Now then...lower benefits for the Northerners ??

N1AK

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Taking those out of the quation, I don't see food, transport, and clothing behind cheaper in the North than it is in the South.

If they actually do this, then I'm happy to suggest the tories are looking towards class warfare, and protecting their own area at the cost of others.

Putting the conservatives possible motivations aside, I think the policy itself is a very rational one. I'm from the North and have plenty of family and friends who live in Manchester, Cheshire, York, Thirsk, Newcastle and it is cheaper to live there and that's not just because of house prices.

If we are going to spend 'x' on benefits then either we are using benefits to encourage people to move to cheaper areas (by keeping the level the same for all) or we pay a different level based on the local cost of living.

Is it worth the complexity of doing this? Is such a system workable? How do you measure living cost by area? Are all valid questions but if they can be answered then I'm all for it.

N1AK

Carlos77 wrote: »

Im all for the adjustment of benefits, for the north/south divide, but only if they do the same for tax contributions too, if us up north receive less than the south, then we should pay less too, only fair!

I'd shut up and hope no one notices that the North pays considerably less into the treasury than it receives in government spending if I was you

tom9980

Partner is a teacher in primary she already does 60 hours a week in term time and average 50 per week over the whole year and they want to add 20 hours a week to the school week not including all the extra planning etc required? And if she doesnt have to do that work who are you going to pay to do it? how much will that cost the tax payer?

Carlos77

We pay the same percentage as the rest of the country. Also, not all of us up here are on the breadline, theres a very healthy Engineering sector up here that is still well paid

GlynD

N1AK wrote: »

I'd shut up and hope no one notices that the North pays considerably less into the treasury than it receives in government spending if I was you

It has less of a population than the south though therefore there is less infrastructure which needs treasury money.

It's all relative you see

N1AK

tom9980 wrote: »

Partner is a teacher in primary she already does 60 hours a week in term time and average 50 per week over the whole year and they want to add 20 hours a week to the school week not including all the extra planning etc required? And if she doesnt have to do that work who are you going to pay to do it? how much will that cost the tax payer?

That's nothing I do 25 hours a day hanging upside down in a Lion cage naked smeared in buffalo fat 8 days a week, 5 weeks a month, 13 months a year; I've been doing it since before I was born and will be doing it until after I die.

coastline

heres a list of the council tax bands...regional basis...

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6638/2110513.pdf

N1AK

GlynD wrote: »

It has less of a population than the south though therefore there is less infrastructure which needs treasury money.

It's all relative you see

I hate to break it to you but the cost of building a road doesn't change because no one uses it.

If what you said was true then they would receive less in government spending than they pay in tax, as that isn't the case what you say is manifestly not true. Any other fictional arguments you'd like to discuss?

ukcarper

N1AK wrote: »

Putting the conservatives possible motivations aside, I think the policy itself is a very rational one. I'm from the North and have plenty of family and friends who live in Manchester, Cheshire, York, Thirsk, Newcastle and it is cheaper to live there and that's not just because of house prices.

If we are going to spend 'x' on benefits then either we are using benefits to encourage people to move to cheaper areas (by keeping the level the same for all) or we pay a different level based on the local cost of living.

Is it worth the complexity of doing this? Is such a system workable? How do you measure living cost by area? Are all valid questions but if they can be answered then I'm all for it.

Can you give some examples when I've ventured north I haven't notice much difference.

grizzly1911

GlynD wrote: »

It has less of a population than the south though therefore there is less infrastructure which needs treasury money.

It's all relative you see

Like this

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/tfl-investment-programme-introduction.pdf

or Cross Rail

or The Olympics

or proposed Third Runway

or proposed Heathrow high speed Gatwick link