|
blugnu
1,198 posts
110 months
|
Munter said: If we genuinely have a problem this problem of people needing jobs in area 1 and jobs needing people in area 2. And I'm not convinced we genuinely have that problem. But if we do. Then the benefits/job centers systems should work to relocate them, to a job. I doubt it does that at the moment. But if we have this problem then it should.
I should be able to walk into a job center, search the system, it says a relevant job exists in Barking. I apply, get an interview, and get the job. I should be packed off to accommodation relevant to working in barking. Better to pay a couple of train tickets for interviews and relocation, than have someone sat on benefits for years.
Though if the problem doesn't actually exist, that would explain why the system doesn't either. Well it does work like that, but the chances of their being a job in Barking and the best candidate living in York are fairly remote. Chances are that, unless it's a highly skilled role, there will be someone in Barking, or nearby, who can do it at a much lower cost to the economy as a whole. Companies tend not to set up in places where there is a shortage of labour locally. One of my qualifications is that I am a teacher. There are jobs all over the country I could do, but chances are if I apply for a job 100 miles away I won't get it, because they school will worry that I'll be late often, or get bored of the commute and leave or whatever - and there will be people who live nearer who can do the same job. If I were being recruited as a Head of Education for a council it might be different - they might even pay for me to relocate, as I would have a rarer skill set and it's be worth it. For the sort of jobs were talking about - normal jobs that pay enough to live on but not enough to make you rich - it's just not going to work. And that's without considering where you think the accomodation in Barking might be. As I understand it, rental prices in the South are going through the roof at the moment already.
|
|
|
SGirl
6,961 posts
130 months
|
martin84 said: You wont like the taxation system of Scandinavian countries though. Personally, I didn't like the taxation level in Sweden. I was most disgruntled at having to pay more tax than Swedish nationals, and about having to pay for medical care that Swedes got for free. But now that I no longer pay tax in Sweden  I can see the sense in it. Why not do something like that here? If you or either of your parents paid into the pot, you get taxed at a lower rate (so young people in their first jobs won't be penalised). You pay for your medical care unless you have a certificate to say you've paid into the tax system at some point in your life. No certificate - you can still be treated for free, but you have to accept that you can't have elective procedures such as gastric banding or IVF. And we should charge for all ambulance callouts that don't involve emergencies, thereby putting off the people who'll call an ambulance to get to hospital for non-urgent problems.
|
|
|
Brother D
851 posts
45 months
|
SGirl said: Personally, I didn't like the taxation level in Sweden. I was most disgruntled at having to pay more tax than Swedish nationals, and about having to pay for medical care that Swedes got for free. But now that I no longer pay tax in Sweden I can see the sense in it. Why not do something like that here? If you or either of your parents paid into the pot, you get taxed at a lower rate (so young people in their first jobs won't be penalised). You pay for your medical care unless you have a certificate to say you've paid into the tax system at some point in your life. No certificate - you can still be treated for free, but you have to accept that you can't have elective procedures such as gastric banding or IVF. And we should charge for all ambulance callouts that don't involve emergencies, thereby putting off the people who'll call an ambulance to get to hospital for non-urgent problems. Far too sensible, will never happen in the UK.
|
|
|
Megaflow
3,345 posts
94 months
|
Mobile Chicane said: TheDiplomat said: UKIP's policy makes the most sense: only receive benefits for your first 3 children. Or none at all... Why pay people to breed? Rather invest the money in workplace nurseries for those who: a. need it b. contribute something to society. Exactly. What a radical idea, if you can't afford kids, don't have them! I've just worked out that this hard up family get 25% more take home 'pay' than we do... I earn just above national average and the wife just below. 
|
|
|
Halb
17,870 posts
52 months
|
Brother D said: Far too sensible, will never happen in the UK. Very sensible. And I don't really think gastric banding or IVF should be 'free' anyway. 
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
ringram
12,213 posts
117 months
|
What you guys fail to recognise is that brain dead vegetables like this and their offspring simply provide rich pickings for the capitalist system. Id be surprised if they didn't spend 100% of their "benefits" each month.
This all goes into hard working peoples pockets with a very low threshold of effort.
Just wave a few coloured items around and the sale is done. In this manner the government keeps the real economy ticking over and a few more consumers are born for exploitation, thus maintaining the cycle.
If everyone was mentally conscious it would be much harder for the marginally useful businesses like the lottery, beauty salons etc to make any money.
|
|
|
12gauge
1,274 posts
43 months
|
ringram said: What you guys fail to recognise is that brain dead vegetables like this and their offspring simply provide rich pickings for the capitalist system. Id be surprised if they didn't spend 100% of their "benefits" each month.
This all goes into hard working peoples pockets with a very low threshold of effort.
Just wave a few coloured items around and the sale is done. In this manner the government keeps the real economy ticking over and a few more consumers are born for exploitation, thus maintaining the cycle.
If everyone was mentally conscious it would be much harder for the marginally useful businesses like the lottery, beauty salons etc to make any money. Consumption without production is inflation. By your logic a country full of pensioners and would work just fine and dandy.
|
|
|
blugnu
1,198 posts
110 months
|
12gauge said: Consumption without production is inflation. By your logic a country full of pensioners and would work just fine and dandy. A country full of pensioners is not possible - there would have to be some workers to sell them food, for example.
|
|
|
edo
12,581 posts
134 months
|
I dont see why it is unreasonable for people on benefit to at least do SOMETHING for their money - clean up their street, remove graffiti, do work for the elderly, and other things that our taxes go on.
Of course there are plenty of people who deserve their benefits, but those who are just sponging and are fit and healthy should be incentivised to work. The current system is broken when it pays to not work, and the more kids you have the bigger the council house. Boils my piss.
Even more amazing I just had to pay about a grand to have the snip - you think the government would be chomping at the bit for people to do this wouldn't you?!
|
|
|
blugnu
1,198 posts
110 months
|
edo said: I dont see why it is unreasonable for people on benefit to at least do SOMETHING for their money - clean up their street, remove graffiti, do work for the elderly, and other things that our taxes go on. And the people that are currently paid to do those things will do what instead? Sign on?
|
|
|
edo
12,581 posts
134 months
|
blugnu said: edo said: I dont see why it is unreasonable for people on benefit to at least do SOMETHING for their money - clean up their street, remove graffiti, do work for the elderly, and other things that our taxes go on. And the people that are currently paid to do those things will do what instead? Sign on? No - they do the things that dont get done - my street doesnt get swept. Councils dont have enough people to do all the jobs.. I'm not talking about them replacing people. A better environment paid for out of the benefits already paid out.
|
|
|
Old Merc
885 posts
36 months
|
The whole benefit system got out of hand years ago with no Political Party brave enough to get a grip and schools churning out kids with no work ethic or ambitions.Mind you its very difficult to suggest an alternative to the example family on £49K benefits,how much would the brain dead dad get at work £8 per hour? Also most of the low paid unskilled jobs are filled by illegals,a total mess and I haven't a clue how to put an end to it.The older generation had good work ethics,determination and motivation. My father was blinded and lost a hand in WW2.He used to catch a bus to his full time job as a telephonist and also lecture to RAF cadets in the evening.Of course he had a war pension but felt it was his duty to work and provide for his family.When his heart cried enough in 1965 my mum carried on with this attitude and got a job. I wonder what the feckless wasters would make of people like them.??
|
|
|
mrloudly
2,163 posts
104 months
|
A Socialist system is fantastic, let down by those who want to live on the Social...
|
|
|
Halb
17,870 posts
52 months
|
blugnu said: 12gauge said: Consumption without production is inflation. By your logic a country full of pensioners and would work just fine and dandy. A country full of pensioners is not possible - there would have to be some workers to sell them food, for example. And fix the stenna stair lifts. Stair engineer jobs would skyrocket.
|
|
|
pherlopolus
396 posts
27 months
|
edo said: Even more amazing I just had to pay about a grand to have the snip - you think the government would be chomping at the bit for people to do this wouldn't you?! my local DR did it for free, privately - he had a discretionary fund and I got funded without asking. If I'd paid it would have been £150. The only way to make the benefits systems work is to make it very uncomfortable for people who 'won't' work, whilst still being fair for those who 'can't', while we still have to care about those who won't work, or have children they cant afford, we are going to have problems. You should have to work for your benefits, just not doing a job that could be paid minimum wage and up to do.... perhaps give them a red flag to walk in front of cars, or a shovel to pick up dog muck off the street (paid by weight of what they collect)
|
|
|
Jimbeaux
25,725 posts
100 months
|
Brother D said: Your solution? It would have begun with mitigating the reproductive process. 
|
|
|
Halb
17,870 posts
52 months
|
pherlopolus said: The only way to make the benefits systems work is to make it very uncomfortable for people who 'won't' work, whilst still being fair for those who 'can't', while we still have to care about those who won't work, or have children they cant afford, we are going to have problems. How?
|
|
|
Lost_BMW
10,652 posts
45 months
|
blugnu said: blueg33 said: Perhaps tax ££'s should be spent on relocating people to the work, not trying to falsely create an economy where there is too little critical mass for it to work there are massive opportunities out there. Imagine if the UK were the world leader in making fuel from waste (the bacteria exist) - So you're saying we should just melt these characters down and turn them into fuel? Harsh. Though I suppose it is South Yorkshire...
|
|
|
mrloudly
2,163 posts
104 months
|
My business partner used to be a factory manager for Dr Marten's. He had good workers, on a regular basis, jack in jobs saying that that, I quote, "With me benefit, and a few cash in hand window
cleaning jobs, I'll be coming out with more than I am now. Won't have to be here five days a week at 07.30 either"...
The problem is they were right... The next problem is, where do they now make Dr Marten's? Why should Mr Griggs, or indeed any private sector employer, have to compete with the Govt on benefit payouts?
We compete in a global market and our benefit system has effectively, in many areas, priced us out of it... Madness.
|
|
|
King Herald
18,360 posts
85 months
|
Negative Creep said: They are correct insofar as it would be pointless to work. How many people would realistically work 40 hours a weak if you can get paid more to sit around doing nothing? As my girlfriends dad oft quoted to me, back in the seventies. "Why do something for nothing, when I can do nothing for something?" There were 8 kids in the family and he was far better off on the dole than working. Not his fault, he wanted to work, but he had no real skills and a minimum wage job took away most of his benefits. There is no law stating that you can't have more kids than you can comfortably support by your own means. Maybe there should be, but the government does hand out child benefit to EVERY parent in the country with a kid under 16. They must have a reason for subsidizing every family.
|
|
