On 19/11/2017 23:40, JNugent wrote:
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 Â* 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?Â* Housing prices have risen excessively in most/all areas, not
just London and the SE.Â* Take for example my area.Â* The average
house
price is £329,075 and the average income is about £25K, which
makes it
about 13x salary.Â* And this is nowhere near London or the SE.

Your area is not the whole of England.

True.Â* But it is an area in England.Â* 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.Â* 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.

One thing I recall about Yorkshire is the dire traffic in the rush hour.
They make the M25 look like a race track in comparison.

On 19/11/2017 21:05, pamela wrote:
On 10:33 19 Nov 2017, 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 have spend years working in Europe then presumably you
didn't make all the qualifying payment into the UK state pension
system you could have.

But to qualify for a full RP, you don't need to have made "all the
contributions you could have".

Just thirty years' worth will suffice.

In article ,
Mark wrote:
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.

It could well be an adequate stop gap for the reasonably well healed. Who
can manage to exist on savings etc until any benefits come through. They
might well be able to exist for a short term without running ups debts.

Sadly, many who find themselves out of work may not be in this fortunate
position.

--
*Why isn't there mouse-flavoured cat food?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 19/11/2017 23:40, JNugent wrote:

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

Eat ****, 60 Billion flies can't all be wrong. :O)

On 19/11/2017 14:28, RJH wrote:

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

Go on strike for lots more money.
So no need to take a second job.
So no falling asleep at the controls of your train/bus/WHY.
So a public benefit.
:O)

"RJH" wrote in message
news
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 ,
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 ? BULL****.

In part.

Pigs arse they do.

And also for the collective and the next generation of workers.

Bull****.

Have you ever been on strike?

Not that stupid.

Especially nowadays where strike pay is the exception.

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
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. 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?

Not possible to say. The way people live is so radically
different even with a specific group like that one.

Just for clarity, let's posit a location in... er... Birmingham.

Even doing that doesnt help. Even if you just restrict it to Benefits
Street.

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

Never said they were.

"soup" wrote in message
...
On 19/11/2017 14:28, RJH wrote:

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

Go on strike for lots more money.
So no need to take a second job.

None of them have second jobs.

So no falling asleep at the controls of your train/bus/WHY.
So a public benefit.

Nope.

On 20/11/2017 02:21, Rod Speed wrote:


"JNugent" wrote in message
...
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?

Not possible to say. The way people live is so radically
different even with a specific group like that one.

Just for clarity, let's posit a location in... er... Birmingham.

Even doing that doesnt help. Even if you just restrict it to Benefits
Street.

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

Never said they were.

Sorry... faulty editing on my part... this was meant for "tim...".

On 19/11/2017 02:22, Rod Speed wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
* tim... wrote:
Housing benefit pays the rent.

Not these days in London. It has been capped to below market value.

It may be below market values for the nice places to live

but it isn't for the ****ty places

Correct. A bedsit being ideal for a family.

If they have a family they will be getting much more
than the basic unemployment benefit unless other
family members are working,

Probably - but it is/will be capped under Universal Credit (about £20k
IIRC). And just the rent in London can eat up entire benefits allowances.

--
Cheers, Rob

"RJH" wrote in message
news
On 19/11/2017 02:22, Rod Speed wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:
Housing benefit pays the rent.

Not these days in London. It has been capped to below market value.

It may be below market values for the nice places to live

but it isn't for the ****ty places

Correct. A bedsit being ideal for a family.

If they have a family they will be getting much more
than the basic unemployment benefit unless other
family members are working,

Probably - but it is/will be capped under Universal Credit (about £20k
IIRC).

Which is plenty for the short term until you get another job.

And just the rent in London can eat up entire benefits allowances.

Bull**** it does.

On 20/11/2017 02:28, Rod Speed wrote:


"soup" wrote in message
...
On 19/11/2017 14:28, RJH wrote:

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

Go on strike for lots more money.
Â*So no need to take a second job.

None of them have second jobs.

So no falling asleep at the controls of your train/bus/WHY.
So a public benefit.

Nope.

Was a joke Rod hence the emoticon.
Don't take everything so seriously.

"pamela" wrote in message
...
On 10:33 19 Nov 2017, 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 have spend years working in Europe then presumably you
didn't make all the qualifying payment into the UK state pension
system you could have.

for much of my time I worked on what is now called an "A1" basis

It's left as an exercise for the reader to find out what that is

tim

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 20/11/2017 02:21, Rod Speed wrote:


"JNugent" wrote in message
...
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. 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?

Not possible to say. The way people live is so radically
different even with a specific group like that one.

Just for clarity, let's posit a location in... er... Birmingham.

Even doing that doesnt help. Even if you just restrict it to Benefits
Street.

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

Never said they were.

Sorry... faulty editing on my part... this was meant for "tim...".

No

it was meant for the person who replied to me

I said much the same as you did

tim

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
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?

the number up there ^ in my PP

tim

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 19/11/2017 21:05, pamela wrote:
On 10:33 19 Nov 2017, tim... wrote:

But to qualify for a full RP, you don't need to have made "all the
contributions you could have".

Just thirty years' worth will suffice.

The qualifying number has increased to 35

tim

In article ,
RJH wrote:
On 19/11/2017 02:22, Rod Speed wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:
Housing benefit pays the rent.

Not these days in London. It has been capped to below market value.

It may be below market values for the nice places to live

but it isn't for the ****ty places

Correct. A bedsit being ideal for a family.

If they have a family they will be getting much more
than the basic unemployment benefit unless other
family members are working,

Probably - but it is/will be capped under Universal Credit (about £20k
IIRC). And just the rent in London can eat up entire benefits allowances.

Quite. Some really do need to get out and see for themselves before
believing the right wing meja properganda that you can live well on
benefits.

A very large number of landlords in London won't even consider a tenant on
benefit. Because they can get far more money elsewhere.

--
*I don't work here. I'm a consultant

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
tim... wrote:


"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 19/11/2017 21:05, pamela wrote:
On 10:33 19 Nov 2017, tim... wrote:

But to qualify for a full RP, you don't need to have made "all the
contributions you could have".

Just thirty years' worth will suffice.

The qualifying number has increased to 35

tim

The qualifying rules seem to change as often as the retirement age.

Problem being as with all these things is many just find the largest
figure and assume everyone gets it.

--
*The fact that no one understands you doesn't mean you're an artist

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
says...


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

Yes - I was rather surprised by this as they are all ITSO
cards.

When I moved to Lincolnshire, my London Freedom Pass worked
on the local buses but, when I returned to London armed with
a Lincolnshire pass, the reader came up with:

ITSO card - please show driver

which surprised me somewhat!

However, the London system does now offer a flexible system
for chargeable fares which can be very useful to folk
visiting London.

All London buses have been cash-free for some time now so
that the only way visitors could use the buses originally
was to buy an Oyster card and load it with money which
invariably meant that visitors left not only with a card
that they'd had to pay for but also any unused credit.

Now, though, any NFC enabled credit or debit card can ne
used for travel with no additional costs.

It is important, if you have more than one NFC card, to
ensure that you always use the same card as fares are capped
after 3 or 4 journeys (can't remember which) and no further
charge is made for journeys made before 0430 the following
day. Obviously, if you don't keep the card you are using
separate, the system will use whichever card it reads first
which means that you might start separate accounts on all
your cards such that you are unlikely to benefit from the
cap on any of them!

The system is smart enough that, if you stay longer, it will
apply the weekly cap if that is more beneficial to you.



--

Terry

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
RJH wrote:
On 19/11/2017 02:22, Rod Speed wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:
Housing benefit pays the rent.

Not these days in London. It has been capped to below market value.

It may be below market values for the nice places to live

but it isn't for the ****ty places

Correct. A bedsit being ideal for a family.

If they have a family they will be getting much more
than the basic unemployment benefit unless other
family members are working,

Probably - but it is/will be capped under Universal Credit (about £20k
IIRC). And just the rent in London can eat up entire benefits allowances.

Quite. Some really do need to get out and see for themselves before
believing the right wing meja properganda that you can live well on
benefits.

A very large number of landlords in London won't even consider a tenant on
benefit. Because they can get far more money elsewhere.

Because they often get no rent at all and often lots of damage.
Under UC HB is no longer paid directly to the landlord.
--
bert

In article ,
lid says...



I am 99.999999% sure you are wrong. Everyone gets the £155 (if you are
paid up on NI) but if you have SERPS you can get more and it is
calculated under the old scheme in that case.

There is no way of getting less than the £155


Oh yes there is!

It depends when you reached retirement age. If it was on or
after 6 April 2016, you will get £155 BUT if it was before
that date, you only get £122.30.

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


--

Terry

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 23:40:18 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

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.

Not in most areas.

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?

You keep saying it.

--snip--
--
insert witty sig here

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article , RJH wrote:
On 19/11/2017 02:22, Rod Speed wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article , tim...
wrote:
Housing benefit pays the rent.

Not these days in London. It has been capped to below market
value.

It may be below market values for the nice places to live

but it isn't for the ****ty places

Correct. A bedsit being ideal for a family.

If they have a family they will be getting much more than the basic
unemployment benefit unless other family members are working,

Probably - but it is/will be capped under Universal Credit (about £20k
IIRC). And just the rent in London can eat up entire benefits
allowances.

Quite. Some really do need to get out and see for themselves before
believing the right wing meja properganda that you can live well on
benefits.

You can if you've stocked up beforehand. Which is why all the publicity
seeking people manage to do so - for a week.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 23:41:20 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

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.

Did you get that from an authoratitive source or just make it up?

--
insert witty sig here

On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 00:06:44 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Mark wrote:
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.

It could well be an adequate stop gap for the reasonably well healed. Who
can manage to exist on savings etc until any benefits come through. They
might well be able to exist for a short term without running ups debts.

Sadly, many who find themselves out of work may not be in this fortunate
position.

Quite. THis is what some other posters here fail to understand.

--
insert witty sig here

On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 19:17:00 +0000, 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. 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...

Oh dear. Another stereotype.

--
insert witty sig here

On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 19:43:12 -0000, "tim..."
wrote:



"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 a particular job isn't going to pay any more for someone with a
family over someone single.

--snip--
--
insert witty sig here

On 20/11/2017 09:03, Rod Speed wrote:


"RJH" wrote in message
news
On 19/11/2017 02:22, Rod Speed wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
* tim... wrote:
Housing benefit pays the rent.

Not these days in London. It has been capped to below market value.

It may be below market values for the nice places to live

but it isn't for the ****ty places

Correct. A bedsit being ideal for a family.

If they have a family they will be getting much more
than the basic unemployment benefit unless other
family members are working,

Probably - but it is/will be capped under Universal Credit (about £20k
IIRC).

Which is plenty for the short term until you get another job.


And if you can't work or have family commitments? Even non-London
landlords are starting to evict their UC tenants - and that's before UC
has actually started.

And just the rent in London can eat up entire benefits allowances.

Bull**** it does.

Rents for a 3 bed property in the cheapest part of London *start* at
£1500 pcm. Schools and other social networks don't always make even that
choice easy.

--
Cheers, Rob

On 19/11/2017 19:17, JoeJoe wrote:
On 19/11/2017 02:32, Yellow wrote:

snip
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...


I suspect things have changed considerably. Almost all students live in
purpose built accommodation for a least their first year - and these
have huge clothes washing areas. Insofar as I can judge, most students
are pretty well turned out, at least by my low benchmark.

.. . . or your experience is untypical.


--
Cheers, Rob

On Friday, 17 November 2017 16:27:27 UTC, Fredxxx wrote:


I put to you it is a number of times more than £7.50 will buy now, even
if as you claim, that would be 15 loaves.

Even though I'm probbly an Atheist, even I know that man can not live by bread alone. :-)

On Friday, 17 November 2017 19:13:06 UTC, tim... wrote:
"Fredxxx" wrote in message
news
On 17/11/2017 17:40, Graeme wrote:
In message , Fredxxx
writes
On 17/11/2017 16:50, Graeme wrote:

A quick Google suggests a loaf of bread was 9p (decimal) in 1970, and
53p now. I was earning roughly 650pa, including London weighting, call
that £13pw or 32.5p per hour. One hour bought almost four loaves.
Today, minimum wage of £7.50ph would buy fourteen loaves.

You're being very disingenuous.

Sorry! It was certainly not intentional. I just Googled the price of a
loaf in 1970 and this popped up, from the Guardian :

'With the benefit of 34 years' hindsight, life in 1970 appears to have
been ludicrously cheap. A loaf of bread cost 9p and the average weekly
wage was around £32. Today, a loaf costs 53p'

I realise 1970 plus 34 is not 2017, but given that others mentioned 50p,
53p seemed close enough.

Perhaps I was OTT too.

A loaf can cost 53p. Most bakeries around me charge £1.50 and most
historical price equivalences don't generally compare bargain basement
prices.

I don't think bargain basement bread existed 30 years ago

It's always existed, in the early days of bread making they'd add anything to bulk out the bread to the poor.

Bread was adulterated with plaster of Paris, bean flour, chalk or alum.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25259505



The key clue being that bakeries could make a profit selling the basic
staples, whereas now they can't (having to diversity into lunchtime snacks
to still exist at all)

tim

In article ,
bert wrote:
A very large number of landlords in London won't even consider a tenant
on benefit. Because they can get far more money elsewhere.

Because they often get no rent at all and often lots of damage.

Is that how you treat rental property, bert? Or does the Mail say this
only happens with tenants on benefit?

--
*A closed mouth gathers no feet.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Mark wrote:
On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 00:06:44 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Mark wrote:
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.

It could well be an adequate stop gap for the reasonably well healed. Who
can manage to exist on savings etc until any benefits come through. They
might well be able to exist for a short term without running ups debts.

Sadly, many who find themselves out of work may not be in this fortunate
position.

Quite. THis is what some other posters here fail to understand.

It's easy. Plenty charities helping the unemployed etc are crying out for
volunteers. Might open their eyes, rather than believing everything they
read in the Mail.

--
*Rehab is for quitters

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article . com,
bm wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article om,
bm wrote:
That kinda happened with some union leaders, promote them (to their
idea of an important job) to keep'em quiet.

You mean something like a shop steward who is also an employee of the
company? Union leader usually means someone employed by the union.

Principles have a price.

Very principled management that try to bribe one employee to the
detriment of the others.

Absolutely, the management don't want **** from stirrers, neither would
you if you had one iota of management skills. Quite often the stirrers
find some brains from somewhere. Like I said, principles have a price.
Careful you don't fall from that high-horse, Dave. The NHS is already
overloaded with folk (your underlings) who can't open a tin of beans
without spurting blood. Just to qualify, ASDA baked beans have a
ring-pull.

I'm surprise you can bear to live in such a dreadful country. Zimbabwe
would welcome you. They are used to old fools.

Not x-posted.

Quite. You need to minimise the numbers who see your rubbish.

--
*According to my calculations, the problem doesn't exist.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 20/11/2017 10:13, tim... wrote:


"JNugent" wrote in message
...
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?

the number up there ^ in my PP

tim

Is your quote on the older or newer scheme?

If it's on the older scheme (which still operates for people born before
a certain date who have not yet retired even though they may be of
pensionable age), it ought to be on the new one.

On 20/11/2017 10:20, tim... wrote:


"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 19/11/2017 21:05, pamela wrote:
On 10:33Â* 19 Nov 2017, tim... wrote:

But to qualify for a full RP, you don't need to have made "all the
contributions you could have".

Just thirty years' worth will suffice.

The qualifying number has increased to 35

Someone else said thyat recently. It is not borne out by the relevant
DWP website.

On 20/11/2017 12:09, Terry Casey wrote:
In article ,
lid says...



I am 99.999999% sure you are wrong. Everyone gets the £155 (if you are
paid up on NI) but if you have SERPS you can get more and it is
calculated under the old scheme in that case.

There is no way of getting less than the £155


Oh yes there is!

It depends when you reached retirement age. If it was on or
after 6 April 2016, you will get £155 BUT if it was before
that date, you only get £122.30.

That break-point was acknowledged earlier in the thread.

On 20/11/2017 12:11, Mark wrote:
On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 23:40:18 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

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.

Not in most areas.

And?

How does does that prove the untrue statement that the whole of the UK
suffers from non-affordability of housing?

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?

You keep saying it.

Not so. All I have said is that there are areas of the UK (like most of
northern England and a fair bit of midland England, Northern Ireland,
Scotland and Wales) where "non-affordability" is not a local phenomenon.

Everyone in such areas, however, knows that moving to London (and
certain other places) as a home-owner may not be easy/possible.

On 20/11/2017 12:16, Mark wrote:
On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 23:41:20 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

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.

Did you get that from an authoratitive source or just make it up?

Ask a silly question...

On 20/11/2017 12:20, Mark wrote:
On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 00:06:44 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Mark wrote:
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.

It could well be an adequate stop gap for the reasonably well healed. Who
can manage to exist on savings etc until any benefits come through. They
might well be able to exist for a short term without running ups debts.

Sadly, many who find themselves out of work may not be in this fortunate
position.

Quite. THis is what some other posters here fail to understand.

sigh

That is why there is also a means-tested scheme capable of delivering up
to £23,000 pa (£442.31 a week) in London and £20,000 pa (£384.62 pw) in
the rest of the UK.