To have zero sympathy for this woman

[wasonthelist]

The tearful woman on BBC Question Time claims to have been a Tory voter. She's reaping what she sows.
www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/hame-you-hardworking-mums-tearful-6643284

They just have to pay the market rate.

Bravo! Agree completely.

Are we in a capitalist market economy, or aren't we?

So true that it only seems to work in one direction.

Finally, I don't want to open up a bad spirited immigration debate, but I am going to take a risk here. It seems logical that a lot of uncontrollable immigration will help people who are employers to keep costs down, but surely it is hurting people who need to earn a living pay check to pay check. There is never any upwards wage pressure. It can never build up because employers can always hire someone from a poorer country who is happy to work for less.

MOllie I think UC includes HB and CTB

A single guy on JSA would get about £300pcm

Universal credit is just that, universal, all benefits rolled into one.

If companies will only pay very low wages then the end result will be that no one has enough money to buy the products or services sold by the companies who are paying the very low wages ?

Nick Clegg and Danny Alexander did tell everyone that the Tories were planning to cut tax credits and limit it to two children. David Cameron did sort of deny it. His words were that he rejected it then and he was rejecting it now.

They absolutely should have been upfront and honest about the cuts that they were going to make.

They absolutely should have been upfront and honest

Politicians could never do that, no one would vote for them ?

Judging by this thread lots would.

(not sure benefits should support cat ownership though. I am in work and don't have the expense of pets)

Grazia clearly does not live in the same world as the rest of us. You don't own cats - they deign to come and live with you. If you do not meet their exacting standards they take themselves off elsewhere.

"If companies will only pay very low wages then the end result will be that no one has enough money to buy the products or services sold by the companies who are paying the very low wages ."

Which is what Marx predicted, in reality very low wages are topped up by the government and by people amassing large levels of personal debt. Its why in real terms wages have been falling since the 1970's as the wealth is overwhelmingly been reallocated to the wealthy. Cheap credit masks the fall in earnings and keeps the population docile, averting Marx's predicted revolution.

But the problem is that tax credits cause lower wages. Tax credits basically allow companies like Poundland to survive.

Sorry, I know I'm quoting from a while back, but instead of seeing this as the problem, I'm looking at it from the other angle..

If shops like Poundland can't survive, then we can no longer get cheap goods for £1. Yes, I'd like employers to pay living wages, but I'm wondering if we have gone too far away from this to come back. If everyone was being paid decent wages that were enough to support a family, wouldn't everything just become insanely expensive? Meaning the "high" wages wouldn't really matter after a while, you'd still be able to afford what you could afford before.

Yes, is subsiding business paying low wages, but there are lots of subsidies for that anyway and I see tax credits as directly benefiting the economy. Give a poor man £100 and they will spend it, give a rich man £100...

Grazia, please explain what we should do with pets if we become unemployed then.

Tip. The animal rescue places are already full to bursting.

Pets are like children to a certain extent...you can't just put them back or get rid of them when the proverbial hits the fan.

Admittedly in emergencies you can look to re-home them.

I have three cats and don't work, I also have a disabled child who gets a lot out of caring for his pets and spending time with them.

I'm not convinced that shops like Poundland would disappear.

If people had less money to spend on tat, then the revenue of cheap shops would drop. If it dropped by 50%, then perhaps only half as many cheap shops would survive, with all of them taking as much as before. Or more likely the quality and price would drop, and in some cases the owners might reduce profits.

Poundland wouldn't disappear at all. It merely takes advantage of the situation, would be able to survive easily. The "cheap tat" remark sticks in the throat a bit, lots of people use Poundland for cheap essentials, and pick up small items on the way.

Poundland isn't cheap because it gets subsidies, it merely increases its profit margin.

Poundand and the likes wouldnt disappear (although no loss if they did as all items easily boughy elsewhere) as students and adults who don't claim benefits would make up some of the workforce. Plenty of second earners in the household have jobs like these as flexible and the hours are core hours so suit.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/oct/20/liberal-democrats-tax-credit-cuts-peers-house-of-lords-fatal-motion-tim-farron

Could be not happening! The Lords might actually be good for something.

Peregrina is correct. Thats how we got our cat. She used to live in another flat in the block but then decided she preferred us. She kept darting in our flat and refusing to leave. This was when she was six months old.

This 14 year old tabby is now asleep beside me.

Aww, Helena, That's really cute, My NDN's cat used to knock to at mine to play with dd. They'd play for hours.
Sorry everyone for the derail, but I assume as it was about a cute cat. I'll be forgiven

cookie a couple of times you have mentioned student jobs and jobs for people in higher earning households.

If all the jobs are taken by those groups where the hell are unemployed people meant to get work from?

Well if the Lords can derail this, I might for once be thankful for their position!

"Which is what Marx predicted, in reality very low wages are topped up by the government and by people amassing large levels of personal debt. Its why in real terms wages have been falling since the 1970's as the wealth is overwhelmingly been reallocated to the wealthy. Cheap credit masks the fall in earnings and keeps the population docile, averting Marx's predicted revolution."

I don't agree living wages would increase cost of goods. Surely more people having disposable income would lead to greater competition?

As for the pet remark well people that think pets are a luxury imho also think one chocolate biscuit a week is!

So you don't agree with the theory of cost push infation?

Higher costs to firms are passed on to the consumer in almost every case? Just look at what happened in the past 5 years when oil prices were high.

Sorry, cost push inlfation...

I asked above why the TC cuts weren't included in the Finance Bill the rest of the budget was in, and nobody answered. So, just in case anybody is interested/cares I just read this:

'For he [Osborne] had chosen to ram the tax credit cuts through in regulations, which aren't subject to the same line-by-line Commons scrutiny as legislation, but instead stand or fall on a single quickfire vote'

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/20/the-guardian-view-on-tax-credit-cuts-the-lords-should-send-them-back