Talk

Advanced search

To be amazed by the amount of people who think the state shouldnt help people?

(334 Posts)
malificent7 Sun 14-Apr-19 08:08:58

I mean with job creation, welfare, regulation of private employers etc.
I hear so many times...its not the state's job to do x, y and z.

So what is the point of gaving a state if it cannot produce conditions for people to thrive?

Of course some take the piss but the state shouldctry to peovide more jobs and less zero hour contracts, they should regulate how the private sector treats employees, they should moderate wages anf provide housing.

Of course, some take the piss but most have a genuine need and the state dosnt want to know.

angstridden2 Thu 18-Apr-19 09:20:49

I worked for a while in a support centre for education, dealing with courses and finance.many parents,invariably mothers, had not worked for many years and were inreceipt of benefits and were in social housing or received HB and received help with their children’s college fees and expenses. They were generally unqualified and to take a very low paid job would have left them worse off, besides involving childcare at least in the holidays and what they rightly or wrongly saw as boring hard graft .They mostly preferred the lives they had, I know the system is supposed to make work pay but sometimes people perceive the effort as not worthwhile financially or effort required.

badlydrawnperson Thu 18-Apr-19 09:43:18

YANBU OP
Most people sneering at others for scrounging don't know what it's actually like.
I agree with you there is no point in the State or the Capitalist system as a whole unless it helps people to live in reasonable conditions in return for reasonable work where they are able.

badlydrawnperson Thu 18-Apr-19 09:51:40

Anything was better than the 3 day week, strikes, power cuts and bodies piling up to name a few of the delights of the 1970s under Labour

There's a worry outbreak of this revisionist history.

The three day week was under a CONSERVATIVE government. I lived through it.

Labour relations were bad in the 70s under both main parties. Thatcher was elected to smash ordinary people down and give power to big business - which she did.
She also massively increased unemployment after her "Labour isn't working" poster campaign.
She also increased taxes both in real terms and as a share of GDP (another thing revisionists like to forget) and contrary to the "conviction politician" myth, did a U-turn on anything she realised wasn't going to boost her own power and authority.

Brilliantidiot Thu 18-Apr-19 10:29:40

They were generally unqualified and to take a very low paid job would have left them worse off, besides involving childcare at least in the holidays

This is another issue with zero hours contracts, needing childcare, having to book and therefore pay for that childcare and then having the shift cancelled and earning nothing.
People on zero hours contracts are also still counted as employed, but the majority of their income comes from benefits because of lack of stable hours. Lower unemployment should equal lower benefits paid out, but it's not the case a lot of the time.

Inadvertentlybrilliant Thu 18-Apr-19 11:57:13

@kazzyHoward
"People with other income, such as property rental, dividends, foreign income, pensions, etc., don't pay NIC - why? People can literally spend their lives receiving good amounts of money yet never pay a penny in NIC."

Can you explain what people can never pay a penny in NIC? Surely only those earning below the threshold on a weekly basis are the only ones not to pay a penny?
Won't everyone else be either employed or self-employed or both so pay NIC on earnings and bonuses?

For instance if you earn money from property rentals then you will set up a company to do so and appoint directors. Company Directors are employees so will pay NIC on their earnings.

Pensions
As State Pension is paid as a result of NIC then clearly you won't pay NI on it when receiving it.

NIC are calculated on the amount before Company Pension contributions are paid. If you want pensioners to pay NI on Company Pensions when paid paid out in retirement, then rules would need changing so that Company Pension Contributions would be deducted before working out NIC on earnings.

Dividends aren't usually a sole source of income are they? Wouldn't someone normally be an employee or self-employed and receive dividends from their investments?

badlydrawnperson Thu 18-Apr-19 12:22:51

@Inadvertentlybrilliant You are wrong about Company Directors being employees. It's not the same thing - you can be a director but not an employee. People can avoid NI by the company paying salary below the threshold and the company paying dividends for the remainder. Directors don't accrue rights to statutory pay such as SSP, SMP etc as they are not employees (unless they wish to be).
It its one of many vagaries of our weird and over-complicated taxation system which is totally stupid and unfit for purpose but won't be reformed due to vested interests in HMRC.

Inadvertentlybrilliant Thu 18-Apr-19 12:41:13

@KC225

"Low paid, contract hours and the erosion of employment rights have had a massive impact. For certain groups of people, I think things are worse now than 40/50 years ago."

What erosion of employment rights?

badlydrawnperson Thu 18-Apr-19 13:11:11

Ironic isn't it? 40/50 years ago we had fewer written rights but more power. Now we have more theoretical rights and zero hours contracts - that's progress (and years of Tory and Tory-lite governments) and the decline of Trade Unions.

Oliversmumsarmy Thu 18-Apr-19 14:13:31

*This is another issue with zero hours contracts, needing childcare, having to book and therefore pay for that childcare and then having the shift cancelled and earning nothing.
People on zero hours contracts are also still counted as employed, but the majority of their income comes from benefits because of lack of stable hours. Lower unemployment should equal lower benefits paid out, but it's not the case a lot of the time*

As said before Dd loves her zero hours contracts.

She has never had a shift cancelled and she doesn’t claim benefits.
Neither do a lot of people she works with.

Dd doesn’t recognise all these supposed horrors of zero hours contracts.

Dd prefers working this way because she doesn’t like the idea of doing the same thing everyday and likes having random days off mid week.

If she wants to earn more then she does more days

TheTitOfTheIceberg Thu 18-Apr-19 15:13:19

Dd doesn’t recognise all these supposed horrors of zero hours contracts.

Possibly because she isn't yet at a stage in life where she needs a guaranteed minimum income each month to pay rent/mortgage, council tax, household bills etc, and also because it sounds as though she works for an employer who (comparatively unusually) gives the employee a say in their shifts. However her experience is not the only experience of zero hours contracts.

What erosion of employment rights?

The rise of zero hour contracts meaning an increasing number of people no longer qualify for SSP, full maternity pay or automatic enrolment onto workplace pension schemes because they fall below the income threshold; the increase in the qualifying period to be able to claim unfair dismissal from one year to two years in 2012; the requirement for a minimum of 50% turnout in a union ballot; the halving of the length of the consultation period in large-scale redundancies from 90 days to 45 (and the exclusion of anyone on a fixed term contract from being consulted at all); the capping of unfair dismissal payouts at one year's salary...do I need to go on?

badlydrawnperson Thu 18-Apr-19 15:21:54

Dd doesn’t recognise all these supposed horrors of zero hours contracts.

Ha ha - so they don't exist. Does she feel the same about climate change and the earth being flat "because it looks like it"?

HelenaDove Thu 18-Apr-19 15:44:31

thepoorsideof.life/2019/04/18/youre-not-working-enough-hours-you-need-to-tell-your-employer-to-give-you-more-hours-youve-got-a-week-to-do-this-the-dwp-really-hate-so-called-under-employed-people/

WeaselsRising Thu 18-Apr-19 16:34:20

Yes, you can have an awesome lifestyle on £384.62 pw, when the "affordable" rent on your HA home is £229 pw, and you have 2 children.

Lakielady I'm assuming that is benefits and not a salary, given the question you'd answered? That works out to a gross salary of £24,212 which would be considered a decent wage here, and you are complaining that isn't enough to be given ?! There is the argument right there. Nobody should be handed out more in benefits than they could earn in a job they are qualified to do.

Perhaps you'd like to work out a budget that will enable that single parent to feed and clothe them all on the £155 that's left after paying rent, and pay the council tax, water and energy charges (£10, £9 and £22).

If your council tax is only £520 pa, again perhaps you'd like to join the real world. Ours is £1770 pa for a bog standard 3 bed semi in a not particularly nice part of town.

If you can't manage to feed and clothe 2 children on spare income of over £100 a week then you are doing something wrong. I'd kill for that sort of disposable income.

HelenaDove Thu 18-Apr-19 16:55:49

Sophie Earnshaw
***@sophisabella*****

1.Just back from ESA appeal hearing for victim of horrific acid attack with 50% burns all over her face and body, is in constant pain and 'burning sensation', cannot move, sit or stand for long without pain and of course, there is the trauma. DWP awarded 0 points & fit for work


Sophie Earnshaw
***@sophisabella*****
2h2 hours ago

2. Since the attack, she's had 14 operations which have involved removing skin and bone to reconstruct parts of her face and body. The stress of the operations is significant and leave her bed-bound for weeks. Every operation makes her feel like it is a step back for that period
1 reply 6 retweets 6 likes
Sophie Earnshaw
***@sophisabella*****
2h2 hours ago

3. She rarely goes out and when she does it is local. To the GP, local shop or hospital appointment. Despite the compelling evidence, the healthcare professional at the work capability assessment decided that she is fit for work as none of the descriptors apply #socialsecurity
1 reply 7 retweets 7 likes
Sophie Earnshaw
***@sophisabella*****
3m3 minutes ago

4. Went to the appeal today. We were in and out in 15 minutes. The Tribunal stopped after around 15 minutes, 24 points from 0 points and placed in the support group for ESA. This was only on assessing 2 of the activities. It was so evident that the DWP had made a wrong decision.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Sophie Earnshaw
***@sophisabella*****
2m2 minutes ago

5. The Tribunal Panel apologised that she had to go through this & said that she was 'courageous'. Which she is. This should not have been before a Tribunal, it's caused unnecessary anxiety & pain. It is absolutely shameful. All because of bad decision making #DWP #socialsecurity
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Sophie Earnshaw
***@sophisabella*****
2m2 minutes ago

6. It is thanks to a pro bono FtT appeal project with @Debevoise and amazing volunteer representatives that we are able to assist with these appeals.

IceCreamAndCandyfloss Thu 18-Apr-19 19:54:37

Yes, you can have an awesome lifestyle on £384.62 pw, when the "affordable" rent on your HA home is £229 pw, and you have 2 children

Nobody has to have two children and people can always take on second jobs etc, it's not hard to understand that children come with costs.

havingtochangeusernameagain Thu 18-Apr-19 20:02:39

Anything was better than the 3 day week, strikes, power cuts and bodies piling up to name a few of the delights of the 1970s under Labour

Yes the in-laws were constantly going on about this.

What I remember about the 1970s is having milk to drink at breaktime at school and suddenly not getting it anymore. That was down to the Tories.

* it's not hard to understand that children come with costs*

And it's not hard to understand that life situations change. I agree if you're homeless now, don't get pregnant. But if you already have 3 kids and are made homeless, it's a very different situation.

Alsohuman Thu 18-Apr-19 20:11:52

You can hardly send your two children back if you fall on hard times.

SnuggyBuggy Fri 19-Apr-19 07:02:38

There are a lot of I'm alright Jack attitudes and having 2 kids is hardly a luxury. If a standard job doesn't cover the costs of 2 kids then something is wrong with the job and housing market.

Brilliantidiot Fri 19-Apr-19 10:50:24

Dd doesn’t recognise all these supposed horrors of zero hours contracts.

And I don't recognise the supposed good side of zero hours contracts. However I'm not narrow minded enough to insinuate that it doesn't happen.

I'm struggling to get my head round some of the logic towards low wages being topped up with benefits so people can live - and by live I mean pay for the essential and priority expenses.
Apparently if you're claiming benefits you're a scrounger, and need to get off your arse and work, however when it's pointed out that thousands do just that and can't live on the results it seems to fall into two camps 'get a better job then' or 'cut back on what you spend'.
Both have been explained in terms of viability and what the results to society would be. It's been said that living wage shouldn't be paid and won't work, but also that people just shouldn't claim benefits. Seems like some in society just want someone to kick, and low wage earners seem to be it. They don't want you on benefits, but they also don't want you to be paid enough to live on by your employer. I find that attitude totally baffling.

AnnieMay100 Fri 19-Apr-19 11:07:15

I agree OP we pay our taxes for this reason but it seems to be spent on the likes of mp expenses and the royal family. Makes my blood boil there are homeless people, families with no money because of benefit cuts, nhs cuts etc there is nothing stopping them using the money to improve this country and people’s lives but they chose not to because we’re just government puppets. Sad world we live in and I worry for our children’s futures.

woodhill Fri 19-Apr-19 12:01:08

2 dc is understandable but my frustration is with the many dc families who are seem to be very entitled and I think if you are not in employment or on a very low income having more than say 3 dc is irresponsible.

I know there are blended families etc.

woodhill Fri 19-Apr-19 12:01:29

Who seem

Numptysod Fri 19-Apr-19 20:28:34

Friend of mine 3 kids - renting
Husband works max hours he can - 24 hours, and gets full benefits he working system! Once youngest is 5 wife will do max 16 hours.

He reckons he takes home £2500
Month then minus rent council tax
It’s £1460 my friends take this home a month then pay rent out if it!

Oliversmumsarmy Fri 19-Apr-19 22:52:53

Sorry but I can’t get my head round zero hour contracts being low paid.

Not all are low paid, Dd is usually on £15 per hour for a 12 hour day. She works 2-4 days per week depending what she has on.

All I know is Dd has put enough of her earnings away to buy a very cheap place at auction for cash.

She works for several companies as well as running her own business.

I know a few people who feel the same way.
One is a security guard who loves the fact he can work 7 nights per week.

He can pick a shift or 2 with one company then book himself on another shift with another company. Be security for another venue then if he wants a random day or night off he just doesn’t sign up for shifts on that day.

It would seriously impact his earning ability if he had to have ft jobs with one company and only be able to work 5 days instead of 7.

Brilliantidiot Fri 19-Apr-19 23:26:09

@Oliversmumsarmy

I take it your DD isn't in hospitality or retail? Because that's my area of experience.
Hospitality - less customers at certain times, more customers at other times. It's hard to guage how a day will go, it's largely weather dependent. So, you do a rota, say for today, Good Friday. You rota 5 staff in from 12 until 8 to cover the anticipated 'rush'. Then it pisses down and everyone stays at home. So you cancel 2 staff at 11am. Then you send another home at 3, because it's quiet. Those staff have been told they're working, and have to turn out, can't arrange to work anywhere else, and don't get paid for the shift at all because they don't work it, or don't get the full shift. They're on zero hour contracts. The staff are taking the hit for the lack of business. Retail is the same scenario. Similarly if it suddenly becomes busy you do a ring round and see if anyone can come in, say no and you're bottom of the list for next weeks rota because they really aren't interested in if you need childcare to work, if you have arranged something etc, they want people who will drop everything to arrive at work. I've seen people called in at the last minute and then sent home an hour later.
And remember these are rota's that constantly change week to week, so you can't be looking for something else to fill the gap because most rota's are done a week at a time, and the staff are on min wage. I've tried to make two jobs like that work - and you always end up being dropped by one place because you're not available in the busy times - you're at the other place! And most places are busy at the same time.
The above scenario is very common in hospitality.
What you describe with the security guard sounds more like agency or bank work. I used to live solely on agency work, when I was single and living at home. It was great, however when I came to move out I hit my first stumbling block because it wasn't guaranteed in the way a regular job is, so I didn't have a guaranteed income and wouldn't pass a reference.
Both are good if you have a decent earning partner, or at home still, or a student. They are not when you need the money to pay rent and council tax etc.

Join the discussion

Registering is free, quick, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Get started »