The EU debate - Part III

Agreed if you put everything on a plate for people then there is little incentive to learn. In an ideal world you would expect people to learn and embrace some of the cultures it offers.

 

It's not as straight forwards as that. The minimum wage jobs tend to be zero hour or short hour contracts. Signing up for them can often mean you can 't then get state benefit when there's no work, meaning in reality it's far less than minimum wage.

It's one thing to do it short term to build a pot to take 'home', but people show their ignorance when they portray it as an 'either or' choice.

I don't see similar working practices and attitudes being taken up at the other end of the labour market, where the exact opposite argument is used for keeping hold of top level executives and limiting high earners tax.

 

Good examples of that can be seen in areas of the UK where groups self congregate on cultural grounds related to the lifestyle that failed enough to cause them to leave.

 

Less than 3% are on zero hours contracts and it's far from the norm for minimum wage jobs.

You can get benefits if your working hours fall short.

In any case, that wasn't the simple question posed, work on minimum wage or sit on your arse was the question. I'd have no issue with people who choose not to accept a zero hours contract in order to give up their benefits.

 

You can still get means tested benefits while working. Every means tested benefit uses an average income over 5 weeks or 2 months to handle variable wages. The RTI system that was introduced last year gives all the means tested benefits access to the tax submissions that employers must now make as part of every payroll submission.

The issues is far more those who work cash in hand and unscrupulous employers avoiding the tax system plus delays in the assessment of benefit and therefore the delay in receiving money than meaning you can't get state benefits.
As an aside. The Universal credit system is bananas. It uses the income you recieve in a month regardless of the period you worked. So if you are paid on a Monday and there are 5 Mondays in a month you will get less money despite being paid the same each week.

 

How unlike Dull to write with authority about a subject he clearly has very limited understanding of!

 

I'm not advocating anything.I asked you a simple question and you lied.
On here you've often said you wouldn't do a menial job,or get your hands dirty.

 

It's only slightly less than 3% of the total workforce and rising sharply according to the ONS, and the bulk of those will be in the minimum wage bracket. It's rarely a reality to be faced with a simple choice of sit on your arse or take zero hours, as there are other factors involved.

It's a lazy sound bite to blame people at the bottom of the ladder, and avoids the real debate, which should be more focused on how come such greed at the top is acceptable, when it facilitates such Victorian working and living practices. Arguing over benefits v immigrants, is like trying to decide which is the best gas mask, rather than trying to find ways of stopping the gas at source.

 

Behave. He was saying that if he had to, he would, rather than signing on.

 

Bloody economic migrants scoring two of United's goals.

The game finished 2-1 in Pete's house.

 

Gray's from Birmingham though and they don't speak English, so his goal would be chalked off.

 

Never said anything of the sort. Feel free to prove me wrong by quoting me. That's the beauty of t'internet, the evidence is out there (see my sig as an example).

My first job out of school, granted it was 23 years ago, paid £3 an hour. I worked 7 days a week, 9 hours a day. I loved it and went to uni the following year with a healthy bank balance.

But you're going to provide the quotes to prove I'm a liar. Jump to it wetty!

 

Maybe because nobody living in Brum are British?

 

Except Gray, presumably.

 

He does not speak English
PnP says so, he seems to know a lot about Brum, maybe he is a Brummy and should also be deported?

 

Only if he fails Armchair's English test. I fear you would.

 

I had the opportunity to sign on in 2004. The company I was working for closed our division so we were all gradually made redundant. We'd just bought a new house and got engaged so being out of work wasn't ideal. My mortgage protection insurance said I had to be on the rock and roll for 3 months for it to pay out. As it was explained to me, if I signed on I would not be allowed to do any freelance work (a day's work here and there as and when I could get it while looking for another job). I didn't fancy festering in our front room for months on end just to get insurance and government handouts so I took whatever freelance work I could get (which included going back to doing the kind of work I hadn't done since I was a graduate trainee, a tad dispiriting when you're about to turn 30), set up a small business and got by until I landed what turned out to be a great job which led on to an even better job.

Sorry to disappoint you wetty but I like working, always have. When I was at school I'd take any holiday job on offer. I shifted boxes, did removals, I once even helped my brother's mate clean an industrial sewer on a building site (didn't really enjoy that). You probably think I'm daft for working for peanuts and that I should have just taken the handouts on offer but I guess I just have more pride.

 

We agree on zhc's, whilst there's a segment of the working population who they work for (hence their existence) the rise of their use is worrying and needs curtailing by legislation imo, as the uncertainty they bring to many is wrong and they're not something I would personally ever use.

However, they're still only 3% of the total, so to use them as a cover all excuse for the feckless is wrong as far as I'm concerned.

As for what you call the 'real debate' why can't we seek to tackle both ends of the spectrum? Those at the top end need to pay their way, no argument from me there. But equally we've been importing unskilled labour from Eastern Europe for a decade and yet our total unemployment figures remain relatively static. There's many claiming benefits who could be working, but instead see the 'benefits way of life' as both their right and their choice. That's never right either.

 

The system's designed that way. We have to have a bunch of people that are unemployed.
If there's nobody to take the ****ty jobs at the bottom, then they'll have to offer more money to get them done.
Can't have the multi-national tax-dodging arseholes losing a bit of profit, can we?

 

The method of calculating unemployment figures have been altered so much over the years, they're of little use as a temporal comparison.

People claiming benefit rather than zero hour contract or minimum wage jobs, are such an insignificant portion of the economy, it is effectively meaningless. The 3% in that context is misleading and effectively meaningless.

There are quicker financial returns in correcting the cock ups from the issuing of the benefits and addressing the tax avoiders at the high end, and these don't add to hardship, poverty and the associated social problems.