Germany forcing unemployed women to become prostitutes?

Politics and religion
21

We were not talking about welfare, we were talking about unemployment benefits. The two were only joined in Germany with Hartz IV. Previously they were separate, and unemployment benefits were handled like an insurance. As I already said, they still are, for a limited time.

You don’t earn any interest on cash - duh!

Thank you, but you still earn interest on a cash deposit, as opposed to buying bonds.

Continuing in that vein, let me show you a new tool for finding information: GOOGLE! Type in “high interest account” and see what you get. You know what I found? WOW! This is an investment account which pays 7.75%, but it charges penalties on unplanned withdrawals.

And here you see why I’m patronizing with you. If you had actually read that page and/or had a clue about investment you would have noticed the following:

[ul][li]Only available when you invest in a Legal & General investment bond after advice from a Legal & General adviser.
[/li][li]Unlike a deposit account, capital in [this] bond is not guaranteed and the value and income could go down or up. You may get back less than you invest.[/ul]And on top of coupling their wondrous 7.75% rate with a risky investment bond, they also note that the net rate is actually only 6.20%.
[/li]

I never actually said that someone with ten thousand pounds is “filthy rich”, but don’t let that stop you.

No, you mentioned tens of thousands instead. :roll:

I simply said that we needed a means of preventing the filthy rich from freeloading off unemployment benefit:

No we don’t, as long as these benefits are organized as an insurance.

It’s very easy to disguise how much liquid capital you have.

That is true but I think banks are now (or will be?) obliged to reveal account data to the German tax office upon request, so it’s considerably harder than it used to be.

That’s just another example of how the system doesn’t work, but what do you suggest instead, that we just pay out money even to those who inherited a fortune from their parents?

If it’s insurance then yes, obviously, because possessions shouldn’t matter. Regarding welfare I agree with you.

Now you are starting to sound like a peasant, etc. etc.

See, that’s another point in case. Two paragraphs and still no relevant data:
[ul][li]How many years of interest did your friend accumulate?
[/li][li]How much did he spend on his trip?[/ul]
[/li]

In England, that country just across the North Sea from you, it is quite possible to live on 330 pounds per month. In fact that is nearly twice what most people get on basic income support.

I just wanted to ask about medical care, then I recalled that Britons get that for free. Germans don’t, so there.

Also, I mentioned housing which you, again, ignored. So do those 180 pounds or whatever include rent or not?

And if you have to spend some of your savings because you don’t have the foresight to invest it in a house, then I’m not going to cry a river for you.

Uh, what if I’m still saving up for a house? So you’re saying money is fine as long as it’s tied up in a dedicated savings contract?

22

This is unbelievable. You’ve got me into this pointless and hideous argument with excessive quoting and little meaning, just because you are irate that I think that people with tens of thousands saved up are filthy rich in comparison to the penniless people that the welfare safety-net is designed to catch. I’m not going to get drawn into a pedantic “discussion” (i.e. mass quoting and gainsaying session) on the finer elements of investment and welfare payments, just because you can’t deal with people who hold a different view to yourself without insulting them.

I mean look at this example of pedantry in your reply:

And here you see why I’m patronizing with you. If you had actually read that page and/or had a clue about investment you would have noticed the following:

* Only available when you invest in a Legal & General investment bond after advice from a Legal & General adviser.
* Unlike a deposit account, capital in [this] bond is not guaranteed and the value and income could go down or up. You may get back less than you invest.

And on top of coupling their wondrous 7.75% rate with a risky investment bond, they also note that the net rate is actually only 6.20%.

It makes no difference! If you invest your money in the program that I linked to you will make a predicted 7.75% interest. This is real interest that converts into real money, but you seem to think that anyone who invests in it won’t actually see any money because there are conditions attached and because the net rate is less than the quoted gross rate. You do realise that you would need to be earning about 100 pounds a week before you pay any tax on your investment earnings? Hint: we are talking about unemployed people with savings - duh!

Please, patronise me some more, and come up with some tiny nit-picking points to write multiple sentences about, inbetween dozens of quotes, it makes you appear extremely intelligent and rational.

23

I can deal with people who hold different views just fine. What annoys me about your P&R posts specifically is your habit of making claims that are unfounded or simply wrong, your apparent inability to stick to the subject of a discussion, and the lengthy tantrums you throw when someone tries to correct you or bring you back on topic. I’m not the first one to make this observation, either.

Look, if you just want to rant about whatever crosses your mind I’ll simply ignore your posts here. I’m not interested in exchanging arbitrary opinions, I post here because I like to see new facts and well-founded arguments.