You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
Comments
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/the-uk-town-with-more-jobless-brits-than-anywhere-else/ar-AA1B841b?ocid=msedgntp&pc=W230&cvid=9e761f6a2004445784b83bf495d4d427&ei=70#fullscreen
Sorry, but I did lol at this.
"It shouldn't happen because I practically live off of it," she says. "I use it to get around - transport - because I struggle to get buses and trains and stuff so I get Ubers a lot which can be quite pricey."
She's got an illness which means she is forced to use Taxis, not public transport such as buses or trains...
And in my world "economically inactive" is an inaccurate term. If they are drawing a whole range of government benefits, they are economically active IMO.
I have always thought that benefits were intended to be a safety net, rather than a way of life.
Although I do appreciate that some people are unable to work.
Should we be paying any benefits to a 17 year old, living at home with their parents?
If she got a flat, would we be paying her housing benefit on top?
If her parents threw her out, would she be classed as homeless, and put up in a hotel temporarily, for a year or two?
The longer they are on benefits, the harder it is to get them off.
If we are breeding a generation of young people that can only text, and email, and have no wish to engage with others on a face to face basis, the future is unlikely to be bright.
Particularly if they think of benefits as being more attractive than an honest days work.
What happened to the old work ethic?
Because of me caring full time for her, 40 hours p/w, we had to decide which path to go down, benefits or work.
Now for many years I worked part time and combined that with various credits to generate an income. However, when that changed it became economically unfeasible for me to work mainly because of the cost of providing 40 hours care per week for my wife.
So the maths was the Govt pay me £90 per week to stay at home and care for her. Even if you factor in the Income Support to reach the base level of income the Govt says a couple require to live and the Housing Benefit component, it's not the gravy train that many people think.
I would love to be able to work and leave my wifes care to the NHS, however, firstly that would probably end up costing the Govt more in the long run and secondly, in order to pay toward care costs I would need a job paying at least £40,000 pa.
Not many of those for a 61 year old.
My final question is this. The Government are constantly saying they want to get people off benefits and into work.
What jobs? What work?
In the last 4 weeks 2 more potbanks have announced closures and redundancies in Stoke on Trent. Also if theres not enough jobs for able bodied people to do WTF are they expecting the disabled to do.
Yes there are people defrauding the system, there are also many who wish they could escape the never ending circle that the system ties you to.
Nor would I. Give those who NEED it more imo, but cut off the scroungers. That's my point.