Taxing the Poor

Backstreet Moyes

I never seen it before but surely to god this is outrageous. Started a TUS job their 6 weeks ago where i was told you get €20 extra a week for 19.5 hours. Roll on my first payment a few weeks ago and i seen i got taxed €9.60 out of the €20 extra. So instead of the extra €1.02 an hour you are getting €0.54 cent an hour. Some people have their views as this system being exploitation but i am enjoying the scheme.

I am in my second week in my job and im enjoying it and getting experience on my c.v. and a routine so i am happy enough. But surely to god taxing people on this scheme is just a further kick in the teeth. Like i said i am enjoying it but getting lunches and travel to work is seeing me ending up with less money than i would have had sitting around doing nothing all day. I am happy getting some experience but surely to god this is just ridicolous to tax people on the scheme. How is taxing people on the scheme going to encourage people to want to take up these jobs. The people i am working with are lovely and i'm enjoying it but i think it's disgraceful to tax people who are getting so little as it is.

Senna

Is it tax or is it PRSI?

Celly Smunt

I honestly don't know how people can feel comfortable sitting on the dole with the "I'll get the same amount of money for working as I would signing on" attitude.Id much rather work for 188 a week than sit around for it.

I aim this mostly at people who have opportunities to work in a minimum wage job but refuse to as in "wouldn't be worth my while" sort of way,not the people who genuinely can't find work,but would grab an opportunity matter what the wage.
Working for me is more than monetary.Its about being independent and paying my own way in life no matter how difficult or crap the job might be.The curse of pride is suppose.

WeirdKen

Sounds like emergency tax...

Backstreet Moyes

Senna wrote: »

Is it tax or is it PRSI?

Fairly sure it's Tax.

Also pmcmahon i am happy working. I just feel it's disgraceful to tax people who are going down these 19.5 hours per week. I would have more money sitting around scratching my arse all day than i do after travel expenses.

dxhound2005

Nuts102 wrote: »

I never seen it before but surely to god this is outrageous. Started a TUS job their 6 weeks ago where i was told you get €20 extra a week for 19.5 hours. Roll on my first payment a few weeks ago and i seen i got taxed €9.60 out of the €20 extra. So instead of the extra €1.02 an hour you are getting €0.54 cent an hour. Some people have their views as this system being exploitation but i am enjoying the scheme.

I am in my second week in my job and im enjoying it and getting experience on my c.v. and a routine so i am happy enough. But surely to god taxing people on this scheme is just a further kick in the teeth. Like i said i am enjoying it but getting lunches and travel to work is seeing me ending up with less money than i would have had sitting around doing nothing all day. I am happy getting some experience but surely to god this is just ridicolous to tax people on the scheme. How is taxing people on the scheme going to encourage people to want to take up these jobs. The people i am working with are lovely and i'm enjoying it but i think it's disgraceful to tax people who are getting so little as it is.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/unemployment_and_redundancy/employment_support_schemes/tus.html

Tax and PRSI

The Tús payment is taxable but the amount payable depends on individual circumstances.

Class A PRSI contributions will be paid for all participants. Those earning more than €352 a week will pay a PRSI contribution.

Participants on the Tús scheme are exempt from the Universal Social Charge.

Anyone here giving you advice won't be aware of your individual circumstances. You probably need to contact the tax office.

Stark

Nuts102 wrote: »

I never seen it before but surely to god this is outrageous. Started a TUS job their 6 weeks ago where i was told you get €20 extra a week for 19.5 hours. Roll on my first payment a few weeks ago and i seen i got taxed €9.60 out of the €20 extra. So instead of the extra €1.02 an hour you are getting €0.54 cent an hour. Some people have their views as this system being exploitation but i am enjoying the scheme.

Are you sure you're not on emergency tax?

7 7 12

whats TUS?

Ray Palmer

The whole "I get the same on the dole" idea is pretty much being kicked away. If you no longer engage in retraining or back to work schemes they dock money now. The process has started but will take a while to fully hit everybody.

Long term unemployed are being called in and getting docked €40 a week for not engaging. I am hearing the reports from front line staff as they tell the clients. They aren't happy about being told but it hasn't been deducted from many.

The OP sounds to be on emergency tax but ignorance of the basics normally goes straight to outrage. Glad I don't have to deal with them

mikemac1

7 7 12 wrote: »

whats TUS?

I'd never heard of either

Community employment
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/unemployment_and_redundancy/employment_support_schemes/tus.html

Bruthal

pmcmahon wrote: »

I honestly don't know how people can feel comfortable sitting on the dole with the "I'll get the same amount of money for working as I would signing on" attitude.Id much rather work for 188 a week than sit around for it.

I bet you are not working for 188 though, with a mortgage and bills, are you?

sebastianlieken

Nuts102 wrote: »

I never seen it before but ....

You've lost me already.

Bruthal

Bruthal wrote: »

I bet you are not working for 188 though, with a mortgage and bills, are you?

I'd rather work for 188 than not work

Bruthal

bluewolf wrote: »

I'd rather work for 188 than not work

So if you had mortgage arrears, then lost job, but find a new job for 188 a week, but getting to work costs you 50 a week, leaving you 138 a week without factoring in other likely work related expenses, you would do that? So the new job will in fact leave you in more trouble.

I dont think you would. Its easy to post the correct answer you know others like to see on boards, which is common all over the site. You may even genuinely believe it. But the reality if you faced it, may be different, depending on circumstances.

I don't have a mortgage, and my own personal preference on preferring to work than otherwise is not a question of a "correct answer"

mkdon05

bluewolf wrote: »

I don't have a mortgage, and my own personal preference on preferring to work than otherwise is not a question of a "correct answer"

So you would rather work and put yourself into more financial bother? That's clever.

Death and Taxes

Nuts102 wrote: »

I never seen it before but surely to god this is outrageous. Started a TUS job their 6 weeks ago where i was told you get €20 extra a week for 19.5 hours. Roll on my first payment a few weeks ago and i seen i got taxed €9.60 out of the €20 extra. So instead of the extra €1.02 an hour you are getting €0.54 cent an hour. Some people have their views as this system being exploitation but i am enjoying the scheme.

I am in my second week in my job and im enjoying it and getting experience on my c.v. and a routine so i am happy enough. But surely to god taxing people on this scheme is just a further kick in the teeth. Like i said i am enjoying it but getting lunches and travel to work is seeing me ending up with less money than i would have had sitting around doing nothing all day. I am happy getting some experience but surely to god this is just ridicolous to tax people on the scheme. How is taxing people on the scheme going to encourage people to want to take up these jobs. The people i am working with are lovely and i'm enjoying it but i think it's disgraceful to tax people who are getting so little as it is.

You are getting paid to get experience, you are working in a nice place with nice people and all you can do is whinge!
You are looking at this the wrong way, you need to look at this as you investing in your future employability, gaining this experience will stand to you in the future and increase your earning potential.

Bruthal

bluewolf wrote: »

I don't have a mortgage,

As I said, circumstances are the key to what some people do.

and my own personal preference on preferring to work than otherwise is not a question of a "correct answer"

Ok so if you had 200k mortgage, €500 a week job, lost job, now 6 months arrears and severely struggling on 188 a week, you would take a job for 188 a week, even though petrol costs 40 a week, so you now struggle even more? All because you prefer to work?

So preferring to work overcomes trying to survive? Not everyone is on the dole because they like it.

seanmacc

bluewolf wrote: »

I'd rather work for 188 than not work

If you're working for 188euro a week its obviously a job thats not worth doing if you are not generating more that 188euro's worth of economic activity for the employer. So working full time for 188euro a week is exploitation.

smash

Poor people should get off the Internet and concentrate on trying to not be poor any more! :pac:

Senna

Bruthal wrote: »

So preferring to work overcomes trying to survive? Not everyone is on the dole because they like it.

I suppose you cant put a price on self-worth, is that €40 a week going to clear up all your troubles? or is it likely that by working you may increase your chances of finding F/T better paying work?

Would an new prospective employer rather see a CV with continuous work and candidate telling them that they basically worked for their dole, even in the most menial of jobs. Or would they prefer to hear "its not worth my while to work"?

Madam_X

I'd much prefer to work too, but if a person got a job that, after travel and other essential expenses, paid less than unemployment benefits, really landing them in "barely scraping by" territory (due to their circumstances - not everyone gets to live a charmed life on the dole, as the myth goes) I wouldn't blame them for holding out for a job that would leave them with at least the same income as that from the benefits.

Getting out to work is important, but so is income.

Bruthal

Senna wrote: »

I suppose you cant put a price on self-worth, is that €40 a week going to clear up all your troubles? or is it likely that by working you may increase your chances of finding F/T better paying work?

Would an new prospective employer rather see a CV with continuous work and candidate telling them that they basically worked for their dole, even in the most menial of jobs. Or would they prefer to hear "its not worth my while to work"?

Like many posters on boards do when posting, just say what you know the employer wants to hear, rather than what you really mean or would do in reality. Id imagine most employers would love to hear you will work for very little.


The €40 a week I mentioned is -€40 a week. As in worse off.

Bruthal

Madam_X wrote: »

I'd much prefer to work too, but if a person got a job that, after travel and other essential expenses, paid less than unemployment benefits, really landing them in "barely scraping by" territory (due to their circumstances - not everyone gets to live a charmed life on the dole, as the myth goes) I wouldn't blame them for holding out for a job that would leave them with at least the same income as that from the benefits.

Getting out to work is important, but so is income.

Yes, that`s more realistic imo. Not taking a job that leaves you worse off doesn`t mean a person doesn`t prefer to work. Its all about the circumstances.

There is a fair difference between someone living with parents and no expenses, and someone else with a mortgage, bills and family.

Rasheed

Bruthal wrote: »

Like many posters on boards do when posting, just say what you know the employer wants to hear, rather than what you really mean or would do in reality. Id imagine most employers would love to hear you will work for very little.


The €40 a week I mentioned is -€40 a week. As in worse off.

Everybody is different. If I, god forbid, lost my job tomorrow, TÚS or jobsbridge would suit me grand.

This is only because I've no children, no mortgage and no major bills.

€30/40 extra a week with these schemes may have to pay for more petrol, childminding and lunch. That and a much more limited chance of picking up a nixer.

It's sometimes just bit viable and I would never look down on someone who it genuinely wouldn't pay them to take part in these schemes.

Czarcasm

Madam_X wrote: »

I'd much prefer to work too, but if a person got a job that, after travel and other essential expenses, paid less than unemployment benefits, really landing them in "barely scraping by" territory, I wouldn't blame them for holding out for a job that would leave them with at least the same income as that from the benefits.

Getting out to work is important, but so is income.

I know it's generally considered "income", but social welfare in my opinion should not be classed as income because in my opinion- it's not something a person earns, it's something they are given, by the state.

Ok I know it's "income, coming in", hence the general term, but like I say- personal opinion, usually kept to myself, until somebody mentions they consider social welfare an income when it's really state assistance.

/twitchy eyeball

As for the TUS program and the idea of temporarily being "out of pocket" as such for participating on the program- well the idea is to get a person back into the workforce. As I understand it you would be getting a travel allowance and usually the work isn't that far away from you that it'd cost you €40 a week in travel.

Just reading the OP there you are indeed considered employed, so you could well be paying both PRSI and PAYE. Myself personally I think it's just a way for the government to jig the figures to say there are less people on social welfare queues and more people in employment. Really they're only fooling themselves because the money is still coming from the state coffers.

As for the idea of working for less right now with the potential to earn more- do most people not do that anyway when they're training or upskilling? Certainly anyone whose done an apprenticeship or been through third level education has done it.

You really shouldn't have the choice to depend on social welfare as it's a payment that the government can slash in the morning if they wanted, so any opportunity to upskill or re-train yourself should be embraced with both hands. It might be less now, but with the right motivation and mental attitude, you're back in the workforce and on your way to creating a better future for yourself.

As for the hypothetical "been let go from job, mortgage arrears, bills, etc" and the potential of being on temporarily less money- the quicker you act not to bury your head in the sand and let the bills/arrears pile up, the better position you're in to negotiate repayment options with the financial institutions and utility companies.

There are all manner of support systems in place to assist in cases like the above, but half the time people don't want to avail of them because it means admitting they messed up. They let the situation get out of control, inevitably leaving themselves in a position where they are that much harder to help when people want to help them.

Ray Palmer

Madam_X wrote: »

Getting out to work is important, but so is income.

Hence the change to the system. Don't engage and you get less money.
People come in with barely any education and refuse to learn anything as they don't want to. No longer is this acceptable and dole is cut.
Say you won't do a scheme as you only get a small amount extra and your dole is cut.
Basically the argument of being no better off is gone you will be worse off if you don't.
Unable to find any option you want from the system and your dole is cut.
The only issue I have with it is that single parents don't have this pressure. As most are women it seems sexist

Bruthal

Czarcasm wrote: »

There are all manner of support systems in place to assist in cases like the above,

They wont do much good for a person preferring to work for 188, the weekly expenses (not including arrears)will still be the same as before they ran into arrears, except now they have no job.

but half the time people don't want to avail of them because it means admitting they messed up.

In reality, many in this country are in that position because others messed up.

They let the situation get out of control, inevitably leaving themselves in a position where they are that much harder to help when people want to help them.

Never happend to you though im guessing? Me either. But insight, or at least the attempt at it, tells me many are worse off than me through no fault of their own.

PlainP

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Hence the change to the system. Don't engage and you get less money.
People come in with barely any education and refuse to learn anything as they don't want to. No longer is this acceptable and dole is cut.
Say you won't do a scheme as you only get a small amount extra and your dole is cut.
Basically the argument of being no better off is gone you will be worse off if you don't.
Unable to find any option you want from the system and your dole is cut.
The only issue I have with it is that single parents don't have this pressure. As most are women it seems sexist

Actually OPFP is getting cut, every year the age is falling in relation to your claim and by 2015 no person will be allowed to claim OPFP for a child over the age of seven.
What's with the sexist comment???

Bruthal

Ray Palmer wrote: »

The only issue I have with it is that single parents don't have this pressure. As most are women it seems sexist

I dont see how. Single parents is the criteria, not single female parents.

clairefontaine

The Irish have put up with enough. At some point they have to draw a line and not allow businesses to get free labour.

Why would you ever hire someone and pay a real salary if you can get the government to pay less than minimum wage for your labour force?

You will never see job growth if this continues. You may think you are investing in your future. You are not but you are complicit in the scam. There is no future with these policies.

clairefontaine

clairefontaine wrote:

Why would you ever hire someone and pay a real salary if you can get the government to pay less than minimum wage for your labour force?

Plenty of places pay less than minimum wage and give pay increases, and it's entirely legal
Just like plenty of places aren't obliged to pay any more than min wage and yet they do

clairefontaine

bluewolf wrote: »

Plenty of places pay less than minimum wage and give pay increases, and it's entirely legal

These programs where people on the dole work for a company, is basically the company getting free labor.

Why would you hire someone if you can get the government to pay for it?

This will do nothing to alleviate unemployment.

Czarcasm

Bruthal wrote: »

They wont do much good for a person preferring to work for 188, the weekly expenses ([SIZE="1"]not including arrears[/SIZE])will still be the same as before they ran into arrears, except now they have no job.


In reality, many in this country are in that position because others messed up.



Never happend to you though im guessing?Me either. But insight, or at least the attempt at it, tells me many are worse off than me through no fault of their own.

Yes Bruthal it did, taught me a lot about taking personal responsibility for my own actions too.

I know it was only hypothetical figures off the top of your head you gave but you weren't actually that far off for the amount of people I've come across that got €200k jobs on minimum wage incomes.

Usually when people are made redundant though they would get a lump sum from said company and they are entitled to eight weeks payments from the state (off the top of my head, and I know not all companies pay redundancy), but the same amount of money you spend on lunches, would you not be having to eat anyway if you were at home?

The point being that if you do nothing to change your situation, it will inevitably only get worse. But if you approach your financial institution and the utility companies, they have people that specialise in these kinds of cases, and there are organisations like MABS that will also make representations on your behalf to work out a budget and repayment plan, often times they can negotiate interest only repayments, you can also get a payment from the HSE to cover mortgage interest (again off the top of my head, don't quote me as every individuals circumstances are different, but there are an array of supplementary welfare payments and emergency and discretionary payments you can apply for).

There are a number of ways you can avoid getting evicted from your home or having your utilities cut off if you engage early with your creditors and to work out a plan to recovery and get yourself back on track. It's when you don't engage in the process early and let the problems build up that the trouble starts. Ignoring the warning signs won't make the problems go away.

clairefontaine

clairefontaine wrote: »

Why would you hire someone if you can get the government to pay for it?

A few reasons.
For example, if someone is still looking for actual paid employment in the meantime, which they probably would be, the company will know they won't have this staff very long. Therefore they'll have to keep spending time retraining new staff as they come and go.
They may also want people with experience and who know what they're doing, and will offer benefits to attract these staff. Of course, the market is such that there is some oversupply of potential workforce in some areas, but you can see the preference for salaried employees in sheer numbers of them + sheer numbers of companies who are not interested in participating in this scheme.

This will do nothing to alleviate unemployment.

The employees may well benefit from getting hands on experience and getting out of the "no experience no job - no job no experience" trap.
Places that take advantage? Surely - but report them etc

Madam_X

clairefontaine wrote: »

The Irish have put up with enough. At some point they have to draw a line and not allow businesses to get free labour.

Why would you ever hire someone and pay a real salary if you can get the government to pay less than minimum wage for your labour force?

You will never see job growth if this continues. You may think you are investing in your future. You are not but you are complicit in the scam. There is no future with these policies.

Depends. Friend of mine got an internship with a new company which didn't have the budget for a full-time employee. He wasnt qualified for the role beforehand (just a bit of dabbling in the area at college years before) He got hands-on experience for nine months, which as he says you wouldn't get in two years' minimum of college for a qualification in the particular skill. They gave him some cash every month to top up his dole/allowance. And they gave him a full-time job at the end. Yeh it could be argued there was exploitation, but he was delighted with it, and in his case it was hugely beneficial.

Of course it's utterly appalling when Tesco et al take advantage of state funds when they've plenty of money themselves though. And you're not being a trainee anything if you're loading shelves... just free labour.

I heard companies can't have unlimited Job Bridges either - they are only allowed a certain number. Not sure whether that's true. Hope it is.

Ray Palmer

Bruthal wrote: »

I dont see how. Single parents is the criteria, not single female parents.

I should have clarified that more. The realitty is woman can disown a father to do this and do. The couple can easily lie about being together. Men go through lots of hoops to be recognised as single parents. Child benefit is automatically to the woman too.
Unemployed mother will not be called in for 7 years!

PlainP

Ray Palmer wrote: »

I should have clarified that more. The realitty is woman can disown a father to do this and do. The couple can easily lie about being together. Men go through lots of hoops to be recognised as single parents. Child benefit is automatically to the woman too.
Unemployed mother will not be called in for 7 years!

Or unemployed father.....

clairefontaine

Madam_X wrote: »

Depends. Friend of mine got an internship with a new company which didn't have the budget for a full-time employee. He wasnt qualified for the role beforehand (just a bit of dabbling in the area at college years before) He got hands-on experience for nine months, which as he says you wouldn't get in two years' minimum of college for a qualification in the particular skill. They gave him some cash every month to top up his dole/allowance. And they gave him a full-time job at the end. Yeh it could be argued there was exploitation, but he was delighted with it, and in his case it was hugely beneficial.

Of course it's utterly appalling when Tesco et al take advantage of state funds when they've plenty of money themselves though. And you're not being a trainee anything if you're loading shelves... just free labour.

It's great it worked out for him, though 9 months is too long a contract for an internship in my opinion.

Can you not see the problem though that someone with experience already is pushed out of opportunity because what were jobs are now internships? The company that EVENTUALLY hired him- if they gave him a full time job in the end, why didn't they advertise for a full time job in the first place so that unemployed people who already have experience, and possibly a family and a mortgage could get some work?

These internships offer no guarantee of a job afterwards. Some of them, alot of them, demand previous experience anyway. Someone on another thread here recently posted an example of one requiring a PHD as well as experience.

clairefontaine

clairefontaine wrote: »

why didn't they advertise for a full time job in the first place so that unemployed people who already have experience, and possibly a family and a mortgage could get some work?

Why? Do they have some special entitlement to a job above anyone else?

The company hired someone when it was in a position to and because maybe they couldn't do without him - it's their decision

Czarcasm

clairefontaine wrote: »

The Irish have put up with enough. At some point they have to draw a line and not allow businesses to get free labour.

Why would you ever hire someone and pay a real salary if you can get the government to pay less than minimum wage for your labour force?

You will never see job growth if this continues. You may think you are investing in your future.You are not but you are complicit in the scam. There is no future with these policies.

You ARE investing in your future though. What is it really actually costing you in the long run only your time? What's the alternative if you never upskill yourself- a life on social welfare, subject to the whim of a government looking to cut costs where it can, usually from social welfare, so your income as we shall call it, will only ever be decreasing, and if a person chooses not to engage in the upskilling and employment seeking process, then they only have themselves to blame when they see yet another reduction in their social welfare payment.

I know there are a minority who are happy to accept this as their "lot" in life, but for those that really WANT to make something of themselves, they should see these various schemes as an opportunity to better themselves for their OWN future, and to hell with the idea of "I'm not going to be slave labor for anybody".

Employers don't care, the government doesn't ACTUALLY care, so really when it comes down to it, you should really see that it's your responsibility to care for yourself.

clairefontaine

Czarcasm wrote: »

You ARE investing in your future though. What is it really actually costing you in the long run only your time? What's the alternative if you never upskill yourself- a life on social welfare, subject to the whim of a government looking to cut costs where it can, usually from social welfare, so your income as we shall call it, will only ever be decreasing, and if a person chooses not to engage in the upskilling and employment seeking process, then they only have themselves to blame when they see yet another reduction in their social welfare payment.

I know there are a minority who are happy to accept this as their "lot" in life, but for those that really WANT to make something of themselves, they should see these various schemes as an opportunity to better themselves for their OWN future, and to hell with the idea of "I'm not going to be slave labor for anybody".

Employers don't care, the government doesn't ACTUALLY care, so really when it comes down to it, you should really see that it's your responsibility to care for yourself.

You are not investing in your future, because there is no future, not here anyway the way things stand if what were jobs are now internships.

Madam_X

clairefontaine wrote: »

It's great it worked out for him, though 9 months is too long a contract for an internship in my opinion.

Can you not see the problem though that someone with experience already is pushed out of opportunity because what were jobs are now internships? The company that EVENTUALLY hired him- if they gave him a full time job in the end, why didn't they advertise for a full time job in the first place so that unemployed people who already have experience, and possibly a family and a mortgage could get some work?

These internships offer no guarantee of a job afterwards. Some of them, alot of them, demand previous experience anyway. Someone on another thread here recently posted an example of one requiring a PHD as well as experience.

Yeh I agree even in my friend's case it's flawed. It's also not just the Tescos etc who exploit. A phd required? What a joke. Just saying though some of them are more benign and it wouldn't always be wise to turn one down.

anncoates

Don't mean to insult anybody but the only way they'd get me to work for the same money as social welfare when my stamps ran out is if they forced me to.

I'd look long and hard for something in my field and would eventually consider retraining or emigrating.

But fuck being mugged over for exploitative wages just to be able to prattle moralistically about the virtue of labour for it's own sake.

I know some of the trainee schemes can lead to jobs and it's not a bad idea in principle (as in for skilled jobs, not shelf-packing) but some companies definitely keep the trainee position (read doing a professional job for about 50 quid a week) on constant rotation.

Ray Palmer

clairefontaine wrote: »

These programs where people on the dole work for a company, is basically the company getting free labor.

Why would you hire someone if you can get the government to pay for it?

This will do nothing to alleviate unemployment.

You don't know the system if you think that.

Free labour has a cost as you have to supervise the individual and there is a lot of paper work.

There is a qualification to get such employees. Not every company can take them and again you need to train them. One rule is you can't have a vacancy advertised for the role in the last 6 months so no job being lost for the scheme.

The employment of many after jobs bridge is meant to be about 50% so is working. CE and TUS schemes is a little more doubtful. However apparently mental health support costs go down on people on such schemes. It isn't all about money.

Ray Palmer

PlainP wrote: »

Or unemployed father.....

No. The father has to keep proving he is still on his own at least once a year.

clairefontaine

Ray Palmer wrote: »

You don't know the system if you think that.

Free labour has a cost as you have to supervise the individual and there is a lot of paper work.

There is a qualification to get such employees. Not every company can take them and again you need to train them. One rule is you can't have a vacancy advertised for the role in the last 6 months so no job being lost for the scheme.

The employment of many after jobs bridge is meant to be about 50% so is working. CE and TUS schemes is a little more doubtful. However apparently mental health support costs go down on people on such schemes. It isn't all about money.

People should get paid for their work. That is the bottom line. And the private company should pay for it. Not get cheap labour the government is paying for.

Internships should be limited to six weeks, not a nine month contract. ANd then they hire or they don't.

PlainP

Ray Palmer wrote: »

No. The father has to keep proving he is still on his own at least once a year.

So does a mother, every year you get sent out the same documentes to prove your circumstances haven't changed.

clairefontaine

bluewolf wrote: »

Why? Do they have some special entitlement to a job above anyone else?

The company hired someone when it was in a position to and because maybe they couldn't do without him - it's their decision

Think about the bigger picture. If people can't get jobs to pay their mortgages the country is on a vicious cycle. Homes get lost, people emmigrate, no tax revenue, the national debt doesn't get paid, etc.

These schemes inhibit growth.

Czarcasm

clairefontaine wrote: »

People should get paid for their work. That is the bottom line. And the private company should pay for it. Not get cheap labour the government is paying for.

Internships should be limited to six weeks, not a nine month contract. ANd then they hire or they don't.

Not trying to be funny or anything but now that's just crazy talk. Normal probation periods in employment are a duration of six months. The idea of actual internships in the States is that you work for free for the experience, and they're usually for a period of a year!

Czarcasm

clairefontaine wrote: »

Think about the bigger picture. If people can't get jobs to pay their mortgages the country is on a vicious cycle. Homes get lost, people emmigrate, no tax revenue, the national debt doesn't get paid, etc.

These schemes inhibit growth.

Think about the smaller picture- you get experience and training that you can put down on your CV, that can help you land a better job.