matty
Advanced Member
Posts: 103
|
Post by matty on Jun 29, 2010 13:09:24 GMT -8
The topic of welfare creeped up on the gambling thread so I thought I'd revive an old issue with a new thread.
I'm going to use what I know as an example. the uk benifts system, which is undergoing a facelift as thatchers' children rise to power with their sidekicks the two faced liars. Anyway enough of my political jibes and back on topic.
The benifits system enables people to gain money whilst unemployed.
Job Seekers Allowance(commonly known as the Dohl)
One of the most commonly abused forms of benifits this enables you £65ish a week to live on and you get your rent and council tax payed. The only qualification for this benifit is being unemployed, you ring up job centre and tell them your circumstances and arrange an appointment, the aim for the money is to see you through until the job centre has helped you find a job, but a lot of people don't take the help and stay on jobseekers for a long time, maybe years.
Incapacity Benifit
This benifit is also abused a lot. It is basically sick leave pay on the government. It can range from £68 to around £95 a week and I am 99% sure that council tax and rent are paid under this benifit.
These are the two main benifits but you also have working tax credit and child benifit. Child benifit is available to some people in work, up to a certain age.
So do you agree with benifits, how do you think we can reduce the amount of people abusing benifits?
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jun 29, 2010 14:55:07 GMT -8
This is similar to our "unemployment benefit". However, does yours pay for the entirety of a person's rent? What if they own a home (I know, rare in Britain, right?)
|
|
matty
Advanced Member
Posts: 103
|
Post by matty on Jun 30, 2010 12:53:45 GMT -8
Its not rare in britain, but most people rent or mortgage for financial reasons. If you own the home there's no rent to pay but chances are your council tax is higher.
Its the entirety of your rent. The money in your pocket sum is around £65.
Anyway this debate was meant to be about the principals of welfare, that was just an example.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jun 30, 2010 13:03:28 GMT -8
Just curious. I think that translates to a lot more welfare for unemployment than we have... depending on how long it lasts.
I'm assuming there is a limit to how long a person can receive it?
That's one of the checks and balances we have for the system here.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jun 30, 2010 13:04:48 GMT -8
Unemployment benefit in general makes sense for the economy as long as it's not abused. But, how do make sure it's not?
Well, first what would it look like to abuse it? Is it abusing it to not accept a job that is not equivalent to the one the laid you off?
|
|
|
|
Post by robin on Jun 30, 2010 14:44:07 GMT -8
Make in uncomfortable for people to be on welfare.
Unemployment payments are too high. We (our family business)have attempted to hire people over the last two years and there have been a number of times where people would refuse employment because they could stay home and make almost as much as being employed. Today an unemployed person can be paid to stay home for up to 18 months, and the make roughly 60% of their employed salary, without taxes being withheld. With such a rich and attractive unemployment system, we're asking for people to abuse it.
I don't know much about Margret Thatcher except that she was very close to President Reagan. If their policies were similar, you would be well advised to support Thatcher's children, and perhaps your nation will be saved from bankruptcy. By the way, I'm interested to know who the two face liar are. Are you referring to a particular political party, or movement?
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jul 1, 2010 8:40:08 GMT -8
How about a system that pays 100% for the first week or two after losing your job and the percentage starts to drop significantly thereafter?
I know losing one's job is a killer even for those who honestly want to work hard.
|
|
matty
Advanced Member
Posts: 103
|
Post by matty on Jul 1, 2010 10:57:52 GMT -8
In our system you are helped to find jobs, so how about having pay dropped for refusing the oppurtunities?
I think this is fair as those who don't recieve the oppurtunities because of a lack of skill will not be uniformally punished.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kirby on Jul 1, 2010 11:02:22 GMT -8
When I was unemployed, I did refuse a job. The job (sent to me from the Unemployment Department) was to sort hangers at a department store warehouse for $7.50/hr, considerably less then my unemployment benefit. Should I have been penalized for accepting a job that I was over qualified for at a less than living wage?
I see what you are saying, but refusing work is not always about laziness.
|
|
|
|
Post by robin on Jul 1, 2010 13:40:14 GMT -8
I think so. Why not take that Job, and continue to look for a better job? Why is it societies job to pay you until you find work that is worth of you?
When I got married I was making $8.00/ hour at Les Schwab, and managed to pay my bills. I would have certainly liked a better paying Job, but I found a company willing to employ me at a time when I was having troubles finding work. It is certainly not easy making so little, but you make sacrifices that are necessary to move forward.
I forgot to mention, that the Lady that turned down the Job offer was offered a Job making $17.00/hour.
|
|
|
|
Post by robin on Jul 1, 2010 13:50:02 GMT -8
I can't believe that this lady serves as the Speaker of the House.  |
|
|
|
Post by rbbailey on Jul 11, 2010 17:10:51 GMT -8
There are always a few philosophical questions that need to be asked.
Whose money is it?
Who is owed the money?
What makes a person entitled to get the money?
Why shouldn't a person be entitled to pay back the money?
etc...
etc.....
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jul 29, 2010 17:27:29 GMT -8
I can't believe that this lady serves as the Speaker of the House. Robin- Was there something particular in this clip that was inciting to you? rbbailey wrote: How would you answer those fine questions, Mr. Bailey?  |
|
|
|
Post by robin on Jul 30, 2010 8:03:10 GMT -8
Yes, the absurd notion that unemployment payments are a major stimulus to the economy, and that by extending unemployment benefits more jobs will be created faster.
Since when does expanding the welfare state encourage economic growth?
|
|
|
|
Post by rbbailey on Jul 31, 2010 15:49:58 GMT -8
It's oxymoronic to say, "Unemployment benefits." When you say, "Unemployment benefits stimulate the economy," Is that a double oxymoron?
|
|
