how far can i actually take this?

custardy

Marisco wrote: »

This is the argument that people use to justify paying low wages! How about companies take less profit, stop paying executives ridiculous wages and cut divies for shareholders? Why is it that when decent wages for workers is discussed, it's always "prices will rise" before even considering anything else!!! I'm not talking about tiny businesses with few staff here either, as a lot of those are struggling, but why should the likes of Tesco, Asda, M & S etc, put prices up instead of absorbing the costs out of huge profits?

When I phone Orange (my broadband provider) it always goes to an outsourced call centre, because they pay peanuts, and make more money. They are hardly a small business, yet they will do anything, rather than pay decent wages!! The majority of people do not like outsourced call centres, but do they care?? Do they hell!! Profit before people every time!!:mad:

and picking large companies is always the default reply
so what about the smaller companies? where do they get their monies to pay the higher wages?
charge more for their services?

Marisco

I know what you mean custardy, and it is a problem, but you cannot expect the taxpayers to subsidise employers willy nilly either! Look at the hoo ha there was when the NMW was brought in!!! Employers whining it would cause wholesale job losses etc, that didn't happen. Mind, employees have to play their part as well, and stop whinging they don't get enough to buy everything they want!! But when you need benefits just to pay the rent/mortgage, bills and eat, there is something wrong somewhere!!

Naf

On the subject, this is rather interesting...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/apr/01/jobcentres-tricking-people-benefit-sanctions

Marisco

If this is true, and I wouldn't put anything past this gov, it's shocking!! But what's even worse is the bloody staff are going along with it!!!! JC staff should tell the "higher ups" that they refuse to treat people like that, and that they will make it public, not whistleblowing under anonymity, but shout it from the rooftops, and even better, tell the claimants, and see what happens!!! Is there no end to the nastiness of the Tories!!!!:mad:

Marco86

AimeesMum wrote: »

By supporting a child you mean going out to work to pay for them? How do you propose that people do this on their own when childcare is (in my area) £38 per day. I don't think anyone could have expected the cost of being a working parent to rise so much.

Well how on earth can you go through with having a baby when you know that once they are born you will not be able to earn enough to be able to feed and house them??! :shocked::huh:


You wouldn't go through with buying a dog unless you knew for certain that you were earning enough money to be able to pay for everything itd need,
So ts the exact same for having a baby, that unless your certain that you're earning enough money to pay for everything it needs you shouldn't go through with having one!

Its really extremely simple and straightforward.


People have been having kids and for thousands and thousands and thousands of years, way before there was any of this ''child benefits'' nonsense,
and so the ONLY MONEY that people had (and so remained the same fixed amount regardless if they had 1 kid or 5 kids who needed to be provided for) was however much money they earnt from their job.

And yet people managed to bringup billions and billions of kids that way for tens of thousands of years.



So its just foolish, absurd and very pityful for people to now start bleating on about how they suddenly are incapable of doing that anymore, and instead need to rely on charity money off single working people.

emsywoo123

Marco86 wrote: »

Well how on earth can you go through with having a baby when you know that once they are born you will not be able to earn enough to be able to feed and house them??! :shocked::huh:


You wouldn't go through with buying a dog unless you knew for certain that you were earning enough money to be able to pay for everything itd need,
So ts the exact same for having a baby, that unless your certain that you're earning enough money to pay for everything it needs you shouldn't go through with having one!

Its really extremely simple and straightforward.


People have been having kids and for thousands and thousands and thousands of years, way before there was any of this ''child benefits'' nonsense,
and so the ONLY MONEY that people had (and so remained the same fixed amount regardless if they had 1 kid or 5 kids who needed to be provided for) was however much money they earnt from their job.

And yet people managed to bringup billions and billions of kids that way for tens of thousands of years.



So its just foolish, absurd and very pityful for people to now start bleating on about how they suddenly are incapable of doing that anymore, and instead need to rely on charity money off single working people.

Thanks for joining MSE. :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

skintmumof2

Naf wrote: »

Not quite sure where I said that:



Now, as to everyone else who're up in arms about people claiming benefits to be able to survive and support their kids, tell me: are you being paid a 'living wage'? Could the income you have support you, a partner even, let alone a child too? How many people do you know that are paid enough to do that, because in my experience in most high-street companied and typical jobs its not 'till you work up to area management that you're paid that; even store/restaurant managers aren't paid enough to support a family. Does this mean that they shouldn't be allowed to have children, just because this country's economy isn't geared up to pay everyone that kind of money? This is why this country has a benefit system in the first place. I have two wonderful kids and my amazing wife to support, and for the time being at least (until the youngest is at least finished breast-feeding) it's only my income coming in, and at only 14kpa it doesn't go very far on its own so I am forced to rely on some benefits to get by. I don't feel bad about this, and nobody is about to make me; but I work hard both to make as much as I can, and to improve my future prospects to, hopefully, not have to rely on these payments for any longer than necessary. Unfortunately not all those on benefits view it this way (although its clear that the OP does) and it is this that causes such a heavy burden on the taxpayer, and causes this general opinion that all benefit claimants are trying to cheat their way through. I absolutely agree that the OP ought to be able to get JSA in their situation, but that's not from a position of knowing the rules in great detail, simply that they're looking and available which really are the basic criteria.

I am in agreement here. My partner and i could afford to have both our kids at the time we had them. (The youngest being 2) but as partners wages have stayed the same and all our household bills are going up each time a bill is due we are really struggling. Again my partner is earning £14,000pa on NMW. We need housing benefit to help towards our rent and council tax benefit towars our council tax as we struggle to meet these. My partners £850 bring home pays the rent, council tax, and for the car to get to work. What we get in tax credits and child benefit buys our groceries and pays our household bills so any reduction in these would severley affect our living.
I am available for work, and would love to work but how?
The only possibility i could think off was to work in a factory on a night shift say 10pm till 6am then to take eldest to school and take youngest to a nursery but our local nursery is £40 a day so that would be £200p/w and £800p/m!!! How much of this Tax Credits would cover i dont know? would it be 70% but then i would still have to pay upfront untill tax credits issued a payment as that is what my friend had to do so where would that money come from?? It is so hard to find work and so much easier to just stay home and struggle i admit it. If there were more flexible hours within jobs it would be easier but i know this is at a cost to employers so what can be done??
I am still looking for any job that i can possibly do and to fit my kids and schooling around it and i dont expect to be paid for it but if my partner was to loose his job then i would expect some help is this wrong?

michelle1506

So are you suggesting that the op should have got a termination to keep you suitably happy?? Nothing is EVER that simple and straight forward! It sounds as though you are promoting the cause of only the well off breeding, and that those of a lesser income should not be!

You talk about 'bleating' well I have been where you are, that is a single, working person, who has forked out for other people's children, and have never once 'bleated' about it the way you are!

Well let me tell you, I have twins on the way, and when they get here I will be claiming CTC, WFTC and CB! Couldn't give a stuff what you think about it quite honestly. I see this as MY TURN to get something off the state for all of the contributions that I have made over the years!

Marco86 wrote: »

Well how on earth can you go through with having a baby when you know that once they are born you will not be able to earn enough to be able to feed and house them??! :shocked::huh:


You wouldn't go through with buying a dog unless you knew for certain that you were earning enough money to be able to pay for everything itd need,
So ts the exact same for having a baby, that unless your certain that you're earning enough money to pay for everything it needs you shouldn't go through with having one!

Its really extremely simple and straightforward.


People have been having kids and for thousands and thousands and thousands of years, way before there was any of this ''child benefits'' nonsense,
and so the ONLY MONEY that people had (and so remained the same fixed amount regardless if they had 1 kid or 5 kids who needed to be provided for) was however much money they earnt from their job.

And yet people managed to bringup billions and billions of kids that way for tens of thousands of years.



So its just foolish, absurd and very pityful for people to now start bleating on about how they suddenly are incapable of doing that anymore, and instead need to rely on charity money off single working people.

anguk

I think if someone is entitled to claim they'd be daft not to, it's the system that's flawed not the majority of people claiming.

That said it does make me smile a little when someone says "I've paid taxes for so & so years so now I'm claiming back some of it" as though their taxes have gone in a special little pot just for them. For most people the amount of taxes they've paid wouldn't cover the amount they've already had from the state if you take into account education, healthcare and other services.

michelle1506

I also think that where there is an entitlement that there is a claim to be made.

As for your second paragraph did you have anyone in particular in mind? I don't remember saying that the amount of contributions paid were ever enough?

anguk wrote: »

I think if someone is entitled to claim they'd be daft not to, it's the system that's flawed not the majority of people claiming.

That said it does make me smile a little when someone says "I've paid taxes for so & so years so now I'm claiming back some of it" as though their taxes have gone in a special little pot just for them. For most people the amount of taxes they've paid wouldn't cover the amount they've already had from the state if you take into account education, healthcare and other services.