Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
Page 1
    • somethingcorporate
    • By somethingcorporate 18th Sep 12, 10:55 AM
    • 9,119 Posts
    • 8,806 Thanks
    somethingcorporate
    • #2
    • 18th Sep 12, 10:55 AM
    • #2
    • 18th Sep 12, 10:55 AM
    And rightly so. Seems bitterly unfair that those on low pay see their pay frozen or tiny increases whilst those on benefits see 5%+ rises. It encourages the wrong kind of behavior.
    Thinking critically since 1996....
  • working
    • #3
    • 18th Sep 12, 12:10 PM
    • #3
    • 18th Sep 12, 12:10 PM
    Common Sense at last.
  • Morlock
    • #4
    • 18th Sep 12, 12:14 PM
    • #4
    • 18th Sep 12, 12:14 PM
    What a great motivation for government to encourage businesses to keep wages low. Don't raise wages because the benefits bill will increase, yet all of the ignorant sheep bleat "Yes, great idea, at last." Stupid, stupid people.
    Last edited by Morlock; 18-09-2012 at 12:16 PM.
    • alinwales
    • By alinwales 18th Sep 12, 12:27 PM
    • 318 Posts
    • 186 Thanks
    alinwales
    • #5
    • 18th Sep 12, 12:27 PM
    • #5
    • 18th Sep 12, 12:27 PM
    I think it's shareholders who encourage businesses to keep wages low, not the Government.
    • BigAunty
    • By BigAunty 18th Sep 12, 12:32 PM
    • 7,941 Posts
    • 14,422 Thanks
    BigAunty
    • #6
    • 18th Sep 12, 12:32 PM
    • #6
    • 18th Sep 12, 12:32 PM
    Haven't they tinkered before with what benefits were tied with and how benefit increases are calculated?

    I seem to remember reading that if JSA had kept pace with some other kind of tracking system, it would be worth 120 a week now instead of 71. Can't remember what it was linked with though, such as cost of living or inflation or whatever.

    Having said that, a person on NMW wouldn't be too happy with job seekers earning around 60% of what they do for a 35 hour week.
    • foofi22
    • By foofi22 18th Sep 12, 12:34 PM
    • 2,011 Posts
    • 1,314 Thanks
    foofi22
    • #7
    • 18th Sep 12, 12:34 PM
    • #7
    • 18th Sep 12, 12:34 PM
    What a great motivation for government to encourage businesses to keep wages low. Don't raise wages because the benefits bill will increase, yet all of the ignorant sheep bleat "Yes, great idea, at last." Stupid, stupid people.
    Originally posted by Morlock
    Not sure what talking sheep have to do with this.

    Yes, great idea, at last
    • Cpt.Scarlet
    • By Cpt.Scarlet 18th Sep 12, 12:35 PM
    • 1,084 Posts
    • 1,235 Thanks
    Cpt.Scarlet
    • #8
    • 18th Sep 12, 12:35 PM
    • #8
    • 18th Sep 12, 12:35 PM
    And rightly so. Seems bitterly unfair that those on low pay see their pay frozen or tiny increases whilst those on benefits see 5%+ rises. It encourages the wrong kind of behavior.
    Originally posted by somethingcorporate
    Like eating proper food, heating your home in the winter, making sure your children are clothed, you're right, truly awful behaviour.
  • Morlock
    • #9
    • 18th Sep 12, 12:41 PM
    • #9
    • 18th Sep 12, 12:41 PM
    I think it's shareholders who encourage businesses to keep wages low, not the Government.
    Originally posted by alinwales
    A combination of both, but this policy would give more motivation for the government to intervene. Tories would like to see the minimum wage scrapped, whilst Labour have discussed introducing a living wage. A sum which more realistically reflects the cost of living. The government play a huge role in the level of wages.
  • Morlock
    Not sure what talking sheep have to do with this.

    Yes, great idea, at last
    Originally posted by foofi22
    Baaaaahhh!
    • seven-day-weekend
    • By seven-day-weekend 18th Sep 12, 12:52 PM
    • 32,486 Posts
    • 64,378 Thanks
    seven-day-weekend
    Fair enough. People on NMW often don't have a rise every year (unless the NMW is increased). Don't see why it should be any different for those on benefits.
    Member #10 of 2 savers club
    Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology: Terry Eagleton
    • Midnighter
    • By Midnighter 18th Sep 12, 1:08 PM
    • 13,491 Posts
    • 1,498,064 Thanks
    Midnighter
    What'll happen when, as it inevitably will, we go through a period of high wage infaltion? No doubt the masses will start bleating again.
    '...luck came to those who left a space for it.' Terry Pratchett
    • rogerblack
    • By rogerblack 18th Sep 12, 1:30 PM
    • 9,273 Posts
    • 9,438 Thanks
    rogerblack
    And rightly so. Seems bitterly unfair that those on low pay see their pay frozen or tiny increases whilst those on benefits see 5%+ rises. It encourages the wrong kind of behavior.
    Originally posted by somethingcorporate
    To quote Morlock in an earlier thread.
    He didn't 'uprate' benefits by 4.8%. Benefits have always been linked to the retail prices index but were recently linked instead to the consumer prices index. Historically, the RPI has always risen more than the CPI, that was the motivation behind the switch from CPI to RPI, to lower the inflation rate of benefits.

    An anomaly in the CPI in 2012 meant that benefits rose more than they would have done under RPI, at which point IDS tried to back pedal. The 4.8% rise was not intentional, but was the the resultant backfiring of a policy that was meant to lower the inflation rate of benefits.
    • Pincher
    • By Pincher 18th Sep 12, 1:40 PM
    • 6,516 Posts
    • 2,491 Thanks
    Pincher
    You have to make up your mind whether to help the needy or to shoot them. Homeless and hungry means they will come at you for what you have, because they think you don't give a toss about them, so why should they care YOU live or die. If you want to help them, just enough to stay alive is not good enough.

    Now that Judge Dredd is back, remember they recycle dead bodies of criminals, who are just the poor who turned desperate, then nasty. So, very good benefit for six months, including training and help in job hunting, then EXECUTE them. The logic being we will cut off the benefit completely after six months, they will turn desperate and become a menace to society.
    • somethingcorporate
    • By somethingcorporate 18th Sep 12, 2:55 PM
    • 9,119 Posts
    • 8,806 Thanks
    somethingcorporate
    Let me ask the question to the nay-sayers then. Why should benefits rise faster than wages? (which is the situation this move is looking to prevent).
    Thinking critically since 1996....
    • BurnleyBob
    • By BurnleyBob 18th Sep 12, 3:03 PM
    • 354 Posts
    • 508 Thanks
    BurnleyBob
    Not sure what talking sheep have to do with this.

    Yes, great idea, at last
    Originally posted by foofi22
    Those in receipt of benefits are merely maintaining their purchasing power by index-linking. They are not becoming richer.

    But they are relative to those who are not maintaining their purchasing power, people like the average worker whose pay only rose 1.6% in the past year.

    So, it is as you state a 'great idea' if you get a thrill from the interminable grind of the majority of Britons becoming poorer year on year.

    My best guess is you are either a banker, linked to some mega corporation, or, far, far, more likely, spend far too much of your free time watching the X-Factor, etc, etc, rather than indulging in critical thinking.

    It appears to me that an awful lot of people around here mistakenly believe that they are and will be immune from the effects of the reforms that the coalition are introducing. Most of them will be in for some great shocks in the years ahead because the transfer of wealth from west to east will accelerate.
    • grey gym sock
    • By grey gym sock 18th Sep 12, 3:07 PM
    • 4,444 Posts
    • 4,000 Thanks
    grey gym sock
    so the government is implying that they expect wages to continue to fall in real terms. that's quite an admission.

    in "normal" times, wages used to rise more than inflation.

    somethingcorporate: there is a good case for benefits and the minimum wage rising at the same or at least a similar rate. the government is trying to turn the working poor against the non-working poor.
    • MissMoneypenny
    • By MissMoneypenny 18th Sep 12, 4:06 PM
    • 5,179 Posts
    • 8,426 Thanks
    MissMoneypenny
    Like eating proper food, heating your home in the winter, making sure your children are clothed, you're right, truly awful behaviour.
    Originally posted by Cpt.Scarlet
    I think they are planning to get help direct to these children, to avoid those type of "parents" who nick their childs welfare money.

    Less welfare to the parents; no chance to steal their kids welfare money - what will they do.........hmmm.......................work, perhaps?
    Last edited by MissMoneypenny; 18-09-2012 at 4:09 PM.
    RENTING? Have you checked to see that your landlord has permission from their mortgage lender to rent the property? If not, you could be thrown out with very little notice.
    Read the sticky on the House Buying, Renting & Selling board.


    • Cpt.Scarlet
    • By Cpt.Scarlet 18th Sep 12, 4:13 PM
    • 1,084 Posts
    • 1,235 Thanks
    Cpt.Scarlet
    I think they are planning to get help direct to these children, to avoid those type of "parents" who nick their childs welfare money.

    Less welfare to the parents; no chance to steal their kids welfare money - what will they do.........hmmm.......................work, perhaps?
    Originally posted by MissMoneypenny
    Even if this was true, which I doubt, are you suggesting that benefit is paid directly to the child? It has nothing to do with the topic of the thread, which is breaking the link between benefits and CPI.
  • ILW
    Food vouchers are the way to go. For a set amount of healthy food for each family member.
    Cannot be used for McD or fags and a criminal offence to sell them or buy them.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

2,223Posts Today

6,226Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Mini MSE is on half term next week, so I'm excited to be taking the week off to be daddy. As normal I'm signing of? https://t.co/G3366shWh1

  • I once blurted out on @gmb "Theresa May hasn't been given a poisoned chalice - she's been given a poisoned chalice? https://t.co/onfRbY3XVg

  • It'd be fascinating to know how history will judge Theresa May's premiership. Currently, it is hard to see it as a? https://t.co/eH77G0O9LA

  • Follow Martin