She worked less than 30 hours a week for $7.50 an hour (all the hours the supermarket would give her). At 30 hours a week that is $225.00 before taxes, less than $1000.00 per month. Some beaurecrat determined that this woman with 3 children should be able to rent an apartment, pay her utilities and buy food for her and her 3 children on $975 per month.

Had she not taken the job at the supermarket, Social Services would have paid her rent, given her food stamps and she would get assistance from the utilitiy companies to help with those costs, plus she would receive approximately $200 per month in cash assistance. It isn't a matter of being lazy, it is a matter of not going further into debt by taking "just any job."

(in reply to RCdc)
Profile   Post #: 69
RE: Benefit scroungers ? - 6/30/2010 9:08:12 PM   
LafayetteLady


Posts: 7683
Joined: 5/2/2007
From: Northern New Jersey
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jennileigh8182
So, really, it's already set up that way. We all pay taxes IN, but we get different amounts BACK based on our income level. For you to suggest that we increase the rate paid IN for higher incomes...ridiculous. I don't care what income bracket I'm in, I will never agree with this philosophy. Someone should NEVER be punished for being successful. Some of those folks had it handed to them, sure, but others worked their hands to the bone, took every odd job they could, scraped and pinched and invested and it finally paid off. You want to punish them because they were willing to work at McDonald's and put those extra $2 a week aside to invest in their future? You want to penalize someone who chose their priorities, who put their financial well-being ahead of other things, who worked and built themselves up? Screw that.


I really hope the degree you already have and the second you are seeking isn't in accounting. Refunds are not based on your income, but on your deductions. Furthermore, since you are obviously unaware, the rich have always been taxed at a higher rate. It's called a "tax bracket."

It's nice to be young and full of ideas, but don't present your opinions as fact.

Also, unlike juliaoceana, I did take the time to look at your profile. I find it interesting that while you are talking about all this work you are putting into being able to "make a better life" for you and your son, you state in your profile how while you are able to take care of all of your own needs, you really don't want to, and that is why you seek a dominant. So really, you are passing time with a part time job, living under mommy and daddy's roof and going to school until you find a guy to take care of you.

Really when you put all that together, you come off looking like a snotty, elitist gold digger.

(in reply to jennileigh8182)
Profile   Post #: 70
RE: Benefit scroungers ? - 7/1/2010 1:56:13 AM   
lobodomslavery


Posts: 2477
Joined: 1/17/2008
Status: offline 		its not about penalising people for being well off. its called asking them to pay their fair share. they can afford it.  it wont affect them one iota but it shows LEADERSHIP , something you obviously dont have a clue about and most importantly it will give the governments respectively much needed REVENUE which in turn can be used to create JOBS which takes people off the BENEFIT that you much despise and despise people who are on BENEFIT ,well the way to get people off benefit is to create JOBS how are jobs created through extra REVENUE. Where is extra REVENUE garnered? From people who can afford to pay it without it affecting their LIVELIHOOD.  Who can most afford to pay extra REVENUE? The wealthy in society. Who created the crisis in the first place? The wealthy in society.  What group should be utilised to get us out of this crisis? The wealthy in society.  Who is currently being targetted to get us out of the crisis? The low and middle income earners and the unemployed.  Who is suffering as a result of the bungling from the well off? Low and middle income earners and the unemployed.  Why did these people become unemployed in the first place?  Because their bosses were reckless and greedy and have no accountability whatsoever and blamed their own incompetence on their workers, sacking them for their mistakes, thus putting people on BENEFIT.  Who is suffering least because of the crisis? The wealthy .  Who needs to show leadership? The wealthy who collectively can afford to assist us financially out of this crisis.
Does that make thing s simple enough for you jenni
kevin 

(in reply to jennileigh8182)
Profile   Post #: 71
RE: Benefit scroungers ? - 7/1/2010 2:10:12 AM   
lobodomslavery


Posts: 2477
Joined: 1/17/2008
Status: offline 		A suggestion would be the following
Earners on
$150,000-$400,000 10% extra tax
$400,000-$1,000,000 20% extra tax
$1,000,000 and upwards 40% extra tax
We may not like it but it is the only FAIR way of extricating ourselves from the crisis short of penalising, as we do currently, the most unfortunate and least well off in our society and cutting social welfare. The bottom line is people on these salaries can afford to take the hit, the poor, the unemployed and the low and middle income earner cant. And it would only be for a short time. Do you really think your a team player? Then show it. Your countries need you.  This idea should get widespread support. But it wont because our government continue to pander and indulge the wealthy and hammer the rest of us
kevin


(in reply to lobodomslavery)
Profile   Post #: 72
RE: Benefit scroungers ? - 7/1/2010 3:19:47 AM   
sirsholly


Posts: 42360
Joined: 9/7/2007
From: Quietville
Status: offline
quote:

A suggestion would be the following
Earners on
$150,000-$400,000 10% extra tax
$400,000-$1,000,000 20% extra tax
$1,000,000 and upwards 40% extra tax

We may not like it but it is the only FAIR way of extricating ourselves from the crisis...... Do you really think your a team player? Then show it. Your countries need you.


Do you pay taxes on your benefit income, Kevin?

See...my idea is to give those able-bodied persons such as yourself one tax-free year on public assistance. Then, i suggest the following:
2nd year on benefits...10% tax
3rd year on benefits...20% tax
4th year on benefits...30% tax

By doing so, it will be an added incentive to turn off your computer and get a job.

So..rather than penalize those who work their asses off to have a higher income, the responsibility of helping to straighten out the financial crisis would fall on those who NEED to work their asses off.

Come on Kevin...aren't you a team player? Your country needs you!!!!


_____________________________

PICKED UPON
TECHNO-DOLT
MEMBER OF THE SUBBIE MAFIA
GRACEFULLY CHALLENGED :::::splat:::::
BOOT WHORE
VAA/S FAN

GIVES GOOD HEART (Lushy)

CREATOR OF MAYHEM (practice)


(in reply to lobodomslavery)
Profile   Post #: 73
RE: Benefit scroungers ? - 7/1/2010 3:59:09 AM   
Aneirin


Posts: 6121
Joined: 3/18/2006
From: Tamaris
Status: offline 		Governments and their leaders almost always arise from the wealthy in society, they have ideas that they think might help, but the reality is they are clueless to what it is like to survive in the life of the poor, they have no idea what it is like that is why I distrust our current leadership, Clegg I believe has sold out and Cameron well, I know exactly where he came from, I know his home town well and the people that live there, a very conservative town.

Now my interest in the Liberal democrats largely stemmed from their policy of saying those who are long term unemployed are to be in education, I agree with this, for it is the right way and given that many who are unemployed are the people who trained in the old pre IT trades or even received no training at all or failed in school because of inadequate teaching, the so called written off scenario, they need to be retrained to meet todays and the future's demands, as how else is the country going to get people working.

The current drive is to force people into any job, as it is about statistics, not a real care or concern for people, it is a numbers game where numbers are seen and amounts are totted up, not people with lives and what they can do for society and an economy if they were treated correctly. Forcing people into work to do any job shows no concern for people, as it is those jobs that are on offere are largely low paid work, out of area work, seasonal work and contract work, all work that does not guarantee a future of work, so it will be in with hope and out as usual back to the dole, it is a common pattern with many.

Then we have the dole and what it takes to get anything out of them, for it takes weeks, months in some cases and forms upon forms upon forms which must be completed correctly or they get sent back to you to correct or plain denied, now there are people in society that struggle with forms, I am one of them, and guess what, there is sod all help aside from the citizens advice bureau to help, the CAB, being the only free advisory body is as ever over subscribed, they are so much in demand.

The job centre down here has been called the joke centre, anyone who is working have they taken a look at just what jobs are on offer these days, looked at the pay award, conditions and term of employment, can they really think they themselves would take that job, if they thought they wouldn't even if they were looking then they get to understand what the problem is that faces the unemployed.

http://jobseekers.direct.gov.uk/homepage.aspx?sessionid=ab7e43f1-af10-4920-9b22-f89135d15633&pid=3

Beware of the terms;  Part time, pro rata, to be discussed, for it is quite definately an employers market




_____________________________

Everything we are is the result of what we have thought, the mind is everything, what we think, we become - Guatama Buddha

Conservatism is distrust of people tempered by fear - William Gladstone

(in reply to lobodomslavery)
Profile   Post #: 74
RE: Benefit scroungers ? - 7/1/2010 4:09:39 AM   
sirsholly


Posts: 42360
Joined: 9/7/2007
From: Quietville
Status: offline
quote:

he people who trained in the old pre IT trades or even received no training at all or failed in school because of inadequate teaching, the so called written off scenario, they need to be retrained to meet todays and the future's demands, as how else is the country going to get people working.
isn't retraining a part of the benefits?

quote:

Forcing people into work to do any job shows no concern for people, as it is those jobs that are on offere are largely low paid work, out of area work, seasonal work and contract work, all work that does not guarantee a future of work, so it will be in with hope and out as usual back to the dole, it is a common pattern with many.
There are many who have had to relocate for employment reasons, Anerin, and what job is it that guarentees a future?
quote:

Beware of the terms; Part time, pro rata, to be discussed, for it is quite definately an employers market
Yes...the employers, as opposed to the employees, do call the shots.


_____________________________

PICKED UPON
TECHNO-DOLT
MEMBER OF THE SUBBIE MAFIA
GRACEFULLY CHALLENGED :::::splat:::::
BOOT WHORE
VAA/S FAN

GIVES GOOD HEART (Lushy)

CREATOR OF MAYHEM (practice)


(in reply to Aneirin)
Profile   Post #: 75
RE: Benefit scroungers ? - 7/1/2010 4:33:31 AM   
Aneirin


Posts: 6121
Joined: 3/18/2006
From: Tamaris
Status: offline 		Retraining, yes, courses exist, but are mainly to do with basic literacy and how to get to an interview, these are run by governmental subcontractors with a sub contractor mentality when it comes to quality.

What training is needed, is qualificational training and certification to meet the demands of the job market, but it is not available. Almost every job now demands vocational training certification which many are finding they do not possess.We have become a job market that demands pieces of paper to show a person's worth.

Travel to the job, ok if you have your own transport, and can afford the running of it, as public transport is a disaster where I live and very expensive. Relocation of course, but is the job worth the relocation and does it provide enough for a person to even rent a room to live in, given the high cost of renting in this country, unless the job pays mid to upper bracket pay, this option is no good for many.

Then there is the guarantee of work, I know that doesn't exist, that is why I choose self employment, but as to those that are long term unemployed, many of them have been in and out of jobs like yo yo's, eventualy that lifestyle, building of hope and destruction of hope leads to cynicism, and the why bother scenario, often coming with medical problems such as depression and all that brings.


_____________________________

Everything we are is the result of what we have thought, the mind is everything, what we think, we become - Guatama Buddha

Conservatism is distrust of people tempered by fear - William Gladstone

(in reply to sirsholly)
Profile   Post #: 76
RE: Benefit scroungers ? - 7/1/2010 5:01:22 AM   
lobodomslavery


Posts: 2477
Joined: 1/17/2008
Status: offline 		im not on benefit currently. i bought property when i thought i would have a permanent job in good times and i rent it out. its not great but its a modest income which keeps my money above the very low level required to be eligible for unemployment benefit. As for taxing unemployment benefit, no way, those on benefit are just getting the return of their taxes which they paid while in employment. Those without jobs deserve that at the least. It is their ENTITLEMENT
kevin

(in reply to sirsholly)
Profile   Post #: 77
RE: Benefit scroungers ? - 7/1/2010 5:04:40 AM   
lobodomslavery


Posts: 2477
Joined: 1/17/2008
Status: offline 		No the responsibility falls to the rich. No one needs nor deserves take home pay of over $100,000 the highest paid person should be paid no more than 5 times the lowest paid person. If we take it that the lowest paid person is on say $20,000, $100,000 is very fair. The problem we have in this economy is that too many folk are being over paid and not delivering, and an awful lot of folk are underpaid and undervalued
kevin

(in reply to sirsholly)
Profile   Post #: 78
RE: Benefit scroungers ? - 7/1/2010 5:08:55 AM   
sirsholly


Posts: 42360
Joined: 9/7/2007
From: Quietville
Status: offline
quote:

As for taxing unemployment benefit, no way, those on benefit are just getting the return of their taxes which they paid while in employment. Those without jobs deserve that at the least. It is their ENTITLEMENT
And those with a higher income are just getting the return of their hard work and dedication/determination.

Kevin...this sense of entitlement that you have is going to be your downfall. You are not entitled to nearly as much as you think you are.
What you feel is your entitlement generally has to be earned.



_____________________________

PICKED UPON
TECHNO-DOLT
MEMBER OF THE SUBBIE MAFIA
GRACEFULLY CHALLENGED :::::splat:::::
BOOT WHORE
VAA/S FAN

GIVES GOOD HEART (Lushy)

CREATOR OF MAYHEM (practice)


(in reply to lobodomslavery)
Profile   Post #: 79
RE: Benefit scroungers ? - 7/1/2010 5:13:29 AM   
lobodomslavery


Posts: 2477
Joined: 1/17/2008
Status: offline 		And luck and corruption and dishonesty need i go on , greed recklessness, lack of accountability, irresponsibility, exploitation of others etc etc. Yeah they are getting rewarded because those above them are fools and allow these incompetents to be paid so OUTRAGEOUSLY. SHAME  ON THEM. TRAITORS
kevin

(in reply to sirsholly)
Profile   Post #: 80
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Benefit scroungers ? Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094