Its quite tragic, all these conservative supporters with their benefit scroungers comments when the real scroungers are the big corporations. Companies making several million in profits, then through some nifty creative accountancy, declare that they have made no profit in the UK despite the fact they have made millions elsewhere (Google, Amazon, Starbucks, Apple, Vodafone, etc) They get off with paying next to nothing in taxes and THEN claim millions in tax credits (check Pfizer recently for a perfect example). Many of these companies also pay minimum wage to their employees, who then have to rely on IN-WORK benefits, just to make ends meet, despite them having full time jobs. The increase in the exploitation of zero hour contracts means a company can rather than employ one person on a full wage, they can now employ several people but not with enough hours for them to even get by and so few hours they (employer/employee) arent required to pay National Insurance contributions, meaning the employer can reduce expenditure but the employee, again has to rely on the benefit system, just to make ends meet. .. (you know the IN-WORK benefit expenditure is much larger than the out-of work benefit expenditure, yes?) So, are the scroungers the people that have to rely on IN-WORK benefits just to exist? Or do you mean the people that are unemployed at the moment when theres the situation of the 1.97 million people unemployed, not to mention the 1.4 million people on zero hour contracts that maybe looking for addition work and/or hours and dont forget the huge number of under-employed looking for e better job, fighting over 440,000 vacancies.. oh but they bring in sanctions for those unfortunate enough not to be one of the lucky ones to find a job in such a competitive market? I would like you to explain how someone that has been sanctioned has a better chance of getting in to employment compared to pre sanctioning... no money = no food, no utilities, no travel, no washing powder, no phone/internet etc so even if they did manage to get an interview, they turn up looking gaunt, clothes unwashed, bit smelly, depressed, lacking confidence, thats if they could even travel to the interview in the first place.. . whos going to employ them when theres another 1000 people in the corridor after the same vacancy? Also, how many companies have invested in automating production systems thus reducing the number of workers needed to produce/manufacture. Even Supermarkets now have automated check-outs, reducing the number of paid employees it needs to function efficiently.. Most industries, agriculture, production, manufacturing, even clerical work now have various automated systems in place and with the rise in population theres a lot less jobs for a lot more people... oh, and dont forget companies outsourcing manufacturing/production/clerical work to foreign countries to minimise expenditure even further..Great for them but not so great for the unemployment situation here though. So the fact that the DWP is trying to force, by threat of sanctions, 1.97 million into 440, 000 job vacancies is a mathematical impossibility and being punished for being part of a mathematical impossibility has to be seen for what it is... benefits are the minimum the government states is enough to live on . So removing them through sanctions, by their own admission, is removing the very means for a person to exist... With the bedroom tax, the amount the government states is the minimum needed to live on is reduced and so an inadequate quality of living is imposed
Posted on: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 18:16:45 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015