Nice people thread part 7 - a thread in its prime

Generali

LydiaJ wrote: »

ED stands for erectile dysfunction, which is why I thought the idea of putting pictures of it on the packets would be ... er ... interesting.

Ah, I see.

I think there used to be a stop smoking ad over here featuring a bloke who had smoke rather than lead in his pencil.

It might be an effective way to stop men from smoking, putting red letters across a packet, "I'm Mr Floppy"

I think more women than men smoke now as they feel it's an effective appetite suppressant.

michaels

LydiaJ wrote: »

Thanks Gen. You are a bountiful source of interesting information as usual.

So they try to put smokers off by drawing their attention to mouth cancer, lunch cancer & gangrene. I suppose the inclusion of a photo of each is the reason they haven't included ED in that list????

On totally different subject... I've been spending some time on the benefits board trying to find out if I'm right in my calculations about universal credit. I get a fair bit of WTC/CTC but think I won't get any UC at all when it comes in, but nobody on the benefits board seems to know enough to be able to confirm or deny it. Are any of the nice peeps up on the rules for income tapers as applied to widow's pensions?

I think there is transitional relief so you will not get less under uc but you will not get any increases until you are only getting the uc amount. I assume the issue is that all benefits will be capital assessed? Could you get an offset mortgage and put all your savings in the offset to leave you access but mean you have no visible capital?

michaels

I am very against the extreme measures taken against smokers. Surely adults can take their own informed decision. I am sure there are many other more risky behaviours that are not currently proscribed. Who wants to live in a world where others decide every risk we take, often determined by emotion rather than statistics?

michaels

The trvs on rads can jam, and remove the screw on bit and give the spigot that goes in and out to control the flow and tap with a hammer.

Our bedroom rad is at the end of the circuit which has has under sized pipes for the length of run and when it is cold the other rads nick most of the heat from the water before it reaches. I have balanced down the other Rads to help.

BertieUK

Generali wrote: »

Ah, I see.

I think there used to be a stop smoking ad over here featuring a bloke who had smoke rather than lead in his pencil.

It might be an effective way to stop men from smoking, putting red letters across a packet, "I'm Mr Floppy"

I think more women than men smoke now as they feel it's an effective appetite suppressant.

I used to smoke two packs per day when I was on the road until one day I worked out what it was costing me which was denying the family something like £3,600 per year. That was enough to give me an incentive to quit, hard at first but I scucceeded in the end and feel so much better now, that was around ten years ago.

zagubov

michaels wrote: »

I am very against the extreme measures taken against smokers. Surely adults can take their own informed decision. I am sure there are many other more risky behaviours that are not currently proscribed. Who wants to live in a world where others decide every risk we take, often determined by emotion rather than statistics?

I'm not so sure smoking's like the other risks; if you circulate a poison that others can absorb by breathing then I think you need to proscribe the risk.

At least with alcohol unless you're tipping it into other people's drinks they're not exposed to the toxic chemical effects. Not that I fancy sharing a road with drunken drivers, for that matter.

We're not as nannyish as some places; I remember reading that in some countries not too far from here, putting down skiing as a hobby was a no-no as your boss would be worried you to need time off to recover from injuries.;)

GDB2222

michaels wrote: »

I am very against the extreme measures taken against smokers. Surely adults can take their own informed decision. I am sure there are many other more risky behaviours that are not currently proscribed. Who wants to live in a world where others decide every risk we take, often determined by emotion rather than statistics?

Mortality increases with age, but for any given age smokers are roughly twice as likely to die that year than non-smokers. Do you want a link?

michaels

People who don't exercise, drink, and work hard in stressful jobs, and serve in the forces, and hang glide, and run marathons etc are all increasing their risk of death let's ban all those immediately.

LydiaJ

michaels wrote: »

I think there is transitional relief so you will not get less under uc but you will not get any increases until you are only getting the uc amount. I assume the issue is that all benefits will be capital assessed? Could you get an offset mortgage and put all your savings in the offset to leave you access but mean you have no visible capital?

It's not mainly a capital problem. At least, it isn't yet, although when I get my compensation for LNE's accident then I won't qualify for any state help with anything beyond CB, and rightly so.

The issue is about income tapers. ATM all my income is subject to the same taper rate for CTC/WTC. However, as far as have been able to udnerstand the UC rules, earned income will be tapered, but unearned income will cause withdrawal of UC at 100% of net. Now, about a third of my total income from all sources will come into this "unearned" category in that it arises from work that LNE did while he was alive rather than work I am doing now - so my widow's pensions from both his pension schemes, and my widowed parents' allowance, which is a benefit that I get based on LNE's NI contributions. So if that's withdrawn at 100% instead of tapered, then it makes a big difference to what numbers they'll be using to calculate what I get, and I suspect it will mean I don't qualify for anything.

I'm also not sure whether the income they'll be interested in will be mine or the household's. For TCs, they're only interested in money that I get in my own name, since I'm single. But my kids also get survivors' pensions from LNE's pension schemes, although until they're old enough to be financially independent, the money comes into my account for me to spend on bringing them up. The TC helpline confirms that kids' income, at any level, is not relevant for TC calculations. However, income of other members of the household is used to calculate many of the benefits that UC will be replacing, so I suspect it may be the case for UC as well.

I'm not complaining. I am very very grateful for what I've had, especially the TC help with childcare back when DD was in nursery. Still, I know the money's run out, and I think the state has better things to do with its money than subsidise people like me who would manage perfectly well without it, even if that took a bit of adjustment to my budget to get used to the new circumstances. But I want to know, and it's incredibly difficult to find out when all the available information is aimed at those in less unusual circumstances.

michaels

LydiaJ wrote: »

It's not mainly a capital problem. At least, it isn't yet, although when I get my compensation for LNE's accident then I won't qualify for any state help with anything beyond CB, and rightly so.

The issue is about income tapers. ATM all my income is subject to the same taper rate for CTC/WTC. However, as far as have been able to udnerstand the UC rules, earned income will be tapered, but unearned income will cause withdrawal of UC at 100% of net.

Well lets hope that the transitional relief protects you then.