h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"Forgive me if I'm wrong... but are you actually listening to us..."
yes, are you listening to me ?

""well that's exactly what the dole is." Yes, for some... but NOT ALL"
yes ALL - its money other people have sweated to earn and pay in Tax.


"I'm an Electronic Engineer who unless you can't read my name, is getting married in 6 weeks! Thus finding a job at McD, is NOT at the top of my list... Ok...???"
As I said unwilling to do the work available - you would rather sponge off the state.

"However not EVERYONE "can" do that ok?", why not, hang on I know - they are too lazy and have bugger all work ethic.

"Unless you've been in their situation you CAN NOT comment on it", I can because I am proof that you don't have to be in that situation.

And I fail to see why people cannot move.

One barrier to moving is the cost. I did get on my bike and move to find work, it cost me £10,000 to relocate. And that is £10,000 that I am still trying to save up some 5 years later in case I need to move once more.

HappyDude you are being completely unreasonable! There are lots of reasons why people need financial help from the state, whether down to personal circumstances, social status, level of education, disabilities, dependants, lack of work and so on.

You can't seriously suggest that we ignore these people. Surely it's our responsibility as a society to help out people who need it?

It cost a train ticket to move.

Frankie, as I indicated in post 35 I am in favour of the welfare state, As I also indicated I think many people abuse it. With the exception of "disabilities" the reasons you listed are either non--reasons or things that people have the power to change.

Hear, hear, Frankie and GreyDesk. And thank you SO much, HappyDude, for reminding us all of Norman Tebbit. (Clelba - if you're too young to remember him, think yourself lucky.)

May I just point out two flaws in that ugly, contemptuous 'living off other people's sweat' argument:

1) I and my family have worked and paid taxes in many past years, and part of the clear purpose of that taxation was to provide a decent welfare system. I'm now claiming back some of what I and my folks have put into the system. I'm not scrounging, I'm claiming that to which I am legally, and I think morally, entitled.

2) Tax revenue is not all the fruit of honest workers' noble toil. Taxes also come from corporate profits, inheritance taxes, and from the taxes on things like and cigarettes, among countless other sources. You might as well say that living on the dole is living off other people's alcoholism and lung cancer.

Maybe then, it's that we're talking a different language then....



Ummm.... Since WHEN have I said that I would rather "sponge" off of the state! I have said EVERYTHING BUT!!! You rude and insulting person! Besides which, it would be my RIGHT to "sponge off the state" As I have paid enough for the privaledge! But have I?!!! No... I haven't!... Why? Because I think other people are more deserving than me, even you...

"they are too lazy and have bugger all work ethic." For a start, I don't believe you can be THAT rude about people! .... (Go look up the word before you use it Please!) and Please don't generalise So... I "could" say that ALL men are tall, but they aren't... some are short, I "could" say that ALL women wear skirts... but they don't. I "could" say that all homeless people have a choice, of getting of the streets, finding a job and ultimately a house. But that just isn't true! You can't generalise a whole people or nation. I could say "ALL americans are obeice" or "ALL English people are snobs"... But it just isn't true! And I can't understand why you are insisting on using strereotypes, rather than proving your points, through PERSONAL knowledge......

You obviously have never BEEN in that situation! How dare you insult all those who have, have struggled through, and slowly and painfully climbed out of it! If you are as you say "... proof that you don't have to be in that situation." Then WHEN were you in that situation? Please tell me, becasue otherwise you have been lying to me.. Also if you were, I would have expected you to have a little more respect and kindness for EVERYONE, especially them!

So far your comments have only given me the impression that you have no sympathy or love for people, and that you are both rude and arrogant. Which I am sorry for, because I wish to treat EVERYONE as equalls, with equal respect and equal love. And I really don't like arguing over very silly points, such as this... ????

Yes it did cost a train ticket for the job interview. So you're right there.

The trouble was after that I couldn't persuade the solicitors, estate agents, rental agents, removal firms, surveyors and mortgage lenders to work for nothing. A shame that. But if you know some who'll work for free I'd love to hear from you

Sorry, I forgot the storage company in that list who wanted a bunch of money for looking after my furniture.

Oh boy, simulpost time!

'It cost a train ticket to move'? If you're moving to somewhere with higher employment, housing prices are almost certain to be considerably higher there. How is a poor person supposed to make up the difference? (Oh, and removal vans cost money too.)

This post has been removed.

Lots of people move areas and countries to try and find somewhere where they can get work, but when they get there they find that they're often discriminated against and other people accuse them of stealing 'their' work.

I think you have to accept that under this wonderful system we live in, some people get paid tons and are very rich and some people get paid very little or can't find a job and are very poor. The very least we can do is help these people out and try to *begin* to change the rich/poor divide.

Fish - I did not intend to cause offence, just saying the way it seems to me with the information given.

Frankie, why?

Why shouldnt people who work hard be rewarded by enjoying the benefits of money?

Happydude, you may not have noticed that the dole is now called 'Jobseekers Allowance' - and you actually have to prove that you are actively looking for a job to get it (and eventually they *will* try and force you to work in McDonalds).

"The very least we can do is help these people out and try to *begin* to change the rich/poor divide."

Providing they also help themselves by taking training courses and educational opportunities - my rant is against those that sit on there arses waiting for cheque to arrive saying "O' woe me".

people shouldn't have to be forced - if you can work at any job you should take it even if its not what you want, you can always quit when you find what you want.

"Why shouldnt people who work hard be rewarded by enjoying the benefits of money?"

Because everyone should be in a job that they like, with the work spread out and luxuries spread out equally. You don't need to give people incentivies or the threat of poverty and starvation in order to get them to work. Everyone has the right to be happy and the right to have equal benefits to the luxuries of society.

Besides which, it's not the people who work hard who are getting the most money. Many people work very hard just to get enough money to survive, and others get sh*tloads for doing nothing. You can't try and 'rate' how hard people have worked and reward them accordingly.

Wow, this topic has really wandered!

My two penn'orth.

I have so far been without a job in my chosen career twice. The first time, I dropped out of an awful PhD and didn't know what to do next. I could have signed on at this point but instead went to a temping agency and got a job. It wasn't glamorous work and didn't pay what I was worth but it paid enough so that I could cover my bills. I have temped several times during my life, surely everyone can do this kind of work while job hunting? Most temp agencies (I was signed up with about 4) are quite understanding about the fact that you may have interviews etc to go to, and many companies will reimburse the cost of travel to the interview. Eventually got a job and moved to go to it (with no relocation money), but then it was easy for me because I didn't have to uproot family to do it.

Now, I agree with the welfare state 110% and have defended it many times to people who would see it done away with. I understand that in some areas of the country where an industry has disappeared (the mines, steel industry, ship building etc etc etc. cheers maggie) there are lots of men that are not school leavers that have skills in a dead industry and own houses in areas that nobody wants to live. It *is* difficult for them to find work, and sometimes more difficult for them to move to find work. There will be a way out of it for them through retraining etc, but it is slow. I don't believe these people are living off of other people's sweat, they have contributed to the system and it should be there to catch them. The vast majority of those people *want* to work so don't tar everyone with the same brush.

There *are* lazy people out there, ones that don't want to work and are making mugs of us all, but I really believe they are a minority.

That said, I still don't think higher rate tax payers should have to pay everyone's tv licences, if you really want to increase taxes by a tiny fraction of a penny then do so for everyone, not just higher rate payers. Why should they pay for everyone to have this particular leisure time activity? And don't repeat that 'Educate and Inform' stuff, I would rather my taxes paid for a course in plumbing (a goldmine if anyone wants to do it) for somebody than for even the best made documentary.

Also you will increase the amount of revenue gained because now in a 2 person household you will get 2 lots of tv contributions. Some people may prefer the old system where they only pay once per household.

k

PS in reply to Frankie's earlier (not entirely serious) comment about flat wage rates - GREAT IDEA! I assume that it will be weighted to cover the higher cost of living in London (and other expensive cities)? So in that case it should be high enough to pay my (not huge, I am very sensible) mortgage, and I can jack in my stressful job that keeps me away from home 5 days a week and get a job locally - after all there is no incentive to do my current job any more, so I should work in an office or shop I can walk to and do a nice short day. I would love that, really

"Because everyone should be in a job that they like, with the work spread out and luxuries spread out equally. You don't need to give people incentivies or the threat of poverty and starvation in order to get them to work. Everyone has the right to be happy and the right to have equal benefits to the luxuries of society."


Funniest & most naive thing I have read in years

Can I just endorse fat Kelli's comments with the proviso that those that the system is there to catch are willing to retrain & re-educate, and the provision that Taxpayers money comes from peoples graft (i.e. sweat).