We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Now then...lower benefits for the Northerners ??
Comments
-
grizzly1911 wrote: »That is with your view of the world. As I said I tend to agree with your point of view. I am sure that many families do live adequately within the constraints you suggest.
Children don't come cheap, particularly when they go to Secondary school. £200+ per year on uniforms and items specified by the school. Yes some thing may be available secondhand but children do have a habit of wearing things out or growing out of them at an alarming rate.
I doubt someone at DWP picked a figure out of the air and said let them throw a party. I suspect some thought went into arriving at the figures used.
When things go wrong it is usually for a variety of reasons, problems compound and get out of control for some. Society tempts them, some do not have the ability to say no.
That might be true but you can't keep rewarding people who can't say no. Someone with 3 kids get in excess of £300 a week if you say rent and council tax is worth another £200 thats £500 a week you would need to be on £35k a year to earn that probably about £30k if you allow for child benefit. 60% of people working full time earn less than that.0 -
Gross £35K equivalent for a family where nobody has any intention of working for a living is so outrageous that it's difficult to believe that we could possibly have got ourselves into such a position. But under the guise of socialism, and with the real agenda being client-state vote bribery, we have.
'Do-gooders' who want to retain such a scenario are welcome to attempt to do so -- as long as it's only funded with their money, and not mine.No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0 -
That might be true but you can't keep rewarding people who can't say no. Someone with 3 kids get in excess of £300 a week if you say rent and council tax is worth another £200 thats £500 a week you would need to be on £35k a year to earn that probably about £30k if you allow for child benefit. 60% of people working full time earn less than that.
I agree but whatever they do with the figures it is a symptom not the cause. that sympton isn't going to go away.
Unless the cause is sorted out the symtoms will just get worse.
We have ~ 9 million economically inactive souls, they aren''t going anywhere."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »I agree but whatever they do with the figures it is a symptom not the cause. that sympton isn't going to go away.
Unless the cause is sorted out the symtoms will just get worse.
We have ~ 9 million economically inactive souls, they aren''t going anywhere.
The 9 million must include all those in full time education (16+), early retirees, disabled/ unfit for work, and full time homemakers. Only the third of those categories should be drawing non-universal benefits under normal circumstances. If it is believed that some of the others are drawing non-universal benefits and should work then the benefits are too generous, removing that incentive.
Someone will of course say that the jobs just aren't there. But you have to start somewhere, and if a large slug of the tax spent to keep individuals who could work (too) comfortable while they don't work was put back into working people's pockets to spend as they see fit, then it would tend to generate employment.No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »I agree but whatever they do with the figures it is a symptom not the cause. that sympton isn't going to go away.
Unless the cause is sorted out the symtoms will just get worse.
We have ~ 9 million economically inactive souls, they aren''t going anywhere.
I agree it's a symptom not a cause and the underlying problems need to be tackled but lots of people work full time and still manage to bring up their children on less if they have to make sacrifices so should people on benefits.
0 -
It is a difficult problem to solve. A new approach is needed, something like abolishing the working tax credits, and just increasing minimum wage to compensate might be a step in the right direction, along with reducing the cash element of benefits replacing with essential benefits i.e. vouchers.
The more people can be encouraged to fend for themselves the better0 -
I agree it's a symptom not a cause and the underlying problems need to be tackled but lots of people work full time and still manage to bring up their children on less if they have to make sacrifices so should people on benefits.
Won't they be entitled to "benefits" to bring them up to parity?
I appreciate there is always a drain down which, people fall ,who can't claim for all sorts of ludicrous reasons."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
Its a difficult problem to solve and the trouble is successive governments have swept it under the carpet...to keep the magic dole numbers below 2.5-3m..
If it was a fair world we could share the work available...simply reduce the working week.. by phasing in shorter hours for all...reducing employer NI contributions to compensate.
Thats not going to happen is it ??...so as long as we have a deficit there'll be cuts to the various sectors.
The youtube link below from the ONS breaks down the latest figures ....most of the unemployed for long periods are young people...but the periods aren't say 5 years as some people think..
Dole and the inactive count adds up to 11.5 million adults in the UK...thats a huge number of housewives..;)
Near the end it shows the recent reduction in the inactive count where 150,000 are retired...more than likely early retired yet again hiding the true picture of the dole numbers.
More of the same...doubt any government will have a go.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fi1ouji2KmY
http://www.youtube.com/user/onsstats0 -
GeorgeHowell wrote: »The 9 million must include all those in full time education (16+), early retirees, disabled/ unfit for work, and full time homemakers. Only the third of those categories should be drawing non-universal benefits under normal circumstances. If it is believed that some of the others are drawing non-universal benefits and should work then the benefits are too generous, removing that incentive.
Someone will of course say that the jobs just aren't there. But you have to start somewhere, and if a large slug of the tax spent to keep individuals who could work (too) comfortable while they don't work was put back into working people's pockets to spend as they see fit, then it would tend to generate employment.
Don't disagree with your last para but that is only attacking the symptom still.If it truly impacted those who sit on their arris it would be "palatable". That is unlikely to be the case, a lot of other people suffer too.
You are right that ~9m will include all sorts of cases but it simply shows that "under employment" is significantly higher than 2.5 million. It is employment that is needed to swing the incometer back into equilibrium.
If it employment can't be created then that pain needs sharing amongst more than just those on any form of welfare."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
It is a difficult problem to solve. A new approach is needed, something like abolishing the working tax credits, and just increasing minimum wage to compensate might be a step in the right direction, along with reducing the cash element of benefits replacing with essential benefits i.e. vouchers.
The more people can be encouraged to fend for themselves the better
The trouble is that increasing minimum wage is just likely to increase unemployment and drive more being paid out in benefits.
The only solution is that people have to accept their lot. Only where basic necessities of food, shelter, and warmth are at risk should welfare be paid, and only for long periods to people who are prevented from working by genuine physical or mental incapacity.
The problem is that we now have the socialist relative definition of poverty operating. It's not about protecting the genuinely vulnerable, it's about redistribution for its own sake. If people's standard of living is deemed to be more than x% below the average then the socialists believe that everyone above them has to chip in to bring them up. Even if the perceived shortfall lies in fags, booze, gambling, holidays, gadgets, computer games, fashion clothing, TV technology, entertainment -- you name it, the socialists believe that the less well off must not be 'socially excluded', and that has to be addressed by redistribution.
That is no way to run a sane economy and society in a country that is to remain competitive in the tough modern world, but it's where we are. The coalition's ability to change it substantially is very limited because the LibDems essentially believe in it.No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.7K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.4K Spending & Discounts
- 245.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.6K Life & Family
- 259.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards