Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
sparks

When would you consider working...?

Would you ?  

12 members have voted

  1. 1. Which is your 'entry level' for work?

    • Work if pay is 10% less than Benefits
      0
    • Work if pay = Benefits
      3
    • Work if pay is 10% more than Benefits
      5
    • Would work for any amount
      4
    • Would stay on benefits regardless
      0


Recommended Posts

Like Dave I have not voted as nobody would take me with my sickness record, but if you put that to one side and try to answer the point of the poll i think i'd want benefit plus 20-25% more, my reason for that is given my skill sets (which ain't alot) i suspect my job would be office based, so i'd have the expensive of getting to and from work and London tube fares are not cheap, cost of having to buy a complete new wardrobe, for example I don't own a pair of shoes only trainers (or sneakers for our overseas friends) suits/shirts not to mention the costs of lunch now i guess i could do packed lunch but i think it would fairly embarrassing (boiled egg sandwich anyone :Winky: ) this would all cost a good few hundred quid for me, my views may not be liked but i am entitled to them (until that is outlawed as well).

 

 

Sorry if my views are not liked but at least i'm honest enough to say how it is, and how i feel.

 

 

All1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oxfam, cheese spread, trainers to walk there. It's a start.
Well that's the world debt sorted by Ron well done m8 clap.gif i'll give Dave a ring and tell him to move out shall I?

 

If you had taken the slight bit of time to read post before shoving your thoughts down my throat you would have seen there is some form of sickness, only one guy on here has the slightest idea how this affects me and it sure ain't you buddy, walking would not be an issue if it was less then say 50-100 feet, there are days when just getting out of bed is painful (and it's not because i'm playing xbox either), say i was fit for 2 days work out of 7 does that mean i should do those 2 days and hope it will pay my rent/electric/gas etc or should i look to the govt to make the money up or should i just give up now and jump in the Thames or maybe jump of a 20 story block of flats and be done with it, it's a serious issue not just a case of get on your bike, you cannot bung everyone into the same group, or maybe you can but i can't

 

 

All1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oxfam, cheese spread, trainers to walk there. It's a start.

 

Cant afford Oxfam prices,(if i could i certainly would not make their directors etc richer!!!)

 

Cant eat cheese spread because of my illnesses.

 

Cant wear trainers ditto.

 

Next......:Furious:

 

Problem is that there is always someone who knows all the answer but not the questions....

should i just give up now and jump in the Thames

 

Dont do it m8,Its polluted enuff now,and elf an safety will be after you.:In-love:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blimey...I should have put this in loggerheads!

 

I can see both sides on this, and the comments so far have quite galvanising...

 

Maybe I should have put 'if you are fit to work' as part of the question...I didn't mean to put those who aren't able to in the same position as those who are but won't...(that's what the tory's are trying to do btw!)

 

But All1... all that aside, I find it interesting that you would want more to cover things that you no doubt pay out for anyway. I find that not much different than the argument MP's put out about claiming for food at their second home whilst ignoring the fact that they would be eating the same wherever they were living!

 

ps . nothing wrong with boiled egg sandwiches - that's why we have 4 chickens!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But All1... all that aside, I find it interesting that you would want more to cover things that you no doubt pay out for anyway. I find that not much different than the argument MP's put out about claiming for food at their second home whilst ignoring the fact that they would be eating the same wherever they were living!

 

But they dont actually do any usefull work anyway,& get dam good money for it.

 

When you are on the basics,counting the pennies to survive its way diferent,also the cost of travelling to work & other related expenses can be considerable & its common sense that you would not want to end up with less in real terms than you were on benefits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blimey...I should have put this in loggerheads!

 

I can see both sides on this, and the comments so far have quite galvanising...

 

Maybe I should have put 'if you are fit to work' as part of the question...I didn't mean to put those who aren't able to in the same position as those who are but won't...(that's what the tory's are trying to do btw!)

I think you'll always get crossed wires on this one as how do you know someone is sick or just pulling a fast one after all we have seen countless people saying there sick then running round like an headless chicken.

 

But All1... all that aside, I find it interesting that you would want more to cover things that you no doubt pay out for anyway. I find that not much different than the argument MP's put out about claiming for food at their second home whilst ignoring the fact that they would be eating the same wherever they were living!
Phew world of difference between them and me sparks, for example i can go round my flat in me underpants or shorts and a t-shirt yet that might not go down well in an office, so there is an extra expense there also the cost of traveling to work is a cost i would not normally incur, in the old days they used to give people a grant if you had been on the jam for a long time that way you could buy clothes for the new job, in my case if i was able to work then i think another option might be to give someone who has been on the jam for a while say maybe £500 for clothes for there new job and if they loose employment within say 3 years they would have to pay that money back, and before everyone lines up to get on there high horse it's not about people on benefits getting more handouts it's about making the move in a job a little bit easier, afetr all would you rather someone stayed on the dole for years or given a helping hand to get back into work

 

 

ps . nothing wrong with boiled egg sandwiches - that's why we have 4 chickens!
Yea but not in a cramped office, people would give me funny looks wondering if it's me or the food.

 

This is a real hard subject and to be honest i feel sorry for the guys in power in a way there is no quick fix. Lets put it this way do people who work expect a husband & wife with 2 kids of say 2 and 5 expect him to come of the dole and at the end of the day be worse of financially not only that loose his family home, then what do we do with him and the wife and kids, is that just tough sh1t on them?

 

Maybe instead of cutting all benefits we (the state) should give them some sort of subsidy but would the people in the street still go bonkers, or maybe just bung him to the lions.

 

 

All1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

This is a real hard subject and to be honest i feel sorry for the guys in power in a way there is no quick fix. Lets put it this way do people who work expect a husband & wife with 2 kids of say 2 and 5 expect him to come of the dole and at the end of the day be worse of financially not only that loose his family home, then what do we do with him and the wife and kids, is that just tough sh1t on them?

 

All1

 

OK, here's an answer that also won't be universally liked..

 

"is that just tough sh1t on them?"...Yes!

 

And the reason...because it's the fact (as I've said before) that the monetary loss normally goes on stuff that shouldn't be paid for by the state in the first place.

 

Everyone (apart from the f*ckers at the top, but that's another story) is taking a hit, and like it or not those on benefits will have to do the same as the rest of us..

 

The alternative as I've always said is to take on the system!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK, here's an answer that also won't be universally liked..

 

"is that just tough sh1t on them?"...Yes!

 

And the reason...because it's the fact (as I've said before) that the monetary loss normally goes on stuff that shouldn't be paid for by the state in the first place.

What kinds of things should not be paid for by the state?

 

 

Everyone (apart from the f*ckers at the top, but that's another story) is taking a hit, and like it or not those on benefits will have to do the same as the rest of us..
I do have a small issue with that as it was not my fault but then again it wasn't yours so "were all in it together".

 

Well here is something that would be simple, if i take £30 a week of you it might hurt a bit, £30 a week of Richard Branson is nothing, £30 a week of me would be devastating, so why not just take 10% of all of us that would be the fairest deal for everyone then we all suffer the same, seems simple but that does mean taking a lot from higher earners and the m8's in power would not like that.

 

As for taking out the system, well that's one way of sorting it out but nowadays i reckon life would be carnage people have to live and they will do anything to get what they needed and life would be even cheaper then it is today.

 

Some of you thought Maggie was bad, makes here look like an angel now this lot :He-he:

 

 

All1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What kinds of things should not be paid for by the state?

 

 

All1

Anything but the basics to live your life better than 90% of the people on this planet...

 

A reasonable place to live, food, healthcare, education, and the chance to get a job..

 

What has gone wrong is the definition of the above (apart from healthcare) that people now expect unreasonably!

 

I read that the average monthly spend on food for a family of 4 (on benefits) is now £450...Our family of 4 (not on benefits) eat like royalty on a monthly food budget of £250. All it takes is a little planning and careful seasonal shopping!

 

I wouldn't have believed that previously, because a decade ago our family of 2 (before the kids) spent £400/month without thinking about it...

 

We are a nation that has got used to greed, and that has to change!

 

I do have a small issue with that as it was not my fault but then again it wasn't yours so "were all in it together"

I have an issue with that too, as I believe we are all to blame...we have come to expect a lifestyle that our nation cannot sustain, and when the birds have come home to roost we are all left with egg on our faces!

 

Well here is something that would be simple, if i take £30 a week of you it might hurt a bit, £30 a week of Richard Branson is nothing, £30 a week of me would be devastating, so why not just take 10% of all of us that would be the fairest deal for everyone then we all suffer the same, seems simple but that does mean taking a lot from higher earners and the m8's in power would not like that.

And it would still be peanuts...

 

You have to go after multinationals to make any real difference, but then as the vodaphone £6bn shows, it ain't gonna happen!

 

As for taking out the system, well that's one way of sorting it out but nowadays i reckon life would be carnage people have to live and they will do anything to get what they needed and life would be even cheaper then it is today.

Welcome to the 'third world' UK stylie... :Winky:

 

Some of you thought Maggie was bad, makes here look like an angel now this lot :He-he:

Yeah, but she was the architect of this downfall....this is her 'system' coming to fruition!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, but she was the architect of this downfall....this is her 'system' coming to fruition!

 

But if Labour polititions had been more interested in running the country & not lining their own & their cronies pockets,bringing in legislation to further enhance their own interests,then borrowing out of control to further & cover up their thieving etc we would not be in this mess.

They knew someone else would be left to sort the mess out & the prsent lot are trying to do just this,but money should be comeing from the banks & big businesses,99% tax on bonuses would be a start,also a maximum yearly earning limit with the rest going in tax.

Not hit the lower wage earners % the genuine benefits claiments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But if Labour polititions had been more interested in running the country & not lining their own & their cronies pockets,bringing in legislation to further enhance their own interests,then borrowing out of control to further & cover up their thieving etc we would not be in this mess.

They knew someone else would be left to sort the mess out & the prsent lot are trying to do just this,but money should be comeing from the banks & big businesses,99% tax on bonuses would be a start,also a maximum yearly earning limit with the rest going in tax.

Not hit the lower wage earners % the genuine benefits claiments.

You could take all money away from 90% of the people in this country and it wouldn't even dent our national debt - which is completely different from our yearly deficit!

 

And it doesn't matter who was/is in power, they are still following the thatcherite doctrine!

 

which is why we are completely f*cked, and the sooner people realise that the sooner we will come to accept our fate as being the next member of the 'third world' countries list!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anything but the basics to live your life better than 90% of the people on this planet...

 

A reasonable place to live, food, healthcare, education, and the chance to get a job..

 

What has gone wrong is the definition of the above (apart from healthcare) that people now expect unreasonably!

Well i can only speak from my point of view, when you look at my situation i do live on the breadline, I live in a sh1t part of london, ok 5 mins walk away there are flats for over a million but where i live is rough, and if i could move i would so i don't live in what i'd call reasonable i'm lucky as most of the neighbors look out for each other.

 

I read that the average monthly spend on food for a family of 4 (on benefits) is now £450...Our family of 4 (not on benefits) eat like royalty on a monthly food budget of £250. All it takes is a little planning and careful seasonal shopping!

 

I wouldn't have believed that previously, because a decade ago our family of 2 (before the kids) spent £400/month without thinking about it...

well i don't spend near that much ££ has always been hard for most of my family and my ma taught me a good way of getting by and that was to make a menu for the week and then buy the products you needed for those meals it's dead simple.

 

Yeah, but she was the architect of this downfall....this is her 'system' coming to fruition!
So before her everything was fine? I do see what you and many others say about her but you cannot blame her for everything there has to come a point where if what she done was so bad then someone need to stop and for the life of me it should have been Labour but in some ways they were worse then her.

 

I've come to the conclusion were all doomed, it's just a case of when the sh1t hits the fan, i still think my idea off 10% (or whatever figure) of everybody is the best way forward but i know it will never happen.

 

Sorry sparks topic gone well off course :Hmm:

 

 

All1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love to go back to work and make the money I used to but the fact that I cant walk after my op on my back last year means I have no choice and have to rely on benifits.

My wife has also had to go down to a part time job because she has to stay at home and look after me.

Its took me a year to finally be awarded D.L.A. and thats only after having to go to court to get their decision overturned.

Roughly our income has dropped by about £470 a month and we're really finding it hard , the only reason we still have internet is that my son needs it for college and also pays for it out of his E.M.A. money which also stops soon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't blame people for not working if they're going to be losing out.

BUT you can blame governments for making it that way.

The Tories started this with Thatcher, and it got worse with Major, then SIGNIFICANTLY worse under Labour.

It SHOULD be that if someone works they DON'T lose out on some benefits, and Labours idea before they were booted out of making those working on low wages pay more tax was typical.

Its far from our own people not working or making any attempt. There are countless benefit immigrants from the third world too. Why were they allowed in ?

Oh yeah....Asylum. The catch-all excuse.

Others too. Drug addicts for example - it's a golden age for drug addicts at the moment. Drugs on prescription, everything paid for etc etc - why ?

 

Its far from just some people who can't or won't work because they'll be out of pocket.

Rules can be changed to help and assist (and should be - but I don't trust the Tories to do so)

Further. When a person hasn't worked for years it can be a frightening experience (seriously)

But all help should be there, not just pulling the rug from under them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't blame people for not working if they're going to be losing out.

BUT you can blame governments for making it that way.

The Tories started this with Thatcher, and it got worse with Major, then SIGNIFICANTLY worse under Labour.

It SHOULD be that if someone works they DON'T lose out on some benefits, and Labours idea before they were booted out of making those working on low wages pay more tax was typical.

 

Up to this point I was mostly agreeing with you...

 

I Just had to omit the last 2 lines, but then you understand why... :Laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there should have been a 'pays enough to feed, clothe and keep the family' option.

 

I am lucky enough to have been able to be employed since I was 16 and don't know any differently. I would hope that should circumstances be less favourable there would still be a communal benefits system to aid me in times of need. Compared to the majority, I do not earn a great deal of money although it is enough to pay for the bills and I dont really care for much else.

 

I have dragged my sorry suit-wearing carcass into work for many a year and I am grateful that I can but I do think that businesses should change their work models. I sit in-front of a screen most days, does it care how im dressed? Does it care where I am sat? Luckily my current boss shares my views that I can do my job in my boxers at home :)

 

@A1W, have you ever contacted Penthouse to see if they have need of editorial staff? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have dragged my sorry suit-wearing carcass into work for many a year
LOL what a lovely thought.

 

 

A1W, have you ever contacted Penthouse to see if they have need of editorial staff?
Yea but job was taken but someone called CKS :He-he:

 

 

All1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there should have been a 'pays enough to feed, clothe and keep the family' option.

The idea was to try and find out what people think is 'sufficient'...'feed, clothe and keep the family' seems to be an arbitrary concept nowadays!

 

I am lucky enough to have been able to be employed since I was 16 and don't know any differently. I would hope that should circumstances be less favourable there would still be a communal benefits system to aid me in times of need. Compared to the majority, I do not earn a great deal of money although it is enough to pay for the bills and I dont really care for much else.

Which is probably why your expectations of the 'safety net' are possibly lower than others who expect things we might consider luxuries as their right!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You might be right Sparks, I have often wondered how the unemployed can afford clothing that I cant even save up for, let alone the likes of iPhones etc!

 

Fortunately as Chief Bush Inspector at HRM's Inspectorate of Bushes I get a lot of enjoyment from my work being lucky enough to turn my hobby into work ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL what a lovely thought.

 

 

His name's Bernie, I didnt have the heart to bury him so I had him stuffed and mounted and take him everywhere I go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...