On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 20:29:34 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

On 18/11/2017 14:38, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Mark wrote:
Go for the basics. The basic OAP for a single person (assuming full
contribution years) is £119 The basic uneployment benefit if under 25 is
£57. Both can be supplemented by means tested benefits if eligible.

Now either one is super generous or one is parsimonious.

IMHO neither are generous.

Quite. Thus if you agree 119 isn't generous for a single OAP to live on,
just how is half that generous for a younger person?

I gave the answer to that a few hours ago.

Pension is a lifelong thing.

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

How is this a stop-gap, since it's not enough to live on?
What if they get evicted from their home and become homeless because
they can't afford their rent, for example? It would become even more
difficult for them to get a job, without somewhere to live.


--
If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around to hear him, is he still wrong?

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:
The current pension starts at £155

No it doesn't

It does if you are paid up.

only if fully paid up NOT contracted out

You have to remember that the Mail headline figures for any state payments


It wasn't the Mail

it was the Chancellor himself when he stood up and said it

tim

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 18:06:27 -0000, "tim..."
wrote:



"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Andrew wrote:
On 18/11/2017 11:23, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Go for the basics. The basic OAP for a single person (assuming full
contribution years) is £119

Not since April 2016. Much more now, and many people have Serps
entitlements too.

Many have private pensions too.

Plus free bus travel, heating and council tax discount for those
with less than ~£16,000 in savings.

I get council tax discount as a single person. What heating discount are
you talking about?

How much is free travel worth in London ?.

Depends how much you make use of it. Morally, it would make sense to give
free travel to the unemployed, to make it easier to go looking for work.

in London, they do (or did anyway)

Should be a national policy, not limited to London.


--
If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around to hear him, is he still wrong?

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 17:24:51 +0000, Andrew
wrote:

On 18/11/2017 13:34, Handsome Jack wrote:
Yellow posted

What is JSA now £60 or £70 a week perhaps, for a single person? Let's
say it is £75 for arguments sake and let's say a job is 40 hours a week
- that means on benefits (but of course you can stay in bed) you are
getting the equivalent of £1.87 an hour.

How therefore is £7.50 not "enough"? Enough for what?

Because the vast majority of these jobs do not offer 40 hours a week.
Far more likely to be 16 or 20.


That's because the people who these jobs are aimed at are on benefits
and only allowed to work a limited number of hours a week, so that they
can then get thousands in 'working tax credits' as well.

You're making this up, surely?

--
If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around to hear him, is he still wrong?

"Yellow" wrote in message
T...
On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 11:41:23 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
tim... wrote:
The current pension starts at £155

No it doesn't

It does if you are paid up.

only if fully paid up NOT contracted out

You have to remember that the Mail headline figures for any state
payments
- always the very maximum possible - are the only important ones to our
right wing pals. What people may get in practice aren't even considered.

Until they come to have to live on them. Then the story changes.

I don't know about The Mail, but Tim is wrong on this one

No I am not

the official projection of the pension (in today's money) that I will get in
7 years when I retire says

"well done" you have the maximum 35 years of contributions for which you
will receive a pension of 120 pounds something


- which might
come as a pleasant surprise to him.

it will if when I get there it is 155.00 but all the evidence says that it
wont be

tim

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 15:37:56 +0000, Andrew
wrote:

On 17/11/2017 11:36, Robin wrote:
Employees can bring a claim for unfair dismissal on grounds of
discrimination ( age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and
civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief,
sex and sexual orientation).Â* And other things such as exercising their
rights not to work Sundays.

But if the worker is totally useless, the employer cannot easily
get rid of him (or her).

So they get promoted to management, out of harms way ;-(


--
If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around to hear him, is he still wrong?

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 17:04:20 +0000, JoeJoe wrote:

On 18/11/2017 16:41, Mark wrote:
On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 16:19:32 +0000, JoeJoe wrote:

On 18/11/2017 15:19, Mark wrote:
On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 14:46:10 -0000, Yellow
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 12:14:02 +0000, Mark
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 11:53:55 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

On 18/11/2017 09:47, Mark wrote:
It may mean living on what is considered a minimum standard for
nowadays. For example, in the past, many people lived in houses with
no heating. I did. Would you expect people to do this nowadays?

It isn't
credible that people cannot live on it.

The benefits available don't sound too generous to me.
Although I cannot speak from experience, since I have never received
benefits, although I have been poor.

It's important to have some perspective on this. Looking back at recent
economic and social history, there was a time, within easy living
memory, when a phone (of any sort), washing machines, refrigerators,
carpets, frequent home-redecoration, meals out, an alcohol-based "social
life" and (especially) a motor vehicle were way outside the expectations
of the majority. And that was people who were on earnings greater than
social security benefits.

Things have changed. Nowadays you need a phone, washing machine,
fridge, and a motor vehicle. And, if you don't know why, I can
explain it to you.

That is of course a load of rubbish.

No it isn't.

Many people do not have cars and
not everyone can even drive so saying they are a necessity is clearly
incorrect.

For many they are. How do they get to the shops, job interviews etc
if there is no suitable public transport? Or are you a Norman Tebbit
fan?

As for washing machines, why is there a launderette in my
local parade of shops if everyone has them? So again, clearly not a
necessity.

Wrong. You may be fortunate to have a launderette, but most have gone
now. There are none near where I live, for example. I used to use
them.

You have the whole day/week/month to wash your cloths by hand in the
bath if you are unemployed.

In cold water, I assume you mean.

That will wake them up properly...

Ideal for the winter months ......

--
If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around to hear him, is he still wrong?

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 17:49:23 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

On 18/11/2017 16:41, Mark wrote:
On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 16:19:32 +0000, JoeJoe wrote:

On 18/11/2017 15:19, Mark wrote:
On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 14:46:10 -0000, Yellow
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 12:14:02 +0000, Mark
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 11:53:55 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

On 18/11/2017 09:47, Mark wrote:
It may mean living on what is considered a minimum standard for
nowadays. For example, in the past, many people lived in houses with
no heating. I did. Would you expect people to do this nowadays?

It isn't
credible that people cannot live on it.

The benefits available don't sound too generous to me.
Although I cannot speak from experience, since I have never received
benefits, although I have been poor.

It's important to have some perspective on this. Looking back at recent
economic and social history, there was a time, within easy living
memory, when a phone (of any sort), washing machines, refrigerators,
carpets, frequent home-redecoration, meals out, an alcohol-based "social
life" and (especially) a motor vehicle were way outside the expectations
of the majority. And that was people who were on earnings greater than
social security benefits.

Things have changed. Nowadays you need a phone, washing machine,
fridge, and a motor vehicle. And, if you don't know why, I can
explain it to you.

That is of course a load of rubbish.

No it isn't.

Many people do not have cars and
not everyone can even drive so saying they are a necessity is clearly
incorrect.

For many they are. How do they get to the shops, job interviews etc
if there is no suitable public transport? Or are you a Norman Tebbit
fan?

As for washing machines, why is there a launderette in my
local parade of shops if everyone has them? So again, clearly not a
necessity.

Wrong. You may be fortunate to have a launderette, but most have gone
now. There are none near where I live, for example. I used to use
them.

You have the whole day/week/month to wash your cloths by hand in the
bath if you are unemployed.

In cold water, I assume you mean.

There are houses with baths in bathrooms that have no means of providing
hot water, are there?

If these people are on such low incomes, maybe they can't afford to
heat the water.

Even if there were, not many people used to wash clothes in the bath.
The kitchen sink was usually regarded as the place for that.

Few houses have large Belfast sinks nowadays. Imagine washing clothes
in a modern 'tiny' sink?

--
If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around to hear him, is he still wrong?

On 19/11/2017 00:55, Fredxxx wrote:
On 19/11/2017 00:31, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Â*Â*Â* Andrew wrote:
On 18/11/2017 15:10, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Members of that union may well see things from a totally different
perspective. False news isn't a recent invention.

Err, all summer we have had endless strikes on Southern and
Thameslink because ASLEF had joined the RMT in a dispute that
was about 'safety'.

Lo and behold, by accepting the chance to earn up to £72,000
a year, the safety issue seems to have been quietly dumped.

In other words it was a dispute about money all along.

They're going to have a shock. Driverless trains and tubes are
going to be a much easier implemented reality than driverless
cars and HGV's.

Watch this space.

You're showing your true colours. Not only do you want benefits for the
unemployed abolished or reduced, but you also rub your hands at the idea
of people losing their jobs.

Its human nature to wish bad things to those who disrupt your life
through taking selfish industrial action. If the union members were
unhappy with pay and conditions, they could just get another job.


Nonsense - at least IME. I don't think many take industrial action for
their own benefit. Especially nowadays where strike pay is the exception.

--
Cheers, Rob

On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 02:32:33 -0000, Yellow
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 17:58:25 -0000, tim...
wrote:

"Yellow" wrote in message
T...
On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 12:14:02 +0000, Mark
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 11:53:55 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

On 18/11/2017 09:47, Mark wrote:
It may mean living on what is considered a minimum standard for
nowadays. For example, in the past, many people lived in houses with
no heating. I did. Would you expect people to do this nowadays?

It isn't
credible that people cannot live on it.

The benefits available don't sound too generous to me.
Although I cannot speak from experience, since I have never received
benefits, although I have been poor.

It's important to have some perspective on this. Looking back at recent
economic and social history, there was a time, within easy living
memory, when a phone (of any sort), washing machines, refrigerators,
carpets, frequent home-redecoration, meals out, an alcohol-based "social
life" and (especially) a motor vehicle were way outside the expectations
of the majority. And that was people who were on earnings greater than
social security benefits.

Things have changed. Nowadays you need a phone, washing machine,
fridge, and a motor vehicle. And, if you don't know why, I can
explain it to you.

That is of course a load of rubbish. Many people do not have cars and
not everyone can even drive so saying they are a necessity is clearly
incorrect. As for washing machines, why is there a launderette in my
local parade of shops if everyone has them?

You're lucky

I have my own washing machine (which I got for free as it happens) but
clearly there is a market for launderette on the south coast. Make of
that what you will. :-)


I don't think there's a single launderette in my town and certainly not one
within walking distance

OK I checked on Google, and I am right, there isn't one

the nearest one is 7 miles away in the next town which I refer to as
Chavsville

FTAOD I am not suggesting that every town with a launderette is excessively
chavvy, it just happens that this place is.

The next nearest is 9 miles in the other direction which is the local
university town (and everything but chavvy)

Students and flats in general might both create a market for a local
launderette. Dunno.

FWIW when I was a student there were "Launderettes"[1] in the halls of
residence. But this is not much use for non-students or people who do
not live in University towns/cities.

[1] Well, a washing machine.

--
If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around to hear him, is he still wrong?

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 17:46:56 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

On 18/11/2017 12:14, Mark wrote:

JNugent wrote:
On 18/11/2017 09:47, Mark wrote:
Yellow wrote:
On Fri, 17 Nov 2017 15:39:21 +0000, Mark wrote:

[ ... ]

Or maybe the pay rates for skilled people is too low? If benefits are
really too high this creates a poverty trap if wages are low. However
I very much doubt that benefits are 'generous' now, if they ever were.

Define "generous". To me, if you can live on it long term without the
need to ever work then it is "generous".

What if you can't live off it or a job paying minimum wage?

Does that mean living at a higher living standard than our parents were
able to expect (still on money just handed out to you)?

It may mean living on what is considered a minimum standard for
nowadays. For example, in the past, many people lived in houses with
no heating. I did. Would you expect people to do this nowadays?

I have never seen a house with no heating. The Georgian house I lived in
in the 1950s had a fireplace in every room except the bathroom and the
kitchen.

Perhaps you meant central heating, which I never had until I was just on
40 years old. It ought to be clear that I cannot agree that it is in any
way essential.

I don't mean central heating. OK. I did exaggerate. The place which
I am referring to had a small electric fire in the lounge (which was
ineffective) and *no* other heating. It looked like it used to have
fireplaces in some of the rooms but they were all blocked up.
It was bloody cold in the winter. I think the other residents
suffered more than me.

It isn't credible that people cannot live on it.

The benefits available don't sound too generous to me.
Although I cannot speak from experience, since I have never received
benefits, although I have been poor.

It's important to have some perspective on this. Looking back at recent
economic and social history, there was a time, within easy living
memory, when a phone (of any sort), washing machines, refrigerators,
carpets, frequent home-redecoration, meals out, an alcohol-based "social
life" and (especially) a motor vehicle were way outside the expectations
of the majority. And that was people who were on earnings greater than
social security benefits.

Things have changed. Nowadays you need a phone, washing machine,
fridge, and a motor vehicle. And, if you don't know why, I can
explain it to you.

No, you don't need any of those things so much that your fellow
taxpayers should provide you with the means to get them (and the word
"need" is so often misused in any case). They're nice to have, but you
have to get them by your own efforts.

OK. I will explain it to you. They need a phone so that they can
search for jobs. It's no good if a potential employer cannot contact
you by phone. You need a washing machine since all the laundrettes
have closed down. You need a fridge to stop your food going off and
giving you food poisoning. You need a motor vehicle since public
transport is virtually non-existent [1].

Also, bear in mind that many things are much more expensive than they
were, like accomodation, food etc.

I don't know that food is dearer in real terms than it has ever been.
What is commonly agreed is that it has fallen - a lot - as a proportion
of household income. That must also mean that food now accounts for a
smaller proportion of benefit income.

Food inflation is very high ATM (4%).

[1] In many areas.
--
If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around to hear him, is he still wrong?

On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 00:06:28 +0000, JoeJoe wrote:

On 18/11/2017 17:36, tim... wrote:


"JoeJoe" wrote in message
o.uk...


You will find that you can go to college for free if you are unemployed.

but as you are not "available for work" you won't get benefits

You do, at least in part, whilst in training.

Maybe things have changed but you never used to get benefits whilst in
education/training. I doubt this has changed for the better recently.
And there are usually tuition fees to consider, and you may not be
eligable for a loan.

--
If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around to hear him, is he still wrong?

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 20:26:56 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

On 18/11/2017 16:21, Mark wrote:

Yellow wrote:
Mark wrote:

Not easy for most. I'm sure (almost) everyone wants a higher standard
of living but there aren't an unlimited amount of better paid jobs
available.


Always an "ah but" when this is discussed.

Benefits are too low - so get a job - but jobs do not pay enough - so
work more hours or train for a better job - but there aren't enough
better jobs....

Except there are.

I doubt it.

Another "yes, but..."!

But why doubt it?

Maybe I've lost my rose-coloured spectacles.

Do you never look at the Situations Vacant in the press or online?

Occasionally. When I do I am shocked by how little some jobs pay.

And, even if there were, how many would be capable of
doing them? I've said this before and I will repeat it; I have worked
with people who are so useless, that it would be better to pay them to
do nothing rather than to screw up in a job.

You may be right on that. But I'm sure you will realise that "the
authorities" responsible for paying out taxpayers' money prefer to
determine that for themselves.

If only they were capable and able to do this. For example I have
experience people who had reasonable qualifications but yet were
utterly useless at the jobs they got.

There is a skills shortage in lots of areas but people
have to start somewhere by getting off benefits and taking a job!

That's a catch-22. Many employers don't want to train people and it
is risk for people to pay for training if they have little money.

Ah yes... "Catch 22"!... a variant version of "ah but...".

So?

--
If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around to hear him, is he still wrong?

On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 11:19:46 -0000, Yellow
wrote:

On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 10:48:17 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Yellow wrote:
On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 16:46:46 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Mark wrote:
We are discussing both. The minimum wage and unemployment benefits
are linked and cannot be considered in isolation. Obviously there
should be incentives to work, but that means work should pay well,
not that benefits should be squeezed so that people cannot manage.

But the notion that cutting benefits will force everyone into taking a
job is standard Tory mantra. Doesn't matter if it works or not. Or who
it hurts.

And a standard socialist mantra is that giving people benefits will win
them votes. Doesn't matter if it works or not. Or who it hurts.

If there are people abusing the benefit system, the law already covers
this.

Assuming Tory cuts to those who check up on such things haven't made
that impossible, of course.

I have not brought up the topic of "people abusing the state" so I have
no idea why you have here given we are discussing legitimate claimants.


But I'd guess you want a society where the poorest are just left to fend
for themselves. You're certainly not alone there.

I want a society where people who can work do because it gives them a
better standard of living and because it leaves more money in the pot
for people who can't,

Doesn't this happen already? It is a good aim.

I want a society like this too. But I don't want a society where the
less fortunate are below the "poverty-line" lime some here are
advocating.

--
If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around to hear him, is he still wrong?

On 19/11/2017 10:12, Fredxxx wrote:

On 19/11/2017 03:58, JNugent wrote:
On 19/11/2017 00:46, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Â*Â*Â* JNugent wrote:
On 18/11/2017 14:53, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Â*Â*Â*Â* JNugent wrote:

Around here you couldn't get a shed for £65K and average earnings
are around the same.

And the moral of this story is...
...go north, young man. And get on the ladder.

Ah - right. So those excellent value houses can be bought close to
where well paid work is available? So much for the North/South divide.

sigh
The discussion was about *average* property prices and an assertion
that everyone in the UK has been disadvantaged by increases in them.
The assertion has been undermined by a few awkward facts.

The fact that houses are cheap in areas where there is little well paid
work to be had?

Goal-posts shifted While-U-Wait?

Is that an admission there is "little well paid work to be had"?

How could it be, when in the same area, there are houses at a million
pounds?

It's simply that houses start at lower prices. In effect, terraced
houses in the north are still fulfilling their intended original purpose
(housing the working and lower middle classes for the main part) instead
of housing professionals, Surrey-style, or second-home owners, West
Country style.

On 19/11/2017 11:12, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Fredxxx wrote:
We're told employment is at an all time high. You think it easy to
sack an entire workforce and replace them?

At £70k a pop for a unskilled/semi skilled job, I would have no trouble
at all.

Seems then you should be running the railways. You probably couldn't make
a bigger mess of it than some of the current management.

Murdock had no problem in replacing the print workers, remember?

You have a very short memory. He didn't replace the existing print workers
like for like.

He didn't need to, which was something they knew, but had failed to take
into account.

On 19/11/2017 11:13, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Fredxxx wrote:
Some companies went out of business through union action. Red Robbo
comes to mind.

BL went out of business because of Red Robbo, did they? Rather shows you
know as much about the motor industry as anything else.

What he represemted was a major part of BL's problems.

Not the only one of their problems (as you correctly hint), but still a
major contributor to the comapny's downfall.

On 19/11/2017 10:33, tim... wrote:


"Yellow" wrote in message
T...
On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 17:40:46 -0000, tim...
wrote:

"Yellow" wrote in message
T...
On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 14:38:58 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
*** Mark wrote:
Go for the basics. The basic OAP for a single person (assuming
full
contribution years) is £119* The basic uneployment benefit if
under 25
is
£57. Both can be supplemented by means tested benefits if
eligible.

Now either one is super generous or one is parsimonious.

IMHO neither are generous.

Quite. Thus if you agree 119 isn't generous for a single OAP to
live on,


That £119 figure is incorrect.

The current pension starts at £155

No it doesn't

It does if you are paid up.

only if fully paid up NOT contracted out



It is a pretence by HMG that it does.

Did they fool you?

Yes they did

with 35 years contributions it comes as a surprise that my pension
expectation is 120 pounds something

tim

If you aren't yet of pension age, your entitlement will be at least £155
in today's prices.

On 19/11/2017 11:41, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tim... wrote:
The current pension starts at £155

No it doesn't

It does if you are paid up.

only if fully paid up NOT contracted out

You have to remember that the Mail headline figures for any state payments
- always the very maximum possible - are the only important ones to our
right wing pals. What people may get in practice aren't even considered.

Until they come to have to live on them. Then the story changes.

No-one has to lve on £120 a week (or even the new £155 a week) once past
the official pension age. That has already been explained in this thread.

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 20:21:29 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

On 18/11/2017 14:55, Mark wrote:

Yellow wrote:
Mark wrote:
Yellow wrote:

Or maybe the pay rates for skilled people is too low? If benefits are
really too high this creates a poverty trap if wages are low. However
I very much doubt that benefits are 'generous' now, if they ever were.

Define "generous". To me, if you can live on it long term without the
need to ever work then it is "generous".

What if you can't live off it or a job paying minimum wage?

We are discussing unemployment benefits not the minimum wage, and the
solution there is to get a job - obviously.

We are discussing both. The minimum wage and unemployment benefits
are linked and cannot be considered in isolation. Obviously there
should be incentives to work, but that means work should pay well, not
that benefits should be squeezed so that people cannot manage.

Please explain how unemployment benefit and the NMW are "linked".

If the minimum wage is too low then how will this "encourage" people
to work (especially for those here who believe that unemployment
benefit is too high)?

But if you are in work and decide you want a higher standard of living,
whatever your income, the answer is obviously to earn more.

Not easy for most.

Work is often neither easy nor pleasant. That's the point.

I'm sure (almost) everyone wants a higher standard
of living but there aren't an unlimited amount of better paid jobs
available.

Actually, there are, though they won't be necessarily available to the
specific individual. You must have read somewhere that the economy is
not a zero sum game/gain (both versions exist and apparently mean the
same thing).

There are over 32 million people employed in this country. Please
explain how all these people can gain higher salaries.

--
If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around to hear him, is he still wrong?

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article . com,
bm wrote:
You should try being content with your life. Rather than wanting to
bring others down.

FFS Dave, how the hell you have the brass neck to type that. It's
exactly what you try to do in most posts.

Still envious of my career choice then?

I've read it all now

All that's needed is you actually understand a half of it.

You really can't help being obnoxious.
No surprise you live alone.

On 19/11/2017 10:53, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Yellow wrote:

I'm talking about the basic pension that all will be getting.

Which is now £155 (plus the inflation increases since it was
introduced).

More ********. I'm an OAP and don't get anything like 155 per week.

Let's check that. Will you trust that The Guardian has no interest in
trying to overstate the value of the currently-awarded Retirement Pension?

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/nov/29/state-pension-to-rise-by-25-in-april-2017

QUOTE:
State pension to rise by 2.5% in April 2017
Weekly payments will increase from £155.65 to £159.55 while the old
state pension will rise to £122.30 from £119.30
ENDQUOTE

See? The rate being awarded for current new claims is now £159.55 a week.

The fact that you and I don't get as much as that (being on the "old"
scheme) doesn't change that.

On 19/11/2017 11:19, Fredxxx wrote:
On 19/11/2017 10:53, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
*** Yellow wrote:
I'm talking about the basic pension that all will be getting.

Which is now £155 (plus the inflation increases since it was
introduced).

More ********. I'm an OAP and don't get anything like 155 per week.

Yellow is wrong, it's not £155

It's £159.55 (since April last).

https://www.gov.uk/new-state-pension/what-youll-get

Unless the £4.55 is the "plus the inflation increases since it was
introduced".

On 19/11/2017 13:36, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Yellow wrote:
Which is now £155 (plus the inflation increases since it was
introduced).

More ********. I'm an OAP and don't get anything like 155 per week.

That will be because you are getting yours under the old scheme

Quite. But stay with your Mail version of quoting a maximum as the norm.
Anything else might be too accurate.

Even under the "old" scheme, it's possible to get more than the basic. I
currently get £126+ while my wife gets £147+. Something to do with
either being "opted out" or not.

On 19/11/2017 13:49, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Yellow wrote:
I'm curious as to how much you think you need to live 'comfortably'?

It depends on your circumstances - obviously.

For a single person who is set up, without rent or mortgage but paying
all other bills including running a car and council tax, with no
benefits or tax credits, £9,000.

I73 a week


On top of that you need the allow for
breakages and replacements so add another couple of thousand for that.
So £12,000 plus housing.

230 a week.

Both very short of the basic unemployment benefit.

What?

If you have kids, a partner, other mouths to feed, pets, a tumble drier
on the go every day and holidays to Disneyland, then obviously you need
more.

So - I have answered your question so please will you now answer mine.

Do I think many on the current levels of unemployment benefit - even long
term - get a raw deal? Yes. Judging by what I've seen with my own eyes.
And mainly talking about the single.

On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 10:38:22 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Fredxxx wrote:
You're showing your true colours. Not only do you want benefits for
the unemployed abolished or reduced, but you also rub your hands at
the idea of people losing their jobs.

Its human nature to wish bad things to those who disrupt your life
through taking selfish industrial action. If the union members were
unhappy with pay and conditions, they could just get another job.

Yup. A train driver can simply get a job as a merchant banker at 300 grand
a year. Problem solved.
Do love the way many think others should do such and such. But never
themselves, of course. Their job is essential and worth every penny.

It was one reason why Maggie Thatcher rose to power. A large section of
the electorate wanted Arthur Scargill to sport a blooded nose. She
kindly served that on a plate, the rest is history.

Yes it is. The current housing mess very much down to her. And so much
else. Making naked greed fashionable being the most obvious.

Absolutely right.

--
If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around to hear him, is he still wrong?

On 19/11/2017 11:04, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
JNugent wrote:
On 19/11/2017 00:42, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
JNugent wrote:

I have never seen a house with no heating. The Georgian house I lived
in in the 1950s had a fireplace in every room except the bathroom and
the kitchen.

You've not looked very hard. My parents house built in the '30s had no
form of heating in the bedrooms. Not even a power socket as built.

Did it have no form of heating at all, not even in the ground floor
living rooms?

Of course it did. Open fires.

Bingo.

Only if the answer to that question is "no" does it tend to disprove
what I said.

So your example of a house with a fireplace in every room was rather
pointless?

Only to those without the power of comprehension.

On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 14:28:10 +0000, RJH wrote:

On 19/11/2017 00:55, Fredxxx wrote:
On 19/11/2017 00:31, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Â*Â*Â* Andrew wrote:
On 18/11/2017 15:10, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Members of that union may well see things from a totally different
perspective. False news isn't a recent invention.

Err, all summer we have had endless strikes on Southern and
Thameslink because ASLEF had joined the RMT in a dispute that
was about 'safety'.

Lo and behold, by accepting the chance to earn up to £72,000
a year, the safety issue seems to have been quietly dumped.

In other words it was a dispute about money all along.

They're going to have a shock. Driverless trains and tubes are
going to be a much easier implemented reality than driverless
cars and HGV's.

Watch this space.

You're showing your true colours. Not only do you want benefits for the
unemployed abolished or reduced, but you also rub your hands at the idea
of people losing their jobs.

Its human nature to wish bad things to those who disrupt your life
through taking selfish industrial action. If the union members were
unhappy with pay and conditions, they could just get another job.


Nonsense - at least IME. I don't think many take industrial action for
their own benefit. Especially nowadays where strike pay is the exception.

Exactly. Striking is a last resort, especially since they have to
manage with no pay for the strike period.

--
If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around to hear him, is he still wrong?

On 19/11/2017 11:08, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
JNugent wrote:
The discussion was about *average* property prices and an assertion that
everyone in the UK has been disadvantaged by increases in them.

The assertion has been undermined by a few awkward facts.

The fact that houses are cheap in areas where there is little well paid
work to be had?

Goal-posts shifted While-U-Wait?

Pet, something can only be cheap *if* you have the money to pay for it.

If you have little or no money makes no difference at all if a house costs
20 or 200 grand. Both are then simply statistics.

I'm rather surprised you need this explained to you.

So... there are some people who cannot afford to buy a house?

Wow.

I've been making that point for ages, especially whenever anyone tries
on the nonsensical and iollogical comparison betweemn "average income"
and "average house prices".

On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 15:01:15 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

On 19/11/2017 11:13, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Fredxxx wrote:
Some companies went out of business through union action. Red Robbo
comes to mind.

BL went out of business because of Red Robbo, did they? Rather shows you
know as much about the motor industry as anything else.

What he represemted was a major part of BL's problems.

Not the only one of their problems (as you correctly hint), but still a
major contributor to the comapny's downfall.

The management took up a confrontational position so it is not valid
to blame one side only.

--
If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around to hear him, is he still wrong?

On 19/11/2017 11:41, mechanic wrote:
On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 21:14:45 +0000, JNugent wrote:

I would love a pensioner's bus pass but am not old enough unfortunately,
and was wistfully thinking about them only the other day.

I concluded I would be prepared to pay a couple of hundred quid, if not
more, for such a wonderful perk that cannot actually be purchased at any
price.

Doesn't anyone sell fake ones ?

They'd be easy to make with a laser printer, especially since London bus
drivers don't do much to check "out of town" bus passes (which do not
work with the Oyster machines, meaning that flashing it at the driver is
all you need do and it can be done from within the plastic window in a
wallet or similar).

It's an obvious flaw.

Ours have embedded RFID chips. Which the ticket machines read.

The way it works here (as I understand it) is that if I get on a local
bus (which would be so rare that I can't remember the last time I did
it, but at least two years ago), the pass is presented to something
which looks like an Oyster reader which makes a beeping noise in
recognition of the pass. This eventually means that the county council
has to pay an incremental sum to the bus company.

But when I get on a London bus, the Oyster machine does not recognise my
pass (I've tried it, more than once). The only check made is a swift
visual one by the driver (who usually takes absolutely no interest
beyond a cursory nod and only thenm if the card is actively shown to him*).

It would be as easy to scan and print a copy and keep it in a plastic
window inside my wallet (for use in London or anywhere else where the
reading machines are imcompatible with the ones at home).

[* I do that in order not to give the impression to any undercover LT
inspector that I either have an Oyster card I'm not using up or haven't
bought a ticket for dishonest reasons.]

On 19/11/2017 13:20, Mark wrote:

JNugent wrote:
On 18/11/2017 13:03, Mark wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 18/11/2017 12:33, Mark wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 18/11/2017 10:32, Fredxxx wrote:

[ ... ]

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/m...-50-years.html
House prices have risen from an average of £9,767 in 1973 to £205,936
today according to figures from Nationwide.
Average salaries meanwhile have risen from £2,170 in 1973 to £28,200 in
2016, according to estimates from the Office for National Statistics.
This means that on average people needed 4.5 times their salary in the
late 1970s to buy a home while today, they need 7.3 times.

I wonder how much of that is due to the explosion of housing for sale in
London and the South East? A disproportionate increase here drags up the
national average without the effect being as big for individuals.

Huh? Housing prices have risen excessively in most/all areas, not
just London and the SE. Take for example my area. The average house
price is £329,075 and the average income is about £25K, which makes it
about 13x salary. And this is nowhere near London or the SE.

Your area is not the whole of England.

True. But it is an area in England. There are many comparable
places.

None of them are the whole of England either.

True, but irrelevant.

I bought a modern 3-bed house (four years old) in Q3 1977 for £7,000.
This was in the S Lancs plain. Today, the same house might be worth
£65,000 (but only if a subsequent owner has installed a better kitchen
plus central heating). The house is completely acceptable as a
residence, with a large corner plot and parking for several cars.

I am very surprised that such a house could be bought for this kind of
amount, anywhere, unless it had very serious problems like subsidence.

What does that mean? That you don't believe it? It's true whether
convenient or not.

It means I am suprised.

What? Even with all that research you have been doing into house prices?

Do a Rightmove or Zoople search on towns in the South Lancashire Plain
(Wigan, St Helens, Widnes, etc. and especially Skelmersdale), with an
80K maximum. A traditional 3-bed semi with land on three sides can be
bought for £75,000 or so.

Just done a search - average prices in Lancashire is £163K, average
for a semi £156K.

Now tell us all why and how you are comparing like with unlike.

You're the one who is doing this. What's the relevance of the prices
of houses in Lancashire, for those who need to live elsewhere?

Before I do that, please explain why you compared like (average prices)
with an unlike (lowest prices).

And what's the relevance of your question, when the information was
given in order to counter the (untrue) assertion that house prices have
shifted upwards in real terms everywhere, when it is clear that they
haven't?

Not so much in the more desirable places like Haydock, Ormskirk or
Upholland, but they're still cheaper then you might think.

Not as cheap as you might think?

£65,000 is still only about 2.5 times the average salary for the
sub-region (according to various online sources which estimate local
earnings at between £25,000 and £26,000). Without those improvements,
you'd expect a price lower by about £10,000 and a 2.2 ratio to average
local earnings.

Around here you couldn't get a shed for £65K and average earnings are
around the same.

And the moral of this story is...

...go north, young man. And get on the ladder.

Not everyone has the choice to move to Lancashire.

Do you have to?

You are suggesting that everyone does.

Not at all. I am merely pointing out that the "semi-official" narrative
to the effect that housing is uniformly unaffordable is untrue.

On 19/11/2017 13:50, Mark wrote:

JNugent wrote:
On 18/11/2017 15:32, Mark wrote:
Yellow wrote:
ave Plowman (News) wrote:
Mark wrote:

Go for the basics. The basic OAP for a single person (assuming full
contribution years) is £119 The basic uneployment benefit if under 25 is
£57. Both can be supplemented by means tested benefits if eligible.
Now either one is super generous or one is parsimonious.

IMHO neither are generous.

Quite. Thus if you agree 119 isn't generous for a single OAP to live on,

That £119 figure is incorrect.
The current pension starts at £155 (plus inflation increases since it
was introduced) and anyone on the old pension and only receiving the
base amount will be getting other benefits.

I just missed that (by a matter of weeks!) and consequently get less
than that amount.
But I'm not complaining or bitter. I understand that changes only take
place from when they take place.

just how is half that generous for a younger person?

The young person's benefit is supposed to be a stop-gap, not a life
style choice, and if they cannot afford to live on their benefits then
they have the option of getting off their arse and working.

So do retired people, and many do. It's not an ideal situation, but
it's the way of the world.

It's a choice for people over retirement age (I still do a bit of
freelance).
What's wrong with that?

Nothing. Iff they want to work and are able to do so.

Quite so. And the stuff I do is not strenuous by any means.

And I find it as depressing as hell that there are people out there that
think we should encourage young people not to work by paying them enough
in benefits so that they never need to.

I don't accept that idea. There is plenty of incentives to work right
now.

There is clear reason to believe that the incentive effect is currently
inadequate.

If it was inadequate, why would anyone work?

We are not all the same.

We can all remember thirty years ago when all the complaining was about
unemployment. There was a general perception that unemployment was a
misfortune.

For many it was.

You have snipped the "modern instance": today, too many people insist on
jealously clinging to their unemployed status and try to avoid
fulfilling their jobseeking contracts, rather than seeking work.

On 19/11/2017 14:04, Mark wrote:
On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 17:42:53 -0000, "tim..."
wrote:



"JoeJoe" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 18/11/2017 14:38, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Mark wrote:
Go for the basics. The basic OAP for a single person (assuming full
contribution years) is £119 The basic uneployment benefit if under 25
is
£57. Both can be supplemented by means tested benefits if eligible.

Now either one is super generous or one is parsimonious.

IMHO neither are generous.

Quite. Thus if you agree 119 isn't generous for a single OAP to live on,
just how is half that generous for a younger person?

The proof is in the pudding: if it weren't generous and provide them with
comfortable enough life, then they would be forced to try and find work
(which they are not doing).

most pensioners have set themselves up with additional income as well as the
basic pension

for those that haven't there are benefits which will top it up

That goes against what many have been arguing in this thread.
Shouldn't they be forced to work, rather than receiving benefits?
devils-advocate

Not "forced" in the proper sense of that word.

But other choices should be limited.

On 19/11/2017 14:10, Mark wrote:
On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 20:29:34 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

On 18/11/2017 14:38, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Mark wrote:
Go for the basics. The basic OAP for a single person (assuming full
contribution years) is £119 The basic uneployment benefit if under 25 is
£57. Both can be supplemented by means tested benefits if eligible.

Now either one is super generous or one is parsimonious.

IMHO neither are generous.

Quite. Thus if you agree 119 isn't generous for a single OAP to live on,
just how is half that generous for a younger person?

I gave the answer to that a few hours ago.

Pension is a lifelong thing.

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

How is this a stop-gap, since it's not enough to live on?

That's what a stop-gap is: enough to tide you over for essentials only
for a limited period, not intended to be a long-term solution (that's a
job, that is).

What if they get evicted from their home and become homeless because
they can't afford their rent, for example? It would become even more
difficult for them to get a job, without somewhere to live.

So some people say.

Are many convinced by such obvious appeals to mawkishness?

On 19/11/2017 14:27, Mark wrote:
On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 17:49:23 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

On 18/11/2017 16:41, Mark wrote:
On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 16:19:32 +0000, JoeJoe wrote:

On 18/11/2017 15:19, Mark wrote:
On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 14:46:10 -0000, Yellow
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 12:14:02 +0000, Mark
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 11:53:55 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

On 18/11/2017 09:47, Mark wrote:
It may mean living on what is considered a minimum standard for
nowadays. For example, in the past, many people lived in houses with
no heating. I did. Would you expect people to do this nowadays?

It isn't
credible that people cannot live on it.

The benefits available don't sound too generous to me.
Although I cannot speak from experience, since I have never received
benefits, although I have been poor.

It's important to have some perspective on this. Looking back at recent
economic and social history, there was a time, within easy living
memory, when a phone (of any sort), washing machines, refrigerators,
carpets, frequent home-redecoration, meals out, an alcohol-based "social
life" and (especially) a motor vehicle were way outside the expectations
of the majority. And that was people who were on earnings greater than
social security benefits.

Things have changed. Nowadays you need a phone, washing machine,
fridge, and a motor vehicle. And, if you don't know why, I can
explain it to you.

That is of course a load of rubbish.

No it isn't.

Many people do not have cars and
not everyone can even drive so saying they are a necessity is clearly
incorrect.

For many they are. How do they get to the shops, job interviews etc
if there is no suitable public transport? Or are you a Norman Tebbit
fan?

As for washing machines, why is there a launderette in my
local parade of shops if everyone has them? So again, clearly not a
necessity.

Wrong. You may be fortunate to have a launderette, but most have gone
now. There are none near where I live, for example. I used to use
them.

You have the whole day/week/month to wash your cloths by hand in the
bath if you are unemployed.

In cold water, I assume you mean.

There are houses with baths in bathrooms that have no means of providing
hot water, are there?

If these people are on such low incomes, maybe they can't afford to
heat the water.

Another "ah, but", eh?

Even if there were, not many people used to wash clothes in the bath.
The kitchen sink was usually regarded as the place for that.

Few houses have large Belfast sinks nowadays. Imagine washing clothes
in a modern 'tiny' sink?

Yes. Imagine it. The bath is always available, of course.

On 19/11/2017 14:31, Mark wrote:

FWIW when I was a student there were "Launderettes"[1] in the halls of
residence. But this is not much use for non-students or people who do
not live in University towns/cities.

[1] Well, a washing machine.

This is not a university town. I know of at least two launderettes
within a short bus ride (ther would never be one in a village like this).

But every house and flat has a sink and hot water.

On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 15:31:22 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

On 19/11/2017 13:20, Mark wrote:

JNugent wrote:
On 18/11/2017 13:03, Mark wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 18/11/2017 12:33, Mark wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 18/11/2017 10:32, Fredxxx wrote:

[ ... ]

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/m...-50-years.html
House prices have risen from an average of £9,767 in 1973 to £205,936
today according to figures from Nationwide.
Average salaries meanwhile have risen from £2,170 in 1973 to £28,200 in
2016, according to estimates from the Office for National Statistics.
This means that on average people needed 4.5 times their salary in the
late 1970s to buy a home while today, they need 7.3 times.

I wonder how much of that is due to the explosion of housing for sale in
London and the South East? A disproportionate increase here drags up the
national average without the effect being as big for individuals.

Huh? Housing prices have risen excessively in most/all areas, not
just London and the SE. Take for example my area. The average house
price is £329,075 and the average income is about £25K, which makes it
about 13x salary. And this is nowhere near London or the SE.

Your area is not the whole of England.

True. But it is an area in England. There are many comparable
places.

None of them are the whole of England either.

True, but irrelevant.

I bought a modern 3-bed house (four years old) in Q3 1977 for £7,000.
This was in the S Lancs plain. Today, the same house might be worth
£65,000 (but only if a subsequent owner has installed a better kitchen
plus central heating). The house is completely acceptable as a
residence, with a large corner plot and parking for several cars.

I am very surprised that such a house could be bought for this kind of
amount, anywhere, unless it had very serious problems like subsidence.

What does that mean? That you don't believe it? It's true whether
convenient or not.

It means I am suprised.

What? Even with all that research you have been doing into house prices?

Do a Rightmove or Zoople search on towns in the South Lancashire Plain
(Wigan, St Helens, Widnes, etc. and especially Skelmersdale), with an
80K maximum. A traditional 3-bed semi with land on three sides can be
bought for £75,000 or so.

Just done a search - average prices in Lancashire is £163K, average
for a semi £156K.

Now tell us all why and how you are comparing like with unlike.

You're the one who is doing this. What's the relevance of the prices
of houses in Lancashire, for those who need to live elsewhere?

Before I do that, please explain why you compared like (average prices)
with an unlike (lowest prices).

Lowest price isn't very useful since most people will be unable to
take "advantage" of this. Average prices will dictate what the
majority need to consider.

And what's the relevance of your question, when the information was
given in order to counter the (untrue) assertion that house prices have
shifted upwards in real terms everywhere, when it is clear that they
haven't?

If a few areas have not had the same trend, how is this useful for
those who need to live elsewhere?

Not so much in the more desirable places like Haydock, Ormskirk or
Upholland, but they're still cheaper then you might think.

Not as cheap as you might think?

£65,000 is still only about 2.5 times the average salary for the
sub-region (according to various online sources which estimate local
earnings at between £25,000 and £26,000). Without those improvements,
you'd expect a price lower by about £10,000 and a 2.2 ratio to average
local earnings.

Around here you couldn't get a shed for £65K and average earnings are
around the same.

And the moral of this story is...

...go north, young man. And get on the ladder.

Not everyone has the choice to move to Lancashire.

Do you have to?

You are suggesting that everyone does.

Not at all. I am merely pointing out that the "semi-official" narrative
to the effect that housing is uniformly unaffordable is untrue.

You said "go north young man" ;-)

--
If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around to hear him, is he still wrong?

On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 15:35:23 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

On 19/11/2017 13:50, Mark wrote:

JNugent wrote:
On 18/11/2017 15:32, Mark wrote:
Yellow wrote:
ave Plowman (News) wrote:
Mark wrote:

Go for the basics. The basic OAP for a single person (assuming full
contribution years) is £119 The basic uneployment benefit if under 25 is
£57. Both can be supplemented by means tested benefits if eligible.
Now either one is super generous or one is parsimonious.

IMHO neither are generous.

Quite. Thus if you agree 119 isn't generous for a single OAP to live on,

That £119 figure is incorrect.
The current pension starts at £155 (plus inflation increases since it
was introduced) and anyone on the old pension and only receiving the
base amount will be getting other benefits.

I just missed that (by a matter of weeks!) and consequently get less
than that amount.
But I'm not complaining or bitter. I understand that changes only take
place from when they take place.

just how is half that generous for a younger person?

The young person's benefit is supposed to be a stop-gap, not a life
style choice, and if they cannot afford to live on their benefits then
they have the option of getting off their arse and working.

So do retired people, and many do. It's not an ideal situation, but
it's the way of the world.

It's a choice for people over retirement age (I still do a bit of
freelance).
What's wrong with that?

Nothing. Iff they want to work and are able to do so.

Quite so. And the stuff I do is not strenuous by any means.

And I find it as depressing as hell that there are people out there that
think we should encourage young people not to work by paying them enough
in benefits so that they never need to.

I don't accept that idea. There is plenty of incentives to work right
now.

There is clear reason to believe that the incentive effect is currently
inadequate.

If it was inadequate, why would anyone work?

We are not all the same.

We can all remember thirty years ago when all the complaining was about
unemployment. There was a general perception that unemployment was a
misfortune.

For many it was.

You have snipped the "modern instance": today, too many people insist on
jealously clinging to their unemployed status and try to avoid
fulfilling their jobseeking contracts, rather than seeking work.

How many people?

--
If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around to hear him, is he still wrong?

On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 15:38:19 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

On 19/11/2017 14:10, Mark wrote:
On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 20:29:34 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

On 18/11/2017 14:38, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Mark wrote:
Go for the basics. The basic OAP for a single person (assuming full
contribution years) is £119 The basic uneployment benefit if under 25 is
£57. Both can be supplemented by means tested benefits if eligible.

Now either one is super generous or one is parsimonious.

IMHO neither are generous.

Quite. Thus if you agree 119 isn't generous for a single OAP to live on,
just how is half that generous for a younger person?

I gave the answer to that a few hours ago.

Pension is a lifelong thing.

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

How is this a stop-gap, since it's not enough to live on?

That's what a stop-gap is: enough to tide you over for essentials only
for a limited period, not intended to be a long-term solution (that's a
job, that is).

So what do they go without during this period?

What if they get evicted from their home and become homeless because
they can't afford their rent, for example? It would become even more
difficult for them to get a job, without somewhere to live.

So some people say.

It's true.

Are many convinced by such obvious appeals to mawkishness?

It's nothing to do with mawkishness, call it realism.

--
If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around to hear him, is he still wrong?