How would a right wing person help the poor/needy?

[RonJeremy]

I'm glad that your right wing side didn't say that the disabled should be paid less than non disabled people....Tory MP Philip Davies beat you to it

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/jun/17/tory-philip-davies-disabled-people-work

Should someone able to do a job be paid more, by an employer, than someone unable to do that job?

[medusa]

They would be averaged out over a set period of time, so on your good weeks you work more hours than your bad weeks. If you constantly fail to meet your agreed targets you would be reassessed and sanctioned if necessary.

 

Sanctioned? So I would actually be fined for being ill. Glad that you're prepared to state that.

 

Now, you know the bit earlier when I asked about how I'd afford to eat?

[sutty27]

Sanctioned? So I would actually be fined for being ill. Glad that you're prepared to state that.

 

Now, you know the bit earlier when I asked about how I'd afford to eat?

 

No you would only be sanctioned if it is determined that you could have done more than you did.

 

There is some leeway in the money you are given, you wouldn't starve but if you failed to meet your agreed targets you would have to do without some of the other things that you don't need.

[El Cid]

Some people can't work, the government has to look after those.

 

Sorry, but why am I paying taxes to keep that lifestyle going? I am willing to put a good amount of money on the fact that most of those nine kids will end up living a similar life, not contributing but taking because they don't understand responsibilities.

 

People with any sort of addiction, more money will make them worse, that should be tackled.

[Mister M]

Should someone able to do a job be paid more, by an employer, than someone unable to do that job?

 

That already happens in many cases - people who have been in a job a long time move up the salary scale to reflect their experience and knowledge.

But if you're asking me on principle, should disabled people be paid less than non disabled people then I would say no.

[crookedspire]

I'm frankly disgusted with this thread . I'm sure some posters would have felt right at home in the Third Reich.

[medusa]

No you would only be sanctioned if it is determined that you could have done more than you did.

 

There is some leeway in the money you are given, you wouldn't starve but if you failed to meet your agreed targets you would have to do without some of the other things that you don't need.

 

I'm disabled and pay a mortgage on very little money. Exactly how many luxuries do you think I have?

 

The whole reason that I don't work is because I was unable to go to work when I did work, and then I got more ill and both doctors and employers suggested that I wasn't likely to improve enough to be able to return.

 

For the record I neither drink nor smoke and buy most of my clothing and house goods second hand already. Last week I had to think carefully about when I could afford to buy a bunch of daffodils for my mum, who is in hospital.

 

---------- Post added 29-03-2016 at 21:08 ----------

 

Should someone able to do a job be paid more, by an employer, than someone unable to do that job?

 

One would hope that only people who are able to do a job are employed to do it, thus making all employees who are employed to do a particular job equal.

[RonJeremy]

I'm disabled and pay a mortgage on very little money. Exactly how many luxuries do you think I have?

 

The whole reason that I don't work is because I was unable to go to work when I did work, and then I got more ill and both doctors and employers suggested that I wasn't likely to improve enough to be able to return.

 

For the record I neither drink nor smoke and buy most of my clothing and house goods second hand already. Last week I had to think carefully about when I could afford to buy a bunch of daffodils for my mum, who is in hospital.

 

---------- Post added 29-03-2016 at 21:08 ----------

 

 

One would hope that only people who are able to do a job are employed to do it, thus making all employees who are employed to do a particular job equal.

 

So you wouldn't accept that some people are better at some jobs than some other people?

[Mister M]

So you wouldn't accept that some people are better at some jobs than some other people?

 

Of course they are! But being disabled doesn't mean that people are an less able to do the role they were selected for. I think paying people differently for being disabled is against the law anyway. And quite rightly too.

[medusa]

So you wouldn't accept that some people are better at some jobs than some other people?

 

Of course I would, but the sort of jobs that most people are referring to here are not high powered jobs which can have performance related pay attached. If you're making it a rule that people have to do a job in order to be paid their benefits (irrelevant of disability and illness) then one would hope that you would be duty bound to both ensure that the job was one that the applicant could do, and also that they had enough money to eat at the end of the week.