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.

JuniorAsparagus Sat 20-Apr-19 07:10:28

My DS has worked on zero hours contracts most of the time since he was 18. He has ASD and it has suited him very well to pick and choose when to work, and who to work for. It has also given him the chance to take further courses in his chosen field. He is currently on a four week course which he is financing himself, and working two days a week to help with his expenses.
However he is single, lives at home and his main expense is his car. His hourly rate is between £10 and £12 and he often works more than 12 hours in a day because of the nature of the work.
All that is fine if you are young, single and live with your parents. It also gives him time to de-stress if he needs to by taking days off.
However this would not work for someone with rent to pay, and certainly not for someone with children.
It also depends on the nature of the work and how many others are available for the work.
DS is about to make a career change to an employed role because he can see that continuing to work this way will not work long term.

malificent7 Sat 20-Apr-19 07:19:10

I did a zero hour contract as a carer. I would turn up for shifts only to find they had been cancelled....so no money. Impossible to budget. My agency owners lived in a very plush house but they were cowboys.
This shift cancellation happened in supply teaching too. Not stable at all.

SnuggyBuggy Sat 20-Apr-19 09:11:40

As a SAHM who can survive on DHs wage a zero hours job might be a practical way to provide us with some pocket money and allow me to cover school holidays but unless either very well paid or in demand it would be a very stressful existence for a breadwinner.

What's concerning is how zero hours jobs are replacing what would have been proper permanent jobs.

Oliversmumsarmy Sat 20-Apr-19 09:56:51

Brilliantidiot Actually for some work she does work in hospitality.

But not the type you are describing. You are describing working for a particular business where as Dd works for many actual businesses who book through an agency and dd is on a few of these type of agency books.

If you are rostered on it is for the whole day at a particular event. Whether that be someones wedding or a corporate event.

No one really leaves early unless the clientele have gone home early and the event has finished early and everything has been packed away and your wage is still covered because the agency have taken the booking and the client has booked for and paid for a particular time.

Dd has a business in another completely different area and whilst she is establishing herself then this has been good money and very flexible.
Although she does work with people who do this ft who do have children.

Brilliantidiot Sat 20-Apr-19 10:14:52

Dd works for many actual businesses who book through an agency and dd is on a few of these type of agency books.

Well there's your difference, a zero hours contract through an agency. I did that, and you are different venues a lot, great for experience and as you say, the wage is always covered.
In business such as I'm referencing, the only agency we employ are chefs, because you need the qualifications/experience. Agencies tend to cover things that need a large amount of staff for a one off. Yes there's several of those one offs. But it's not a feasible life for anyone with a family.
Now other businesses have adopted the zero hours model, ones that used to give contracts for set hours, because they've realised that they can cut costs by passing on the fluctuating business to staff.
This from @Snuggybuggy says it perfectly -

What's concerning is how zero hours jobs are replacing what would have been proper permanent jobs.

Someone who had set hours and therefore a set wage protected by a contract, now doesn't.

Oliversmumsarmy Sat 20-Apr-19 10:47:26

But I am saying it is feasible for life with a family because Dd works with people who do have families and are the main or sole bread winner.

Nurses do 12 hour shifts 3 times per week for around £23-24000. Which is then taxed. With very little that can be put against it to reduce the tax bill.

If Dd worked 3x 12 hour shifts each week she would come out with more. Out of that she can put down how much she spent on getting to and from work and parking and gets lunch and dinner provided. A lot of those with families do more shifts per week or do a short shift or don’t have work on the days that they go and see their dc in the school play.

The flexibility is what appeals to a lot of people.

However the only downside is because dd is self employed this would not cover maternity or sickness or pension so she is ploughing her savings into investments that will cover these if and when she needs them.

If you can say a nurse is able to run a family out of their salary then someone earning more is definitely going to.

Zero hours contracts done right have their place.

Take them away and it would mean a lot of people who like them not being able to work.

SnuggyBuggy Sat 20-Apr-19 11:23:15

There have always been seasonal jobs, agencies and temping, it's not inherently bad it's just concerning how widespread it's become.

My DDad was made redundant several years ago now and was actually pretty broad minded about what sort of work he was prepared to do even if it involved training but was pretty disappointed at how many jobs were now zero hours or "employed on a self employed basis" which he referred to as the shit parts of working for someone and the shit parts of working for yourself.

Brilliantidiot Sat 20-Apr-19 12:27:57

@Oliversmumsarmy

I obviously can only speak for me but the reason I can't do agency work is majorly down to the travel, no where around here uses agency staff, except as I mentioned, chefs. I often travelled miles to reach a venue, and sat at the train station from 4am until the first one at 6am to get home. That was fine when I didn't have childcare to consider. Will be fine again soon when I don't have childcare to consider.
The point is though that that's how agencies work, and what you sign up for. If you need a job with set hours, and therefore a set wage, in hospitality, retail and as it's seen here also in care, they're increasingly unavailable. The option is to take a job where you don't know what you're working or earning from one day to the next. The only winners there are the business, they get to pass on their income shortfall to the staff. Add to that that people have to take these jobs, there's no choice, the jobs are minimum wage too. And the government make up the shortfall. I don't think it's unreasonable to want a job where you know what you're working and going to get paid when you have outgoings that must be paid.
A friend of mine was told to apply for a job recently that offers 4 hours a week, more as the business needs. The 4 hours won't even cover travel, let alone childcare. She'll get help with childcare, and probably end up costing more than she does now, and be counted as employed for statistics. What earthly use is that?
Yes, if you ban them some people will suffer, but there needs to be a level playing field here, people who work ft shouldn't need top ups, but because the cost of living outstrips the wages they do. The people in this situation aren't the ones who can change that. The government and the people paying the wages are the ones that can change that. People who are employed not by an agency should have contracts that promise to fulfill certain hours, and certain wages. Maybe zero hours contracts need to be for agencies only? Then static employers can't take advantage of them.

Oliversmumsarmy Sun 21-Apr-19 10:06:12

Brilliantidiot so you can see that not all zero hours contracts are dreadful.

Your experience is so far removed from dds (including taxi if start is before 6am or finish is after I think 3am, I know it is the early hours of the morning because they are aware that trains stop running and want everyone home safe)

This is for everyone from waiting staff to the managers of an event.

Dd knows months in advance where she will be working. I don’t think she has ever had a cancellation. If something comes up and she needs to cancel then as long as she gives 72hours notice so they can readvertise it there is no issue.

Dd only works for various agencies. She did once go to an interview for a company (not hospitality) that said it offered flexible working but during the interview Dd was told that she would have to give up working for any other place.

The wages were terrible and the expectation was when they said jump you ran into work regardless

The interviewer was very surprised when Dd turned the job down because she was earning more elsewhere than this job could ever pay.

Dd was 17 at the time and had been working for years.

She thinks they took a look at her age and thought she was too young and too afraid to say no or be in awe of being offered a job that she would say yes.

Dd likes to book her shifts in advance and has other stuff going on other than hospitality. So prefers to get everything in place then if anything comes up that is for her business then she can drop shifts in good time.

This type of zero hours contracts work well for her.

If they weren’t there then Dd would be probably signing on as would a lot of people she works with as they all prefer the flexibility that these type of zero hours contracts give as they all have either children that they like to be able to go to the Christmas Carol service or be able to drop and collect from school a few day per week or a business they are starting to get off the ground or are actors/singers/dancers who need that sort of flexibility for auditions and work.

For them this type of work suits them.

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 »