INTERVIEWER Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 In the example given, the 18/19k net income is for one adult, with 3 children. Which is FOUR people in total that the £18k income is provided for. Any less than three children and the income is suitably reduced - or do you dispute this also? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragonfall Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Which is FOUR people in total that the £18k income is provided for. Any less than three children and the income is suitably reduced - or do you dispute this also? Let us assume then, that the person working full-time for the 11k minimum wage, has 3 children also ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe9T Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 You mean the scheme to get people experience in a work environment so that they're more likely to be employable? Why should I be trying to stop a scheme that's intended to make people more employable? Am I in favour of high unemployment? When the success rate of this is running at about 9% when the target was something like 36% AND Chairman of A4e (Action for Employment), paying herself £8.6million of mainly taxpayers' cash! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
INTERVIEWER Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Let us assume then, that the person working full-time for the 11k minimum wage, has 3 children also ... Have you heard of tax credits? Which have to be applied for, as do benefits? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragonfall Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Have you heard of tax credits? Which have to be applied for, as do benefits? ... and will Tax Credits be enough to pay for: rent/mortgage, council tax, child-care, school meals, travel, dental treatment, eye tests, prescriptions etc? Most of which is provided free if you're on benefits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
INTERVIEWER Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 ... and will Tax Credits be enough to pay for: rent/mortgage, council tax, child-care, school meals, travel, dental treatment, eye tests, prescriptions etc? Most of which is provided free if you're on benefits. What on earth has all of this to do with private profit companies exploiting the unemployed through mandatory workfare? Are you attempting to justify the greed of companies, that make literally £billions of pounds in profit, in their exploitation of the very poorest in the land? If so, you are not doing an effective job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southcoast Posted February 20, 2012 Author Share Posted February 20, 2012 Mapplins are the latest company to bow to public pressure and pull put of it.lets keep the pressure on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gamezone07 Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Anyone who think Workfare is about helping people into jobs is imo, deluded, its about being punitive: to the claimant, on many of these schemes unemployed people are 'working' alongside those on 'community payback', a deliberate attempt by the Govt to associate being unemployed/claiming, with criminality, a throwback to the 19th C. Its also a warning to those in work to tow the line or they could in the same position next, and of its about course saving money for the treasury. It's also ideological: the neo-liberal notion of the 'active citizen' if you are not doing something, then you aren't a full member of society, etc.. In New York former council workers have lost their jobs as gardeners, cleaners, etc, and a few months later put on Workfare, having said that the Obama administration is reining back from this indentured slavery and creating real jobs as are many US states... Here, Welfare To work is unravelling(tellingly it has not faced such scrutiny before as indeed welfare reform in general hasn't) with many major companies pulling out, tens of thousands of mainly young people(who are WTW's main targets) are joining in very successful online campaigns to challenge it, and of course A4E, one its key structural elements is under police investigation... Its crazy that young people and others are being forced into these cheap labour schemes: in countries like Brazil, people are being funded to study, train, etc in all the cutting edge technologies, skills of the future, here we seem to be going back to the casualised and harrassed workforce of the 19th C. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*_ash_* Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 All moving into different issues... back to the topic There are lots of things the government could do to improve the economy without it costing a penny, maybe even save some money in excess bureaucracy. Just look at the internet, nearly all the big sites are American. The UK has hardly any large globally competitive internet companies. A lot of that is due to over regulation & stupid laws. Google could never have started in the UK, neither could YouTube, or Twitter or Facebook, or any big user generated content site, because of our harsh copyright & defamation laws. Similar things are happening in a wide range of industries, the UK is getting left behind. But, if in the position of a Tesco manager. 23 applicants apply for a job of collecting trolleys. All 23 applicants are enthusiastic, healthy, all want the job, all have the same qualifications, and one of them has done the job before, and has a reference to say that he/she did the job well. Which would you take on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gamezone07 Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 its a form of workfare, so my post is on topic.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.