What did Labour do for me when spanking all our money away?
Discussion
SplatSpeed said:
if the jobs go to immigrants it is easy for those on the dole to claim there are no jobs.
Maybe the employer prefers them to peopel who have been coerced into applying. What's he going to do, what's best for his business or something to please Wail readers?In practice, to get the small % of the unemployed who are idle into work is more difficult than you'd think.
Btw does every NPE thread have to become one about benefits etc?
Fittster said:
The evidence I've seen suggests that immigration isn't a major problem.
"We find that all European countries experienced a decrease in their average wages and a worsening of their wage inequality because of emigration. Whereas, contrary to the popular belief, immigration had nearly equal but opposite effects: positive on average wages and reducing wage inequality…
Public fears in European countries are misplaced; immigration has had a positive average wage effect on native workers."
http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/ludemar/Wage%20...
I say Bovine scatter.... If you can get a immigrant to work for the minimum wage why would you pay more, if you are a uk national why would you work when your better of on the dole so as a result manual low skiled work is done by eastern europeans who pay little back and take most of their wages back home after a few years, and our home grown lot sit on the dole reproducing and sucking up benifits .... "We find that all European countries experienced a decrease in their average wages and a worsening of their wage inequality because of emigration. Whereas, contrary to the popular belief, immigration had nearly equal but opposite effects: positive on average wages and reducing wage inequality…
Public fears in European countries are misplaced; immigration has had a positive average wage effect on native workers."
http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/ludemar/Wage%20...
Edited by Fittster on Tuesday 1st February 20:14
Dibblington said:
A recent trip to Singapore was a right eye opener, no benefits system meant there was 0% unemployment. How come we colonised them umpteen years ago and they are so far ahead of us already?
It depends if you want to see 80 year old people picking rubbish out of bins for recycling or not really. And there was no-one living in Singapore to colonise when we found it, much like Hong Kong.
HTH
Fittster said:
SplatSpeed said:
if the jobs go to immigrants it is easy for those on the dole to claim there are no jobs.
British jobs for British workers?Zod said:
Fittster said:
You can decide for yourself which of the following were worth having. A google returns the following:
24. £200 winter fuel payment to pensioners & up to £300 for over-80s. not means-tested,so even multi-millionaires qualify.
42. Over 3 million child trust funds have been started. no means-testing
The ones I haven't responded to are laudable.24. £200 winter fuel payment to pensioners & up to £300 for over-80s. not means-tested,so even multi-millionaires qualify.
42. Over 3 million child trust funds have been started. no means-testing
Conversely not means testing cuts out massive amounts of paperwork, allows people to work to improve their situation and does not reward anyone who makes their situation worse.
Costs of not means testing could easily be controlled by time limits, capped payments or by making payments related to previous tax returns (i.e. to how much you paid in) so there is no reason to assume means testing saves any money at all over other obvious controls.
The next time someone claims to be better off on benefits just remember that you've got what you wished for.
Oh, and both those benefits should never have been introduced in the first place. How on Earth do my kids benefit from a child trust fund? I'll decide what to give my kids with my own money thanks very much without having a team of civil servants take a cut, bribe them with their dad's money and then pay out a truly appalling return for 18 years. This reminds me to cash ours in...
cymtriks said:
Means testing punishes those who try to improve their situation and actively rewards those who make it worse. It depends on highly bureaucratic and expensive processes to continuously assess claimants.
Conversely not means testing cuts out massive amounts of paperwork, allows people to work to improve their situation and does not reward anyone who makes their situation worse.
Costs of not means testing could easily be controlled by time limits, capped payments or by making payments related to previous tax returns (i.e. to how much you paid in) so there is no reason to assume means testing saves any money at all over other obvious controls.
The next time someone claims to be better off on benefits just remember that you've got what you wished for.
Oh, and both those benefits should never have been introduced in the first place. How on Earth do my kids benefit from a child trust fund? I'll decide what to give my kids with my own money thanks very much without having a team of civil servants take a cut, bribe them with their dad's money and then pay out a truly appalling return for 18 years. This reminds me to cash ours in...
The winter fuel and child trust fund payments are pocket money to some, so why should they get them? I'm almost embarrassed to have been given £500 by the government for each of my first two children.Conversely not means testing cuts out massive amounts of paperwork, allows people to work to improve their situation and does not reward anyone who makes their situation worse.
Costs of not means testing could easily be controlled by time limits, capped payments or by making payments related to previous tax returns (i.e. to how much you paid in) so there is no reason to assume means testing saves any money at all over other obvious controls.
The next time someone claims to be better off on benefits just remember that you've got what you wished for.
Oh, and both those benefits should never have been introduced in the first place. How on Earth do my kids benefit from a child trust fund? I'll decide what to give my kids with my own money thanks very much without having a team of civil servants take a cut, bribe them with their dad's money and then pay out a truly appalling return for 18 years. This reminds me to cash ours in...
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Are you in London Tonker? I drove a Transit for an agency in Glasgow when I was going through Uni in 2001-2003. Pay rates were typical minimum wage +10p/hr, so about £4.10 an hour back then. The driver's mate grade below that generally paid minimum wage and I'm convinced they would have been much lower if the min wage hadn't existed. Maybe the min wage has flattened out some regional differences that existed in the past.alangla said:
Are you in London Tonker? I drove a Transit for an agency in Glasgow when I was going through Uni in 2001-2003. Pay rates were typical minimum wage +10p/hr, so about £4.10 an hour back then. The driver's mate grade below that generally paid minimum wage and I'm convinced they would have been much lower if the min wage hadn't existed. Maybe the min wage has flattened out some regional differences that existed in the past.
You don't think it's more likely that, thanks to minimum wage employers have a bare minimum they can stick to knowing their competitors will pay the same? If there was no minimum wage, they'd have to be competitive. If they're paying £1.50 an hour, and their competitor is paying £2 an hour, where do you think potential employees are going to go? With no minimum wage people looking for jobs can be more picky, if it's too low they simply won't apply and the competitor will get the staff. Oakey said:
You don't think it's more likely that, thanks to minimum wage employers have a bare minimum they can stick to knowing their competitors will pay the same? If there was no minimum wage, they'd have to be competitive. If they're paying £1.50 an hour, and their competitor is paying £2 an hour, where do you think potential employees are going to go? With no minimum wage people looking for jobs can be more picky, if it's too low they simply won't apply and the competitor will get the staff.
Market forces would normally see wages go to within a few pence/hr of each other, especially at that end of the market where the agencies are constantly trying to undercut each other & price seems to matter more than anything else. When I started driving, I think I got something like £4 an hr, and the customer was charged about £6.50 or £6.99 an hr by the agency. There's not much profit in that when you take off your various costs and as I say, competition seems to be cutthroat at that end of the market. Overall, no, I don't think it explains the difference in pay between me & Tonker.Everyone forgetting already its the banks that f
ked the economy not the labour government?... 850 BILLION... or £5500 per UK family... then the tories come in and claw that back by cutting public sector spending while those s pat themselves on the back and carry on regardless.
whats the tories latest brilliant idea? selling our forests.
ked the economy not the labour government?... 850 BILLION... or £5500 per UK family... then the tories come in and claw that back by cutting public sector spending while those s pat themselves on the back and carry on regardless. whats the tories latest brilliant idea? selling our forests.
RPastry said:
Everyone forgetting already its the banks that fked the economy not the labour government?... 850 BILLION... or £5500 per UK family... then the tories come in and claw that back by cutting public sector spending while those s pat themselves on the back and carry on regardless.
whats the tories latest brilliant idea? selling our forests.
Yes the banks cost us £850 billion. And the consequences of letting them go under? It would have been even bigger. They will have to pay every penny back to the taxpayerked the economy not the labour government?... 850 BILLION... or £5500 per UK family... then the tories come in and claw that back by cutting public sector spending while those s pat themselves on the back and carry on regardless. whats the tories latest brilliant idea? selling our forests.
The labour government added over £3 trillion to the national debt. The taxpayer will have to pay every penny of this back. The national debt has already spent every penny of the taxes we will earn in our lives, and our children and grandchildren.
Neither bankers or politicians are saints but I know which are costing us more.
Dibblington said:
Yes the banks cost us £850 billion. And the consequences of letting them go under? It would have been even bigger. They will have to pay every penny back to the taxpayer
The labour government added over £3 trillion to the national debt. The taxpayer will have to pay every penny of this back. The national debt has already spent every penny of the taxes we will earn in our lives, and our children and grandchildren.
Neither bankers or politicians are saints but I know which are costing us more.
who was regulating the banks at the time!The labour government added over £3 trillion to the national debt. The taxpayer will have to pay every penny of this back. The national debt has already spent every penny of the taxes we will earn in our lives, and our children and grandchildren.
Neither bankers or politicians are saints but I know which are costing us more.
old winky!
Sorry, I should of attached a 
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff