Andrew wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Costs almost nothing on PAYG with a used phone.

PAYG not that cheap in the UK any more.

It still is when you only have the phone so those you want
to call you to tell you when your interview is can call you.

You need a washing machine since all the laundrettes have closed down.

That last is a lie and you are free to wash you clothes in the bath by
hand.

Or wear things for longer between washes.

Yep. When I was in uni, working in the holidays, in a very
remote are with nothing but a rain water tank and a dunny
that was over a hole in the ground, no shower, no nothing,
we didnt bother washing clothes, just did that on the
occasional trip back home, one or twice in months.

No fridge either. We got fresh meat delivered by the mail man
every week and it could end up a tad green by the end of the
week in summer. Instant mashed potatoes and dried peas.

For some odd reason, I dont actually eat instant
mashed potatoes anymore, even when camping.

You need a fridge to stop your food going off and giving you food
poisoning.

Nope, you just buy your food every few days instead.

Few people outside Suva and the main towns in Fiji had fridges or washing
machines. A bit of rough-sawn 6 by 1 timber, rubbed on a lovo stone to
knock off the splinters and a big bar of wash soap is all you need.

Milk was the tinned, condensed type.

We didnt bother with condensed milk.

You sit it in a saucer of water to keep the ants and cockroaches out of
it.

This is how the US peace corps and VSO volunteers, plus the locals lived.

We didnt even bother with washing, coupla
teenagers there by ourselves for months,
putting in a series of 30' deep holes and lining
them with plastic pipe and then running
a neutron moisture meter down them and
putting ladders on ****ing great pine trees
and doing solar radiation levels up the trees.

Scientific research.

The boss used to suggest we could swim in
the creek occasionally but we never bothered.

On 19/11/2017 14:20, Mark wrote:
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).


My wife has been working for the NHS for many many years now. She has
yet to come across a single person who lost their job because they were
rubbish at it (the method they use is "re-deployment" - move them
elsewhere within the organisation without telling the new bosses
anything about the person past).

On 19/11/2017 09:34, soup wrote:
On 19/11/2017 00:46, Fredxxx wrote:

I was also thinking of this article:
Â*Â* https://www.rt.com/uk/357676-literac...n-adults-oecd/

1 in 20 is not 25% .

It is in Dianne Abbott's world.

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.

Not to worry - they have the rest of the day/week/month to sit on their
hands and warm them back.

On 19/11/2017 02:32, 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.

It has been a while, but from my experience students don't wash their
cloths until they go back home for mum to do it for them...

On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 18:36:56 +0000, Andrew
wrote:

On 19/11/2017 16:28, Mark wrote:
You may say I was ripped off but this was the market price.

If you had been able to wait until 1992 you could have
bought the same or similar house for £35K (or less).

Ah. The benefits of hindsight ;-)

It could have been worse, by August 1988 your house
would have been over £60K.

And in 1992 it was worth about £46K
--
insert witty sig here

On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 12:09:09 -0000, bm wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
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.

Mine's more like £122.

If you have yet to hit your state retirement pension age, you are wrong
and if you have a full NI record it will be £155 (plus rises).

On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 14:19:18 -0000, tim...
wrote:

"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

Then you need to chase this up with the tax office because it is wrong.

JNugent wrote:

It's £159.55 (since April last).

If you're on the new state pension,
and you never contracted out of serps,
and you haven't deferred your state pension,
and you have a full contribution record,
and you wouldn't have got a higher amount from the old scheme
and ...

"Mark" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 11:19:46 -0000, Yellow
wrote:



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.

the problem with this poverty line thing is that this is different for a
single person and a family with children

I have already shown that it is perfectly possible for a single person to
live a reasonable life on NMW (assuming that the job is a permanent full
time one)

But the same amount is never going to be sufficient for a family

But you can't realistically suggest that all jobs have to pay an amount
sufficient for a family

It's a nonsense

tim

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
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.

but when I ask the relevant Government Agency what my entitlement will be,
they tell me that it's not going to be 155 pounds

tim

Mark wrote:

IIRC you cannot contract out of SERPS any more.

yes, not for the last 18+ months.

"mechanic" wrote in message
...
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 machines on London buses can't read the chips on out of town passes.

they have to rely on the Mark 1 eyeball

tim

Yellow wrote:

There is no way of getting less than the £155 unless you are missing NI
credits and SERPS (and contracting out) is simply no more.

SERPS/S2P is no more but it was a thing between 1987(?) and 2016, so it
has an effect

if you still won't believe me then please believe it from the
horse's mouth

"Your starting amount will include a deduction if you were contracted
out of the Additional State Pension"

"tim..." wrote in message
news


"Mark" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 11:19:46 -0000, Yellow
wrote:



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.

the problem with this poverty line thing is that this is different for a
single person and a family with children

I have already shown that it is perfectly possible for a single person to
live a reasonable life on NMW (assuming that the job is a permanent full
time one)

But the same amount is never going to be sufficient for a family

That's very arguable depending on what they rent and how many kids they
have.

But you can't realistically suggest that all jobs have to pay an amount
sufficient for a family

Some countrys have done that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvester_case

It's a nonsense

Nope.

"JoeJoe" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 19/11/2017 14:20, Mark wrote:
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). 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).


My wife has been working for the NHS for many many years now. She has yet
to come across a single person who lost their job because they were
rubbish at it (the method they use is "re-deployment" - move them
elsewhere within the organisation without telling the new bosses anything
about the person past).

That's because their management sucks

not because the law makes it too difficult

tim

In article , Mark writes
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
When I started work in the stores of a factory, we were like the lowest
of the low. The company wanted to give us a slightly bigger pay rise
than everyone else. A quid a week, something like that. The union
kicked up a fuss about 'differentials', so it never happened.

You must have had an odd union. And a very shortsighted one
A very typical one in the 60s/70s especially if it involved giving more
pay to women.

a very shortsighted Union ! still lots of them about
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/...n-march-london
-royal-mail-row-continues/

--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
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.

Well trade unions proudly proclaim that they are there to protect the
jobs of their members and do not accept any progress or change. So
someone has to make the decision for them.
Presumably you would still have little boys up chimneys and down dark
and dangerous holes in the ground digging out coal.
--
bert

In article , RJH writes
On 19/11/2017 00:55, Fredxxx wrote:
On 19/11/2017 00:31, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
*** 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.
That must be the daftest thing said on here in a long time.
Especially nowadays where strike pay is the exception.


--
bert

In article , Mark
writes
On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 17:17:52 +0000, Andrew
wrote:

On 18/11/2017 14:50, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Plenty OAPs work too. Perhaps part time. And not always through choice.

And they pay no NI. Nor do their employers (13.8% and no upper
limit).

NI is just tax with a cuddly name. The link to benefits vanished
years ago.

True.
Not true

Hopefully Spreadsheet Phil will shut this loophole because it
is a blatant subsidy that benefits one section of society.

Agreed. It is an anomaly.


--
bert

In article , Andrew
writes
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.


If you had no other income, and savings less than ~£16,000 then you
would be entitled to receive pension credits and other handouts that
would make it up to that amount.

That's the "old" pension scheme - and possibly the intermediate
transitional scheme until the new pension scheme is fully in place.
The self-employed benefit most so one would think it reasonable that
they pay a bit more NI to fund it.
--
bert

In article , Andrew
writes
On 18/11/2017 17:40, tim... wrote:
No it doesn't
It is a pretence by HMG that it does.

If you retire now and have never been contracted out
and have at least 35 years of full rate NI contribs
then you will get £155 a week. In fact you will get a
lot more than £155 because you will also have serps
entitlements and your benefits will be calculated
under the old and the new schemes and the higher
amount paid.

This is the new single tier simplified scheme - which is neither single
tier nor simple.
Only people who have been substantially contracted-out
will get somewhere between £119 and £155.



--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Andrew wrote:
Or trades union leaders and live in rent-free apartments in the
barbican, or in council houses in London and pay £30 a week
rent from their £120,000 salaries.

I'd suggest you actually find out the average council house rent in London.

So how much was Bob Crow paying then?
It will almost certainly surprise you. But then true figures don't seem to
be your strong point. Presumably gleaned from the Mail.


--
bert

In article , Andrew
writes
On 17/11/2017 10:39, wrote:
2. Because as the programme showed, interviewing workshy deadbeats
takes up a lot of time and effort, hence cost.

Was it this program where someone remarked that people only go to
the Job Centre to get benefits. Those that want to work go to an Agency.
I liked the Prescott documentary where he interviewed a young single
woman and asked her if she considered herself working class,
Oh no she replied, I don't work.
--
bert

On 19/11/17 19:41, Yellow wrote:
On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 14:19:18 -0000, tim...
wrote:

"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

Then you need to chase this up with the tax office because it is wrong.


He may have been contracted out.

"pamela" wrote in message
...
On 17:28 19 Nov 2017, Rod Speed wrote:



"pamela" wrote in message
...
On 16:18 19 Nov 2017, soup wrote:

On 19/11/2017 15:55, Rod Speed wrote:

But it doesnt say that 1 in 20 adults CANT READ OR WRITE.

It claims that 1 in 20 would be unable read a bus timetable
and I dont believe that 1 in 20 school leavers can't use
facebook or twitter either. And plenty like cleaners dont
need to do better than literacy level 1 anyway. And I bet
plenty who the official test claim are at literacy level 1 or
below can use facebook and twitter fine, so the literacy
level test is just another academic wank as far as the real
world is concerned anyway.

Headline :-

"Illiterate Britain: 1 in 20 adults have reading age of a
5-year-old."

I take it 'they' take a reading age of 5 as functionally
illiterate

It 'says' a quarter of adults can't understand/use a timetable

If you want to see a country with really bad literacy rates
then take a look at Australia. The figures from the Audtralia
Bureau of Statistics is shocking. I wonder if any of their
illiterates post here.

"Eight million Australians with inadequate skills is about 53
percent of the working-age population"

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/04/04/australians_
cannot_read_or _count/

And yet all but 5% have jobs. Just goes to show what a complete
wank the 'literacy rates' are.

It goes to show just how many of the illerate
population are forced to work in Australia,

No one is forced to work here. Its much easier to
bludge off the system here, particularly for women.

All you need is more than a couple of kids to end
up with a higher real standard of living on what
you lot call benefits than say running a checkout
at a supermarket or being a hairdresser etc.

when they would be better off studying.

Only a fool would claim that everyone can do better by studying.

On 19/11/2017 17:05, Rod Speed wrote:


"RJH" wrote in message
news
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.

So those train drivers do it for the public benefit eh ?Â* BULL****.

In part. And also for the collective and the next generation of workers.
Have you ever been on strike?

Especially nowadays where strike pay is the exception.




--
Cheers, Rob

On 19/11/2017 15:04, Mark wrote:

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)?

You misread my question. It was: "Please explain how unemployment
benefit and the NMW are "linked"."

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.

Who said they can?

Some of them clearly don't need to.

On 19/11/2017 20:06, Rod Speed wrote:


"tim..." wrote in message
news


"Mark" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 11:19:46 -0000, Yellow
wrote:



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

the problem with this poverty line thing is that this is different for
a single person and a family with children

I have already shown that it is perfectly possible for a single person
to live a reasonable life on NMW (assuming that the job is a permanent
full time one)

But the same amount is never going to be sufficient for a family

That's very arguable depending on what they rent and how many kids they
have.

But you can't realistically suggest that all jobs have to pay an
amount sufficient for a family

Some countrys have done that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvester_case

It's a nonsense

Nope.

OK... So...

1. How much is "sufficient" for a family of four (2 children) in the UK?
Just for clarity, let's posit a location in... er... Birmingham.

2. Explain why a single teenager is worth the same amount for serving in
a café which is not making a huge profit.

On 19/11/2017 19:45, tim... wrote:


"JNugent" wrote in message
...
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.

but when I ask the relevant Government Agency what my entitlement will
be, they tell me that it's not going to be 155 pounds

tim

Really?

More, or less?

On 19/11/2017 19:42, Andy Burns wrote:
JNugent wrote:

It's £159.55 (since April last).

If you're on the new state pension,
and you never contracted out of serps,
and you haven't deferred your state pension,
and you have a full contribution record,
and you wouldn't have got a higher amount from the old scheme
and ...

And...?

On 19/11/2017 15:21, Mark wrote:
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.

There's a job waiting for you in The Ministry of Truth.

On 19/11/2017 15:49, Mark wrote:
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.

But if all you can afford is £50,000, there are houses and flats there
that you can afford.

Let's not forget that your first reaction was to disbelieve that houses
are even available for that price (or less), across the north of England.

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?

Who said it was?

I was countering the assertion that "lack of affordability" is a
nationwide phenomenon. It isn't one.

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" ;-)

And clearly, it's the place(s) to go if you want to buy a cheap house.

Ten million people in Lancashire and Yorkshire can't all be wrong.

On 19/11/2017 15:51, Mark wrote:
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?

858,437.

Does that help you?

On 19/11/2017 15:54, Mark wrote:
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?

Things which aren't essential?

Just a suggestion.

I'm sure you do not insist that the taxpayer should pay for Sky
subscriptions, for a start.

Or car HP payments.

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.

You can't do that if it's not realistic.

Especially as benefits include an amount for rent (where the claimant
has rent to pay).

And you didn't even know that.

On 19/11/2017 15:56, Mark wrote:
On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 15:39:40 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

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?

I've been in this position in the past.

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.

You said people used the kitchen sink, not the bath.


Which bit of "The kitchen sink was usually regarded as the place for
that" was too difficult for you?

And do you really insist that modern kitchens cannot be used for washing
clothes?

On 19/11/2017 16:28, Mark wrote:
On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 15:55:09 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

On 19/11/2017 14:43, Mark wrote:

JNugent wrote:
On 18/11/2017 12:14, 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?

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.

The first house I had (bought when it was four years old, for £700+ in
1977) had exactly the same facility. Just an electric fire in the open
plan living room.

Bloody hell! My first non-rental house, which I bought in 1987 cost
me £50K. It was a 3 bed end terrace starter home, with a driveway
(luxury). It was a few years old and in the cheapest area nearby. It
did have central heating though.
You may say I was ripped off but this was the market price. Just
before I had been gasumped on a 2 bed mid terrace (asking price £46K).

Mea culpa.

It ought to have read "£7000+". And that price had been quoted earlier
in the thread.

I didn't regard it as unacceptable. Life within the house simply differs
from season to season, with the main living room in more use in the
colder months. T'was ever thus until I was nearly 38 years old (when I
moved into the first place with central heating).

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].

Hmmm...

You are making me smile for reasons I don't want to go into in too much
depth.

Sorry, but this statement seems to show a deal of naivety. Not
everyone can copy you.

It was to do with the job I did. Not my personal circumstanmces.

Let's just say that many, many, people earnestly assure "the
authorities" that their need for a car is greater than average because
they have to go to work at unsocial hours when there is no public
transport. This even if they work in the city centre in an office or
shop. Every single one of them goes to work at unsocial hours before the
buses are running. There are never any exceptions to the "unsocial
hours" mantra.

FWIW I've never worked in a city centre. My first job I needed
personal transport because there really was no public transport.
Imagine a bus service from one village to another miles away in the
evenings in a rural area - can you?

See? You're doing it too!

But oddly, I worked for more than seven years before I learned to drive.
And my mother never learned to drive and worked all her (working) life.

As some would say, go figure.

I had to.

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.

TRANSLATION: "Ah, but...".

You seem to have an obsession about this phrase. Why?

Because you keep using it (or variants of it) as though doing so
invalidates your opponent's argument.

[It doesn't.]

On 19/11/2017 16:46, Brian Reay wrote:

On 19/11/2017 00:42, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Â*Â*Â* 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.

Is that a house with no heating?

As a youngster, I lived in several council houses built in the '50s or
'60s which had bedrooms without heating. As I recall, the 'master
bedroom' had a radiator heated via a radiator which was heated by the
coal fire in the sitting room. The other bedroom/rooms had nothing. I
think the kitchen had a similar radiator. I think the system was
referred to as a 'back boiler' and also heated the hot water.

Even the most modern flat we later moved to, which had under floor
heating, had no heating in the bedrooms- just the sitting room and hall.
That was built in the mid 60s, we moved into it in 1968.

The first house I bought (with only an electric fire in the living room
and no means of heating elsewhere) was built in 1973.

On 19/11/2017 18:14, Andy Burns wrote:

Dave Plowman wrote:

BL went out of business because of Red Robbo, did they?

Passed me by that he died last month ...

I saw his obit online (BBC and Grauniad).

Any man's death diminishes me and all that... but...

On 19/11/2017 19:17, JoeJoe wrote:
On 19/11/2017 02:32, 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.Â* For example, in the past, many people lived in houses with
no heating.Â* I did.Â* 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.Â* Nowadays you need a phone, washing machine,
fridge, and a motor vehicle.Â* 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.

It has been a while, but from my experience students don't wash their
cloths until they go back home for mum to do it for them...

So true...