Think the unthinkable - let's help the coalition with some blue-skies thinking...

Gorgeous_George

globalds wrote: »

If the minimum wage was raised to say £8.00 an hour. Then working tax credits would not be needed.
It would also make that genuine step up between living on benefits and earning a wage.

The Tories opposed Labour's minimium wage - expect it to be eroded in real terms.

GG

Kohoutek

globalds wrote: »

If the minimum wage was raised to say £8.00 an hour. Then working tax credits would not be needed.
It would also make that genuine step up between living on benefits and earning a wage.

It would transfer the burden of subsidising people's standard of living from the government to the private sector - not appropriate or realistic. If you want to maximise employment, then the minimum wage should never be a such a high level.

The government should just make taxation minimal for people on low incomes instead of tax credits. I guess the coalition may do that eventually with the higher personal allowance.

Gorgeous_George

Benefits should only available for 70% of the time that you have worked. You have to pay money in before you can suck money out.

Nuke any country to whom we owe money.

GG

globalds

Kohoutek wrote: »

It would transfer the burden of subsidising people's standard of living from the government to the private sector - not appropriate or realistic. If you want to maximise employment, then the minimum wage should never be a such a high level.

Like the government has any real money of it's own ....

I was only really throwing it in the mix to see what other peoples views were.

I know it would never happen.

But what if unemployment is a part of modern society ..What if we are never again to see full employment ..My gut tells me that with the way technology is advancing ..We are due to see levels of "unemployment" never before seen , but a system that still function's.

lostinrates

carolt wrote: »

That's easy, Lydia - just introduce a network of excellent state-funded free nurseries for pre-schoolers, as they enjoy in Scandinavia.

There, problem solved.

Next?

Is it though? The other day some mothers her spoke heart felt-;y about how they wished they could afford to care for their own children more....if free (at point of use) childcare is being provided then a: its not free, like nothing is, and b. is it going to force people who want to be a sahp family out to work to afford the cost of living that includes stte provision of childcare? I dunno, but I see how it could. same with minimum wage......it sort of makes the numbers different, but the affordability sort of the same (and cash in hand increase) I think.

The_White_Horse

ban people on benefits

LydiaJ

lostinrates wrote: »

Is it though? The other day some mothers her spoke heart felt-;y about how they wished they could afford to care for their own children more....if free (at point of use) childcare is being provided then a: its not free, like nothing is, and b. is it going to force people who want to be a sahp family out to work to afford the cost of living that includes stte provision of childcare? I dunno, but I see how it could. same with minimum wage......it sort of makes the numbers different, but the affordability sort of the same (and cash in hand increase) I think.

I agree. Also, I find it odd that people who think child benefit shouldn't be universal want to provide free nursery places for everyone. Why should the state provide free nursery care for the children of (a) couples where one or both parents don't work or (b) high earning parents who can afford to pay for nursery care themselves?

On the subject of child benefit being universal... I would support means testing it only if it seemed at all likely that the savings from not paying it to the richest parents would be bigger than the admin costs of means testing everyone. I suspect that wouldn't be the case - it's only £20.30pw for the first child and £13.40 for subsequent ones.

lynzpower

LydiaJ wrote: »

I agree. Also, I find it odd that people who think child benefit shouldn't be universal want to provide free nursery places for everyone. Why should the state provide free nursery care for the children of (a) couples where one or both parents don't work or (b) high earning parents who can afford to pay for nursery care themselves?

On the subject of child benefit being universal... I would support means testing it only if it seemed at all likely that the savings from not paying it to the richest parents would be bigger than the admin costs of means testing everyone. I suspect that wouldn't be the case - it's only £20.30pw for the first child and £13.40 for subsequent ones.

Ultimately you could do away with the whole benefit entirely- meaning that those in need get money through the usual means-tested channels that exist, and doing away with the whole swathe of staff/processing and cash of course to people who dont need it.

I think what has happened is that we have got a inflationary situation that truly means that the benefits support system either a) has to stay roughly as it is b) the minimum wage has to go up rather dramatically c) the tax system has to change where basically most normal people wont pay tax.

I agree with what youy mean about childcare- the one major problem with this government is that they want everyone to work.

Im sure inthe olden days mums could SAH while dad worked and brought home the bacon. Now dads wages wont even pay the mortgage on a modest home, or worse even a rent. Ok so I know a family dad works FT on the min wage, mum PT on the min wage. Dont tell me that they can afford childcare, the rent on a tiny 2 bed flat, the bills on 340 approx a week befroe tax as the rent for thier flat is 210. You dont get childcare that cheap!

All successive governments have created this monster of allowing firstly housing to get out of control. Then allowing utuilities to get out of control.

If these basics were cheaper people would be able to survivce without benefits.

So, I will suggest rent control, to a degree that has been inflated by LHA but then something had to give as the HB situation was not appropritate.

Mass building of housing at intermediate rent, to take the market away from the overinflated private sector particularly when paid for by the taxpayer.

If you knock down council flats or state buildings then you should be putting state housing or intermediate housing on it. ( if there is demand for housing in that area)
As land is the most expensive part of a municipal build.

To do away with the ridiculous use of private companies who build PFI jobs for the state, sorry time to go backwards and have the state employ builders again to build properties for all and repair schools etc.

We have seen the major cartels that exist in this "oh so" amazing privatesector as they round on the taxpayer to rip us off, so why does everyone seem to think that the private sector isthe answer- IT TRULY ISNT.

I think anyone who has ever worked with these companies will tell you what a rip off they are, they charged one LA 750 to change a washer in a dripping tap nad the taxpayer just sucked it up, this is one day one event one local authoritym one contractor- the stories like this are going on wholesaleup and down the land.

You could have paid a handymans wages for 2 weeks on that call out charge?

But then, lydia you are right "who wants to extend the public sector"

I hold my hands up and say I do as I know, as Ive always known that its cheaper, and it is accountable in the way that PFI/ and outsourcing is not and cannot ever be.

rant over! :cool:

vivatifosi

lynzpower wrote: »

We have seen the major cartels that exist in this "oh so" amazing privatesector as they round on the taxpayer to rip us off, so why does everyone seem to think that the private sector isthe answer- IT TRULY ISNT.

Well said lynz. I have done a fair bit of work analysing large building projects in the private sector and can't believe the size of the companies that win them. The fact that already large construction companies have to go into a consortium with other large companies just to manage to deliver PFI for example goes to show how strange the system is. I've even had a guy who runs a medium size home servicing business (way larger than the local trades business with a few vans) saying he can't compete with the leviathans in the business because he can't cover the geography that the OJEC consortium wants him to deliver - so you have the mad situation that councils go into consortia together to buy at better prices but in doing so having to pay more for something than they would get from the local supplier round the corner. Bonkers.

ninky_2

jonewer wrote: »

And why shouldnt everyone get the same? Thats the exact principle the NHS is founded on. Everyone from a vagrant to the Queen gets the same care provided free at the point of delivery.

.

no everyone does not get the same from the nhs. you only get treatment as you need it. if i walk into hospital and ask for open heart surgery they aren't going to provide it. if i get brought in in an ambulance with a massive coronary then i get treated. so treatment on the nhs is according to need. and the most in need get more.