State income

State income

State income

Published in Letters by

ARCHBISHOP of York Dr John Sentamu is misguided to say that £8.80 an hour in London and £7.65 elsewhere is a living wage.

He fails to appreciate that an hourly rate doth not a living wage make. This is because many people don’t work full time, if at all, and either go without or rely on Iain Duncan Smith’s paltry benefits.

Even on 40 hours a week paid the minimum wage let alone the “living” wage, pay is taxable and the “living” wage falls far short of that required, often topped up by welfare benefits.

To resolve the crisis in disposable income we need to face the problem head on and get rid of most benefits and replace them with a basic state income for everyone, whether employed or not.

As I have mentioned before this income would also replace the state pension, removing forever the outmoded concept of static retirement.

What Dr Sentamu should be addressing instead of the living wage is a living rent because mortgages and rent absorb far too much of people’s disposable cash.

And before anyone shrills “we can’t afford it”, oh yes we can. In fact, to avoid a demographic catastrophe, we have to afford it.

Tom Scaife, Manor Drive, York.

Comments (4)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

2:11pm Fri 27 Jun 14

SpinningJenny says...

I agree that rent and house prices could probably do with subsidising, but a set state income would mean a lot of money going to those who don't need it. The point of the benefits system in the UK is that money goes to those who need it to live, which is why it is means-tested and assessed. Of course it's not a perfect system but its intentions are much better than wasting money by giving it to everyone regardless of their needs.
I agree that rent and house prices could probably do with subsidising, but a set state income would mean a lot of money going to those who don't need it. The point of the benefits system in the UK is that money goes to those who need it to live, which is why it is means-tested and assessed. Of course it's not a perfect system but its intentions are much better than wasting money by giving it to everyone regardless of their needs. SpinningJenny
  • Score: 1

2:43pm Fri 27 Jun 14

Jonothon says...

SpinningJenny wrote:
I agree that rent and house prices could probably do with subsidising, but a set state income would mean a lot of money going to those who don't need it. The point of the benefits system in the UK is that money goes to those who need it to live, which is why it is means-tested and assessed. Of course it's not a perfect system but its intentions are much better than wasting money by giving it to everyone regardless of their needs.
Sorry Jenny I don't follow you. Surely the minimum wage is means tested. It only goes to those on the lowest wages and I don't see how the money will go to those who don't need it as you suggest as thous on higher wages are ineligible.

In living memory there has always been a legally enforceable minimum wage (apart from the Thatcher years) The wages councils were set up by Churchill to "Stop the good employers being undermined by the bad employers, and the bad employers by the worst" Thatcher removed this protection, but it was re-introduced and updated by Labour.

Even ruthless employers favour a minimum wage (for everyone except their own employees) as the more money there is in the system, the more business can sell. Not only does the extra money prime the pump, but is saves government expenditure on tax credits and a number of other benefits.
[quote][p][bold]SpinningJenny[/bold] wrote: I agree that rent and house prices could probably do with subsidising, but a set state income would mean a lot of money going to those who don't need it. The point of the benefits system in the UK is that money goes to those who need it to live, which is why it is means-tested and assessed. Of course it's not a perfect system but its intentions are much better than wasting money by giving it to everyone regardless of their needs.[/p][/quote]Sorry Jenny I don't follow you. Surely the minimum wage is means tested. It only goes to those on the lowest wages and I don't see how the money will go to those who don't need it as you suggest as thous on higher wages are ineligible. In living memory there has always been a legally enforceable minimum wage (apart from the Thatcher years) The wages councils were set up by Churchill to "Stop the good employers being undermined by the bad employers, and the bad employers by the worst" Thatcher removed this protection, but it was re-introduced and updated by Labour. Even ruthless employers favour a minimum wage (for everyone except their own employees) as the more money there is in the system, the more business can sell. Not only does the extra money prime the pump, but is saves government expenditure on tax credits and a number of other benefits. Jonothon
  • Score: 3

2:54pm Fri 27 Jun 14

SpinningJenny says...

Jonothon wrote:
SpinningJenny wrote:
I agree that rent and house prices could probably do with subsidising, but a set state income would mean a lot of money going to those who don't need it. The point of the benefits system in the UK is that money goes to those who need it to live, which is why it is means-tested and assessed. Of course it's not a perfect system but its intentions are much better than wasting money by giving it to everyone regardless of their needs.
Sorry Jenny I don't follow you. Surely the minimum wage is means tested. It only goes to those on the lowest wages and I don't see how the money will go to those who don't need it as you suggest as thous on higher wages are ineligible.

In living memory there has always been a legally enforceable minimum wage (apart from the Thatcher years) The wages councils were set up by Churchill to "Stop the good employers being undermined by the bad employers, and the bad employers by the worst" Thatcher removed this protection, but it was re-introduced and updated by Labour.

Even ruthless employers favour a minimum wage (for everyone except their own employees) as the more money there is in the system, the more business can sell. Not only does the extra money prime the pump, but is saves government expenditure on tax credits and a number of other benefits.
I was referring to the letter writer's idea 'to get rid of most benefits and replace them with a basic state income for everyone, whether employed or not.'
[quote][p][bold]Jonothon[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SpinningJenny[/bold] wrote: I agree that rent and house prices could probably do with subsidising, but a set state income would mean a lot of money going to those who don't need it. The point of the benefits system in the UK is that money goes to those who need it to live, which is why it is means-tested and assessed. Of course it's not a perfect system but its intentions are much better than wasting money by giving it to everyone regardless of their needs.[/p][/quote]Sorry Jenny I don't follow you. Surely the minimum wage is means tested. It only goes to those on the lowest wages and I don't see how the money will go to those who don't need it as you suggest as thous on higher wages are ineligible. In living memory there has always been a legally enforceable minimum wage (apart from the Thatcher years) The wages councils were set up by Churchill to "Stop the good employers being undermined by the bad employers, and the bad employers by the worst" Thatcher removed this protection, but it was re-introduced and updated by Labour. Even ruthless employers favour a minimum wage (for everyone except their own employees) as the more money there is in the system, the more business can sell. Not only does the extra money prime the pump, but is saves government expenditure on tax credits and a number of other benefits.[/p][/quote]I was referring to the letter writer's idea 'to get rid of most benefits and replace them with a basic state income for everyone, whether employed or not.' SpinningJenny
  • Score: 0

10:22am Sat 28 Jun 14

Jonothon says...

SpinningJenny wrote:
Jonothon wrote:
SpinningJenny wrote:
I agree that rent and house prices could probably do with subsidising, but a set state income would mean a lot of money going to those who don't need it. The point of the benefits system in the UK is that money goes to those who need it to live, which is why it is means-tested and assessed. Of course it's not a perfect system but its intentions are much better than wasting money by giving it to everyone regardless of their needs.
Sorry Jenny I don't follow you. Surely the minimum wage is means tested. It only goes to those on the lowest wages and I don't see how the money will go to those who don't need it as you suggest as thous on higher wages are ineligible.

In living memory there has always been a legally enforceable minimum wage (apart from the Thatcher years) The wages councils were set up by Churchill to "Stop the good employers being undermined by the bad employers, and the bad employers by the worst" Thatcher removed this protection, but it was re-introduced and updated by Labour.

Even ruthless employers favour a minimum wage (for everyone except their own employees) as the more money there is in the system, the more business can sell. Not only does the extra money prime the pump, but is saves government expenditure on tax credits and a number of other benefits.
I was referring to the letter writer's idea 'to get rid of most benefits and replace them with a basic state income for everyone, whether employed or not.'
Thanks, I agree with you on that
[quote][p][bold]SpinningJenny[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jonothon[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SpinningJenny[/bold] wrote: I agree that rent and house prices could probably do with subsidising, but a set state income would mean a lot of money going to those who don't need it. The point of the benefits system in the UK is that money goes to those who need it to live, which is why it is means-tested and assessed. Of course it's not a perfect system but its intentions are much better than wasting money by giving it to everyone regardless of their needs.[/p][/quote]Sorry Jenny I don't follow you. Surely the minimum wage is means tested. It only goes to those on the lowest wages and I don't see how the money will go to those who don't need it as you suggest as thous on higher wages are ineligible. In living memory there has always been a legally enforceable minimum wage (apart from the Thatcher years) The wages councils were set up by Churchill to "Stop the good employers being undermined by the bad employers, and the bad employers by the worst" Thatcher removed this protection, but it was re-introduced and updated by Labour. Even ruthless employers favour a minimum wage (for everyone except their own employees) as the more money there is in the system, the more business can sell. Not only does the extra money prime the pump, but is saves government expenditure on tax credits and a number of other benefits.[/p][/quote]I was referring to the letter writer's idea 'to get rid of most benefits and replace them with a basic state income for everyone, whether employed or not.'[/p][/quote]Thanks, I agree with you on that Jonothon
  • Score: -1
Post a comment

Remember you are personally responsible for what you post on this site and must abide by our site terms. Do not post anything that is false, abusive or malicious. If you wish to complain, please use the ‘report this post’ link.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree