ZOMBIE THREAD ALERT: This thread hasn't been posted on for a while.
in thinking it is getting impossible to discuss the welfare state on here any more(262 Posts)
Disclaimer: I am all for the welfare state. I firmly believe in the NHS, and have no desire for a return to workhouses or other such draconian matters.
However, it seems to be that ever since the Tories started making cuts, it's impossible to even question on here the morality or the fairness of the system. I'll admit it - I don't think the system was fair, at all.
I earn a very average salary. As a result I am only slightly better off than I would be on benefits and considerably worse off when my childcare costs are deducted. It's difficult not to feel resentful when you're in that position.
- I don't believe throwing money around will mean any less children will "go to bed hungry."
- I don't believe benefits should be more lucrative than paid work. Ever. And at the moment, they are. I think the fact that they ever were is disgraceful.
- I think the welfare state is a crutch in a crisis. Disability excepted, it is not a walking stick through life.
I also know there will be hundreds of yawns, this AGAIN, do I want children to starve, I want a return to the workhouse actually no I want the poor shot actually I want them deported ha ha ha what a bitch what a cow what a horrible person. Oh and she hasn't mentioned widescreen TVs LOL.
No, actually, I'm none of the above, I'm just an ordinary person struggling to make ends meet myself. It's very easy to be lofty and high handed and sentimental when you're on board the gravy train yourself. As it is, I don't want benefits to disappear but I don't know just one piss taker, I know several, and don't believe I'm not typical in this.
Welfare - benefits - cost a FORTUNE and people are deluding themselves if they think they don't. The cost of other services doesn't mean welfare isn't a massive cut. It's like saying "that holiday is cheap, look how expensive it is to spend a fortnight in Disneyland." The fact is, it's unsustainable.
I'm happy for people to be given the support they need but at the moment I think some people do think "give people on benefits all the money they like and it will end poverty."
I just keep wondering why the hell childcare isn't tax deductible. It would really help a lot of people on low incomes and a lot of people on middle incomes as well.
I was only patronising to the above poster because of the language and general horribleness. Otherwise I haven't been, I've just put arguments and links forward. Straw man grumpy. Nobody has suggested you are thick and nobody has suggested you aren't a human being.
As you are willing to put your head above the parapet on this issue I would be very interested to know if you have worked out how much better off you are (taking account of pension entitlements etc you may be building up and the enhanced value of any charitable donations you make?)
There are so many financial advantages to working ie someone else is usually responsible for maintaining the temperature of your working time environment. Me DD and her bf sometimes ended up with free food to take home when there had been a conference at work which effectively meant a couple of meals not needing to be paid for etc. Even being included in social events of work friends who are slightly better off than you can in effect be a financial advantage.
It isn't that hard to work out your benefit entitlements using online calculators, I hope you don't mind sharing this information.
Please don't be patronising crumble just because we are poor does not make us thick. Also despite what the Government would have you believe we are still human beings.
Don't strain yourself thinking love.
Bollocks to that, impossible not to swear with you around crumbled. It's like banging your head against a fucking twatty brick wall!
WTF is a neutral discussion?
Can I just give you an example about MPs' pay.
It's currently recommended that they get about a 10pc pay rise. It's completely outrageous. However the wealthier MPs will be able to turn it down and look good. The poorer ones, not so much. They might not be able to afford to turn it down - and they'll look greedy. Assuming there are more wealthy tories than Labour MPs, the "looking good" will be heavily Conservative biased.
I don't think that's fair.
zero hours contracts mean that any lender looks at what you're contracted to earn.
Even if you've earned 50-K on a zero hours contract for the last 3 years (nb I haven't in case you're wondering) they won't look at it for a mortgage. They look at what you're contracted to earn, which may be 50 pounds a month or something.
If you're self employed they look at your last years of earnings. I would say that needs to change very quickly.
Or rather, they contradict each other.
"Collective punishment is unlawful. But it seems to be what a lot of people are asking for. "
No it isn't. For the millionth time, it's you lumping legitimate redistribution together with stealers and mickey takers.
And it's really hard to take seriously arguments like "it isn't true that people receive more through benefits than others can earn" swiftly followed by "a cap which stops people receiving more through benefits than average earnings will cause hardship and homelessness. "
How? If it isn't true that people are receiving more than earners, how will a cap have any effect at all?
These statements are self-contradictory.
YY about the zero hour contracts. How on earth is anyone supposed to budget when they've no clue how much is coming in.
I am on an almost zero hours contract. I don't like it, and my employer doesn't need to do it, but there's enough work. The unfairness is that you can't be self employed.
"Benefit fraud is an absofuckinglutely tiny percentage of the welfare bill. "
But people legally taking the mickey isn't. And MrsDV: MPs expenses is a tinier per centage than that.
People find solutions. They take jobs they would previously have looked down on, they live in places they didn't want to, they have fewer children than they might like, they don't spend as much as they want to, they work with less security in order to get more security later, they encourage their children to work harder at school, they may work harder to retrain.
Zero hour contracts should be illegal.
It means that while they are entitled to take holidays, they don't get paid for taking those holidays, therefore are less likely to take holidays.
But zero hours contracts could be good for young people. If they don't have kids yet and are prepared to be v flexible it could be the stepping stone into work they need.
I really don't like the sound of zero hours contracts for most employees though, firms should not be able to staff most of their workforce using zero hours contracts.
I mean avoiding I.E not declaring.
This was someone failing in an attempt to clarify whether they were talking about tax avoiders or evaders. "not declaring" is evading, which is illegal. "Avoiding" is doing something to legally reduce your tax bill.
We are living in strange times when even Conservative politicians talk about avoiding as though there's something wrong with it. There's a famous quote by a judge in a tax case who made clear there's nothing wrong with "avoiding" tax.
No man in the country is under the smallest obligation, moral or other, so to arrange his legal relations to his business or property as to enable the Inland Revenue to put the largest possible shovel in his stores. The Inland Revenue is not slow, and quite rightly, to take every advantage which is open to it under the Taxing Statutes for the purposes of depleting the taxpayer's pocket. And the taxpayer is in like manner entitled to be astute to prevent, so far as he honestly can, the depletion of his means by the Inland Revenue
Yy,you do get holidays based on your contracted hours only even if you work more hours regularly as 'overtime'
It also means the employer pays no NI.
contributions for you.
It's a tax dodge as well.
Another thing about zero hour or small hour contracts is that you get holidays depending on your contract not on how many hours you work.
Darkesteyes - i hate the way businesses treat their employees.
Zero hour or small hour contracts should not be allowed. I dont want to be claiming unemployment benefits but i have no choice as i have a child to look after.
Everyone i know who isnt working wants to work. They dont see unemployment as a career choice.
zero hours contracts also mean less protection for workers.
They are crap. They are no way to treat human beings and they are a retrograde step.
Rights for workers = decent living standards
the increasing cost of living is due to:
1) increasing global demand for oil.
2) increasing global demand for meat
3) increasing global demand for commodities
which the UK can do nothing about. and more people globally = lower wages unless you have a valued skill.
and the UK govt cannot control these forces. nor should it be able to.
I don't know anything about zero hours contracts but the more I hear the less I like.
I can see how it would benefit businesses but would there be someway an employer could only have a small number of zero hours contracts. Maybe if the firm has 10 staff one of them can be zero contract bug the others need to be full contract. (Hmm would this create bitterness between employees, argh it's bloody difficult).
Maybe zero hours staff need to be paid a fee for being available. Would perhaps stop employers keeping people in reserve and stopping them from working somewhere else.
as you can tell I know nothing about zero hours contracts
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.