IDS is right. There is a culture of benefit dependancy, but it's

(44 Posts)

businesses that depend on benefits.

If 80% of state benefits are given to people who work because they aren't paid a living wage then the welfare state is directly subsidising companies that pay their workers minium wage. Many of these are even vast, national companies that make huge profits.

So could the welfare bill be cut if businesses are forced to pay their staff a living wage? It's unlikely to happen though; too many CEOs and company directors are pally with the current government.

I don't know if I'm making much sense (it's past my bedtime) but it's something I've been thinking about since watching IDS on the Andrew Marr show yesterday.

niceguy2 Mon 03-Dec-12 23:02:53

Personally I think the whole Thatcher thing has been done to death and given she's not been in power for 22 years and under 13 years of Labour rule they did absolutely nothing to change the city that any 'blame' is tenuous at best. You may as well go a bit further back and blame Neville Chamberlin for appeasing Hitler with 'peace in our time' which ultimately ended up plunging us into WW2, killing millions!

Life in the UK in 1979 wasn't exactly utopia. And I'd argue that by any measure that as a nation we were stronger in 1990 than we were in 1979.

MiniTheMinx Mon 03-Dec-12 21:26:46

Actually Thatcher is partly responsible. She implemented the ideas of neo-liberal economists, she cozied up with Regan who did the same, they rampaged over some of south america, exporting their special breed of freedom, remember Chille? Of course we had exports and imports, but deregulating financial markets meant the easier flow of capital (that is different to the easier flow of goods in case NiceGuy is wondering)

niceguy2 Mon 03-Dec-12 14:28:03

Oh do get a grip NicholasTeakozy. I've heard Thatcher get the blame for many things but globalisation?

Just how was she supposed to stop globalisation from happening?

picketywick Mon 03-Dec-12 13:05:33

NEW IDS IDEA Compulsory unpaid work for the disabled from today (Monday 3RD)

Victoria derbyshire Radio 5-Live did an item on this this morning.

It seems vindictive and pointless. But the Coalition works in unfathomable ways

NicholasTeakozy Sat 24-Nov-12 19:23:36

Stop to think for a moment - why are British jobs being exported to the developing world?

It's down to globalisation. Allowing well paid manual jobs to be exported was that bitch Thatchers worst work. That's why we're losing jobs to developing countries.

We are no longer living in fear of a nuclear war or another world war.

Righto. Israel are probably going to bomb Iran with the backing of the US. Unfortunately, unlike Iraq and Afghanistan Iran are equipped to fight back. Israel has nukes, which is a bit unfortunate really, as they're seriously deranged.

We have energy security for the forseeable future

Hahahahahahahahaha ad infinitum.

losingtrust Sat 24-Nov-12 17:41:38

The only way is to up the personal allowance. I would go right up to 20k and then tax the rest at 40%.

laughtergoodmedicine Sat 17-Nov-12 13:33:35

Niceguy2 Good comprehensive post.

Looking at long-term unemployed. Bosses call the shots. So a boss advertises a job at minimum wage. He gets 50 replies. He is not likely tO take on a long_termer with so many to choose from. welfare to work is meant to solve that problem have they? can they? will they?

B1ueberryMuff1n Fri 16-Nov-12 13:21:58

I agree with you. If I could earn enough to live on I wouldn't be on benefits. it's all messed up.

laughtergoodmedicine Fri 16-Nov-12 13:20:09

I spot Irony

MiniTheMinx Thu 15-Nov-12 19:09:22

Yes on balance the world is becoming a better place, people are becoming more caring, just look at the policies of this caring sharing Government hmm

Darkesteyes Thu 15-Nov-12 18:04:04

If the stress doesnt kill them in the meantime.

laughtergoodmedicine Thu 15-Nov-12 13:54:03

Good post Niceguy. But I am more interested in those people who are already at the bottom of the pile. Like the disabled who are pressurised by duncan Smiths work interviews. Which can leave them nine months waiting to appeal against decisions. (and often winning)

niceguy2 Wed 14-Nov-12 19:20:44

Mini, I would argue the world as a whole has changed for the better.

We are no longer living in fear of a nuclear war or another world war. We have energy security for the forseeable future.

Millions, if not billions have been lifted out of poverty by the world economy. Think of all those people in China which once upon a time their government's couldn't feed. Think of the millions of Indian families now who are in the middle classes thanks to outsourcing of jobs.

Right now the world is going through a recession and turbulent times but this has not always been the case. We'll get through it. It will pass.

The world isn't perfect. Of course it's not. But to answer your question as to if it is better....yes I would argue on balance it is.

MiniTheMinx Wed 14-Nov-12 11:27:14

Oh Nice guy the world has changed........but has it changed for the better?

We are in competition to countries that are A) state capitalist or B) also not collecting it's fair share of tax revenue and they too in time will travel the road we have been on.

Rising wages & living standards over the short term whilst those costs are borne by businesses seeking to exploit what is still CHEAPER labour. After which wages will fall because of the falling rate of profit. It is inevitable and unavoidable.

Tax avoidance is just one shovel the Grave diggers use!

MiniTheMinx Wed 14-Nov-12 11:21:22

Taxman admits Government powerless to force multinationals to declare profits

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/taxman-admits-government-powerless-to-force-multinationals-to-declare-profits-8282771.html

"Companies now see tax dodging as a legitimate part of their business operations even though companies benefit directly from education, infrastructure, healthcare etc that is provided by the state. The cost of tax dodging is staggering! Developing countries lose an estimated £250 billion every year as a direct result of corporate tax dodging - money which could be used to reach the UN's Millennium Development Goals several times over.

And it's not just developing countries that lose out. Britain also loses up to £120 billion a year through tax dodging and uncollected tax. That's enough to double funding for the entire NHS. Alternatively, the same sum could cover the full state pension, eradicate student fees and enable Britain to reach the UN international aid target of 0.7% of gross national income overnight"

www.waronwant.org/campaigns/tax-not-cuts/tax-dodging

I agree Cog, many appear to be making a loss. As MD of a small company if I were to pay myself a large salary I would be laughing except for one thing. It is illegal to "bankrupt" your own business under UK law. These GLOBAL giants _are not_ making a loss for their shareholders and bosses, they are a great cash cow and no one holds them to account for riffling through the company coffers. The extreme end of this is the public equity firms shadowy dealings.

It appears that businesses are not in profit so we think their shareholders and bosses are also feeling the pinch, this is not so.

"A global super-rich elite has exploited gaps in cross-border tax rules to hide an extraordinary £13 trillion ($21tn) of wealth offshore – as much as the American and Japanese GDPs put together – according to research commissioned by the campaign group Tax Justice Network"

www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jul/21/global-elite-tax-offshore-economy

More than $1 in every $6 worldwide is not subject to tax in any country because those who have earned it have sought to hide it. Some $3.1 trillion is not taxed which is about 5.2% of the worlds GDP. This is the real reason welfare needs are growing as they go unmet whilst government income falls.

niceguy2 Wed 14-Nov-12 11:17:10

Personally I think it's you who lives in an alternate world Ttosca.

Like I said, my job takes me to other countries where we are creating jobs in their thousands because of incentives other governments are giving us to do so.

Your idea of a 'fair' world involve the usual socialist nonsense of taxing the 'rich' until the pips squeek except you fail to accept the world has changed.

I do agree that people's living standards are dropping but that's because our economy hasn't been competitive against others, most notably the Asian economies. The answer is to be competitive, we cannot tax our way back into prosperity.

CogitoErgoSometimes Wed 14-Nov-12 07:13:32

"many multinationals pay 0% corporate taxes."

That would generally be the ones making a loss.

ttosca Tue 13-Nov-12 21:11:03

'nice'guy-

Newferry. But you cannot wave some legislative magic wand and somehow make large employers pay their staff a living wage but not smaller employers. Where do you draw the line?

It doesn't need to be 'magical' - why would it? There is already a great deal of legislation which is required of larger firms but not smaller firms. You draw the line wherever you choose.

Especially considering the law of unintended consequences means you are likely to discourage medium size businesses from growing and people prefering to work for a large company rather than a small. The latter of which we desperately need for new blood in the economy. Remember, all companies start off somewhere.

A business is not going to stop growing on the account of having the pay its workers a fair wage, especially considering many businesses already do pay a fair / living wage. It's not the burden you make it out to be.

amic. I think we need to more than fiddle with taxation. Personally I favour a much simpler, much leaner tax system. Easier to administer, harder to evade. Then we lower our corporation tax rates to attract companies to set up here. Whilst we lose corporation tax (which isn't our biggest earner anyway), we will make that up in additional income tax from the new jobs created.

The UK nominal corporation tax is already lower than most of europe, and many large multinational companies pay NO CORPORATION TAX AT ALL in the UK. It isn't possible to suck corporate cock any more enthusiastically.

On the contrary, any company operating in the UK must pay its fair share of corporation tax, and the tax burden on citizens (especially those below the median) should diminish.

That's the sort of cut throat global market place we are competing in. It frustrates me when I hear of people bashing companies all the time when I can see that the UK is steadily declining as a place people want to come & do business. There's no tax advantage. Our education is pretty piss poor now compared to our competitors. Esp. our asian competitors who are churning out graduates and high tech engineers in their millions whilst we navel gaze and think 'professional footballer' or 'reality TV star' is a great career.

You're just ignorant of the facts, once again. The Financial sector has caused the worst financial crisis and recession in 100 years, and have been accused of money laundering, rate-rigging, and mis-selling products to consumers, and other immoral/fraudulent behaviour - and you're complaining that it 'frustrates you' to hear people bash companies?

Again, many multinationals pay 0% corporate taxes. Not only that, but we subsidise poor pay on behalf of employers so that pitiable UK workers have enough money to feed their kids.

You must exist in a place called the 'UK' on another planet. It doesn't seem to be the same planet as the rest of us.

Because I tell you, unless we change our ways now to compete in the world we are in, rather than the world we'd like to be in. I can see in the next couple of decades our standards of living will just keep getting lower.

Our drop in standards of living is the result of precisely the kinds of things which you a proscribing: low tax regimes for corporations, deregulation, and more corporate cock-sucking. We've had that for 30 years. What we have now, crisis, recession, and steady drop in living standards is what happens when you follow through on 30 years of neo-liberalism.

If we continue along this line, people's living standards will certainly continue to drop. Wages will stagnate or drop, and wealth inequality will continue to skyrocket. Meanwhile, the services we expect from a civilised society, like health and education will be further eroded thanks for the cuts needed to pay for this loss of revenue from corporate cock sucking.

You are utterly clueless. It's shameful that you keep spouting ignorant drivel over and over again on these boards.

MrJudgeyPants Sun 11-Nov-12 23:17:37

Spot on niceguy.

niceguy2 Fri 09-Nov-12 22:05:30

Newferry. But you cannot wave some legislative magic wand and somehow make large employers pay their staff a living wage but not smaller employers. Where do you draw the line?

Especially considering the law of unintended consequences means you are likely to discourage medium size businesses from growing and people prefering to work for a large company rather than a small. The latter of which we desperately need for new blood in the economy. Remember, all companies start off somewhere. Amazon/HP both started in someone's garage. IIRC John Caudwell started off selling mobile phones door to door until only years later becoming rich through phones4u.

amic. I think we need to more than fiddle with taxation. Personally I favour a much simpler, much leaner tax system. Easier to administer, harder to evade. Then we lower our corporation tax rates to attract companies to set up here. Whilst we lose corporation tax (which isn't our biggest earner anyway), we will make that up in additional income tax from the new jobs created.

We give time bound incentives for companies to set up here. So for example one country my company invested heavily in, they gave us two years of subsidies for IT equipment (ironic since we're an IT firm) and laid on transport to make it easier for staff to get to our offices. Another country has created a HUGE special economic zone where any profits you make are completely tax free. That's right...0% tax. Unsurprisingly we've just created several thousand jobs out there. And where are those jobs coming from? The US & EU.

That's the sort of cut throat global market place we are competing in. It frustrates me when I hear of people bashing companies all the time when I can see that the UK is steadily declining as a place people want to come & do business. There's no tax advantage. Our education is pretty piss poor now compared to our competitors. Esp. our asian competitors who are churning out graduates and high tech engineers in their millions whilst we navel gaze and think 'professional footballer' or 'reality TV star' is a great career.

Because I tell you, unless we change our ways now to compete in the world we are in, rather than the world we'd like to be in. I can see in the next couple of decades our standards of living will just keep getting lower.

amicissimma Fri 09-Nov-12 21:10:26

"Whichever way I try to look at this it always seems to boil down to excessive housing costs,"

This is really tricky, though. I understand (posted a link on another thread and too tired to search for it, sorry) that there are a lot of people from Greece and other southern Eurozone countries buying property in London to escape the Euro risks in their own countries. This pushes up prices in London, which pushes up prices round London and so on, ever outwards.

Just as jobs can be moved abroad, if employers find the UK too expensive, and EU citizens can freely come and work here, our wages and housing costs reflect that we are just one country within the world economy. I don't think anyone realistically suggests we pull up the drawbridge.

What's the solution? Fiddle about with taxation? Give back tax to some people, but not others? Make sure our population are so well educated/trained that employers are desperate to pick them and pay for the privilege? If it were easy surely we'd be doing it!

NewFerry Fri 09-Nov-12 17:24:08

Whilst there are certainly more small employers than large, tesco alone employs over 400,000 fte equivalent staff. Add in the other supermarkets and the large retail shops, and you have well over a million employees many of whom are on or just above NMW.
Making these large employers pat their staff a living wage from the outset is much more efficient, and rewarding, than trying to get these companies to pay all their tax.
Starbucks coffee anyone?

niceguy2 Fri 09-Nov-12 12:32:27

The thing to bear in mind is that most employers are not Tesco & multinationals who are making millions of profit each year and could 'afford' to pay a bit more. Most employers are small businesses. Many businesses are struggling at the moment. See Comet for example for a shining example that big isn't always profitable.

So now we want to FORCE employers to pay more. Sure, those lucky businesses who are making millions can either take a hit on their profits or increase prices.

But what about all those businesses struggling? Your local plumber/newsagent who employs a couple of people? A 20% rise could be the straw that breaks the camels back. What about the next business like Comet who are trying desperately to turn their business around who are suddenly hit with a 20% rise in wages?

Lastly yes...tax credits sort of existed in the past under a different name but eligibility was much tighter and claimants minuscule in comparison.

OddBoots Thu 08-Nov-12 22:10:55

Whichever way I try to look at this it always seems to boil down to excessive housing costs, a big part of why the living wage is higher than the minimum wage is that it costs so much to just put a roof over your head.

MrJudgeyPants Thu 08-Nov-12 22:05:33

SparrowP Feel free to correct me but your second paragraph seems to suggest that those who work part time should get the same salary as someone who works full time. Whether that is your belief or not, that isn't what Miliband is pressing for with this living wage bollocks. Under his proposal you still won't earn the living wage if you are working part time in a low paid job.

To look at it another way, Miliband is looking to employers to top up the wages of the hard pressed to compensate for the actions of the state. It has nothing to do with cheapskate employers or sunny tax havens.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now