in thinking it is getting impossible to discuss the welfare state on here any more

[size20knickersandfatter]

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."

It won't.

Zero and short hour contracts should be made illegal imo.

Yes I was implying that there is an awful lot of claimants or people defending people they know on benefits, in my post, hence why I asked why people were being so defensive about benefits,and can they all HONESTLY say that they have ALL gone out of their way to find work and would rather work than do nothing??? I exclude the genuinley ill and disabled and the people that are looking hard for work (these are the people that deserve benefits), but it goes back to the point that hard working people are not rewarded enough and the gap between the people working in lower paid jobs and people not working and recieving benefits is too small. So don't worry if you are looking for work or you really are not able to work... I am not talking about you... I am talking about the people who cannot be bothered to get off their arse and have the sense of entitlement that makes them think that they are owed and entitled to more or just as much than someone who works all hours. As someone that works all hours I can tell you that is why I get pissed off at the number of low lifes that cannot be BOTHERED to go to work and still profit.

You can't expect someone who needs longer hours to work on an 8 hour contract and just hope they get more hours.

Which is what happens all the time now.

if you honestly do no know how many employees are necessary to run your business on a day to day basis then you should not be in business at all.

no. my business does not run like that - but running like that does not make the enterprise somehow invalid.

if your clients only what they need from you on a short lead time, in a competitive market, that is what must be done.

and those clients are only serving their clients and so on.

on MN people talk about business like it is the top of the tree - not just a chain of companies and people providing what someone else wants and getting paid for it.

NicknameIncompleteThu 25-Jul-13 09:50:51

Lets have a discussion about the whole picture.

I claim unemployment benefits (jsa) because i work 8 hours a week. I want to get away from the jobcentre. I dont want to be signing on my whole life.

You could tell me to get a different job with more hours or get a second job. I have been trying to do this and getting nowhere. Companies want you to work for them and only them. They employ you on a low hour contract and then expect you to work when they want. Some weeks that could be 20 hours other weeks it could only be 10.
When i apply for a second job i dont get it because i am not fully flexible even though they are only advertising a 10 hour a week job for 2 days a week.

IMO there is not just one problem. Everything needs to be looked at from benefits to wages to working hours/contracts

Nickname this should NOT be allowed. Its the old adage of employers expecting you to be available at all times JUST IN CASE only JUST IN CASE never happens

Oh give over, FasterStronger. Supermarkets and factories work on zero and short hours contracts and have done for a long time; fuck all of this 'lead time' bollocks; what these employers are doing is cutting down time to the bone because they can't be arsed to have a proper business plan. I've been an employee in that situation and it is utter shite. It is actually a fundamental breach of the employer/employee contract in that the employee is expected to be available for work but the employer doesn't have to provide that work. It is a fucking travesty for a major retailer/manufacturer to run their business in this way.

With the fact that employers want you to work for them and only them i wonder what will happen when they start forcing part time workers on tax credits to do workfare in another workplace while also doing their part time job. Now THAT will be interesting.

Yes I can genuinely say I'm going out of my way to find better work and better my family and get into a position of not having to claim any more benefits. It doesn't matter though nobody believes a word I say because I receive benefits so must be lying scum.

I would never defend someone for defrauding the system, they are scum who give me and other genuine people a bad name. I have explained twice on this thread why people are defensive about being on benefits.

What I object to is the implication on many threads about benefits that all claimants are conning the system, lazy, stupid etc. It is wrong, hurtful and adds to the stress of people living it. I also object to people claiming that I receive more than I do. I don't want more money from the state but it would be nice if people stopped claiming I get what I don't.

Most benefit claimants won't be hit by the cap and the majority of those who are are affected due to stupidly high rents.

Collective punishment is unlawful. But it seems to be what a lot of people are asking for.

It's not benefit claimants sucking us dry. Blame the real culprits.

I typed a lovely post and lost it ... Bum!

Anyway, my whittering was about the minimum wage vs living wage costs. The minimum wage increases by pence each time. Jumping to a living wage is pounds. ( as an aside, I spent a diverting few mins on the living wage.org website. It is a good one).

I also blathered on about agreeing living wage seems to be part of a solution but to pretend there would be no repercussions is disingenuous. Anticipating and managing those repercussions surely makes more sense?

The zero hour contract stuff is horrifying. Wouldn't know where to begin discussing that as I have no knowledge of it. Will read up and try to understand it.

(Small Mood lightener ... We are proof this can be discussed calmly! Not a goat in sight!)

The figures for the welfare bill should always be looked at as percentages instead of cash figures, by the way, purely because it always sounds like so much money. It's hard for any of use to wrap our heads around those kinds of figures, but it is a tiny proportion of what the government spends to keep the country ticking over. Don't think about the cash, think about the percentage.

Benefits bashing is all based on media spin, it's setting poor against poor (relatively, anyway) so that we don't turn on the rich. Because honestly, they earn so much more than a living wage, maybe they could let some of it trickle down to us peasants?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

"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.

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.

YY about the zero hour contracts. How on earth is anyone supposed to budget when they've no clue how much is coming in.

"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.

Or rather, they contradict each other.