Poundland Girl Wins Forced Labour Ruling

Dolph said:
Ignoring housing benefit is massively flawed. Most working households couldn't afford to spend 15.5k on housing, this highlights the continued flaw of allowing anyone on benefits a lifestyle they could not afford by working in an average job.
Click to expand...
Around 90% of those that claim HB are workers. You need to ask why have there been less than 4000 council homes built over the last 14 years? why could we build 200k plus council homes along with around 200k private homes a a year pre 1979, and we can't build that a quarter of that now, we are supposed to have a much better grip in tech.
 
matdom said:
HB isnt the reason why cost of living id high, There has always been HB, the transition from state housing to private housing is the reason why rents are higher. If you look at rents for the last 60 years you'll see a sudden jump in the early 80s around the time of the council home sell off.
Click to expand...

There hasn't always been HB, it was introduced in the 80s to sit alongside LHA (the key difference being that HB applies to privately owned properties, and LHA applies to council owned or managed properties).

I don't actually oppose the state housing, and I do oppose right to buy, I would like to see reform of social housing to create mobility of stock.
 
matdom said:
Around 90% of those that claim HB are workers. You need to ask why have there been less than 4000 council homes built over the last 14 years? why could we build 200k plus council homes along with around 200k private homes a a year pre 1979, and we can't build that a quarter of that now, we are supposed to have a much better grip in tech.
Click to expand...

What would happen if HB wasnt available? do you think properties would just sit empty?
 
Dolph said:
I don't support the scrapping of the minimum wage on its own, but as part of a wider reform of benefits, tax and employment regulations which would remove much of the thinking behind the minimum wage as it currentlt exists. without those associated changes, I wouldn't support the abolition of the nmw.

However, I would like to see a greater understanding or acknowlegement that the nmw has consequences, which often seems to be missing when people defend it while moaning about low skilled and youth unemployment.
Click to expand...

NMW represents the amount needed to afford to live, does it not? The bare minimum you can earn and still pay the bills.

If scrapping NMW, either people must work more hours for the same money, or we shift the burden of keeping these people alive to the state.

I guess the devil is in the details. Whether these new low-paid workers would be tax exempt; whether there would be a substantial increase in employment; and whether the economy would improve due to more employment but lower average wages.

I guess there must be some way to model the effects of these changes, but it does seem pretty complex.
 
FoxEye said:
I've noticed a few statements recently (some in this thread), claiming that minimum wage should be abolished.

I'm interested in why people think this would be a good thing... For one, how many people currently earning NMW would be instantly dismissed, or have to take pay cuts to remain in their jobs?

How do we know there would be a net increase in people in employment? And what about the social cost? I imagine there would be a lot of people suddenly unable to pay their rent, etc.

So what compelling case is there for scrapping NMW?
Click to expand...

There are some logically very good arguements for abolishing it from a business/market perspective, problem is the models entirely ignore human nature and have no room for the impact on quality of life of the people at the lower end of the scale while the system balances itself. I'm not even convinced the system is a good one in the long run once its reached equilibrium as it tends to play into the hands of those more sucessful in society at the expense of those less sucessful (due to human nature) which is a regression away from a true civilised society.
 
Rroff said:
There are some logically very good arguements for abolishing it from a business/market perspective,
Click to expand...

That's it in a nutshell really, from a strictly business perspective it makes sense. Lower overheads = greater profit.

The problem is people need money or should I say spare money in their pocket to buy things with to power the system. It's doesn't matter how cheap you make it if fewer and fewer people can actually afford to buy it, so the system stagnates.

Also even as it is now the taxpayer hands out benefits to those on low incomes, even if they ARE in work, if they earn even less that burden becomes greater still. It would also result in abject poverty for those at the bottom of the pile.

You could argue that the way to power the economy is to increase the NMW, so people have disposable income to buy more goods and lift us out of recession. But those goods need to be home grown.

MP's have been banging on about the housing market being stagnent for years, and even longer for social housing, yet refuse to do anything to simulate the market. Millions out of work, houses need building, how hard can it be to work that one out?
 
Last edited:
matdom said:
would you want to see people living in parks? would you feel safe if 1 million people lived on the street? prisons would not be able to cope the country would go down hill quicker than it is now.
Click to expand...

I think what Dolph is inferring is that without Housing benefit, then the ridiculously high private rental market would not be artificially supported and instead of houses being left empty, rents would decrease to become more affordable.

Though it's probably too late now tbh, as with house prices in general the correction that is needed is too drastic to be palatable.
 
Freakbro said:
I think what Dolph is inferring is that without Housing benefit, then the ridiculously high private rental market would not be artificially supported and instead of houses being left empty, rents would decrease to become more affordable.

Though it's probably too late now tbh, as with house prices in general the correction that is needed is too drastic to be palatable.
Click to expand...

that maybe what he means but im sure i remember watching something on the bbc last year about there being around 1 million empty properties across the uk sitting empty for one reason or another. so not sure if land lords would drop the rents that much at all.

the biggest excuse (and it is a excuse) people make for getting rid of the min wage is to make the uk more competitive, the small problem is we all know that it would be a race to the bottom as far as wages. and people would take the jobs as they need the money.

the min wage now isnt high enough to live on hence we have working tax credits, so how people think we can have no min wage is beyond me.
 
got to love the dwp's just had a letter today dated the 13th (so day after the court case result) telling me the work program is compulsory and is here to help me not end up as long termed unemlpoyed, yeah been on it nearly a year and so far had sod all help from it. got to say its really doing well.
 
its the third one iv had in 6 months now telling me il lose money if i miss appointments etc. so after some quick math id say thats cost them about £3million in postage and wasted paper. talk about not having a clue, the dwp throws money out the window then attacks anyone who questions there schemes.
 
GAC said:
got to love the dwp's just had a letter today dated the 13th (so day after the court case result) telling me the work program is compulsory and is here to help me not end up as long termed unemlpoyed, yeah been on it nearly a year and so far had sod all help from it. got to say its really doing well.
Click to expand...

IDS said on the marr show it was not compulsory? He said the reason people get sanctioned is due to signing up to the scheme and then messing the so called employer around.

I would ring them up and ask just why they are sending out false info.You should walk right down to the CAB and take the letter with you and se if they can offer any help.

DWP know you are not going to do much on your own with £71 a week.While they will have thier taxpayer funded barrister tie you in knots.


PS ever thought about settings yourself up semi self employed doing some PC work? Where i am people charge £80 for simple formats when most of the townfolk earn min wage.Simply undercut them and declare yourself semi employed and you can still get some benefits to top up your income.There are a lot of schemes who have been reccomending people do this so they can say they got them off JSA and pick up thier payments from the GOV.
 
Last edited:
the work program is compulsory, workfare isnt (or its not ment to be).

well im trying to do something myself but with sod all funds its not exactly easy, and after my meeting last week with my new adviser she made it sound like all the moneys gone for helping people out.
 
Mr-White said:
She's only made finding work even more difficult, no one will want to employ her knowing she doesn't want to work.

MW
Click to expand...

Exactly, she's got a frickin' degree in Law, couldn't she have spent it more productively than wasting wasting lord knows how much taxpayers money on pointless legal battles? Y'know, like actually finding meaningful employment?

She won on a legal technicality, thats all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom