Advise - Immediate Resignation prior to Disiplinary Investigation

Samsung_Note2

Chrysalis wrote: »

I think you live in some kind of euphoria where there is no problems and people are always in control of their destiny.

The real world isnt like that, its all I can say really.

You know what you said, you didnt say its a priority, you said simply enough that people should only have their own two feet to stand on when they are not working.

Just a question..what did people do prior to the benefits system which i believe started around mid 40"s (stand to be corrected)...how did they cope.

Its a great system for a short term safety net..but we all know how easily it gets abused.

Ive spent time in countries where theres no state handout,and generally people have a greater work ethic,you work and you eat..you stay at home doing nothing and you dont eat,really that black and white and crime isn't any worse than this country.

Energize

Comms69 wrote: »

What's so good about universal benefits?


Let's say that hypothetically it's cheaper (it isn't in the medium to long term), why is it such a good thing?

It ensures people have a basic level of income to survive on, this is the principle our benefits system is based on. Instead though we have dozens of different benefits, tons of different departments and massive administrative costs to deal with as a result.

If you're referring to the pros/cons of socialist policies like benefits/NHS/schools etc. as a whole though that's another kettle of fish entirely and depends on your personal philosophy.

Comms69

And it only works if the state controls prices.

If everyone income jumped £10k, prices would be higher. Those unemployed and on benefits would be worse off.

Energize

Price inflation only occurs in the context of monetary inflation, not in response to rises in income, it's a common misconception that is disproven by real world examples such as the minimum wage, increases in the minimum wage do not result in price inflation.

But that aside, that's not how a universal benefit like negative income tax works. It doesn't raise everyone's income, it guarantees a minimum. So for example using a 2:1 ratio if someone earns £0 they get £5k from the government, if they earn £10k they get nothing and pay nothing and over that they pay income tax to the government.

It just seems entirely inconsistent to suggest we treat universal credit/jsa in a different way to any other "benefit" like the NHS and not give it to people who we consider are to blame for their situation.

Chrysalis

Samsung_Note2 wrote: »

Just a question..what did people do prior to the benefits system which i believe started around mid 40"s (stand to be corrected)...how did they cope.

Its a great system for a short term safety net..but we all know how easily it gets abused.

Ive spent time in countries where theres no state handout,and generally people have a greater work ethic,you work and you eat..you stay at home doing nothing and you dont eat,really that black and white and crime isn't any worse than this country.

They didnt cope unless they had support from family/friends I expect, society wasnt as civil then and not as nice to live in.

Any civil developed country will have some form of social security, its a basic requirement for reasonable economic success and low crime.

The immediate effect of removing the safety net would be crime would increase noticeably, then in the longer term there would then be a slow progressive decline of employment rates due to the chain reaction of removing the spending power of these people, this would cause jobs to be lost, then those jobs lost those people lose spending power, and it would fall like dominoes.

An example is the billions currently paid out by the government to pay rent for low income people, are you saying if those 10s of billions were pulled from the letting market it wouldnt suffer?

Think of it as enforced circulation of money, you tax, you then spend it, and its circulating money. People with little income will usually spend all of their income as they dont really have the luxury of doing things like putting in a savings account. You give a dole claimant £73 a week, they need to eat etc. so the money gets spent in tesco, maybe some to british gas for electric/gas bill, some to tv licence authority, some to public transport to get round, some to clothes shop to buy clothes and so on. Its all money been put back in the economy, keeping the country moving and avoiding a recession. I am not talking about ideology here but basic economics. When money stops been circulated then you have whats called a recession and we know thats not a good thing.

jobbingmusician

Are we really discussing employment issues any more? Or should I move this thread to the Arms for being off topic? :think:

Chrysalis

sorry bud.

jobbingmusician

OP, if you are worrying about what the reference might say, there's a fairly easy way to find out. If you have a friend/relative who works in HR, you could ask them to apply for a reference for you. If you don't, you could ask a friend to use their address, knock up some headed paper (or even just say they are in early stages of company formation), and apply for a reference from there. Enclose a SAE for reply or email from a professional sounding address.

xapprenticex

Just be careful with what you say at work in future. And if you are going to get shirty with people (assuming they deserve it) in any way, at least be there two years.

Takeaway_Addict

Chrysalis wrote: »

You want us back in medieval times then bud?

Any need for the 'bud' or were you trying to be patronising?