More than half of homes take more than they contribute

[Dj_Jestar]

So are we therefore going to accept that the MAJORITY of the people living in this country take more than they pay in, and continue to accept that? Because that is all that is going to continue to happen with how things are currently heading. What can change it? Preferably something that doesn't result in the bottom of society being **** on from an even higher height.

There's no "fence" on this topic to be either side of, so please do not assume I am on a particular side (which in this case is is clearly evident that you believe I am on the "do nothing about it" side). I pointed out that raising minimum wage is not a free lunch, as the first post suggesting raising it implied it is/would be. That's it.

THe welfare system is far, far more complicated than simply changing one variable to fix it all.

 

[the wopster]

Rather than giving the benefits in cash give them credits to spend on a card.

I have said that for years people that won't work ( both non working/single mums) should not get money to spend how they like, the govenment should approach British gas or someone like that and they supply the gas and electric to them and get paid by benefit credits and the same with asda/ tescos they should only be allowed to get food with there benefit credits( no alcohol, cigaretts) they should only get a minimal amount of money. That would force the lazy gits to get a job.

This is not me being anti benefits as my wife is disabled and I could earn more from benefits Looking after her than I currently earn working, but I have some personal pride.

 

[Theophany]

>grits teeth
>forces smile
>feverishly repeats 'noblesse oblige'

 

[[TW]Fox]

I could earn more from benefits Looking after her than I currently earn working, but I have some personal pride.

Could you really, though?

 

[the wopster]

Could you really, though?

Yes I could, I looked at it out of curiosity and was quite shocked, because I work all she can get is DLA if i didn't she would get the DLA, ESA, carers allowance I would get JSA full CT rebate to name but a few, when I looked at it I think I would have been £70 per week better off. I couldn't do it though I would be board out of my head after 2 weeks.

 

[Bear]

You missed the point entirely. Tax payers would have to continue to pay when the effects of the raised minimum wage rollout through to the price of bread, forcing those who currently work for min. wage to claim again. All raising the minimum wage does is turn the expense wheel, it's not free.

Whilst I don't disagree in principle, in reality is that the case? If you consider that people at the poorer end of the scale will in general spend what money they have. Giving them more money would mean they spend more, all that happens in reality is that the money churns round and goes back from where it came in so round about way.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

You do know that most "support" goes to those who are working, don't you?

What the government is effectively doing is subsidising poor employers who don't pay their employees a living wage, resulting in those employees claiming CTC or WTC in order to have a reasonable standard of living.

If the government wants to reduce it's benefit payments, then it needs to get tough on these shady employers and demand that they start paying a living wage, stop "exclusive" zero hours contracts, allow greater flexible working in regards to child care and improve job security - generally an improvement to workers terms and conditions will reduce state dependence. Make employers responsible for the well being of their employees, not the state.

Rather than giving the benefits in cash give them credits to spend on a card.

Would you be able to use that card at the local green grocers, butchers or bakers?

Or would you only be able to use it at the big chains like Tesco, Sainburys etc?

Would you be happy for the government to effectively channel all the benefit payments away from small local businesses and into the hands of big corporations?

 

[D.P.]

There's no "fence" on this topic to be either side of, so please do not assume I am on a particular side (which in this case is is clearly evident that you believe I am on the "do nothing about it" side). I pointed out that raising minimum wage is not a free lunch, as the first post suggesting raising it implied it is/would be. That's it.

THe welfare system is far, far more complicated than simply changing one variable to fix it all.

The people stating that min wage should be raised clearly don't understand basic economics. Raising min wage will only increase inflation and prices of rent and food will increase to match. many of the effects are very indirect, non-linear and complex, but some are very direct and obvious - McDonalds base the cost of their value meal on minimum wage and expected takeout frequency.



Increasing minimum wage in itself will not resolve much, beyond making any manual labour work even less competitive in the global market.



Now I certainly believe the lowest paid need to some how have a more livable wage out of this but raising the minimum wage simply wont achieve that, at least not without a lot of other effects. I simply don't know the solution, i'm not an economist, but I expet some kind of negative income tax would work at least a little better albeit still with inflation issues to which there is no simple solution.

 

[the wopster]

You do know that most "support" goes to those who are working, don't you?

What the government is effectively doing is subsidising poor employers who don't pay their employees a living wage, resulting in those employees claiming CTC or WTC in order to have a reasonable standard of living.

If the government wants to reduce it's benefit payments, then it needs to get tough on these shady employers and demand that they start paying a living wage, stop "exclusive" zero hours contracts, allow greater flexible working in regards to child care and improve job security - generally an improvement to workers terms and conditions will reduce state dependence. Make employers responsible for the well being of their employees, not the state.



Would you be able to use that card at the local green grocers, butchers or bakers?

Or would you only be able to use it at the big chains like Tesco, Sainburys etc?

Would you be happy for the government to effectively channel all the benefit payments away from small local businesses and in to the hands of big corporations?

You have a good point there

 

[Deleted member 66701]

The people stating that min wage should be raised clearly don't understand basic economics. Raising min wage will only increase inflation and prices of rent and food will increase to match. many of the effects are very indirect, non-linear and complex, but some are very direct and obvious - McDonalds base the cost of their value meal on minimum wage and expected takeout frequency.



Increasing minimum wage in itself will not resolve much, beyond making any manual labour work even less competitive in the global market.

People said the same thing when the min wage was introduced and the feared price inflation didn't happen. Min wage detractors have said the same thing every time a rise in the min wage is proposed. And every time it gets approved again the feared inflation doesn't materialise.

There is no evidence anywhere in the world that where a min wage has been created or increased that it results in price inflation.

For a lot of goods and a fair proportion of services, labour cost is an insignificant cost.

I'd would argue the point that for those arguing min wage = price inflation that it's those people who don't understand basic economics.

This is a very good article on why minimum wage levels in developed countries do not contribute in any significant way to inflation.


I do however agree with the negative income tax solution.

 

[muon]

Damn pensioners. Cut their pensions. Oh wait...

52% of population contributing less than they take in payouts and/or public services is hardly surprising.

 

[StriderX]

What if we spend billions on an ID system, which you then use to buy essential stuff. The catch is whatever limit you have available to spend, is permanently reduced for a year if you buy any item classed as a luxury.

Thus instilling the novelty of working equals wealth.

Blahblah human rights Blahblah equality.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

What if we spend billions on an ID system, which you then use to buy essential stuff. The catch is whatever limit you have available to spend, is permanently reduced for a year if you buy any item classed as a luxury.

Thus instilling the novelty of working equals wealth.

Blahblah human rights Blahblah equality.

Where could you use such a card? What about if your local grocers or butchers only accepts cash, like mine do - or the farm shops I like to use - that are often cheaper that the supermarkets "value" branded stuff?

 

[Tunney]

The problem effectively boils down to the growing gap between rich and poor. Working people at the bottom need benefits to stay out of poverty. That's a crazy situation.

Affordable housing would greatly help the situation.

 

[muon]

Where could you use such a card? What about if your local grocers or butchers only accepts cash (mine do).

It's a bit stupid as well. Why spend billions on a massive computer system just to spend the same amount in handouts anyway.

Also all that will happen is that a grey market comes into existence to get around it. Whats to stop people buying a commoditised product on the list of allowable products and then selling it? You are just adding a transaction cost which people will make a lot of money off, taking the money away from the people you intended to give it to.

 

[Jokester]

Except who do you think will end up paying for the increase in minimum wage?

That's right, the customers - i.e. you and me. So your tax bill might go down by a couple of ££, but instead the price of everything else will go up.

Unless you start making the system more complex by limiting directors' wages to a certain multiple of the lowest paid employee.

The problem with that of course being that the directors will simply start a separate company and "contract" out their business to Tesco etc.

It's not just customers that pay for it, it's the employee's themselves. Make jobs more expensive, not all companies can increase prices to cover it, so increasing minimum wages can actually drive more people out of work.

 

[One]

Isn't 50% about right though?

You do pay tax for a service, there's no point the government making a profit, so if about 50% use more than they pay in and 50% pay in more than they use then it sounds about right to me...

Maybe I've got the wrong end of the stick :/

 

[regulus]

let's not forget the companies like amazing , starbucks etc paying special mates rates tax settlements either

You couldn't make stuff like this up... but it's the people on benefits that get all the stink eye thanks to the newspapers that might as well be state controlled at times

So essentially as far as amazon are concerned they paid 0.0% tax on UK sales because of a rebate from luxemberg.

god knows how many places went out of business because of them and how many of those 5000+ workers will be on minimum wage asnd receiving tax credits and partial housing benefit payments ?

Surely it's costing the country more in benefits and services than they get back from amazon ? We can assume starbucks etc are exactly the same.

big business is bad for business in a country with a system like ours surely?

They can always move and take their 5000 jobs with them?

 

[Theophany]

Isn't 50% about right though?

You do pay tax for a service, there's no point the government making a profit, so if about 50% use more than they pay in and 50% pay in more than they use then it sounds about right to me...

Maybe I've got the wrong end of the stick :/

In principle, yes, I would agree with you. But then it depends on how these figures are quantified. Are they based upon the 'free at the point of receipt' services that households receive, such as NHS treatments, calling the police or simply welfare state cheques? It seems like a near impossible thing to quantify as simply being in your GP's waiting room is unlikely to be something tracked, so there has to be an innate level of inaccuracy to these statistics, surely?

 

[OpenToSuggestions]

We used to have a system like that. Landlords were paid directly by the govt. and the tenants given food stamps and similar "tokens" so they could only spend it on necessities and not booze/drugs/fags.

There was uproar about the Big Bother-ishness of it and how it demeaned the tenants by not letting them have the responsibility for their own money so when they eventually did earn their own they didn't know what to do blah blah.

Of course there was an uproar.
A good moan and whine (they do have the time to do so) worked well as now the money can go on cigarettes and fancy TVs!