01 Aug 11
1 edit
The exact words from a client of mine.
He's making $12/hr. His employer would raise him to $20, but the increase in salary would be more than offset by a loss in programs eligibility.
He didn't tell this to me, but reading between the lines, his employer probably slips him a few bucks under the table.
This idea of basing government programs solely on income tests need a re-thinking.
01 Aug 11
Originally posted by sh76Its possible the guy miscalculated, but maybe receiving cash and still taking government benefits is a better deal than lots of people think.
The exact words from a client of mine.
He's making $12/hr. His employer would raise him to $20, but the increase in salary would be more than offset by a loss in programs eligibility.
He didn't tell this to me, but reading between the lines, his employer probably slips him a few bucks under the table.
This idea of basing government programs solely on income tests need a re-thinking.
01 Aug 11
Originally posted by sh76You can base it on income test, but it needs to be gone more intelligently. Set an income level for full benefits, for every dollar over that limit, a person would lose x cents from his benefits. This way an increase in pay won't be completely offset by the loss in benefits.
The exact words from a client of mine.
He's making $12/hr. His employer would raise him to $20, but the increase in salary would be more than offset by a loss in programs eligibility.
He didn't tell this to me, but reading between the lines, his employer probably slips him a few bucks under the table.
This idea of basing government programs solely on income tests need a re-thinking.
01 Aug 11
Originally posted by sh76An estimated 2 million persons living on 'benefits' in the UK are fit to work but choose not to since they are better off on the scrounge.
The exact words from a client of mine.
He's making $12/hr. His employer would raise him to $20, but the increase in salary would be more than offset by a loss in programs eligibility.
He didn't tell this to me, but reading between the lines, his employer probably slips him a few bucks under the table.
This idea of basing government programs solely on income tests need a re-thinking.
This deplorable situation is the legacy of the NuLabour reign (1997-2010) together with the import of 3 million aliens from assorted, but mainly undesirable, sources.
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 201744
01 Aug 11
Originally posted by sh76I agree. I actually think that we might save money if someone was allowed to stay on welfare benefits for about 6 months after he or she finds a job.
The exact words from a client of mine.
He's making $12/hr. His employer would raise him to $20, but the increase in salary would be more than offset by a loss in programs eligibility.
He didn't tell this to me, but reading between the lines, his employer probably slips him a few bucks under the table.
This idea of basing government programs solely on income tests need a re-thinking.
- Joined
- 10 Jan 08
- Moves
- 19789
01 Aug 11
Originally posted by retiariusput the sun and daily star down, there's a good puppy.
An estimated 2 million persons living on 'benefits' in the UK are fit to work but choose not to since they are better off on the scrounge.
This deplorable situation is the legacy of the NuLabour reign (1997-2010) together with the import of 3 million aliens from assorted, but mainly undesirable, sources.
01 Aug 11
Originally posted by KunsooWe need to make sure they are better off taking a job than they are staying on welfare. A lump-sum payment obviously does that, but it seems like an awfully expensive way to go about doing that. Besides, what guarantee is there that someone doesn't get a job and then quits 6 months later after the double payment runs out ? If the problem is that staying unemployed is financially more attractive than working you have to tackle that problem permanently which you don't by giving them a bonus for signing a contract.
I agree. I actually think that we might save money if someone was allowed to stay on welfare benefits for about 6 months after he or she finds a job.
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 201744
02 Aug 11
Originally posted by BartsI'm sure we could come up with working rules, but the point is, I bet even with the occasional abuses it would actually lead to net savings for the program. Right now the recipients have to make tough economic decisions between staying on the rolls and taking work. People are willing to take more chances if they can save up for a few months to develop a cushion.
We need to make sure they are better off taking a job than they are staying on welfare. A lump-sum payment obviously does that, but it seems like an awfully expensive way to go about doing that. Besides, what guarantee is there that someone doesn't get a job and then quits 6 months later after the double payment runs out ? If the problem is that staying unempl ...[text shortened]... tackle that problem permanently which you don't by giving them a bonus for signing a contract.
02 Aug 11
Originally posted by retiariusIf you can show how many of those "3 million aliens" went straight on to the dole after migrating, then you may have a point that needs to be addressed.
An estimated 2 million persons living on 'benefits' in the UK are fit to work but choose not to since they are better off on the scrounge.
This deplorable situation is the legacy of the NuLabour reign (1997-2010) together with the import of 3 million aliens from assorted, but mainly undesirable, sources.
02 Aug 11
Originally posted by retiariusAnd yet Norway, with much more generous benefits, has almost zero unemployment. Perhaps you need to look somewhere else for an explanation for the problem of unemployment, gangs and chavs. Perhaps at someone named Thatcher.
An estimated 2 million persons living on 'benefits' in the UK are fit to work but choose not to since they are better off on the scrounge.
This deplorable situation is the legacy of the NuLabour reign (1997-2010) together with the import of 3 million aliens from assorted, but mainly undesirable, sources.