sutty27 Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 You're comparing working to being on benefits, someone working part time would be doing both, ie in receipt of in work benefits... And you're having to come up with unlikely scenario's of 2 hr long shifts in order to exaggerate the cost of transport. No I'm not comparing working to being on benefits, and not everyone working part time is also on benefits, I work part time but don't claim benefits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 The pay gap between the lowest paid workers and countless benefit claimants is quite narrow That comparison is what the entire thread is about. ---------- Post added 21-03-2016 at 13:14 ---------- No I'm not comparing working to being on benefits, and not everyone working part time is also on benefits, I work part time but don't claim benefits. I doubt that you work 2 hr shifts on the minimum wage then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister M Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 I'm referring to the similarities between the quality of life of low income working families and benefit claiming families and the financial limitations that prevent their circumstances from improving. Thanks for clarifying that. Often when people talk about 'lifestyles', particularly of those who are poor, people generalise about someone they may have seen on TV engaging in behaviour they don't approve of, and assume that everyone in the same financial position does exactly the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sutty27 Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 I doubt that you work 2 hr shifts on the minimum wage then. That doesn't change the fact that a requirement for JSA is looking for work and you can't restrict your chances of getting work by saying you will only work within walking distance of your house or that you will only take full time work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted March 21, 2016 Author Share Posted March 21, 2016 You think people who aren't working don't have to eat lunch? Yes there might be a few expenses missing for the working person, but if it's minimum wage hopefully it's close to home and doesn't require any expensive travel. I'll be cycling to work this morning, that's free, as is walking and running. It wasn't my scenario was it. Good try, but someone else added it up and you asked if I was prepared to comment on it any further. Of course unemployed people eat lunch, and breakfast, and morning and afternoon snap. Walking, running or cycling to work to preserve the financial incentive that makes them better off than benefit claimant who can afford to drive. Is this the solution then? Nice try? You presented the potential pay rise once skilled scenario, no one else. Backatcha!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 No I'm not comparing working to being on benefits, and not everyone working part time is also on benefits, I work part time but don't claim benefits. why don't you claim benefits ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*_ash_* Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 why don't you claim benefits ? Isn't 16 billion not being claimed, as it often claimed in here? Perhaps most don't want or need it? Just as well they don't otherwise there'd be £16b in cuts to other things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 Isn't 16 billion not being claimed, as it often claimed in here? Perhaps most don't want or need it? Just as well they don't otherwise there'd be £16b in cuts to other things. the £16b is already put aside I think ash, it just isn't claimed. maybe they could give it Georgie boy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*_ash_* Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 the £16b is already put aside I think ash, it just isn't claimed. maybe they could give it Georgie boy Put aside? That's a lot of money to put aside. Do you think it is really? I doubt it. - With things that aren't automatically paid, then there will always be 'unclaimed' benefits figures, so I think it's a false argument. e.g. If they ever do the right thing and have an opt out for the mandatory winter fuel allowance or child allowance, people on your side will just add to this figure in your argument. It's a win win for non Tory voters spiel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 Put aside? That's a lot of money to put aside. Do you think it is really? I doubt it. - With things that aren't automatically paid, then there will always be 'unclaimed' benefits figures, so I think it's a false argument. e.g. If they ever do the right thing and have an opt out for the mandatory winter fuel allowance or child allowance, people on your side will just add to this figure in your argument. It's a win win for non Tory voters spiel. so you in agreement with me and don't know another agreement we got ash in that its a win win for non tory voters spiel which includes you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now