Quote:
Originally Posted by johntheexpat  Sidicks, I'm possibly doing you a terrible injustice here, but I do feel that there is a trap out there waiting to be sprung concerning the benefits system. |
Indeed you are - I'll look forward to an apology later.
Quote:
Originally Posted by johntheexpat If nobody applies for the £2 ph jobs, then it may be claimed that its because the benefits system is too generous. People won't work when they can get more by not working. Which may well elicit a robust response from some.
But you can't have Governments playing with the benefits system, to allow people getting paid a low wage to top it up with benefits to a minimum that has been deemed necessary to survive, because that will be seen as an illegal subsidy for the business.
I don't think the minimum wage is an arbitrary figure, pulled out of the sky by beer drinking union officials in return for a no strike agreement. I think it is a well thought out figure that is the lowest amount that a worker should reasonably expect and allow them some independance from state aid. And heck, it ain't that much really. |
But the point stands.
There are people unemployed because they are only worth (say) £4 an hour to a business and the business cannot afford to employ them at the minimum wage.
These same people are "doing nothing" (in this context) and receiving benefits.
A sensible policy would allow the firm to employ them at £4 an hour and still allow them to receive some benefits so that they are better off than before.
If the firm is happy, the individual is happy, and the state is spending less, isn't that a win-win-win solution?
Sidicks