Taxpayer support

[Cyclone]

If you're employed for a couple of weeks and then go back on the dole would this take you out of the long term group? Genuine question..

 

Probably, for 6 months at least.

[tinfoilhat]

Probably, for 6 months at least.

 

I agree. I'd also suggest being sanctioned might have the same effect. They are, officially, no longer long term unemployed and milking the system.

 

Ta dah!!!!

 

Until they are again.

[floydjones]

Why don't you read the report and find out?

 

I haven't seen a report, if you have seen it and you have read it, it will be easy for you to answer the question. If you aren't willing to prove your point it's hypocritical of you to ask someone else to prove their point.

 

---------- Post added 16-10-2015 at 15:00 ----------

 

Did you read the report?

Do you know anything about how research and anylysis is done?

 

Did you read the report? if you did, the question should be easy for you to answer. If you can't answer the question I will have to assume that the report doesn't answer the question.

[ricgem2002]

I know it is only an implication and not explicit, but the theme you are propagating here is that an employer who wants a part time worker is to blame for an employee claiming benefits from the state. It really is a very wrong premise.

All it does is show that you are anti business. It really is transparent. And ugly. And myopic

i will say this in very simple terms ron then maybe you just might get it some employers don't want workers employed full time its better for them to employ part time workers who are topped up with taxpayers money.(instead of paying a decent wage) they then can create a workforce run by part time workers all topped up with tax payers money. im far from anti business i wish businesses would take on full time workers (not on zhc/parttime contracts) and pay the going rate of tax instead of (tax avoidance schemes) not much to ask for eh ron

[truman]

i will say this in very simple terms ron then maybe you just might get it some employers don't want workers employed full time its better for them to employ part time workers who are topped up with taxpayers money.(instead of paying a decent wage) they then can create a workforce run by part time workers all topped up with tax payers money. im far from anti business i wish businesses would take on full time workers (not on zhc/parttime contracts) and pay the going rate of tax instead of (tax avoidance schemes) not much to ask for eh ron

 

Genuine question..how is it better to employ someone part time? If the going rate is £8 an hour for example then 2 people doing half a day will cost the same as one person doing a full day ... if anything it makes for more paperwork for the employer..if there's not enough work for a full time employee then why would the employer set one on..

[ricgem2002]

Genuine question..how is it better to employ someone part time? If the going rate is £8 an hour for example then 2 people doing half a day will cost the same as one person doing a full day ... if anything it makes for more paperwork for the employer..if there's not enough work for a full time employee then why would the employer set one on..

and what if the going rate is nmw and the employer is only offering 16 hours a week that worker then gets his/her wages topped up by working tax credits( taxpayers). so in your question are we talking one man bands ? are we talking multi nationals ? come on Truman i cant actually believe that you haven't seen these companies operating this way to make more profit for themselves:roll:

[999tigger]

Genuine question..how is it better to employ someone part time? If the going rate is £8 an hour for example then 2 people doing half a day will cost the same as one person doing a full day ... if anything it makes for more paperwork for the employer..if there's not enough work for a full time employee then why would the employer set one on..

 

Youd think so Truman, but thats not the case. Employers prefer pt workers for a few reasons.

 

1. Its more flexible for the employer.

2. They dont pay NI for limited hours.

3. Its cheaper because they can benefit from the tax payer subsidy of wtc.

4. They get fewer employment rights so are easier to dismiss.

 

---------- Post added 16-10-2015 at 16:58 ----------

 

I haven't seen a report, if you have seen it and you have read it, it will be easy for you to answer the question. If you aren't willing to prove your point it's hypocritical of you to ask someone else to prove their point.

 

---------- Post added 16-10-2015 at 15:00 ----------

 

 

Did you read the report? if you did, the question should be easy for you to answer. If you can't answer the question I will have to assume that the report doesn't answer the question.

 

The report is on the thread. You seem to be able to talk about it without having read it, which rather undermines you. You also make too many assumptions which are rather lazy ones. You dont seem to appreciate the difference between properly conducted research and annecdotal experience.

 

---------- Post added 16-10-2015 at 17:02 ----------

 

I agree. I'd also suggest being sanctioned might have the same effect. They are, officially, no longer long term unemployed and milking the system.

 

Ta dah!!!!

 

Until they are again.

 

Does work like that you are still registered, but you dont get any money.

 

 

Still waiting for RON to make his points so they cna be answered. This thread remains all over the place.

Edited October 16, 2015 by 999tigger

[floydjones]

Youd think so Truman, but thats not the case. Employers prefer pt workers for a few reasons.

 

1. Its more flexible for the employer.

2. They dont pay NI for limited hours.

3. Its cheaper because they can benefit from the tax payer subsidy of wtc.

4. They get fewer employment rights so are easier to dismiss.

 

---------- Post added 16-10-2015 at 16:58 ----------

 

 

The report is on the thread. You seem to be able to talk about it without having read it, which rather undermines you.

 

I haven't seen or talked about a report, but it obviously doesn't answer the question I asked.

[the_bloke]

I've a friend in Kettering, a single Mum with a teenager and a pre school child. She's been working the last two months at NMW for 24 hrs a week at a bowling alley. Today, she finally got her housing and council tax benefit information returned - she now has to pay council tax and half of her rent.

 

The result? She's now £60 a week worse off working 24 hours a week than not working at all. The system doesn't work. She's now giving serious consideration into giving up work.

 

I wonder how many people are locked in a cycle of claiming benefit until being forced into work, then having to give up work after a few months because they can't afford it?

[ricgem2002]

I've a friend in Kettering, a single Mum with a teenager and a pre school child. She's been working the last two months at NMW for 24 hrs a week at a bowling alley. Today, she finally got her housing and council tax benefit information returned - she now has to pay council tax and half of her rent.

 

The result? She's now £60 a week worse off working 24 hours a week than not working at all. The system doesn't work. She's now giving serious consideration into giving up work.

 

I wonder how many people are locked in a cycle of claiming benefit until being forced into work, then having to give up work after a few months because they can't afford it?

and this will please a lot of people on here:roll: