Yet another BBC story on the monetary plight of WGs (yawn)

[chadpitt]

External Link/Members Only

Here we go again. Despite WGs having the option to Cam unlike other workers i.e shop workers. So defunding cucksimps online isn't lucrative enough so they still want more handouts.

Anyone who's browsed online will notice prices have actually gone up! We're talking 11% (up £10 from £90 I've noticed)

This whole desperate WGs myth needs to die. They're motivated by laziness and greed. 10 minute handjobs for £80, get out the small violins.

[alibirmingham]

Totally agree, they have always been able to make money hand over fist and indulge in life’s luxuries. While some are sensible and save most think it’s a never ending income stream but if we take the uk even at £60 h/h which is cheap that’s still £120 and hour. Even if they work approx 4 hours that’s £480 a day, that’s £2400 a week based on a 5 day week, so a four weekly income figure of £9600. Fuck me how many of us would kill to get that on a 4 weekly basis. On a yearly basis based on just 4 hours of work a day 5 days a week total income would be £124,800  And they want to moan about not having any income for a few months and want to go on benefits.

Which brings me to the best part in that bbc article where is says self employed people have to show taxes to get benefits but most can’t!!!! So they are fine with dodging taxes etc but cry when they can’t claim furlough and other benefits. Give me a break!

I’m sure some will say they have expenses or sergei is involved etc but we are talking about the majority, not the minority and the majority the expenses would be a fraction of their earnings. And remember I based these figure on a cheap wg rate and only 4 hours a day. These days an average h/h is £80 and they work 8-10 hours a day 6/7 days a week.

[Corus Boy]

For me, this is the paragraph that says much;

"...Financial assistance from the Australian government is available to those who have lost their income because of the Covid-19 crisis, but to qualify for the payments workers need to be able to show they have been paying tax - something that unregistered sex workers including migrants and trans people, often won't be able to do..."

I don't share all OP's viewpoints but this paragraph is the point, like some other cultural and ethnic groups, they wish opt out of 'the system ' but queue up to use it when it suits them.

[thimble29]

If you're not self employed and paying tax on your employed earnings, why should you be supported to that level? You should register and get unemployment benefit.
We've done the right thing in this country and sex workers that are intentionally gaming the system are finding out why it's a bad idea. Much more sympathy for other groups like people that were between jobs or just out of school/college

[daviemac]

External Link/Members Only

Here we go again. Despite WGs having the option to Cam unlike other workers i.e shop workers. So defunding cucksimps online isn't lucrative enough so they still want more handouts.

Anyone who's browsed online will notice prices have actually gone up! We're talking 11% (up £10 from £90 I've noticed)

This whole desperate WGs myth needs to die. They're motivated by laziness and greed. 10 minute handjobs for £80, get out the small violins.

That's in Australia, how does it affect UK prostitutes.     There's already a fund people can donate to for sex workers in this country. 11 pages on it here.  https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=276029.0

[zxc]

External Link/Members Only

Anyone who's browsed online will notice prices have actually gone up!

That is true for English girls. EE have lowered their fees, or at least frozen them.

Obviously, I am generalizing. Anyone can find an English girl lowering the fees and an EE girl rising it. I don't go down to particular cases.

[tesla]

Anyone who's browsed online will notice prices have actually gone up!

I am pretty sure all the girls in my hot lists have not changed their prices, so I don't see any evidence to support your claim personally.

[chadpitt]

@Tesla

External Link/Members Only and External Link/Members Only both increased from £90 to £100 and this is just adult work. On vivastreet it's all £100 an hour for Roms!

Your hotlist is just a small sample and not indicative of the actual market. Go to the SAAFE forum where they want to max out prices when ordinary folk are struggling with evictions, starvation and repossessions.

[tesla]

@Tesla

External Link/Members Only and External Link/Members Only both increased from £90 to £100 and this is just adult work. On vivastreet it's all £100 an hour for Roms!

Your hotlist is just a small sample and not indicative of the actual market. Go to the SAAFE forum where they want to max out prices when ordinary folk are struggling with evictions, starvation and repossessions.

I don't doubt that some girls have put prices up, my issue was your blanket statement that anyone who browsed online would see it, I browse AW every day, but don't see price increases, as for viva street I dont use that site as it is a waste of time.

[LLPunting]

I don't doubt that some girls have put prices up, my issue was your blanket statement that anyone who browsed online would see it, I browse AW every day, but don't see price increases, as for viva street I dont use that site as it is a waste of time.

VS prices not moving noticeably either; same types chancing 120ph and still others charging 100.

[LLPunting]

External Link/Members Only

Here we go again. Despite WGs having the option to Cam unlike other workers i.e shop workers. So defunding cucksimps online isn't lucrative enough so they still want more handouts.

Anyone who's browsed online will notice prices have actually gone up! We're talking 11% (up £10 from £90 I've noticed)

This whole desperate WGs myth needs to die. They're motivated by laziness and greed. 10 minute handjobs for £80, get out the small violins.

Any woman can choose to cam, the popularity of the likes of Onlyfans proves that; SPs are just as likely to want to be private about being identifiably nude and producing porn.

Plenty of SPs see less than a handful of clients a day, even at 30 min rates, that could be down to looks, cachement, how she advertises, etc.  And if they're renting their workplace then their fixed outgoings aren't likely insignificant.

Your misogynistic generalising isn't doing you any favours.

[chadpitt]

LLPunting defend them all you want. Cucksimps never learn.

[Charlie Chalk]

Any woman can choose to cam, the popularity of the likes of Onlyfans proves that; SPs are just as likely to want to be private about being identifiably nude and producing porn.

Plenty of SPs see less than a handful of clients a day, even at 30 min rates, that could be down to looks, cachement, how she advertises, etc.  And if they're renting their workplace then their fixed outgoings aren't likely insignificant.

Your misogynistic generalising isn't doing you any favours.

Even working a total of only 2 hrs per day on average @ £120 p/hr (so between 2-4 punters per day) would be £1200 per week on a 5 day week or £62k per year. Not exactly small change in anyone’s language. Their outgoings would be rent for their work flat (if they don’t work from their own place), makeup, lingerie, condoms and possibly Sergei wouldn’t put a massive hole in that, even if they were registered as self employed and they paid tax (which I’m sure most of them do  ).

There are plenty of others suffering more than WG’s - if they hadn’t been able to save something for a rainy day on that kind of income they don’t deserve a great deal of sympathy.

[cunningman]

Even working a total of only 2 hrs per day on average @ £120 p/hr (so between 2-4 punters per day) would be £1200 per week on a 5 day week or £62k per year. Not exactly small change in anyone’s language. Their outgoings would be rent for their work flat (if they don’t work from their own place), makeup, lingerie, condoms and possibly Sergei wouldn’t put a massive hole in that, even if they were registered as self employed and they paid tax (which I’m sure most of them do  ).

There are plenty of others suffering more than WG’s - if they hadn’t been able to save something for a rainy day on that kind of income they don’t deserve a great deal of sympathy.

Are you assuming they totally suppress their periods?  Not all will be willing to do that, for good reasons.  Ever punted a girl who's on?

Should they be allowed a holiday, or do you expect them to work  52 weeks a year?  Do you?

Lots of girls are single mums - they are paying for child care, too.  They might need to do that with another job too, of course, but then the hours when we go punting are not necessarily ones covered by ordinary childcare facilities.

We all like fresh towels - that will be laundry.

If they are being screwed over on rentals by landlords that 'look the other way' and I don't know whether that is going to be a pre-tax expense.  I feel it should be if its not their residence.

If they are running as a legit small business, then they will also bear all the NI as well as income tax, and possibly accountancy fees.

I think you'll find that they don't make as much after expenses and tax as we might think when we hand over a hundred quid.

[Charlie Chalk]

Are you assuming they totally suppress their periods?  Not all will be willing to do that, for good reasons.  Ever punted a girl who's on?

Should they be allowed a holiday, or do you expect them to work  52 weeks a year?  Do you?

Lots of girls are single mums - they are paying for child care, too.  They might need to do that with another job too, of course, but then the hours when we go punting are not necessarily ones covered by ordinary childcare facilities.

We all like fresh towels - that will be laundry.

If they are being screwed over on rentals by landlords that 'look the other way' and I don't know whether that is going to be a pre-tax expense.  I feel it should be if its not their residence.

If they are running as a legit small business, then they will also bear all the NI as well as income tax, and possibly accountancy fees.

I think you'll find that they don't make as much after expenses and tax as we might think when we hand over a hundred quid.

My very first sentence said “on average”, so obviously they would see more per day when they can work than they would when they can’t. I’ve also assumed that, despite being relatively low volume, they still work from somewhere other than their own home which would increase their expenses whereas in reality they would be more likely to work from home if possible since additional rent would take a reasonable proportion of their earnings.

I don’t think this is the place for a detailed scrutiny of WG income vs expenses, not least because I doubt if any/many of us would have that level of knowledge. All I was pointing out was that even a low volume escort has significant earning potential and therefore is unlikely to have been in a position where they would have been unable to save whilst working. Just have a look at SAAFE to see how many boast about making/spending lots of money and looking to pay off mortgages early, etc. Therefore, why are they deserving of any special consideration as opposed to millions of other people?