chem1st Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 That's great. You do that then. Problem solved. But do it with your own capital. If you don't have the money then i guess one of the many housebuilding companies in the UK will have spotted this gap in the market and done it? No? Then maybe it's not the solid gold way to sort the economic problems we have? I did say 'potentially'. It wouldn't be allowed to actually happen, that would be sheer madness, people wouldn't be readily inclined to sign up to a lifetime of debt and could spend just a small proportion of a few years earning on a house. Unless we could accompany it with a demolition program to knock down the same amount. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titanic99 Posted January 3, 2011 Author Share Posted January 3, 2011 It depends doesn't it. Dole = 3k under 25, 3.5k over 25 Housing benefit (Sheffield) = £3.25k under 25, £5k over 25 [For single people]. Council tax benefit (Sheffield) ~ £1k Benefits = £7250 - 9500 Minimum wage, 40 hours = £12334.4 Of which, Tax = £1171, NI (tax) = £728 Tax thus = £1899 NET earnings thus, £10434. Thankfully someone comes along that speaks a bit of sense on this thread. I would add though that the figures you quoote are for a single person, if the person to be made unemployed has a family then the figures spent on welfare are considerably higher. So we end up paying almost as much for someone to sit at home doing nothing, as it costs for them to provide a service. Same as the Pension argument, if I retire at 65 my pension is a lot leess than it costs to keep somebody unemployed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 What makes anybody like Titanic think that everybody has enough disposable income to sustain a 10% pay cut, because that is effectively what you're argueing for! 40 hours reduced by 4 is 10% of the persons hours and 10% of their income. And 9 people working 40 hours would have to take that 10% cut to create one job doing 36 hours like the rest of them. What about people on minimum wage, could they afford to lose 10% of their income? It's no good saying they'll pay less tax, it won't make up for the lost income. Barking mad! In other news, tractor production increased by 0.2% this month. Well done everybody. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 I would add though that the figures you quoote are for a single person, if the person to be made unemployed has a family then the figures spent on welfare are considerably higher. So we end up paying almost as much for someone to sit at home doing nothing, as it costs for them to provide a service. Pretty much, although the best thing about a family being unemployed (for the state's finances) is, that although they claim numerically more, they claim less benefits on a per person measure. Same as the Pension argument, if I retire at 65 my pension is a lot leess than it costs to keep somebody unemployed. I don't think so, the pension is higher than benefits so it would cost more. An under 25 cannot claim as much as a person aged 25+, so from a financial point of view, high unemployment in adults below the arbitrary age is better than unemployment in those above it (for the state in the short term). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 Regarding the point, High Unemployment is shocking (we always seem to get it when the Tories are fixing the screwup Labour left), so why can’t we be a little bit more sensible in this by reducing the hours of those in work and consequently getting others into work, and reducing the Welfare Bill. Because that reduces everyone else wages and causes them to fall into the welfare brackets. It also increases business costs. More economic mismanagement brought to you by a member of we Luv Labour guv. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berberis Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 Is English your first language ? I don't think it is, is it? Like I said before, you need a lesson in humility Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
espadrille Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 (edited) Don't underestimate the likes of Titanic, Mecky and Wednesday1's ability to totally ignore the facts when trying to score political points. I agree. But I have accepted that they wont see it from another point of view. It is like banging ones head on a brick wall. Painful. Edited January 4, 2011 by espadrille Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now