Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

fru-gal

Compare And Contrast

Recommended Posts

The lazy youth who won't work for less than his £56.80 weekly jobseekers allowance is vilified by the media http://www.telegraph...lical-cord.html but the ex convict and peer Lord Hanningfield http://www.dailymail...ome%5Eheadlines who signs on for 20 minutes in order to get his £300 per day taxpayer benefits is apparently someone the lazy youth should aspire to according to the Government.

It's no surprise young people don't see any point in working.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One is forced to sign on every 2 weeks and provide evidence of looking for work, the other signs on every day, provides no evidence of doing any work and gets £300. So £1500 a week or roughly £6k a month, £72k a year.

Whilst the other individual gets £2953.60 a year.

Given a choice I know which benefits I'd rather be on.

The unemployed are just lazy scum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the youth forgets to sign on for one day, he can face a loss of his benefit for up to 3 years.

If the lord forgets to sign on for one day, he faces at most a loss of one day benefit.

The youth might have been forced via threats of violence to pay insurance for his benefit too, and he may have paid insurance for a period of period exceeding 7 years, before claiming his benefit via the insurance policy he is forced to contribute into.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Argubly, the youngster does the country less harm too - so represents better value all round.

The UK managed with about 1000 politicians, both houses when they had half the world to rule over... What's the justification now.. Its simply a reflection of the fact that most of them create work for themselves and some that don't get caught out .. We could probably get by with one tenth that number.. Instead we create more politicians at every level , local, statewide and evenin the eu ... So sure to be good many of them with nowt to do..or even worse cause damage with I'll required intervention just because they HAVE to

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really the unemployment benefit as a percentage of the welfare budget is a drop in the ocean, indeed the welfare budget per capita will be more than 3k; therefore you could argue that the average unemployed youth is costing the country less than the average person, granted not making a contribution either.

The real burn comes in the subsidy to the retired, who will indeed get more than £3,000 per head over and above their lifetime contribution and hence a two trillion public sector debt once you bring in off balance sheet liabilities.

One reason I get rather annoyed about pensioners calling the unemployed youth spongers, when they are almost certainly the biggest net winners out of welfare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We can stop this scandal by the House of Lords as we live in a democracy and once every 5 years we get to put a tick in a box. So no worries it will stop after the next election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One reason I get rather annoyed about pensioners calling the unemployed youth spongers, when they are almost certainly the biggest net winners out of welfare.

Conveniently ignoring the contribution made by the majority of pensioners to the net wealth of the country during their working lifetime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Couldn't the house of Lords be replaced by an online vote?

Yes. Why we still have an unelected upper house with no time limits in terms and no automatic exclusion for criminals is beyond me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Conveniently ignoring the contribution made by the majority of pensioners to the net wealth of the country during their working lifetime.

You also conveniently ignoring that most pensioners may have contributed, but in no way have they contributed enough for the benefits now being received.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You also conveniently ignoring that most pensioners may have contributed, but in no way have they contributed enough for the benefits now being received.

Also, the younger generation who have been in work since they left school will pay far more in tax and NI before they reach pension age for much less than the pensioners of today who "worked all their lives and paid tax". They will also have to pay considerably more for all the things pensioners got for free or for much less (housing, healthcare, education, pensions).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, the younger generation who have been in work since they left school will pay far more in tax and NI before they reach pension age for much less than the pensioners of today who "worked all their lives and paid tax". They will also have to pay considerably more for all the things pensioners got for free or for much less (housing, healthcare, education, pensions).

''Working all our lives'' is such an overplayed hand...it sometimes means a stay at home wife and a thirty year career for the husband, indeed I know a few couples in their eighties that that covers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. Why we still have an unelected upper house with no time limits in terms and no automatic exclusion for criminals is beyond me.

Bizarre, isn't it?

People mock the Commons for bring out of touch, but this lot are on another level.

The most disgraceful comment I heard on this matter was from David Trimble who was questioned on his way into the house. He very dismissively said he couldn't understand why there was such a fuss because 'the remuneration is small, and I can't see any other professionals working for £300 a day!

So, £72k is just a small stipend to them, even though they preside over a country where the average wage is less than a third of that, and there are very many professionals doing true professional jobs that earn less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what are we saying?

Scrap the House of Lords and make the youth unemployed earn their JSA by each sitting in the House of Lords for one day each year?

Free Dubstep for everyone!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bizarre, isn't it?

People mock the Commons for bring out of touch, but this lot are on another level.

The most disgraceful comment I heard on this matter was from David Trimble who was questioned on his way into the house. He very dismissively said he couldn't understand why there was such a fuss because 'the remuneration is small, and I can't see any other professionals working for £300 a day!

So, £72k is just a small stipend to them, even though they preside over a country where the average wage is less than a third of that, and there are very many professionals doing true professional jobs that earn less.

Yep no concept money, only £300 a day. Clearly they are worth more and they are turning up out of moral duty to the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   203 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.