On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 11:19:46 -0000, Yellow
wrote:

On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 10:48:17 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Yellow wrote:
On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 16:46:46 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Mark wrote:
We are discussing both. The minimum wage and unemployment benefits
are linked and cannot be considered in isolation. Obviously there
should be incentives to work, but that means work should pay well,
not that benefits should be squeezed so that people cannot manage.

But the notion that cutting benefits will force everyone into taking a
job is standard Tory mantra. Doesn't matter if it works or not. Or who
it hurts.

And a standard socialist mantra is that giving people benefits will win
them votes. Doesn't matter if it works or not. Or who it hurts.

If there are people abusing the benefit system, the law already covers
this.

Assuming Tory cuts to those who check up on such things haven't made
that impossible, of course.

I have not brought up the topic of "people abusing the state" so I have
no idea why you have here given we are discussing legitimate claimants.


But I'd guess you want a society where the poorest are just left to fend
for themselves. You're certainly not alone there.

I want a society where people who can work do because it gives them a
better standard of living and because it leaves more money in the pot
for people who can't,

Doesn't this happen already? It is a good aim.

I want a society like this too. But I don't want a society where the
less fortunate are below the "poverty-line" lime some here are
advocating.

--
If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around to hear him, is he still wrong?