You haven't even read the last page have you, in your haste to post one of your stock phrases you don't even know what the topic is anymore or that no poll exists to support IDS's idiocy or the latest missive from the 40Group.

Your problem is that your trolling account is threadbare now, everyone knows what you are about, we all know that you post comments purely to get a reaction in some cheap thrill for recognition, and we are all too aware that you contribute nothing to any debate at all.

You need to consider dumping that user account and re-register as something else.

Never mind his/her rather obvious unwillingness to answer direct questions.

Either a very obvious troll or someone whose ability to think for themselves was removed by surgery some time ago.

Thats the problem - you don't post your opinions.

I'd love to discuss some of the finer points of political strategy with you, so would others, but you don't offer anything to any debate and never have, you're like the kid who pokes a stick in a wasps nest and then runs away without explaining why or wondering what the wasps look like in real life.

Go away and think of another new user name and persona because this one is too obvious now.

I just did - I said it is excellent to see fairness in the welfare state - that is an opinion. Incidentally an opinion shared by the vast majority of the population. Just because you don't like it does not mean it is not an opinion.




No.

I believe that its not an opinion shared by "the vast majority" of the population.

There is no valid response to my argument because I have invoked the Ian Duncan Smith standard syntax but please feel free to try and prove your opinion correct.



Of course, to be sensible, if asked the question "Do you want to see fairness in the welfare state?" then almost 100% of the population would tick the "Yes" box, only the lunatic would tick "No, I want it to be unfair".

Its how you arrive at a definition of the word "fair" that is the crux and this current administration by its own admission want to play no part in any sort of debate over what they consider to be "fair", they will simply trot out a string of statistics that even their own departments have to correct and state that they have been mis-quoted or mis-used, culminating in the biggest culprit, IDS, simply stating that he doesn't really care if his department correct him anymore because what he thinks is more important than the actual facts of any matter that he sees fit to pillorize.

Now if you are running your own private business then you can run it in any way you see fit to, truth or no truth, ignore facts, tell lies, its your company you do what the hell you like - but we expect slightly more integrity from our politicians, telling the truth should be top of their agenda, using statistics in the correct context should be part of that and when that politician is a Minister in charge of a department with the biggest expenditure in The House, then not having his own colleagues point out that he is not telling the truth should be of paramount importance to him, but its not, he doesn't actually care.

Caring is another attribute that is good in a politician.

"I believe that this to be right, I believe that we are already seeing people going back to work who were not going to go back to work,"

Brilliant, utterly utterly brilliant.

I manage a construction agency in Manchester and find the above quote strange to the point of unbelievable. For another side to the debate:

The job would have been advertised at £18 p/h self employed. If he was then to be paid PAYE the agency would have to accrue holiday pay for his wages as this is European legislation and reduces his rate by approximately 10.19%. THis would leave him with a pay of £16.05 per hour and £1.95 per hour in accrued holiday pay, which is paid when he either needs a holiday or as a lump sum at the end of a contract. The agency does not keep this money and it is illegal if they do no t pay it out.

Construction agencies pay PAYE personnel through umbrella companies to avoid paying Employers National Insurance and thus offer cheaper rates to construction companies who are demanding ever more ridiculous rates. The length of a contract is told to us by the end client. We do not advertised jobs for months if they are for a day. If the job is for a day it's a waste of our time as we make no money from it. We give as an accurate length of contract as is given to us by our clients.

"200+ plus deductions they said it was to cover what they had to pay" - who said this the agency or the umbrella company?

The agency should not be making any deduction other than the accrued holiday pay. They send the gross amount to the umbrella company who make the necessary deductions for tax and national insurance. Umbrella companies also allow the provision of expenses to be paid against the tax that the operative pays reducing their tax bill. They charge an admin fee for their services.

The agency makes money from the client NOT the candidate. It does this by charging the client £20 per hour and paying the candidate £18 per hour for example. The umbrella company makes money by charging an admin fee of usually £15-£20 per week.

We payroll hundreds of people through umbrella companies every week and I get no complaints. In fact they pay very little tax and get more back by paying less tax than they do by paying the admin fee.

I fail to believe if the site manager is getting paid £8 per hour net he would still be working there and guess this is a case of Chinese Whispers.

If the site manager who is agrieved wants an explanation of his wages and where it has gone wrong I am more than happy to look at his wage slip and find out if his agency or umbrella company are "ripping him off" - please PM me with details.

Like in all aspects of life their are "Corrupt/Bad" agencies out there who are looking to make a quick buck. If this is the case name and shame them. A bad agency name spread around construction sites will do far more damage than on rugby league forums. We supply across the M62 corridor and have a good reputation I hope!

Bearing in mind that there are 5 applicants for every vacancy, just how does reducing benefits "encourage" people back into work?
It could maybe encourage people to want a job more than they already wanted one ... but a bright spark like you should be able to see that's not the same thing as getting one.

Is it?

I have live jobs and not enough applicants and many of my colleagues are the same. When I offer x amount of weeks work to someone and they say it's not worth signing off for, it DOES state to me that they are paid too much to sit at home.

It sickens me to be honest that it is now a way of life for a lot of people who don't want to work and feel an entitlement to be paid for not working or bringing a family up.

I know the jobs I'm offering are temporary, but my work ethos would be to go and do the best job I can and make the most of the opportunity to try and get a good reputation and further work rather than be paid to sit at home and wait for a job to fall into my lap.

I have live jobs and not enough applicants and many of my colleagues are the same. When I offer x amount of weeks work to someone and they say it's not worth signing off for, it DOES state to me that they are paid too much to sit at home.

It sickens me to be honest that it is now a way of life for a lot of people who don't want to work and feel an entitlement to be paid for not working or bringing a family up.

I know the jobs I'm offering are temporary, but my work ethos would be to go and do the best job I can and make the most of the opportunity to try and get a good reputation and further work rather than be paid to sit at home and wait for a job to fall into my lap.

Ajw71 and his ilk probably actually believe rlIDS on statisticsrl.

That is IDS, the serial liar.

How is being even more unfair to those receiving Social Security seen as "fair"?