No work for lottery winners.

[danot]

Yes I re-read your OP.

 

I don’t think many would continue as if nothing had happened but when you have been getting up at 5am for 30 years you can’t just turn off and do nothing., I would need some kind of “work” to fill my time.

But would you expect to be paid a wage for your efforts? If not, you wouldn't be "working" as such, at least not in any respect which might offer a constructive argument to my op.

[Grandad.Malky]

But would you expect to be paid a wage for your efforts? If not, you wouldn't be "working" as such, at least not in any respect which might offer a constructive argument to my op.

 

I would imagine I would have set up my own business or enterprise and yes I would take a “wage” from it, like wise if I did some kind of part time work I would take a “wage” ………… why not.

[Harleyman]

Here's a scenario. Two doctors and seven nurses club together and buy several lottery tickets. One ticket comes up a winner and they each share a few million.They are forced to resign from their jobs (they might anyway) but for the sake of argument let's say they dont want to. That hospital has lost nine key staff members. Doctors and nurses dont grow on trees. There'a already a shortage.

How will this affect patient services?

[danot]

I'd say no for a number of reasons:

- Lottery winners pay a lot into the system via tax anyway so shouldn't they have the choice of what they do?

 

- Someone might win just over 1million, after tax there wouldn't actually be enough to live on for the rest of their life necessarily (what if they are 18 years old?)

 

- What happens when the money is depleted? Are they then allowed to go back to work? How will they find a job again easily after an enforced gap of possibly many years?

 

- What if the person who won the lottery owned their own business? It would surely be unethical to force them to sell it, particularly if they'd built it from the ground up. They also may have employees relying on them. They also might want to put lottery funds into the business to expand it and actually create more jobs.

 

- What if the person is a highly skilled worker such as a doctor? There aren't usually queues of doctors down at the job centre.

 

- Currently a lot of employers who lose employees are simply deleting the posts and being glad that that particular outlay has gone away nicely, so at least some jobs vacated would never be re-filled anyway.

 

Really the only situation where it would be viable would be for people who win vast sums of money and do relatively unskilled jobs. These people are extremely likely to give up working without the law's intervention anyway, so in short it's a completely silly suggestion and would create very few jobs for a lot of hassle and drawbacks.

It's not a silly suggestion at all.

 

Regardless of whether 2 jobs would be created or 2000, my question was addressing the moral implications of lottery winners who continue to earn a weekly wage they no longer need.

 

With regards to ethics, please allow me to demonstrate the principles behind my question by using another example.

 

Let's pretend legislation was passed preventing a lottery winner from earning a wage they no longer needed. would this legislation be any more unethical than preventing an unemployed person who as been given the opportunity to enter full time employment, from completing their free NVQ level training course which they were attending whilst job seeking but are now being forced to abandon due to having the good fortune to find full time employment? In my opinion, no it wouldn't, because the DWP are removing them from the course in order to present those in greater need of the training with a greater chance of benefiting from it. All of the other points have been addressed in earlier posts.

[Cyclone]

If someone not in need of benefit isn't allowed to claim it, why should someone that no longer needs to work be entitled to do so?

 

There is no need for an 'entitlement' to work, it isn't a right granted by the state.

You can work if you privately form a contract between you and someone else to exchange money for labour. Your financial circumstances are nothing to do with that contract, and beyond certain regulation there is no good reason for the state to interfere.

[danot]

I would imagine I would have set up my own business or enterprise and yes I would take a “wage” from it, like wise if I did some kind of part time work I would take a “wage” ………… why not.

If you set up your own business then your money would be working for you Malky.

[Cyclone]

It's not a silly suggestion at all.

 

Regardless of whether 2 jobs would be created or 2000, my question was addressing the moral implications of lottery winners who continue to earn a weekly wage they no longer need.

You're making a judgement about 'need' of the income and assuming that the only reason to work is for that income.

There are many other reasons why people work, and as already pointed out, who are you to decide when someone has 'enough' money and shouldn't be allowed to work to earn more?

 

With regards to ethics, please allow me to demonstrate the principles behind my question by using another example.

 

Let's pretend legislation was passed preventing a lottery winner from earning a wage they no longer needed.

1st problem with your ethics lesson is who decided that they no longer need it.

would this legislation be any more unethical than preventing an unemployed person who as been given the opportunity to enter full time employment, from completing their free NVQ level training course which they were attending whilst job seeking but are now being forced to abandon due to having the good fortune to find full time employment?

I don't see how the two things are in any way related.

In my opinion, no it wouldn't, because the DWP are removing them from the course in order to present those in greater need of the training with a greater chance of benefiting from it. All of the other points have been addressed in earlier posts.

Is that really what happens, half way through a course someone else is put on it. I doubt it. The DWP remove that person to save the money because with that person now having a job the money doesn't have to be spent.

[Cyclone]

Simple answer is No.

There could be no enforceable law prohibiting lottery winners from working. Its against human rights and the constitution for a start.

 

What constitution?

[danot]

Here's a scenario. Two doctors and seven nurses club together and buy several lottery tickets. One ticket comes up a winner and they each share a few million.They are forced to resign from their jobs (they might anyway) but for the sake of argument let's say they dont want to. That hospital has lost nine key staff members. Doctors and nurses dont grow on trees. There'a already a shortage.

How will this affect patient services?

They wouldn't have to leave the hospital if there was a staff shortage, or in a situation where they didn't want to leave. They'd just no longer receive a wage for the role they do. Perhaps they could be become 'special nurses' and 'special doctors' like those special constables the government doesn't pay.

[Cyclone]

So now you just want to deprive them of pay, rather than free up jobs for someone else.

I think you're a bit confused about your motives for this idea.