The ITV Leaders' Debate

[harvey19 541]

I wonder how many people when paying builders, decorators etc to do work for them want the cheapest price for the job.

I also wonder how many people would pay extra so that the tradesmen, labourers etc. could have an higher wage.

[psynuk 10]

and I wonder how many tradesmen would charge less so the household isn't being fleeced by tradesmen?

 

A lot of people in the trades seriously overestimate their worth.

[Happ Hazzard 10]

and I wonder how many tradesmen would charge less so the household isn't being fleeced by tradesmen?

 

A lot of people in the trades seriously overestimate their worth.

If someone is willing to pay them a certain amount, that is what they are worth.

[psynuk 10]

hmm not really, what they can get away with and their 'worth' are not the same.

[altus 540]

If someone is willing to pay them a certain amount, that is what they are worth.

 

And any good capitalist would argue that artificially restricting the supply of tradespeople would be interfering with the market, preventing it from finding their true worth.

[I1L2T3 10]

1: The couple on NMW wouldn't get tax credits.

2: I didn't say their was enough full time jobs but you can't expect employer to give part time staff a living wage.

3: The state helps them to support their children, their decision to have them is not the responsibility of their employer.

 

 

A couple with four kids and one working 40 hours a week, earning £13500 and paying rent would receive £26,010.62 in benefits.

 

That means their living wage would need to be £19 an hour for a 40 hour week, and £39 an hour for a 20 hour week, do you seriously think an employers should pay that amount of money for a cleaner.

 

You're just creating specific scenarios that support your case. The reality is, and you cannot hide from it, that the housing benefit bill is tens of billions as is the tax credits bill. You also cannot hide from the cost of childcare. If things were the perfect world you describe then the state wouldn't be paying that money and childcare would be available.

 

Where I take issue with your position is you seem to be arguing for massive state support for people, for the government to continue shelling out to keep people afloat. Seriously, we don't want the state actively continuing the worst left-wing policy mistakes of recent times.

[taxman 12]

The tax payer doesn't subsidise the wages of rich multi-nationals

 

Course it does Smithy. They pay low wages, the state has to top them up via Tax Credits.

If they paid a proper wage we wouldn't need in work benefits would we?

[loraward 10]

You're just creating specific scenarios that support your case. The reality is, and you cannot hide from it, that the housing benefit bill is tens of billions as is the tax credits bill. You also cannot hide from the cost of childcare. If things were the perfect world you describe then the state wouldn't be paying that money and childcare would be available.

 

Where I take issue with your position is you seem to be arguing for massive state support for people, for the government to continue shelling out to keep people afloat. Seriously, we don't want the state actively continuing the worst left-wing policy mistakes of recent times.

 

No you are just ignoring the realty, you want employers to pay a living wage, but a living wage is different for everyone, the NMW is a living wage for some and some will need £40 an hour. I would rather the state stop paying the high benefits that they pay and allow people to start living within their means, if they can't afford 4 kids don't have 4 kids.

 

---------- Post added 03-04-2015 at 22:12 ----------

 

Course it does Smithy. They pay low wages, the state has to top them up via Tax Credits.

If they paid a proper wage we wouldn't need in work benefits would we?

 

I have no idea why you are calling me Smithy and I just posted the figures which prove you wrong. How much is a proper wage, bare in mind a couple with 4 kids are going to need about £40K a year after tax. So should a shop assistant be guaranteed 40 hours a week paying £40K a year after tax, thats £56K gross.

[I1L2T3 10]

No you are just ignoring the realty, you want employers to pay a living wage, but a living wage is different for everyone, the NMW is a living wage for some and some will need £40 an hour. I would rather the state stop paying the high benefits that they pay and allow people to start living within their means, if they can't afford 4 kids don't have 4 kids.

 

The reality is that the high housing benefit and tax credit bills reflect the fact that many people do not have the means to live. That includes a lot of families with only one or two children. The crux of the problem is that living costs are too high. Business leaders have no incentive to actively encourage control of living costs because:

 

1. The government tops up the wages of their workers

2. They have a continuous stream of immigrant workers to fall back on

 

I can't believe you are seriously arguing for the continuation of state subsidy for workers and businesses. Its crazy.

[loraward 10]

The reality is that the high housing benefit and tax credit bills reflect the fact that many people do not have the means to live. That includes a lot of families with only one or two children. The crux of the problem is that living costs are too high. Business leaders have no incentive to actively encourage control of living costs because:

 

1. The government tops up the wages of their workers

2. They have a continuous stream of immigrant workers to fall back on

 

I can't believe you are seriously arguing for the continuation of state subsidy for workers and businesses. Its crazy.

I agree that living costs are too high and one reason for that is government giving out free money. You haven't said what the living wage should be, should it be enough to bring up 4 kids on one wage, or enough for a couple with no kids and two wages. I also agree that high immigration suppresses wages and causes high living costs.

 

You believe that I am supporting something that I am not supporting.

[ricgem2002 11]

1:

A couple with four kids and one working 40 hours a week, earning £13500 and paying rent would receive £26,010.62 in benefits.

 

I think that means british taxpayers help fund multi nationals workforces don't you

[loraward 10]

I think that means british taxpayers help fund multi nationals workforces don't you

 

No, the tax payer supports people with children.