egafd.com

1 & 3 -

Of those 440,000 Jobs available how many pay a living wage?

If 440,000 long term unemployed were forced to take them how many would be better off?
How many would be worse off when items like paying cost of travel to work let alone childcare were included?

There has to be worthwhile incentive to work.

As 'that graph' shows 3% of the budget goes on Jobseekers Allowance while 5% goes on income support, 14% goes on Housing Benefit, 3% goes on Council Tax benefit.

Hence is the lack of jobs paying a living wage a bigger issue than unemployment?


2 -
If the both the issues of unemployment and low pay were tacked so many more earned a living wage and hence could pay a mortgage this would be much less of an issue. More people owning their house so having pride in it can only be good for society.

4-
Totally agree that tax avoidance by corporations must be tacked head on.

Wow, not noticing when sarcasm is used to respond to sarcasm.

corporate tax avoidance -

educate the masses that those corporates are systematically raping the country - get it known and let people make choices. You have set yourself up and you are working in this country and making money but yet you do all you can to avoid paying dues on that profit....

dues that are used to pay for the services that this country provides to the population. If you had a guy in the pub that never bought his round in and he charged you for any contribution he made then you would soon short shift the cunt. So moral is find out those companies that do this and then boycott them.

...combined with a rigorous and robust tax law, but we find ourself back to our government who won't do this due to their funding and ex minister retirement plans I.e employment in self same companies.

yep corrupt indeed....

no point bleating about the fox eating the chickens when you are feeding them out the back door anyways....

Benefit breakdown. From DWP:

42.3% elderly,

20.8% low income,

18.4% families,

15.5% sick/disabled,

2.6% unemployed.

Just think if employers had to pay a living wage you'd immediately remove 20.8% of the welfare budget and they'd be more money going around the system which in turn benefits others..and they may have to employ others ...

Wonder why no one does this? Why of course companies like the way it is now with their wage bill subsidised by the taxpayer which in turn are the same suckers working for the low wages.

Even UKIP would have my vote if they introduced living wage.

Wonder if that nice stockbroker bloke nige would consider that?

One thing that has unwittingly contributed to the demonisation is reality TV. Because that genre is drawn to what could be called "the undeserving poor" for pure entertainment reasons.

Last weekend, for example, there was a programme on about the RSPCA at work, and lo and behold there was a woman on benefits with 7 flea-infested cats, puffing away on a fag, talking about pressies on a mobile to a friend whilst claiming that there was no money for the treatment of the cats.

The politicians have latched on to this mood when selling us their cuts: the recent change to the pension system (excluding the spouses) was sold to us as filling this loophole in the system that would pay undeserving Jenny Foreigner a pension, whilst the change has actually much wider implications. Now, one can make a case for that change, but the particular case that was made was emotive in a somewhat disturbing sort of way...

I share your concerns.

As part of the endless discussions in this country about how many Rumanians and Bulgarians will be coming here from January next year, the Tories have stated they will bring in a number of restrictions on access to the benefit system and the NHS.

Apparently in order to do this, the Tories will have to place the same restrictions on UK nationals.