On 23/11/2017 01:27, Fredxxx wrote:
On 23/11/2017 01:05, JNugent wrote:
On 22/11/2017 21:34, Fredxxx wrote:

On 22/11/2017 01:28, JNugent wrote:
On 22/11/2017 00:18, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Â*Â*Â* JNugent wrote:

[ ... ]

UB is a stop-gap until things get better by other means (a job).

Bit like saying when your insurance company pays for a repair to
your car it is only a stop gap until you get a new one.

Not even a little bit like it. No-one wants ever to have to make a
car insurance claim. Everyone hopes
and expects to claim and receive Retirement Pension, preferable for a
very long time.
But car insurance claims may, I suppose, be slightly likened to
unemployment benefit. One hopes never to have to claim and with good
luck, never will.

The idea of national insurance is to provide for times when you are
unemployed or unable to work for other reasons. And to provide for
old age.

That certainly is often erroneously supposed to be the case.
National "Insurance" is not an insurance scheme - and you know it
isn't. If it were, it would cost more the greater the risk of
unemployment or sickness because that's the way that insurance
works. But in the UK, national insurance contributions are lowest
(and can be zero) for those who spend the longest periods on
benefits and those who are least likely to claim, are more likely to
be paying 12% of their income for a lifetime, in National "Insurance".
And neither is NI invested in a pension pot on behalf of the
contributor. You also know that but choose to ignore the fact.
National Insurance benefits have never been enough to replace earned
income. When the average male industrial earnings were about £18 a
week gross, UK was £3 a week (both figures approximate for
1969/1970, but very close either way).
That's why there is a separate scheme of (higher) means-tested
benefits (and there isn't even the pretence of tyhat being
predicated upon insurance, even though many pundits frequently claim
that people "pay in" for their means-tested benefits (they don't -
they get them even if they've never contrinuted a bean).

The means testing is the issue. It encourages many not to work. Many
say they won't work for 50p per hour and I don't blame them.

The other way round, surely? It's hard to see how a scheme which pays
out up £20,000 a year (£384.62 pw net) for an indefinite period
(outside London, more in London) provides less incentive to get a job
than a scheme which pays about £72 a week for 26 weeks max.

What?

Good question. I think I missed out a crucial word, using its opposite
instead. Well-spotted.

It should have read:

[in response to your:]

The means testing is the issue. It encourages many not to work. Many
say they won't work for 50p per hour and I don't blame them.

I wrote (or should have written):

The other way round, surely? It's hard to see how a scheme which pays
out up £20,000 a year (£384.62 pw net) for an indefinite period (outside
London, more in London) provides more incentive to get a job than a
scheme which pays about £72 a week for 26 weeks max.

It's very nice for those can get that much, but have you ever considered
the figure associated with claw-back of tax-credits and reduction of
other benefits?

It does not impinge on what I wrote.

I was mainly describing the effect of out-of-work benefits.

I know many stick to working 16 hours at minimum wage as it maximises
income / effort expended.

That is a silly rule which has a perverse effect. Tax Credits for
workers should only be available to those in full time work (let's say
30 hours plus per week).

Those in part-time work (for whatever reason) should have to sign on as
being (mainly) unemployed.

Lets take a family paying basic rate tax, quite possible at minimum wage
for 35 hours a week.
Lets increase their income by £10 by working harder.
They lose £2.00 from IT, and £1.20 NI. They lose £3.80 from reduction of
tax credits.
With the £3 they have left they go to their local council, who reduce
their HB by £1.80 and CTB by 75p.
If you can do simple arithmetic, you might start to understand why it's
not 'the other way round'.

I am not generally sympathetic to arguments which treat means-tested
benefits as a basic right, to be clung to even when other income rises.
I'm sure you know why.

But for some reason, it seems to be OK to become old. but not out
of work for any other reason.

You treat being retired and being unemployed as the same thing.
There's your error.

They seem very similar to me.

Do they? They're nothing like the same thing.

Unemployment is supposed to be a misfortune which no-one seeks and
which they will tell you they wish to be out of, asap.

For many, not working is a life-style choice.

Yes, I am well aware of it. The system needs to be tweaked so that it
does not pay.

Retirement is something for which everybody wishes (for themselves and
everyone to whom they are related or with whom they are acquainted)
and hopes it will go on for as long aspossible.

Of course, as long as the individual makes their own provision, I don't
have any issue with that.

You don't agree with payment of pensions promised over five decades per
working lifetime, then? I started making NI contributions (flat rate)
when I was 15.

One seems to get a lot of stick and the other is pandered to.

Ask yourself why that is (and whether "pandered to" is the correct way
to think about retirement).

They are more likely to vote and are therefore treated differently.

Of course pensioners are treated differently from non-pensioners. They
get pensions. Non-pensioners don't.

You
only have to look at the application of the bedroom tax to see an
example.

That doesn't apply to me.

Free TV license is another.

Neither does that. Is it supposed to? When did that start and why wasn't
it advertised?

We should encourage unemployed people to find work. They will usually
tell you they want work.

We should encourage everyone to work, I repeat encourage and not hit
them with a stick when they do.

What form does your vsion of "encouragement" take?

Everyone should get a wage and be damned,

You can only get a wage for working. Wages are not appropriate for the
retired OR for the unemployed, for that reason.

Wages are very appropriate for someone in their later stages of life and
able to work without making any provision for retirement.

That's too vague to have meaning.

means testing discourages meaningful work.

See above.

Quite

I guess you being 'retired' will say ageism rules.

I'm not sure what you might mean by that. Ageism is very prevalent in
society, but I don't intend to be a complainant.

Sadly - yes, it advantages the elderly.

You are 180 degrees wrong in that.