to think that very many PEOPLE IN WORK ARE ON BENEFITS?

[ParsingFancy]

Because there seems to be some confusion about this.

I keep seeing bollocks like "people in work have to limit their children, so people on benefits should too."

Excuse me, PEOPLE IN WORK ARE ON CHILD BENEFIT.

And "working people can't afford adequate housing per child, so people on benefits shouldn't get either."

But PEOPLE IN WORK ARE ON HOUSING BENEFIT.

Also, PEOPLE IN WORK ARE ON INCOME SUPPORT.

And PEOPLE IN WORK ARE ON DISABILITY LIVING ALLOWANCE.

Oh and PEOPLE IN WORK ARE ON WORKING TAX CREDITS.
That one was hard, wasn't it?

A) MASSIVELY increase the minimum wage so that people who work full time can afford food, heat, housing and warmth.

It's utterly hilarious that so many people think this is a solution.

If you increase the NMW to £8/hr, what happens to the wages of those who were already earning £7.50/hr as supervisors of the NMW workers? Do they then work for less money than the people they supervise?

Not trying to thread hijack and what i posted earlier is probably on the wrong thread, but im being honest SoniaGluck, i cant obviously name the people im talking about but i assure you i know a number of families who live off numerous benefits with at least 3 kids who dont work. It is possible, maybe you live in a better area than me.

I get etc and etc. I have a part time job as a teacher. For half term I have 50 gcse papers to mark plus 33 y7 tests. I have medium term planning for half term, an online child protection course to complete and a raft of disciplinaryissues to write up... I work 10 hours a day five days a week and six hours on a Sunday when dds with their dad. I earn every penny of my "benefits" working in an inner city comp.

Naffing phone WTC and CTC !

"Edgar Ivy Katy is right. That comment is not true"

i worked in retail - majority of our people were 16-25 year olds living with parents.

next: 2nd jobbers/ 2nd incomers/ NRPs
then: older semi-retired people

i had one person on a department of 30 that had children and no partner - her income was evidently made up by the state.

increasing the wages of everyone is not a great way to target child poverty. it is a great way to increase food costs and drive industry away from these shores.

Just because that was your experience Edgar it doesn't necessarily make it the norm. Fact is big companies are making huge profits whilst their full time workers still need to claim benefits in order to survive and that isn't right.

the fact remains that they can pay low wages and still get staff, because most of the staff aren't supporting a family and aren't eligible for SS or other benefits -

those eligible for ss benefits might do better not working at all rather than taking a NMW job. it has been the case for some people i know - even those doing jobs like the one i do now who are paid a reasonable amount over. i don't blame them either - it just doesn't make sense to work if you don't reap any reward from it.

I find it ironic that you want a policy that would massively increase food costs - £1 in every 8 spent in a supermarket already goes on the wages bill. - rather than maintain the current situation (ie targetted top ups) but tweak it.

walk into a supermarket in the evening - anyone there other than management and young people?

you might get some working mums taking evening shifts because their OH can stay with the kids, but other than that it will be 16-25 year olds.

i worked in 7 supermarkets with 3 of the big names, and before that ten different factories (i loved temping!) - the picture was fairly constant.

Asda (not one i worked for) have a policy of recruiting older people, so you might see slightly different things there - more semi-retirees.

" There are people working in part time retail who are having to use food banks."

there would be more if you made supermarkets pay more for staffing!!

I'm not sure where you are based Edgar Allen.

I can assure you here in Leeds there are supermarkets/factories/retail stores/hairdressers & call centres all paying NMW or slightly above and I know plenty of mums & dads trying to support families, doing 50+ hours per week, and still being subsidised by the state as its simply not enough to live on.

ShellyBoobs no of course they wouldn't be paid more than their superiors at work.
Market forces would drive all wages upward up to a certain level.

The companies would not make so much profit though.

It is a myth that NMW increases cost jobs. Its simply not true. The ones who would lose out however are those workers simply not worth paying more than current levels. They would obvioulsy struggle. The way I see it, those people would still be subsidised by the state and its bigger tax take. (More income tax/less tax avoidance bythe ones at the top)

I second MissKeithLemon. I'm based in Wales.

But having another child and getting more CB and WTC is a bit of a false economy is it not? You're standard of living won't go up because the money will just get swallowed up by the costs of having another little one.

When I was a single parent, I never, ever thought of having another child just because the gubberment would give me money, even if I did want one.

I don't think the lure of more tax credits is sufficient enough to make people breed - or maybe I'm strange like that. [hconfused]

Market forces would drive all wages upward up to a certain level.

And wages going up means inflation, which means prices go up. Including rents, energy, food, everything else.

So pretty quickly the increased NMW is worth the same as it was before the increase.

Not if regulated properly Shelly. I'm not suggesting the Zimbabwe forula or anything

ATM wages are not high enough for the state to stop mass subsidising them. Either the governemnt continue to mass subsidise the wages, or another way is found.

FunbagFreddie, of course you are perfectly normal But many of the relatively well off like to think that those lower down the socio-economic scale are not

Well, MissKeithLemon, That's only true if they are intellectually stunted Daily Mail sympathisers with more money than sense.

I am inclined to go with A) , as I agree with ivykaty44 that the government should not be subsidising big business.

Shelly, you have chosen option B)

After all, it has to be one or t'other.

And most of the shopworkers etc I know have children.

Also, in response to duelling fanjo's question about whether anyone should expect to be a sahm and get top ups from the state-in my parents day one factory workers wage was enough to support a spouse and a child or two.
Maybe not more, but it would cover the basics. After all, human beings have children, and someone has to look after them.
If two parents have to work full time to do this, then childcare has to be affordable, and it's not.

i live in the SE, where living costs much, much, more...(especially housing)

I just don't think it can be done, MissKeithLemon.

How much would NMW have to increase to, to cover the cost of a family and the associated bills?

With the current system, a single parent of 2 who works full-time and claims in-work benefits must be taking home as much as a non parent who's on maybe £10/hr.

Or am I totally wrong with that?

Shelly, you have chosen option B)

After all, it has to be one or t'other.

Also, if I work more hours, my tax credits would go down. Thats fine by me. I WANT to be self sufficient.
God knows, I don't want my livelihood to be in the hands of George Osborne.
I want out from under this rabble of Eton tossers as fast as I fucking can.
Most people want independence.
The trouble is, the jobs just are not there.
The government wants the population to be dependent on them. So much easier to keep us scared and compliant if we can't survive without our tax credits.
And at the same time, they spin the bullshit propaganda which make the have-littles turn on the have-nots, and while we are busy tearing each other down, they get on with hobbling us so that we are too weak and desperate to do anything about it.
It also distracts us from the fact that the bankers, and banking de-regulation that caused this mess are getting off scot free.
I suggest we stop looking down for someone to blame, and start looking up.

perception bias = as a parent, you know other parents.

"
I don't think the lure of more tax credits is sufficient enough to make people breed - or maybe I'm strange like that. "

nor do i - is there any evidence for this?

Do you think £10 an hour is a lot, then Shelley?
It's not.