| £33,000 a year on benefits!!! 06:19 - Oct 31 with 9080 views | gtsb1966 |
Yes I know the lady has a disability and wants to work but can't so it's not a dig at her but that's a ridiculous amount of money. Millions don't even earn that working 40 hours a week.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwyv8y68e25o [Post edited 31 Oct 6:21]
|  | | |  |
| £33,000 a year on benefits!!! on 09:37 - Oct 31 with 1629 views | FrimleyBlue |
| £33,000 a year on benefits!!! on 09:15 - Oct 31 by NedPlimpton |
Genuinely can't believe the lack of compassion I'm reading on here.
Saying a disabled person should move house to a completely new area or that someone still paying a mortgage in their 70s should have planned their lives better. You have absolutely no idea about these people's circumstances beyond a couple of hundred words in a BBC article.
I suggest you walk a mile in someone else's shoes before commenting.
And "me and my daughter reckon someone else is earning 30k in benefits and it's not fair" 😂. If you're jealous of someone on benefits then go and claim what they're claiming! Unless you're not able to, then don't make comparisons!! [Post edited 31 Oct 9:19]
|
I'm probably the worst for this a I dealt with many people playing the system a few years back when I was working on one of the government back to work schemes, the amount of dkheads openly playing the system, knowingly, willingly and happy to do so, just changed by mind about the whole thing. Sad for those in specific circumstances, but unfortunately 80% of those I had to have weekly meetings with just played the game so i've lost all care for it. |  |
| |
| £33,000 a year on benefits!!! on 09:50 - Oct 31 with 1570 views | noggin |
| £33,000 a year on benefits!!! on 09:37 - Oct 31 by FrimleyBlue |
I'm probably the worst for this a I dealt with many people playing the system a few years back when I was working on one of the government back to work schemes, the amount of dkheads openly playing the system, knowingly, willingly and happy to do so, just changed by mind about the whole thing. Sad for those in specific circumstances, but unfortunately 80% of those I had to have weekly meetings with just played the game so i've lost all care for it. |
Peanuts. It's the rich that are playing the game. |  |
| |
| £33,000 a year on benefits!!! on 10:02 - Oct 31 with 1510 views | Leaky |
| £33,000 a year on benefits!!! on 09:09 - Oct 31 by noggin |
So what are you saying, wages should be lowered? Surely higher wages for working people stimulates growth? I guess the problem is, when people spend more money, it goes to the rich and they hoard it. [Post edited 31 Oct 9:17]
|
There was a saying from I think Harrold Wison. One person's payrise ia another person's price rise. You only break that cycle if payrises are earn't buy higher productivity |  | | |
| £33,000 a year on benefits!!! on 10:05 - Oct 31 with 1486 views | noggin |
| £33,000 a year on benefits!!! on 10:02 - Oct 31 by Leaky |
There was a saying from I think Harrold Wison. One person's payrise ia another person's price rise. You only break that cycle if payrises are earn't buy higher productivity |
Higher productivity comes from a happy workforce, or slavery. [Post edited 31 Oct 10:05]
| |
| |
| £33,000 a year on benefits!!! on 10:12 - Oct 31 with 1454 views | lowhouseblue |
| £33,000 a year on benefits!!! on 10:02 - Oct 31 by Leaky |
There was a saying from I think Harrold Wison. One person's payrise ia another person's price rise. You only break that cycle if payrises are earn't buy higher productivity |
there is a form of magical thinking on the part of some on the left that 'companies' and 'corporations' have supernatural powers and can pay people more without anything else changing. it's terribly sweet. we can pay the guy pushing trolleys around in the car park £33,000 a year and all that happens is that mr sainsbury has one fewer top hat. |  |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| £33,000 a year on benefits!!! on 10:32 - Oct 31 with 1373 views | thebooks |
| £33,000 a year on benefits!!! on 10:12 - Oct 31 by lowhouseblue |
there is a form of magical thinking on the part of some on the left that 'companies' and 'corporations' have supernatural powers and can pay people more without anything else changing. it's terribly sweet. we can pay the guy pushing trolleys around in the car park £33,000 a year and all that happens is that mr sainsbury has one fewer top hat. |
£33,000/pa at 40h pw is £15.87 an hour (not sure what you mean by “some on the left” and the top hat stuff).
The minimum wage is due to rise to £12.21/hour, so that would involve a further £3.66 increase. I think you’re trying to say companies like Sainsbury’s couldn’t afford to pay that? |  | | |
| £33,000 a year on benefits!!! on 10:39 - Oct 31 with 1319 views | noggin |
| £33,000 a year on benefits!!! on 10:12 - Oct 31 by lowhouseblue |
there is a form of magical thinking on the part of some on the left that 'companies' and 'corporations' have supernatural powers and can pay people more without anything else changing. it's terribly sweet. we can pay the guy pushing trolleys around in the car park £33,000 a year and all that happens is that mr sainsbury has one fewer top hat. |
Do you think Sainsbury,s shareholders are just getting by? | |
| |
| £33,000 a year on benefits!!! on 10:43 - Oct 31 with 1275 views | lowhouseblue |
| £33,000 a year on benefits!!! on 10:32 - Oct 31 by thebooks |
£33,000/pa at 40h pw is £15.87 an hour (not sure what you mean by “some on the left” and the top hat stuff).
The minimum wage is due to rise to £12.21/hour, so that would involve a further £3.66 increase. I think you’re trying to say companies like Sainsbury’s couldn’t afford to pay that? |
"I think you’re trying to say companies like Sainsbury’s couldn’t afford to pay that?"
what does that possibly mean? you seem to be imagining sainsbury's with a pot of money ('profits') that they're selfishly refusing to share. if the living wage rose by 25% over next year's level sainsbury's would increase prices and limit other wage rises. they already work off very low margins. so the 25% rise would be paid by people who shop in sainsbury's and by a compression of their wages elsewhere. they may or may not be a good thing, but the idea that wages rise for one group and it leaves everyone else unaffected is nonsense - it's the magical thinking that wages rises comes out of the evil corporation's 'profits'. they don't - they are redistributed from consumers and from the real wages of other workers. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| £33,000 a year on benefits!!! on 10:45 - Oct 31 with 1247 views | J2BLUE |
| £33,000 a year on benefits!!! on 09:37 - Oct 31 by FrimleyBlue |
I'm probably the worst for this a I dealt with many people playing the system a few years back when I was working on one of the government back to work schemes, the amount of dkheads openly playing the system, knowingly, willingly and happy to do so, just changed by mind about the whole thing. Sad for those in specific circumstances, but unfortunately 80% of those I had to have weekly meetings with just played the game so i've lost all care for it. |
Those back to work schemes don't exactly motivate you though do they? I went on one about 12 years ago and they went out and bought board games from a charity shop just because they needed to keep us there to get paid. I walked out.
People out of work should be treated like adults not looked down upon by professional clipboard holders just trying to distract people long enough to get their government money. |  |
| |
| £33,000 a year on benefits!!! on 10:47 - Oct 31 with 1231 views | lowhouseblue |
| £33,000 a year on benefits!!! on 10:39 - Oct 31 by noggin |
Do you think Sainsbury,s shareholders are just getting by? |
yes those evil rich capitalist pensioners can afford it. plus profit of course is immoral. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| £33,000 a year on benefits!!! on 10:50 - Oct 31 with 1210 views | thebooks |
| £33,000 a year on benefits!!! on 10:43 - Oct 31 by lowhouseblue |
"I think you’re trying to say companies like Sainsbury’s couldn’t afford to pay that?"
what does that possibly mean? you seem to be imagining sainsbury's with a pot of money ('profits') that they're selfishly refusing to share. if the living wage rose by 25% over next year's level sainsbury's would increase prices and limit other wage rises. they already work off very low margins. so the 25% rise would be paid by people who shop in sainsbury's and by a compression of their wages elsewhere. they may or may not be a good thing, but the idea that wages rise for one group and it leaves everyone else unaffected is nonsense - it's the magical thinking that wages rises comes out of the evil corporation's 'profits'. they don't - they are redistributed from consumers and from the real wages of other workers. |
It means do you think Sainsbury’s isn’t capable of paying an extra £3.66/hour to its workers earning less than £15.87/h.
I think you’re answering the question? They could, but they wouldn’t if it risked shareholder payments, so they’d pass the cost on to other workers.
Low margin doesn’t equal low profit, obviously. | | | |
| £33,000 a year on benefits!!! on 10:54 - Oct 31 with 1179 views | noggin |
| £33,000 a year on benefits!!! on 10:47 - Oct 31 by lowhouseblue |
yes those evil rich capitalist pensioners can afford it. plus profit of course is immoral. |
With wealth inequality rising, yes, huge profits are immoral. | |
| |
| £33,000 a year on benefits!!! on 10:56 - Oct 31 with 1166 views | noggin |
| £33,000 a year on benefits!!! on 10:50 - Oct 31 by thebooks |
It means do you think Sainsbury’s isn’t capable of paying an extra £3.66/hour to its workers earning less than £15.87/h.
I think you’re answering the question? They could, but they wouldn’t if it risked shareholder payments, so they’d pass the cost on to other workers.
Low margin doesn’t equal low profit, obviously. |
https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/news/city-snapshot-sainsburys-forecasts-profits-of-1 | |
| |
| £33,000 a year on benefits!!! on 11:00 - Oct 31 with 1133 views | thebooks |
Ta, I was just trying to find their profits 😁 | | | |
| £33,000 a year on benefits!!! on 11:00 - Oct 31 with 1128 views | J2BLUE |
| £33,000 a year on benefits!!! on 10:43 - Oct 31 by lowhouseblue |
"I think you’re trying to say companies like Sainsbury’s couldn’t afford to pay that?"
what does that possibly mean? you seem to be imagining sainsbury's with a pot of money ('profits') that they're selfishly refusing to share. if the living wage rose by 25% over next year's level sainsbury's would increase prices and limit other wage rises. they already work off very low margins. so the 25% rise would be paid by people who shop in sainsbury's and by a compression of their wages elsewhere. they may or may not be a good thing, but the idea that wages rise for one group and it leaves everyone else unaffected is nonsense - it's the magical thinking that wages rises comes out of the evil corporation's 'profits'. they don't - they are redistributed from consumers and from the real wages of other workers. |
Tax technology. It was supposed to benefit us all. Now self service tills and scan as you shop are the dominant tills in most supermarkets. Replace as many workers as you want with technology but make them pay one third of the savings to a national wealth fund. | |
| |
| £33,000 a year on benefits!!! on 11:09 - Oct 31 with 1071 views | lowhouseblue |
| £33,000 a year on benefits!!! on 10:50 - Oct 31 by thebooks |
It means do you think Sainsbury’s isn’t capable of paying an extra £3.66/hour to its workers earning less than £15.87/h.
I think you’re answering the question? They could, but they wouldn’t if it risked shareholder payments, so they’d pass the cost on to other workers.
Low margin doesn’t equal low profit, obviously. |
there is a difference between the total amount of profit because a company is very big and profits because of a high margin. sainsbury's work with a low margin but huge volume. being big means that they have lots of invested capital which they make a return on. if they didn't make a return they wouldn't be sustainable and consumers wouldn't be able to buy cheap beans. business 101.
wage rises have distributional effects - most directly the people who buy the product those workers make are poorer. [Post edited 31 Oct 11:15]
| |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| £33,000 a year on benefits!!! on 11:12 - Oct 31 with 1053 views | Leaky |
| £33,000 a year on benefits!!! on 10:39 - Oct 31 by noggin |
Do you think Sainsbury,s shareholders are just getting by? |
Strange take this . Do you think all Sainsbury's shareholders are lazing on a beach in Bermuda watching there share price rising & ordering another bottle of bubbly. More likely they are pension funds investing for average working man to have a retirement that doesn't rely solely on the State pension. Bloody hell you can dream the socialist dream, sometimes you need a dose of reallity. | | | |
| £33,000 a year on benefits!!! on 11:14 - Oct 31 with 1036 views | lowhouseblue |
| £33,000 a year on benefits!!! on 11:00 - Oct 31 by J2BLUE |
Tax technology. It was supposed to benefit us all. Now self service tills and scan as you shop are the dominant tills in most supermarkets. Replace as many workers as you want with technology but make them pay one third of the savings to a national wealth fund. |
except that automating low skill jobs is how in aggregate you move an economy to a higher productivity equilibrium. in a growing economy with lots of investment in new tech (which we obviously don't currently have) shedding jobs like till operators would be a very good thing and to be encouraged - not something to be taxed. it's how you transition to a higher wage economy. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| £33,000 a year on benefits!!! on 11:15 - Oct 31 with 1014 views | MattinLondon |
| £33,000 a year on benefits!!! on 08:53 - Oct 31 by FrimleyBlue |
No, she should be planned her life better. |
All it can take is for one unexpected event to take hold and ruin the life plans for an individual. |  | | |
| £33,000 a year on benefits!!! on 11:17 - Oct 31 with 1005 views | cressi |
This country is fu*ked
I'm in my 60s worked all my life get a private pension just over 500 a month got my own place no mortgage if I don't work I get nothing at all zero help although it's a system I have paid into since I was 16. The future is bleak irrespective of government . This country is being bleed dry. |  | | |
| £33,000 a year on benefits!!! on 11:17 - Oct 31 with 1000 views | noggin |
| £33,000 a year on benefits!!! on 11:12 - Oct 31 by Leaky |
Strange take this . Do you think all Sainsbury's shareholders are lazing on a beach in Bermuda watching there share price rising & ordering another bottle of bubbly. More likely they are pension funds investing for average working man to have a retirement that doesn't rely solely on the State pension. Bloody hell you can dream the socialist dream, sometimes you need a dose of reallity. |
The largest shareholder is the sovereign wealth fund of Qatar. | |
| |
| £33,000 a year on benefits!!! on 11:19 - Oct 31 with 979 views | heavyweight |
| £33,000 a year on benefits!!! on 10:32 - Oct 31 by thebooks |
£33,000/pa at 40h pw is £15.87 an hour (not sure what you mean by “some on the left” and the top hat stuff).
The minimum wage is due to rise to £12.21/hour, so that would involve a further £3.66 increase. I think you’re trying to say companies like Sainsbury’s couldn’t afford to pay that? |
If only that were the case. This lady receives net £33k which she would have to have an annual salary of about £41k to clear that as take-home, which is the equivalent of around £20 / hour | | | |
| £33,000 a year on benefits!!! on 11:23 - Oct 31 with 943 views | lowhouseblue |
| £33,000 a year on benefits!!! on 11:17 - Oct 31 by noggin |
The largest shareholder is the sovereign wealth fund of Qatar. |
and we don't want them investing their dirty capital in the infrastructure through which a large proportion of the uk population get their groceries and household necessities? coming over here, investing their money in our food distribution system - and they only do it to make money. the b*stards. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| £33,000 a year on benefits!!! on 11:27 - Oct 31 with 901 views | noggin |
| £33,000 a year on benefits!!! on 11:23 - Oct 31 by lowhouseblue |
and we don't want them investing their dirty capital in the infrastructure through which a large proportion of the uk population get their groceries and household necessities? coming over here, investing their money in our food distribution system - and they only do it to make money. the b*stards. |
I'm fine with it. The Norwegian wealth fund is doing very nicely by investing in poorer countries like the UK. Those profits are my future pension. Not sure it's benefiting you though. | |
| |
| £33,000 a year on benefits!!! on 11:28 - Oct 31 with 886 views | FrimleyBlue |
| £33,000 a year on benefits!!! on 10:45 - Oct 31 by J2BLUE |
Those back to work schemes don't exactly motivate you though do they? I went on one about 12 years ago and they went out and bought board games from a charity shop just because they needed to keep us there to get paid. I walked out.
People out of work should be treated like adults not looked down upon by professional clipboard holders just trying to distract people long enough to get their government money. |
Sounds like a terrible back to work scheme you had
Our one was excellent and was well placed to help those who wanted to get back into work, and I did with many, we also had direct links to placements on government courses for various things like security courses, csc ( I think it is ) cards to help people get into labouring job etcs, it was a wonderful scheme tbh and I helped people with their IT skills, interview techniques, creating CV's etc. It was brilliant I must say for those that genuinely wanted help getting into work.
"People out of work should be treated like adults not looked down upon by professional clipboard holders just trying to distract people long enough to get their government money."
Absolutely rubbish im afaird J2, not disagreeing with how things were 12 years ago, but the schemes now are excellent, full of things to help people get back into work.
Not only that, we even as part of our job would speak to recruiters, arrange talks about their industries, arrange courses etc everything people NEED to get back into work IF they actally want to.
My biggest success was a lady with no IT knowledge, No cv, left a school catering job after 30 years. After spending a month with her, putting her on different courses put on within our office, she came in one Tuesday morning crying as she'd got a job as a receptionist, not something she ever thought she could do due to her lack of customer service experience, lack of IT skills etc, but she got it, and found out the other day she's still there.
Another was lady who struggled with anxiety, wouldn't even take pubic transport after some internal CBT courses, 1-1 meetings and a few quick journeys on the bus with me to town and back, she got a job in the middle of town taking public transport every day which she'd had a phobia of before hand.
It does work But you have to want it. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
