Could you live decently on £14,400 a year?

Richard_Cranium

Podge52 wrote: »

The way I see it is that the government realise that we need more growth in the population to continue to support the growing number of pensioners. I think the generosity in child benefits is to encourage people to have more children.

Isn't immigration addressing that very problem? According to one poster from north of the border it is.
We must therefore continue to welcome all comers with open arms if we want to enjoy any form of pension in the future (according to some). Without Albanian hand car washes the fabric of society (as we know it) would crumble.

UKGuy

Richard_Cranium wrote: »

Isn't immigration addressing that very problem? According to one poster from north of the border it is.
We must therefore continue to welcome all comers with open arms if we want to enjoy any form of pension in the future (according to some). Without Albanian hand car washes the fabric of society (as we know it) would crumble.

Yes and before long it will be impossible to get a job in the UK unless you can speak at least one eastern European language!

Marisco

itch_for_a_glitch wrote: »

So your equality only extends to the boundaries of the UK ? Thats handy.

People tend to compare with people in their own country, not people in the rest of the world! That would be ridiculous, given the different cost of living in other countries. As someone said, 14k in Thailand would be a fortune, but not even liveable in London, if you include housing costs in that.

Podge52

Marisco wrote: »

At the risk of sounding "elitist", the problem is that the "wrong" people are having the houseful of kids though. Most working people know what they can afford, and tend not to have child after child, even with all the benefits available.

I don't think actual SRP should be means tested, but certainly the "peripherals" should be, i.e WFA, bus passes, free TV licenses etc.

I don't disagree but most policies have unintended consequences.

itch_for_a_glitch

Marisco wrote: »

People tend to compare with people in their own country, not people in the rest of the world! That would be ridiculous, given the different cost of living in other countries. As someone said, 14k in Thailand would be a fortune, but not even liveable in London, if you include housing costs in that.

The article that suggested that £500k put a person in the top 1% globally (posted last night) is interesting, if true.
Take this example, for instance, £200k house, £240k pension pot, £70k savings. Over £500k so top 1%.

Due to the savings - no benefits, so the pension will have to be taken early, giving an income of £9k, the savings (again!) mean no CTB, so do you consider an income of £9k for a couple with a house to run "in the top 1% elite" ?
I know there are couples living a very similar lifestyle on benefits, are they in the top 1% elite ? No, despite having a very similar disposable income, they claim grinding poverty.

Marisco

itch_for_a_glitch wrote: »

The article that suggested that £500k put a person in the top 1% globally (posted last night) is interesting, if true.
Take this example, for instance, £200k house, £240k pension pot, £70k savings. Over £500k so top 1%.

Due to the savings - no benefits, so the pension will have to be taken early, giving an income of £9k, the savings (again!) mean no CTB, so do you consider an income of £9k for a couple with a house to run "in the top 1% elite" ?
I know there are couples living a very similar lifestyle on benefits, are they in the top 1% elite ? No, despite having a very similar disposable income, they claim grinding poverty.

I should imagine many would only use actually money i.e savings as an indication of "richness". I can't see the point of including the value of a house, because for many it's a home, not a way of making money. And a pension pot can only be used at a certain age. So I wouldn't use that way of comparison to begin with.

Mrs_Arcanum

itch_for_a_glitch wrote: »

The article that suggested that £500k put a person in the top 1% globally (posted last night) is interesting, if true.
Take this example, for instance, £200k house, £240k pension pot, £70k savings. Over £500k so top 1%.

Due to the savings - no benefits, so the pension will have to be taken early, giving an income of £9k, the savings (again!) mean no CTB, so do you consider an income of £9k for a couple with a house to run "in the top 1% elite" ?
I know there are couples living a very similar lifestyle on benefits, are they in the top 1% elite ? No, despite having a very similar disposable income, they claim grinding poverty.

Some supposed billionaires are so only on paper. Perhaps a better way of putting it is 1% of the world population have nearly 50% of the wealth. Whilst 50% of the world population share just 1% of the wealth. So 98% of the world population share 49%.
Unless you are living on the street in the UK no one should fall into the bottom 1%. Yet it should all be relative to disposable income.

As for paying the pension costs, breeding like crazy just puts off the problem for another time. Limited fixed contracts for immigrant workers might be a more useful way of tackling the problem.

dodger1

Richard_Cranium wrote: »

A good start would be to means test CB, too many claim it that patently don't need the money. Then move on to means testing pensions, lets have some cuts in areas that have been Teflon coated for far too long.

Isn't CB already means tested?

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2013/jan/03/child-benefit-changes-what-they-mean

Richard_Cranium

dodger1 wrote: »

Isn't CB already means tested?

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2013/jan/03/child-benefit-changes-what-they-mean

For those earning over £50k, I'd set it at the benefit cap level of £26k.

itch_for_a_glitch

Richard_Cranium wrote: »

For those earning over £50k, I'd set it at the benefit cap level of £26k.

Either we pay CB or we dont, what someones income is, is irrelevant.
Personally I'd scrap it, but then my kids are grown up, but we (on around average household income), never"needed" CB.