As has been the case for many employed people. Benefits should match wage inflation not R/CPI. I include NMW in that too.
The coalition are quite clear in their message. Make work pay. It is the countries only hope. Benefit dependency is out of control.
I don't think many people would argue that the benefits system needs reform,but policies that seem to be scribbled down on the back of a **** packet being implemented before it's been trialed or even thought out would serve us all better.
And the lies we are fed on to justify petty and self defeating cuts, such as the bedroom tax, which the vast majority of people knew would end up costing us more, being portrayed as solving the housing crisis and cutting the welfare was just total nonsense.
A building policy would help ease the housing crisis, and invigorate several parts of the economy, and if enough were built , bring down house prices as well.
Headlining the news today with £26,000 CAP ON BENEFITS, gives the gullible the impression, as they knew it would, that claims of that level were the norm, which they aren't.
As has been the case for many employed people. Benefits should match wage inflation not R/CPI. I include NMW in that too.
The coalition are quite clear in their message. Make work pay. It is the countries only hope. Benefit dependency is out of control.
Make work pay, more people on in work benefits because of poor wages, your replaceing low cost out of work benefits, for high rate in work benefits to make people better off in work, more people in work claiming HB than ever before. Untill we have a wage that takes people out of the benefit system then the bill is going to keep going up
Why is it always the poorest in Britain who are getting hit?
Why not? They are contributing the least to the country. In fact most of them are a drain on it. Reducing benefits might encourage the poor to better themselves. It may help fight inflation by increasing the supply of native cheap labour. Giving the poor a leg up by penalising those who have made a success of their life sends the wrong message.
We should try and protect people from destitution but it's more important that we reward and encourage people's successes. Usually we can do both but if push comes to shove I say concentrate on the more valuable members of society. It's a shitty decision to have to make but you'll do more good long term encouraging success than you will keeping people out of the gutter. Yes that harsh and it's horrible that we are in this position but sometimes when you're running from a pack of wolves it makes sense to leave the weak behind.
Why not? They are contributing the least to the country. In fact most of them are a drain on it. Reducing benefits might encourage the poor to better themselves. It may help fight inflation by increasing the supply of native cheap labour. Giving the poor a leg up by penalising those who have made a success of their life sends the wrong message.
We should try and protect people from destitution but it's more important that we reward and encourage people's successes. Usually we can do both but if push comes to shove I say concentrate on the more valuable members of society. It's a shitty decision to have to make but you'll do more good long term encouraging success than you will keeping people out of the gutter. Yes that harsh and it's horrible that we are in this position but sometimes when you're running from a pack of wolves it makes sense to leave the weak behind.
Why not? They are contributing the least to the country. In fact most of them are a drain on it. Reducing benefits might encourage the poor to better themselves. It may help fight inflation by increasing the supply of native cheap labour. Giving the poor a leg up by penalising those who have made a success of their life sends the wrong message.
We should try and protect people from destitution but it's more important that we reward and encourage people's successes. Usually we can do both but if push comes to shove I say concentrate on the more valuable members of society. It's a shitty decision to have to make but you'll do more good long term encouraging success than you will keeping people out of the gutter. Yes that harsh and it's horrible that we are in this position but sometimes when you're running from a pack of wolves it makes sense to leave the weak behind.
A voice of reason. Not sure there are many left to read this post though as they are now mostly off stripping church roofs, peddling drugs and prostituting themselves after reading one headline in the OP link.
As has been the case for many employed people. Benefits should match wage inflation not R/CPI. I include NMW in that too.
The coalition are quite clear in their message. Make work pay. It is the countries only hope. Benefit dependency is out of control.
How is cutting the minimum wage making work pay? If someone's working all hours god sends and still needs benefits to top them up yet STILL are skint, that's not their fault. It's the fault of the tight arse, morally corrupt employer.
Unless we have a revolution. The way things are going it won't be far off.
Dones in the skies, outside your window. Everything you do online is logged and analysed. Your lover might be an undercover cop. Secret courts with secret evidence. Your friends have just enough to lose... and so do you.
Why not? They are contributing the least to the country. In fact most of them are a drain on it. Reducing benefits might encourage the poor to better themselves. It may help fight inflation by increasing the supply of native cheap labour. Giving the poor a leg up by penalising those who have made a success of their life sends the wrong message.
We should try and protect people from destitution but it's more important that we reward and encourage people's successes. Usually we can do both but if push comes to shove I say concentrate on the more valuable members of society. It's a shitty decision to have to make but you'll do more good long term encouraging success than you will keeping people out of the gutter. Yes that harsh and it's horrible that we are in this position but sometimes when you're running from a pack of wolves it makes sense to leave the weak behind.
So scrap welfare, the minimum wage and people have to work for 75p an hour (a wage boasted by an MP in a parliamentary debate before on the abolition of the minimum wage). How does someone live on £30 a week?
And that bit in bold, are we advocating that we should abolish humanity in society? The UN might not like it, we're a signatory of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Why not? They are contributing the least to the country. In fact most of them are a drain on it. Reducing benefits might encourage the poor to better themselves. It may help fight inflation by increasing the supply of native cheap labour. Giving the poor a leg up by penalising those who have made a success of their life sends the wrong message.
We should try and protect people from destitution but it's more important that we reward and encourage people's successes. Usually we can do both but if push comes to shove I say concentrate on the more valuable members of society. It's a shitty decision to have to make but you'll do more good long term encouraging success than you will keeping people out of the gutter. Yes that harsh and it's horrible that we are in this position but sometimes when you're running from a pack of wolves it makes sense to leave the weak behind.
That last sentence is pretty disgusting, as has been said the deficit could be cleared by a minute amount of high earners in this country, without affecting their bulbous bank balance.
Hardly comparable to a life or death situation. I'm a taxpayer and want JSA for young and for single people increased, because I have a conscience.
The problem is not the people who are at the bottom of a company, on the shop floor it the MD and mangers are failing they are not out there selling the company and working hard enough, they should be cutting there wages and bonus to the bone just like they have done to the workforce, they dont need a new car every year, and 4 holidays year if they cannot.The workforce can only make the goods if the people at the top dont get there fingers out of there arses, and do the job there being paid to do
How is cutting the minimum wage making work pay? If someone's working all hours god sends and still needs benefits to top them up yet STILL are skint, that's not their fault. It's the fault of the tight arse, morally corrupt employer.
They get £12,000 before overtime. Of which £10,000 is tax free as of next year.
After cutting benefits, government sharpens knife and prepares to SLASH minimum wage.
......and from reading through the link in OP's post, I cannot see anything which says Government are "preparing to slash the minimum wage."
In fact the article in the link states the absolute opposite.
Number 10 insisted the wage will not be cut, but could not give assurances on whether it will be frozen. One source said: “We are not going to cut the minimum wage.”
Why not? They are contributing the least to the country. In fact most of them are a drain on it. Reducing benefits might encourage the poor to better themselves. It may help fight inflation by increasing the supply of native cheap labour. Giving the poor a leg up by penalising those who have made a success of their life sends the wrong message.
We should try and protect people from destitution but it's more important that we reward and encourage people's successes. Usually we can do both but if push comes to shove I say concentrate on the more valuable members of society. It's a shitty decision to have to make but you'll do more good long term encouraging success than you will keeping people out of the gutter. Yes that harsh and it's horrible that we are in this position but sometimes when you're running from a pack of wolves it makes sense to leave the weak behind.
And do you think people would put up with it, and just sit down and die
I'm quoting the OP's header..........and from reading through the link in OP's post, I cannot see anything which says Government are "preparing to slash the minimum wage."
In fact the article in the link states the absolute opposite.
I'll quote something else which is in the exact same article:
The minimum wage will not be cut this year, senior Government sources say.
A voice of reason. Not sure there are many left to read this post though as they are now mostly off stripping church roofs, peddling drugs and prostituting themselves after reading one headline in the OP link.
'...it makes sense to leave the weak behind.'
Exactly whose voice of reason is that, Ian Brady's?
You do get the impression that most people have read the OP, but not the links which state there are no plans to reduce the minimum wage.
Any increase which is below that of inflation will be a real terms cut. And the article only confirms no cut for this year. Very different from no cut indefinitely.
Comments
so why aren't they raising the minimum wage ?
that would help make work pay and save the taxpayer money on the payroll subsidy given to employers in the form of topping up their wage bill
And the lies we are fed on to justify petty and self defeating cuts, such as the bedroom tax, which the vast majority of people knew would end up costing us more, being portrayed as solving the housing crisis and cutting the welfare was just total nonsense.
A building policy would help ease the housing crisis, and invigorate several parts of the economy, and if enough were built , bring down house prices as well.
Headlining the news today with £26,000 CAP ON BENEFITS, gives the gullible the impression, as they knew it would, that claims of that level were the norm, which they aren't.
Make work pay, more people on in work benefits because of poor wages, your replaceing low cost out of work benefits, for high rate in work benefits to make people better off in work, more people in work claiming HB than ever before. Untill we have a wage that takes people out of the benefit system then the bill is going to keep going up
reduce the corporation tax for doing this
Then work pays, so insted of £6.63 hr, you get £7.85 hr made up of employers wage, plus tax credit allowance
And in 2015 osbourne will announce a benifit cap of £20,000, see where im going with this
We should try and protect people from destitution but it's more important that we reward and encourage people's successes. Usually we can do both but if push comes to shove I say concentrate on the more valuable members of society. It's a shitty decision to have to make but you'll do more good long term encouraging success than you will keeping people out of the gutter. Yes that harsh and it's horrible that we are in this position but sometimes when you're running from a pack of wolves it makes sense to leave the weak behind.
Unless we have a revolution. The way things are going it won't be far off.
Since when was the minimum wage a 'benefit'
A voice of reason. Not sure there are many left to read this post though as they are now mostly off stripping church roofs, peddling drugs and prostituting themselves after reading one headline in the OP link.
How is cutting the minimum wage making work pay? If someone's working all hours god sends and still needs benefits to top them up yet STILL are skint, that's not their fault. It's the fault of the tight arse, morally corrupt employer.
Dones in the skies, outside your window. Everything you do online is logged and analysed. Your lover might be an undercover cop. Secret courts with secret evidence. Your friends have just enough to lose... and so do you.
And that bit in bold, are we advocating that we should abolish humanity in society? The UN might not like it, we're a signatory of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
That last sentence is pretty disgusting, as has been said the deficit could be cleared by a minute amount of high earners in this country, without affecting their bulbous bank balance.
Hardly comparable to a life or death situation. I'm a taxpayer and want JSA for young and for single people increased, because I have a conscience.
They get £12,000 before overtime. Of which £10,000 is tax free as of next year.
That is more than adequate as a minimum wage.
In fact the article in the link states the absolute opposite.
And do you think people would put up with it, and just sit down and die
I'll be a wage slave by day, prostitute by night...
The Government has left me no choice.
'...it makes sense to leave the weak behind.'
Exactly whose voice of reason is that, Ian Brady's?
I think they would like it.
conservatives together evil forever.