earn how much on 16 hrs

MissMoneypenny

shedboy94 wrote: »

.......although I wonder what the state of the country would be if Labour were still giving away money left right and centre.

The triple A rating would have gone which would have meant that the interest payments on those massive Labour created debts, would have been a lot higher, so less money left for government spending. Plus a lot of companies were already making plans to leave the UK if Labour got back in again and Hong Kong and the US would have attracted the high earners, so less money for government spending again.

So the answer would have been that there would be even less money to pay state workers and give to all the welfare claimants and the UK would be like Greece is now.

I'm sure most people know that the reason Labour didn't want to do a deal with the Liberals after the last election, was because they didn't want to have to clear up their own mess!

This Tories made it quite clear before the election that they were going to tackle the "two sides of the same coin" welfare and immigration.

fogartyblue.

BigAunty wrote: »

They aren't going to win the next election because they've reduced benefits to virtually everyone who claims tax credits and housing benefit - that's millions of householders they've hacked off, and this isn't just workless households, this is the working poor.

I see that you are still around using your latest AE. This site makes the rules, but never enforces them - you should be PPR'd.

And the facts are that that section of society is generally the one that never votes!

The vast majority see that things had to change. Money is in short supply and the call on that money is ever increasing.

They have done what any good business would do - cut back, reduces overheads and above all make sure that for every £ spent it is value for money!

Paying money out just to keep people at a standard that they have enjoyed in the past is not good value.

As for the working poor, if you look at the generations gone by, even by todays standards with the reductions, you are better off than you were 50/60/70/80 years ago!

BigAunty

fogartyblue. wrote: »

I see that you are still around using your latest AE. This site makes the rules, but never enforces them - you should be PPR'd.

...

Well if I'm not banned in the near future, perhaps I could stage a cyber suicide and leave my PC logged on so a family member can post a farewell message on my behalf?

BigAunty

shedboy94 wrote: »

So what's the solution.......let Labour back in.......do you honestly think they will suddenly give everyone their benefits back? Labour are the one who caused the mess in the 1st place with the overly-generous benefit system enjoyed by millions for years........Tories are at the complete other end of the spectrum - making massive cuts which in turn affects a lot of people, but I can see why some of it has to be done because the current system is unsustainable. Don't get me wrong, I am no fan of the Tories
........

That's my exact viewpoint, too - previous governments have not addressed the welfare (and immigration) issues or dealt with the causes of our high cost/low income economy which means a couple can both work but still struggle to afford housing, childcare and transport and still require benefits to get by.

Labour's 'generosity' meant more got paid out in benefits than employees paid in income tax, totally unsustainable model, and tax credits just promote poor wages and part time working which doesn't address structural unemployment.