Why Exactly Are Northern Ireland Wages So Low? (Merged)

snowmen

max5heads
Was referring to living costs of a residential property not a business property.
Wouldnt have the knowledge to comment on the situation there but doesnt sound good from your comment.

talksalot81

IvanOpinion wrote: »

max5heads, I don't disagree with you and have always maintained that prisons should be made 100% self-sufficient with each inmates standard of living being determined by the population of that prison as a whole.

However I also believe that anybody on benefits should be expected to carry out an equivalent number of hours of community service based on how much they earn and minimum wage. Common grass areas need cut, childrens play parks need tidied, OAPs may need help in tidying their houses/gardens.

I agree with this. On the prisons issue - do we really expert prisoners to come out better than they started having become accustomed to an 'easy' life!? So we end up paying for them to be fed, looked after and entertained and then they go out and often onto benefits and futher criminal activity. What is the point!? As with most things in our country, the system panders to the lowest levels of society.

Benefits.... well yes, I agree entirely again. I have infact brought this up with one of our local politicians and he was sympathetic but unfortunately pointed out that insurance was an issue. The people in question will often be inclined to become 'injured' making them unable to do the work and also giving them the opportunity to claim damages. So, the last time it was contemplated, it would have cost an absolute fortune to implement and probably would not even have worked.

max5heads

When i was on hol's in the US a few yrs ago i found out that anyone from Willy the wineo to a doctor that has paid tax's all his life only gets state benefits for 6 months. I think this would also work very well here

talksalot81

max5heads wrote: »

When i was on hol's in the US a few yrs ago i found out that anyone from Willy the wineo to a doctor that has paid tax's all his life only gets state benefits for 6 months. I think this would also work very well here

Unfortunately we would end up with a very divided society in a 'new' sense!

IvanOpinion

max5heads wrote: »

When i was on hol's in the US a few yrs ago i found out that anyone from Willy the wineo to a doctor that has paid tax's all his life only gets state benefits for 6 months. I think this would also work very well here

I am not fully aware of the system but they do get something very worthwhile for a short period then they go onto a package at a much lower rate which includes food stamps etc. I also believe that when they return to employment they are expected to payback any benefits they have been given. The system has pros and cons.

If I were to suggest one change to our existing system it would be that there is no diect path from education to benefits with the minimum age for receipt of any benefit being raised to 21 years old.

Ivan

talksalot81

IvanOpinion wrote: »

If I were to suggest one change to our existing system it would be that there is no diect path from education to benefits with the minimum age for receipt of any benefit being raised to 21 years old.

Ivan

Yes - there is nothing more ridiculous than a youngster with no job deciding to leave home having no job so claiming both employment and housing benefits!

I may have a non representative view, but most benefits claimants I know live apart from family or parents inspite of being quite young. If that is contrasted to those with good jobs, many more with jobs actually remain with their family for the purpose of saving money. It almost appears that the jobless have no money of their own so have little worry about spending the money of others!

leftieM

talksalot81 wrote: »

Yes - there is nothing more ridiculous than a youngster with no job deciding to leave home having no job so claiming both employment and housing benefits!

The parental home isn't a pleasant place for everyone and not everyone gets to decide if and when they leave it.

talksalot81

leftieM wrote: »

The parental home isn't a pleasant place for everyone and not everyone gets to decide if and when they leave it.

Yes, though this is indicative of a deeper issue. One must ask the question of why the parents even had the child! Most fundamentally, if they wanted a family, why are they not providing a pleasant home or why do they force the child to leave? I would suggest that many people who are guilty of this should never have had children in the first place. They got to make the decision but ultimately they have done nothing more than to decide how public money should be spent.