Originally posted by normbenignUnless you are willing to see the poor begging on the street without public assistance, what you've said is totally useless. Unless you are willing to see kids, adults and the elderly starving to death in the US, what you say is totally useless.
The prospect of hunger and lack of shelter was always motivation enough for me.
You've got to come up with something that makes the best of a bad situation.
Originally posted by sh76I can totally understand his situation. I'm sitting on something just like that with my Long term Disability plan.....
The exact words from a client of mine.
He's making $12/hr. His employer would raise him to $20, but the increase in salary would be more than offset by a loss in programs eligibility.
He didn't tell this to me, but reading between the lines, his employer probably slips him a few bucks under the table.
This idea of basing government programs solely on income tests need a re-thinking.
Originally posted by EladarAre you saying that parents will just carelessly decide not to feed their kids? Well perhaps there are some of that ilk.
Unless you are willing to see the poor begging on the street without public assistance, what you've said is totally useless. Unless you are willing to see kids, adults and the elderly starving to death in the US, what you say is totally useless.
You've got to come up with something that makes the best of a bad situation.
During much of my working life I worked as many as three jobs, sometimes in excess of 90 hours a week. I fed my kids, never begged, and never took a government check.
I think a great many people would do the same, probably the majority, if it weren't so easy to get assistance.
Originally posted by sh76Well, when you're earning 12$ an hour, an incrase of nearly 50% can have disasterous effects on subsidies. When you're earning 300$ an hour, a 50% increase just means you have to be creative with your taxes.
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.
Originally posted by normbenignYou seem to be under the impression that anyone who wants a job can get one. In an era when Western governments have abandoned the goal of full employment, this is not true.
Are you saying that parents will just carelessly decide not to feed their kids? Well perhaps there are some of that ilk.
During much of my working life I worked as many as three jobs, sometimes in excess of 90 hours a week. I fed my kids, never begged, and never took a government check.
I think a great many people would do the same, probably the majority, if it weren't so easy to get assistance.
Originally posted by TeinosukeYou seem to be under the impression that someone owes someone else a job, they don't. It's not the role of guvamint to make some individuals employ other individuals.
You seem to be under the impression that anyone who wants a job can get one. In an era when Western governments have abandoned the goal of full employment, this is not true.
Originally posted by TeinosukeThere are many opportunities for 'self-emplpoyment' in the UK, but why bother to work when you can so easily sign on for generous rewards for doing nothing?
You seem to be under the impression that anyone who wants a job can get one. In an era when Western governments have abandoned the goal of full employment, this is not true.
The Eastern European immigrants to the UK seem to have no difficulty in finding employment.
Originally posted by WajomaGovernments can pursue economic policies which encourage, or discourage, employment. This is not the same as "making some individuals employ others".
You seem to be under the impression that someone owes someone else a job, they don't. It's not the role of guvamint to make some individuals employ other individuals.
Originally posted by TeinosukeWajoma has long since been reduced to attacking his own facile caricatures of what other people are talking about. He reckons he "kicks butt" with this approach. I am unconvinced myself.
Governments can pursue economic policies which encourage, or discourage, employment. This is not the same as "making some individuals employ others".
- Joined
- 10 Jan 08
- Moves
- 23343
Originally posted by retiariusyes because everyone has the business sense to become self-employed.
There are many opportunities for 'self-emplpoyment' in the UK, but why bother to work when you can so easily sign on for generous rewards for doing nothing?
The Eastern European immigrants to the UK seem to have no difficulty in finding employment.
most eastern europeans who come over have a job lined up already, mostly in the hospitably or factory industries. jobs that british seem to think they're above doing, not to mention the general consensus that people from eastern europe have a much higher work ethic that british people, it's not hard to see why so many employers look at eastern europe for a hard working reliable work force, they just can't find it in the uk.
the uk economy would totally collapse if the eastern european work force was force to go home.