We all pay your benefits

CLAPTON

grizzly1911 wrote: »

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?

where did they live in the 90s?

remember HB subsidised evil landlords

WTC subsidise evil capitalists

all these absurdities have unintended consequences

CLAPTON

rabbit_burrow wrote: »

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).

give me strength!

Generali

CLAPTON wrote: »

where did they live in the 90s?

remember HB subsidised evil landlords

WTC subsidise evil capitalists

all these absurdities have unintended consequences

You're not the first person to think so:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speenhamland_system

The Poor Law Commissioners' Report of 1834 called the Speenhamland System a "universal system of pauperism". The system allowed employers, including farmers and the nascent industrialists of the town, to pay below subsistence wages, because the parish would make up the difference and keep their workers alive. So the workers' low income was unchanged and the poor rate contributors subsidised the farmers.

The Poor Law Commissioners' Report was an investigation into the relief of poverty which lead to the universal use of the workhouse as the only prescribed method of poor relief for the 'able bodied poor'.

rabbit_burrow

CLAPTON wrote: »

where did they live in the 90s? 1.

remember HB subsidised evil landlords 2.

WTC subsidise evil capitalists

all these absurdities have unintended consequences

1. In accommodation that was far cheaper than today


2. It isn't just housing that has gone up though is it? If people are on lower wages than NMW, yes their rent would be covered, but not mortgages, food, utilities etc

rabbit_burrow

CLAPTON wrote: »

give me strength!

I don't think it's strength that you need;)

CLAPTON

rabbit_burrow wrote: »

1. In accommodation that was far cheaper than today


2. It isn't just housing that has gone up though is it? If people are on lower wages than NMW, yes their rent would be covered, but not mortgages, food, utilities etc

rents are high because of HB

wages would be higher as people wouldn't be prepared to work for less if WTCs weren't available to top their wages up

strength is what I need.

rabbit_burrow

Eh? Rents are high because mortgages are high because house prices are high.

HB has nothing to do with that

rabbit_burrow

In fact, private landlords do not usually take on tenants that are 'DSS' which they take to mean anyone on HB/JSA/ESA etc.

rabbit_burrow

CLAPTON wrote: »

rents are high because of HB

wages would be higher as people wouldn't be prepared to work for less if WTCs weren't available to top their wages up

strength is what I need.

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.

CLAPTON

rabbit_burrow wrote: »

In fact, private landlords do not usually take on tenants that are 'DSS' which they take to mean anyone on HB/JSA/ESA etc.

evidence ?????????????????