egafd.com

"To give a basic standard of living to more households without benefit top-ups or at least substantial reduction in the amount paid out would require a significant increase from the current rate."

I suspect it is one of the great truths that people assume that the current situation cannot change. "There is no alternative" is the great coalition cry.

Call me cynical, but I cannot recall my mother or father ever receiving "benefits" while they were in work which was most of their lives until retirement.

"We are all in this together" Are we?

1. Companies have seen reductions in corporation tax.
2. Increases in a bottomless pit of corporate benefits such as tax credits to swell their profits as they get away with poverty wages.
3. An ever-increasing adherence to complex tax avoidance strategies in large corporations.

"However the employers costs would be increased and passed on as higher prices for their products or services. Hence potentially
a) inflation would rise.
b) the business would become fold because of uncompetitive prices for products / reduced demand for services."

This is the exact same argument used by the Tories when the Labour government introduced the minimum wage for the first time in 1999. I don't recall its introduction leading to a corporate collapse and soaring inflation. Do you?

Secondly with regard to inflation, the UK government has at various times in its history had price controls. It has at the moment in the case of what can be charged for certain rail fares for example. It has had rent controls in the past.

Thirdly, you think it is like this all over Western Europe where employers take advantage of tax credits to pay workers wages they can't live on?

I don't think so.

I take my hat off to the fact that you are so committed to supplying us with the REAL truth.

Well done David Johnson!!!!!

David Johnson wrote:


>
> It is entirely obvious that taking people out of tax for the
> first ?12,000 will not solve the problem of how a porter or a
> cleaner working in central London can afford to rent anywhere
> in London and work in London simply based on their wage without
> the help of housing benefit.
>
I don't understand why there is a belief that people should live near their work. If someone working in central London cannot afford to live in London, then live somewhere else and commute. That's what millions of people do every day. I'd like to live in Mayfair but I can't afford it so I spend 90 mins each morning travelling into London. Under your system I should get housing benefit so I can live in Mayfair... If you cannot afford to live somewhere then move but don't expect the rest of us to help with your rent.

Gentleman wrote:

> The classic I'm all right jack argument so someone gets to save
> a few pennies

Er everyone gets to save more than a few pennies.



in the pound meanwhile there s a lot less going
> into the tax system which is used for NHS and all the other
> stuff so something's would have to be chopped which would have
> to be something individuals can buy and private companies can
> make hefty profits on.
>
> So the NHS would go----er why would the NHS go? Apart from the facts that it needs reforming. In any case, politicians say that National Insurance goes towards paying for the NHS as well as car tax so there would be plenty of money for the bloated, bureaucratic NHS...

Taking out the luxury of actually not along to spend hours a day too and from work you actually need to be able to afford to travel which is next to impossible unless your job pays well and if you lack the luxury of a car you are totally buggered due to public transport costs.

Also the luxury of living near your work also means less demand made on transport networks which saves time and money for the nation. It also helps build communities rather than a masters only area and the worker ghettos nicely tucked away out of sight.

And do you think the rental situation in the south east of England would make it so much easier for a porter to live in Hertfordshire, say, and commute to London every day? And to be able to do this without housing benefit?

You would replace the rental savings largely by the cost of the train commute. I don't recall citizens of the south east that commute to central London commentating on how cheap season tickets are? Do you? Or maybe you think the porter should walk to work from St. Albans?

Of course, the Tories with their huge "top down reorganisation of the NHS", you know the one that they said they wouldn't do, has introduced a number of extra layers of bureaucracy.

Best to take up your criticisms with DIamond Dave and Georgie Boy.

David Johnson wrote:

>
> You would replace the rental savings largely by the cost of the
> train commute. I don't recall citizens of the south east that
> commute to central London commentating on how cheap season
> tickets are? Do you? Or maybe you think the porter should
> walk to work from St. Albans?

No but there are plenty of cheap places at the ends of the tube lines - I live in one.

Gentleman wrote:

> Taking out the luxury of actually not along to spend hours a
> day too and from work you actually need to be able to afford to
> travel which is next to impossible unless your job pays well
> and if you lack the luxury of a car you are totally buggered
> due to public transport costs.

Even if you have a car you are "buggered" because of the Congestion Charge and the fact that there is nowhere to park in town.

>
> Also the luxury of living near your work also means less demand
> made on transport networks which saves time and money for the
> nation. It also helps build communities rather than a masters
> only area and the worker ghettos nicely tucked away out of
> sight.

You really think that even if workers live in central London they hobnob with their bosses?

"You really think that even if workers live in central London they hobnob with their bosses?"

Nope... In fact the UK has the highest disparity between rich and poor within the same geographic area such as post code than any other nation.