ricgem2002 Posted April 7, 2013 Share Posted April 7, 2013 I was referring to more and more people in work being on benefits. whos fault is that do you think ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted April 7, 2013 Author Share Posted April 7, 2013 Number of households where no one has EVER had a job falls by 20,000 but that's still 340,000 homes which have always been supported by taxpayers. 340,000 households in which no adult has ever worked, It’s not something that should be ignored. What they don't say is how big the households are that work or how big the households are that don't work, they would be interesting numbers to see. I'm not saying it should be ignored. I would seriously question whether the benefits debate is focused in the right direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted April 7, 2013 Share Posted April 7, 2013 Number of households where no one has EVER had a job falls by 20,000 but that's still 340,000 homes which have always been supported by taxpayers. 340,000 households in which no adult has ever worked, It’s not something that should be ignored. 1.75 million children living in workless households. What they don't say is how big the households are that work or how big the households are that don't work, they would be interesting numbers to see. do you think employers should pay a living wage ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted April 7, 2013 Share Posted April 7, 2013 I'm not saying it should be ignored. I would seriously question whether the benefits debate is focused in the right direction. Which direction would you focus on? ---------- Post added 07-04-2013 at 20:28 ---------- do you think employers should pay a living wage ? I think its a nice idea but I also think it will mean more unemployment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Cid Posted April 7, 2013 Share Posted April 7, 2013 It seems that when we have the facts in front of us, we still reach different conclusions. If you want to be a stay at home parent, you are more likely to be one if you get rid of your partner. How does that work? "340,000 households in which no adult has ever worked", to me, that means that instead of throwing money at them - they need real help to get productive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted April 7, 2013 Share Posted April 7, 2013 It seems that when we have the facts in front of us, we still reach different conclusions. If you want to be a stay at home parent, you are more likely to be one if you get rid of your partner. How does that work? "340,000 households in which no adult has ever worked", to me, that means that instead of throwing money at them - they need real help to get productive. In general, an opinion is a belief about matters commonly considered to be subjective, i.e., it is based on that which is less than absolutely certain, and is the result of emotion or interpretation of facts. An opinion may be supported by an argument, although people may draw opposing opinions from the same set of facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted April 7, 2013 Author Share Posted April 7, 2013 Which direction would you focus on?. The bits that cost us the most money and have the potential to increase benefit spend massively in the future. Pensions, e.g. do all pensioners need bus passes, winter fuel payments etc... Is the schedule for upping the retirement age aggressive enough? Housing benefits. Clearly a massive and growing problem. Youth unemployment. I would say if we're all obsessed with the Philpotts we're obsessed with what represents a tiny proportion of benefit spend. It's not wrong to be angry that there are people like them about, far from it. But our energy should be used for asking questions about the real more pressing issues we face around benefits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glamrocker Posted April 7, 2013 Share Posted April 7, 2013 I was referring to more and more people in work being on benefits. Thank god for the minimum/maximum wage,it made the rich even richer and the poorer poor even poorer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted April 7, 2013 Author Share Posted April 7, 2013 It seems that when we have the facts in front of us, we still reach different conclusions. If you want to be a stay at home parent, you are more likely to be one if you get rid of your partner. How does that work? "340,000 households in which no adult has ever worked", to me, that means that instead of throwing money at them - they need real help to get productive. Of course they need help. I'm not saying otherwise. But it's 340,000 out of 20m and many of those households are single person households. Many of those will be economically inactive because they can't work (e.g. mentally Ill). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted April 7, 2013 Share Posted April 7, 2013 I think its a nice idea but I also think it will mean more unemployment. not if they didnt want to much profit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.