It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: bates
This country has a minimum wage which is bad enough. So by that logic if the guy works he like anyone else is entitled to be paid, nuff said.
originally posted by: BMorris
originally posted by: bates
a reply to: dawnstar
Excellent post sir.
Also, I've noticed a few people using the old "they're not working for free, they get other benefits whilst they're doing it" and then adding up all the things like housing benefits and what not.
Because its the truth. However, despite being the truth, they are in no way implying that its the right thing to do.
Just because something is the truth doesn't necessarily mean that is is the morally right thing to do.
They are NOT working for free, they are being made to work for their benefits.
If that is a right or wrong thing to be forcing them to do, is for an entirely other discussion.
originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: bates
On the face of it yes, it seems outrageous, but I wonder what his overall situation is...just playing Devils advocate:
What if he gets say £100 per week in Housing Benefit, plus £15 per week Council Tax Benefit, then £72 per week Job Seekers Allowance while at the 'work placement', that's £187 per week take home. Minimum wage 37 hours will take home £220 per week so really the guy would be working for £0.89 per hour less than minimum wage.
That is a truer picture of the situation in my opinion. I do not agree that someone should work for less than minimum wage and it is not something I would wish for myself...but it is not as dramatic as working for nothing.
originally posted by: blupblup
your post is bollocks
originally posted by: grainofsand
originally posted by: blupblup
your post is bollocks
Keep your knickers on fella, my post was explaining that he isn't 'working for nothing' with the suggested benefit rates I included. He would be working for £5.61 per hour, £0.89 less per hour than minimum wage.
The 'employer' in a sense is the UK govt/DWP forcing him into a placement to do it to get his benefits.
I believe it is a corrupt system which benefits businesses, and Ieven stated that I do not support anyone working for less than minimum wage, but I equally do not support the £5.13 per hour minimum wage for 18-20 year olds in a job that takes half an hour to learn.
This guys benefits would work out more than a 20 year old is expected to earn on minimum wage. It is unpleasant of course but not 'working for nothing' ...drama queen much?
originally posted by: bastion
You guys set up a really nice system to help people genuinely in need, and then you opened the floodgates to people who are quite happy to sh!t all over that system whilst outbreeding you WITH YOUR OWN MONEY collected via benefits....
Nonsense, a study released today shows immigrants contribute £20Bn to the UK economy.
freshnews-uk.com...
Contrary to the popular view that European immigrants are a burden to UK taxpayers, a new study by University College London has found that people arriving from the EU contributed £20 billion to the British economy between 2000 and 2011. The study also found that immigrants from the so-called new Europe – the 10 countries that joined the EU in 2004 including...
originally posted by: Golden Rule
Just one question: suppose the working classes did rebel against the owners of capital by going on a reproduction strike - wouldn't said owners of capital simply arrange more immigration of desperate types from the developing world who would be more than willing to reproduce? And isn't this is what is already happening?
originally posted by: andy06shake
And once we destroy the society that our ancestors worked so hard to create through anarchy, what then? Chances are the refugees and political dissidents within our ranks would simply become more of a problem. There is no easy answer regarding UK immigration short of stopping it all together until such time as we can accommodate the population we already have. Same with any and all foreign aid, if we cannot pay for our own expenditures why should we be giving away aid that could help ourselves? After all charity begins at home!
originally posted by: andy06shake
The thing with people who "rough up" others or "angry mobs" is even if they have the best of intentions they are only as intelligent as there stupidest member who's generally the loudest. Also angry mobs seldom achieved their specific goals. Down that road lies anarchy im afraid.
originally posted by: Freeborn
Thatcher successfully screwed the unions over.
The first part of her grand strategy was to use MSM to demonise the unions.
She then manipulated events to validate that demonization and introduced legislation that greatly reduced their power or influence.
As a result we have seen the steady decline in workers rights and their standard of living.
We now have Cameron - who idolises Thatcher - using the same process to demonise the most needy and vulnerable in our society.
All part of the move backwards to a Victorianesque society.
originally posted by: andy06shake
And if roughing up specific people is all we have left then humanity is pretty much doomed to repeat Nazi Germanys mistakes because roughing up specific groups is how that whole mess began.