howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
With all due respect Roger those plans are not the issue Dave has said that 12 Billion must be cut from the welfare budget.
The only way they can really do that is to slash in work benefits i.e working tax credits that will hit the working poor, I believe UKIP would do the same as members I have asked have skirted around it.
Guest 1348- Registered: 20 Sep 2014
- Posts: 276
I am always remind off a news item where a woman was having her hair done in Essex and saying that the benefit she still got even though household income over 40k was hers for treats. This with the fact the average wage is something like 25k and my combined income with wife does not even touch that.
The wage should be like the living wage as a nmw and as other article stated if the base wages go up more money is spent, more goods brought. The money goes from bottom up not top and stays there. There is also the issue of benefits that are paid which enable it to be taken as a living as pays more than working. Like the tax system the welfare system has loop holes and people take advantage of it. Things I would like to see.
1. Working pays more than being on benefit
2. Welfare is for those in need
3. Tax system (corporate as well) as a whole is fair and just
4. Education a cornerstone and provided to 22 including university (or vocational). All in school to 18 then vocational or uni or apprenticeship or work.
5. Universal NMW so that 18 year olds actually earn the same as others. As at present it is just exploitive in my opinion and would show the worth of working.
We can all come up with examples of how things are abused or holes escaped through, but I do think if we got back to where people wanted to work and rewarded for it then it would be a good start. And having education so that there is always a supply of skills.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
Work has to pay a lot more than benefits, it is often the case that wages are too low rather than benefits too high. The coalition made great play when they came to power of lowering the benefits bill, they have failed to do it. The most vulnerable have been hit with the bedroom tax and having benefits taken away for no good reason while those who know how to play the system do well. There is talk of reducing the benefit cap from £26000 to £23000 which is still far too high for those not living in London or the home counties. We have to remember that people have to earn around £35000 at present to get £26000 after tax.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
Absolutely Howard.
The comment I made a couple of yerars ago about the minimun wage being £10.00 per hour can't be far off now.
Roger
Guest 1348- Registered: 20 Sep 2014
- Posts: 276
still £3.50 short of a tenner just had a look and looks like over 21 wages leaving the 18-21 wage band behind, which is a shame, although I remember earning about that 15 years ago (sigh). and it has taken 10 years for over 21/22 nmw to go up by £1.45 so only another 30 years for it to get to £10!!
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
I probably should have said living wage.
Lots of different people/bodies are saying that the cost of the average shop hasn't really gone up much, but wages for the lower paid are just not enough, so there is a good argument for it.
40 hours a week, £10 an hour = £400.00 a week, must help take lots of people out of benefits.
As an aside, I understand there is no one at DDC who is on the minimum wage and as for Ed's talk about zero-hours, I also understand there are many more Labour councils using these zero-hours contracts than others.
Roger
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
This is from the Evening Standard:
"Thousands of Londoners are employed by Labour councils on zero hours contracts that have been criticised by Ed Miliband, it emerged today.
They include 546 people directly employed by Newham — a flagship Labour borough where Mr Miliband made a speech recently attacking the exploitation of casual and agency workers.
Other Labour-run councils that use the controversial contracts, which give people no job security or guaranteed hours, include Tower Hamlets, Brent, Ealing, Merton and Hounslow.
Islington council has advertised for staff on contracts described on a recruitment website as "Zero Hour Contract — As and When Required", although the council says its casual workers all have benefits and rights.
The council said: "In our view, our casual workers are not the same as 'zero hours contracts.' Our casual workers are not exclusive or "on call"; they get holiday pay, sick pay, have access to the pension scheme and have continuous service recognised. We roster weeks or months in advance, most casuals are on fixed work patterns and in the past we have paid maternity and redundancy in line with permanent policies."
The disclosure is embarrassing to Mr Miliband who used a speech at Newham Docklands to criticise such contracts in June."
Roger
Guest 977- Registered: 27 Jun 2013
- Posts: 1,031
He's forgetting that many self-employed people from domestic cleaners through qualified trades to professionals like barristers are effectively on zero hours contracts - if they don't work they don't get paid, and it's only through having a vibrant economy that will allow these people, who make up a significant part of the population and a major contribution to taxes, to benefit.
Milliminor also thinks he's going to solve all the nations debt problems by increasing the rate of the highest income tax band, ignoring the fact that the total take from this band has increased since it was lowered to 45% and to increase it again will be a disincentive that will see the total take fall, not rise.
Interesting contrast between the two campaign adverts regarding business support this week - Labour used three quotes without permission and the businesses being used were unhappy, Conservatives today have support from 100 major business leaders.
Seems to me this election will be about economic competence between Labour and Conservatives (though I hesitate to use economic competence and Labour in the same sentence) and between UKIP and the rest over the undemocratic EU.
Jan Higgins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,658
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/
This letter to the Daily Telegraph was headline news on Sky News this morning.
Ray, I agree with your last paragraph, I put the economy ahead of immigration even though I would prefer tougher border control.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
Good Post Ray, sadly much of the electorate seems to have forgotten (or are in denial) the reasons for the austerity measures - and it wasn't the global economy.
I saw that on the news Jan. Labour's business spokesman dismissed it out of hand.
Roger
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
The popular view is that the reds caused the financial crisis resulting in austerity/spending cuts but the governor of the Bank of England at the time made it crystal clear at the time that the bank bailouts caused it. I would trust his judgement over others.
Guest 977- Registered: 27 Jun 2013
- Posts: 1,031
And who encouraged the banks to get into the situation where they needed a bailout?
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
The change of regulations brought in by the Labour Government in 1997.
Roger
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
The Blues continually espouse deregulation, less heavy hand of government etc but When Gordon Brown does it he gets castigated.
Guest 977- Registered: 27 Jun 2013
- Posts: 1,031
He should have been castigated a long time ago
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
Looking at these comments it seems that Dave, Gordon and those 2 financial whizzkids George Osborne and Ed B*lls are all singing from the same hymn sheet. Look like Gordon was the sap in the wrong place at the wrong time.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9376534/Regulating-the-banks-what-politicians-used-to-say-about-the-City.htmlhoward mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
Looking at these comments it seems that Dave, Gordon and those 2 financial whizzkids George Osborne and Ed B*lls are all singing from the same hymn sheet. Look like Gordon was the sap in the wrong place at the wrong time.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9376534/Regulating-the-banks-what-politicians-used-to-say-about-the-City.htmlhoward mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
Looking at these comments it seems that Dave, Gordon and those 2 financial whizzkids George Osborne and Ed B*lls are all singing from the same hymn sheet. Look like Gordon was the sap in the wrong place at the wrong time.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9376534/Regulating-the-banks-what-politicians-used-to-say-about-the-City.htmlhoward mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
7 candidates about to kick off. will watch some it to get the flavour but because it is still 5 weeks to polling day I doubt if it will influence the way many people vote.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
Fascinating debate and the host did well to quell the expected interruptions.
The way I sawit was that the boss ladies of the SNP and Plaid Cwmru were the most plausible, one nation Ed ran roughsod over Dave and Nick but to be fair the latter pair were on a loser by being incumbents.