"Future of the Welfare State" with John Humphrys

[ricgem2002]

The thing I don't understand about this is why employers aren't forced to pay a decent living wage to help get the benefit bill down.

david cameron does he lets these companies pay a pittance in wages, which the employee gets taxed on (no tax avoidance for the employee here) then lets these companies pay minimal tax on billions of pounds worth of profit and you wonder why this country is in the brown stuff:huh:.

[Titanic99]

Would you describe minimum wage as less than decent? Do you think jobs that only pay minimum wage should be paid more?

 

Of course they should, anyone working full-time shouldn't have to rely on subsidy from other people to have to pay their Rent.

[Titanic99]

david cameron does he lets these companies pay a pittance in wages, which the employee gets taxed on (no tax avoidance for the employee here) then lets these companies pay minimal tax on billions of pounds worth of profit and you wonder why this country is in the brown stuff:huh:.

 

Exactly, it is typical of this wretched party that they drive wages down whilst the owners of companies see their profits rise.

 

Unfortunately some people fail to see this and vote for them.

[mj.scuba]

Of course they should, anyone working full-time shouldn't have to rely on subsidy from other people to have to pay their Rent.

 

Maybe they should rent somewhere within their means.

[Titanic99]

Maybe they should rent somewhere within their means.

 

Perhaps that isn't possible if the Social Housing has been removed.

[Anna B]

But we can't afford this amount of money being spent on the welfare state given the current economic state.

 

Interestingly the MORI polls shown within the programme seem to back up the general public's view of this.

 

So how come we can afford to pour billions into the banking system?

[*_ash_*]

Of course they should, anyone working full-time shouldn't have to rely on subsidy from other people to have to pay their Rent.

Maybe they should rent somewhere within their means.

 

 

Do you agree with a rent of £2,300/month being paid by benefits titanic?

 

 

Perhaps that isn't possible if the Social Housing has been removed.

 

Talk about avoiding a question. You should be an MP.

 

Can you honestly tell me that you couldn't house a family anywhere in the country for £2,300/month.

 

Say no please. I know you won't though.

[Mecky]

I don't think anybody begrudges the hard workers at the bottom of the ladder receiving government help, it's the people who choose to sit on their arse and expect the taxpayer to pay for them.

 

If they are receiving government help and by that you mean benefit, they are unlikely to the working and are therefore not workers. The last little bit after my bold makes you look like a right bigot doesn't it?

[Ms Macbeth]

Do you agree with a rent of £2,300/month being paid by benefits .

 

Of course there is housing across the country at a vastly cheaper rent. I'd hate to go back 40 or so years where families in the most desperate need of housing got no help at all, but I can't imagine there are many ordinary people who would agree with housing benefits paying out over £2k a month.

 

I watched the programme. The single mother, who'd never worked, but had 7 children, and complained about the level of benefit she got. Unsurprisingly her teenage daughter is also now a single mum on benefits.

 

There was a man who didn't want to go to work, because it would have meant missing some time with his three children. How did he think the majority of families manage? He and his wife/partner could work and share child care, one day time, one evening, like so many do and have done. The woman looked aghast at being asked why she didn't work, as she had children. I know loads of working mums and dads who work simply to do the best they can for their children.

 

The beautifully turned out Ecuadorian family who'd got Spanish citizenship then moved here under EU freedoms. The father was a qualified engineer, but spoke little or no English so worked as a cleaner. Why did they have to live in Islington? There's work for cleaners in most places, and they could have got a nice house to rent (here?) for less than 1/4 of what the benefits system is currently paying for them to live in London (£2300 a month).

 

I want our benefits system to pay a reasonable amount to people who genuinely can't work. I don't see why people with seriously debilitating physical and mental health conditions are put through stressful and often distressing 'medical' tests. Why can't we trust our highly paid doctors and consultants to decide?

 

I want the system to pay decent flat rate pensions for all, and take back excesses in tax. I'd prefer that to the current system of penalising elderly people who have worked and been thrifty, only to end up a few pounds better off in old age than those who could have done the same but didn't.

 

I want the system to reward voluntary work, so that the efforts of non-working people who help society are recognised financially.

 

I was impressed by the youngsters in the class that was visited, where only one or two had parents who worked. They all wanted to be different to their parents. I hope they are successful.

[Ms Macbeth]

If they are receiving government help and by that you mean benefit, they are unlikely to the working and are therefore not workers.

 

Many hard working people on low incomes get government help in the form of benefits such as family tax credit, housing and council tax benefits.