Quote:
Originally Posted by Spexxvet
They could just have a job that pays a living wage...
|
This!
Don't know how it works in the US, but over here the cost of in work benefits far outweighs the cost of unemployment benefits. There are minimum wage laws, but the minimum wage is not enough to live on even if both adults in a house are working full time. A situation made even worse by the rise of the 'zero hour contract'.
The argument given against a legally enforced living wage, as opposed to minimum wage, is that it would force many companies to cut staff, or discourage them from hiring more staff. Unemployment would rise. Similarly, the zero hour contracts are justified on the basis of flexibility for companies to only pay for work when it is needed, rather than having to hire and fire staff according to the waxing and waning of their businesses. Better that people have jobs, however inadequate, than not have jobs.
The trouble is that this now means the tax payer is effectively subsidising the staffing costs for large numbers of companies. They pay a pittance, and their employee makes up the shortfall to subsistance through tax credits and housing benefit, or free school meals for low income children.
Means tested benefits should be for people who are unable to be economically active. People who have reached the age of retirement, people who are out of work, people who are disabled from work.
It is a fucking disgrace that they have to be given to people in full time jobs so that they can afford to put food on the table and use their central heating in winter.
If a business cannot afford to pay a fair wage to its workers, then it is not a viable business. No more than a business that cannot afford to pay its business taxes or its ground rent.