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

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

Many have private pensions too.

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

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

How much is free travel worth in London ?.

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

--
*Why isn't 11 pronounced onety one? *

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

On 18/11/2017 15:09, Mark wrote:
That's part of it but people do buy houses purely as an investment and
do not let them out, but keep them empty.

Asian investors may be doing this with some New Build flats in London
and possibly Manchester, but not elsewhere, unless you include Uber
wealthy middle eastern and Russian types.

Apart from Devon and Cornwall most investment properties are let out
and most of the people renting them don't qualify for housing benefit.

How about all the elderly folk who took out liar loans to buy houses
that they actually live in and get their mortgage interest paid for
by the taxpayer ?. You'd be surprised how many are doing this. Why ?,
because they *can*. The system allowed them to live off free money
and so they do.

But when the loan comes due for repayment, immediately they fire off
emails and letters to all the papers about their situation and how
they were missold the loan, blah, blah, blah.

On 18/11/2017 15:50, Yellow wrote:
My friend's daughter and husband and two kids live a short distance from
me in a bigger house than I have. She is a copper,

Well the value of her police pension definately puts her in the 'rich'
bracket. What she pays in, is out of kilter with the value of the
benefits she will get.

On 18/11/2017 16:49, Mark wrote:
On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 16:42:52 +0000, Andrew
wrote:

On 18/11/2017 14:23, Mark wrote:
It's down to the rich buying houses as an investment IMHO.

Aha, a momentum supporter.

Wrong.

It's down to NuLab allowing in another 3 million or so which
has created the demand.

I'm no fan of NuLab.

Alright, Old (now New) Lab then.

In article ,
Yellow wrote:
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.

It depends on lots of things. Some existing OAPs will be contracted out of
SERPS. Self employed can get a lower pension unless entitled to more for
various reasons.

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

--
* What do they call a coffee break at the Lipton Tea Company? *

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is of course a load of rubbish.

No it isn't.

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

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

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

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

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

In cold water, I assume you mean.

That will wake them up properly...

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.

On 18/11/2017 16:45, Mark wrote:
On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 16:11:31 +0000, JoeJoe wrote:

On 18/11/2017 15:30, Yellow wrote:
On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 14:55:23 +0000, Mark
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 14:32:29 -0000, Yellow
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 09:47:10 +0000, Mark
wrote:

On Fri, 17 Nov 2017 17:12:08 -0000, Yellow
wrote:

On Fri, 17 Nov 2017 15:39:21 +0000, Mark
wrote:

On Fri, 17 Nov 2017 12:32:13 -0000, Yellow
wrote:

Thanks for the review and I will try to watch on catch up later.

It is what many of us already know but it still has to be demonstrated
sometimes, to remind people what is really going on here and I am
particularly interested in your observations about the minimum and
living wage and agree that for youngsters with no work skills in their
first employment, it is too high. As are benefits.

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.

You might have been, but I was discussing unemployment benefits in the
posts you replied to. But whatever. :-)


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.

The problem we have, which I am sure you recognise, is that some
unemployed people would rather just take the benefits if the were enough
to live on comfortably in the longer term.

So it is a balance.

And I believe that is the goal of Universal Credit (if they can ever get
it right!) to improve the transition into work by letting people lose
their benefits at a slower rate.


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

Always an "ah but" when this is discussed.

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

Except there are. There is a skills shortage in lots of areas but people
have to start somewhere by getting off benefits and taking a job! And
from there you can progress. But if you stay unemployed and on benefits
you will never progress, never get a better paid job, ever.

My mate left the police last year after 30 years. Sat at home and lived
off his pension for 6 months and got more and more depressed.

Picked himself up, went to college for 6 months to train as a heating
engineer (as in Gas Safe), had plenty of job offers when he finished,
and now earns a very decent wage.

Great, but I must assume he had a decent pension which enabled him to
go to college.

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

On 18/11/2017 16:43, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Andrew wrote:
On 17/11/2017 20:07, tim... wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Friday, 17 November 2017 13:17:11 UTC, Yellow wrote:
Just watching the show Tim is talking about now and one fellow said
he wanted £12 or £15 an hour for a low skilled job or he wasn't
interested. First, how are these people living now?

They don't get out of bed in the mornings, and in the afternoons they
drink value lager and watch Jeremy Kyle.

they still have rent to pay or do they sleep under a bridge?

Housing benefit pays the rent.

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

So they should move.

Many people would like to live in London, but cannot afford to.

In article ,
Yellow wrote:
Not quite sure how that matters when it's a question of providing
someone with enough money to live on. Unless you really do believe
there are vast numbers who choose to be truly unemployed. As opposed
to those who claim benefit while working for cash, etc.

You do understand that unemployment benefit is supposed to be a stop-
gap, to hold you over just until you get another job?

Just fine to have to get into debt during that period, then? Or to need
help from family and friends?

Thing is lots of out of touch MPs etc say they could easily live on the
basic state unemployment benefit until they find a job, which would be
easy too. Until actually put to the test.

--
*Ah, I see the f**k-up fairy has visited us again

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

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

That is total ********.

--
*When a man opens a car door for his wife, it's either a new car or a new

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

On 18/11/2017 16:08, John Rumm wrote:
On 17/11/2017 14:07, pamela wrote:
On 13:58* 17 Nov 2017, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:



Get a job!** * Just kidding.


I have a job, which I like very much :-)* Computer programming,
which isn't like real work at all; and short hours so I can pick
the lad up from school.* Perfect, really.

Computer programming sounds like a breeze.

ISTR an old RF engineer at GEC air radio group, who always referred to
us software engineers as "typists". ;-)

Not like real work and short hours.* Great!

Indeed, more like an intellectual form of masturbation, but if someone
is willing to pay well for having buttons pushed, who am I to argue?




I knew a fire-alarm co in the early 90's where a hardware
engineer had been appointed having been made redundant elsewhere
and he knew the boss. The former was about 60 and had no working
experience of 'digital' being an analogue engineer.

He proceeded to design a new product with a Z80 processor at
its heart, with 8051 slave actuator boards and expected someone
to give a fixed price to write the software for a product that
didn't exist, and was being designed by someone who had no
working knowledge of computer logic.

Nor did they have any sort of host-target develoment systems,
or indeed anything at all apart from an old 286 computer.

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.

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

In article ,
Yellow 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.

You can buy a pass that gives unlimited travel in London - similar to the
Freedom pass.

--
*I tried to catch some fog, but I mist.*

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

On 18/11/2017 15:21, Yellow wrote:
I doubt there are many in their 70s and older with a job.

800 of the buggers in the House of Lords, plus many MPs,
Judges, elected and unelected members of the quangocracy.

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?


No retired person lives on £119 a week. Pension credits make it up
to £8000 per year and then opens the doors to other juicy benefits.

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

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

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

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


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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Andrew wrote:
£7.50 is a lot more than the folks from Latvia, Poland and other places
can earn. This is the problem, their sheer weight of numbers means
that employers and parastitic agencies can operate the sort of
'flexible' employment that employers could only dream about 20 years
ago. And they are happy to live 12 to a house to save money.

Meanwhile down in Mythyr Tydfil there is an army of unemployed
folk who have spent a whole generation on the dole, or more
likely 'disability' benefits and they cannot even be arsed to
get the bus or train down to Cardiff where there is plenty of work.
They don't even have to learn another language on the job either.

Are you implying that the minimum wage has to be increased by a large
amount to coax all those Mythyr Tydfil folks back to work? And change it
to a guaranteed minimum per week or month?

nope

we just have to pay then less dole money

tim

"Andrew" wrote in message
news
On 17/11/2017 17:06, JNugent wrote:
And two loaves today at standard supermarket prices would cost about
£2.00 - £2.50..

I bought 6 loaves of Sainsburys basics wholemeal bread for
29p per loaf a couple of days ago.

Fine for toasting, and the local birdlife don't seem to
disapprove.

How much did a smartphone cost in 1972 ?.

The nearest equivalent, probably about 5 million pounds

tim

On 18/11/2017 16:11, Mark wrote:
On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 15:47:13 +0000, Andrew
wrote:

On 17/11/2017 13:56, pamela wrote:
On 13:26 17 Nov 2017, alan_m wrote:

On 17/11/2017 12:21, Andrew Gabriel wrote:

I have brought many new graduates into the computing industry.
Back when I started doing this in the 1980's, it took about 2
years before they started paying back - until that point they
are consuming more management/training resources than they
contribute back in work. So unless they stay for probably 4-5
years, they were only a drain on the company. This was within a
large UK company (GEC).


But back then the GEC/Marconi way was to de-skill the graduates
first by giving them completely menial tasks and then at the end
of the second year re-train then in the inefficient corporate
ways.

Sounds like joining a religious cult! Your old values are wiped
out and then new ones installed.

These days you may find that with certain ways of recruitment to
weed out the dross before employment, sponsored formal training
and giving work experience in holiday periods before full time
employment gets you well motivated graduates that give
productive output in a very short time. Long gone are the days
when an engineering graduate will have (or want) the same job
for life or even possibly stay with their first company for more
than a couple of years.

Companies have partly brought that upon themselves by mass firings
of loyal workers who, rightly or worngly can no longer rely onthe
company rtaining them through thick and thin.

Even with more highly paid skilled jobs poor management will
give you an inefficient work force.

When I worked for GEC in the early 1990s failed engineers became
managers who were then promoted to a level of incompetence.

I've seen that too many times: promote someone out of the way so
they don't mess things up any more.

+1

Nothing has changed. Now they can also become elected councillors
or (Euro) MPs as well.

Or government ministers.


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.

"Yellow" wrote in message
T...
On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 12:33:46 +0000, Mark
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 12:22:17 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

On 18/11/2017 10:32, Fredxxx wrote:

On 18/11/2017 02:02, Rod Speed wrote:
"Fredxxx" wrote:

[ ... ]

How many loaves of bread would that have bought?

That?s a lousy measure of income even for low paid people.

Well, we all have to eat.
Perhaps you would prefer a house price comparison? We all have to live
somewhe

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.

Where the logic here fails is the idea that someone on a median wage is
going to buy an an averagely priced house.

I for example earned around that average wage but my 2 bed home is worth
less than your £329,075. And I live in the south east.

Move to the nearby city and you would be lucky to get a flat for
£329,000 and even basic three bed houses go for half a million quid now,
but along the coast a bit where I am, your £329,000 could buy you three
or four beds and a garden.

And in London, £329,000 probably would not buy you anything at all.

It's possible to live in the "London" commuter area and buy a property for
250K (in an area that reasonably "safe" to live in)

but you are right it won't be an Average house

and it won't be in Zone 2

but then 30 years ago, normal people couldn't afford to buy in Zone 2
either.

Meanwhile, go to some of the northern cities and houses can go for
£50,000.



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.

It is interesting to watch Home Under The Hammer and some areas are
astonishingly inexpensive to live in - relatively speaking.

though they are normally ****-holes

tim

"Mark" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 14:32:29 -0000, Yellow
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 09:47:10 +0000, Mark
wrote:

On Fri, 17 Nov 2017 17:12:08 -0000, Yellow
wrote:

On Fri, 17 Nov 2017 15:39:21 +0000, Mark
wrote:

On Fri, 17 Nov 2017 12:32:13 -0000, Yellow
wrote:

Thanks for the review and I will try to watch on catch up later.

It is what many of us already know but it still has to be
demonstrated
sometimes, to remind people what is really going on here and I am
particularly interested in your observations about the minimum and
living wage and agree that for youngsters with no work skills in
their
first employment, it is too high. As are benefits.

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.

of course they should

otherwise there's no incentive to get off them

tim

"Mark" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 17 Nov 2017 17:12:08 -0000, Yellow
wrote:

On Fri, 17 Nov 2017 15:39:21 +0000, Mark
wrote:

On Fri, 17 Nov 2017 12:32:13 -0000, Yellow
wrote:

Thanks for the review and I will try to watch on catch up later.

It is what many of us already know but it still has to be demonstrated
sometimes, to remind people what is really going on here and I am
particularly interested in your observations about the minimum and
living wage and agree that for youngsters with no work skills in their
first employment, it is too high. As are benefits.

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?

Then you need to do things differently, because clearly plenty can live off
both.

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


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

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

tim

On 18/11/2017 16:11, JoeJoe wrote:
My mate left the police last year after 30 years. Sat at home and lived
off his pension for 6 months and got more and more depressed.

His pension contributions would last about 5 years and then the full
cost of his pension will be divied out amongst all the council
taxpayers, most of whom will have a pension that is a fraction of his.

"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 is a pretence by HMG that it does.

(plus inflation increases since it
was introduced) and anyone on the old pension and only receiving the
base amount will be getting other benefits.

not if they have savings

tim

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

Now either one is super generous or one is parsimonious.

IMHO neither are generous.

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

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

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

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

tim

"Mark" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 15:54:44 +0000, JoeJoe 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?

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

Who isn't?

the people who you see on various TV documentaries living a life on benefits
(because they can)

tim



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

On 18/11/2017 17:14, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Andrew wrote:
But if the worker is totally useless, the employer cannot easily
get rid of him (or her).

That is total ********.


No it isn't. Getting rid of someone who really is useless is
almost impossible. The odds are still stacked in favour of the
employee.

"tim..." wrote in message
news


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:
Yes - when starting out in your career.

people on long term benefits are starting out on their career whatever
their age

Very likely on benefits after their career ended - like in so many mining
towns, etc.

ITYF that group have mostly aged out of the system

Their brats etc havent.

"Mark" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 16:12:44 +0000, Brian Reay wrote:

On 18/11/2017 15:54, JoeJoe 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?

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


Those receiving state pensions are not expected to be looking for work-
they've (at least in theory) 'done their bit' and should be enjoying
retirement. Hopefully, many will also have other pensions to support this.

Those simply not working from choice should not expect those who do work
(or have worked and are still paying tax) to support them beyond a basic
level.

Not working from choice includes refusing available jobs, making
themselves unemployable etc. In fact, those who decide they don't want a
job shouldn't get any benefits.

We've far more EU migrants working in the UK than there are unemployed
people. Clearly being unemployed is more attractive than the jobs the EU
migrants are filling.

That's a false assertion. Many employers prefer to employ EU migrants
than UK citizens.

only because the un-employed Brits that do turn up are feckless and lazy

tim



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

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

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

[ ... ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

"Andrew" wrote in message
news
On 17/11/2017 17:15, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , Dan S. MacAbre
writes
tim... wrote:


"Dan S. MacAbre" wrote in message
news




I don't have a TV licence, so I will have to forego the pleasure, I'm
afraid.


It's on C4

you're allowed to watch catch up without a license

tim


Interesting - I didn't know that.

Quite simply.....
These days, you need a UK TV licence to:
(a) Watch, record or download ANY live or nearly-live TV programme (even
if it is not BBC).
(b) Watch, record or download ANY BBC TV programme whatsoever (regardless
whether it is live, nearly-live or 'catch-up').
You do NOT need a UK TV licence to:
(c) Watch any non-BBC programme that is 'catch-up'.

According to Kaspersky, today I am in Mexico, so you can do all of
the above and no-one will catch you.

if you are "in" Mexico then the BBC iPlayer should notice that and not, let
you in at all.

OTOH, if you are in the UK you can probably safely watch the BBC on iPlayer
without a licence and "no one will catch you". Though that isn't advice you
should rely on.

tim

On 18/11/2017 14:50, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
JNugent wrote:

The difference between a pensioner and an unemployed worker is that the
pensioner's position can confidently be expected to last for the rest of
their life (winning the Lottery excepted). It is as good as it is ever
going to get (save for that Lottery).

Plenty OAPs work too. Perhaps part time. And not always through choice.

So do I (a bit).

We are free to work if we choose to. Alternatively, if we choose, we
don't have to and may be able to get Pension Credit if our income is low
enough. But if we don't want to be limited to the Pension Credit rate
(plus whatever housing costs and Council Tax help is available), we may
be able to surpass that rate of income by working.

Unemployed workers are in a different position: they can improve their
economic position by getting a job, or working harder, or getting a
better job. Their current position is not "as good as it gets".

Not quite sure how that matters when it's a question of providing someone
with enough money to live on.

Incentive. The forgotten word.

Unless you really do believe there are vast
numbers who choose to be truly unemployed. As opposed to those who claim
benefit while working for cash, etc.

Both categories exist, as you well know.

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
news
On 18/11/2017 02:02, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxxx" wrote in message
news
On 17/11/2017 11:42, bm wrote:
"tim..." wrote in message
news

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:

1) Benefits on offer to the "wont work" are far too generous if an
unemployed person can say "I wouldn't get out of bed for 7.50 an
hour"
and/or "I rather spend the time at home with my girlfriend". We
need to
systematically reduce benefits for the fit and healthy the longer
they
are on benefits.

I'd love to see the likes of you live on 7.50 an hour. But it will be
the
usual 'don't do as I do, but do as I say'.

1200 per month, perhaps 1000 after taxes

3-400 on a room in a shared house

6-700 for other expenses

seems perfectly adequate to me

When starting out in your career that's what you have to do

and yes it IS what I did

7.50? You don't know you're born.
I started on 2s 6d per hr.

How many loaves of bread would that have bought?

Thats a lousy measure of income even for low paid people.

Well, we all have to eat.

Sure, but no necessarily loaves of bread. And
rice and noodles are much better value if you
can't afford to eat what you would prefer to eat.

Perhaps you would prefer a house price comparison?

Nope, thats even worse because it makes no sense
for those whose entire income is benefits to be able
to buy a house to live in.

We all have to live somewhe

But dont have to be able to buy a house on benefits
or when you have a minimum wage job.

On 18/11/2017 15:21, Yellow wrote:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
JNugent wrote:

The difference between a pensioner and an unemployed worker is that the
pensioner's position can confidently be expected to last for the rest of
their life (winning the Lottery excepted). It is as good as it is ever
going to get (save for that Lottery).

Plenty OAPs work too. Perhaps part time. And not always through choice.

I doubt there are many in their 70s and older with a job.

Unemployed workers are in a different position: they can improve their
economic position by getting a job, or working harder, or getting a
better job. Their current position is not "as good as it gets".

Not quite sure how that matters when it's a question of providing someone
with enough money to live on. Unless you really do believe there are vast
numbers who choose to be truly unemployed. As opposed to those who claim
benefit while working for cash, etc.

You do understand that unemployment benefit is supposed to be a stop-
gap, to hold you over just until you get another job?

Exactly.

On 18/11/2017 17:08, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Yellow wrote:
Not quite sure how that matters when it's a question of providing
someone with enough money to live on. Unless you really do believe
there are vast numbers who choose to be truly unemployed. As opposed
to those who claim benefit while working for cash, etc.

You do understand that unemployment benefit is supposed to be a stop-
gap, to hold you over just until you get another job?

Just fine to have to get into debt during that period, then? Or to need
help from family and friends?

Thing is lots of out of touch MPs etc say they could easily live on the
basic state unemployment benefit until they find a job, which would be
easy too. Until actually put to the test.

So what level of financial difference is "correct" during unemployment?

"tim..." wrote in message
news


"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"Harry Bloomfield" wrote in message
news
tim... presented the following explanation :
1200 per month, perhaps 1000 after taxes

3-400 on a room in a shared house

6-700 for other expenses

seems perfectly adequate to me

When starting out in your career that's what you have to do

and yes it IS what I did

As did I, but these days they expect and get everything now.

Plenty of them don't, including the two I bought a house for because
they weren't physically in the town where the auction happened.

A struggle to survive,

Not a struggle for these two, they save at one hell of a rate.


they're in a very small minority

for the majority of "millennials", I think we are supposed to call them,
their idea of savings is having enough money left at the end of the week
to treat themselves to an extra Starbucks coffee on Monday (Yes I know
that they probably don't budget weekly)

Its far from clear that that is how the majority of them operate
and I do in fact know quite a few of them personally.

"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 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)

tim