We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Benefits shake-up: warning for non-working claimants
Comments
-
Oldernotwiser wrote: »If you didn't work 200 years ago you starved! Numbers in waged employment is a completely different thing.
I was thinking rather that there was probably a higher percentage of the population 200 years ago that lived off other means than work e.g. inheritance, owning land, what have you, which aren't the same as manual work (or office work of the kind that would have existed back then).
I may be wrong and have nothing to base this on except 'I suspect'.0 -
Increasing wages is not the answer, if you increase wages you increase inflation.
People will then end up needing a wheelbarrow full of cash, or a £1,000,000 note to go and buy a loaf of bread.
Increasing the minimum wage won't increase inflation, since people earning it need tax credits to survive. Those people won't spend any extra; they'll just receive less in tax credits.
ONS figures calculate a rise from the current NMW of £6ish to the proposed living wage of £8ish would reduce the tax credits bill by an eye-watering £6bn.
Of course, when the current administration is losing 500k public sector workers, you can't up the minimum wage and still expect the private sector to create jobs.
What you *could* do though, is make it fiscally neutral by upping the NMW and reducing employers NICs (threshold or percentage) to the tune of £6bn.
No disincentive for private sector job creation, but a big incentive to work, especially by lifting tens of thousands of people out of the benefits system altogether.
The other way to boost private sector employment and reduce the welfare bill is to invest in affordable housing, of course. But since the current administration is intent on pandering to NIMBYism under the guise of localism, that isn't going to happen.0 -
Increasing the minimum wage won't increase inflation, since people earning it need tax credits to survive. Those people won't spend any extra; they'll just receive less in tax credits.
ONS figures calculate a rise from the current NMW of £6ish to the proposed living wage of £8ish would reduce the tax credits bill by an eye-watering £6bn.
Of course, when the current administration is losing 500k public sector workers, you can't up the minimum wage and still expect the private sector to create jobs.
What you *could* do though, is make it fiscally neutral by upping the NMW and reducing employers NICs (threshold or percentage) to the tune of £6bn.
No disincentive for private sector job creation, but a big incentive to work, especially by lifting tens of thousands of people out of the benefits system altogether.
The other way to boost private sector employment and reduce the welfare bill is to invest in affordable housing, of course. But since the current administration is intent on pandering to NIMBYism under the guise of localism, that isn't going to happen.
Increasing the minimum wage will increase inflation.
Minimum wage increases, therefore all other wage rates have to increase in line with this. For example a person currently on £8 ph, will want £10 ph, if the NMW goes up by £2.
Wages are a major cost to any business, so you increase wages, you increase costs, you increase prices, hence increased inflation.
Also, people on minimum wage do not need tax credits to survive.
An average person on minimum wage would get £10,792.60 gross per year. That is £5.93 ph, 35 hrs pw, 52 weeks a year.
Therefore the average single person would not qualify for tax credits (I think anyway?!). (After doing the tax credits checker, a single person over 25 would be entitled to a small amount of tax credits)0 -
Equally sorry about the off-topicness of this thread-thread. But it did start with the text in the article which is still there and, I believe, many would be offended by.alwaysonthego wrote: »Sorry to take this off topic
Wikipedia is not a credible academic source, however it depends what perspective you are looking at it from. The term you use is from the medical model who believe that the disability is the problem of the person so society does not have to change to include that person. So they will label an individual by their illness i.e that anorexic person instead of Katie who has anorexia. Whereas the social model would look at it as the person is living with a disability and how society can adapt so that person can feel included.
I'm no expert in disibilities and am perfectly happy to (try to remember to) change my language if need-be. However, the terminology I use is what I believe to be the terminology chosen by disabled people for themselves. As per the organisations I quoted earlier as well as the likes of Disabled People Against Cuts (http://disabledpeopleprotest.wordpress.com/).0 -
how about creating more jobs for the entry level unskilled worker making it pay to work QUOTE]
Why should they (the government)?
They will have by the time you get to 17 have already spent a fortune on providing a damn good education.
If those that chose to not take up the offer, then now is the time to find out what life is really like - HARD!!!
They should have worked harder when being educated and come out with some qualifications.
Yes there are a lot of graduates that are unemployed, but guess who will have first pickings when the job market improves??
I find it sad that you are seriously asking the state to put more money and resouces into finding jobs for those that decided when they were 14/15/16 to opt out of an education.
Just have a look at the numbers of foreign students in this country that look on education as a gold plated gift and take up each and every chance of learning more.0 -
Does anybody know how the enforced work placement is going to be compatible with the mimimum wage regulations?
There will be no compatibility. Why should there. If what you are suggesting is make jobs that pay the minimum rate, we will have an army of more civil servants relying on the state for wages and employment.
It is to be no different than a training course whilst on JSA. Getting you ready for work as well as making it very difficult for those working in the black economy AND claiming JSA as well!!0 -
Is MSE physcic now?
This is a white paper, it needs further stages before it even gets to bill stage, then it has to be debated, and agreed in parliament.
Yet MSE seems to be saying it WILL happen, instead of making it clear it needs to be debated/cleared through parliament.
Of course you are correct. That is the way it will and should work.
Having said that, you me and everybody knows that it will happen irrespective of how much waffle is spoken about it not being fair.
It WILL happen and it has been a long time coming!!!0 -
Le73Uq86Uv wrote: »To all those who think this is a good thing.
You won't think it is so good if one day you need help and support.
All they have to do is make it so hard for you to comply with the rules you lose the benefits, and dont say you won't as you never know what may crop up when you should be at an interview.
Car broke down, child ill at school or even a death in the family.
Why rely on benefits anyhow? Surely it is better to be focused on getting the next job and you can only do that if you are motivated enough - lack of income is a damn good motivator!!!0 -
I suspect fewer people worked 200 years ago than work now, as percentage of the population.
Don't be ridiculous!!
Did you never do social and economic history at school or college??
Take some time off and get some books out of the library about working conditions in the 18th century.0 -
I'm more interested in the Universal Credit proposals ... they're planning on UC being introduced for new claimants from 2013 with everyone changed to that scheme from 2015.
Quite where that leaves Income Support/Incapacity Benefit migration to ESA I really don't know. Can't see any virtue converting those cases to ESA, only to convert them again to UC ... bit pointless.
And quite how they propose merging 30+ benefits into one God alone knows especially considering they're getting rid of another 9,000+ jobs in Job Centre Plus, on top of the many thousands of fixed term staff paid off over the last few months.
Maybe its because the ESA Regulations will be one part of the Single Benefit System, the other being the JSA Regulations to make one new benefit that covers all eventualities.
IB in that case will be well and truly dead in the water. It is an outdated and complicated benefit.
Surely its better to have just one that says if you are sick you get that, the rest are expected to work and put a time limit on it all as they do in America. They soon got their backsides working when they realised that the Welfare jug of money would dry up after 12 months or so!!0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.4K Spending & Discounts
- 247.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.4K Life & Family
- 261.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards