No work for lottery winners.

[danot]

I can't see why winning the lottery, or inheriting a large amount should stop someone from working. As many have already said, work can be about so much more than just a pay packet. Its about personal choice.

 

Surely how someone does their job is more important than what they have in the bank?

Surely you'd rather see someone taking a wage home that Has to work to survive, rather than someone working for recreation.

[Halibut]

If someone else who is dependant on the wage they bring home could do that job. Yes!

 

Piffle. As others have pointed out ad nauseam there's more to a job than a wage. Many people would stop working if they won a lot of money, many others wouldn't. It should and will, remain a matter of chioce for the individual concerned.

Arguably there are many people who could, if neccessary stop working and live on their savings or other forms of income - are you suggesting they be compelled to stop working also?

[danot]

Piffle. As others have pointed out ad nauseam there's more to a job than a wage. Many people would stop working if they won a lot of money, many others wouldn't. It should and will, remain a matter of chioce for the individual concerned.

Arguably there are many people who could, if neccessary stop working and live on their savings or other forms of income - are you suggesting they be compelled to stop working also?

Yes, why not. Would that be any worse than someone in their later years who's worked and saved all their lives having to spend their savings and sell their home to pay for the private care they need?

[Cyclone]

I'm not following you. If it is undesirable in most cases to replace someone, then the position would be closed in most cases wouldn't it?

It's undesirable because it takes time for a new person to fit into a role, it damages continuity it causes any relationships that have been built to be lost to the company, there's a net cost to it.

If the lottery winner decides to leave their job, then the company will still have to fill that position if they need it filling.

Yes that's true, but that's different to the government mandating it.

[Cyclone]

The Only difference I can see is how the two operate. The principle behind them aren't different though.

 

Someone fortunate enough to find a job are no longer in need of free training according to the government because their financial circumstances have improved due to finding work. Working people are not eligible . Those in need of a wage must take priority and rightly so.

 

Someone fortunate enough to win the lottery are no longer in need of paid employment according to me because their financial circumstances have drastically improved. Lottery winners are not eligible. Those in need of a wage must take priority and rightly so.

 

The huge difference between the two is that employment is not a benefit provided by the government.

[Cyclone]

Yes, why not. Would that be any worse than someone in their later years who's worked and saved all their lives having to spend their savings and sell their home to pay for the private care they need?

 

You keep drawing these false dichotomies with other things as if it supports your increasingly weak argument...

 

So now anyone with savings should stop work, is that what you just said? So they've worked for a couple of decades, done all right, got a decent salary, but at some point the government kicks them out of their job (where they were previously performing well, hence having done all right), they have to live off savings, removing most of the point of having worked hard before, reducing their pension income, and leaving the company they worked for struggling to fill their role.

It doesn't make any sense, overall it would do far more harm to the economy than good.

[danot]

It's undesirable because it takes time for a new person to fit into a role, it damages continuity it causes any relationships that have been built to be lost to the company, there's a net cost to it.

Yes that's true, but that's different to the government mandating it.

I would say about 99% of lottery winners would and probably have left their job after winning a substantial sum, as this had an undesirable affect on business?.. I wouldn't say so. The issues here are ethical, not financial/economical. And as we all know, the present government as with previous ones rarely consider the ethics of most mandates they introduce. Like I asked in a earlier post- would it be any worse than someone in their later years having to spend their life savings and sell their home to pay for the private care that they need? Should they be forced do do that?

[danot]

The huge difference between the two is that employment is not a benefit provided by the government.

Yes I know. But the government brought in a legislation to ensure that a none British worker would never be given priority over an equally skilled British worker. The legislation on lottery winners could mirror this couldn't it?

[danot]

You keep drawing these false dichotomies with other things as if it supports your increasingly weak argument...

 

So now anyone with savings should stop work, is that what you just said? So they've worked for a couple of decades, done all right, got a decent salary, but at some point the government kicks them out of their job (where they were previously performing well, hence having done all right), they have to live off savings, removing most of the point of having worked hard before, reducing their pension income, and leaving the company they worked for struggling to fill their role.

It doesn't make any sense, overall it would do far more harm to the economy than good.

I was stressing the point about fairness Cyclone. My point was- would the government forcing someone with savings out of paid employment be any more unfair than the government forcing them 10-15 years down the line to spend their savings and sell their home to finance the private care that they need? It was a comparison Cylone, not necessarily my personal view.

[Halibut]

I was stressing the point about fairness Cyclone. My point was- would the government forcing someone with savings out of paid employment be any more unfair than the government forcing them 10-15 years down the line to spend their savings and sell their home to finance the private care that they need? It was a comparison Cylone, not necessarily my personal view.

 

Yes it would. It would have a greater impact on more people; not everyone needs to have private care.