annbaker Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 No, I can't think of a reason why people can't work more. So please help me, why type that? Its obvious you have scenarios in mind. And what is wrong with being self employed? Ok you want a very real scenario. dad works nighshift and mum is cleaner in day - has more than one cleaning job. She gets kids off to school and goes to work. Dad asleep. She gets kids home from school - cant be working at this point. Feeds family and dad then off to work again but back before dad has to go to work. Paid a pittance - 3 jobs! In that scenario you could say well dad can get kids to school and do tea but the poor man has to sleep sometime! i know people in just this scenario. How can they fit in any more hours of work? these are NOT lazy people but getting by best they can. And where exactly is their family time, help with hoemwork etc - not to mention the washing, ironing etc? How does that work exactly. would you want to live like that? I wouldn;t but thousands have to and the DWP says they need to get more hours. Sorry but a day only has 24! ---------- Post added 28-01-2014 at 01:58 ---------- In an average week I do 60 hours (get paid for 37) tho I claim nothing because I can't but let's say I had to - how exactly do I do this? Are you saying what I work isn't enough? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivanava Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 A lot of the public sector are employed making the right conditions for the private sector to make money. Like providing a fit and healthy workforce and protecting them. I agree with the principle of the public sector, a body of people employed to served the needs of their paymasters, unfortunately it as grown into a money wasting monster which spends most of its time trying to control the lives of its paymaster. I robot comes to mind, create a workforce (robots) to serve the needs of the people, at some stage though it decided to control every aspects of the people lives. The public sector needs to be once against regarded as public servants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supertramp Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Ok you want a very real scenario. dad works nighshift and mum is cleaner in day - has more than one cleaning job. She gets kids off to school and goes to work. Dad asleep. She gets kids home from school - cant be working at this point. Feeds family and dad then off to work again but back before dad has to go to work. Paid a pittance - 3 jobs! In that scenario you could say well dad can get kids to school and do tea but the poor man has to sleep sometime! i know people in just this scenario. How can they fit in any more hours of work? these are NOT lazy people but getting by best they can. And where exactly is their family time, help with hoemwork etc - not to mention the washing, ironing etc? How does that work exactly. would you want to live like that? I wouldn;t but thousands have to and the DWP says they need to get more hours. Sorry but a day only has 24! ---------- Post added 28-01-2014 at 01:58 ---------- In an average week I do 60 hours (get paid for 37) tho I claim nothing because I can't but let's say I had to - how exactly do I do this? Are you saying what I work isn't enough? What are you talking about? You don't have to claim benefits because you earn enough. Why shall I argue a hypothetical argument. I see it as why should the state support you, remember they are not forcing you into work, all they are asking for in return for paying you is that you try to better your situation. If someone was working 35hours per week, the solution under UC isn't to find more work, it is to find better paid work. So they'll draw up an action plan that will help you work towards that. (I know half the JCP advisers aren't great) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 No, I can't think of a reason why people can't work more. So please help me, why type that? Its obvious you have scenarios in mind. And what is wrong with being self employed? Maybe one parent is already working full-time and the family has young children. Maybe there aren't enough jobs available, offering enough hours. There are already issues with underemployment in the economy. There are also issues with proliferation of zero hours contracts offering uncertain working hours. Maybe location counts against some people, especially with families. But, let's turn this on its head for a minute and consider how this would impact employers. Many employers legitimately offer contracts for say 16-20 hours work. It fits with their business and it often (though not always) suits the employee. Employers might have workers who have been with them for years who are suddenly classed as not working enough. The result could be millions of workers constantly looking for more work and other jobs. It is likely to destabilise some businesses. What's wrong with self-employment? Nothing on the face of it but when you dig deeper you find that many people are not really working. They are using the system to avoid signing on - declare a minimal amount of income then use working tax credits to top up. I'd wager that is where a lot of the growth in self-employment comes from. Where people do have something of a business plan they will be operating in highly uncertain conditions, maybe trying to sell cupcakes or something. In the UK up to 50% of new businesses fail within 3 years. When the economy is in a mess it's even harder to succeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supertramp Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Maybe one parent is already working full-time and the family has young children. Maybe there aren't enough jobs available, offering enough hours. There are already issues with underemployment in the economy. There are also issues with proliferation of zero hours contracts offering uncertain working hours. Maybe location counts against some people, especially with families. But, let's turn this on its head for a minute and consider how this would impact employers. Many employers legitimately offer contracts for say 16-20 hours work. It fits with their business and it often (though not always) suits the employee. Employers might have workers who have been with them for years who are suddenly classed as not working enough. The result could be millions of workers constantly looking for more work and other jobs. It is likely to destabilise some businesses. What's wrong with self-employment? Nothing on the face of it but when you dig deeper you find that many people are not really working. They are using the system to avoid signing on - declare a minimal amount of income then use working tax credits to top up. I'd wager that is where a lot of the growth in self-employment comes from. Where people do have something of a business plan they will be operating in highly uncertain conditions, maybe trying to sell cupcakes or something. In the UK up to 50% of new businesses fail within 3 years. When the economy is in a mess it's even harder to succeed. OK instead of going around in circles, how would a 50p tax rate help and what is your solution to the problems you have described? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 OK instead of going around in circles, how would a 50p tax rate help and what is your solution to the problems you have described? I've already answered this. Basically the 50p rate is a political football. The impact it has either way appears at present to have been negligible, and it detracts from the real debates that need to be had about tax. If the 50p rate can be proven to have added £10bn more than previously thought (as Balls claims) then it would be a good thing. If as the Tories claim it added little then it would possibly be pointless. I don't see any evidence that solidly supports either case so for now I would say stick with the 45p rate and stop messing around with that band until there is further evidence. It could be that the 45p rate is optimum and either side would be hasty in pushing the rate up or down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Can't argue with that really, it seems pretty sensible. Which means that no political party will ever adopt this approach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SNES Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 I agree with the principle of the public sector, a body of people employed to served the needs of their paymasters, unfortunately it as grown into a money wasting monster which spends most of its time trying to control the lives of its paymaster. I robot comes to mind, create a workforce (robots) to serve the needs of the people, at some stage though it decided to control every aspects of the people lives. The public sector needs to be once against regarded as public servants. Why does public sector need to be regarded as servants? If someone in the public sector does the equivalent job as someone in private, they should get going rate! Why would an intelligent person, work for public sector on less pay just to do their "duty". Would you be happy if the police officer or nurse that was looking after you, was not up to the job all because the decent people have gone somewhere else? Pay peanuts and get monkeys...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonJeremy Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Why does public sector need to be regarded as servants? If someone in the public sector does the equivalent job as someone in private, they should get going rate! Why would an intelligent person, work for public sector on less pay just to do their "duty". Would you be happy if the police officer or nurse that was looking after you, was not up to the job all because the decent people have gone somewhere else? Pay peanuts and get monkeys...... Many call themselves Civil Servants. A little outdated I agree, but I don't think anyone here is suggested that you should be paid less for equivalent work/pension benefit/ retirement age/ other benefits/job security. Can't see where anyone does. Many people in the private sector (the ones that pay your wages/pension/holidays etc) resent the fact you are paid more and seem to tell them what to do. The servant has become the master. I may be wrong, but I can't find any such assertion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivanava Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 Why does public sector need to be regarded as servants? If someone in the public sector does the equivalent job as someone in private, they should get going rate! Why would an intelligent person, work for public sector on less pay just to do their "duty". Would you be happy if the police officer or nurse that was looking after you, was not up to the job all because the decent people have gone somewhere else? Pay peanuts and get monkeys...... Because that is what they are, the public sector was set up to serve the people. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/servant Servant a person who performs duties for others, especially a person employed in a house on domestic duties or as a personal attendant. a person employed in the service of a government: a devoted and helpful follower or supporter: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.