'A Life Without WORK'

[Daren W]

The thing is the system is so fu cked that some people actually are better off not working. I have an ex, she works part time and get income support of £90 a week and because she works part time she pays nothing in council rent. She'd be worse off working full time...

For the life of me I can't see why I should be working full time, paying bills etc whilst some people milk the system and get everything given to them...

[bridge too far]

Sometimes I wonder if we come at this from the wrong angle?

 

What happens at the moment is that some people get 'benefits' (misnomer if ever there was one) because their wages are so low or because, frankly, they're better off not working.

 

These benefits are funded by those of us who pay tax and NI.

 

So, in effect, we, the tax payers, are subsidising employers who pay low wages. Those employers are the ones taking us for a ride, not the claimants (with some exceptions, but in the minority I would suggest).

 

Let's say you work a 48 hour week @ £6 per hour (maximum hours / minimum wage allowed). That equates to £288 a week or £1250 a month gross. In this area (and probably a lot of the south east) you'd probably be paying c£600 rent for a 2 bed flat. That leaves £600 a month for food, clothes, travel to work let alone personal items such as presents etc. for your children, council tax, TV licence, fuel bills.

 

So you have to be subsidised because you're living at subsistence level. Recent research has suggested OAPs need £15K a year to live on at a basic level and many OAPs live rent free as their mortgages are paid up.

 

So the choice is - who should do the subsidising? The employer or the taxpayer?

[Whitey Grandad]

Sometimes I wonder if we come at this from the wrong angle?

 

What happens at the moment is that some people get 'benefits' (misnomer if ever there was one) because their wages are so low or because, frankly, they're better off not working.

 

These benefits are funded by those of us who pay tax and NI.

 

So, in effect, we, the tax payers, are subsidising employers who pay low wages. Those employers are the ones taking us for a ride, not the claimants (with some exceptions, but in the minority I would suggest).

 

Let's say you work a 48 hour week @ £6 per hour (maximum hours / minimum wage allowed). That equates to £288 a week or £1250 a month gross. In this area (and probably a lot of the south east) you'd probably be paying c£600 rent for a 2 bed flat. That leaves £600 a month for food, clothes, travel to work let alone personal items such as presents etc. for your children, council tax, TV licence, fuel bills.

 

So you have to be subsidised because you're living at subsistence level. Recent research has suggested OAPs need £15K a year to live on at a basic level and many OAPs live rent free as their mortgages are paid up.

 

So the choice is - who should do the subsidising? The employer or the taxpayer?

That's very convoluted logic. Employers will only pay what they have to. If the cost of labour is too high then the product that they offer may be uncompetitive. You cannot force any enterprise to pay more than the operation will bear or there will be no jobs at all. Employers already pay a big wallop directly in NI contributions. Add to that sick pay, maternity pay and all the other job-related benefits and it is quite a considerable sum.

 

It is not the job of an employer to provide jobs.

[bridge too far]

........

 

It is not the job of an employer to provide jobs.

 

Whose job is it then? And an employer can't really be called an employer if s/he doesn't employ!

 

So it's my job to subsidise a company paying crap wages so that it can increase its profits and benefit the owner? Is that what you're saying?

[Whitey Grandad]

Whose job is it then? And an employer can't really be called an employer if s/he doesn't employ!

 

So it's my job to subsidise a company paying crap wages so that it can increase its profits and benefit the owner? Is that what you're saying?

 

The job does not belong to you. The employer offers work for which you will get paid at an agreed rate. The alternative is not to do the work. You are not subsidising the employer unless you are paying them for you to work there.

[bridge too far]

The job does not belong to you. The employer offers work for which you will get paid at an agreed rate. The alternative is not to do the work. You are not subsidising the employer unless you are paying them for you to work there.

 

But I AM subsidising the employer if the rates of pay are so low that I, the taxpayer, have to fork out for benefits for the employee.

[Sheaf Saint]

Again, good on them. Sorry but I really don't see what I've said in my post than conflicts anywhere with what you've posted? Those content with a job that provides a good work life balance that may not pay as well as other jobs good luck to them. However I have a problem with those that moan about their pay without ever doing anything about it, or moan they are better than their boss, again, without ever doing anything about it.

 

Apologies Jackanory, I must have missed the crux of your argument. I assumed that your lazy scum accusation was aimed at anybody who doesn't spend their whole careers trying to get ahead and is happy to sit back on a low(ish) wage. In my experience, although these people are honest and hard-working, they are the ones that get shat on the most in times of austerity and so they often complain, with some justification, that they are being hard done by.

Edited 1 November, 2010 by Sheaf Saint

[Whitey Grandad]

But I AM subsidising the employer if the rates of pay are so low that I, the taxpayer, have to fork out for benefits for the employee.

 

But the employer does not receive the money, and if they had to pay more there would not be a job anyway. You are not subsidising the employer, you (we) are subsidising the individual person.

[bridge too far]

But the employer does not receive the money, and if they had to pay more there would not be a job anyway. You are not subsidising the employer, you (we) are subsidising the individual person.

 

Exactly - the employer doesn't receive the money, the individual does. But IF the employer was legally obliged to pay a respectable wage (more than the minimum wage), the taxpayer wouldn't have to stump up for benefits. All the time benefits are available, there is no real incentive for an employer to pay more than the minimum for unskilled work.

 

It's a bit disingenuous to suggest there would be no jobs if employers had to pay more. If there weren't the jobs, because the employer wasn't prepared to pay more, there wouldn't be the production of goods to sell and the employer would cease to exist!

 

Think of the millions in administration that could be saved if there was no need for benefits!

[franny]

Exactly - the employer doesn't receive the money, the individual does. But IF the employer was legally obliged to pay a respectable wage (more than the minimum wage), the taxpayer wouldn't have to stump up for benefits. All the time benefits are available, there is no real incentive for an employer to pay more than the minimum for unskilled work.

 

It's a bit disingenuous to suggest there would be no jobs if employers had to pay more. If there weren't the jobs, because the employer wasn't prepared to pay more, there wouldn't be the production of goods to sell and the employer would cease to exist!

 

Think of the millions in administration that could be saved if there was no need for benefits!

 

I would accept some may be able to pay more but lets assume for one moment that your proposal was the right way forward, what happens to that business when it pays the new minimum wage (should that be set by region?) and then folds becasue costs outstrip income (fishy friends not included in this example of course). All jobs lost to competitors possibly overseas and people now receing 100% of income from the state.

[Fuengirola Saint]

I would accept some may be able to pay more but lets assume for one moment that your proposal was the right way forward, what happens to that business when it pays the new minimum wage (should that be set by region?) and then folds becasue costs outstrip income (fishy friends not included in this example of course). All jobs lost to competitors possibly overseas and people now receing 100% of income from the state.

 

So what you are telling me is that Capitalism in Britain doesn't work if the state has to stump up the rest of a persons income, Lets see if we can come up with an alternative system, lets have everyones ideas be they right wing, left wing or whatever, because its obvious the system is broke.

[dune]

So what you are telling me is that Capitalism in Britain doesn't work if the state has to stump up the rest of a persons income, Lets see if we can come up with an alternative system, lets have everyones ideas be they right wing, left wing or whatever, because its obvious the system is broke.

 

The system isn't broke, but idiots like Gordon Brown who preached debt as a good thing, have caused a set back. If and when we can get back to a basic principle of saving and investing instead of borrowing we'll be fine.

[Johnny Bognor]

I would accept some may be able to pay more but lets assume for one moment that your proposal was the right way forward, what happens to that business when it pays the new minimum wage (should that be set by region?) and then folds becasue costs outstrip income (fishy friends not included in this example of course). All jobs lost to competitors possibly overseas and people now receing 100% of income from the state.

 

Offset the increased employment costs with a reduction in employers NI?

 

Say I employ an extra 9 people on £10 per hour, the employers NI would be £9.90 per hour. So it means that for every 9 people taken into work, I have to pay for 10 in effect. So an employer reduces the burden on the state and has to pay more for the privilege - how is that fair? Surely if the private sector is to take up the slack more could be done to reduce the burden and pass more back to the employee. So increase the min wage and reduce empoyers NI.

 

Everyone is a winner......the employee earns more and people are attracted back into work; the burden on the state is reduced whilst the employer doesn't get royally screwed.

 

You see, some of you may disagree with my views, but you and I know this country would be far better off if I was running it.

Edited 1 November, 2010 by Johnny Bognor

[hamster]

Capitalism, socialism, communism, ism, ism sim...

 

None of the 'systems' work, we all know that. But in recent decades now I will accept that we got closer to synergy across the 'classes' then perhaps ever before. Trouble is,it was all a con for many amongst us and although we nearly all had our day in the sun, capitalists now blame socialists for the majority of the mess.

 

Truth of the matter is (and I am only just starting to get my head around this theory) there are a certain 'class' of people who are turning the middle and lower classes against each other.

 

Just because we appear to be poles apart, we really are not, we actually need to unite and fight the invisible system that is controlling us, we all know what's really going on but perhapos it's the fact that it makes us all impotent that brings out the pack mentality?

[bridge too far]

A book I intend to read shortly:

 

http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/why/evidence

 

The topic has come to the fore quite a lot recently - I think the notion that more equal societies produce happier people was even mentioned on a recent QI!

[Johnny Bognor]

Capitalism, socialism, communism, ism, ism sim...

 

None of the 'systems' work, we all know that. But in recent decades now I will accept that we got closer to synergy across the 'classes' then perhaps ever before. ?

 

 

You make a valid point in that none of the systems work perfectly in isolation, it is all about the mix of the isms. Too much socialism, you end up broke. Too much capitalism and you are morally broke, so a balance has to be found. From your choice of isms above, I would like to try the "ism sim..." approach, it's got to be worth a go hasn't it?

[Whitey Grandad]

Exactly - the employer doesn't receive the money, the individual does. But IF the employer was legally obliged to pay a respectable wage (more than the minimum wage), the taxpayer wouldn't have to stump up for benefits. All the time benefits are available, there is no real incentive for an employer to pay more than the minimum for unskilled work.

 

It's a bit disingenuous to suggest there would be no jobs if employers had to pay more. If there weren't the jobs, because the employer wasn't prepared to pay more, there wouldn't be the production of goods to sell and the employer would cease to exist!

 

Think of the millions in administration that could be saved if there was no need for benefits!

Not at all, this is fundamental. There is no point producing goods at a price that will not sell. The punters will merely buy those goods from a cheaper supplier. Forcing an employer to pay a higher wage will increase the price of the products and lead to a drop in sales, and in many cases it only takes a small price rise to lead to a complete loss of market.

[Whitey Grandad]

The system isn't broke, but idiots like Gordon Brown who preached debt as a good thing, have caused a set back. If and when we can get back to a basic principle of saving and investing instead of borrowing we'll be fine.

 

This is a fair point, but there has to be a proper balance. What the previous lot did wrong was to pay subsidies and call it 'investment'. 'Investment' in Health, 'investment' in schools, 'investment' in the Police, do me a favour! If a fraction of the money that was poured down the gullets of the public services had been spent on our infrastructure and manufacturing base then at least we would have had something long-lasting and worthwhile for our money.

[Whitey Grandad]

A book I intend to read shortly:

 

http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/why/evidence

 

The topic has come to the fore quite a lot recently - I think the notion that more equal societies produce happier people was even mentioned on a recent QI!

I'm not wishing to get into a political slanging match because as far as I'm concerned they are al pretty much as bad as each other, but the gap between 'rich' and 'poor' has become wider since Tony Blair came to power.

[bridge too far]

I'm not wishing to get into a political slanging match because as far as I'm concerned they are al pretty much as bad as each other, but the gap between 'rich' and 'poor' has become wider since Tony Blair came to power.

 

You're absolutely right and it shames me, as a Labour Party member, to admit that they got it wrong.

 

But I can't see this gap being addressed in the near future - quite the reverse, I imagine.

[hamster]

The prog is on iPlayer for anyone interested:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00vhw4p/A_Life_Without_Work_Episode_1/

 

No question that we are all better off beyond our forefather's wildest dreams but it's the gap and 'blame' for the currect climate that is just as unpalatable as it always has been.

 

I like the Cadbury/Bourneville story myself, it was an experiment or perhaps a rich man's plaything that appeared to work but again only comparatively. We will always need leaders but what seperates the good from the bad is their motivation I would say.

Edited 1 November, 2010 by hamster

[Fuengirola Saint]

This is a fair point, but there has to be a proper balance. What the previous lot did wrong was to pay subsidies and call it 'investment'. 'Investment' in Health, 'investment' in schools, 'investment' in the Police, do me a favour! If a fraction of the money that was poured down the gullets of the public services had been spent on our infrastructure and manufacturing base then at least we would have had something long-lasting and worthwhile for our money.[/quote

 

So let me get this right, you want the government to subsidise employers by paying benefits to low paid workers and government subsidy for manufacturing as well( This by the way i agree with but any government money paid would see the government taking a shareholding in the business as to protect its investment ), I was under the impression that Tories preferred the small state and the free market.

You can't have it both ways, it seems to me that some Tories rail against the big state but willingly use the state for subsidies and bail outs.

[Whitey Grandad]

So let me get this right, you want the government to subsidise employers by paying benefits to low paid workers and government subsidy for manufacturing as well( This by the way i agree with but any government money paid would see the government taking a shareholding in the business as to protect its investment ), I was under the impression that Tories preferred the small state and the free market.

You can't have it both ways, it seems to me that some Tories rail against the big state but willingly use the state for subsidies and bail outs.

This is an absolutely crazy suggestion. How can that possibly be a subsidy? The employer does not get the money. I was talking about investing in roads, rail, regional airports, bridges, and not discouraging small businesses by taxing them when they invest in new machinery. The extra money spent on the Health Service has almost all been wasted. And before anybody starts, you do not subsidise an activity by not taxing it. You might just as well say that the government is subsidising the air that you breathe by not charging you for it.

[bridge too far]

Let's look at an imaginary case. There is a company making cardboard boxes. They need people to work in the factory. They could either

 

a) pay them a dignified wage of (let's say) £8 an hour which should just about be enough for the worker to live on without recourse to receiving 'benefits'.

 

b) pay them the minimum wage (or less, as some seem to do even though that's illegal) and get the state (i.e. you and me, the taxpayer) to make up the difference in the form of benefits.

 

What is that, if not a subsidy? We, the taxpayers, are shelling out to ensure everyone has enough to live on. The employer isn't. So we are, in effect, subsidising that company.

 

Let alone the huge benefit to the worker of having the dignity of having enough to live on.

[CB Saint]

Let's look at an imaginary case. There is a company making cardboard boxes. They need people to work in the factory. They could either

 

a) pay them a dignified wage of (let's say) £8 an hour which should just about be enough for the worker to live on without recourse to receiving 'benefits'.

 

b) pay them the minimum wage (or less, as some seem to do even though that's illegal) and get the state (i.e. you and me, the taxpayer) to make up the difference in the form of benefits.

 

What is that, if not a subsidy? We, the taxpayers, are shelling out to ensure everyone has enough to live on. The employer isn't. So we are, in effect, subsidising that company.

 

Let alone the huge benefit to the worker of having the dignity of having enough to live on.

 

If they went down the "a" path then they would have to increase their prices by 30% thus making them uncompetative and eventually going out of business which result in even more benfits payments required.

 

Or, assuming that the market could stand the price rise, the additional cost would eventually work is way through the supply chain until it was picked up by the consumer, you and me, aka "the taxpayer".

 

Whatever way you package it the man in the street will pay for it eventually.

[Stuntman Mike]

I haven't worked since I inherited lots of money years ago. I am agoraphobic though, so I just stay indoors drinking tea and winding up my ginger housemate.

 

Come on Matthew, the world isn't full of slime monkeys and pavement gremlins. Besides, you're a double-hard ba*tard aren't you?

[bridge too far]

If they went down the "a" path then they would have to increase their prices by 30% thus making them uncompetative and eventually going out of business which result in even more benfits payments required.

 

Or, assuming that the market could stand the price rise, the additional cost would eventually work is way through the supply chain until it was picked up by the consumer, you and me, aka "the taxpayer".

 

Whatever way you package it the man in the street will pay for it eventually.

 

Well - we pay for the goods anyway don't we? I'd rather pay extra for goods knowing that those who made said goods were receiving a dignified wage. A bit like paying for fair trade coffee and bananas. And life would be far less complicated than all the means testing and benefit paying.

[Whitey Grandad]

Let's look at an imaginary case. There is a company making cardboard boxes. They need people to work in the factory. They could either

 

a) pay them a dignified wage of (let's say) £8 an hour which should just about be enough for the worker to live on without recourse to receiving 'benefits'.

 

b) pay them the minimum wage (or less, as some seem to do even though that's illegal) and get the state (i.e. you and me, the taxpayer) to make up the difference in the form of benefits.

 

What is that, if not a subsidy? We, the taxpayers, are shelling out to ensure everyone has enough to live on. The employer isn't. So we are, in effect, subsidising that company.

 

Let alone the huge benefit to the worker of having the dignity of having enough to live on.

 

You are making the assumption that there is a great big profit margin on the product. The taxpayer is paying for people to stay at home and sit on their backsides. Who is receiving a subsidy here? The converse of your argument is more cogent. The combination of the minimum wage and the fact that it is more beneficial to stay at home on benefits means that prospective employers cannot find workers willing to do their work.

[Whitey Grandad]

Well - we pay for the goods anyway don't we? I'd rather pay extra for goods knowing that those who made said goods were receiving a dignified wage. A bit like paying for fair trade coffee and bananas. And life would be far less complicated than all the means testing and benefit paying.

 

But what about exports? You may be willing to pay more but the rest of the world isn't.

[Fuengirola Saint]

You are making the assumption that there is a great big profit margin on the product. The taxpayer is paying for people to stay at home and sit on their backsides. Who is receiving a subsidy here? The converse of your argument is more cogent. The combination of the minimum wage and the fact that it is more beneficial to stay at home on benefits means that prospective employers cannot find workers willing to do their work.

 

So what do we do about it then? As i said before Capitalism in this country doesn't work because the employers cannot afford to pay enough for people to live on,The big bad State has to pay from taxation, benefits like income support to people just so they can live.

I agree with tax incentives for investment in businesses but don't you think that some employers use the excuse that they can't afford to pay more knowing the government will pick up the pieces? Whether the employer gets the money in his hand or not it is still a subsidy, can you not see that? If the government didn't have to shell out on so much income support because of low wages the money could be spent elsewhere

[Whitey Grandad]

So what do we do about it then? As i said before Capitalism in this country doesn't work because the employers cannot afford to pay enough for people to live on,The big bad State has to pay from taxation, benefits like income support to people just so they can live.

I agree with tax incentives for investment in businesses but don't you think that some employers use the excuse that they can't afford to pay more knowing the government will pick up the pieces? Whether the employer gets the money in his hand or not it is still a subsidy, can you not see that? If the government didn't have to shell out on so much income support because of low wages the money could be spent elsewhere

It's the employee that gets the money. What would happen if the government (we taxpayers) did not pay this money? The workers would stay at home and expect their 'benefits' anyway. This is the part that is wrong. I agree, it is crazy to tax people with one hand and then give them money back from the State with the other. The same applies to all these so-called 'tax-credits'.