Then, they should be kept in prison. No sense releasing them into society if they can't be integrated.
I fully agree with that.
Then, they should be kept in prison. No sense releasing them into society if they can't be integrated.
You want to treat people who can't find a job as criminals? Aren't you unemployed?
I am unemployed. I am actively seeking work. My welfare has now expired and I'm now on my own.
When I said that I did say "perennially unemployed". I think that term ought to be clear enough.
I assumed that by perennially unemployed, you meant someone who is unemployed for a long time, rather than someone who refuses to look for work.
The biggest problem I have is that sometimes, with these long term unemployed people who have no intention of working, I think a lot of it is due to the fact that they get a lot of money from benefits and wouldn't be any better off working. Which surely is the intention. Now I know not every unemployed person is like that but some are, I've seen it first hand as I said earlier and the fact that someone can become that reliant on benefits and it gives them a bigger income than they would get from going out and doing a day's work worries me. It's the state of the country here that should be at fault. Sure the unemployed person should get a job, but the fact that it's become so easy to have that lifestyle means there is absolutely no incentive for them to get one.
The biggest problem I have is that sometimes, with these long term unemployed people who have no intention of working, I think a lot of it is due to the fact that they get a lot of money from benefits and wouldn't be any better off working. Which surely is the intention. Now I know not every unemployed person is like that but some are, I've seen it first hand as I said earlier and the fact that someone can become that reliant on benefits and it gives them a bigger income than they would get from going out and doing a day's work worries me. It's the state of the country here that should be at fault. Sure the unemployed person should get a job, but the fact that it's become so easy to have that lifestyle means there is absolutely no incentive for them to get one.
i think benefit provisions in the UK are more generous than stateside, anyway i wlll let him adviseHave you ever collected unemployment before? It's different from state to state, but you would get approximately 50% of what your pay was. Who can afford to live on half of what they are earning now? And each state has a cap... so for example. In PA if I was earning $1600/wk I would hit the cap of $537/wk (before taxes) That means I'm bringing home less than a third of what I was before. There is no way in hell I would survive on that cut in pay...
So how many people do you think would rather be collecting???
Have you ever collected unemployment before? It's different from state to state, but you would get approximately 50% of what your pay was. Who can afford to live on half of what they are earning now? And each state has a cap... so for example. In PA if I was earning $1600/wk I would hit the cap of $537/wk (before taxes) That means I'm bringing home less than a third of what I was before. There is no way in hell I would survive on that cut in pay...
So how many people do you think would rather be collecting???
I always thought that unemployed people should be able to go and work for the community for their benefits.
Have you ever collected unemployment before? It's different from state to state, but you would get approximately 50% of what your pay was. Who can afford to live on half of what they are earning now? And each state has a cap... so for example. In PA if I was earning $1600/wk I would hit the cap of $537/wk (before taxes) That means I'm bringing home less than a third of what I was before. There is no way in hell I would survive on that cut in pay...
So how many people do you think would rather be collecting???
The problem I'm having right now is finding a job that will pay as much as my unemployment.
I was talking about the whole concept of the benefits system though. £350 weekly is £87.50. Now I assume form that you pay rent and everything else. The thing is on benefits a person might claim housing and council tax benefits, which would eliminate the rent part and the council tax part, so at the end of the day that person on benefits would have a lot more disposable income than you. And that's what I'm talking about, the people who claim more than JSA who live on it, and that in my opinion is wrong.
There disposable income is less than £60 a week (if I remember JSA is about £60 a week). Because benefits will pay rent and council tax, nothing else as far as I am aware of. You still pay bills, mortgages, etc
Again I direct you to my post, the whole benefits system. In truth I think the wider issue is the crap welfare system which has allowed people like the gentleman in a previous post I made to claim benefits for 20 years. It's an easy thing to abuse. I laugh at people on benefits sometimes who feel bad for themselves because as you said they only have £60 a week to live on. Well get a job then.
You're being contradictory.
I thought people on benefits had so much disposal income they didn't need a job?
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.