Benefit Britain - the irony

[Mhoys]

Years ago there was no Housing Benefit as far as I remember - talking about growing up in the 1960s. Or even Child Tax Benefits, etc etc. Now it seems so many people get these, even people working in reasonably good jobs. The Government is meant to be anti-benefits but expenditure on all this must be significant. Some of this may be due to a small rise in living standards since then. But also have wages become so low relative to living costs, that the state is effectively subsidising private enterprise? There is nothing necessarily wrong with this I guess, but isn't the government "in denial" when few ordinary people could afford a family or rent or buy a home in the South at least , so the taxpayer/State has to stump up? I have some thoughts but am also genuinely puzzled ...

I think it's goady to call people goady, especially if there is nothing goady in the OP. It instantly starts of the AIBU snowball of nastiness, but I think that was the goal in the first place. Sorry to be goady about it.

I agree OP that the actions the government have taken seem to have simply lined the pockets of corporations, driven a greater decide between rich and poor and created an environment where stable work for the masses is increasingly unlikely.

Minimum wage is set too low. Businesses do rely on the state to make up the difference between pay and living costs. Nothing goady about that at all.

I really think we should raise wages across the board and get rid of benefits for people without disabilities. Nobody really wants to claim them. Everyone does want a lifestyle where they can afford to feed their children properly and pay their bills. All companies should be forced to pay a living wage, and that includes the government, because they alsol pay a pittance to low-ranking civil servants and the like. I think a living wage would be around £20,000 outside London, £26,000 inside London.

You've started a thread on an extremely emotive topic op. You have to expect extreme reactions. Please don't throw the cat amongst the pigeons then sod off.

Have any of you read the op?

I don't think you're being goady. I get what you're saying.

The Philip Greens of this world are milking the benefit system far more than low earners / single parents etc.

NameChanger there is a Lib Dem MP thinking along the same lines as you. Thats why he wants sex work to be seen as a viable option.

I read the thread. Talking about the tax payer "stumping up" starts the benefit bashing and the usual arguments as to why tax credits shouldn't exist. It others those that are in receipt of tax credits in my opinion from tax payers not in receipt of tax credits.

What im saying is there does need to be a stopgap for when ppl (including non disabled) are between jobs.

I don't think you are being goady either!!

However. Benefits claims are getting harder to make. Benefit payments are decreasing.

We are lucky to live in a country where we won't automatically starve/die/be evicted because we lose our job. Our 12 year olds don't have to leave education to work in factories.

That's irrelevant to this issue. Benefits for the disabled or those completely out of work only benefit the recipient so don't come into this argument. In work benefits however often allow companies to pay poor wages. The savings that makes increases profits and therefore ultimately ends up being paid out to the wealthy shareholders.

Benefits are a ducking good thing.

For those in work they are inferior to a proper living wage. It's a scandal companies making huge profits can get away with paying wages so low the state has to step in just to help with basic living costs.

Why would anyone expect that reaction to 'should the government force companies to pay their employees '.

Anyway op if you are about still dh and I have been discussing similar... The newspapers say 'immigrants come here for the benefits' like the uk is this amazing place that hands out money and makes everyone rich.

No the government hand out money so that people can just about subsist as they are paying most of their wage on rent.

But also have wages become so low relative to living costs, that the state is effectively subsidising private enterprise? There is nothing necessarily wrong with this I guess, but isn't the government "in denial" when few ordinary people could afford a family or rent or buy a home in the South at least

Not even slightly benefit bashing.

There are certain things that you are not allowed to post on MN, it seems. Any implied criticism of people on benefits, immigrants, badly-behaved children or ex-wives is guaranteed to set people frothing.

It's ridiculous. Just shuts down healthy debate.

We don't do badly but there is no chance we will ever afford a home and I have no idea what will happen as wages are stagnating but rent just keeps rising.

The op hasn't criticised those groups.

I've recently been reading The Establishment and how they get away with it. It covers this, so I'm not sure why the biscuits, unlesx I'm misunderstanding something.

Jones' stance is

The establishment wants to roll back the state, to discourage dependence.
However, the Establishment don't provide a significant number of working people sufficient income on which to survive - low wages, zero hour contracts, this means that workers become dependent on the state in order to survive day to day life.
The Establishment makes profit for themselves and their shareholders, but the state picks up the not insignificant, tab that enables them to do so.

Unfortunately it becomes those at the bottom of the pile that receive vilification rather than those at the top.

I find the multiple biscuits odd.
The OP has opened a can of worms that all governments would rather was kept closed.

Taxes distribute money from the rich to the poor

but tax credits distribute from the rich to the ultra rich offshore crowd

and housing benefit distributes from the taxpayer to the speculator

it has to be remembered that 90% of all taxes are paid by the top 25% of earners

and that corporation tax is useless in a globalised economy (targeted sales taxes are cheaper and easier)

also
since the foundation of the NHS and the welfare state in 1948 medical advances have extended lifespans by 20 years but not extended working lives by the same amount.

By right the retirement age should have risen with life expectancy - it would be 78 for men and women by now

but obesity has intervened

this isn't benefit bashing - this is questioning why the tax payer is supporting businesses who don't pay enough for people to live on

What the hell is goady about the op?

If you think that's goady, you'd better go and hide from everything right now.

I think a few people half read and it and haven't got the good grace to come and say sorry.

I think that there's certainly a sector of private businesses that can get away with paying crap wages because benefits bridge the difference between their earnings and survival. So effectively the companies are being subsidised by the government. Unfortunately it seems to happen in all Western countries.
I'm conflicted in that if you start a successful company, you should be rewarded by it, but equally if you're on multiple millions yet much of your staff are on minimum wage, there's something drastically wrong. I don't believe a family existing exclusively on benefits should be better off on welfare than a working family as there would be no motivator to work full time (I'd like to hope personal pride but I'm a cynic). It's tricky to balance, but a living wage should be a key goal for governments.
I've got family members who are in the UK earning feck all (for UK standards) but high wages for their native country. They get government subsidies, which is wrong in my eyes.

Oh, and I don't think this is goady at all

Companies were paying shit wages before tax credits came in as they are now.

In the late 90s i saw 50p an hour jobs advertised in the Jobcentre £1.50 an hour and £50 a week. (my rent then was £48 a week) and there wasnt even working tax credits for the childless/childfree back then.

The low wages happened first.

Just goes to proved my theory based on anecdotal experience- if one person wants to find a post offensive, there will be plenty along to back them in it, without letting the facts get in the way of an attack.
Anyway back to the OP, it's interesting how the UK got to this point. There are stats on Tesco workers I think, how many of them have to claim tax credits etc in order to afford to live. Also the Tories aboloished the minimum wage for quite a few years in the 1990's I think

Talkin Peace my mum retired last year at 79. But has health problems from working in factories for decades.