Ending Benefits Dependency.:Restore our Countries Wealth.

[RichardD]

Digga said:

Why do we have to have a minumum wage? Why is a piece of legislation so recent held up as being sacrosanct beyond reason?

With the way this country works any reduction in minimum wage would just mean people receiving more in benefits? Apart from those who live with parents?

[Digga]

RichardD said:

Digga said:

Why do we have to have a minumum wage? Why is a piece of legislation so recent held up as being sacrosanct beyond reason?

With the way this country works any reduction in minimum wage would just mean people receiving more in benefits? Apart from those who live with parents?

So why do we persist in taxing those who are deemed to be at or near 'the minimum'?

[RichardD]

Digga said:

So why do we persist in taxing those who are deemed to be at or near 'the minimum'?

Is it at this point I post the standard PH type answer regarding creating extra non jobs doing admin work in a take it away and give it back sort of system?

(Although isn't this anomoly still supposed to be something that will be sorted out).

[Digga]

RichardD said:

Digga said:

So why do we persist in taxing those who are deemed to be at or near 'the minimum'?

Is it at this point I post the standard PH type answer regarding creating extra non jobs doing admin work in a take it away and give it back sort of system?

(Although isn't this anomoly still supposed to be something that will be sorted out).

Sorted out along with all the other red tape brave Dave promised to slay but now somehow doens't think he can do without. I get the feeling - thinking along "yes Minister" lines here - that it's all good and well to want to cut bureacracy when you get elected, but that it's only once you're arse is on a seat in Westminster, you realise who is the tail and who is the dog.

[CzechItOut]

Dixie68 said:

That's fair enough, if they don't want to work for less than minimum wage then I won't force them... they just get no benefits. Anyway, as far as I know 'minimum wage' is the amount of money employers aren't allowed to go below when paying their employees wages, but these people aren't employees they are people on benefits - minimum wage doesn't apply.
The only other option is as above; workhouses.

The problem is, people who are really workshy wouldn't do it. They would simply live in squalor and commit crime when the need anything.

You only have to look at the ghettos in the USA to see what will happen if you cut benefits and welfare down to the bear minimum. These people live in far worse levels of poverty than anything we currently have in the UK.

The concept of pulling yourself out of poverty by getting a job simply does not appear on the radar of these people.

[Steffan]

Digga said:

RichardD said:

Digga said:

So why do we persist in taxing those who are deemed to be at or near 'the minimum'?

Is it at this point I post the standard PH type answer regarding creating

(Although isn't this anomoly still supposed to be something that will be sorted out).

Sorted out along with all the other red tape brave Dave promised to slay but now somehow doens't think he can do without. I get the feeling - thinking along "yes Minister" lines here - that it's all good and well to want to cut bureacracy when you get elected, but that it's only once you're arse is on a seat in Westminster, you realise who is the tail and who is the dog.

extra non jobs doing admin work in a take it away and give it back sort of system?

Absolutely correct.

It has become increasingly obvious that the current Government in the UK is fudging policy. Lots of talking lots of promises to slash public expenditure.

But in reality, nor real change. All the changes trumpeted like slashing Housing Benefit have been quietly buried.

The Somalian mother of 6 in London on £100,000 HOUSING BENEFIT widely pilloried in recent posts on PH. no change still getting £8500 A MONTH on HOUSING BENEFIT alone. Well over £10,000 a month with all the other benefits.

No need to work whatsoever. Indeed how many PH'ers earn £10,000 a month NET.

[hairyben]

In the first instance, work centres. turn up every day at 8.00am. Might be sent street sweeping, snow shovelling, leaf raking or as cheap labour to govm. projects run in a cheap but labour intensive manner. women with kids will be sent in groups and expected to share childminding and workload.

In the longer run, the unemployed will find themselves in hostels and social housing will be given to people who can pay rent. Those with too many kids to be able to work will find themselves relocated to places with excess housing like bolton so homes in london can be given to working people who need to be located there.

I can go on and on but no-ones got the balls to do anything like this. Things need to get worse before they get better. The sycophant socialists and lefty-lites may holler but look around, at every animal from ants to elephants, look at their packs and colonies, and tell me, how many do you see carrying dead weight? It's simply not natural behaviour, and anyone with a brain in their head across the political and idealogical spectrum can see this but there seems to be this wet apologistic blinkered mentality in half the people you speak to.

[cymtriks]

rover 623gsi said:

and who's going to pay for all the running costs?

The current benefit budget is massive and some benefits could easily be restricted as I outlined above to free up the required money.

It wouldn't be a problem for long as anyone turning up to job club every day 9-5 would find it just as easy and better paying to get a proper job (assuming that we eliminate the poverty trap by ditching means testing as the main way to control the system).

[Eric Mc]

nm231 said:

oyster said:

nm231 said:

What about sending home many of the immigrants (illegal or otherwise) that have appeared here over the last few years. Surely that will free up many jobs and money as there will be less immigrants on benefits aswell.

Why would you want to do that?
I'd want to employ hard-working, educated, loyal and trust-worthy staff. I do not care whether they were born in Malawi or Manchester. Do you prefer lazy indigenous people?

Just to clear what I said up a bit, I haven't got a problem with the hard working immigrant, educated or otherwise who do the poorly paid jobs that most chavs wouldnt dream of doing, I think their great just a shame that people on the dole thing their above it.
I have a problem with lazy immigrants who come here and live off our benefit system and I have a problem with things like shop windows advertising in polish that they will help you sign on when you first get to this country.

I dont understand why anybody would pick living off benefits as their lifestyle, living off £110 a fortnight. I had to do it for a month when I was made redundant it just made me work harder at finding a job so I could afford the things I wanted and not have to step foot inside that office again.

And what happens to the hard working immigrant who gets madec redundant or becomes ill? What happens when he/she brings over his dependents who need to be educated, cared for when sick or old?
What about those other immigrants who are here because their work has sent them here or because they have been headhunted for top positions in industry and finance or the media.

It's a very, very complicated situation and ranting indiscriminately about "immigrants" is pretty pointless.

[hollydog]

yes the benefit system needs reforming . but that alone would not restore wealth to the country .uk industry will only make the country richer . (thats uk owned companys ). trouble is there is no money left to invest .we keep letting foreign companies take over uk businesses that bleed our wealth back to there own country. same as immigrants all they do is get cheap housing take uk jobs then as soon as they start earning money they send it out the country to surport they familes .(bleed something to much and it dies.) to much money goin out the country not enough coming back in .if people want to work here they should have skills that we need and keep spongers out. it seems years ago that some one in goverment made the decision to turn our country into an mainly IT business and a big bank . which hasn,t worked . look at the countries that are doing well . they all have industry .

[Ozzie Osmond]

Eric Mc said:

It's a very, very complicated situation and ranting indiscriminately about "immigrants" is pretty pointless.

Agreed. In particular, there IMO has to be some kind of financial "safety net" for the elderly, the genuinely disabled and those unemployed who are at least making an effort. But three key points MUST be addressed,

1. Benefits payments (including housing) which exceed 80% what a "normal" person can earn, and
2. Benefits as a lifestyle choice.
3. Families where "Dad" is the state.

[Steffan]

Ozzie Osmond said:

Eric Mc said:

It's a very, very complicated situation and ranting indiscriminately about "immigrants" is pretty pointless.

Agreed. In particular, there IMO has to be some kind of financial "safety net" for the elderly, the genuinely disabled and those unemployed who are at least making an effort. But three key points MUST be addressed,

1. Benefits payments (including housing) which exceed 80% what a "normal" person can earn, and
2. Benefits as a lifestyle choice.
3. Families where "Dad" is the state.

Eric M is absolutely right. And so is Ozzie Osmond.

We need fundamental change to the benefits system. Ranting is not the answer.

But I fear it will not happen.

The current governments is strong on hot air and ineffective at making the necessary structural changes.

Moonpig and Co would be much worse because they will not even admit the truth about the Welfare state as we have it today. Ed Balls is a selfish idiot who cannot even see that Gordon and Co (Ed Balls!!and TB) made a whole series of wrong decisions over the previous fourteen years economically. The New Labour administration drove our economy into the ground at full speed.

The Benefits system has become completely unaffordable.

But it continues. Unabated.

Economic meltdown here we come.

[900T-R]

Steffan said:

Economic meltdown here we come.

Which has as much to do with the uncontrollable gravy trains within the corporate and public elites as the one the career doleites are on.

It all comes down to the same thing: we, as a society, have an inflated view of what we're entitled to ('because I'm worth it') compared to the genuine value we create - relating most of our self-worth to what we own/spend - and for large parts of society we choose to pay the excess rather than to deal with the problem. Even if it means we have to borrow from the next generations (which was never a problem as long as we assumed the next generation would, of course, create greater value than we did).

Which was sort of alright as long as us Westerners owned the world and could make the rest do our bidding for peanuts... Not any more.

Edited by 900T-R on Wednesday 7th September 06:43

[Ozzie Osmond]

"The Death of Respect" BBC2 at 11.20 p.m. tonight.

Part 1 of a 2-parter. John Ware asks what has happened to British values and behaviour over the last 50 years.

[Steffan]

Ozzie Osmond said:

"The Death of Respect" BBC2 at 11.20 p.m. tonight.

Part 1 of a 2-parter. John Ware asks what has happened to British values and behaviour over the last 50 years.

Thanks for that, I will be watching.

[turbobloke]

Steffan said:

Ozzie Osmond said:

"The Death of Respect" BBC2 at 11.20 p.m. tonight.

Part 1 of a 2-parter. John Ware asks what has happened to British values and behaviour over the last 50 years.

Thanks for that, I will be watching.

On intravenous Prozac