Does May want to win?

[Mr D]

As far as I am aware it is not a specific part of any party's policy, but raising the minimum wage to £10, which is Labour policy, will take people out of in-work benefits, by definition.

As will the £9 an hour in the 2015 budget by 2020.

Lets see, gross earning on a 35 hour week at minimum wage £315 a week, at £10 an hour that's £350.

McDonnell has also said a few times that he will end corporate subsidy. Bang goes your capital allowances and reduced rate of anything...

 

[Clinton]

Don't you understand how the in-work benefit system works?

It would seem not. But as per what we've discussed it looks like Labour would (rightly) put on all businesses the burden of paying a fair living wage so that the state doesn't have to subsidise wages.

When that's done Labour would continue subsidising wages.

 

[Mr D]

You are missing the point. THAT IS MY POINT. Companies need to be made to pay salaries that allow their staff to live. But it has to be the other way around from what you describe - you cannot remove benefits before making companies pay living wages. Removing benefits first will eresult in unacceptable hardship for people.

No. You make companies pay minimum hourly wage, as all governments in the UK have done since NMW was brought in.. There is no current requirement - and to bring one in would make job creation a LOT harder - to make companies pay living wage, just an hourly rate of a certain amount.
What you, as a business, pay someone above that is up to you. How much would you pay for unskilled labour per hour and per week?

 

[Newchodge]

No. You make companies pay minimum hourly wage, as all governments in the UK have done since NMW was brought in.. There is no current requirement - and to bring one in would make job creation a LOT harder - to make companies pay living wage, just an hourly rate of a certain amount.
What you, as a business, pay someone above that is up to you. How much would you pay for unskilled labour per hour and per week?

If we had a fair benefit system, whereby those who could not find work that paid them enough to live on could receive living level benefits, then companies could not run that are not viable. A company that cannot afford to pay its workers enough to live on is not viable, yet thousands of businesses pay minimum wage which requires the taxpayers to subsidise their workers. Except it is not the workers that are being subsidised, but the businesses. Huge numbers of those businesses make enormous profits for their owners or their shareholders. Profit that is given to them by the taxpayer.

"How much would you pay for unskilled labour per hour and per week?" That depends on how much money I was making from their labour.

 

[Mr D]

Yes, Remove permission to operate here. If Starbucks, who pay pitiful amounts of tax pack up and leave the UK consumers will still drink the same amount of coffee but bought from someone like Costa who pay their full share of tax.

Its not as if companies like Amazon and Google aren't replaceable by others with better ethics.

Ethics? People talk about stealing from those companies taxes that are not payable.
Instead why not change taxes so they are payable. Just beware of knock on effects as could be breaching international laws.
Starbucks isn't a brand owned in the UK. It doesn't buy UK coffee. Money has to be paid for buying coffee - and money has to be paid for use of the brand. That's a legal requirement by the way, just try using a brand name without paying for it...

Amazon? You have never purchased from a UK company, you have always purchased from an overseas company. How do you start making an overseas company be based here? Make it attractive.
Currently places with rule of law are more attractive than UK who seems to prefer rule of media for working out how much tax is payable.
There is a UK company called amazon, pays around 4 million a year in corporation tax. On turnover of around 600 million.
But you have never purchased from them.

Google - we've just had the biggest tax audit in modern times in the UK and found they were paying their taxes. Minor change but basically in 6 years and however big a budget for investigating them the actual result was similar to if a smaller company was tax audited. Minor changes.

 

[Newchodge]

When that's done Labour would continue subsidising wages.

Why do you say that? Which part of the manifesto, or any statement by a Labour policy maker, has stated that?

 

[sirearl]

“The world has enough for everyone's need, but not enough for everyone's greed.”M.G

"The greed of gain has no time or limit to its capaciousness. Its one object is to produce and consume. It has pity neither for beautiful nature nor for living human beings. It is ruthlessly ready without a moment's hesitation to crush beauty and life". - Rabindranath Tagore

 

[Mr D]

If we had a fair benefit system, whereby those who could not find work that paid them enough to live on could receive living level benefits, then companies could not run that are not viable. A company that cannot afford to pay its workers enough to live on is not viable, yet thousands of businesses pay minimum wage which requires the taxpayers to subsidise their workers. Except it is not the workers that are being subsidised, but the businesses. Huge numbers of those businesses make enormous profits for their owners or their shareholders. Profit that is given to them by the taxpayer.

"How much would you pay for unskilled labour per hour and per week?" That depends on how much money I was making from their labour.

So campaign for a fair benefit system, meeting your standard of fair. So far none of the political parties appear to agree with you - what do they know that you do not? Perhaps how much is would cost?
And what is fair? £300 a week? £400 a week? £500 a week?

That's the thing about companies - they do pay their workers enough to live on according to the legal requirements we currently have.
Change the legal requirement and the companies will adapt. Just increase the prices, reduce staff hours, reduce staff numbers etc.
The pay has to be paid for by someone, and if putting prices up the company puts prices up for everyone, not just those who have had a pay rise.

Raise the minimum wage to what level? What is the amount you would require companies to pay per hour nationwide?

 

[Newchodge]

That's the thing about companies - they do pay their workers enough to live on according to the legal requirements we currently have.

Really, you need to try to understand.
In-work benefits are only paid to people who do not have enough to live on. Companies that pay the minimum wage are complying with the law. That does not mean, and no-one has ever claimed that it means, that it is enough to live on.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

As far as I am aware it is not a specific part of any party's policy, but raising the minimum wage to £10, which is Labour policy, will take people out of in-work benefits, by definition.

If this is combined with the increase in corporation tax, how are businesses supposed to afford this, exactly?

I fully understand the minimum wage increase, but increasing the amount businesses have to pay for staff, while simultaneously increasing the tax rate by a substantial amount, is a double whammy that is virtually guaranteed to result in job cuts.

Increasing the minimum wage while reducing business taxes would be a smart move. It gives more money to the people while leaving businesses in a neutral or minor loss position. Increasing both, however, will result in businesses taking major cost-cutting operations.

It's also extremely likely that some businesses wouldn't be able to cope at all. Does this mean that part of the extra revenue gained by the government has to go towards propping up these businesses as well?

To me, there seems to be little point in taking people out of in-work benefits if it results in far more people entering out-of-work benefits due to restricted jobs.

Let's not fool ourselves here. If businesses feel under pressure and need to maintain their financial health to please shareholders, the first thing to face the axe will be the workforce. History shows that quite clearly.

 

[Newchodge]

If this is combined with the increase in corporation tax, how are businesses supposed to afford this, exactly?

I fully understand the minimum wage increase, but increasing the amount businesses have to pay for staff, while simultaneously increasing the tax rate by a substantial amount, is a double whammy that is virtually guaranteed to result in job cuts.

Increasing the minimum wage while reducing business taxes would be a smart move. It gives more money to the people while leaving businesses in a neutral or minor loss position. Increasing both, however, will result in businesses taking major cost-cutting operations.

It's also extremely likely that some businesses wouldn't be able to cope at all. Does this mean that part of the extra revenue gained by the government has to go towards propping up these businesses as well?

To me, there seems to be little point in taking people out of in-work benefits if it results in far more people entering out-of-work benefits due to restricted jobs.

Let's not fool ourselves here. If businesses feel under pressure and need to maintain their financial health to please shareholders, the first thing to face the axe will be the workforce. History shows that quite clearly.

Corporation tax is paid on post tax profits. Wages are pre tax expenses. Increasing wages may increase xosts, but that cost increase will reduce the amount of profit on which corporation tax is payable.

 

[Mr D]

Really, you need to try to understand.
In-work benefits are only paid to people who do not have enough to live on. Companies that pay the minimum wage are complying with the law. That does not mean, and no-one has ever claimed that it means, that it is enough to live on.

Then increase the minimum wage. How much is enough for you? What is the amount you want government to set minimum wage at? £9 an hour as the Conservatives say? £10 an hour as Labour has said?
More?

 

[Mr D]

Corporation tax is paid on post tax profits. Wages are pre tax expenses. Increasing wages may increase xosts, but that cost increase will reduce the amount of profit on which corporation tax is payable.

There is no may about increasing costs. Increased wages will increase costs unless the company does something about it.
Rather than a 35 hour week an increased hourly rate could result in a 28 hour week. Everyone is happy. Or stay at 35 hours a week and some staff get let go. Keep the wages bill total the same.

Those on reduced hours, those that lose their jobs...... a consequence of increasing wages externally.

 

[Clinton]

Why do you say that? Which part of the manifesto, or any statement by a Labour policy maker, has stated that?

Exactly!

They say nothing about it in their manifesto - nothing about removing the income related benefits once they've sorted out a minimum living wage.

They want to have their cake and eat it too.

Any system that's introducing a government mandated minimum living wage, based on what the government calculates is a living wage, should then be dispensing with all income related benefits for those in full time employment.

If Labour committed to that they'd sound a lot more credible instead of sounding like the largesse-for-all party that they've always been. Remember, benefits started out as help for the most in need. Under successive Labour governments it has mophed into a massive state subsidy for everything from having a million kids to choosing to live off the state. Today we have all kinds of anomalies in the system, like rich kids getting free meals in primary schools, millionaires having their winter heating bills paid by the government, 2.5 days/ week of free childcare for 3 & 4 yr olds whatever your income etc. etc. (some of this is thanks to other parties competing with Labour to see who can give away more freebies to attract votes. The Lib Dems did a lot of damage in the Coalition).

Labour is the party of benefits and under Corbyn I see benefits exploding and the national debt getting even sillier.

 

[roydmoorian]

The Lib Dems did a lot of damage in the Coalition).

And they also held the Tories back from doing even more damage !!

But why oh why did they ever agree to a referendum on AV when PR(STV) is what they were actually looking for.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

Any system that's introducing a government mandated minimum living wage, based on what the government calculates is a living wage, should then be dispensing with all income related benefits for those in full time employment.

How many people do you employ?

Have you never employed someone part-time whose wage for perhaps 2 days a week is not enough to live on? The Living wage is an hourly rate not a weekly one.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

There is no may about increasing costs. Increased wages will increase costs unless the company does something about it.

Or those employees bought in on higher wages do something about it.

Industries with high wage bills generally make bigger profits than those with low average wages. (Unless that is the system allow them to cheat.)

As an example there are computer games companies where the average wage is over £100,000 and they still make eye watering profits.

 

[Clinton]

....2 days a week is not enough to live on? The Living wage is an hourly rate not a weekly one.

Huh? Since when has full time employment (read my post again) been 2 days a week?

Let's face it - even if every company was paying a living wage, Labour would still want people in full time employment to get income related benefits. Why? Because they're the party of benefits, always have been.

Labour would like to subsidise people who've hit hard times but also subsidise people who've made bad life choices, people who spluged all their money while their peers were saving for retirement, people who are work shy ...

Don't forget, Labour made it so that for many people it was more profitable to be on benefits than to take up work. Do you dispute that?

 

[Mr D]

Or those employees bought in on higher wages do something about it.

Industries with high wage bills generally make bigger profits than those with low average wages. (Unless that is the system allow them to cheat.)

As an example there are computer games companies where the average wage is over £100,000 and they still make eye watering profits.

Or you could try an industry where wages cost is a major cost of the business and the minimum wage increasing has a big knock on effect. Retail, parcel companies, temping agencies, care & nursing homes etc.
They all still making eye watering profits? As I recall a number of care workers companies have handed back contracts to councils as they cannot fulfil them and make money.... doesn't sound like eye watering profits?
How about charities - below the management and professional staff, can be impacted by a change in minimum wage. Still able to cover increases in costs of several thousand pounds a year? Usually the smaller ones are not making eye watering profits though the bigger ones....

 

[Employment Law Clinic]

During tonight’s debate, following Twitter, I noticed a tweet in the top trending, saying that Zero Hours Contracts were “reckless”, and that “for the vast majority they don’t work.”


I challenged the Campaigns Officer of the Labour Coop about this argument, and was told there are countless studies from the last 5 years showing most working on these don’t want to be.


The only link I was provided to (from countless studies over 5 years) was a Telegraph article. That article said: “"the employees themselves are in many cases satisfied with the flexibility provided by the jobs” (they subsequently deleted the tweet/link, once I quoted from it!).


This campains officer concluded instead that “they [zero hours contracts] work for some, and not for others.” From “reckless” to “they work for some” within a few minutes, when challenged. (And not one link from five years of countless studies.)


I thought Corbyn done very well in the “debates” tonight, but if campaign officers across the country are like Caitlin Prowle, I don’t think his cause is being helped.


Karl Limpert

 

[Mr D]

Perhaps Labour want people to have 4 hour contracts rather than zero hour contracts? Not sure it will make much difference to those who do the work, may be a bit less work around if a minimum is brought in.
Perhaps even go as high as 6 hours a week contract...

I'd love a zero hours contract job in my old profession. They just don't exist though the employers would be happy with zero wage jobs there....

 

[Employment Law Clinic]

Perhaps Labour want people to have 4 hour contracts rather than zero hour contracts? Not sure it will make much difference to those who do the work, may be a bit less work around if a minimum is brought in.
Perhaps even go as high as 6 hours a week contract...

I'd love a zero hours contract job in my old profession. They just don't exist though the employers would be happy with zero wage jobs there....

I put those arguments: one hour (£10pw) would apparently provide stability!

And the link to a study (or newspaper article, as it turned out) said the majority of staff welcomed the flexibility of zero hours.

I struggle to see how this law could work. Each "contract" (new offer for a period of work/hours) under zero-hours terms stands alone, so effectively an employer could offer six hours (if that's a new minimum - in a week/month?), and dismiss after one hour. Would that invite an employment tribunal claim? (If so, I look forward to an early retirement! #VoteCorbyn)


Karl Limpert

 

[Newchodge]

Huh? Since when has full time employment (read my post again) been 2 days a week?

Let's face it - even if every company was paying a living wage, Labour would still want people in full time employment to get income related benefits. Why? Because they're the party of benefits, always have been.

Labour would like to subsidise people who've hit hard times but also subsidise people who've made bad life choices, people who spluged all their money while their peers were saving for retirement, people who are work shy ...

Don't forget, Labour made it so that for many people it was more profitable to be on benefits than to take up work. Do you dispute that?

This is entirely your view of a situation without a single reference to anything outside your personal vies and therefore entirely meaningless. If you want to be credible please provide something to back up your fantasy.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

Huh? Since when has full time employment (read my post again) been 2 days a week?

From your answer I assume you have no experience of employing people. Nor apparently does MR D.

 

[Mr D]

From your answer I assume you have no experience of employing people. Nor apparently does MR D.

Not since 2005, no.

 

[Mr D]

Stephanie - and no matter who you vote for, the government win.

 

[Cobby]

If someone isn't being paid enough to cover their spending they change their income, change their spending or a mix of both.

And for those who cannot simply "change their income" and have nothing left to cut from their spending--which is not only a large number of people, it's a number that's increasing--do you think they are being paid enough?

Companies pay wages from their income. Increase the wages bill then income has to increase if all other factors remain the same. And if minimum wage increases more and more then it becomes much harder to find work paying more than it as it swallows up more and more jobs.
But because companies have to pay out more wages for the same work they put their prices up for all buyers - not just those who have had a pay increase.
If your benefit goes up by £2 a week but the cost of your food goes up £3 a week your costs are rising faster than your income....

This is nothing but game theory and licked-finger-in-the-air predictions about socio-economic activity.

 

[Cobby]

So isn't the obvious solution that the state stops subsidising these companies?! We should remove the relevant state benefits and make these companies pay better salaries!

What am I missing?

The benefits system has become huge, cumbersome, unfair. The more complicated it gets the more opportunities it creates for fiddles and the more unintended consequences we end up with. For example, companies who would otherwise find UK labour too expensive are able to set up shop here because the government subsidises the work force. Make it uneconomical for them to operate in the UK by removing subsidies and forcing wage increases. They'll move out and be replaced by businesses that do pay a proper wage. But, importantly, the government won't be complicit in funnelling my tax dollars to these companies' offshore accounts.

Agreed but the government has to make sure the boat is stable before the lowly-paid take their feet off the pier.

That's the thing about companies - they do pay their workers enough to live on according to the legal requirements we currently have.

Okay, you seem to have a real problem with this.
THEY DO NOT ALL PAY THEIR WORKERS ENOUGH TO LIVE ON.
The legally required minimums, sometimes, ARE NOT ENOUGH TO LIVE ON.

Just because it is the current legal requirement does not make it sufficient through some dint of self-referential logic.

 

[STDFR33]

And for those who cannot simply "change their income" and have nothing left to cut from their spending--which is not only a large number of people, it's a number that's increasing--do you think they are being paid enough?

Completely agree. Social housing tenants are a good example.

Many rely on state benefits, and are seeing rising energy and food prices, whilst their income remains the same. It probably explains why we are seeing an increase in the need for food banks.

 

[Cobby]

Let's face it - even if every company was paying a living wage, Labour would still want people in full time employment to get income related benefits. Why? Because they're the party of benefits, always have been.

...citation needed.

Labour would like to subsidise people who've hit hard times but also subsidise people who've made bad life choices, people who spluged all their money while their peers were saving for retirement

What you appear to be saying here is that people who make poor life choices should be punished with starvation? Can you provide some guidance on where your moral thresholds are for this?
(He can't, as he has me on ignore, but the point stands...)

 

[Cobby]

Exactly!

They say nothing about it in their manifesto - nothing about removing the income related benefits once they've sorted out a minimum living wage.

They want to have their cake and eat it too.

The Conservatives haven't said they won't process old people into Soylent Green...

 

[Deleted member 59730]

What it comes down to is that there are too few skilled jobs and too many unskilled workers. As a country we have shifted to a system where we consume low wages, whether it be cheap clothes from Bangladesh or cheap delivery from Hermes we are creating a society which doesn't give back enough.

As an employer in a small village I would meet my employees outside work in the street or the pub. You can't have a drink with someone if you are screwing them over wages. I took a lot of pride that my talent could earn my workers wages enough to holiday in the USA, Australia, South Africa etc.

 

[Cobby]

Completely agree. Social housing tenants are a good example.

Many rely on state benefits, and are seeing rising energy and food prices, whilst their income remains the same. It probably explains why we are seeing an increase in the need for food banks.

And price-structure discrimination by companies, such as the use of the far more expensive pre-pay electricity meters.

The thing that riles me about this topic is the number of people who seem to mean well (certainly with regards the bigger picture) but argue from a position without a shred of understanding or empathy.

"Change their income" as a hand-wave is one of these. Job seeking is difficult, extremely risky for those in full time employment and still in poverty, and sometimes carries the risk of homelessness--a thing some people simply will not risk if they have children.
"Change what they spend" is the usual follow up and carries the same lack of understanding: imagine not being able to buy food or ingredients in bulk because you can't raise the extra cash to buy it in one hit. Imagine not being able to slow-cook the very cheapest cuts of meat (required to make them edible), or make soup from scratch, or even just refrigerate or freeze leftovers because your pre-pay meter is so expensive you leave the electricity *off* for most of the day and only 'feed' it with enough to run the microwave and charge a phone.

I am in no way saying this is the norm, but it's also not rare and these are the people so blithely being disregarded by those with little understanding or empathy, arguing in defence of the current Conservative government.

 

[STDFR33]

And price-structure discrimination by companies, such as the use of the far more expensive pre-pay electricity meters.

The thing that riles me about this topic is the number of people who seem to mean well (certainly with regards the bigger picture) but argue from a position without a shred of understanding or empathy.

"Change their income" as a hand-wave is one of these. Job seeking is difficult, extremely risky for those in full time employment and still in poverty, and sometimes carries the risk of homelessness--a thing some people simply will not risk if they have children.
"Change what they spend" is the usual follow up and carries the same lack of understanding: imagine not being able to buy food or ingredients in bulk because you can't raise the extra cash to buy it in one hit. Imagine not being able to slow-cook the very cheapest cuts of meat (required to make them edible), or make soup from scratch, or even just refrigerate or freeze leftovers because your pre-pay meter is so expensive you leave the electricity *off* for most of the day and only 'feed' it with enough to run the microwave and charge a phone.

I am in no way saying this is the norm, but it's also not rare and these are the people so blithely being disregarded by those with little understanding or empathy, arguing in defence of the current Conservative government.

And to top it off, you have high street 'lenders' that will only lend to those on benefits. Scandalous.

 

[Mr D]

Agreed but the government has to make sure the boat is stable before the lowly-paid take their feet off the pier.



Okay, you seem to have a real problem with this.
THEY DO NOT ALL PAY THEIR WORKERS ENOUGH TO LIVE ON.
The legally required minimums, sometimes, ARE NOT ENOUGH TO LIVE ON.

Just because it is the current legal requirement does not make it sufficient through some dint of self-referential logic.

Then campaign for government to increase that amount.

Do not have a go at the companies for paying what the market rate is for a job.

Whatever you come up with as a minimum for companies to pay - those that will not can just shed staff, those who want to hire staff will hire fewer - but at least those who cannot get a job will be well kept by the benefits system eh? Oh wait, that pays a lot less than a job currently, never mind at whatever level you set it at.

If I say I need £1600 a month net pay will you be paying me that if I go and work for you?

 

[Mr D]

And price-structure discrimination by companies, such as the use of the far more expensive pre-pay electricity meters.

The thing that riles me about this topic is the number of people who seem to mean well (certainly with regards the bigger picture) but argue from a position without a shred of understanding or empathy.

"Change their income" as a hand-wave is one of these. Job seeking is difficult, extremely risky for those in full time employment and still in poverty, and sometimes carries the risk of homelessness--a thing some people simply will not risk if they have children.
"Change what they spend" is the usual follow up and carries the same lack of understanding: imagine not being able to buy food or ingredients in bulk because you can't raise the extra cash to buy it in one hit. Imagine not being able to slow-cook the very cheapest cuts of meat (required to make them edible), or make soup from scratch, or even just refrigerate or freeze leftovers because your pre-pay meter is so expensive you leave the electricity *off* for most of the day and only 'feed' it with enough to run the microwave and charge a phone.

I am in no way saying this is the norm, but it's also not rare and these are the people so blithely being disregarded by those with little understanding or empathy, arguing in defence of the current Conservative government.

Searching for a job is also a heck of a lot easier now than it was when I left school.
Now someone can, in their spare time, search for a job online. Fill in online application forms or submit a CV by email, even create own CV on a computer program.
Have changed jobs several times, I know exactly how easy it is to do so. Wife has also applied for jobs at various times and moved to different employers.
Last time she started looking for work it took 20 minutes. Longest she has taken is 2 days.


What is the current benefit rate now? Can someone survive on that? Are there millions who do survive on it? How are they doing it?

 

[Mr D]

What it comes down to is that there are too few skilled jobs and too many unskilled workers. As a country we have shifted to a system where we consume low wages, whether it be cheap clothes from Bangladesh or cheap delivery from Hermes we are creating a society which doesn't give back enough.

As an employer in a small village I would meet my employees outside work in the street or the pub. You can't have a drink with someone if you are screwing them over wages. I took a lot of pride that my talent could earn my workers wages enough to holiday in the USA, Australia, South Africa etc.

So we need more skilled jobs. Make the country attractive to employers and they will flock here.
At the moment places with rule of law will be more attractive than the UK. Places where the business can provide its services and run the business without hassle are more attractive.

 

[Cobby]

Then campaign for government to increase that amount.

Do not have a go at the companies for paying what the market rate is for a job.

What makes you think we're 'having a go at companies'? We're very clearly criticising the government for it's low wage policies. Keep up.

Whatever you come up with as a minimum for companies to pay - those that will not can just shed staff, those who want to hire staff will hire fewer - but at least those who cannot get a job will be well kept by the benefits system eh? Oh wait, that pays a lot less than a job currently, never mind at whatever level you set it at.

This is the high-school level reasoning that seems to have been adopted by the right wing. Problem is, this isn't actually the effect that plays out. It probably *would* at a high enough rate of pay, but it hasn't in the past, probably because the wages are set unnaturally low for the market.
(A little bit about it here: http://cep.lse.ac.uk/research/labour/minimumwage/WP1481c.pdf)

 

[Cobby]

Searching for a job is also a heck of a lot easier now than it was when I left school.
Now someone can, in their spare time, search for a job online. Fill in online application forms or submit a CV by email, even create own CV on a computer program.
Have changed jobs several times, I know exactly how easy it is to do so. Wife has also applied for jobs at various times and moved to different employers.
Last time she started looking for work it took 20 minutes. Longest she has taken is 2 days.

And this is exactly what I was talking about earlier; people with good intentions but no understanding of life outside their sphere of privilege.

Your assumptions here are:
- Spare time
- Owning a computer
- Access to office programs
- Access to the interenet
- Ability/Education to use any of those
- Available utilities to operate the equipment (electricity, telephone line)
- Ability/Education to know where to start for job seeking at home, and how to go about it

Looking for work usually includes a prospective employer wanting references, which when checked alert the current employer to the employee's activity which can (despite current law) end in forms of constructive dismissal.

Honestly, I could write enough posts to fill a page on this sort of thing, but the key thing is that you are arguing from a position of victim blaming - the implied accusation that people in poverty are there because of some character flaw and that all they need to do is try harder.

Please try and consider that next time you're defending the current government's intent to make the poor poorer.

 

[Ian J]

A YouGov poll is suggesting that the Tories could lose their majority

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-election-poll-yougov-idUKKBN18Q2JW?rpc=401&

The polls have been noticeably inaccurate in recent times but if they are correct this would be a real bodyblow for the Government and I guess Mrs May would have to resign.