Working full-time, fined by government for going on holiday!

[sutty27]

Whether or not for the time that someone is in receipt of benefits should be pleasant or not is a matter of opinion. As I said, I couldn't manage. Incidentally I was working, I wasn't in paid employment at the time.

 

---------- Post added 26-04-2016 at 22:05 ----------

 

 

Do you tell the people who you see using expensive mobile phones that they shouldn't have them? Perhaps they were a gift from someone else.

 

What aspect couldn't you manage, not enough money for food, heating?

 

What a bizarre question.

 

---------- Post added 26-04-2016 at 22:32 ----------

 

More than half of benefit claimants believe the handouts they are receiving are too generous and discourage work, a report suggests.

 

Findings from the 2011 British Social Attitudes Survey show that it is not just people in work who are concerned about the current welfare system, but those who are unemployed too.

 

Figures show that 62 per cent of Britons think unemployment benefits are "too high and discourage work".

 

Some 59 per cent of people who said that either they or their partner were claiming benefits agreed.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/10285310/More-than-half-of-benefit-claimants-believe-state-handouts-are-too-generous-study-suggests.html

[Cyclone]

Where do you get these bizarre ideas from, you have a very vivid imagination.

They had to inform you that they were going to Spain. You said it.

And then they had to explain how it was being paid for.

 

What kind of things did you have to give up because I see claimants smoking, boozing, taking holidays, using expensive mobile phones.

 

How do you identify them, they don't come with a tattoo on the forehead, although I suspect that's an idea you'd quite like.

 

---------- Post added 27-04-2016 at 07:32 ----------

 

Benefits shouldn't be there to make your life pleasant, they should be a means to get by until you can make your own life more pleasant by working, the only exception being the severely disabled that can't work.

 

And when we're talking about someone who IS working.

 

You keep conveniently forgetting that we're talking about IN WORK benefits don't you.

[sutty27]

They had to inform you that they were going to Spain. You said it.

And then they had to explain how it was being paid for.

 

 

And that is entirely different to tracking their movements.

 

 

How do you identify them, they don't come with a tattoo on the forehead, although I suspect that's an idea you'd quite like.

 

You have some very bizarre ideas.

 

And when we're talking about someone who IS working.

 

You keep conveniently forgetting that we're talking about IN WORK benefits don't you.

 

No I don't, you just keep assuming that based on your lack of understanding. In work benefits are even more perverse than out of work benefits because they disincentivise hard work, lower productivity and allow employers to pay low wages.

[Cyclone]

Well what's your plan, ask them at every interview if they will be going to Spain before the next one? Require them to surrender their passport? How would you make it work?

And you still haven't explained how you'd actually ensure that they couldn't save anything? Bank account records to be open to DWP staff? House searches for errant tenners?

 

I hesitate to ask how in work benefits disincentivise hard work or reduce productivity. But go on, share your amazing economic insights.

 

As for misunderstanding

 

Benefits shouldn't be there to make your life pleasant, they should be a means to get by until you can make your own life more pleasant by working

Perhaps you don't use English very clearly. But to be able to make life more pleasant BY working, you'd have to NOT be working in the first place. Perhaps you didn't write what you actually meant.

[Obelix]

Its immoral to take money off someone that works hard for it, and give it to someone that doesn't need it.

 

Really?

 

Why?

 

I mean I'm paying a good deal in tax - I dont see a thing wrong in some of that going to someone who is working hard and doesnt make very much.

 

If you were carping on about some idly layabout gaming the system and activley avoiding work you may have a point.

[I1L2T3]

Really?

 

Why?

 

I mean I'm paying a good deal in tax - I dont see a thing wrong in some of that going to someone who is working hard and doesnt make very much.

 

If you were carping on about some idly layabout gaming the system and activley avoiding work you may have a point.

 

These are exactly my thoughts.

[sutty27]

Really?

 

Why?

 

I mean I'm paying a good deal in tax - I dont see a thing wrong in some of that going to someone who is working hard and doesnt make very much.

 

If you were carping on about some idly layabout gaming the system and activley avoiding work you may have a point.

 

I wouldn't class 16 hours, 24 hours or even 30 hours and claiming in work benefits as working hard, someone is working 50+ hours and still in need of in work benefits to make ends meet then I would agree with you.

 

---------- Post added 27-04-2016 at 09:43 ----------

 

Perhaps you don't use English very clearly. But to be able to make life more pleasant BY working, you'd have to NOT be working in the first place. Perhaps you didn't write what you actually meant.

 

It very clear, someone working 16 hours and struggling can make the life better by doing more work, the government shouldn't make their life better by giving them free money because it disincentives them from working harder to make their own lives better.

Edited April 27, 2016 by sutty27

[Cyclone]

The person in question worked 30 - 40 hrs a week.

 

You've now made up a requirement that someone work 50 hrs a week before you consider it to be "hard". So more than the generally accepted "full time" work in this country.

Perhaps though, in order to facilitate this we should outlaw zero hours contracts. At least then people and the DWP would actually know how many hours they were working, instead of it being entirely down to what the employer offers week to week.

[Obelix]

These are exactly my thoughts.

 

It's good to agree on the fundamentals isn't it

 

---------- Post added 27-04-2016 at 10:09 ----------

 

I wouldn't class 16 hours, 24 hours or even 30 hours and claiming in work benefits as working hard, someone is working 50+ hours and still in need of in work benefits to make ends meet then I would agree with you

 

I rather suspect you wouldn't know what hard work actually is.

 

---------- Post added 27-04-2016 at 10:11 ----------

 

The person in question worked 30 - 40 hrs a week.

 

You've now made up a requirement that someone work 50 hrs a week before you consider it to be "hard". .

 

So to be clear - you can only get benefits under suttys idea if you in fact break the law on the working time directive by working more than 48 hours a week...

[sutty27]

It's good to agree on the fundamentals isn't it

 

---------- Post added 27-04-2016 at 10:09 ----------

 

 

I rather suspect you wouldn't know what hard work actually is.

 

---------- Post added 27-04-2016 at 10:11 ----------

 

 

So to be clear - you can only get benefits under suttys idea if you in fact break the law on the working time directive by working more than 48 hours a week...

 

You suspect wrong and its not against the law to work over 50 hours, where on earth did you get that very bizarre idea from?

 

---------- Post added 27-04-2016 at 11:12 ----------

 

The person in question worked 30 - 40 hrs a week.

 

You've now made up a requirement that someone work 50 hrs a week before you consider it to be "hard". So more than the generally accepted "full time" work in this country.

Perhaps though, in order to facilitate this we should outlaw zero hours contracts. At least then people and the DWP would actually know how many hours they were working, instead of it being entirely down to what the employer offers week to week.

 

Its only accepted by youngsters that have been brought up to believe that hard work is sitting at a desk for 30 hours a week.