|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2010 7:37:34 GMT
That is interesting, Bush Admirer, because I was pretty sure that UK people caring for grandchildren don't get full foster care allowance; just the same benefits they would if they were parents, which seems right to me. It all depends, it seems, on the status of the child before the grandparents took over: www.grandparentsasparents.org.uk/upload/viewtopic.php?id=10
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Dec 5, 2010 11:24:44 GMT
I don't know or understand the benefit rules in the States. (On another board I heard of one unemployed American who was getting $400 + a week in unemployment benefit, which makes me think that it's nothing like the system in the UK. That's a fortune!) In the UK some benefit recipients, such as mothers of young children, are given tokens to buy fresh fruit and vegetables and milk. These tokens cannot be used for any other foodstuffs. They only get, what, £100 a week or so in cash (if they have children - far less if they don't.). And they're free to spend that as they see fit. you are thinking about welfare, which is based on need, rather than unemployment, which is based on earnings. as a rule, unemployment benefit is half of what you made in the highest quarter of the year preceding the quarter before you file for unemployment. of course, there is a maximum benefit which is usually around four hundred a week. if you made a million dollars in any quarter last year, you would still only get the four hundred a week. Wow. That's an incredibly generous welfare scheme. You do know that here in the 'socialist' UK everybody gets a flat rate of under £100 a week if they lose their job. They will get additional benefits for children, etc., but the amount you get is not based on how much you earned before. However, I might be comparing apples with pears, as an unemployed person here will also get their rent paid (not sure what happens to poor old owner-occupiers; I don't think they get their mortgage paid.) I didn't realise American welfare was so much!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2010 12:17:33 GMT
For the record, Riot, unemployed people do get their mortgage interest paid after (I think) 13 weeks on benefits. Like rent and council tax, it is means tested.
Non means tested unemployment benefit - based on the national insurance contributions you've made - is about £65 a week and lasts six months. Then you have to apply for a means tested benefit.
|
|
|
Post by Ben Lomond on Dec 5, 2010 15:05:49 GMT
But none of the above discussion really deals with the catch 22 situation vis a vis welfare. A civilised nation must provide for those who fall on hard times, like unemployment, or who need help with child care. The problem occurs when the level of welfare provided makes the thought of returning to a lowish paid job simply not worth the candle. And here in the UK, as in America, apparently, the more children you have if unemployed, the better it is financially, and the incentive to return to the workplace fades rapidly. Not only that, but single parents here get priority in social housing, or their rent paid in full (although the present government is about to cap such payments). There are many examples of largish families living entirely on welfare long time, and enjoying a standard of living, and an income, far and away better than that enjoyed by ,many who work full time.
So, balancing the need for the state to provide for those who have fallen on hard times, against those who unashamedly milk the system, how do we square the circle? Perhaps the only way is to make welfare a temporary hand out rather than a way of life? Perhaps if welfare was only paid for a period of (say) six months, during which time the claimants was given assistance in seeking employment, and if after this period the amount paid was reduced by (say) 10%, and if after a further three months it was again reduced by 10%?
I don't know. But it does seem very unfair to those who DO provide for themselves and their families to see large numbers living long term on welfare, and often enjoying a better income than themselves. That cannot be right!
So if the jobs on offer are low paid, and if the welfare claimants are unskilled (as many are) then how does the UK, or any state, manage to get people who are fit and healthy, to support themselves and their families by returning to work?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2010 16:08:46 GMT
Again for the record, Ben, single parents don't get priority with social housing - they haven't for very many years! Unless of course things have changed recently and I'm out of date yet again But the fact that some people are better off on benefits than working is clearly something that needs to be sorted !
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Dec 5, 2010 16:32:20 GMT
But none of the above discussion really deals with the catch 22 situation vis a vis welfare. A civilised nation must provide for those who fall on hard times, like unemployment, or who need help with child care. The problem occurs when the level of welfare provided makes the thought of returning to a lowish paid job simply not worth the candle. And here in the UK, as in America, apparently, the more children you have if unemployed, the better it is financially, and the incentive to return to the workplace fades rapidly. Not only that, but single parents here get priority in social housing, or their rent paid in full (although the present government is about to cap such payments). There are many examples of largish families living entirely on welfare long time, and enjoying a standard of living, and an income, far and away better than that enjoyed by ,many who work full time. So, balancing the need for the state to provide for those who have fallen on hard times, against those who unashamedly milk the system, how do we square the circle? Perhaps the only way is to make welfare a temporary hand out rather than a way of life? Perhaps if welfare was only paid for a period of (say) six months, during which time the claimants was given assistance in seeking employment, and if after this period the amount paid was reduced by (say) 10%, and if after a further three months it was again reduced by 10%? I don't know. But it does seem very unfair to those who DO provide for themselves and their families to see large numbers living long term on welfare, and often enjoying a better income than themselves. That cannot be right! So if the jobs on offer are low paid, and if the welfare claimants are unskilled (as many are) then how does the UK, or any state, manage to get people who are fit and healthy, to support themselves and their families by returning to work? The downfall in our system is that we are not prepared to let children starve on the streets. For single people without children the benefits system can literally leave people starving on the streets, and that does kind of focus their minds on getting some kind of a job. But once children come into the picture we change our approach, and we give them increased benefits, free school meals, vouchers for fruit and vegetables, social work support, priority for housing (which comes with the presence of children, whether in a couple or single parents), etc. It is a dilemma. We don't want people relying on welfare. But we are - rightly - not willing to let their children starve on the streets.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2010 12:58:40 GMT
For single people without children the benefits system can literally leave people starving on the streets, and that does kind of focus their minds on getting some kind of a job. Today I had access to a Quick Bneefits Calculator and compared the income of a single man aged 27 paying £100pw rent and £12 council tax a) out of work b) working 30 hours a week at £6 an hour c) working 40 hours a week at £6 an hour. His income is greater in owrk than out, but when you take account that his housing benefit is slashed and council tax benefit reduced to zero, in both cases he was better off claiming Jobseekers Allowance. That was without adding on the cost of travel to work.
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Dec 6, 2010 13:23:14 GMT
For single people without children the benefits system can literally leave people starving on the streets, and that does kind of focus their minds on getting some kind of a job. Today I had access to a Quick Bneefits Calculator and compared the income of a single man aged 27 paying £100pw rent and £12 council tax a) out of work b) working 30 hours a week at £6 an hour c) working 40 hours a week at £6 an hour. His income is greater in owrk than out, but when you take account that his housing benefit is slashed and council tax benefit reduced to zero, in both cases he was better off claiming Jobseekers Allowance. That was without adding on the cost of travel to work. Isn't that disgusting? We need to increase the minimum wage.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Dec 7, 2010 2:13:02 GMT
Riotgrrl - Why do you think there should be such a thing as a minimum wage? Why should government be intruding into private enterprise? Why not let the free market determine wages, housing costs, food costs, medical costs, etc. Why not just have the government bow out?
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Dec 7, 2010 9:26:31 GMT
Riotgrrl - Why do you think there should be such a thing as a minimum wage? Why should government be intruding into private enterprise? Why not let the free market determine wages, housing costs, food costs, medical costs, etc. Why not just have the government bow out? Good question. And thank you, for once, for actually reading something I have posted and engaging with it. I used to be very much in favour of a MAXIMUM wage, but I think that was probably immature politics and I wouuldn't seek to justify it now. When the minimum wage came in, I was not a huge supporter for the reasons you outline. BUT if we have a welfare system which (supposedly, and if it is working properly) is based on the notion that individuals HAVE to take a job if one is available, it is only reasonable that they should not be worse off in work than in welfare. So, firstly, we need a minimum wage for that link with welfare.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2010 9:38:44 GMT
I worked as a volunteer in a drop-in centre for many months, and chatted quite a bit to some long term unemployed, some of whom had had well paid jobs before they fell on hard times.
Before the minimum wage was introduced (so I was told) job seekers were required only to take work at a reasonable wage, and they strongly resented being made to take jobs that barely matched unemployment pay - and, as I have just discovered, doesn't even do that.
|
|
|
Post by aubrey on Dec 7, 2010 10:20:16 GMT
There are a lot of well off people around who take it upon themselves to tell poorer people what they should be eating.
The head of Domino's Pizzas said something about the unemployed being able to survive on rice and beans as well, and in the 30s someone apparently wrote a book detailing how the unemployed could live on nothing but carrots, and that it was only fecklessness that made them claim not to be able to get by on unemployment benefits (fecklessness here means: a bag of chips - fries to USians).
It's a dam' cheek, anyway.
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Dec 7, 2010 11:48:01 GMT
Bushadmirer has been on my mind (trust me, it's not been pleasant ;D).
My throwaway comment about the need to raise the minimum wage to create clear blue water between benefits and working that he picked me up on . . . . I think he has a point.
Why do we need a minimum wage?
Obviously, I believe in freedom, and that includes the freedom of workers to come together to negotiate better pay and conditions for themselves.
But what ARE the arguments for going beyond that and having a legally mandated national minimum wage?
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Dec 7, 2010 16:13:59 GMT
OK, I'll pick up that one, Riot.
The basic arguments in favour of a minimum wage are:
a) it makes it slightly harder for employers to exploit workers
b) it makes it slightly easier for workers to pay bills
c) it makes it slightly less likely that people will die on the streets of cold and hunger
d) it makes it slightly less likely that they will commit crimes
Other than that I can't think of a single thing to say in favour of a minimum wage!
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Dec 7, 2010 17:44:53 GMT
there's really only one reason that a minimum wage has to be mandated. if the government doesn't force employers to pay wages, there would be too many people working in sweatshops for fifty cents a day again. that is why the minimum wage was begun to start with. big business isn't going to pay any more than they can get away with. these fools are das's heroes
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2010 17:46:43 GMT
And perhaps makes it slightly less likely that employers will rely on cheap immigrant labour prepared to work for £2.50 ph?
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Dec 7, 2010 17:49:35 GMT
I can fully understand all the reasons Lynne, Jumbo & Skylark have given.
But should achieving social justice of this kind be the role of the state?
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Dec 7, 2010 17:50:59 GMT
you are thinking about welfare, which is based on need, rather than unemployment, which is based on earnings. as a rule, unemployment benefit is half of what you made in the highest quarter of the year preceding the quarter before you file for unemployment. of course, there is a maximum benefit which is usually around four hundred a week. if you made a million dollars in any quarter last year, you would still only get the four hundred a week. Wow. That's an incredibly generous welfare scheme. You do know that here in the 'socialist' UK everybody gets a flat rate of under £100 a week if they lose their job. They will get additional benefits for children, etc., but the amount you get is not based on how much you earned before. However, I might be comparing apples with pears, as an unemployed person here will also get their rent paid (not sure what happens to poor old owner-occupiers; I don't think they get their mortgage paid.) I didn't realise American welfare was so much! no! no! NO! unemployment is NOT welfare. in the first place, unemployment is administered by the state, and welfare is administered by the county. nonetheless, it is quite common to get welfare when you are receiving unemployment, if you have kids of course. if you don't have kids, you can get general relief, but for that you cannot have ANY property of any kind worth more than a thousand dollars, including a car.
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Dec 7, 2010 17:53:35 GMT
Oh right Jumbo, sorry. I didn't realise that. In the UK they're pretty much the same thing so I didn't realise there was such an important distinction.
So if you are on WELFARE pure and simple, how much do you get a week?
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Dec 7, 2010 17:55:59 GMT
I was speaking to an emergency room physician this morning. He told me that a woman in her 20’s came to the ER with her 8th pregnancy. She stated “my momma told me that I am the breadwinner for the family.” He asked her to explain. She said that she can make babies and babies get money for the family. The scam goes like this: The grandma calls the Department of Child and Family Services and states that the unemployed daughter is not capable of caring for these children. DCFS agrees and states that the child or children will need to go to foster care. The grandma then volunteers to be the foster parent, and thus receives a check for $1500 per child per month in Illinois. Total yearly income: $144,000 tax-free, not to mention free healthcare (Medicaid) plus a monthly “Linx” card entitling her to free groceries, etc, and a voucher for 250 free cell phone minutes per month. This does not even include Wick and other welfare programs. Indeed, grandma was correct in that her fertile daughter is the “breadwinner” in the family. I hope you share this story with your listeners so that they know how the ruling class spends their tax dollars. Also, many thanks for the fine service you provide in educating people about the merits of conservative thinking. Cheers, Sebastian J. Ciancio, M.D. Urologist, Danville Polyclinic, LTD. (217) 477-4766 (source: www.desertconservative.com/2010/08/01/welfare-fraud-at-its-worse/)that, my boy, is a flat out lie. first of all, of course there are those such as the chick the clown is talking about. of course, their number is so miniscule so as to not have any bearing on the issue. nonetheless, the average payment for foster kids is around $600 month.
|
|