Benefits Cheats are actually Companies - Apparently.

[moonraker]

If you are not in receipt of Tax credits on which you rely to feed, house and clothe your family its very hard to argue they right should be cut or removed. It is always those that have that want to take away what little those who little have.

[saint si]

The first thing that comes up when you type profit into Google:

"'Profit' A financial benefit that is realized when the amount of revenue gained from a business activity exceeds the expenses, costs and taxes needed to sustain the activity."

 

It's perfectly possible to run a company and break even. Profits are what's left for the owners of the company after all expenses, (i.e. wages & pensions). I'd imagine they typically get spent on luxuries for the tiny minority at the top of the pyramid, speed boats, houses abroad, that type of thing.

 

In the olden days there was also a thing called philanthropy where occasionally wealthy individuals would use their profits for good causes and charitable endeavours. I think Bill Gates is one of the few remaining philanthropists although his company, microsoft, is based in the USA.

 

 

You have no idea who the owners of companies are, do you.

[Hockey_saint]

From the Daily Mail no less. By the way, when I worked on minimum wage, I never claimed tax credits although I know a few people who did. I'm afraid removing them isn't the answer although I would like to see the millionaires who run this government survive on it.

 

Nice to see they're sticking to type however. I never did agree with Nick Clegg except when he said that David Cameron could be worked with but Osborne is an indoctrinated Thatcherite extremist who should be nowhere near the reins of power as most of what he's said is politically motivated and targeted at the left.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3150897/Minimum-wage-DOUBLE-12-hour-families-live-without-tax-credits.html

[Batman]

calling any UK government or any members of it, 'extreme' is just bizarre

[Sour Mash]

Isn't mass immigration partly to blame.

 

Keeping the supply of low to medium workforce high, therefore keeping wages low, whilst driving demand (and therefore cost) of things like housing.

[Hockey_saint]

calling any UK government or any members of it, 'extreme' is just bizarre

 

Depends on your interpretation of "extreme" or whether you'd think he was or not if you became one of his targets.

 

 

I think most of the former workers of industrialised Britain would think anyone who ardently believes in the twisted policies of the milk snatcher of whom her own party toppled because of her views which were most certainly not centre right, but more verging on the far (well, her policies were based on those of Enoch Powell) right.

 

But then, I'm an old fashioned type.

 

*Also, I think you'll find "extremist" is a word a LOT of the right wingers in the tory party call anyone with a whiff of socialistic views these days. So, please, let's not play the blind man here.

Edited 6 July, 2015 by Hockey_saint

[Batman]

Isn't mass immigration partly to blame.

 

Keeping the supply of low to medium workforce high, therefore keeping wages low, whilst driving demand (and therefore cost) of things like housing.

 

You can't say that. You just can't

You run the risk of being called a daily mail reading, bigoted, racist UKIP'er

[Hockey_saint]

You can't say that. You just can't

You run the risk of being called a daily mail reading, bigoted, racist UKIP'er

 

It was Labour policy until Bevan had a change of mind. It is hurting the British workforce and by ignoring this Labour got slaughtered it's a fact whether you are a UKIP voter or not. Ironically, the only people I see benefiting from this are ilk of the current cabinet...Which is rather odd since they want a referendum.

[saint si]

It was Labour policy until Bevan had a change of mind. It is hurting the British workforce and by ignoring this Labour got slaughtered it's a fact whether you are a UKIP voter or not. Ironically, the only people I see benefiting from this are ilk of the current cabinet...Which is rather odd since they want a referendum.

 

Do you have any evidence (scientific, as opposed to anecdotal) to back up the assertion that free movement of labour within the EU has hurt the British workforce?

[Hockey_saint]

Do you have any evidence (scientific, as opposed to anecdotal) to back up the assertion that free movement of labour within the EU has hurt the British workforce?

 

None to hand, idle speculation mostly but it was official labour policy. I would like to see the statistics which backed up labour's official stance back then. But I would suggest that instead of allowing a lot of eastern european migrants to take low paid work, the government should focus on a lot of them who have a lot of highly professional skills to offer but who's qualifications are not seen as equiv here.

[saint si]

OK, so here's some then, a study citing several papers: http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/id/ipa/08041.pdf

 

The econometric evidence on wage impacts is conflicting.

Dustmann et al (2007) argue that immigration had

a slightly positive wage effect, particularly around the

middle distribution. Some researchers have found a small

negative relationship, primarily in the semi-skilled and

unskilled service sector (Blanchflower et al 2008), where

recently arrived A8 workers compete with native workers

further down occupational distribution. However, the

impact that immigration had on wages at the lower end

is modest. On average, real hourly wages increased every

year by 4.25 per cent or 18 pence. Immigration held back

this growth by 0.7 pence (Dustmann et al 2007). Further,

they suggest that this may change over time as A8 migrants

improve their position in the labour market. However,

other work focusing on recent immigration found

a broadly positive impact of new immigration, and no

evidence of a negative effect on wage growth (Gilpin et

al 2006; Portes and French 2005). We should be cautious

about generalising about the effects of migration across

countries, and even across time for the same country.

[Hockey_saint]

OK, so here's some then, a study citing several papers: http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/id/ipa/08041.pdf

 

The econometric evidence on wage impacts is conflicting.

Dustmann et al (2007) argue that immigration had

a slightly positive wage effect, particularly around the

middle distribution. Some researchers have found a small

negative relationship, primarily in the semi-skilled and

unskilled service sector (Blanchflower et al 2008), where

recently arrived A8 workers compete with native workers

further down occupational distribution. However, the

impact that immigration had on wages at the lower end

is modest. On average, real hourly wages increased every

year by 4.25 per cent or 18 pence. Immigration held back

this growth by 0.7 pence (Dustmann et al 2007). Further,

they suggest that this may change over time as A8 migrants

improve their position in the labour market. However,

other work focusing on recent immigration found

a broadly positive impact of new immigration, and no

evidence of a negative effect on wage growth (Gilpin et

al 2006; Portes and French 2005). We should be cautious

about generalising about the effects of migration across

countries, and even across time for the same country.

 

Sounds about right to be fair. I just look at the streets of places like Shirley Warren and think "this can't be helping the lower end". It is very much like the Mexican situation in the US I suppose. Unfortunately, articles like this (In the Guardian!) don't help:

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/02/poles-dont-want-immigrants-they-dont-understand-them-dont-like-them

[Sour Mash]

OK, so here's some then, a study citing several papers: http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/id/ipa/08041.pdf

 

The econometric evidence on wage impacts is conflicting.

Dustmann et al (2007) argue that immigration had

a slightly positive wage effect, particularly around the

middle distribution. Some researchers have found a small

negative relationship, primarily in the semi-skilled and

unskilled service sector (Blanchflower et al 2008), where

recently arrived A8 workers compete with native workers

further down occupational distribution. However, the

impact that immigration had on wages at the lower end

is modest. On average, real hourly wages increased every

year by 4.25 per cent or 18 pence. Immigration held back

this growth by 0.7 pence (Dustmann et al 2007). Further,

they suggest that this may change over time as A8 migrants

improve their position in the labour market. However,

other work focusing on recent immigration found

a broadly positive impact of new immigration, and no

evidence of a negative effect on wage growth (Gilpin et

al 2006; Portes and French 2005). We should be cautious

about generalising about the effects of migration across

countries, and even across time for the same country.

 

Hard to not consider that paper biased, based on who produced it, but I'll happily have a full read through it when I get the chance.

 

Does it say anything re the impact on the cost of housing?

[Lord Duckhunter]

Do you have any evidence (scientific, as opposed to anecdotal) to back up the assertion that free movement of labour within the EU has hurt the British workforce?

 

What a load of old pony . " Scientific" evidence. There is no evidence either way no matter how many phoney " studies citing various papers " . The only facts are where we are now, the only truth is what we're living because there's no way of proving or disproving any other theory.

 

The fact is we have a low wage economy with many many people not earning a living wage. Some people think increasing the supply of low skilled labour surpressed wages at the bottom end of the market. Its not provable or disprovable it is just an opinion. However I've yet to meet anyone who thinks increasing the supply of labour makes companies increase salaries. If that's the case maybe we should let Turkey join the EU , open our doors to millions of them and watch the wages of our poorest rocket upwards.

[st alex]

Isn't mass immigration partly to blame.

 

Keeping the supply of low to medium workforce high, therefore keeping wages low, whilst driving demand (and therefore cost) of things like housing.

 

Maybe immigration's not to blame for everything? Can't there be a debate in the lounge that doesn't descend into an immigration debate. If you want to say that they're partly to blame then, then fine that's your opinion. What else is to blame then? Minimum wage too low? Not enough regulation of big employers? You're constantly using immigrants as scapegoats and using them a smokescreen instead of debating the real issues as was being done up until this point as you don't want to admit that there might be more important things to address other than some foreign people being aloud to live here.

 

This is a thread about the country's largest private employers paying salaries below the living wage, meaning that the government has to top us those wages. It's quite a major flaw which might be solved by raising the minimum wage and to some extent sorting out the housing market so that it's not continually sky rocketing, making the living wage stretch further and further.

 

Speaking of bad employers I see that amazon is planning to open a distribution centre in Hedge End: http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/13371631.New_Amazon_base_set_to_bring_160_jobs_to_Hampshire/

 

An article about why they're bad from none other than the torygraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/tax/10060229/Amazon-received-more-money-from-UK-grants-than-it-paid-in-corporation-tax.html

 

Also an interesting layman's terms explanation of the housing market here (again with no mention of immigrants):

[Sour Mash]

Maybe immigration's not to blame for everything? Can't there be a debate in the lounge that doesn't descend into an immigration debate. If you want to say that they're partly to blame then, then fine that's your opinion. What else is to blame then? Minimum wage too low? Not enough regulation of big employers? You're constantly using immigrants as scapegoats and using them a smokescreen instead of debating the real issues as was being done up until this point as you don't want to admit that there might be more important things to address other than some foreign people being aloud to live here.

 

This is a thread about the country's largest private employers paying salaries below the living wage, meaning that the government has to top us those wages. It's quite a major flaw which might be solved by raising the minimum wage and to some extent sorting out the housing market so that it's not continually sky rocketing, making the living wage stretch further and further.

 

Speaking of bad employers I see that amazon is planning to open a distribution centre in Hedge End: http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/13371631.New_Amazon_base_set_to_bring_160_jobs_to_Hampshire/

 

An article about why they're bad from none other than the torygraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/tax/10060229/Amazon-received-more-money-from-UK-grants-than-it-paid-in-corporation-tax.html

 

Also an interesting layman's terms explanation of the housing market here (again with no mention of immigrants):

I haven't stopped you debating anything, post about whatever you want and don't get emotional.

[st alex]

I haven't stopped you debating anything, post about whatever you want and don't get emotional.

 

Thought it might be nice to keep the thread on topic, you must have about have a dozen anti-immigration threads already.

[Sour Mash]

Thought it might be nice to keep the thread on topic, you must have about have a dozen anti-immigration threads already.

Post about whatever you want. No-one is going to stop you.

 

My posts are on topic anyway, all the factors are linked.

[solentstars]

Maybe immigration's not to blame for everything? Can't there be a debate in the lounge that doesn't descend into an immigration debate. If you want to say that they're partly to blame then, then fine that's your opinion. What else is to blame then? Minimum wage too low? Not enough regulation of big employers? You're constantly using immigrants as scapegoats and using them a smokescreen instead of debating the real issues as was being done up until this point as you don't want to admit that there might be more important things to address other than some foreign people being aloud to live here.

 

This is a thread about the country's largest private employers paying salaries below the living wage, meaning that the government has to top us those wages. It's quite a major flaw which might be solved by raising the minimum wage and to some extent sorting out the housing market so that it's not continually sky rocketing, making the living wage stretch further and further.

 

Speaking of bad employers I see that amazon is planning to open a distribution centre in Hedge End: http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/13371631.New_Amazon_base_set_to_bring_160_jobs_to_Hampshire/

 

An article about why they're bad from none other than the torygraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/tax/10060229/Amazon-received-more-money-from-UK-grants-than-it-paid-in-corporation-tax.html

 

Also an interesting layman's terms explanation of the housing market here (again with no mention of immigrants):

You got to realise that scapegoating to simple minds works unfortunately,rather than the fact that over a million council houses have been sold off since the 1980s and never replaced and lack of new house builds leading to silly house prices.

[Sour Mash]

You got to realise that scapegoating to simple minds works unfortunately,rather than the fact that over a million council houses have been sold off since the 1980s and never replaced and lack of new house builds leading to silly house prices.

 

So you think we should build new housing for a million people every few years? Simple minded indeed.

[solentstars]

So you think we should build new housing for a million people every few years? Simple minded indeed.

Did I say that I thought I wrote that a million council homes have been sold off and never replaced hence the massive increase in waiting lists for social housing. That's my view but its up to you how you want to view it.

[Sour Mash]

Did I say that I thought I wrote that a million council homes have been sold off and never replaced hence the massive increase in waiting lists for social housing. That's my view but its up to you how you want to view it.

 

So you do think that housing should be built for a million people every couple of years. That's completely impractical and unsustainable.

[toofarnorth]

Isn't mass immigration partly to blame.

 

Keeping the supply of low to medium workforce high, therefore keeping wages low, whilst driving demand (and therefore cost) of things like housing.

 

Housing costs have also been driven by a huge failure to build houses. I acknowledge immigration has had a role to play, but the non-implementation of any policies to help the situation has also been largely to blame.

 

With pro-active policymaking you can get many of the benefits of immigration and limit the negatives = overall positive effect.

[toofarnorth]

So you do think that housing should be built for a million people every couple of years. That's completely impractical and unsustainable.

 

I'm pretty sure he's saying the exact opposite

[solentstars]

So you do think that housing should be built for a million people every couple of years. That's completely impractical and unsustainable.

Oh dear ii looks like you proved my point and I suggest you read the history of housebuilding since 1945 and government actually had a housebuilding programme .I'm surprised you have trouble reading what I actually wrote in my post and putting your own spin on that .being older I actually remember when we had a minster of houseing in government .

[Sour Mash]

Housing costs have also been driven by a huge failure to build houses. I acknowledge immigration has had a role to play, but the non-implementation of any policies to help the situation has also been largely to blame.

 

With pro-active policymaking you can get many of the benefits of immigration and limit the negatives = overall positive effect.

 

But what is the solution then? To build housing for a million or so people every few years?

[Sour Mash]

I'm pretty sure he's saying the exact opposite

 

Fair enough, he's not the easiest of writers to understand.