Do people not want to work?
Discussion
I'm confused......
A person on their own, looking for a job, with no roof over his head gets about £70 pw ?
A person (usually female) who has a roof over her head, no job, but 2 kids (probably with some slight disability) can end up quite legally receiving, say, £15000+ in various benefits over a year....?
Am I at least roughly in the right ballpark ?
A person on their own, looking for a job, with no roof over his head gets about £70 pw ?
A person (usually female) who has a roof over her head, no job, but 2 kids (probably with some slight disability) can end up quite legally receiving, say, £15000+ in various benefits over a year....?
Am I at least roughly in the right ballpark ?
Testaburger said:
Podie said:
No idea what he’s paying, but my local MOT station owner says he’s been trying to recruit for a year.
This is quite ridiculous, but business owners far and wide are saying the same thing. I bet he sees extra labour as an increase to his cost base, rather than an investment. He needs to realise, along with others, that the labour market have options. This isn’t the immediate post-GFC world. The same small business owners were very quick to reduce their cost base via labour cuts when things got tough, but are apparently unwilling to reverse it now that labour demand is back.Invest (literally) a couple of quid an hour - so 15 quid a day more than the regional going-rate, and watch.
FWIW He’s turning business away and has an empty ramp. I suspect the issue is more than people don’t want to do dirty jobs.
Christmassss said:
Teddy Lop said:
Christmassss said:
Would love to hear how, I could sell the solution to the companies who run the work program 
you charge business at a rate that still keeps them viable, limit the % they can employ in relation to workforce, limit how long they can work there before biz has to employ/reject, loads of options if you think about it. Of course there will be businesses, like there are people, that will abuse a free resource if you allow themThe best I ever got was to get Morrison’s and the range to agree to employee a certain percentage of JSA/ESA people when they opened 2 new stores. All voluntarily as the government can’t control employment choices for private companies.
Robertj21a said:
I'm confused......
A person on their own, looking for a job, with no roof over his head gets about £70 pw ?
A person (usually female) who has a roof over her head, no job, but 2 kids (probably with some slight disability) can end up quite legally receiving, say, £15000+ in various benefits over a year....?
Am I at least roughly in the right ballpark ?
Not quite. They would both be entitled to claim HB and council tax benefit. A person on their own, looking for a job, with no roof over his head gets about £70 pw ?
A person (usually female) who has a roof over her head, no job, but 2 kids (probably with some slight disability) can end up quite legally receiving, say, £15000+ in various benefits over a year....?
Am I at least roughly in the right ballpark ?
Single person HB gets capped as a 1 bed rate, mothers gets capped depending on age and sex of children.
Single person can claim JSA or ESA if they are disabled
Mother can claim child tax credits, because kids gotta live.
Teddy Lop said:
Christmassss said:
Teddy Lop said:
Christmassss said:
Would love to hear how, I could sell the solution to the companies who run the work program
you charge business at a rate that still keeps them viable, limit the % they can employ in relation to workforce, limit how long they can work there before biz has to employ/reject, loads of options if you think about it. Of course there will be businesses, like there are people, that will abuse a free resource if you allow themThe best I ever got was to get Morrison’s and the range to agree to employee a certain percentage of JSA/ESA people when they opened 2 new stores. All voluntarily as the government can’t control employment choices for private companies.
Robertj21a said:
I'm confused......
A person on their own, looking for a job, with no roof over his head gets about £70 pw ?
A person (usually female) who has a roof over her head, no job, but 2 kids (probably with some slight disability) can end up quite legally receiving, say, £15000+ in various benefits over a year....?
Am I at least roughly in the right ballpark ?
No. If the person on their own genuinely doesn’t have a roof over their head the house / flat and council tax will be paid plus the £70pw. A person on their own, looking for a job, with no roof over his head gets about £70 pw ?
A person (usually female) who has a roof over her head, no job, but 2 kids (probably with some slight disability) can end up quite legally receiving, say, £15000+ in various benefits over a year....?
Am I at least roughly in the right ballpark ?
Cap is more like £26k I think.
Christmassss said:
You are correct. Benefits are received irrespective Of CMA payments.
The minimum payment from CMA is for clothes, food and every day items. The benefits are to put a roof over their head and all the things that that entails. My point was, if ex partners were willing to actually pay a decent amount of money to support their offspring, then the benefits agencies could reduce the amount they have to pay out
Surely beenfits / tax credits should be reduced if ex-partners are paying CMA payments? The minimum payment from CMA is for clothes, food and every day items. The benefits are to put a roof over their head and all the things that that entails. My point was, if ex partners were willing to actually pay a decent amount of money to support their offspring, then the benefits agencies could reduce the amount they have to pay out
After all, some familes must manage without them so to have what could be a hefty amount on top without any kind of saving for the State seems counter-intuitive. What about a single parent family where one partner has died - there's no CMA coming in then?
Sheepshanks said:
Christmassss said:
You are correct. Benefits are received irrespective Of CMA payments.
The minimum payment from CMA is for clothes, food and every day items. The benefits are to put a roof over their head and all the things that that entails. My point was, if ex partners were willing to actually pay a decent amount of money to support their offspring, then the benefits agencies could reduce the amount they have to pay out
Surely beenfits / tax credits should be reduced if ex-partners are paying CMA payments? The minimum payment from CMA is for clothes, food and every day items. The benefits are to put a roof over their head and all the things that that entails. My point was, if ex partners were willing to actually pay a decent amount of money to support their offspring, then the benefits agencies could reduce the amount they have to pay out
After all, some familes must manage without them so to have what could be a hefty amount on top without any kind of saving for the State seems counter-intuitive. What about a single parent family where one partner has died - there's no CMA coming in then?
Where Would it stop though? If i pay for my sons school uniform, does that mean my Ex’s working m tax credits then get reduced?
It also doesn’t take into account that 3 bed houses (this is a regional thing) are more expensive to rent then the HB cap, so the other benefits go towards the rent shortfall which means the CMA payments are spent on clothes, food and ensuring the child/children gets a decent upbringing
Don’t get me wrong, the benefits system is massively flawed, with no real easy fix. A full overhaul would at the very minimum require:
A massive increase in NMW
IMO nursery’s should be state run - I spend 1500 a month on nursery fees
A huge recruitment drive at the job Center so claims get assessed properly, ESA claims get looked at properly to elimante false claims
Incentives for employees to take unemployed people on
There are more, but I’m bouncing a 1 year old on my knee whilst trying to type! Lol!
Ultimately, it’s cheaper for the government to keep paying the benefits at the level they are and more, than to implement widespread changes
Christmassss said:
Ultimately, it’s cheaper for the government to keep paying the benefits at the level they are and more, than to implement widespread changes
The thing I don't get is there are examples like Tekno described, which is probably not the whole story but likley has a large element of truth and then you get people missing meals so they can feed their kids.Thesprucegoose said:
Its a business that profits off the backs of the vulnerable, just like gambling.
I assume that you mean that gamblers are vulnerable, as gambling becomes an addiction.Does someone put a gun to a gambler’s head, and say, “Put £50 on that horse?”
Smoking’s an addiction, I tried it in my teens, and thought, “Fu*k that, it’s horrible.”
I have no sympathy for gamblers, if they’re so dumb that they can’t see that the house ALWAYS comes out ahead, then let them throw their money away.
Christmassss said:
It was poundworld who demonstrated how companies would take advantage of schemes like this.
They kept ‘employing’ JSA people rather than actually hiring people. Why pay staff when you can get them from free?
That's the fault of the implementation, not the concept........besides there is no reason to involve private companies. There are plenty of 'public serice' type activities that they could do - even if it's something as simple as picking litter.They kept ‘employing’ JSA people rather than actually hiring people. Why pay staff when you can get them from free?
ToothbrushMan said:
Saleen836 said:
Local care agency near me advertised positions on the local FB page with 1 weekday position available and 3 weekend positions available, they assumed that offerring an extra 15p per hour for the weekend shift would attract people to work and give up their weekend!
i wonder if the bosses of these firms would for that extra 15p?i saw something similar earlier this week with an extra £0.90p an hour for a night shift over a day shift.
i dont think its because the employers cant pay more or cant afford to pay decent wages its because they dont have to or dont want to - the labour market is awash.
The labour market is far from awash - they often struggle to fill positions.
I know some care homes and care agencies operate on 4 figure profits...per year......
Local authorities and private residents do not want to pay a lot of money for the adult care and as such, there is not a lot of money left.
It's a s
te job for no little pay. My wife was a care worker a couple of years ago doing home visits.
It paid minimum wage, except.....
You only get paid when you are at someone's home. Travel was unpaid (around 50% of your working day was travel)
The time you could claim was fixed, and not related to how long it took. If it took longer that was unpaid.
You got 10p per mile travel, all other travel costs were to be paid by the carer.
This is for what is pretty unpleasant work, and can be mentally draining. The wages are pretty much illegally low for the hours involved. Much of it is being contracted out by the local council so it should not be ripe for such exploitation.
It paid minimum wage, except.....
You only get paid when you are at someone's home. Travel was unpaid (around 50% of your working day was travel)
The time you could claim was fixed, and not related to how long it took. If it took longer that was unpaid.
You got 10p per mile travel, all other travel costs were to be paid by the carer.
This is for what is pretty unpleasant work, and can be mentally draining. The wages are pretty much illegally low for the hours involved. Much of it is being contracted out by the local council so it should not be ripe for such exploitation.
98elise said:
This is for what is pretty unpleasant work, and can be mentally draining. The wages are pretty much illegally low for the hours involved. Much of it is being contracted out by the local council so it should not be ripe for such exploitation.
The firms that do it are handing back contracts as they can't do it for the money the councils are giving them. Some have gone bust.Moonhawk said:
That's the fault of the implementation, not the concept........besides there is no reason to involve private companies. There are plenty of 'public serice' type activities that they could do - even if it's something as simple as picking litter.
The council pay litter pickers as an actual job role, If they get the 1000's of JSA people to do the role too, it would make them redundant.....Sheepshanks said:
The thing I don't get is there are examples like Tekno described, which is probably not the whole story but likley has a large element of truth and then you get people missing meals so they can feed their kids.
Personally, in the case of people missing meals, most of the time it comes down to money management. There is a reason daytime TV is full of adverts for high interest loan companies and doorstep lenders. I think the next most common reason is the housing benefit cap - the misconception is that the council will pay your rent no matter what. This is not true.
Example - In Gloucester - the housing benefit for a 3 bed house is £637 p/m. Currently on rightmove there is only one 3 bed house in the whole of Gloucester that would this pay for. (625 p/m) The next cheapest is £725.
So out of the remaining benefits someone might receive, they would have to find another £88 a month from their other benefits.
I have worked it out on private rent as the waiting list for a council house is around 3 years long at the moment.
so using this as my main example:
House - £725 (this is the most common entry price for a 3 bed house)
Gas/elec - £60
Food - £200
Clothes - £25
Phone - £30
Total - £1040
Benefits:
HB - £637
CB - £160
Tax credits - £277
JSA - £70
Total - £1140
So that leaves £100 for bus travel, any unexpected cost etc
Whilst you hear stories of benefits people on loads of money or no money, generally the example above is correct in 99% of cases, you don't hear about it because they are happy 'getting by'.
the housing benefit cap and bedroom tax is creating a growing problem here. its all well and good saying being on benefits is a question of money management but you are talkign about moving from a system that was providing 100% rent and 100% council tax benefit to one where its no longer full rent or full council tax benefit.
you had housing benefit paid to 100% of the monthly rent you was most likely living up to your financial limit on the other benefits you might have received for clothes broadband bus travel (both vital these days for job hunting) food gas electric etc.......to reduce the amount of housing benefit with very little increase in other benefits such as JSA means with all the will in the world you could be the greatest at money management it still doesnt magic up the shortfall in your rent and if you poach that shortfall from your other benefits what are you cutting down on or not paying at all? less food? less heating or less hot water? OK you could perhaps cut down on fags but few people smoke these days anyway.....
I think ultimately it will be landlords who will take the brunt of this as people put less and less of their rent benefit into actually paying their rent and instead using it for lifes daily expenses such as food gas electric etc.
we have all seen those on Cant Pay We will take it Away on Channel 5 where evictions take place but often not until the tenant has enjoyed 6 months, 12 months even 2 years of rent free living. im not saying they are all folk who are on the breadline and on benefits as some are serial non payers of rent even working folk but the problem will grow as the cost of living continues to rise. That or more people will give up and just make themselves homeless and fall off the radar completely.
In the worlds 6th richest nation - a sad state of affairs. Those committing benefit fraud should be targetted rather than everyone being tarnished with the same broadbrush approach and having the burden of proving to the state that you are not one of the fraudsters.
you had housing benefit paid to 100% of the monthly rent you was most likely living up to your financial limit on the other benefits you might have received for clothes broadband bus travel (both vital these days for job hunting) food gas electric etc.......to reduce the amount of housing benefit with very little increase in other benefits such as JSA means with all the will in the world you could be the greatest at money management it still doesnt magic up the shortfall in your rent and if you poach that shortfall from your other benefits what are you cutting down on or not paying at all? less food? less heating or less hot water? OK you could perhaps cut down on fags but few people smoke these days anyway.....
I think ultimately it will be landlords who will take the brunt of this as people put less and less of their rent benefit into actually paying their rent and instead using it for lifes daily expenses such as food gas electric etc.
we have all seen those on Cant Pay We will take it Away on Channel 5 where evictions take place but often not until the tenant has enjoyed 6 months, 12 months even 2 years of rent free living. im not saying they are all folk who are on the breadline and on benefits as some are serial non payers of rent even working folk but the problem will grow as the cost of living continues to rise. That or more people will give up and just make themselves homeless and fall off the radar completely.
In the worlds 6th richest nation - a sad state of affairs. Those committing benefit fraud should be targetted rather than everyone being tarnished with the same broadbrush approach and having the burden of proving to the state that you are not one of the fraudsters.
Tekno said:
My ex partner and mother of my child hasn't worked for 10+ years.
She has been given a detached 4 bedroom home in a affluent Surrey village by the council - with garage/driveway, has two 17 plate (manual) cars, yet claims disability benefit.
She has had 4 kids via 3 fathers.
Each year she goes to New York every Feb without fail, a summer holiday abroad and Centre Parcs in October.
She's got 4 x pedigree dogs.
It goes on...
I work as does my partner, we go to the Isle of Wight each summer for our holiday with my son and two step children as that's all we can afford!
The world has gone mad.
CMA (new CSA) from every father.......its a good career move. She has been given a detached 4 bedroom home in a affluent Surrey village by the council - with garage/driveway, has two 17 plate (manual) cars, yet claims disability benefit.
She has had 4 kids via 3 fathers.
Each year she goes to New York every Feb without fail, a summer holiday abroad and Centre Parcs in October.
She's got 4 x pedigree dogs.
It goes on...
I work as does my partner, we go to the Isle of Wight each summer for our holiday with my son and two step children as that's all we can afford!
The world has gone mad.
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff