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.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. 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!
We all pay your benefits
Comments
-
Slightly different but still in keeping with the thread, the minimum wage creates an artificial jobs market, encouraging employers to take on staff on minimum wage knowing the state will top up wages to a living wage.grizzly1911 wrote: »On the basis many have a massive debt assigned to them by the government, which will be written off at tax payer expense if they don't get a reasonably well paid job, it would be nice to think that they could repay some of it at least.
The government could of course be honest and admit we don't really need all these degrees and the associated debt and that we should be content to earn the NMW or a bit more a LW. That would of course give them an alternative headache in how to keep many towns and cities going that rely on the student dollar to stay alive.Thankyou Sir Alex for 26 years0 -
Slightly different but still in keeping with the thread, the minimum wage creates an artificial jobs market, encouraging employers to take on staff on minimum wage knowing the state will top up wages to a living wage.
one would have thought that it is the working tax credits that is at fault there although freezing the minimum wage may well help create more jobs.0 -
one would have thought that it is the working tax credits that is at fault there although freezing the minimum wage may well help create more jobs.
How would that help the exchequer?"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
one would have thought that it is the working tax credits that is at fault there although freezing the minimum wage may well help create more jobs.
It might create jobs, but at the taxpayers expense, personally I would like to see an increase in the minimum wage, if an employer cannot compete without the taxpayer subsidising his workforce than perhaps he is in the wrong business.Thankyou Sir Alex for 26 years0 -
It might create jobs, but at the taxpayers expense, personally I would like to see an increase in the minimum wage, if an employer cannot compete without the taxpayer subsidising his workforce than perhaps he is in the wrong business.
I'm saying the problem is with working tax credits: to be clear they should be massively scaled down or scrapped all together
A lower minimum wage would encourage more employers to take on new staff.0 -
Surely an increase in minimum wage would go some way to reducing WTC.I'm saying the problem is with working tax credits: to be clear they should be massively scaled down or scrapped all together
A lower minimum wage would encourage more employers to take on new staff.Thankyou Sir Alex for 26 years0 -
Remove WTC, Reduce minimum wage. Employment, of a sort, goes up at lower wage rate. It will probably also drag other wages down.
Is the cost of living suddenly going to fall away at the same time? Will this reduce the cost of necessary imports?
How will these newly employed on £3/hr or whatever make ends meet? Where will these people live?"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
I have seen some interesting thoughts on here.
But, whilst we can argue about how much a person gets through the benefit system & that they may not want to work as they receive enough to live on & have spare money at the end of it (not always true, but in some cases yes), where exactly does their benefits go?
Do we all think it disappears into the ether? Or does all their income (like I suspect) get spent on things? Whether that be on cigarettes, alcohol, clothes, sky subscriptions, running a car, telephone etc, does it really matter?
The point is, they get money from the government, and then that money goes back into the economy in whichever form they choose.
Unless people are getting benefits and stockpiling it (which wouldn't happen as once they hit a savings threshold the benefits are withdrawn).
I think that actually, by having a savings cap for those on benefits, the government has very cleverly ensured that what they pay out in benefits actually assists our economy on the whole compared to the person who earns £50k per year, pays their income tax but saves a lot of money towards a (tax-efficient) pension fund, and personal savings and investments.
What does the government gain more from? The person on benefits who can only hold a maximum of £6k in savings so MUST put money into the economy through spending, OR the person who pays some tax & manages to avoid paying tax through a pension fund & has a lovely stockpile savings of £20k plus which the economy doesn't benefit much from?
The only way an economy can move is through people spending. Earners who can freely save large sums of money does not fit that profile. Savings do not keep people in jobs, spending does (retailers/manufacturers/other private sectors/public sector etc)
Now, knowing that, is it any wonder that the government keep people in benefits so easily?
The government may have us fooled into trying to think of benefit claimants as 'bad' or as a 'parasite', but I should think that the government have it very cleverly planned. By demonising claimants, they look less attractive to prospective employers, meaning that they stay as claimants and continue to feed our economy so that the high earners can continue to save their thousands and not spend a penny.0 -
I'm saying the problem is with working tax credits: to be clear they should be massively scaled down or scrapped all together
A lower minimum wage would encourage more employers to take on new staff.
So what you're saying is that the single woman/man who works part time, say 20 hours, and can't work more than that due to a disability should not get any working tax credits to assist with their finances? So a disabled person should therefore not be entitled to earn in the same capacity as those who are able to work a few more hours?
WTC are not only for working families, but they are also for people who are disabled (with or without kids).0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards