Fantastic comment piece from the Times on the giveaway to mortgage holders

lostinrates

SingleSue wrote: »

I'll answer as a benefit family....

We have visited the library a few times but not that often, not because we have no interest in reading but because we already have an extensive library of books at home!

In fact, it has been so large in the past, that I have taken to selling some to raise pennies for bits and bobs and to get some more space in the house.

Myself, ex OH, James and Joe are avid readers...I will get through at least a book a week, James the same. Joshua on the other hand is not that interested unless it is about bugs and there is only a finite amount of books on that subject!

I don't spend much on books at all, boot sales and charity shops are a very handy place to pick them up dirt cheap and I have now got into the habit (as had my eldest son) of buying them cheap, reading them and then selling them off at the next bootsale for the same or sometimes more than we paid for them.

Thanks Sue.

Some people, like you and I obviously, will always prioritise books/education but my point was more dircted at there being some provision that is probably (ok definitely) not takn up within this group- who don't necessarily prioritise it....but its there and its free and warm.

Guy_Montag

Since it's lunch time now & generali hasn't delivered:

IFS (2006) -
Income tax 28% of govt renvenues
Those in the 10% tax band contributed 1% of income tax to HM Govt. or 0.28% of govt revenues.

Therefore increasing the threshold at which you don't pay tax to that level would have substantially no difference to govt. coffers.

Minimum wage for a 40 hour week @ 48 weeks/year ~= 11k, but I don't have the figures for how this breaks down.

neverdespairgirl

DirectDebacle wrote: »

Not quite. A while back we had involuntary immigration. I think it was called slavery. Then after WW. 2. there was a massive recruitment drive for immigrants. Plane loads of people were flown in, mainly from the Carribean, to build up our workforce. All over the land you will find 2nd and 3rd generation British citizens who are the descendants of immigrants.

This section of our society is grossly underrepresented in Parliament as indeed are women.

I said "many immigrants". It seems obvious to me that this doesn't exclude other, and older, immigrants.

Slaves were not, in general, imported into the UK. They were certainly bought and sold by UK merchants, but mainly to north and south America, not here. As a percentage of hte UK population, very small:

However, towards the end of the 18th century, at the height of the slave trade, there was, relatively speaking, a large black population estimated variously between 10-20,000, mainly centred around London and the ports, in a total population in England and Wales of 9,000,000.

It declined during the course of the 19th century, and according to David Killingray, census returns suggested the following estimated figures for Africans in the UK : 1911 - 4,540, 1921 - 4,940, 1931 - 5,202, 1951 - 11,000.

Most came from West Africa , were male, and lived mainly in London or the other major ports of Liverpool , Bristol and Cardiff . [37] Killingray suspects the designation "African" was intended to include immigrants from the Caribbean and America .

There was, of course, significant immigration in the 1950s onwards:

The West Indian Comes to England states, "The movement of West Indians to the United Kingdom was unimportant until 1954 and it would appear that the number never exceeded 1,000 per year before 1951, with an average of 2,000 in 1952 and 1953. In 1954 the figure was 10,000 and in the three succeeding years rose to over 20,000 per year: 1955 - 24,473, 1956 - 26,441, 1957 - 22,473, 1958 - 16,511 … The estimated West Indian population in the United Kingdom at 31st December, 1957 was 99,823."

Asian migration is, essentially, post-war too:

As recently as 1939 the Indian population of the City of Birmingham was estimated at 100 -- that is, one hundred . [39] The total of both Indians and Pakistanis in Britain in 1955 was 10,700. [40] The 1991 Census put the number of Indians and Pakistanis at 840,255 and 476,555 respectively, and 162,835 Bangladeshis.

Most of the early Chinese arrived as seamen, after the treaties of Nanking in 1842 and Peking in 1860 opened up China to British trade. However, their population in Britain remained very small. In 1871 it was recorded as 207, and as 1,319 in 1911. [41] The 1991 Census put the number of Chinese in Britain at 156,938.

There has been a huge increase in immigration in the last 10 - 15 years, as I said. In 2001, approx. 92% of the UK population indentified themselves as white. 4.6 million people identified themselves as non-white in 2001, compared with 3 million in 1991. Quite a rise, there.

http://www.changingbritain.org.uk/pages/Brief%20History.htm

Generali

To get the obvious joke out of the way:

democracy (noun) [pron. di-ˈmä-krə-sē] from the Ancient Greek words demos & cratia meaning demos (=men) & cratia (=wearing blue suits)

lostinrates wrote: »

Not really,IMO, no. For example, I find the people most dismissive of non-working women are working women. A full time mother by choice might find a man who has a similar family set up more representative of them.

In any case, I find my views are influenced but not exclusive to my ability to where a bra.

I'd rather have a person (blank, pink, white, male, female able bodied or otherwise wearing grey suits or a swimsuit) who has a sense of compassion and empathy, with the intelligence to be able to appreciate different points of view. In going for literal representation of, for example, women representing women for no reason other than their female ness I think these skills ar overlooked, undervalued, risking the LACK of representation of many others within the MPs remit and, worringly patantly in som cases, severe miss representation under the guise of 'representation'.

Its actually something I find extremely limited in the dismissal of people with a certain name or education TBH, thy may well have these skills in equal measure with anyone else...or not.

One of many things I found annoying about the UK was the whole class war thing. For example, how many people actually care whether or not Boris Johnson does a good job or not as mayor? He's a toff and a bimbling fool to boot. That suits the stereotype so why dig further?

Everyone seems to love their class stereotypes. John Major would have been a working class hero in any country except the UK. Humble roots and rose to the top. Kept his sense of being of the people etc. In the UK the working classes hated him for being a Tory and the toffs hated him for having lived in Brixton. Remember those snide newspaper articles about him being a 'failed bus conductor' and Mrs M being a bit canny and freezing left over bits of cheese rather than chucking them in the bin?

lostinrates

Generali wrote: »

To get the obvious joke out of the way:

democracy (noun) [pron. di-ˈmä-krə-sē] from the Ancient Greek words demos & cratia meaning demos (=men) & cratia (=wearing blue suits)
Thats one of Dhs favourites.
.....
He's a toff and a bimbling fool to boot. That suits the stereotype so why dig further?
?

Its intriguing this one because I can s why people think it. He is IMO bimbling, and worse, but he is by no stretch of the imagination unintelligent. Despite his many gaffs that suggest the contrary I think he is a man who finds having sympathy, if not empathy, for the situation of others.

moggylover

Guy_Montag wrote: »

Since it's lunch time now & generali hasn't delivered:

IFS (2006) -
Income tax 28% of govt renvenues
Those in the 10% tax band contributed 1% of income tax to HM Govt. or 0.28% of govt revenues.

Therefore increasing the threshold at which you don't pay tax to that level would have substantially no difference to govt. coffers.

Minimum wage for a 40 hour week @ 48 weeks/year ~= 11k, but I don't have the figures for how this breaks down.

This was routed for strongly at the time that WTC was bought in but the decision to go with the messy WTC system was chosen instead: I suspect because it provided the option to create a lot of jobs in its administration, and despite the extremely high cost that that then carries.

lostinrates

Guy_Montag wrote: »

Since it's lunch time now & generali hasn't delivered:

IFS (2006) -
Income tax 28% of govt renvenues
Those in the 10% tax band contributed 1% of income tax to HM Govt. or 0.28% of govt revenues.

Therefore increasing the threshold at which you don't pay tax to that level would have substantially no difference to govt. coffers.

Minimum wage for a 40 hour week @ 48 weeks/year ~= 11k, but I don't have the figures for how this breaks down.

There is another possible benefit, albit not a finacial on to this. as well as encouraging work it also provides a sort of 'pride threshold' where people become contributers, and possibly encouraging more aspiration to reach this, and once reached more apprciation for the impact of rolemodels and commitmnt of time as well as mony to support society.

Generali

Guy_Montag wrote: »

(Generali, I expect a breakdown of the cost of this measure by lunchtime .)

Oh hell, it's Christmas. I was expecting prep to be counting the proportion of young ladies aged 20-25 in bikinis:one pieces or something interesting like that. Oh well, here goes. I warn you, red wine has been drunk this evening and it is gone midnight......

Guy_Montag wrote: »

A non-inflationary alternative would be to reduce benefits to the point that working minimum wage is the incentive.

I would argue a better alternative would be to increase the level at which tax (& NI) is not paid to the annual f/t minimum wage would be a better solution. I.e. if you work f/t on minimum wage you keep everything you earn & there is no tax on employers to employ people on minimum wage.

The trouble, Old Bean, is that you're conflating separate things.

What do you want to do? Do you want the 'Poorest'n'mos'vunner-rubble' to be richer? Or have an income closer to that of nigh income earners? Or to ensure that the 'Poorest'n'mos'vunner-rubble' have wealth similar to that of the average wealth?

For instance, the minimum wage has worked jolly well thus far as the employment market has sailed along since it began. What has happened is that poor people that were being stitched up by their employers can now say to their boss, "You should give me $x.xx/hr and no less".

Now we appear to be entering a recession so what happens now? Lots and lots of people will be laid off and times will be hard for many sadly.

Should 'hard working family members' who seem to be temporarily unable to get a job be paid benefits at the level equivalent to the minimum wage? After all, the current PM as Chancellor said that was the minimum amount that a person/family could live off. Of course if someone is given the minimum wage for doing nothing then why work if all you can earn is the minimum wage? If so, why should someone on the minimum wage (being the least someone should earn) face higher taxes to pay for more benefits?

Anyway, I need to lie down in a dark room for a bit I think. I'm on Facebook now old chap so please contact me through there if you would like to.

moggylover

lostinrates wrote: »

There is another possible benefit, albit not a finacial on to this. as well as encouraging work it also provides a sort of 'pride threshold' where people become contributers, and possibly encouraging more aspiration to reach this, and once reached more apprciation for the impact of rolemodels and commitmnt of time as well as mony to support society.

I can see where you are coming from, but I actually think that one has to acknowledge that those people are contributing just by working and that the fact that they may never be big earners does not mean that they do not work hard, or do a good job. Some people are just never going to "climb" the employment ladder, and I actually think that is just fine as long as their contribution is recognised and appreciated and considered worthy of a living wage, and them worthy of our respect. The loo cleaner or street cleaner who does their job as well as it can be done is as worthy of respect, in my opinion, as the banker who does his job only half as well as he could;) . Unfortunately, in reality they are often ridiculed and looked down upon by a large part of society that sees itself as somehow "better".

lostinrates

moggylover wrote: »

I can see where you are coming from, but I actually think that one has to acknowledge that those people are contributing just by working and that the fact that they may never be big earners does not mean that they do not work hard, or do a good job. Some people are just never going to "climb" the employment ladder, and I actually think that is just fine as long as their contribution is recognised and appreciated and considered worthy of a living wage, and them worthy of our respect. The loo cleaner or street cleaner who does their job as well as it can be done is as worthy of respect, in my opinion, as the banker who does his job only half as well as he could;) . Unfortunately, in reality they are often ridiculed and looked down upon by a large part of society that sees itself as somehow "better".

To an extent I agree, the danger in my yes would be to equate low paid workers with the group currently labeled as 'benefit scum/undrclass/lifestyle scroungers' , which couldn't be further from the truth. I also feel the currnt system enforces bad feeling, as could this, to people who ar on benefits but not 'lifestyl scroungers'- for example I cring that a full time mothr like Sue with a history of employmnt has said she feels uncomfortable. The point is NO ONE IMO, should live in this country without a roof and food and basic comforts and access to eductation, but equally poor is poverty of ambition, morality and self reliance.