Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
Welfare Unjust.....
http:// www.bbc .co.uk/ news/uk -219860 41
is it really? Perhaps the fairy tale purveyors could make a contribution themeselves eh? We already pay a fortune out to the work shy, why do the FTPs think they can interfere with how our taxes are spent.
is it really? Perhaps the fairy tale purveyors could make a contribution themeselves eh? We already pay a fortune out to the work shy, why do the FTPs think they can interfere with how our taxes are spent.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by DangerUXD. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.The majority of state benefits are paid to people who are IN employment, not out of it.
Further, if the number of genuine job vacancies is far less than the available labour pool, there are bound to be people out of work [even if they're desperate to find it]. (Several employment agencies in this area try to ensure that their jobs are always near to the top of the lists on the Government's Universal Jobmatch service by re-listing them every few days. That results in a single vacancy appearing as perhaps half a dozen different jobs in official statistics).
I've not had regular employment for over 7 years, which means that I receive some state benefits. However I'm most definitely not work shy as:
(a) I've applied for over 2000 jobs ; and
(b) I accept whatever casual work is offered to me.
Yes, I agree that any system needs to be looked at if a few people are able to milk that system, and that (in our present financial circumstances) some cuts are necessary, but there is a minimum income level below which it is impossible for families to feed their children and no cuts should be made which take a family's income below such a level.
Further, if the number of genuine job vacancies is far less than the available labour pool, there are bound to be people out of work [even if they're desperate to find it]. (Several employment agencies in this area try to ensure that their jobs are always near to the top of the lists on the Government's Universal Jobmatch service by re-listing them every few days. That results in a single vacancy appearing as perhaps half a dozen different jobs in official statistics).
I've not had regular employment for over 7 years, which means that I receive some state benefits. However I'm most definitely not work shy as:
(a) I've applied for over 2000 jobs ; and
(b) I accept whatever casual work is offered to me.
Yes, I agree that any system needs to be looked at if a few people are able to milk that system, and that (in our present financial circumstances) some cuts are necessary, but there is a minimum income level below which it is impossible for families to feed their children and no cuts should be made which take a family's income below such a level.
gromit, most individual churches have the equivalent of charitable status, and most of their income derives from donations, most of which are given by individuals or organisations that have themselves already paid tax.
would it therefore be fair to impose what would effectively be a tax on the already taxed?
would it therefore be fair to impose what would effectively be a tax on the already taxed?
No one is going to work when they get more for not working. Reducing benefits for the workshy is one way of enourageing them to put down the spliff and get their lazy tushes out there and get a job, one of the many that, as YMB rightly points out, our much maligned immigrants seem to be able to acquire.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.