Really ? You said
Heres a puzzle for you - where do you think they should live if they work there?
To which I replied
Beggars can't be choosers, if you were unemployed and desperate, you would take what was offered.
Yes, you did.
Unfortunately for you, that wasn't in an answer to my question.
In Post #43 I said that employers should be made to pay people enough.
In #45 you asked what is enough.
In #47 I replied
Enough to be able to eat properly.
Enough to be able to feed your kids properly
Enough to be able to clothe them properly.
Enough to be able to afford decent housing.
Enough to be able to provide a life so that your kids dont grow up feeling that they are not part of society.
Enough so that if you get ill your life doesnt fall apart.
In #48, for each of those you asked "
Which is how much?"
To that, in #50, I said
I dont know the specific amount, but I do know from widespread and long time reporting that the lowest paid dont get paid enough to afford those things.
Do you think they do?
In #51 you asked "
What things. necessities or luxuries ?"
In #52 I answered "
Stop wriggling, and refer to the earlier post."
And in #54 you answered "
food, clothing, heating, yes. TV, iphone , designer clothes, NO."
So where we were at then was that you had partially answered the question from #50 about whether you thought low paid people earned enough to be able to afford the things Ilisted in #47.
Where we were at then was that you had said that you thought low paid people earned enough to be able to afford "
food, clothing, heating," but not "
TV, iphone , designer clothes".
Where we were at then was that you had
not said whether or not you thought low paid people could afford decent housing.
But you keep insisting you have, even going so far as to quote an answer you gave to a different question, which was where do you think people should live if they work in London, not whether or not you thought low paid people could afford decent housing.
Remind me again who is
just too thick to take note
?
most property in London is expensive, any pensioner on a state pension or child whose parents receive child benefit are doing so at the tax payers expense
So which way round is the problem there? What would you change to make the situation to your liking?
Would you stop allowing any pensioner on a state pension or child whose parents receive child benefit to live in London?
Or would you stop anyone who lives in London from getting a state pension or child benefit?
The only other solution I can come up with is to find a way to ensure that all employers pay enough so that child benefit cant be claimed and which build up a private pension big enough for the tax to cancel out the state pension....
so you don't think 366,00 is a huge number ?
Context matters.
If you said that a huge number of people had mismatched eye colours and it turned out that it was 0.005% of the population of the world I dont think I would agree that it was a "huge number".