Originally Posted by Biscuits_Brown

Originally Posted by heard_it_all_before

My Sister-in-Law, who with one child, CSA and with her doing the bare minimum of 16 hours work per week walks away with a nice little annual income of just over £16k per annum, Tax Free of course. So at just under £17 per hour, that's not bad for a 16 hour week

Like I said on a similar thread last year, there is no reason for people to go to work full-time when they can get more for doing less.

Well, if your figures are correct, and I've no reason to assume they're not... Then whatever the 'little over' is, is what she's working the 16 hours a week for.

16k PA is roughly what a single parent on full benefits would garner. So.... Plaudits to Sis for working I think?

BTW. That's about 9K more than she'd "earn" without the child.

ETA:- In case I attract pedants, that's working on an "equivalence" to a net salary. The actual "in-hand" is less.

Only £4867 of that is made up from the ""Working"" bit. Which is the minimum wage x 16 hours x 52 weeks.

But my point was this, the moaning bitch lives by the assumption that the state owes her. The child is 18 and at college and also works.

Yes indeed they should be applauded for working, but the fact that she relies upon the benefits and tax credits as opposed to looking for a full-time job that pays more than the benefits, is where this overly generous system falls down. So like I said, why work a 38-40 hour working week when you can get just as much by doing only 16...?

Depending on her level of qualification, a full time job will probably garner her less...

It's a situation that (on income based benefit) only applies to single parents or those with four or more children. Otherwise minimum wage will always be superior. Which in itself brings about the problem of making having "welfare babies" such a financially attractive proposition. On means tested benefits, the rate paid in the UK to a single, childless person is actually one of the lowest (if not the lowest) in real terms, in the EU. Add that first child and you skip to (I think) third highest... And people wonder why we have so many feral children?

Being unemployed used to be a stigma. Now it isn't. If the govt could do a job on the unemployed as good as the one done to smokers it would be a ways to making unemployed people seem like social lepers and maybe start to get the message accross.

Cue forboding music

'See that man there?

camera zooms in on man drinking coffee in a Starbuks type place.

'That man who hasn't worked in 12 years since getting laid off from the plastic tubing packing plant?'

'He's a tw*t'

'He's sat thre drinking coffee whilst you're out working. He's sat there drinking coffee, paid for by you, and he doesn't care'

'In fact he hates you, and is proberbly going to move some illegal immigrants into your house whilst you're out at work'

etc........

The other problem that goes “”Unseen” by the general public is that a culture, system, of shared hours has become the norm. This thereby means that where the 40 hour a week job used to be done by one person, more often than not, those same hours are shared between 2-3 people. In the sense of people working that can be seen as a good thing, the reality is that it's one job now shared by 3.

So what..?

Well, where one person used to do a 40 hour per week job, and pay tax. You now have 3 people doing the same job, and with non of them paying any tax. Add the lone parent scenario and you potentially have 3 people not paying any tax but all withdrawing huge amounts of working tax credits from a pot that they have never pisssed in.

From my example the lone parent is earning £93.60 per week, but then claiming £154 per week in tax credits. Which just doesn't add up to good finances or a healthy balance of the nations bank balance..

However, whilst the Lords and Masters are stood at the Oche lauding in the fact that they have created another 6000 jobs, what nobody sees, or asks, is just how much is that expansion by Tesco, Asda or whoever is really worth to the nation.

Originally Posted by heard_it_all_before

The other problem that goes “”Unseen” by the general public is that a culture, system, of shared hours has become the norm. This thereby means that where the 40 hour a week job used to be done by one person, more often than not, those same hours are shared between 2-3 people. In the sense of people working that can be seen as a good thing, the reality is that it's one job now shared by 3.

So what..?

Well, where one person used to do a 40 hour per week job, and pay tax. You now have 3 people doing the same job, and with non of them paying any tax. Add the lone parent scenario and you potentially have 3 people not paying any tax but all withdrawing huge amounts of working tax credits from a pot that they have never pisssed in.

From my example the lone parent is earning £93.60 per week, but then claiming £154 per week in tax credits. Which just doesn't add up to good finances or a healthy balance of the nations bank balance..

However, whilst the Lords and Masters are stood at the Oche lauding in the fact that they have created another 6000 jobs, what nobody sees, or asks, is just how much is that expansion by Tesco, Asda or whoever is really worth to the nation.

Nail. Head. Socialism at its best, this is rife in the NHS and of course adds an additional dollop of management non-jobs to deal with the 'increased' workforce AND another dollop of non-jobs administering the working tax credits system in the first place.

I find it increasingly difficult to tolerate some associates of mine who blatantly letch off the system, it wouldn’t be so bad if it were only a little, but knowing they have a nice life whilst I have to work is very demoralising. I have a friend who’s a university drop out & has been out of work for a year yet believes he can cherry pick job opportunities rather than take anything. His dole goes on Playstation games & tickets for V Festival. I also know a string of single mothers who do nothing other than sit in their council flat or parent’s house all day watching MTV. They spend their child benefit on new outfits & going out, I then have the pleasure of viewing their photos on Facebook when I return home of their day spent lazing in the sun down the park. It’s all quite sickening & I do ponder why on earth I drag myself out of bed at 530am every weekday to go to work only for a significant proportion of my taxes to go & sub these people & their lifestyles.

Is it worth it? Do they know something I don’t

-DC

Originally Posted by Markintime

Originally Posted by llech

Usuall right wing horseshit, why always pick on the lower end who won't answer back. Wouldn't it be more constructive to make work pay, rather than slagging benefit claimants? work does pay, it just doesn't pay as much as benefits. No one person should be allowed to claim more than the maximum they could earn on minimum wage less one hour so that work is always the best option. Benefit is not there to fund a lifestyle but as a stand-bye in times of hardship.
Despite ANECDOTAL myth's, MOST benefit claimants are genuine, or are truly caught in a benefit trap i.e. Minimum Wage wont pay the rent/bills then they should cut their cloth accordingly. Why should anyone be allowed to claim more in benefit than they can earn for themselves? If you're on minimum wage then there will be a lot you will have to go without, just like I had to when I was bringing my children up on a piss poor squaddies wage. 1 TV (rented from SSVC), second hand furniture and rarely went out for a drink, let alone on a bender, second hand washing machine as well, no car, couldn't afford one.but NO it's far easier to say 'Hey look at those Chav's get a feckin job, I have and I'm better then you!'
Just my two pence worth.

It used to be a very simple rule of life, if you couldn't afford something you went without. Today's generation where you must have every last luxury on earth before you're 21 is bollix. Go out, get the best job you can and live off the wages.

Absolutely agree. The only thing I would add, is that the people with families today receiving full benefits, are living a lot better than many fully employed working and service families used to then.

so how much did we give to the bankers for what exactly

Tebbit is a cnut. I hope his bike gets a flat when speeding downhill and his brakes fail ...

Originally Posted by brighton hippy

so how much did we give to the bankers for what exactly

Probably not as much as we could have if they had needed/wanted more. The British economy is based on financial services. Effectively there isn't anything else so they have a blank cheque.