Age 7 government child trust fund payments not being released!!!

liam8282

Deepmistrust wrote: »

Your continued attacks on what you all would do to the unemployed - like slash benefits etc, would attack ALL the unemployed (which also included the previously tax-paying unemployees that Lizzy even thinks should have "more" money than the rest) not just the workshy.

The only actual idea I can recall you coming out with on this entire thread, was to raise the minimum wage, like that was a solution to all the benefits problems.

The obvious flaw being that if the minimum wage was raised, everything including benefits, would rise in line with it.

Everything else is just you ranting on.

Deepmistrust

liam8282 wrote: »

So for 35 - 40 hours per week, the value to the worker is £3k per year.

Can you not see why people choose not to bother working?

The scenario is assuming the Jobseeker is receiving and paying out £189 in rent for a 2 bed (rather high for most of the country). A more realistic rent significantly reduces his incoming benefits by a far greater percentage than would affect the worker.

The point is WITHOUT WTC/CTC then, as in the old days it WAS better off to be unemployed.

£250 does buy a lot more than £0. per month.

A lone parent earning £22k per year, paying £189 p/w in rent, is not living the high life either, but is somewhat better off even in this limited scenario (not even factored in child maintenance payments which the job-seeker may lose a larger part of the benefits for, if that was factored in).

So, in your ideal scenario to widen the gap between the worker and the non-worker you have two choices:

1. You increase the income of the worker, through more benefits.
or
2. You slash JSA of £65.00 per week - to what..?

liam8282

Originally Posted by liam8282
Why don't you go to one of the many council estates in Britain and put it to the people who are not genuinely not seeking work and are doing nothing at all to support themselves or their families. Except claiming benefits.

(Not that I have a problem with council estates, or the people that live there)

No of course you don't which is why you introduced yet more bigotry against poor working-classes who live in council homes.

So I am bigoted against myself now?

Another analogy to your attempt to detract from the fact that you obviously DO have a problem with council estates or the people that live there, is along the lines of the person who would also idiotically say "I'm not racist, but I don't like black people".

You just detracting from the subject and taking things out of context. Yet again.

To be honest, you're not even enlightened enough to have a conversation with, the mass of contradictions you come out with just tie you in knots.

If only you would read what you write. You have just perfectly described yourself, yet again, as you did the first time you called me a bigot.

I have no problem with those that are at the job centre, actively seeking employment.

Which is again why I agree with workfare, if they are struggling to find work they can do, it would be an opportunity to get out and maybe learn new skills, whilst still seeking employment.

If they want to engage in any VOLUNTARY work whilst unemployed, (as many already do) then great. If they would rather spend their days job seeking, (as many do) then great. If they would rather spend their days actively avoiding work and playing the system (a job in itself) - again a minority of unemployed and I don't know why you don't tire attempting to produce your entire argument against a minority group that isn't even relevant (there will always be a minority of people determined to play the system whatever system you have in place), then the system will eventually catch up with them, one way or another.

Gets back to the point of "they aren't doing anything illegal, so it isn't wrong".

Deepmistrust

liam8282 wrote: »

The only actual idea I can recall you coming out with on this entire thread, was to raise the minimum wage, like that was a solution to all the benefits problems.

The obvious flaw being that if the minimum wage was raised, everything including benefits, would rise in line with it.

This scenario is not even dealing with a person on the minimum wage. Please keep in relevant and in context. You've done enough side-tracking and wittering in attempts to mask the fact that you wanted to replace your partners CHOICE to reduce her working hours with benefits - and found you couldn't do it. (Which you could even say is yet more evidence that the more hours you work, the better off you are).

Everything else is just you ranting on.

You continually ignore that WTC is a solution to ensure that low paid workers are usually always better off working.

liam8282

Deepmistrust wrote: »

So, in your ideal scenario to widen the gap between the worker and the non-worker you have two choices:

1. You increase the income of the worker, through more benefits.
or
2. You slash JSA of £65.00 per week - to what..?

I would settle on a compulsory workfare scheme for the non-worker.

What would you do?

Deepmistrust

liam8282 wrote: »

Originally Posted by liam8282
Why don't you go to one of the many council estates in Britain and put it to the people who are not genuinely not seeking work and are doing nothing at all to support themselves or their families. Except claiming benefits.

(Not that I have a problem with council estates, or the people that live there)

No of course you don't which is why you introduced yet more bigotry against poor working-classes who live in council homes.

So I am bigoted against myself now?

You are a hypocrite. So not only do you slag off
people who try to work 16 hours hoping to make up the money with WTC, your own partner did try the exact same thing - only to discover she couldn't.

Now you're a council tenant, claiming council estates are riddled with tenants actively avoiding work.

LMAO, you couldn't make this up.

Another analogy to your attempt to detract from the fact that you obviously DO have a problem with council estates or the people that live there, is along the lines of the person who would also idiotically say "I'm not racist, but I don't like black people".

You just detracting from the subject and taking things out of context. Yet again.

To be honest, you're not even enlightened enough to have a conversation with, the mass of contradictions you come out with just tie you in knots.

If only you would read what you write. You have just perfectly described yourself, yet again, as you did the first time you called me a bigot.

I have no problem with those that are at the job centre, actively seeking employment.

Which is again why I agree with workfare, if they are struggling to find work they can do, it would be an opportunity to get out and maybe learn new skills, whilst still seeking employment.

If they want to engage in any VOLUNTARY work whilst unemployed, (as many already do) then great. If they would rather spend their days job seeking, (as many do) then great. If they would rather spend their days actively avoiding work and playing the system (a job in itself) - again a minority of unemployed and I don't know why you don't tire attempting to produce your entire argument against a minority group that isn't even relevant (there will always be a minority of people determined to play the system whatever system you have in place), then the system will eventually catch up with them, one way or another.

Gets back to the point of "they aren't doing anything illegal, so it isn't wrong".

Abysmal strawman.
If they aren't jobseeking, there are financial implications.

Deepmistrust

If anyone can answer this question, instead of
a. Sidetracking from the scenario
b. Attempting to hide that they themselves were involved in a recent scenario whereby they (or their partners) attempted - and failed - to replace work with benefits

I would be most grateful.

So, in your ideal scenario to widen the gap between the worker and the non-worker you have two choices:

1. You increase the income of the worker, through more benefits.
or
2. You slash JSA of £65.00 per week - to what..?

Deepmistrust

liam8282 wrote: »

I would settle on a compulsory workfare scheme for the non-worker.

What would you do?

Could you explain in more detail how this would widen the gap between non-worker and worker?

liam8282

This scenario is not even dealing with a person on the minimum wage. Please keep in relevant and in context. You've done enough side-tracking and wittering in attempts to mask the fact that you wanted to replace your partners CHOICE to reduce her working hours with benefits - and found you couldn't do it. (Which you could even say is yet more evidence that the more hours you work, the better off you are).

Not at all, I answered all of your misconceptions and misinterpretation, of your own sidetrack onto my personal circumstances.

Circumstances you dismiss as "neither here, nor there", but still continue to rant on about.

It goes back to another point which shows, in my position, it would probably be financially beneficial for me to cut my hours down or better still, both me and my partner quit our jobs and go on benefits full time.

But as I choose to work and support my own family, I am financially worse off, not to mention we both have to actually do the work in order to receive our income.

You still fail to see anything from any other perspective, except that of your own.

Deepmistrust

liam8282 wrote: »

This scenario is not even dealing with a person on the minimum wage. Please keep in relevant and in context. You've done enough side-tracking and wittering in attempts to mask the fact that you wanted to replace your partners CHOICE to reduce her working hours with benefits - and found you couldn't do it. (Which you could even say is yet more evidence that the more hours you work, the better off you are).

Not at all, I answered all of your misconceptions and misinterpretation, of your own sidetrack onto my personal circumstances.

Circumstances you dismiss as "neither here, nor there", but still continue to rant on about.

It goes back to another point which shows, in my position, it would probably be financially beneficial for me to cut my hours down or better still, both me and my partner quit our jobs and go on benefits full time.

But as I choose to work and support my own family, I am financially worse off, not to mention we both have to actually do the work in order to receive our income.

You still fail to see anything from any other perspective, except that of your own.

You do like to rant about the word "rant". I'm actually keeping a tally (sad I know:rotfl:), on your use of your favoured easy-to-spell but worn-out-and-passed-its-usefulness word.

In the last 18 pages, you have used it no less than 97 times.:rotfl::rotfl: