Benefits Street

Glen_Clark

makeyourdaddyproud wrote: »

the Honours List makes a great deal of a working class individual doing something outstanding,

They have to give honours to a few working class people to give their honours system some credibility.
Was Her Unelected Majesty the Queen doing John Lennon a favour by giving him an MBE.
Or was he doing her a favour by accepting it?

poppysarah

Glen_Clark wrote: »

They have to give honours to a few working class people to give their honours system some credibility.
Was Her Unelected Majesty the Queen doing John Lennon a favour by giving him an MBE.
Or was he doing her a favour by accepting it?

Or returning it.
http://www.beatlesbible.com/1969/11/25/john-lennon-returns-his-mbe-to-the-queen/

stesilc

not everyone on benifits is like that , does everyone that works fiddle there taxes ? dived and conquer and rule the counrty for the benifit of the super rich

gadgetmind

Um, it's "benefits". And "their", "divided", "country", and "benefit" again. You also need some capitals and punctuation.

Perhaps a good way out of the benefits mess is to start with a basic education for all?

Furts

Furts wrote: »

I will add a recent experience, which is not in the prosperous south east or London.

I was working on a small construction site in a city centre. There were a number of labourers. A couple were Romanian and a couple were UK teenagers. The developer despaired with the latter - they was no work ethic but he wanted local labour . He went through numerous replacement teenagers then sacked the last one on Friday. On Monday morning at 7.20 a Romanian car pulled up beside me in the car park. He had just driven to work, from Romania, and arrived ten minutes early for the 7.30 start.

Later that week I asked about his progress. He had gone elsewhere. It was explained that he had been offered a better paid job within days. He could not be expected to work for the rates of pay being offered. He had given notice to the devoper, apologised for any inconvience caused, and phoned Romania. A replacement got in his car and drove to the site.

Of course rates of pay are relevant. This was eight hours a day for a six day week - the Romanians wanted to work Saturdays. There was some evening overtime, but this was not guaranteed. Equally there was no overtime premium. The deal was £10 an hour for a 48 hour week. Show willing and it might gross at £580 per week.

The Romanian had been offered £12 per hour within two days of his arrival - word had gone round that here was someone who wanted to work. When there is a demand, but no supply, the price goes up...

I do not consider this exploitation, but residents of that city will not work for these terms.

Whilst working on this site I had a role on a site seventy miles away. The site needed weeks of tidying up - there was bricks, blocks, timber, rubbish and debris everywhere. A small team of willing labourers was essential.

The construction company - a reputable large contractor - apologised profusely. Over the space of one year they had despaired of the inhabitants of that town, the Jobcentre Plus and the local agencies. Nobody was willing or able to work on the site.

The contractor had found one eighteen year old to drive a round journey of 140 miles daily to tidy up the site. He was paid for the travelling. He was both overwhelmed with work and lacking any work ethic. He had the contractor over a barrell and he knew it.

The contractor, in an ideal world was desperate to sack him. But there was no alternative labour available to replace him. Not even Polish or Romanian - they were all working elsewhere!

Privately, the contractor admitted there was some unemployment and probable deprivation in the town. But the residents would not come forward to take work.

gazter

Glen_Clark wrote: »

Would you say the same about people who avoid paying tax - they are taking money destined for people who needed it?
I am struggling to reconcile your assertions the money was destined for people who needed it, with your assertions the Government wastes taxpayers money

Nothing wrong with tax avoidance. In fact I'm doing it right now. I do it every single day.

Glen_Clark

gazter wrote: »

Nothing wrong with tax avoidance. In fact I'm doing it right now. I do it every single day.

I think thats a very common attitude.
If the Government put the same effort into chasing tax evaders as they do benefit claimants* I am sure they would get a lot more money.

*like advertising freephone anonymous telephone numbers to shop tax evaders as well as benefit claimants.

Angelicdevil

gazter wrote: »

Nothing wrong with tax avoidance. In fact I'm doing it right now. I do it every single day.

Glen_Clark wrote: »

I think thats a very common attitude.
If the Government put the same effort into chasing tax evaders as they do benefit claimants* I am sure they would get a lot more money.

*like advertising freephone anonymous telephone numbers to shop tax evaders as well as benefit claimants.

There's a difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion.....

One is legal and the other is not.

Zorz_2

gazter wrote: »

Nothing wrong with tax avoidance. In fact I'm doing it right now. I do it every single day.

Glen_Clark wrote: »

I think thats a very common attitude.
If the Government put the same effort into chasing tax evaders as they do benefit claimants* I am sure they would get a lot more money.

Notice any differences, chief?

*like advertising freephone anonymous telephone numbers to shop tax evaders as well as benefit claimants.

I think you mean those that commit benefit fraud or is that a freudian slip? :rotfl:

zarf2007

Gotta hand it to funghi's electrician mate, he's as sharp as a marble