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

[Ms Macbeth]

More than half of benefit claimants are old age pensioners. I suppose that having a pension does "discourage work", though that's an, uh, idiosyncratic way of looking at it.

 

That's a bit confusing as many of us get state pensions based solely on what we've paid in NI contributions. Others may have contributed far less but still get as much if not more via means testing. I've known quite a few pensioners who worked after state pension age as well as my husband and me. We did it to enhance our income, but if we'd been in receipt of a means tested pension, plus other benefits, it would not have been a viable option.

 

A breakdown showing the amount or proportion of 'pension' payments that are means tested would show a more realistic picture.

[sutty27]

The point of UC is that the more hours you work, the greater your income, WITH benefits taken into account.

 

Nobody becomes worse off by working more hours, they DO become worse off by working less hours.

 

Yet it reduces the hourly rate of those people working the hardest and increases the hourly rate of those working the least.

 

You still haven't explained why it's morally right for the hardest working cleaner to recieve the lowest hourly rate and the laziest cleaner to receive the highest hourly rate.

 

It can't be morally right for the hardest working cleaner to have their hourly rate reduced to £5.90 for each hour worked, whilst the laziest cleaner has there's increased to £10.25 for each hour worked, and for someone doing nothing at all to get £125 for doing work at all.

Edited April 28, 2016 by sutty27

[Mister M]

Yet it reduces the hourly rate of those people working the hardest and increases the hourly rate of those working the least.

 

You still haven't explained why it's morally right for the hardest working cleaner to recieve the lowest hourly rate and the laziest cleaner to receive the highest hourly rate.

 

It can't be morally right for the hardest working cleaner to have their hourly rate reduced to £5.90 for each hour worked, whilst the laziest cleaner has there's increased to £10.25 for each hour worked, and for someone doing nothing at all to get £125 for doing work at all.

 

I don't understand the point you're making here.

 

Lots of people in the work environment don't receive their just deserts. For example where I work it seems like the hardest working get put upon, and those who are crap at their jobs get promoted, and those at the top get the most, even though they do the least. Welcome to the real world!

[sutty27]

I don't understand the point you're making here.

 

Lots of people in the work environment don't receive their just deserts. For example where I work it seems like the hardest working get put upon, and those who are crap at their jobs get promoted, and those at the top get the most, even though they do the least. Welcome to the real world!

 

That doesn't surprise me.

 

But here it is again for you.

 

The more hours one works the more money is taken away in the form of tax. Three cleaners all working for the same company and all on minimum wage, cleaner 1 gets no in work benefits, works 60 hours a week and pays more tax than cleaner 2 because they choose to work no more than 40 hours a week, and cleaner 2 pays more than cleaner 3 because they choose to work just 16 hours a week to maximise the in work benefits they can get.

 

How is it morally right to take money from hard working cleaner 1 to subside the lifestyle of lazy cleaner 3?

The hardest working cleaner ends up with the lowest hourly rate of pay whilst the laziest cleaner ends up with the highest hourly rate of pay, that can't be morally right or fair.

 

Its not the real world, its a perverse immoral world created by taking money away from hard workers and giving it to those that choose to do nothing or very little, it reduces productivity, increases dependency, encourages laziness, fecklessness and discourages hard work.

Edited April 28, 2016 by sutty27

[Mister M]

That doesn't surprise me.

 

But here it is again for you.

 

 

 

Its not the real world, its a perverse immoral world created by taking money away from hard workers and giving it to those that choose to do nothing or very little, it reduces productivity, increases dependency, encourages laziness, fecklessness and discourages hard work.

 

My problem isn't getting the basics of what you're saying, my problems are with your credibility. I've linked your contribution below as evidence of this.

But leaving that aside for the moment what are your solutions? As I've said before, I've no problem whatsoever with the woman in question taking a holiday - she works, she should be entitled to annual leave, and her job centre should take her circumstances into account. The problem seems to me with a changing workplace and society and a benefits system that isn't keeping apace. Why should the individual be punished for that?

 

Appearances are often deceiving.

 

I haven't said anything at all about any single individual, you should look back at the point I joined the discussion and follow it from that point.

 

Why would I be embarrassed about the fact I no longer have to work hard or that my work enables me to work and post on here at the same time?

 

I think you will find that when someone on benefits is splashing the cash they will be asked question if the benefits office become aware of it. Do you really think that someone on benefits should have the ability to save for a,

SAMSUNG Smart 65" Curved LED TV or a new 911 Carrera cabriolet. Chances are if they can afford such items whilst claiming benefits they will be something something a little fishy.

 

---------- Post added 27-04-2016 at 14:44 ----------

 

You asked question and I answered, the fact you didn't like or understand the answers is your problem.

 

 

But at no time have you presented an argument to support your belief that benefits claimants should have the ability to save for the same luxuries that non claimants can afford.

[sutty27]

My problem isn't getting the basics of what you're saying, my problems are with your credibility. I've linked your contribution below as evidence of this.

 

That's two problems then, my credibility and you don't understand the point I have made. I don't find your contributions very credible most of the time and I also struggle with the points you are trying to make, so we are both in the same boat.

 

But leaving that aside for the moment what are your solutions? As I've said before, I've no problem whatsoever with the woman in question taking a holiday - she works, she should be entitled to annual leave, and her job centre should take her circumstances into account. The problem seems to me with a changing workplace and society and a benefits system that isn't keeping apace. Why should the individual be punished for that?

 

I also don't have a problem with her taking an holiday and I have no idea why you think I might have a problem with it, maybe it's down to your inability to understand my posts, or my inability to write my posts in such a way that they can't be interpreted differently by different readers.

[Mister M]

That's two problems then, my credibility and you don't understand the point I have made. I don't find your contributions very credible most of the time and I also struggle with the points you are trying to make, so we are both in the same boat.

 

 

 

I also don't have a problem with her taking an holiday and I have no idea why you think I might have a problem with it, maybe it's down to your inability to understand my posts, or my inability to write my posts in such a way that they can't be interpreted differently by different readers.

 

Because you said so here:

 

Because I consider an holiday to be a luxury, and luxuries should be worked for. The state should help poor people keep a roof over their head, food on the table and cloths on their backs, it shouldn't help them pay for foreign holidays.

[sutty27]

Because you said so here:

 

I can see why you might have got confused, I assumed incorrectly that other members would have read the entire conversation, and I didn't think it necessary to retype every word I typed in every new post I typed.

 

This is my first contribution.

 

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11366701&postcount=152

 

Begrudging a 'hard working family' a holiday is very harsh, and says a lot about where this country has fallen to. It's about time ordinary hard working people in this country were treated with a bit of respect.

 

There used to be a time when if your hourly rate of pay was low you had to work 50/60 hours a week to afford an holiday abroad. Not sure that I agree with paying benefit so that people can afford to holiday abroad.

 

I just looked again at the post you quoted and it appears I did actually say foreign holidays.

 

Because I consider an holiday to be a luxury, and luxuries should be worked for. The state should help poor people keep a roof over their head, food on the table and cloths on their backs, it shouldn't help them pay for foreign holidays.

 

At at no time have I said people on benefits shouldn't be allowed to go on holiday abroad, I just said benefits shouldn't give them the ability to pay for one or save for one.

 

So to clarify, an paid holiday from work is a right, an holiday abroad is a luxury.

An holiday is an extended period of leisure and recreation, no requirement for it to be taken away from home.

Edited April 28, 2016 by sutty27

[psynuk]

You do realise that all of what you say regarding holidays quite clearly demonstrates that you DO have a problem with them/her 'taking a holiday', don't you?

 

I actually get what your saying..

 

'The benefits shouldn't pay for holidays.'

 

But your argument for that to happen, requires some kind of unquantifiable and imaginary threshold that pay+benefits reaches, but doesn't surpass.

 

And the the threshold essentially is the boundary of starvation and destitution on one side and the ability to save for a foreign holiday on the other.

 

It's an insane point to try and hold on to past a one line argument. The slightest bit of consideration or thought shows how bureaucratic, invasive, complicated and expensive it would be to even come close to ensuring no money past the 'bread line' was given.

 

 

And never mind that, look at the garbage that is paid out for to people who really shouldn't be given any benefits..

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33649258

 

We're a wildly rich country, stop hating on the paupers.

[Cyclone]

And you said that they should have to declare if they were going abroad, and that somehow you should inspect their finances to ensure that they CANNOT save.

 

So if they stop using the bus, and start cycling. Reduction in benefits to ensure that they don't actually save anything.

If they switch electricity supplier and get a cheaper deal, reduction in benefits to ensure that they don't actually save anything.

The guy next door, who's circumstances are identical but takes the bus and stays with Scottish Power, he doesn't lose any benefits as he's not in a position to save anyway.