(sigh)
Alas the majority of the welfare bill is going to pensions and benefits paid to _People who are in full time eployment_

Yes folks. That's people who are already working at least a 40 hour week and are paid so little that they still qualify for state benefits.

So, 15 seconds not so serious though reveals that The Taxpayer(tm) is subsidising companies to provide below subsistence level wages.
Or, with the delightful workfare scheme, no wages at all.
Jolly wonderful for the companies wot wot!

I'm all for people working for a living, and find the idea that someone who could be doing a productive job should be paid to sit around on their arse all day abhorent.
But that's not how it goes.
Example:
One of the cleaners at Best Beloved's college is having trouble with the DWP. Because the wages she's paid, plus the benefits she receives do not cover the cost of her travel to work and the childcare she has to pay for in order to be able to work full time.
She's losing money by being in a job.

If she resigns, her benefits are removed and she has no income.
If she's fired, her benefits are removed and she has no income.
If she refused the job when it was offered, her benefits would be removed and she has no income.

The DWP people she's spoken to about this have replied with variations on the theme of "That is not our concern. You have employment. Be grateful!"

She's currently trying to persaude the college to make her redundant or cut her hours so she can afford to eat.

That. Ladies, gentlemen and bridge denizens, is fucked up.
( DukeEuphoria Comes highly reccomended, Fri 4 Oct 2013, 11:47, 2 replies)

Yeah it's infuriating, people should really think carefully about whether they can afford to have children before they go and get pregnant and then complain about how expensive childcare and feeding them and everything else is.

(AWESOMEB0T meddling prick, Fri 4 Oct 2013, 15:38, closed)

Oi
Back under yer bridge...
( DukeEuphoria Comes highly reccomended, Tue 8 Oct 2013, 15:27, closed)

What pisses me off is the notion that is rearing its ugly heads again amongst the political elitist scum
Or politicians as they prefer to be called that people on benefits should be made to work in their community in order to recieve said benefits.
By definition if there is work that requires doing shouldn't this be done as a job that pays at least minimum wage?
(andythepieman Is surfing the waves of indifference on, Wed 9 Oct 2013, 12:24, closed)

Sounds like a good idea to me
I agree, if there is work that needs doing then offer pay to get it done. My only upset is with the notion of expecting pay for doing nothing.
(golddust QOTW now revolves around being a cunt, Thu 10 Oct 2013, 10:36, closed)