Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SmallTownGirl)
    When it's 'work 40 hours a week for your benefits or be sanctioned', that is forcing. Also, if a business knows they will always have X number of people doing workfare with them then they can employ X less people because the company will have enough 'staff' just some of them will be on workfare not employees. This means that there are LESS jobs available and so more people unemployed.
    You do realise these are private businesses dont you? Who are you to dictate to the CEO`s who they should and should not employ. Its comical how working class people think everyone should do as they say etc.. it is a business it is their to make money not to satisfy your moral beliefs.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SmallTownGirl)
    When it's 'work 40 hours a week for your benefits or be sanctioned', that is forcing. Also, if a business knows they will always have X number of people doing workfare with them then they can employ X less people because the company will have enough 'staff' just some of them will be on workfare not employees. This means that there are LESS jobs available and so more people unemployed.
    Correct


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Withengar)
    Yet another economically illiterate person going about how people who, for the most part, can't provide for themselves should be left to basically starve.

    In most civilized countries, including the UK, the top 1% controls the overwhelming amount of country's wealth. Just to paint the picture, the top 10% controls over 45% of the country's monetary assets in the UK. The top 1% have an average yearly income in excess of 250.000£. It should be noted that that exact figure is from a conservative study, and the real number is likely higher.

    So, instead of saying that the top is overly wealthy and that the wealth distribution is an issue which needs to be solved with higher taxes for the wealthy to aid the poor and those incapable of working/providing, you say that we should cut what support the bottom 10% or so have to get even richer? Doesn't the ludicrousness of that idea cause you feel sorry for our kind? People in the bottom 10% have an average yearly income of around 8.500£, not enough to sustain a decent life worthy of human dignity. The benefit system, although imperfect, is the only way for some of these people to survive and avoid homelessness and starvation. Cutting that aid would cause homelessness and homelessness-related issues to skyrocket, costing the government more and more money over time, to such an extent that it would actually be cheaper to keep the same people on benefits.

    Instead of spouting your uneducated hatred for those in our society who have little, go and read an Economics textbook/journal and educate yourself. Just because you come from a relatively privileged background and have decent opportunities in life for education and employment, doesn't mean everyone does.
    Very good post sums up a lot of my thoughts


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    No it doesn't still stand the problem is solely created by government from all angles


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Completely irrelevant to what I said though.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by redferry)
    Completely irrelevant to what I said though.
    So the size of the housing benefit bill and the number of people who need social homes isn't directly effected by what I just said?

    Ok


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TSRFT8)
    No one is saying benefits should be stopped but my point is the attitude of most "poor working class" is that the rich OWE them, and they HAVE to provide for them which is not the case, and until this mindset is not eradicated this whole thing will never end. Also benefits should not/can not be stopped, however they definitely need to be reduced, the sheer quantity of people on benefits is unsustainable, so you either cut benefits and cater for the majority or cut the number of people on it and provide larger sums to the needy. Also in this country there is NO incentive to work, why would anyone in their right mind want to get jobs in retail paying them £15k a year for 40 hour weeks when you can get upto £26,000 in benefits including child tax credits etc. Infact at the private school i attend my head of sixth form used to be a manager of a high street shop, she told us how when jobs were advertised, at one time there were 1000 applicants for 4 places, when it came to interviews she said 1/2 of the people turned up in tracksuits/swore/attitude stank basically made it impossible to be hired but they had fulfilled the requirements of the benefits therefore went home and saw another £70 in their account.
    But rich people do owe them that.

    That's our system.

    Everyone pays into the tax pot by % according to what they have earned and the government redistributes that


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by stargirl63)
    You're an exception from the rule and I hope your treatment goes well.
    Yeah but you will be the first to call for their state funded treatment to be taken off them when a morally bankrupt government comes into power telling you how they arer all a bunch of scourngers. People like OP will actually die no matter your intentions since the desire for vindictive punishment of people who may not even exist is so high. You all say, "no we don't mean the people who deserve it, only the scroungers" at the same time people who need it are actually dieing.

    Like what's happening now and in this very thread. If I was the person you were talking to I would not take comfort in your concern and insurances. It provides no guarantee at all the current evidence is that people like myself will be thrown to the scrap heap.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TSRFT8)
    You do realise these are private businesses dont you? Who are you to dictate to the CEO`s who they should and should not employ. Its comical how working class people think everyone should do as they say etc.. it is a business it is their to make money not to satisfy your moral beliefs.
    Why should private businesses get to exploit unemployed people with the help of the government? If a business needs someone to work for them then they should be paying the minimum wage. Workfare is (was(?) Is it still going?) a GOVERNMENT SCHEME which forces unemployed people who want access to the money they are entitled to to work for LESS THAN £2 AN HOUR in private companies which not only don't increase their chances of employment after the scheme but was shown to DECREASE the likelihood people found a job. If a business needs a certain amount of staff to function they should be employing that number of staff and paying them at least minimum wage, not exploiting unemployed people (with the help of the government) so that they can function at exactly the same level with vastly reduced staff cost.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    The benefit system promotes equality and improves standard of living for many people, and austerity has made more people going out to seek employment. I dont understand where you lot come up with ur ridiculous arguments
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TSRFT8)
    They dont OWE them anything they are not working for the poor, they are not your slaves. It is just the way this country works that the income is redistributed.
    I come from the 1% so I'm not working class. That's the first thing to mention.

    Second thing is the argument is about government spending. It's already been shown its needed otherwise x and y happens.

    Which brings us back to who pays for it.

    Everyone, but the lions share is done but people with a high income.

    Simple


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mscaffrey)
    We don't have enough jobs in the economy to accommodate everyone in need of a job, especially after the recession. Believe me, people are encouraged to find jobs. They are encouraged by having sanctions placed on their benefits after not meeting the most specific of criteria. We pay more for MPs to have a second home than we pay to a person on benefits. My mum was driven to tears multiple times when she was signing on for Jobseekers Allowance at the Job Centre. I'm now on benefits while I recover from an illness that has taken almost all of my life away from me. Neither my mum or I smoke or drink. The most out there thing I spend my benefit money on is books in order to keep up with my academic abilities while I'm unable to work or attend university.

    Most people on benefits who do smoke or drink have been driven to abusing substances because of the state of their lives. We need to do more to make sure work is available for people in this country - bring manufacturing back, so people with all skill sets have an opportunity to work (my mum was a very good sewing machinist when she was younger, working in factories to make sure people had clothes to stand up in - it was an important industry that gave her a sense of purpose and it has been taken away from this country now, because it's cheaper to do elsewhere). When businesses and governments and society start to value trades again instead of always valuing what is cheapest then I think the jobs available here will rise and as a result people's mental and physical health will be better.
    One of the best things I have ever read on TSR.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TSRFT8)
    You do realise these are private businesses dont you? Who are you to dictate to the CEO`s who they should and should not employ. Its comical how working class people think everyone should do as they say etc.. it is a business it is their to make money not to satisfy your moral beliefs.
    It's extremely contradictory though.

    So instead of a place like tesco giving someone a job... they get someone... who does exact same work as someone who is paid for by tesco... for free.

    That person is still unemployed.... you still have to pay for their "handouts"..... just they have to work for no extra earning or risk their benefits being cut.... and tesco gets a free worker.

    It's the whole arrogant "why don't you get a job?" question I get asked all the time (albeit I do work part time for around £75 quid a week). My response is it's mostly part time work and the pay just doesn't give me enough to pay for the travel costs. I live at home with the parents in the countryside seeing I can't afford my own place. Also people working for free use up job slots I could fill.

    After that people say "why don't you move?"... I don't have enough money to do that.

    That being said I have had plenty of job applications and currently have 3 potential jobs after my initial interviews went rather well. I've have 10 interviews this month.... but before that I've been job searching since last may.... and before this month I had six responses in over 100 jobs.... all rejections. Some people don't really know how good they have it some times.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TSRFT8)
    Again Tesco is not around to please you or working class people it is there to make a profit, it does not give two shits about you it wants to reduce costs so it can increase its profit margin not uphold your moral and ethical debate. If that means making people work for £2 or 2 pence it does not matter, is it right? No, do these companies care? No.
    Jesus wept


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    So the size of the housing benefit bill and the number of people who need social homes isn't directly effected by what I just said?

    Ok


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    That doesn't make what you said less irrelevant.

    I said that most of the benefit bill goes to private landlords not claimants. Whose fault it is didn't come into it until you mention it.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TSRFT8)
    Again Tesco is not around to please you or working class people it is there to make a profit, it does not give two shits about you it wants to reduce costs so it can increase its profit margin not uphold your moral and ethical debate. If that means making people work for £2 or 2 pence it does not matter, is it right? No, do these companies care? No.
    Well they do really had a moral and ethical duty of care over their workers....

    Hell even Ford realised happy workers equalled good workers.... and getting paid a decent wage helps that. He even realised pay them enough.... they give them certain benefits (aka cheaper products) they will give you the money back anyway!!!!
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by redferry)
    That doesn't make what you said less irrelevant.

    I said that most of the benefit bill goes to private landlords not claimants. Whose fault it is didn't come into it until you mention it.
    Still the governments fault for not having sufficient social housing lol.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    Still the governments fault for not having sufficient social housing lol.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I never disagreed with that.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Then bore off poor people need a place to live, and that's why the bill is so big


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TSRFT8)
    They dont OWE them anything they are not working for the poor, they are not your slaves. It is just the way this country works that the income is redistributed.
    Most people who have a lot of money got there by exploiting the poor, tax simply takes back a little of what they stole.

    Major point being missed again. Most tax money does not go on spending on the unemployed. £153 million goes on pensions, £!£5 billion on health £2 billion on unemployment http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk...ending_40.html

    Just 14% of public spending goes on benefits for those of working age, and that includes benefits paid to those who are working, like child benefit or working tax credit.

    We redistribute income to pay for pensions, health care, education, defence, the police, roads - and a tiny bit to keep people who are unemployed from starving so that they don't cost us more money stealing to stay alive and being locked up in prison.

    Stop listening to propoganda designed to distract attention from the real issues and start thinking for yourself
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    It supposedly comes from Milton Friedman who is the wet dream of the current crop of world leaders. But they ignore a lot of what he said. The guy supported a negative income tax (you give money to people who do not earn enough to pay tax).
    Galbraith reckoned it dated back to the 1890s, but in the modern era, it was first used by David Stockman, who was Budget Director in the Reagan administration. Many economists have derided it over the years in its various guises.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you rather give up salt or pepper?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.