Cynical ploy or reality?

CLAPTON

black_taxi wrote: »

if we all put in tax returns like the unemployment data we would all be in jail

the government stats service publishes a very wide range of employment and unemployment data

the fact you don't choose to read it is another matter

Loughton_Monkey

black_taxi wrote: »

if we all put in tax returns like the unemployment data we would all be in jail

You have a rather more optimistic view as to the diligence, intelligence, and capabilities of HMRC than do I.

wotsthat

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

A few people, I think, faced with this proposition might still choose to work the full time route, for the following reasons:

1. Self-respect. Far better to think one is providing 100% for family without relying on state help...

2. The full time option may include additional benefits such as pension contributions...

3. There is a strong possibility that income from FT occupation may provide greater increases than the benefits option. Compounding effect would be quite lucrative over time...

4. When in FT employment, good workers have substantial further opportunities for promotion or a far better CV ultimately commanding better opportunities elsewhere....

In the not so distant past before tax credits and subsidised childcare we paid nigh on 100% of my wife's earnings keeping two pre-school kids in nursery. We would have been better off if she'd packed up work but would have missed out on...

3 x (significantly) above inflation pay rises
3 x Christmas bonuses
Funded day-release to complete a science degree
1 x promotion
& ultimately provided the pathway to a career change
& ensured money has never been a significant worry for the family

Self-respect was a minor factor at the time because ultimately we thought we were doing what was best anyway and I'm certain that or kids have turned into well rounded individuals with little sign of damage from having parents that were/ are still working towards financial independence.

It also means I can now treat Graham's accusations of privilege with the contempt they deserve and look on with amusement at the impossibilities he raises.

Graham_Devon

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

A rather interesting choice of words: "Impossible".

Not really.

Look at anyone single person with children who receives some benefits.

Coming off benefits entirely is impossible for many. Many work part time, and would like to work full time, but rents and nursery fee's make it all but impossible for lower paid full time jobs.

I see wotsthat has also pounced on me suggesting I will now be treated with the contempt I deserve. What on earth is wrong with you guys? Can I say nothing without this nonsense everytime I post?

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Look at anyone single person with children who receives some benefits.

Coming off benefits entirely is impossible for many. Many work part time, and would like to work full time, but rents and nursery fee's make it all but impossible for lower paid full time jobs.

You're pointing out that, in some cases, benefits may exceed potential earnings. That doesn't make working more an impossibility. It's a choice - some people might see beyond the here and now recognising that longer terms gains might require short term sacrifices.

I doubt that longer term benefit claimants look at the future this way and instead compare today's non-working income with today's potential working income without considering that increases in wealth are much more likely in work than out of work.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I see wotsthat has also pounced on me suggesting I will now be treated with the contempt I deserve. What on earth is wrong with you guys? Can I say nothing without this nonsense everytime I post?

I actually mentioned nothing about treating you with contempt. Rather your oft implied assertion that people only disagree with you because their life of privilege and luck gives them an inability to understand 'how people live'.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

You're pointing out that, in some cases, benefits may exceed potential earnings. That doesn't make working more an impossibility. It's a choice - some people might see beyond the here and now recognising that longer terms gains might require short term sacrifices.

It's hardly a choice, if, as many people find, taking a full time job will see you unable to pay your rent.

There are so many issues involved with childcare (especially over the holidays and especially with young children not yet at school) that have to be taken into consideration.

Much of the time, the childcare aspect means that income in that month could be well below the income needed for rent, food, bills etc.

It's not easy. in some cases, if on minimum wage, impossible. And suggesting they should have some self respect is a quite insulting.

Once the kids are in school, it makes things a little easier. But when you are a single parent with a child under school age (or worse, 2!), I'd suggest it can be impossible, unless you can get a highly paying job.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It's hardly a choice, if, as many people find, taking a full time job will see you unable to pay your rent.

There are so many issues involved with childcare (especially over the holidays and especially with young children not yet at school) that have to be taken into consideration.

Much of the time, the childcare aspect means that income in that month could be well below the income needed for rent, food, bills etc.

It's not easy. in some cases, if on minimum wage, impossible. And suggesting they should have some self respect is a quite insulting.

Once the kids are in school, it makes things a little easier. But when you are a single parent with a child under school age (or worse, 2!), I'd suggest it can be impossible, unless you can get a highly paying job.

If benefits halved you'd suddenly find that the impossible (finding a job) became possible after all. That might not be the best approach but let's not confuse impossible with difficult or taking the easiest immediate choice.

Surprised you need to search for genuinely difficult situations to argue against people on benefits finding work. Why make excuses for people that we both know could make more of a contribution to their family income?

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

If benefits halved you'd suddenly find that the impossible (finding a job) became possible after all. That might not be the best approach but let's not confuse impossible with difficult or taking the easiest immediate choice.

Surprised you need to search for genuinely difficult situations to argue against people on benefits finding work. Why make excuses for people that we both know could make more of a contribution to their family income?

We seem to be arguing over a word I used and using pedantry to the extreme, more than over any specific point I made.

I can see why you are doing it, but it's a little pointless.

Loughton_Monkey

Graham_Devon wrote: »

We seem to be arguing over a word I used and using pedantry to the extreme, more than over any specific point I made.

I can see why you are doing it, but it's a little pointless.

It's hardly pedantic to point out your use of the word "impossible" for something that is quite clearly, patently, and factually, "possible". Most people would make the same point you made, but using a more correct and meaningful expression.

And it's certainly not pedantic to point out the difference between contempt for a person, and contempt for a view, or stance, he or she has taken. They are fundamentally different.

If I wanted to be pedantic, maybe I could latch onto something like...

Graham_Devon wrote: »

.....It's not easy. in some cases, if on minimum wage, impossible. And suggesting they should have some self respect is a quite insulting......

....I would point out that there is a lot of difference between (a) me suggesting that 'A few people.. might..' choose a different route for reasons that include self-respect, and (b) your assertion that I am suggesting "they should have" self-respect.

But I'm not. So I won't.