Page 11 | To be amazed by the amount of people who think the state shouldnt help people?

malificent7 · 2019-04-14T07:08:58+00:00

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.

brizzlemint · 15/04/2019 19:51

pay them a wage directly that they can live on, rather than pay less and top up with TC/UC

That would be unfair to those with children/dependents/disabilities.

How would it be unfair? Im not sure I get your point.

ginghamstarfish · 15/04/2019 19:57

Most decent people are happy to pay towards the state for welfare, as a safety net for those who are most in need. I agree with PPs that it has been abused for far too long, and people in general should be more encouraged to take responsibility for themselves - and to have only the number of children they can afford to look after (of course yes I realise that not everyone on benefits is so feckless). Contraception is free and has been for some years (and yes I know it can fail some times). Many these days also live above their means, and have the wrong priorities, but feel they are 'entitled' to what they see others having. A good example of taxpayers' money being wrongly spent - read today that the ISIS bride in the camp is being given Legal Aid ... that will no doubt be milked for all it's worth as she appears to crave attention - unbelievable waste of money which could be far better spent on those in actual need.

TalkinPaece · 15/04/2019 20:01

gingham
A good example of taxpayers' money being wrongly spent - read today that the ISIS bride in the camp is being given Legal Aid ... that will no doubt be milked for all it's worth as she appears to crave attention - unbelievable waste of money which could be far better spent on those in actual need.

she will see none of that money
the lawyers will be arguing that the UK government has broken international law by making her stateless
the UK has a very poor record of breaking international law on citizenship
I despise her and ISIS but that does not give the UK Government the right to break international legal norms

Gronky · 15/04/2019 20:05

How would it be unfair? Im not sure I get your point.

TC/UC is based upon circumstances. If you provide everyone with lower, untaxed pay then everyone with the same gross pay would be getting the same take home pay, either increasing the strain on the public purse by necessitating the need to allocate more money for pay in order to realise the same take home as those with TC/UC would have enjoyed before or, with the same budget, resulting in less money being available for those who need financial assistance (because it's going to those who wouldn't qualify for TC/UC).

woodhill · 15/04/2019 20:36

Yes well said Oliversmummy. The English GCSE has become very difficult for some students. I think we need to invest in training here

missymayhemsmum · 15/04/2019 21:33

The state creates the circumstances that enable the very rich and corporations to make profits, control land and resources, and keep their wealth. Without the state providing education, roads, police, courts, the rule of law, they could have none of it. The state (and international agremeents between states) create the framework within which business operates. It is not unreasonable to demand that the state is structured for the benefit of the planet and the people, not the tiny minority of super-rich individuals or a few transnational mega-corporations.

The 'small state' brigade want working people to ignore the many ways in which the state requires them to subsidise the rich, and instead focus on the unfairness of the disabled woman with five kids down the road getting as much in benefits than they get in wages.

TulipsTulipsTulips · 15/04/2019 21:57

“Without the state providing education, roads, police, courts, the rule of law, they could have none of it.”

These things benefit everyone, regardless of wealth. Your example doesn’t support your argument.

Purpletigers · 15/04/2019 22:16

I’m not surprised at all . Numbers only count towards benefit fraud if you’re actually caught .

Wages are low because they work on the basic economic model of supply and demand . We have too many people for the jobs available . If you want better wages you need to reduce the supply of cheap labour available.

whee2y · 16/04/2019 00:32

I think the governnment needs to step in and control or cap rents fairly as this is the biggest bill anyone has to pay out of their earnings.
Futhermore I think that anyone who owns more than 2 properties should have to pay increasing amounts of tax the more properties they own.
In my Local town one family own more properties than the council and god knows how many are run down shitholes.
Both of these measures would hopefully see floods of houses being deemed uneconomical to keep on the books so put on the market.
This would drive down house prices and rents and make it possible for poorer people to maybe one day dream of owning a place again.
Or you know maybe being able to live a normal happy life

SnuggyBuggy · 16/04/2019 06:21

If we have more people than jobs then why are there policies that push people into seeking work? For example people with illnesses and disabilities who don't feel well enough to work, people who would prefer to be SAHPs and people in their 60s who would prefer to retire.

DippyAvocado · 16/04/2019 07:46

The trouble with paying a living wage to everyone is that it is beyond the means of small businesses to afford what would cover the cost of housing in many areas. Until this structural problem is dealt with, there has to be some sort of additional support for housing costs.

I am a teacher and I part-own my home with my DP. I was wondering idly what I would happen if we split up and I looked at where I would be able to afford to buy a property with two bedrooms for me and my DC. I used the calculator here and I couldn't afford anything south of the Midlands. Even renting I would be spending 50% upwards of my salary to get a two bedroom flat in the nastiest area within 5 miles of where I live now (not London). And that's on a teacher salary, which is not even classified as low-paid job.

AlaskanOilBaron · 16/04/2019 08:01

If we have more people than jobs then why are there policies that push people into seeking work? For example people with illnesses and disabilities who don't feel well enough to work, people who would prefer to be SAHPs and people in their 60s who would prefer to retire.

It's normal to have more people than jobs, this is how the market adapts to dynamic inputs. This doesn't mean that people don't need to be incentivised into work, it's pretty normal to 'prefer to be a SAHP'.

SnuggyBuggy · 16/04/2019 08:09

But why incentivise people into work if it causes serious distress in the case of something like disability or doesnt get them out of poverty or needing benefits? What's the point?

havingtochangeusernameagain · 16/04/2019 08:23

I have also been extremely annoyed by sweeping statements about anyone on benefits being too lazy to work. Even my cleaner (who is from another European country) said that British people are all lazy. I was so pissed off with her attitude I got a different cleaner

Have the people who say this ever claimed benefits themselves I wonder? Seriously you get treated in such a rubbish way, nobody would choose to live off benefits. I was on JSA for a month inbetween jobs a few years ago and it was demeaning. Because I was out of work for such a short time I only had to "sign on" once but the next time would have been at a very exact time think something like 14.52 on Monday afternoon. The job centre isn't in my town. I asked how that would work if you needed to rely on public transport to get there, or had school aged kids you needed to collect from school and they were utterly dismissive. Other than saying you're not available for work if you have to do a school pick-up. They were a bit nonplussed when I pointed out that you'd only pay for childcare if you had a job, not to go for pointless meetings. They are so used to dealing with people who've been ground down by the system, they can't cope with people who aren't (thank goodness, there but the grace of God and all that).

Anyway, as the Brexiteers tell remainers they can go and live in Europe if they love it so much, can those of you who think the state shouldn't help people move to the US? You'll fit in well there.

Iggly · 16/04/2019 08:38

The trouble with paying a living wage to everyone is that it is beyond the means of small businesses to afford what would cover the cost of housing in many areas

Then they should offer more flexible jobs instead so people have the ability to work part time across different jobs or reduce other outgoings like childcare.

SnuggyBuggy · 16/04/2019 09:12

I suppose another way of looking at it is to ask the question what is the purpose of having a job? Growing up I thought most people went to work to earn a living. The current situation of many people working only to find it doesn't do this has left me somewhat confused.

InspectorClouseauMNdivision · 16/04/2019 09:39

Small businesses could afford to pay living wage if customers didn't go into massive huffing sessions and moaning about prices of services. Everyone wants fresh food, quality service, but god forbid the burger is over the price of Maccies.... 🤷‍♀️
Everyone wants web page designed for peanuts. Or handmade ethical clothes, not from sweat shop, for a tenner. Or sandwich for a quid🤷‍♀️
We once put up prices 50p. Vat went up, prices of everything went up, wages went up, we couldn't cover the shortfall. So many people went mental over it.

woodhill · 16/04/2019 09:43

I agree Wheezy. Both my son's rentals have been overpriced and the first one was not safe things blocking exterior doors etc and really needed refurbishment- he's a student but still.

I think these landlords would probably put the properties in a relative's name to get round any taxation issues

IceCreamAndCandyfloss · 16/04/2019 09:46

A Living wage wouldn't fix things. It's not suddenly going to develop a work ethic in all those that claim state benefits. Not to mention, person a might light within their means whereas person b might have three chidren and a part tine salary.

SnuggyBuggy · 16/04/2019 10:02

I'm a bit cynical about the concept of a work ethic. Most people are motivated by results rather than a work ethic and and more likely to put effort into something if it yields results.

Iggly · 16/04/2019 10:26

A Living wage wouldn't fix things. It's not suddenly going to develop a work ethic in all those that claim state benefits

Of those claiming housing benefit, more people than not work.

If people are being paid to do a job, then that job clearly has value to the organisation. In which case they need to either pay enough for people to live (as they have no other time or means to earn if they’re working full time) or they give them the time/flexibility to reduce childcare costs or earn elsewhere.

This isn’t about work ethic. It’s about people being ripped off with shit wages then being told they’re work shy for claiming benefits when they’re clearly needed!

CanILeavenowplease · 16/04/2019 10:44

A Living wage wouldn't fix things. It's not suddenly going to develop a work ethic in all those that claim state benefits

I claim state benefits. I work full time hours. I also work additional part time hours - currently an additional 10 hours from home. I also work seasonally when appropriate. So 3 jobs in total. I also have a Masters degree and a professional qualification which I use in all 3 jobs.

In what way do I not have a work ethic?

Brilliantidiot · 16/04/2019 11:10

A Living wage wouldn't fix things. It's not suddenly going to develop a work ethic in all those that claim state benefits. Not to mention, person a might light within their means whereas person b might have three chidren and a part tine salary.

Well, it won't create a work ethic in me, seeing as I have a full time job, and have never been unemployed, from 15 years old. I already have a work ethic. A living wage would mean I could live without claiming benefits. Don't worry, I'd not be financially better off from a living wage, I'd still just scrape by and know my place! But I'd be living solely on earnings.
And I'd love to 'live within my means' only most of my outgoings are fixed -
Rent - sh so lower than private and in a home the right size.
Council Tax - no option to cut back there, band A.
Water - fixed monthly tariff.
Gas/elec - pre payment which takes a proportion of the credit even when not used, for standing charge, and is more than monthly DD - no option to change without a £250 'deposit' for either. Also need things like clean clothes and baths to keep myself in a fit state for work.
Travel - fixed prices, that have just increased.
Food - already buy the cheapest available.
Other stuff - need things like deodorant same as anyone else, need clothes and shoes when they fall apart - mainly work stuff I buy actually.
Don't have a car, can't remember the last time I had a hair cut, phone on cheapest deal PAYG, no broadband/TV package, have Freeview. I could go on, but the point is that there isn't an option to 'live within my means' and I have a work ethic because if I didn't I wouldn't be in full time employment. Wouldn't have always been employed.
There's so, so many like me that a living wage would lift out of benefits, and a living wage wouldn't make us better off financially.
The only people a living wage wouldn't do anything for are those that don't work, the majority of which are pensioners according to where most benefits actually go, so should we be creating a work ethic in them?

Brilliantidiot · 16/04/2019 11:31

Small businesses could afford to pay living wage if customers didn't go into massive huffing sessions and moaning about prices of services. Everyone wants fresh food, quality service, but god forbid the burger is over the price of Maccies.... 🤷‍♀️
Everyone wants web page designed for peanuts. Or handmade ethical clothes, not from sweat shop, for a tenner. Or sandwich for a quid🤷‍♀️
We once put up prices 50p. Vat went up, prices of everything went up, wages went up, we couldn't cover the shortfall. So many people went mental over it.

Also agree with this in part, for those small business owners that can't afford to increase pay without increasing prices. That said, I've worked for quite a few 'small businesses' over the years, and they don't seem to have basic budgeting skills. In the busy times they lack the foresight to stash some of the profit to tide over the quiet times, and so staff are squeezed tighter to do the work of two to save money. People on zero hour contracts get just that, and then are expected to just drop everything to pick up the slack when business picks up again. They expect absolute loyalty, but refuse to show any back. They expect people to be as invested, if not more in their company when they're living a comfortable life from the business, and the people working for them can't make ends meet, oh and get slagged off by society for that too.

Purpletigers · 16/04/2019 12:09

It’s a lie that anyone would choose to live off benefits. Lots of people do , it’s not a life of Riley by any means but if you’re only better off by a tenner a week for working you can’t really blame them . Add in the free school meals , dental help , prescription charges etc etc and you can see why it’s appealing to someone who hasn’t got any qualifications. Hell I’d probably be tempted . The only way to get people to work is to remove the option of them not having to . Harsh but true .