We all pay your benefits

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

princeofpounds wrote: »

Savings are not 'trapped'; they provide the funding for investment in productive assets, which is just as much a component of economic growth as consumption. It also creates capital within the economy which continues to provide economic returns.

Only if the transmission mechanism, lending, is not broken.

Which it currently is.

Sampong

Conrad wrote: »

Anyone catch the show about London pick pockets this week?
Romanian guy apprehended - turns out he was a thief in Spain. Copper asked why he's in the UK. Guy replies "I can't get nothing without papers and you can't get papers in Spain, and I need an operation".

Just about sums up soft touch Britian.

SGE1 wrote: »

Funny how people interpret situations differently. I've not see that show, but the first thing that came to my mind was, what a sh*te life having to live on the street (or similar), steal off people, so you can survive and then eventually hope to get medical treatment for something that's obviously serious enough to drive you to that sh*te life in the first place.

Britain vs sick man who needs to steal for a living - unless the operation he needs is a boob job, I know who I feel more sorry for.

Depending on your point of view it's also somewhat unfortunate for the victim of the crime. I'm not sure at what point it becomes the responsibility of an individual to hand over their cash and credit cards to a thief because they need an operation.

In an ideal world of course, the UK would have a magic wand and be able to help every individual in the world who is suffering hardship. Unfortunately that magic wand doesn't exist. Instead we only have the generosity and hospitality of the taxpayer which is a limited resource.

Having said that, if I ever decide to take up a career as a pickpocket, when I eventually get caught I will be sure to tell them I needed to steal for a living and that the victims of my crimes are inconsequential because they can afford to be robbed a couple of times.

CLAPTON

rabbit_burrow wrote: »

Well I can send you my local paper if you like. All the adverts from landlords state "no children, DSS, pets"

well, if indeed people on benefits couldn't get property then they couldn't claim HB and so this would reduce the HB bill; so whyever do we spend 5 billion per year on them?


Anyway do you have a link to the adverts?

kabayiri

CLAPTON wrote: »

A good point

The system is so complicated that is it difficult to see the consequences of changing each part.

I've worked on a few national systems now, and in the end you often feel like you are involved in something which amounts to a low value compromise.

There are usually a number of reasons for this, including
- political compromises weaken the original premise
- concessions create exception conditions within the system
- people learn how to work these exceptional situations to their advantage. That's human nature I guess.
- "tinernet" allows customers to rapidly exchange ideas on how to maximise their use of a system
- inertia : a large system is difficult and slow to change. Customers can adapt much quicker.
- vested interest : there are a large and growing band of professionals who now rely on the existence of these national schemes for their job. They become stakeholders of influence just as much as the customers.

I sometimes wonder whether we should go back to much smaller regional systems, which are allowed to adapt to meet the need of that area.

Generali

rabbit_burrow wrote: »

Sorry, but I don't agree. If wages were higher due to that reason, then employers would be paying out a lot more as EVERY member of staff doing the same job would have to have that rate of pay. This in turn could result in even fewer jobs, and thus more claimants.

In Aus we have a higher minimum wage. On the positive side it means wages aren't subsidised to anything like the same extent. On the negative it contributes to Aussies paying higher prices for many things (second biggest contributor after a lack of price sensitivity amongst Aussie consumers IMHO).

rabbit_burrow

CLAPTON wrote: »

well, if indeed people on benefits couldn't get property then they couldn't claim HB and so this would reduce the HB bill; so whyever do we spend 5 billion per year on them?


Anyway do you have a link to the adverts?

Certainly. Here are a few to start you off with. Feel free to browse around. Quite a lot of listings are for students only at the moment (which isn't surprising with all the new student developments around here now, the private landlords are struggling a bit it seems)

http://thisis.zoopla.co.uk/to-rent/details/29726019?search_identifier=373e57f72dcb6de0ea74c353b6e18d7b
http://www.expertagent.co.uk/EstateAgentSoftware/EstateAgencyProperties.aspx?pid=80b51896-bab9-4b6d-afbc-153fb3a68322&aid={34A7169B-5167-4447-887F-17101D1295D3}
http://content.zoopla.co.uk/5e321b41637eeab1bcc0e44a003130e1d270f3ea.pdf - another favourite of mine, where they reword the "no DSS" spiel by saying "professionals" instead.
http://thisis.zoopla.co.uk/to-rent/details/29550250?search_identifier=1d317163b9177e9654ce7cd0e305d86c - this one adds "no smoking" to the list (understandable)
http://thisis.zoopla.co.uk/to-rent/details/18722710?search_identifier=1d317163b9177e9654ce7cd0e305d86c - changes the word DSS to "lha"
http://www.kirkhamgould.com/propertydet.asp?id=EX43ET&propind=L
http://thisis.zoopla.co.uk/to-rent/details/28879493?search_identifier=1d317163b9177e9654ce7cd0e305d86c - "ideal for professionals only"
http://thisis.zoopla.co.uk/to-rent/details/29074802?search_identifier=1d317163b9177e9654ce7cd0e305d86c

I could continue.

The ones in the paper that are placed by the landlords themselves, I do not have links to I'm afraid, but I'm sure you get the idea.

With regards to the amount of HB being paid (where is the link?) - there will of course be local authority & housing association homes that will be paid by HB (usually the statistics will show the proportion), which would contribute to the figure. Some claimants will also be in private accomodation, there will be those who obtained their private tenancy whilst working, but then found themselves redundant and claiming HB (the agency/landlord wouldn't know as HB is paid to the tenant), and those who were lucky enough to find a private tenancy whilst claiming HB.

rabbit_burrow

Generali wrote: »

In Aus we have a higher minimum wage. On the positive side it means wages aren't subsidised to anything like the same extent. On the negative it contributes to Aussies paying higher prices for many things (second biggest contributor after a lack of price sensitivity amongst Aussie consumers IMHO).

Which is what happens. Businesses have to hike up the prices so that they can afford to pay for staff (high price - more staff, low prices - less staff), so you don't end up any better off really, which is the point.

Meanwhile, whilst the government feed the demonisation of claimants, they can go under the radar whilst increasing their own salaries way above inflation, and still claim expenses. Honestly, if we choose to work away from our homes we have the choice of commuting (paid by ourselves) or relocating (paid for by ourselves).

CLAPTON

rabbit_burrow wrote: »

Which is what happens. Businesses have to hike up the prices so that they can afford to pay for staff (high price - more staff, low prices - less staff), so you don't end up any better off really, which is the point.

Meanwhile, whilst the government feed the demonisation of claimants, they can go under the radar whilst increasing their own salaries way above inflation, and still claim expenses. Honestly, if we choose to work away from our homes we have the choice of commuting (paid by ourselves) or relocating (paid for by ourselves).

we have discovered a new economic principle... the price of labour makes no difference?

personally I doubt it.

rabbit_burrow

CLAPTON wrote: »

we have discovered a new economic principle... the price of labour makes no difference?

personally I doubt it.

The price of labour makes ALL the difference. If labour costs are high then either the business employs less staff and keeps prices low (well, as low as they can - but which means more unemployed, but more affordable stuff and more disposable income), or they employ more staff and have to put up their prices (meaning less unemployed but less disposable income)

CLAPTON

rabbit_burrow wrote: »

The price of labour makes ALL the difference. If labour costs are high then either the business employs less staff and keeps prices low (well, as low as they can - but which means more unemployed, but more affordable stuff and more disposable income), or they employ more staff and have to put up their prices (meaning less unemployed but less disposable income)

Well yes and no.

If the price of labour rises then the businesses will try to introduce better processes to improve efficiency.

So more output for less input.

Businesses that fail to adapt will decline or go out of business.

With the WTC there is less incentive to improve productivity as it is the tax payer that is picking up part of the cost of production.

So better to reduce labour subsidy and allow the market to work its magic.