bridge too far

donuts

biscuit

seal

Well - we pay for the goods anyway don't we? I'd rather pay extra for goods knowing that those who made said goods were receiving a dignified wage. A bit like paying for fair trade coffee and bananas. And life would be far less complicated than all the means testing and benefit paying.

Let's look at an imaginary case. There is a company making cardboard boxes. They need people to work in the factory. They could either a) pay them a dignified wage of (let's say) £8 an hour which should just about be enough for the worker to live on without recourse to receiving 'benefits'. b) pay them the minimum wage (or less, as some seem to do even though that's illegal) and get the state (i.e. you and me, the taxpayer) to make up the difference in the form of benefits. What is that, if not a subsidy? We, the taxpayers, are shelling out to ensure everyone has enough to live on. The employer isn't. So we are, in effect, subsidising that company. Let alone the huge benefit to the worker of having the dignity of having enough to live on.

You're absolutely right and it shames me, as a Labour Party member, to admit that they got it wrong. But I can't see this gap being addressed in the near future - quite the reverse, I imagine.

Let's hope they turn their attention to that lot down the road, eh?

A book I intend to read shortly: http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/why/evidence The topic has come to the fore quite a lot recently - I think the notion that more equal societies produce happier people was even mentioned on a recent QI!

exaggerated

Depends on your taste. I like good strong 'builders' tea' myself.

Yeah - but Yorkshire Tea is the best. You have to give them that one.

Man(n)

scales

means

sox

Listening / watching the Elton John Electric Proms gig recorded on Saturday night.

Adolf

Exactly - the employer doesn't receive the money, the individual does. But IF the employer was legally obliged to pay a respectable wage (more than the minimum wage), the taxpayer wouldn't have to stump up for benefits. All the time benefits are available, there is no real incentive for an employer to pay more than the minimum for unskilled work. It's a bit disingenuous to suggest there would be no jobs if employers had to pay more. If there weren't the jobs, because the employer wasn't prepared to pay more, there wouldn't be the production of goods to sell and the employer would cease to exist! Think of the millions in administration that could be saved if there was no need for benefits!

Interestingly, it seems that the Dutch are about to clamp down on 'coffee shops' http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11647189

But I AM subsidising the employer if the rates of pay are so low that I, the taxpayer, have to fork out for benefits for the employee.

Whose job is it then? And an employer can't really be called an employer if s/he doesn't employ! So it's my job to subsidise a company paying crap wages so that it can increase its profits and benefit the owner? Is that what you're saying?

Charles

Better that than men with their stomachs spread across - well - their entire bodies Maybe it's a nose thing then 'cos I think MLT is strangely attractive too

That looks like a Cath Kidston print.

Sometimes I wonder if we come at this from the wrong angle? What happens at the moment is that some people get 'benefits' (misnomer if ever there was one) because their wages are so low or because, frankly, they're better off not working. These benefits are funded by those of us who pay tax and NI. So, in effect, we, the tax payers, are subsidising employers who pay low wages. Those employers are the ones taking us for a ride, not the claimants (with some exceptions, but in the minority I would suggest). Let's say you work a 48 hour week @ £6 per hour (maximum hours / minimum wage allowed). That equates to £288 a week or £1250 a month gross. In this area (and probably a lot of the south east) you'd probably be paying c£600 rent for a 2 bed flat. That leaves £600 a month for food, clothes, travel to work let alone personal items such as presents etc. for your children, council tax, TV licence, fuel bills. So you have to be subsidised because you're living at subsistence level. Recent research has suggested OAPs need £15K a year to live on at a basic level and many OAPs live rent free as their mortgages are paid up. So the choice is - who should do the subsidising? The employer or the taxpayer?