Trash!

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

http://www.economist.com/node/16846390? ... hildintime

[Prufrock]

There's 4.8 million people of working age in "workless households".

The number of workless households is 3.3 million.

There's 10.7 million households with one or more people in work.

The number of children in workless households is 1.9 million. At that sort of level, we're going to need some much bigger schools to do all this education, because the ones we have aren't getting the message across.

The last Labour Force Survey, found that 75% of the economically inactive didn't want a job, compared with 25% that did.

I don't believe I'm underestimating the current problem.

Figures are all in and around here

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/S ... 6&Btn.y=14

It's not about whether I would swap my life with theirs. They seem quite happy with theirs, otherwise they'd want a job to try and improve it. As getting a job would only maybe improve it marginally they'd rather sit at home on handouts.

Of course it would suit society to have them all working and not have to cough up and I'd be delighted for them if this were so. But if this bit of society is doesn't want to work, then something different needs to occur. What you are advocating is that society has norms - that people try to the best of their ability to contribute where they are able - we help them out when this doesn't occur, but if they just choose to not give a feck, then that's absolutely fine too, we just grin and give them handouts.

That's not at all what I'm suggesting. The key questions for me are why are people not working, and how do we sort that.

Those statistics are irrelevant, economically inactive isn't the same as 'workless' households, if you are going off the same 2003 report as I am, and your 75%/25% divide would indicate you are, 35% of women not looking for a job (overall there are 74% of economically inactive women who 'don't want a job') don't want a job because they are housewives! That survey gives no indication whether or not they don't want a job because they look after their kids because their husband works and they don't need to! They aren't the people we are talking about, Tango's dodgers. I can't find any information on how many of those 4.8million in workless households aren't looking for a job, not because they are a students, or disabled, or caring for a familly, but because they can't be arsed.

Even of those people in workless households who answer do not want to work- reason: Other (ie just don't want a job), many will be people who can only find jobs where it isn't worth their working. I'm not suggesting the benefits system is perfect, but equally I don't think it needs root and branch overhaul, or more importantly, it needs anymore perjorative measures and rhetoric. It does need measures in some cases that mean the benefits system is, as I said, a second chance and not a way of life, I think we would both agree on that, we just differ on how big a problem it is, and how to solve it? I know people for whom it isn't economically worth it to take jobs they have been offered, the loss in benefits, council tax help, child benefits and tax credits is less than they would earn, this surely is not desirable. Now how do we sort that, do we cut benefits as seems to be one vocal section of society's point, or do we try to incentivise taking those jobs, allow a top up payment to people taking small hours jobs? The latter seems preferrable to me. What do you think happens if we cut the benefits of these people? THey aren't going to go away, they're going to be on our streets, in our hospitals. For these families we have to make working worth it, we don't do this by clampdowns and attack.

So you are happy to subsidise the big multinational companys employ folk? you know the ones that ruin the world etc etc

These small hours jobs are very rarely with multinational companies, they tend to be barwork, and local shops. I'd suggest a minimum wage rise, but a. I'm not sure if JSA isn't linked to the minimum wage, and more importantly b. with the way the economy is for local businesses and especially pubs, they couldn't afford a minimum wage rise.

[Hoboh]

So you are happy to subsidise the big multinational companys employ folk? you know the ones that ruin the world etc etc

These small hours jobs are very rarely with multinational companies, they tend to be barwork, and local shops. I'd suggest a minimum wage rise, but a. I'm not sure if JSA isn't linked to the minimum wage, and more importantly b. with the way the economy is for local businesses and especially pubs, they couldn't afford a minimum wage rise.

So no help for burger flippers, cleaners 0r people in security then to name a few?

[Il Pirate]

There's been a lot said about people on benefit on here lateley. Mainly about those seen as scroungers and idle wastrels overpopulating their local boroughs etc. Benefits mean for the majorityin receipt of them, a way of providing food, housing and clothing for the unfornate. Of course there will always be the idle who don't want to work or make a positive contribution to either the economy or society and the government must take action against those who abuse the system. Yet they continualy fail to persicute or prosecute the real money drainers of our economy; those who earns millions, even billions and with the complicit help of the government (as most of them all went to Eton or Winchester college with each other, before meeting up again at the Bullingdon club); use lloopholes in the system to avoid paying tax.
Benefit fraud costs this country 1 billion pounds a year; 0.7% of the overall budget of 148 billion. Whilst tax evasion costs the treasury 70 billion a year. (The IMF estimate it is probably higher).
The government spend 5 million a year on advertisments aimed at benefit fraud. Compare this to the paltry 633 thousand they spend on adverts aimed at tax evasion. And those tax adverts aren't aimed at the top business fat cats. They are aimed at the plumber or decorator, or local shopkeeper who was late filling in his tax return. Remember if it's late you get find you know..........................
If you weight this gov spending by the size of the problem and ratio, benefit fraud is 624 times more important than tax evasion....................I for one think not, Mr Osborne.

[Worthy4England]

Yerself.

Whilst agreeing that tax avoidance is a problem that needs resolving, your statement around high end tax payers being a "drain upon the system" is quite frankly laughable. They all put money in to the system.

Whereas benefits claimants take it out.