Benefits Street

Glen_Clark

al25 wrote: »

People move around the globe, looking for jobs.
Jobs won't come to you, you need to go looking for jobs. Cost of housing applies to everyone, not just the ones on benefit.

Yes of course, but those who already live in the area have a head start over those who live on benefits a hundred miles away and can't afford to move!!
Problem is the aren't enough people living in London to do all the low wage jobs, and those who live outside can't afford to move. Nevertheless, the Government still does everything it can to concentrate jobs in London, even holding the Olympics in there when it cost far more than it would have cost to hold it outside London.

CKhalvashi

Glen_Clark wrote: »

Yes of course, but those who already live in the area have a head start over those who live on benefits a hundred miles away and can't afford to move!!
Problem is the aren't enough people living in London to do all the low wage jobs, and those who live outside can't afford to move. Nevertheless, the Government still does everything it can to concentrate jobs in London, even holding the Olympics in there when it cost far more than it would have cost to hold it outside London.

However, whilst I moaned about the Olympics continually (additional traffic etc etc etc), that was one of the driving forces into investment in the UK last year. About a week in I handed the keys to our managers and disappeared abroad for 5 weeks.......

With low paid jobs in London, wages in London (we've always found) have been higher than elsewhere in the country. It's always been the case in our industry that if you pay them properly, you get happy staff, and IMO this should be made the problem of the people paying them rather than government.

I'm in difficult position, as whilst on one side, I agree the benefits system should be generous to those that paid in and the disabled, I do agree that for some people, it's become a way of life. The issue is differentiating between these!

CK

Morglin

gadgetmind wrote: »

I'm not on benefits because I've always worked and this was initially in minimum wage service jobs. If I hadn't started there, I would now be no-where.

They'll never had any sort of job if they don't start somewhere.

Yes, because you need to start somewhere, but I'd then bounce off the safety net of benefits as quickly as I could.

Sorry, but to someone who's worked continuously since the age of 13 (yes, really) people bleating about work being hard to find, or too much effort, is something that I find deeply annoying.

If you worked from the age of 13, then you, like me, must be of a certain age, because I did the same, as school-kids were allowed to work part time, from that age, and most did, because the 'Saturday' jobs were so easy to get.

It was nothing exceptional to work from 13 - it was the norm then.

But, this was also a time when you could leave school, at 16, and go straight into a regular job, you could leave one job and get another job immediately, via the numerous employment agencies that existed then, or local newspapers, and there were many 'jobs for life' such as in the Civil Service, banks etc.,

Many of us moved jobs frequently, because it was a way to increase a salary and gain wide experience.

All of this meant a regular wage and meant that you could plan for the future, with mortgages, rent, children etc.,

There were also plenty of unskilled jobs about for those who, perhaps, didn't have many academic qualifications.

I feel sorry for many working age people today and for youngsters - there is nothing like the same amount of jobs available, partly due to increased technology, sending manufacturing abroad, immigration etc., - all often it's a struggle to get even these crappy zero contract, temporary jobs that allow for no future planning. Employers are paying foreigners below the minimum wage, meaning many Brits, needing a proper wage, can't get work, and no one seems to be stopping them, especially not this government.

We did have to start from the bottom in the 60's/70's, but we still got paid a proper wage and knew we could work our way up.

Assuming you are about my age, I would think you would find it extremely difficult to get a decent job were you to be laid off - age and the current system with employment would work against you, no matter how experienced and talented you are.

You might find the 'benefit bouncing' last a very long while. You might also find that any job you got was so low paid, you would end up on top up benefits, in the form of tax credits, anyway.

Job Centres and these various work programmes etc., etc., have tried every method to try and get people into work, to the point of harassment - yet, all they manage, in the main, is to get people into short hour temporary jobs, for a few months, so that they can shuffle the unemployment figures about.

Yes, of course, there are people who don't want to work, but they are in a minority, and don't intend to change anyway, because they don't choose to - they just turn to crime to top their benefits up, so all of Duncan Smith's big ideas pass them by. :wall:

The ones that suffer are the genuine unemployed, who need proper help, but just get slated.:mad:

Lin

Glen_Clark

CKhalvashi wrote: »

I agree the benefits system should be generous to those that paid in and the disabled, I do agree that for some people, it's become a way of life. The issue is differentiating between these!

CK

Well Quite, and the Government is obviously making a mess of that too.
Thats why we need to bring back the incentive to work - the income differential between low paid work, and benefits for people with children who have to be housed.. But you can't do that at the same time as deliberately inflating housing costs with Help to Bubble, coupled with 'planning committees' (a recipe for corruption if ever there was one) that severely restrict the supply of new homes..

Glen_Clark

CKhalvashi wrote: »

However, whilst I moaned about the Olympics continually (additional traffic etc etc etc), that was one of the driving forces into investment in the UK last year.

More like investment from the UK because it was all taxpayers (borrowed) money - and what have the majority who didn't want/couldn't afford to go to the Olympics they were paying for really got from it?

BillJones

Angelicdevil wrote: »

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

One is legal and the other is not.

Your respondent is very likely doing it himself. From not paying tax on the first 10k of earniings, through having an ISA, to buying a bottle of wine duty-free on the ferry, just about everyone avoids tax in some way.

For some reason, though, when they do it it is fine, but if someone else does it it becomes a problem.

When this point is made someone normally pops up to ask "are you genuinely claiming that my buying 200 fags in the airport is the same as your being allowed to shift money into your pension", and the answer is yes, it's exactly the same.

gazter

BillJones wrote: »

When this point is made someone normally pops up to ask "are you genuinely claiming that my buying 200 fags in the airport is the same as your being allowed to shift money into your pension", and the answer is yes, it's exactly the same.

Yes, exactly the same. The overwhelming vast majority of tax avoidance is in pensions. But as you point out it is the little things day to day that we do to pay the least tax we can. I drive an LPG car. I made the decision specifically to avoid the amount of tax on other fuels. I bought my house for a very small sum just under the stamp duty threshold. Instead of paying £7,500 in stamp duty i only paid just under £2,500.

A friend i know, who is financially well off, but had a serious accident, and is now in a wheelchair, bought himself a 4wd Porsche costing over £70,000. He didnt have to pay VAT on it.

CKhalvashi

gazter wrote: »

A friend i know, who is financially well off, but had a serious accident, and is now in a wheelchair, bought himself a 4wd Porsche costing over £70,000. He didnt have to pay VAT on it.

The modifications should be zero rated, but but the car.

I've got issues with part of my back and my left leg, and at no point could I reclaim VAT on the car, not even for the automatic gearbox, which I considered an 'essential modification'

CK

Twisted_Cherry

The 5th Episode involving Fungi, is to be broadcast next Monday 10th February 9pm Channel 4

philby79

I would reccomend that anyone who has watched this also takes a look at 'These Four Walls' which was on BBC 4 recently (and should still be available on iplayer). Rather than highlighting cases that are clearly intended to elicit a negative reaction (layabouts/scroungers etc.) it shows the day to day lives of a number of people in Yorkshire who are living on benefits - most of whom come across as articulate, thougtful and keen to work - in a largely sympathetic light. I think it might change the views of some people on this forum who seem to think that a life on benefits is all about fags, booze and flat screen TVs.