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

[Obelix]

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 ----------

 

 

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.

 

Yawn... you really don't get this do you... you cannot MAKE people work more than 48 hours a week averaged over the reference period....

[Cyclone]

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 ----------

 

 

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.

 

You're off in la la land now.

Your ideas are unworkable and in my opinion immoral, so lets just leave it.

 

---------- Post added 27-04-2016 at 11:19 ----------

 

It

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...

 

I think you can get benefits without working >48hrs, but you're not allowed to go to Spain or to save anything. If you save anything then the secret police will take it from you to ensure that you don't eventually have enough for a holiday.

On the thread I started about how much you try to put aside for emergencies though, he says as much as possible. Presumably as much as possible for anyone only working full time and claiming in work benefits is £0.00. Which won't go far in case of financial shock.

[sutty27]

Yawn... you really don't get this do you... you cannot MAKE people work more than 48 hours a week averaged over the reference period....

 

 

 

In which post did I say or suggest that anyone should be made to work more than 48 hours?

 

You said it was illegal to work over 48 hours and you are wrong.

 

Just incase you forgot what you said.

 

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...

 

No it isn't against the law to work over 48 hours, if it was then most doctors would have been breaking the law.

[Berberis]

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

 

Correction, by her own admission its as much as 50 hours or as little as 20 hours per week. She says herself its on average 30 hours per week, which puts her below the 35 hours cut off.

 

But Smith was working, typically 30-40 hours a week, in a rugby club bar. She’d worked for 20 years, alongside bringing up two children. “Because I was working I just didn’t understand why I was sanctioned. I couldn’t understand why I had to go every week [to the jobcentre]. I couldn’t get my head around it.”

 

Smith had fallen foul of the requirement, built into universal credit and currently being trialled, that people working under 35 hours a week at the “national living wage” must seek more hours, an extra job or a better-paid job as a condition of getting low pay top-ups. If they break this commitment, they face sanctions.

 

“I did 40 hours last week, I’m doing 40 hours this week and 38 next. And I still have to go to the jobcentre to look for a job? It makes no sense,” Smith said.

 

Smith works on a zero-hours contract basis, meaning she can work as little as 20 hours a week or as many as 50. Over the year, she reckons, it averages out at around 30 hours a week.

 

The reporter and this lady contradict one-another as she cannot typically work 30-40 hours per week and on average work 30 hours a week. The two do not add up.

[Obelix]

In which post did I say or suggest that anyone should be made to work more than 48 hours?

 

That's not even worth dignifying with further comment. Well done. You are the first permanent resident of my ignore list.

[sutty27]

You're off in la la land now.

Your ideas are unworkable and in my opinion immoral, so lets just leave it.

 

You are just worried about loosing your benefits.

 

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

 

That's not even worth dignifying with further comment. Well done. You are the first permanent resident of my ignore list.

 

Because you can't accept that you are wrong, you assumed incorrectly that what I typed meant something other than what it said, by all means ignore me if you can't deal with someone pointing out your errors.

[Mister M]

Its not a bad job and I can do it at the same time as talking to you.

 

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 ----------

 

 

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.

 

 

So you can go on internet fora whilst you're at work, giving your opinions about people who work but are in receipt of state support and claim that they are 'not very hard working'.

Hmmm

 

---------- Post added 27-04-2016 at 12:54 ----------

 

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

 

Why would I want to give out personal information to a total stranger?

 

Why would I want to give my personal information to complete stranger. Especially one who appears to be very judgemental about those in receipt of benefits?

 

---------- Post added 27-04-2016 at 12:56 ----------

 

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

 

Why is that a bizarre question?

[sutty27]

So you can go on internet fora whilst you're at work, giving your opinions about people who work but are in receipt of state support and claim that they are 'not very hard working'.

Hmmm

Yep. Why does it surprise you?

 

Why would I want to give my personal information to complete stranger. Especially one who appears to be very judgemental about those in receipt of benefits?

 

I haven't asked you to give me your personal information, but if you claim benefits you should expect that they will ask and you will have to comply or loose your freebies.

Edited April 27, 2016 by sutty27

[Cyclone]

You are just worried about loosing your benefits.

 

hahahah.

 

Couldn't be any further from the truth. I'm more concerned about the changes to dividend taxation.

[sutty27]

hahahah.

 

Couldn't be any further from the truth. I'm more concerned about the changes to dividend taxation.

 

If you say so.