Yes but members of all unions are the ordinary men and women on the street,just like you and me, well presuming you're not Royalty or something
I understand that union members are also people. i'm not retarded.
lets go back a step: imagine i said the royal institute of chartered surveyors exists to promote the interests of it's members to the detriment of the rest of us. you'd understand that right? 'the rest of us' would be a reference to those of us who are not in the royal institute of chartered surveyors.
would you be telling me that members of the royal institute of chartered surveyors are ordinary men and women on the street just like me and you?
you are inferring something i'm not saying. i'm not saying, nor have i implied that there is any difference between members of a particular union and anyone else save the fact that they are in that particular union.
I understand that union members are also people. i'm not retarded.
lets go back a step: imagine i said the royal institute of chartered surveyors exists to promote the interests of it's members to the detriment of the rest of us. you'd understand that right? 'the rest of us' would be a reference to those of us who are not in the royal institute of chartered surveyors.
would you be telling me that members of the royal institute of chartered surveyors are ordinary men and women on the street just like me and you?
you are inferring something i'm not saying. i'm not saying, nor have i implied that there is any difference between members of a particular union and anyone else save the fact that they are in that particular union.
Well if members of the royal institute of chartered surveyors have to go on strike to get a decent wage and working conditions then yes. If they don't then they a a step apart from people who are members of a union who have to fight for everything they get.
Well if members of the royal institute of chartered surveyors have to go on strike to get a decent wage and working conditions then yes. If they don't then they a a step apart from people who are members of a union who have to fight for everything they get.
Sorry did i say the royal institute of chartered surveyors? i meant the oxford university start trek appreciation society.
lets go back a step:
imagine i said the oxford university start trek appreciation society exists to promote the interests of it's members to the detriment of the rest of us. you'd understand that right? 'the rest of us' would be a reference to those of us who are not in the oxford university start trek appreciation society.
would you be telling me that members of the oxford university start trek appreciation society are ordinary men and women on the street just like me and you?
Sorry did i say the royal institute of chartered surveyors? i meant the oxford university start trek appreciation society.
lets go back a step:
imagine i said the oxford university start trek appreciation society exists to promote the interests of it's members to the detriment of the rest of us. you'd understand that right? 'the rest of us' would be a reference to those of us who are not in the oxford university start trek appreciation society.
would you be telling me that members of the oxford university start trek appreciation society are ordinary men and women on the street just like me and you?
are you claiming to have mentioned the same organisation in two different post by mistake, or have you just moved the goal post ;-)
are you claiming to have mentioned the same organisation in two different post by mistake, or have you just moved the goal post ;-)
again i've made a mistake. sorry. i meant the rhondda valley male voice choir.
lets go back a step:
imagine i said the rhondda valley male voice choir exists to promote the interests of it's members to the detriment of the rest of us. you'd understand that right? 'the rest of us' would be a reference to those of us who are not in the rhondda valley male voice choir.
would you be telling me that members of the rhondda valley male voice choir are ordinary men and women on the street just like me and you?
again i've made a mistake. sorry. i meant the rhondda valley male voice choir.
lets go back a step:
imagine i said the rhondda valley male voice choir exists to promote the interests of it's members to the detriment of the rest of us. you'd understand that right? 'the rest of us' would be a reference to those of us who are not in the rhondda valley male voice choir.
would you be telling me that members of the rhondda valley male voice choir are ordinary men and women on the street just like me and you?
Lets say you're trying to bait and/or wind me up and leave it at that ;-)
Lets say you're trying to bait and/or wind me up and leave it at that ;-)
I'm not at all.
i'm trying to make the point using a generic club or society. but everyone one i use you focus on that specifically rather than understanding my point.
i made a point about unions looking after their members interests only to the exclusion of the rest of us.
Are union members somehow different to ordinary members of the public or are "the rest of us" not the same as ordinary members of the public ?
which i have been trying to understand ever since, because obviously i understand that union members are also members of the public. and equally the term 'rest of us' was referring to those that are not in that specific union.
One source said the news that wages are now outstripping inflation has ‘kicked out the stool’ from under Labour.
If you have had to absorb inflation during a 4 year pay freeze I am guessing you will end up feeling pretty miserable. If at the start of the 5th year you discover that a pay rise will match current inflation, I think it would be fair to say that nothing has changed - you are still feeling the effects of the long pay freeze and you are now standing still.
But are those freezes based on gross pay or net pay? Remember the basic rate of income tax threshold has risen by £4000 in the last four years. Therefore if someone had been earning £10500 in 2010, even without a pay rise since then, they would be £800 a year better off - or just under 8%.
How does a "poor old 'hard working' tax payer" (reach for the violin, Agnes) subsidise millionaires?
Sorry probably a bit too crptic, as we are constantly told that the 'hard working' tax payer objects to subsidising the welfare/benefits system (until they might need it of course) and the reasons for this objection is down to the brilliant propaganda campaign by the Tories and their chums in the right wing press, who have managed to convince huge numbers of the herd that the overwhelming majority of benefit claimants are "work-shy scroungers" all of them "exploiting the benefits system" because they "want something for nothing" and have a "sense of entitlement" they are "parasites leeching off the 'hard working' tax payer,
An attitude, and opinions eagerly gobbled up and brought into, mainly by those who are predisposed to being eager to find a minority to 'blame' or a majority to belong to,
Yet, when it comes to multi million (or billion) pound profit making multi national companies run by multi-millionaire's who "exploit the welfare system" and leech from the poor old 'hard working' tax payer by deliberately paying huge numbers of their employees at the lowest rate they can legally 'get away with' because they know that the poor old 'hard working' tax payer will not only subsidise their workers paltry pay (and their huge profits) through in work benefits, but, and this is the best bit, the government and many of the herd actually blame and penalise the low paid workers for being low paid, instead of the real parasites who depend on the 'hard working' tax payer to provide a huge chunk of their wage bill,
and my use of the 'comas' in 'hard working' tax payer, is sarcasm old chap, because the inference is that the tax payer always 'works hard' when with over 40 years experience as a working tax payer, I can say that some of the laziest gits I've ever known have been working tax payers.
'big multinationals who could afford to pay higher wages.' - they could also just **** off to india too. there is a reason they are called multinationals.
Indeed many of them did exactly that in the 80s and 90s, went off in their droves they did, sacking their loyal British workers without a moments hesitation in some cases, eager to take advantage of the conditions in the far east, none of those annoyances like paying a decent wage, or bloody health and safety getting in the way, no unions, no workers rights, so what if some of them employ child labour? Just think of all that luverly profit!!!
Of course things have changed a bit recently, the pay and conditions here have gone down, and the pay and conditions over there have come up, so lots of British owned companies are moving back,
the overwhelming majority of benefit claimants are work-shy scroungers all of them exploiting the benefits system because they want something for nothing and have a sense of entitlement they are parasites leeching off the hard working tax payer
Sorry, what's this about a chartered surveyor who liked Star Trek at college but now sings in a choir? Is he ordinary or not, and what if he preferred Star Wars?
"Cost of living Crisis"
that's all they can say maybe if they stopped sniffing the butts of the "squeezed" middle they would put some meat on the bones of that statement.
Sky news and others would have you thinking everything is fine now.
the jobs people are taking are terrible more often than not it relies on the person having to Claim in work Benefits. How often does Mr Balls make that connection? and the reliance on Food banks for people in work.
Just look at the results from the various shops that part of the economy is still stalling the only way they are getting customers is huge reductions.
the power companies are going to make a deal with the tories so they go into 2015 totally castrating labours Freeze.
Unemployment falling means nothing if the jobs are so poorly paid those people are still relying on the state to get a decent income its such a simple message and one a lot of people out there would understand yet Ed Balls cant even do that.
"Cost of living Crisis"
that's all they can say maybe if they stopped sniffing the butts of the "squeezed" middle they would put some meat on the bones of that statement.
Sky news and others would have you thinking everything is fine now.
the jobs people are taking are terrible more often than not it relies on the person having to Claim in work Benefits. How often does Mr Balls make that connection? and the reliance on Food banks for people in work.
Just look at the results from the various shops that part of the economy is still stalling the only way they are getting customers is huge reductions.
the power companies are going to make a deal with the tories so they go into 2015 totally castrating labours Freeze.
Unemployment falling means nothing if the jobs are so poorly paid those people are still relying on the state to get a decent income its such a simple message and one a lot of people out there would understand yet Ed Balls cant even do that.
He probably realises it would backfire. It was Labour who introduced the tax credit system which discourages employees from increasing wages. Why would any employer reduce profits by increasing low level wages when the only effect is that means tested work benefits adjust and the actual workers are virtually no better off as a result ?
Then allowing working / child tax credits to go so high up the income scale that people earning over £40k were still receiving credits was just one more factor in enabling house prices to increase out of control (as people will always spend to their limits when houses are concerned). Now we have had to cut back the excessive spending but are stuck with crazy housing costs which have to be covered by benefits for the lower paid.
For centuries it was possible for one man working to cover the costs of a whole family (albeit with little left for luxuries ). I can't see how that will become possible again for the foreseeable future. As far as I can see a lot of this mess became entrenched during the Labour boom years, which is unforgivable.
Sorry probably a bit too crptic, as we are constantly told that the 'hard working' tax payer objects to subsidising the welfare/benefits system (until they might need it of course) and the reasons for this objection is down to the brilliant propaganda campaign by the Tories and their chums in the right wing press, who have managed to convince huge numbers of the herd that the overwhelming majority of benefit claimants are "work-shy scroungers" all of them "exploiting the benefits system" because they "want something for nothing" and have a "sense of entitlement" they are "parasites leeching off the 'hard working' tax payer,
An attitude, and opinions eagerly gobbled up and brought into, mainly by those who are predisposed to being eager to find a minority to 'blame' or a majority to belong to,
Yet, when it comes to multi million (or billion) pound profit making multi national companies run by multi-millionaire's who "exploit the welfare system" and leech from the poor old 'hard working' tax payer by deliberately paying huge numbers of their employees at the lowest rate they can legally 'get away with' because they know that the poor old 'hard working' tax payer will not only subsidise their workers paltry pay (and their huge profits) through in work benefits, but, and this is the best bit, the government and many of the herd actually blame and penalise the low paid workers for being low paid, instead of the real parasites who depend on the 'hard working' tax payer to provide a huge chunk of their wage bill,
and my use of the 'comas' in 'hard working' tax payer, is sarcasm old chap, because the inference is that the tax payer always 'works hard' when with over 40 years experience as a working tax payer, I can say that some of the laziest gits I've ever known have been working tax payers.
BIB
What makes you believe that tax payers are happy with in work benefits that are topping up wages?
Under the last government many were saying the growth of working tax credits was unsustainable and should be stopped.
I'd vote for any party that promised to remove in work benefits and restore some reality to the current situation.
He probably realises it would backfire. It was Labour who introduced the tax credit system which discourages employees from increasing wages. Why would any employer reduce profits by increasing low level wages when the only effect is that means tested work benefits adjust and the actual workers are virtually no better off as a result ?
Then allowing working / child tax credits to go so high up the income scale that people earning over £40k were still receiving credits was just one more factor in enabling house prices to increase out of control (as people will always spend to their limits when houses are concerned). Now we have had to cut back the excessive spending but are stuck with crazy housing costs which have to be covered by benefits for the lower paid.
For centuries it was possible for one man working to cover the costs of a whole family (albeit with little left for luxuries ). I can't see how that will become possible again for the foreseeable future. As far as I can see a lot of this mess became entrenched during the Labour boom years, which is unforgivable.
By 2015 they would have had 5 years to get something sorted.
So far they have agreed in General with the last budget they don't seem to have anything to say on just about everything out there.
I actually can see labour imploding in 2015 when they are defeated again wondering how they Squandered such a huge lead. When Mervin king said in 2011 with the cuts needed whoever was the Government could forget being in power for the next decade. They went from Crisis to crisis hoping they carried on right into 2015.
No doubt at the moment Balls is hoping something else will come along and mess things up.
ED & ED are not fit running a local party let alone the national level. Four years and no clear ideas or directions apart from a few sentences and a reliance on Bad news to make people think voting labour is the answer. Sad truth is Labour are hoping former tories or floating Tory voters will give them a chance quite Frankly at this moment in time they don't even deserve the support of labour core voters.
'big multinationals who could afford to pay higher wages.' - they could also just **** off to india too. there is a reason they are called multinationals.
your question was lost in there somewhere. why do i have a problem with the unions? because they only serve the interests of their members to the detriment of the rest of us. they are the only organisation on the field in politics that that is very clear they will only look after the interests of people who pay them money and somehow they are applauded for it.
i'm not sure what you are asking about the NMW. i've always said that people's views on it are polarised through their politics. we need to work out at what level it does the most good for the least harm and set it there. some people, and by the sounds of it you are one of them, use their political leanings to determine that it is definitely too low, ignoring the research of the low pay commission.
Big multinationals also only serve the interests of that business but you do not seem to have such a problem with them paying naff all in wages or tax, being registered anywhere in the world and leaving the uk tax payer to make up the difference in their P--s poor wages..
As a union steward myself i do not serve my own interests thanks very much,rather i am here to serve people who are often very vulnerable,and without any real power who may need my support whilst up against a powerful HR department and Managers.
The question about NMW is simple powerful companies come to the UK are registered maybe abroad with clever accounting tricks pay very little in to the uk treasurey,and leave the government to make up the wages of their employees on the NMW. In other words they can play one country against another and avoid any responsibility why not have a go at that,instead of trade unions who largely are trying to help the people who elect them.
By the way if the governments of the world worked together then the multinationals would not be able to play their game.;-)
What makes you believe that tax payers are happy with in work benefits that are topping up wages?
The fact that I don't recall seeing or hearing a single newspaper or Tory calling the low paid, "scroungers" or "parasites" or accusing them of "wanting something for nothing" nor do I recall seeing any in work benefits claimants, hate threads here, gives me an idea that the majority either don't care or haven't been told to care (yet), see, they have to be 'instructed' to hate this or that minority,
although I have no doubt whatsoever that the 'in work benefits claimants problem' is on the list for 'special attention' should we end up with the Tories actually winning an election,
Under the last government many were saying the growth of working tax credits was unsustainable and should be stopped.
Ahh "many were saying" were they? Well, "many" were saying that they are a good thing and should continue, your point is?
I'd vote for any party that promised to remove in work benefits and restore some reality to the current situation.
Oh I have no doubt that you would, but perhaps you could enlighten us with your ideas of what you would replace them with?
The "reality" of millions more people out of work is, I admit, the sort of "reality" the Tories tend to create and prefer,
because if you can't pay your rent, or feed and clothe yourself and your children, or even afford the cost of getting to work in the first place, then, what's the point of going to work?
I mean, I may be wrong here, but, isn't the entire POINT of giving up 8 hours of your day 5 days a week, and spending that time in doing 'work' in order to increase someone else's wealth, the the person you are striving to make wealthier, pays you an amount that makes your efforts beneficial to you as well? Or are us 'serfs' expected to work for nothing and fall for the capitalist BS of having 'pride' in our work, or higher 'self esteem' being 'reward' enough'?
What about the small businesses who genuinely can't afford to pay their workers any higher? let those people join the millions of other scroungers on the dole as well?
My answer would be that a company should have to provide proof that it can't afford to pay it's workers a wage high enough to prevent the company exploiting the tax payers and the welfare system in order to line their own pockets.
Ahh "many were saying" were they? Well, "many" were saying that they are a good thing and should continue, your point is?
Whether something is good or not has no bearing on whether something is affordable or not.
Sorting £160bn budget deficits ontop of pre-existing trillion quid national debts requires swallowing quite a few bitter pills pretty damn quickly.
Admittedly it would be a lot fairer if they could target the tax dodgers, but that takes the luxury of time that I don't think we had. That had to come second. So the question that needs asking is when so that the pressure can be relieved and the good things reinstated.
In fairness to Cameron and Osborne they are making the right noises but it has to be done properly and not as a kneejerk political stunt the likes of which Miliband talks of with his energy price freeze.
It's ok to think you need to skin the (fat)cat - but you don't want to kill it.
The fact that I don't recall seeing or hearing a single newspaper or Tory calling the low paid, "scroungers" or "parasites" or accusing them of "wanting something for nothing" nor do I recall seeing any in work benefits claimants, hate threads here, gives me an idea that the majority either don't care or haven't been told to care (yet), see, they have to be 'instructed' to hate this or that minority,
although I have no doubt whatsoever that the 'in work benefits claimants problem' is on the list for 'special attention' should we end up with the Tories actually winning an election
What silly, childish invective. Is the best defence you can manage "well everyone who doesn't support my own loopy lefty ideology is an idiot"? You really going to fly that one?
No, I didn't think so.
You don't hear so much about in-work benefit claimants because clearly those in work are worthier claimants than those out of work. Hence the sole dole mongers do tend to receive more attention than the partial dolers. That doesn't mean the tax payers who fund the lifestyles of both pure dole claimants and their partial claiming counterparts are happy with either. Both are a problem.
I would personally like to see us much attention brought to partial dole claiamants.
You really should get over these infantile outbursts of insulting nonsense. Do you think that a hard lefty has some kind of divine right to insult people without comeback?
Comments
I understand that union members are also people. i'm not retarded.
lets go back a step:
imagine i said the royal institute of chartered surveyors exists to promote the interests of it's members to the detriment of the rest of us. you'd understand that right? 'the rest of us' would be a reference to those of us who are not in the royal institute of chartered surveyors.
would you be telling me that members of the royal institute of chartered surveyors are ordinary men and women on the street just like me and you?
you are inferring something i'm not saying. i'm not saying, nor have i implied that there is any difference between members of a particular union and anyone else save the fact that they are in that particular union.
Well if members of the royal institute of chartered surveyors have to go on strike to get a decent wage and working conditions then yes. If they don't then they a a step apart from people who are members of a union who have to fight for everything they get.
Sorry did i say the royal institute of chartered surveyors? i meant the oxford university start trek appreciation society.
lets go back a step:
imagine i said the oxford university start trek appreciation society exists to promote the interests of it's members to the detriment of the rest of us. you'd understand that right? 'the rest of us' would be a reference to those of us who are not in the oxford university start trek appreciation society.
would you be telling me that members of the oxford university start trek appreciation society are ordinary men and women on the street just like me and you?
are you claiming to have mentioned the same organisation in two different post by mistake, or have you just moved the goal post ;-)
again i've made a mistake. sorry. i meant the rhondda valley male voice choir.
lets go back a step:
imagine i said the rhondda valley male voice choir exists to promote the interests of it's members to the detriment of the rest of us. you'd understand that right? 'the rest of us' would be a reference to those of us who are not in the rhondda valley male voice choir.
would you be telling me that members of the rhondda valley male voice choir are ordinary men and women on the street just like me and you?
I think they'd need to rename it. ;-)
Lets say you're trying to bait and/or wind me up and leave it at that ;-)
I'm not at all.
i'm trying to make the point using a generic club or society. but everyone one i use you focus on that specifically rather than understanding my point.
i made a point about unions looking after their members interests only to the exclusion of the rest of us.
and you came back with this:
which i have been trying to understand ever since, because obviously i understand that union members are also members of the public. and equally the term 'rest of us' was referring to those that are not in that specific union.
But are those freezes based on gross pay or net pay? Remember the basic rate of income tax threshold has risen by £4000 in the last four years. Therefore if someone had been earning £10500 in 2010, even without a pay rise since then, they would be £800 a year better off - or just under 8%.
Sorry probably a bit too crptic, as we are constantly told that the 'hard working' tax payer objects to subsidising the welfare/benefits system (until they might need it of course) and the reasons for this objection is down to the brilliant propaganda campaign by the Tories and their chums in the right wing press, who have managed to convince huge numbers of the herd that the overwhelming majority of benefit claimants are "work-shy scroungers" all of them "exploiting the benefits system" because they "want something for nothing" and have a "sense of entitlement" they are "parasites leeching off the 'hard working' tax payer,
An attitude, and opinions eagerly gobbled up and brought into, mainly by those who are predisposed to being eager to find a minority to 'blame' or a majority to belong to,
Yet, when it comes to multi million (or billion) pound profit making multi national companies run by multi-millionaire's who "exploit the welfare system" and leech from the poor old 'hard working' tax payer by deliberately paying huge numbers of their employees at the lowest rate they can legally 'get away with' because they know that the poor old 'hard working' tax payer will not only subsidise their workers paltry pay (and their huge profits) through in work benefits, but, and this is the best bit, the government and many of the herd actually blame and penalise the low paid workers for being low paid, instead of the real parasites who depend on the 'hard working' tax payer to provide a huge chunk of their wage bill,
and my use of the 'comas' in 'hard working' tax payer, is sarcasm old chap, because the inference is that the tax payer always 'works hard' when with over 40 years experience as a working tax payer, I can say that some of the laziest gits I've ever known have been working tax payers.
Indeed many of them did exactly that in the 80s and 90s, went off in their droves they did, sacking their loyal British workers without a moments hesitation in some cases, eager to take advantage of the conditions in the far east, none of those annoyances like paying a decent wage, or bloody health and safety getting in the way, no unions, no workers rights, so what if some of them employ child labour? Just think of all that luverly profit!!!
Of course things have changed a bit recently, the pay and conditions here have gone down, and the pay and conditions over there have come up, so lots of British owned companies are moving back,
We're making contact at last, OHG.
(Dons hard hat and bullet-proof vest)
that's all they can say maybe if they stopped sniffing the butts of the "squeezed" middle they would put some meat on the bones of that statement.
Sky news and others would have you thinking everything is fine now.
the jobs people are taking are terrible more often than not it relies on the person having to Claim in work Benefits. How often does Mr Balls make that connection? and the reliance on Food banks for people in work.
Just look at the results from the various shops that part of the economy is still stalling the only way they are getting customers is huge reductions.
the power companies are going to make a deal with the tories so they go into 2015 totally castrating labours Freeze.
Unemployment falling means nothing if the jobs are so poorly paid those people are still relying on the state to get a decent income its such a simple message and one a lot of people out there would understand yet Ed Balls cant even do that.
He probably realises it would backfire. It was Labour who introduced the tax credit system which discourages employees from increasing wages. Why would any employer reduce profits by increasing low level wages when the only effect is that means tested work benefits adjust and the actual workers are virtually no better off as a result ?
Then allowing working / child tax credits to go so high up the income scale that people earning over £40k were still receiving credits was just one more factor in enabling house prices to increase out of control (as people will always spend to their limits when houses are concerned). Now we have had to cut back the excessive spending but are stuck with crazy housing costs which have to be covered by benefits for the lower paid.
For centuries it was possible for one man working to cover the costs of a whole family (albeit with little left for luxuries ). I can't see how that will become possible again for the foreseeable future. As far as I can see a lot of this mess became entrenched during the Labour boom years, which is unforgivable.
BIB
What makes you believe that tax payers are happy with in work benefits that are topping up wages?
Under the last government many were saying the growth of working tax credits was unsustainable and should be stopped.
I'd vote for any party that promised to remove in work benefits and restore some reality to the current situation.
By 2015 they would have had 5 years to get something sorted.
So far they have agreed in General with the last budget they don't seem to have anything to say on just about everything out there.
I actually can see labour imploding in 2015 when they are defeated again wondering how they Squandered such a huge lead. When Mervin king said in 2011 with the cuts needed whoever was the Government could forget being in power for the next decade. They went from Crisis to crisis hoping they carried on right into 2015.
No doubt at the moment Balls is hoping something else will come along and mess things up.
ED & ED are not fit running a local party let alone the national level. Four years and no clear ideas or directions apart from a few sentences and a reliance on Bad news to make people think voting labour is the answer. Sad truth is Labour are hoping former tories or floating Tory voters will give them a chance quite Frankly at this moment in time they don't even deserve the support of labour core voters.
Big multinationals also only serve the interests of that business but you do not seem to have such a problem with them paying naff all in wages or tax, being registered anywhere in the world and leaving the uk tax payer to make up the difference in their P--s poor wages..
As a union steward myself i do not serve my own interests thanks very much,rather i am here to serve people who are often very vulnerable,and without any real power who may need my support whilst up against a powerful HR department and Managers.
The question about NMW is simple powerful companies come to the UK are registered maybe abroad with clever accounting tricks pay very little in to the uk treasurey,and leave the government to make up the wages of their employees on the NMW. In other words they can play one country against another and avoid any responsibility why not have a go at that,instead of trade unions who largely are trying to help the people who elect them.
By the way if the governments of the world worked together then the multinationals would not be able to play their game.;-)
although I have no doubt whatsoever that the 'in work benefits claimants problem' is on the list for 'special attention' should we end up with the Tories actually winning an election,
Ahh "many were saying" were they? Well, "many" were saying that they are a good thing and should continue, your point is?
Oh I have no doubt that you would, but perhaps you could enlighten us with your ideas of what you would replace them with?
The "reality" of millions more people out of work is, I admit, the sort of "reality" the Tories tend to create and prefer,
because if you can't pay your rent, or feed and clothe yourself and your children, or even afford the cost of getting to work in the first place, then, what's the point of going to work?
I mean, I may be wrong here, but, isn't the entire POINT of giving up 8 hours of your day 5 days a week, and spending that time in doing 'work' in order to increase someone else's wealth, the the person you are striving to make wealthier, pays you an amount that makes your efforts beneficial to you as well? Or are us 'serfs' expected to work for nothing and fall for the capitalist BS of having 'pride' in our work, or higher 'self esteem' being 'reward' enough'?
What about the small businesses who genuinely can't afford to pay their workers any higher? let those people join the millions of other scroungers on the dole as well?
My answer would be that a company should have to provide proof that it can't afford to pay it's workers a wage high enough to prevent the company exploiting the tax payers and the welfare system in order to line their own pockets.
Whether something is good or not has no bearing on whether something is affordable or not.
Sorting £160bn budget deficits ontop of pre-existing trillion quid national debts requires swallowing quite a few bitter pills pretty damn quickly.
Admittedly it would be a lot fairer if they could target the tax dodgers, but that takes the luxury of time that I don't think we had. That had to come second. So the question that needs asking is when so that the pressure can be relieved and the good things reinstated.
In fairness to Cameron and Osborne they are making the right noises but it has to be done properly and not as a kneejerk political stunt the likes of which Miliband talks of with his energy price freeze.
It's ok to think you need to skin the (fat)cat - but you don't want to kill it.
What silly, childish invective. Is the best defence you can manage "well everyone who doesn't support my own loopy lefty ideology is an idiot"? You really going to fly that one?
No, I didn't think so.
You don't hear so much about in-work benefit claimants because clearly those in work are worthier claimants than those out of work. Hence the sole dole mongers do tend to receive more attention than the partial dolers. That doesn't mean the tax payers who fund the lifestyles of both pure dole claimants and their partial claiming counterparts are happy with either. Both are a problem.
I would personally like to see us much attention brought to partial dole claiamants.
You really should get over these infantile outbursts of insulting nonsense. Do you think that a hard lefty has some kind of divine right to insult people without comeback?