On 18/11/2017 16:11, 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?Â* 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.Â* 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.Â* 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.

The proof that benefits are too high is that there are young and healthy
people who are perfectly comfortable living off them.

You'll wind up a few of the usual suspects with that...!

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

Yellow wrote:
Mark wrote:

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


Always an "ah but" when this is discussed.

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

Except there are.

I doubt it.

Another "yes, but..."!

But why doubt it?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now either one is super generous or one is parsimonious.

IMHO neither are generous.

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

I gave the answer to that a few hours ago.

Pension is a lifelong thing.

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

On 18/11/2017 15:17, Yellow wrote:
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 (plus inflation increases since it
was introduced) and anyone on the old pension and only receiving the
base amount will be getting other benefits.

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.

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.

That is not being kind or benevolent but as evil as **** and is taking
away any and all possibilities for improvement and a better life.

100%.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news
On 18/11/17 14:55, Mark wrote:
I'm sure (almost) everyone wants a higher standard
of living but there aren't an unlimited amount of better paid jobs
available.

Excepting terminal political stupidity, Britains problem is that it has
too many people and too few natural resources.

Modern first world economies arent about natural resources anymore.

employment, as any labour government knows, is assured by employing people
to dig holes and fiull them in again, or 'public sector workers' as it's
known.

But no amount of make-believe jobs grows potatoes, or builds housing, and
the competition of land space is for both.

Higher wages for builders also push up housing costs. As do extreme
environmental regulation, and land shoratges.

In the end the nations wealth is what it can produce that is actually
wanted. Not how many parking attendants the council employs to tax
motorists to pay the attendants wages.

We have too many people on too little land and too many jobs that are
makework and not productive in some way.

Limiting immigrations is but one step.

We also need to cut down on stupid public sector work. People don't need
to go to university. They dont need to be lectured in gender politics. Nor
do they need to spend their lives making other peoples lives miserable.

If half the people the council employs learnt how to fill potholes,
instead of dealing with claims from people who have smashed wheels in them
the roads would be a better place.

"Andrew" wrote in message
news
On 18/11/2017 04:35, Rod Speed wrote:
Not all of them tho. One mate of mine got a new car
while still in school. Not much of a car, Ford Anglia.

Not with his own money then.

Obviously not, his dad was a doctor of some kind.

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?

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.

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

Nowadays it's all about the unemployed being expected to seek and accept
jobs they don't want.

That is not being kind or benevolent but as evil as **** and is taking
away any and all possibilities for improvement and a better life.

On 18/11/2017 17:01, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
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.

Your £119 is still wrong.

The lowest full RP is £127 and change (per week).

On 18/11/2017 16:12, Brian Reay wrote:
On 18/11/2017 15:54, JoeJoe wrote:
On 18/11/2017 14:38, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Â*Â*Â* Mark wrote:
Go for the basics. The basic OAP for a single person (assuming full
contribution years) is £119Â* 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.

applause

"Mark" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 15:50:29 -0000, Yellow
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 15:09:59 +0000, Mark
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 14:58:54 -0000, Yellow
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 14:23:33 +0000, Mark
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 13:47:26 -0000, Yellow
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 10:32:33 +0000, Fredxxx
wrote:

On 18/11/2017 02:02, Rod Speed wrote:
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.

What puzzles me though is that they do manage it though, to pay that
amount, and if they couldn't afford those prices they would surely
fall.

Unfortunately for the average is there are enough rich people to pay
the excessive costs, otherwise the prices would fall and ordinary
people would be able to afford to buy.

What is a "rich person" in your opinion?

That's a good question. Someone with considerably more money than the
average person.

That's silly. The median wage is around £27,000 or £28,000 I think and
earning £30,000 for example, does not make you "rich".

I have not claimed this. £30K pa. is not considerably more than £28K.
But it not just income that divides the rich from the average person.


There is such a divide between people with lots of
money and people without.

What is your idea of "lots of money"?

What's yours?

Corbyn earns an MP's salary plus as allowance for being leader of the
opposition plus he has pensions and he says he is not rich.

Neither does Boris Johnson on his minister's salary of £100K. So what
is your point here?

I ask because if all these rich people are snapping up all the
averagely
priced homes, then there must be a heck of a lot of them, so why does
that not make the average income a higher value?

Because companies can get away without giving generous pay rises. And
the average price for homes is rising. As I said before there are
"sufficent" numbers of wealthy people to push up the price of housing,
otherwise it wouldn't be happening.

That is your theory indeed, but where is your proof?

Proof! House prices are rising.

That isnt proof that its the wealthy buying, just that
fewer are being built than there is a demand for.

Where is your proof
that people on an average income are not able to afford houses in their
greater area? So within commuting distance to their work.

Where is your proof that this does not happen?

You made the claim, You do the proving, thats how it works.

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, he is a postman and
also designs logos. They have two cars and they had a holiday abroad in
the summer.

Lucky them.

Are these people rich?

You tell me.

When I bought my first home, a tiny flat that needed a complete
refurbish, I put down a 20% deposit but still struggled like hell to
afford to pay the mortgage and the bills, especially when interest
rates
went through the roof when my unavoidable outgoings were greater
than my
income for a few months.

A lot of us had exactly the same issues. I had to let out the spare
room in my first house in order to afford the rising mortgage
payments.

I do not know in what way, but something clearly does not stack up
when
a simple comparison of average wages and average house prices is
used to
decide whether or not homes in general are affordable.

It's down to the rich buying houses as an investment IMHO.

You are referring to buy-to-let?

That's part of it but people do buy houses purely as an investment and
do not let them out, but keep them empty.

We all know that happens in London, really expensive houses though that
are outside of the average person's league, but I have never heard of
that happening around here - even in the nearby city.

It happens in many areas.

Easy claim.

Do you actually have proof this is a wholesale issue that is pushing up
the average prices of average properties?

Do you have proof that it does not?

You made the claim, You do the proving, thats how it works.

On 18/11/2017 14:44, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
JNugent 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.

Indeed. I have said many times that single people get a raw deal from
means tested benefits compared to those with children.

Now either one is super generous or one is parsimonious.

What was that about like for like?

Please explain how a single younger person needs half the money to live
than an OAP does? Surely that is reasonably like for like?

I've already explained the difference in a previous post. So has Yellow.

On 18/11/2017 18:57, Rod Speed wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
* Fredxxx wrote:
There are some here who are in denial of the consequence of the double
whammy where immigration has increased demand and the price of housing
and at the same time an influx of workers has depressed wages.

Many here seem to think UK born should be forced to work for any wages at
all. Since so much has been written about how good benefits are.

It's probably the best indicator of why we're leaving the EU.

If I thought it really would help the poorest in the land I'd be in
favour
of it too. But genuinely believe it will make things worse for them.

More fool you when they wont have to compete for jobs with
anyone in the EU who decides their prospects are better in Britain.

And they will again be able to buy the much cheaper food from NZ etc too
instead of propping up very inefficient french agriculture in the prices
they pay.

Does Dave actually work any more?

On 18/11/2017 16:13, Yellow wrote:

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.

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

How much is free travel worth in London ?.

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 have one! :-)

I left off applying for a few years after qualifying, reasoning that it
was of limited use (since it can't be used before 09:30), but when I
realised that it can be used before that time in London, it became an
obvious thing to do, because I sometimes have to work for the day in
Central London, some way from the relevant railway terminal.

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.

Steady on.

Unless you live in London, it only covers you for the buses.

On 18/11/2017 17:18, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
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.

But a bus pass is free and covers London buses 24/7.

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
news
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.

Yes, but it gets tricky with their kids. Not feasible to let them
starve, much more expensive to take them away from those
feckless parents and if we said that those with no kids would
get not benefits if they chose not to work, they just produce
some kids so they do get 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.

On 18/11/2017 16:50, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Andrew wrote:
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.

Quite right, and one should hope so.

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?

Obviously, he means the equivalent of what used to be called Council Tax
Benefit, not the 25% CT discpount that single occupants get.

Those over pension age also get £200 (December) winter fuel payment and
the famous £10 Christmas Bonus.

"Mark" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 15:43:59 +0000, Andrew
wrote:

On 17/11/2017 12:21, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
I'm not up-to-date with what's on offer, but I thought benefits for
those who are in theory able to work are only available if they can
show they are actively looking for work.

They do. They just go into the job centre and go through the motions of
looking for a job or make electronic enquiries about jobs that they
are impossibly unqualified to do, just to avoid 'sanctions'.

The females have the ultimate get-out-of-jail weapon. When the
youngest child reaches the age that mother is supposed to go
back to work, she just accidentally meets up with the 'absent'
father(s) and starts another sprog.

Stop reading the Daily Mail.

Don't need to read that **** rag. My back neighbour was just that,
every single brat had a different father. That place is the result of
the nutty idea that was fashionable in the late 60s, dotting a few
of what you lot call council houses in what you lot call new estates.

"Yellow" wrote in message
T...
On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 15:09:12 +0000, Andrew Andrew97d-
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.

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

How much is free travel worth in London ?.

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

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

Doesn't anyone sell fake ones ?

On 18/11/2017 19:59, Andrew wrote:
On 18/11/2017 19:19, Fredxxx wrote:
Many can't expect to improve their lot. You seem to forget that 20-25%
of the indigenous adult population are unable to read and write.

Are you sure ?. How come the turnout at the EU referendum was so high ?.

How did this 25% know where to put their cross ?.

It's Remoaners like you who give remain a bad name, and even encourage
the likes of me who were sitting on the fence to vote Brexit.

You seem to think that the working class shouldn't have a vote? Perhaps
you're the sort to say that women shouldn't have had the vote too.

It's a good idea to consider the whole electorate, especially sectors
most likely to vote. Why do you think the bedroom tax wasn't extended to
precisely the group occupying larger than required properties. Or is
this kind of thought beyond your pay grade.

On 18/11/2017 18:01, tim... wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Â* 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.

ITYF It's mostly through choice

It certainly is in my case.

"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.

Nope, its a fact.

Many employers prefer to employ EU migrants than UK citizens.

Because, when they have enough of a clue to move 1000 miles
to where their employment prospects are better, they are clearly
much more likely to be useful employees than those refuse to
move 30 miles from some village which had its only industry
like coal mine close 50 ****ing years ago,

"Mark" wrote in message
...
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.

I wash everything except really filthy greasy overalls in cold water, all
the time.

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

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

Many have private pensions too.

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

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

How much is free travel worth in London ?.

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

Nope, makes no sense to look for work so primitively anymore.

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

Corse it is with one of the lowest unemployment rates in europe.

On 18/11/2017 19:23, Fredxxx wrote:

On 18/11/2017 18:04, JNugent wrote:
On 18/11/2017 14:53, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Â*Â*Â* JNugent wrote:

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

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

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

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

Is that an admission that getting on the housing ladder is much more
difficult than when you got on it?

No, it isn't. And that's because, as I demonstrated, house prices in the
area where I bought my first property have *not* changed out of
proportion to average earnings in that area. Today (forty years later,
to the month), instead of saving around £1500 as deposit, fees and
initial moving costs, you'd need to save maybe ten grand. But that is
not out of kilter with the real value of £1500 back then.

You don't come across as having any empathy with the younger generation.

I have plenty of it. But not all of "the younger generation" are the same.

Didn't you have children?

Indeed. Hard workers, well-qualified and earning more than I did.

"Andrew" wrote in message
news
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,

Thats not a job, its a sinecure/sheltered workshop/care home.

plus many MPs,

Not all that many, actually. And thats not a job either.

Judges, elected and unelected members of the quangocracy.

On 18/11/2017 16:50, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

snip

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.

and give even more perks to the unemployed? NO!

Lets make working pay first.

"tim..." wrote in message
news


"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

But trivial to turn into very adequate houses.

On 18/11/2017 20:48, Rod Speed wrote:


"Yellow" wrote in message
T...
On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 15:09:12 +0000, Andrew Andrew97d-
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.

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

How much is free travel worth in London ?.

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

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

Doesn't anyone sell fake ones ?

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

It's an obvious flaw.

"tim..." wrote in message
news


"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"

Corse you still are. College doesnt have to be full time.

you won't get benefits

Wrong.

"Andrew" wrote in message
news
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.

Oh bull****.

The odds are still stacked in favour of the employee.

But its still perfectly possible to get
rid of someone who really is useless.

On 18/11/2017 20:53, pamela wrote:
On 19:19 18 Nov 2017, Fredxxx wrote:

On 18/11/2017 18:59, pamela wrote:
On 13:53 18 Nov 2017, Andrew wrote:

On 17/11/2017 13:40, JoeJoe wrote:


How many loaves of bread would that have bought?

ÀšÃ‚£7.50 can easily buy you at least 15 loaves nowadays.


£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.

Those migrant workers have to pay UK costs while living here.
Looking at what they would earn in their home countries is
largely irrelevant.

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.

Those same migrant workers provide a shining example of a good
work ethic for UK workshy to see.

Two employers I have spoken to some time ago, who have a
significant proportions of migrant workers, say that after 18
months to 2 years they seem to acquire British work ethics.

That would be a disappointment. It doesn't happen to all because
I see hardworking immigrants who arrived long ago.

Quite, I also see indigenous workers with a good work ethic too.

Unfortunately the response of a UK
workshy person is to get resentful rather than to seek a way to
improve themselves to the point of getting a job.

Many can't expect to improve their lot. You seem to forget that
20-25% of the indigenous adult population are unable to read and
write.

Maybe literacy is the first thing they should work on. They could
take night classes like so many immigrant workers do.

One of my closest friends was a Senco, so I had first hand knowledge of
the memory retention of some and its consequences. A reading age of 9
requires knowledge of around 300 words. (Please correct me if I'm wrong
as my recollection is hazy) Some simply can't remember that many.

Immigrant workers already have the nous to make it to the UK. They are
already a cut above the indigenous illiterate.

One thing I was hoping to hear was how much the organisers of
Goodwood revival were paying the agency to supply those 18
£7.50 per hour staff ?. We didn't get to know that, but did
get a glimpse of the Mercedes emblem on the steering wheel of
the younger divorcee running the show. (The one who voted
remain).

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
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.

Not necessarily if the level of benefit income has changed, and it has.

I agree tho, the real cost of food, particularly at the
cheap end of food, has dropped dramatically in real terms,
essentially due to the industrialization of agriculture.

On 18/11/2017 21:08, JNugent wrote:
On 18/11/2017 19:23, Fredxxx wrote:

On 18/11/2017 18:04, JNugent wrote:
On 18/11/2017 14:53, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Â*Â*Â* JNugent wrote:

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

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

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

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

Is that an admission that getting on the housing ladder is much more
difficult than when you got on it?

No, it isn't. And that's because, as I demonstrated, house prices in the
area where I bought my first property have *not* changed out of
proportion to average earnings in that area. Today (forty years later,
to the month), instead of saving around £1500 as deposit, fees and
initial moving costs, you'd need to save maybe ten grand. But that is
not out of kilter with the real value of £1500 back then.

When and where?

You don't come across as having any empathy with the younger generation.

I have plenty of it. But not all of "the younger generation" are the same.

Didn't you have children?

Indeed. Hard workers, well-qualified and earning more than I did.

I would hope so, and no doubt already with a house purchased prior to
2005 or earlier.

On 18/11/2017 21:21, Fredxxx wrote:

On 18/11/2017 21:08, JNugent wrote:
On 18/11/2017 19:23, Fredxxx wrote:
On 18/11/2017 18:04, JNugent wrote:
On 18/11/2017 14:53, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Â*Â*Â* JNugent wrote:

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

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

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

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

Is that an admission that getting on the housing ladder is much more
difficult than when you got on it?

No, it isn't. And that's because, as I demonstrated, house prices in
the area where I bought my first property have *not* changed out of
proportion to average earnings in that area. Today (forty years later,
to the month), instead of saving around £1500 as deposit, fees and
initial moving costs, you'd need to save maybe ten grand. But that is
not out of kilter with the real value of £1500 back then.

When and where?

I have already mentioned the approximate location (that's all I shall
do): a town in the South Lancs Plain.

You don't come across as having any empathy with the younger generation.

I have plenty of it. But not all of "the younger generation" are the
same.

Didn't you have children?

Indeed. Hard workers, well-qualified and earning more than I did.

I would hope so, and no doubt already with a house purchased prior to
2005 or earlier.

Maybe.

On 18/11/2017 21:28, JNugent wrote:
On 18/11/2017 21:21, Fredxxx wrote:

On 18/11/2017 21:08, JNugent wrote:
On 18/11/2017 19:23, Fredxxx wrote:
On 18/11/2017 18:04, JNugent wrote:
On 18/11/2017 14:53, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Â*Â*Â* JNugent wrote:

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

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

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

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

Is that an admission that getting on the housing ladder is much more
difficult than when you got on it?

No, it isn't. And that's because, as I demonstrated, house prices in
the area where I bought my first property have *not* changed out of
proportion to average earnings in that area. Today (forty years
later, to the month), instead of saving around £1500 as deposit, fees
and initial moving costs, you'd need to save maybe ten grand. But
that is not out of kilter with the real value of £1500 back then.

When and where?

I have already mentioned the approximate location (that's all I shall
do): a town in the South Lancs Plain.

Thanks, but when?

You don't come across as having any empathy with the younger
generation.

I have plenty of it. But not all of "the younger generation" are the
same.

Didn't you have children?

Indeed. Hard workers, well-qualified and earning more than I did.

I would hope so, and no doubt already with a house purchased prior to
2005 or earlier.

Maybe.

Given prices have doubled in real terms since 2000 hardly demonstrates
your empathy to the younger generation of today who can't afford a house.

"tim..." wrote in message
news


"Andrew" wrote in message
news
On 18/11/2017 08:10, Graeme wrote:
In message ,
harry writes

My first house cost £400 in 1970.

Crikey. Where was that? My first house, 1975, was £10,250, Bristol. I
sold it for a modest profit two years later, and moved to Stoke Poges,
where I bought a maisonette for £12,500. Another two years later
(1979), I sold that for £25,000 which was a handsome profit. Moving to
Colchester, that bought me a three bed detached house.

I sold my last one for £400,000. (Downsized)

Downsizing is on our minds. Would certainly release some useful
capital.

I'm afraid that I'm hoping Spreadsheet Phil will carry out a one-off
change to stamp duty to make the seller pay and not the buyer.

there is no chance of that

that would "punish" everybody who paid stamp duty when they bought their
current house

and they would not forget it next election time

It is not a change that can be made in a single step

and it would cost too much in multiple steps

This will help the FTB,

so change the rules just for FTBs

and claw back some of the massive over-valuation
that the UK housing stock has reached.

in theory CGT and IHT do that

Australian-style restrictions on ownership of residential
property by non-doms and ltd co's would help too.

an entirely different issue (with which I agree BTW)

Pity he got it completely wrong. There are no restrictions
on ownership of residential property by non doms, they
can only buy new builds. And restrictions on ownership
of residential property by non doms would be a hell of
a problem for those working overseas and those who
choose to live in places with better weather than that
soggy little frigid island too.

And there is no restriction what so ever on the ownership
of residential property by ltd cos. And it makes no sense
to have one either.

"pamela" wrote in message
...
On 13:53 18 Nov 2017, Andrew wrote:

On 17/11/2017 13:40, JoeJoe wrote:


How many loaves of bread would that have bought?

£7.50 can easily buy you at least 15 loaves nowadays.


£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.

Those migrant workers have to pay UK costs while living here.

Yes.

Looking at what they would earn in their home countries is largely
irrelevant.

Nope, it’s the reason they move to Britain.

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.

Those same migrant workers provide a shining example of a good work
ethic for UK workshy to see. Unfortunately the response of a UK
workshy person is to get resentful rather than to seek a way to
improve themselves to the point of getting a job.

One thing I was hoping to hear was how much the organisers of
Goodwood revival were paying the agency to supply those 18
£7.50 per hour staff ?. We didn't get to know that, but did get
a glimpse of the Mercedes emblem on the steering wheel of the
younger divorcee running the show. (The one who voted remain).

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
news
On 18/11/2017 18:59, pamela wrote:
On 13:53 18 Nov 2017, Andrew wrote:

On 17/11/2017 13:40, JoeJoe wrote:


How many loaves of bread would that have bought?

£7.50 can easily buy you at least 15 loaves nowadays.


£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.

Those migrant workers have to pay UK costs while living here.
Looking at what they would earn in their home countries is largely
irrelevant.

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.

Those same migrant workers provide a shining example of a good work
ethic for UK workshy to see.

Two employers I have spoken to some time ago, who have a significant
proportions of migrant workers, say that after 18 months to 2 years they
seem to acquire British work ethics.

Unfortunately the response of a UK
workshy person is to get resentful rather than to seek a way to
improve themselves to the point of getting a job.

Many can't expect to improve their lot. You seem to forget that 20-25% of
the indigenous adult population are unable to read and write.

Oh bull****. And plenty of jobs dont need you to be able to do either
anyway.

One thing I was hoping to hear was how much the organisers of
Goodwood revival were paying the agency to supply those 18
£7.50 per hour staff ?. We didn't get to know that, but did get
a glimpse of the Mercedes emblem on the steering wheel of the
younger divorcee running the show. (The one who voted remain).

On 18/11/2017 21:36, Fredxxx wrote:
On 18/11/2017 21:28, JNugent wrote:
On 18/11/2017 21:21, Fredxxx wrote:

On 18/11/2017 21:08, JNugent wrote:
On 18/11/2017 19:23, Fredxxx wrote:
On 18/11/2017 18:04, JNugent wrote:
On 18/11/2017 14:53, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Â*Â*Â* JNugent wrote:

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

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

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

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

Is that an admission that getting on the housing ladder is much
more difficult than when you got on it?

No, it isn't. And that's because, as I demonstrated, house prices in
the area where I bought my first property have *not* changed out of
proportion to average earnings in that area. Today (forty years
later, to the month), instead of saving around £1500 as deposit,
fees and initial moving costs, you'd need to save maybe ten grand.
But that is not out of kilter with the real value of £1500 back then.

When and where?

I have already mentioned the approximate location (that's all I shall
do): a town in the South Lancs Plain.

Thanks, but when?

I said that as well!

Third quarter of 1977.

Price? £7,200 asked; building society valuation: £7,000.

You don't come across as having any empathy with the younger
generation.

I have plenty of it. But not all of "the younger generation" are the
same.

Didn't you have children?

Indeed. Hard workers, well-qualified and earning more than I did.

I would hope so, and no doubt already with a house purchased prior to
2005 or earlier.

Maybe.

Given prices have doubled in real terms since 2000 hardly demonstrates
your empathy to the younger generation of today who can't afford a house.

House prices have not "doubled in real terms since 2000" in the area I
spoke of.

Properties which were then priced at about £6,000 to £7,000 can still be
found with asking prices of £45,000 to £50,000. That's over forty years
and does not represent any real terms increase. Flats (including recent
new builds) can be found even cheaper.

In any case, who do you think *buys* these houses? People who cannot
raise a deposit and mortgage repayments?