Costs soar as Labour voters told to pay their way

CLAPTON

olly300 wrote: »

One issue not mentioned here but discussed in many places some employers deliberately don't allow people to do more than a minimum number of hours due to employers NI.

They also ensure their workers hours are just irregular enough so that the workers cannot get a second job.

So yes big biz is very cleverly using the state to subsidise them.

If this is significant then the NI rules ought to be changed.

dori2o

CLAPTON wrote: »

Why wouldn't some-one with a job in Manchester live in Manchester rather than Liverpool; is the price of housing too high there?


As far as London housing is concerned I think it is a wonderful idea for the rest of the UK to pay massive amount of tax to build housing for Londers who will then live for life in heavily subsidised housing.

It's nothing more than an example.

It seems well off Londoners are demanding those with low incomes be banished from the more expensive parts due to HB/CT benefit claims etc, despite the fact these people work in those areas. But how far is it reasonable to travel for someone on NMW to get to work. 20miles, 30 miles.

I also expect travel costs are more expensive, so whilst a season ticket for a 30 mile Journey in the NW is £2800, I cannot imagine the cost in the SE, which put the person working at NMW at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to take home pay, after commuting expenses.

It's far easier for someone on a significant income to be able to commute into work compared to someone on NMW.

As for the housing comment.

Obviously you're one of those who believes nothing exists outside of the SE. Thankfully it does as I would hate to live in such a place.

But a housebuilding program is needed nationwide, not just inside your little bubble, and so taxpayers inside AND outside of London would be paying towards a national housebuilding program.

grizzly1911

atush wrote: »

It was Prisons.

Give them keys.;)

CLAPTON

dori2o wrote: »

It's nothing more than an example.

It seems well off Londoners are demanding those with low incomes be banished from the more expensive parts due to HB/CT benefit claims etc, despite the fact these people work in those areas. But how far is it reasonable to travel for someone on NMW to get to work. 20miles, 30 miles.

I also expect travel costs are more expensive, so whilst a season ticket for a 30 mile Journey in the NW is £2800, I cannot imagine the cost in the SE, which put the person working at NMW at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to take home pay, after commuting expenses.

It's far easier for someone on a significant income to be able to commute into work compared to someone on NMW.

As for the housing comment.

Obviously you're one of those who believes nothing exists outside of the SE. Thankfully it does as I would hate to live in such a place.

But a housebuilding program is needed nationwide, not just inside your little bubble, and so taxpayers inside AND outside of London would be paying towards a national housebuilding program.

For the record I don't live in the SE.

And if have read many of my posts you will know I firmly believe we need to build more houses.


Well off Londoners aren't demanding anything.
Housing benefit was paid from general taxation and was not a charge on council tax.

So all that massive housing benefit to enable poor people to live in places that is off limits to the vast majority of the population, was shared between all the taxpayers of the UK.

grizzly1911

CLAPTON wrote: »

For the record I don't live in the SE.

And if have read many of my posts you will know I firmly believe we need to build more houses.


Well off Londoners aren't demanding anything.
Housing benefit was paid from general taxation and was not a charge on council tax.

So all that massive housing benefit to enable poor people to live in places that is off limits to the vast majority of the population, was shared between all the taxpayers of the UK.

The southerners will argue they pay the vast majority of tax.and that they subsidise those in the north.

N1AK

dori2o wrote: »

The difference is that those who are lucky enough to be HR taxpayers can afford the commuting costs from living further outside the area they work in.

Simply banishing these people from the more expensive parts of London should not be an option.

Are you aware just how crazy it sounds when you suggest that everything's ok because we pay for the unemployed and very low earners to live somewhere that decent earners can't afford because decent earners can afford to spend the money and time to commute

Why shouldn't it be an option? Police officers, nurses, store managers etc can't afford to live there but aren't given any assistance to. I can't afford to fly business all the time, it doesn't mean that I, or the unemployed, are somehow 'banished'.

I'm in favour of building considerably more affordable property in London and also of making London property less attractive to people who aren't primarily buying to live there. But it'll take time and doesn't mean we should keep wasting government money on keeping people in stupidly expensive property in the meanwhile.

N1AK

dori2o wrote: »

It's far easier for someone on a significant income to be able to commute into work compared to someone on NMW.

So what? It's easier for someone with a larger income to do a number of things. If people doing NMW jobs who live in expensive areas of London (or other parts of the UK) at government expense stopped getting a government subsidy then the company would have to increase their wage so they could afford to live nearby or afford to commute; there is no reason why we should be spending government money on subsidising companies paying very low wages.

cotleigh

Loads of people who work in London have to "socially exclude" themselves from anywhere inside zone 4, because they just can't afford the rent, or hope to get the mortgage needed to live there.

So they are "forced" to settle for what they can afford, even if this means a long daily commute.

This is just life. You live where you can afford to live. If you get a better-paid job, maybe you can choose a few more areas to find a home.

No-one says its "social cleansing" if someone earning, say, £30K cannot live in most of inner London.

So why is it seen as such a big deal that someone earning nothing, but receiving support from the taxes of those working people who have to commute from zone 96, maybe can't afford to live in the middle of London either?

I don't get it!

dori2o

N1AK wrote: »

Are you aware just how crazy it sounds when you suggest that everything's ok because we pay for the unemployed and very low earners to live somewhere that decent earners can't afford because decent earners can afford to spend the money and time to commute

Why shouldn't it be an option? Police officers, nurses, store managers etc can't afford to live there but aren't given any assistance to. I can't afford to fly business all the time, it doesn't mean that I, or the unemployed, are somehow 'banished'.

I'm in favour of building considerably more affordable property in London and also of making London property less attractive to people who aren't primarily buying to live there. But it'll take time and doesn't mean we should keep wasting government money on keeping people in stupidly expensive property in the meanwhile.

Actually I have never once mentioned the unemployed, my point is that EMPLOYED people are being forced away from their jobs because of these changes. Many will face having to make the decision on whether or not they can actually afford to work at all with the additional commuting costs moving away will have on them.

CLAPTON

dori2o wrote: »

Actually I have never once mentioned the unemployed, my point is that EMPLOYED people are being forced away from their jobs because of these changes. Many will face having to make the decision on whether or not they can actually afford to work at all with the additional commuting costs moving away will have on them.

How would this work?

A low paid worker would be eligible for a nice low rent flat in Westminster (actual worth say £1million) but unemployed people or employed teachers, policemen, junior doctors, nurses, electricians, water workers, mechanics, office workers, builders, plumbers etc would not qualify.

Now if the low paid worker lost their job and became unemployed or became a teacher, policeman, nurse etc presumably they would keep their £1million property for the rest of their life.

Now I wonder if I was a young person wanting to live in London, whether I might consider it worthwhile being a low paid worker for a while.................