[Closed] Could you live on £26,OOO per year. DC content

£26k/year?

it'd be a whopping pay rise, so yes. yes i could.

If it all goes wrong for me and I can't face working anymore or the planned March increase in our Nursery bill I might just get mrshora to kick out some more kids then I can do **** all.

Why not? I can't believe some ponsy ****ing Cleric in the Lords was against the cap.

Might have to move away from an area where the kids have friends? Thats what happens to the working man EVERY DAY when he loses his job, can't afford his mortgage anymore.

Its not Eugenics FFS. Rant over.

"And very neatly fits into the strategy of blaming the victims for the government's failures."

It's not the government's 'fault' it might not even be anyone's fault. It's just how it is.

😀 An act of God perhaps ?

Unemployment inching up to 3 million is the government's fault. Falling living standards is the government's fault. Chronic housing shortages is the government's fault. High taxes/VAT to pay for the bankers cockups is the government's fault. Young people without a future is the government's fault. The super-rich not paying their taxes is the government's fault.

It's all the government's, and the failed policies which they support, fault. Not just this government, but the last one too.......Tories and New Labour - two cheeks of the same arse.

But of course you're right, we're not suppose to blame the government, we are suppose to blame either no one or the victims of their failed policies. The tabloids will keep you up to date concerning who to blame.

The benefit cap is an irrelevance which will achieve nothing other than possibly cause real hardship to some vulnerable families/children. The money involved, alleged to be £290m per year, is peanuts. It is less than one third of what just [u]one[/u] government owned bank paid in bonuses last year.

And it pales into complete insignificance compared to the billions being spunked on an austerity programme which cannot work.

It will not make the slightest difference to the country's and the government's finances - that's not the reason why it's being implemented. It's being implemented because thanks to daily drip feeding by the tabloids blaming the victims of failures rather than the perpetrators has become "popular" with the public. And because it is a very useful distraction.

Suckers.

would I be unhappy about not having to work a single day and still receive in excess of £500pw after tax? damn right I'd be happy with that.

That is disgusting, no wonder I have to pay so much bloody tax.

I thought it was popular because it was fair. Ie benefits shouldn't pay out more than the average salary. Not every bit of legislation needs to make billions in impact.

Doesn't £26k also represent the figure George Osbourne spends on his annual ski trip?

Doesn't £26k also represent the figure George Osbourne spends on his annual ski trip?

Your dear Leader only paid 300k tax on a income of 12m last year. Maybe if he paid the highest tax rate... 😉

I thought it was popular because it was fair. Ie benefits shouldn't pay out more than the average salary. Not every bit of legislation needs to make billions in impact

In what way is it fair?

It caps household income [b]regardless of geography or household size[/b]. OK, don't have so many children, but once they've arrived, it's a bit hard to take them back. And once your kids are in a school, it gets hard to move them. By the way, the cheapest rents are - wait for it - in the areas with the lowest level of economic success. Are we really suggesting that we should simply ghettoise the poor? Really??

Part of the proposed saving was driven by the laughable Iain Duncan Smith's belief that private landlords would reduce rents because the government wasn't going to pay as much. All well and good, but when there's a ready demand for all rental properties (fuelled by the fact that many people can no longer afford to buy a house as they would previously have done, and therefore have to rent), the economics make no sense.

In short, this is an attention-grabbing piece of legislation, which will hit the poor. As they're traditionally Labour voters, DC will lose nothing, whilst gaining votes from the self-righteous Daily Mail faction.

which will hit the [s]poor[/s]people with an income > £26K tax free

FTFY 🙂

As others have said this does mostly boil down to housing benefit and those being housed in expensive areas. Although you would need to address the issue of creating suburbs full of benefit claimers I fully support moving people out of very expensive city centre properties.

That [woman] on the news asking why should she be moved out of her London home where she had a good lifestyle and was near friends? Err the why is because you're living off the state and the state has a duty to the taxpayers to ensure it supports you in an economical and prudent way.

It's not about making people homeless it's about relocating from places with high property prices to places with more realistic prices - it's not like they have to worry about their commute being longer...

Nickf the houses big enough to house a large family in London tend to be very expensive. Are you saying outside of London there is no economic chance of making a go of your life and contributing to the health of the nation?

As I understand it won't it only affect 1% of benefits claimants?

Don't get me wrong. I'm no fan of the condems but sometimes legislation gets introduced mostly for the message it sends out about the society the govt thinks we want to live in. In this case theyve judged that the majority of society want a benefits system that doesn't leave low income earners wondering why they bother going to work. Regardless of the govts political motives thats quite a popular sentiment. So in that regard its fair because most of society wants it. Admittedly the 'most' part is an assumption on the part of the govt. but I think they may have the majority vote on this one.

I am slightly more concerned that a small group of unelected professional religious types managed to turn over a bill put forward by an elected govt. because they think that universal benefits are a good thing. Surely benefits should almost by definition only be for those who need them? In that regard universal benefit is a bit of an oxymoron. Can we have an elected house of lords soon please?

I am slightly more concerned that a small group of unelected professional religious types managed to turn over a bill put forward by an elected govt. because they think that universal benefits are a good thing. Surely benefits should almost by definition only be for those who need them? In that regard universal benefit is a bit of an oxymoron. Can we have an elected house of lords soon please?

I'm no fan of either Bishops or Lords, but in this case they're asking a reasonable question - if Child Benefit is held to be a universal benefit - paid to all regardless of need - then it has to be respected as such, and cannot be included in other benefits payments.

If the Government wish to remove universal benefits, that's quite another question, which they should be asking seperately.

If the Government wish to remove universal benefits

Lord no, please.

"A welfare trap is an example of the perverse incentive: the welfare recipient has an incentive to avoid raising his own productivity because the resulting income gain is not enough to compensate for the (increased) work effort"

[url] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_trap [/url]

Get rid of high paying benifits full stop they trap people in the benifits system. It should be hard to live on benifits and you should ALWAYS be better of working. any system that doesnt manage that is not functioning correctly. (disability excluded)

Mark - Resident Grumpy
As I understand it won't it only affect 1% of benefits claimants?

Less than.

54% of which are in London.

It does not take into account the number of children in a household which is the main problem for me. It will put children into poverty.

The 'oh but you shouldn't have kids if you can't afford them' argument is of course fair, but as these kids already exist what do you suggest? All this will do is keep the cycle of poverty going.

What the government should be doing (in combination with the 3 year transition period mentioned above) is building alternative, social housing in areas where a lot of claimants are affected, so reducing the amount of benefits paid to private landlords.

I can understand a benefits cap.. in fact it seems entirely reasonable and as far as I'm aware there has always been a cap.. My family of four for example work very hard and top up with tax credits and [b]between us[/b] the ceiling on our total income is far less than the 26k being bandied about here.. if there is a way to exploit the system and increase this please tell me about it..

but there's a lot of talk here of luxurious lifestyles and I think there are still perhaps many ignorant folk who believe that a (legitimate) life on the rock n roll is some kind of lavish self-indulgence.. which it patently isn't

there seems to be two problems that are causing concern on this thread.. criminals exploiting the system.. and an underclass that are unable to see the advantages of working so they become willing to flounder instead.. eeking out a very meagre existence often on the very edge of indigence..

neither of those things are caused by the availability of social security benefit..
there's no valid reason to start sharpening pitchforks and calling for the government to pull the rug out from under the feet of legitimate claimants..

they are caused by exploitatively low pay and the resultant associated criminality..
you don't ban cars because car crime is on the rise..

The 'oh but you shouldn't have kids if you can't afford them' argument is of course fair

My family of four for example work very hard

Yunki.

Two ways I've come across:

Fella isn't listed as living at the property (and to the authorities is classed as the 'Uncle' if need be).

Cash in hand working in takeaways, illegally mini-cabbing etc etc etc.

If you list your partner as a single Mum you are bound to get far more than you being honest.

I'm still waiting for someone to admit they're a workshy layabout that thinks the world owes them a living

*waves*

I do have to sit in an office for 8 or so hours a day though 🙁

I'm still waiting for someone to admit they're a workshy layabout that thinks the world owes them a living.

The post count during the day might help with this one.

It caps household income regardless of geography or household size.

If this cap took into account geographical differences in costs, would you agree that benefits and public sector salaries should also take on this geographical difference?

If this cap took into account geographical differences in costs, would you agree that benefits and public sector salaries should also take on this geographical difference?

Only senior Council and NHS management should be subject to this.

It grates when I read the defence [i]we need to offer private sector salaries to attract 'the best'[/i]

Right. How many private sector managers come in to be a Council Leader? Far as I can see all the highest paid are career local authority types....

Just another example of fat cats explaining away why they have their hands in the cookie jar whilst our emergency services have to work ridiculous unsocial shifts over public holidays for pittance.

IanMunro - Member

It caps household income regardless of geography or household size.

If this cap took into account geographical differences in costs, would you agree that benefits and public sector salaries should also take on this geographical difference?

So now we're going after people that work as well?

hora - Member
Far as I can see all the highest paid are career local authority types....

You don't have a clue then?

emergency services have to work ridiculous unsocial shifts over public holidays for pittance.

Hmm! I'm not sure we're on pittance anymore, I earn a good wage granted not as good if I was in the private sector as a registered professional manger. However, I get other little bonuses that are rare in the private sector plus a job that's as stable as can be. That said I'm waiting to hear what's happening with my job.

whilst our emergency services have to work ridiculous unsocial shifts over public holidays for pittance

The average police officer earns over £40k per annum. The starting pay of the most junior constable (who will earn quite a lot more in overtime) is £23k. They have access to a final salary scheme (which they pay into, I'm not knocking that).

Firemen are on similar money, I understand.

Not a king's ransom, certainly, but neither is this a pittance.

Firemen are on similar money, I understand.

No less, they're now the 'poorer' ones having once been one of the higher ones. The didn't do well under their review, it's still not pittance though.

How long is an average Police shift?
Its shifts
Its unsociable hours (you can be expected to work Christmas day etc)
You get abuse
You deal with the down and the outs of society
No one thanks you but as soon as someone makes a mistake your in trouble.

You can apply all the above to Ambulance technicians, Nurses etc. Have you seen Ambulance drivers pay?!

Are we really suggesting that we should simply ghettoise the poor?

Well not sure we really want ghettos but I suspect it's generally poor people that live in those places - otherwise they wouldn't be ghettos perhaps? Anyway, I'd rather that then invest in those areas. Some say it would be bad to move poor people out of places rich people live, others think that's an odd concept.

Edit: We all have different ideas of what sort of life a family on benefits should be living, maybe if we can agree what that should be we'd be able to agree their income. It's a joke to some that the most Sky TV and huge flat screen TVs are in the 'poorer' areas.

So now we're going after people that work as well?

Me? I'm not going after anyone.
I was asking if it was thought unfair that that the cap isn't regionally specific, then is not equally unfair that nationally set salaries and benefits aren't regionally specific?

hora - Member
How long is an average Police shift?

Don't know, please enlighten.

Its shifts
Its unsociable hours (you can be expected to work Christmas day etc)

Holy crap!

You get abuse
You deal with the down and the outs of society
No one thanks you but as soon as someone makes a mistake your in trouble.

Do people join the police expecting to be handed flowers and chocolates everywhere they go?

You can apply all the above to Ambulance technicians, Nurses etc. Have you seen Ambulance drivers pay?!

Please enlighten.

Are we really suggesting that we should simply ghettoise the poor?

I'm sure Call-me-Dave's ideal solution would be some kind of Gaza Strip type, walled-in affair on the outskirts of London

We can build it on Surrey 🙂

Ambulance (taken from here)

http://www.nhscareers.nhs.uk/details/Default.aspx?Id=132 (click through to see the band actuals).

Police, from what I can gather upto 12hours 4 days a week. Please feel free to correct me on this actual Bobbies 🙂

I get a bonus for unsocial hours of 25% that' s what makes my pay from good to pretty damn good.

Police work something like 8 hours but they do longer ones too, I do 12 hours but it means more time off so won't change that.

I knew when I started the job I'd work Xmas, I've worked more than I've had off but it's my job it's what I'm paid to do.

Yeah we get abuse but we have a zero tolerance policy, you can and will be removed or refused treatment unless your condition is immediately life threatening. You may also face prosecution if you abuse us.

Have you seen Ambulance drivers pay?!

If you mean Emergency Support Workers then yes they're on low pay but they hold very little responsibility, have no real qualification and essential are there as support and to drive. The Paramedic is the one responsible for care, he's the one who will decide and give the treatment, they're the one's who will face a hearing if they get questioned or have a complaint made about treatment. So the 'Driver' gets paid less but for what they do it's not bad money.

[quote> http://www.nhscareers.nhs.uk/details/Default.aspx?Id=132 (click through to see the band actuals).

Ah your getting things mixed up. The PTS driver works on the Patient Transport Service, the granny shuttle. They take Mrs Miggins and her pals to the outpatient appointments Most of them work 9-5 doing routine work 5 days a week. Those that work evenings, nights or weekends get an unsocial hour bonus. They get less abuse but still some, they can and will walk away form a patient who abuses them and if reported the patient will be refuse transport again by that service.

I'm no fan of either Bishops or Lords, but in this case they're asking a reasonable question - if Child Benefit is held to be a universal benefit - paid to all regardless of need - then it has to be respected as such, and cannot be included in other benefits payments.

If the Government wish to remove universal benefits, that's quite another question, which they should be asking seperately

Good point. Two separate issues indeed. Child benefit should not be universal. In fact I don't think any benefit should be universal. I speak from a position of once trying to stop tax credits because we didn't need them. HMRC had no mechanism to stop the payments - they suggested we give to charity. A reasonable solution but really? You can't stop sending us money? really? 'Yes sir, there is no option on my screen to do that.'

Do you get danger money in recruitment Hora?

You can't stop sending us money? really? 'Yes sir, there is no option on my screen to do that.'

Crazy isn't we get and far from need but we use it to buy the kids shoes for school and things. Best solution I could come up with to use it for what it's meant for.

Mark - Resident Grumpy

I speak from a position of once trying to stop tax credits because we didn't need them. HMRC had no mechanism to stop the payments - they suggested we give to charity. A reasonable solution but really? You can't stop sending us money? really? 'Yes sir, there is no option on my screen to do that.'

That is ridiculous and would be quite a cheap fix to save some money, surely?

In this case theyve judged that the majority of society want a benefits system that doesn't leave low income earners wondering why they bother going to work.

ah no the Condems have the poorest with a big shitty stick.
Its agenda setting...We pay taxes to people via working tax credit so large billion pound employers like Mc Donalds for example can pay the minimum wage to maximise their profits not because McD would fold if it paid a living wage.

^That

[i]I speak from a position of once trying to stop tax credits because we didn't need them. HMRC had no mechanism to stop the payments - they suggested we give to charity. A reasonable solution but really? You can't stop sending us money? really? 'Yes sir, there is no option on my screen to do that.' [/i]

Eh? Did you also pay more tax than required too? 🙄

If you are so bloody minded you could've not actually applied for them.

Bang on Junkyard!

[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jan/18/pays-tesco-ceo-wages-we-do ]How we all subsidise Tesco[/url]

But don't forget... they're upping the ante now. As a benefit claimant you now to get to do a full time job for poundland without pay.

Give Dave another 6 months and he'll be re-exploring the 'opportunies' offered by the Workhouse

In this case theyve judged that the majority of society want a benefits system that doesn't leave low income earners wondering why they bother going to work.

No one is better off on benefits that working - thats why tax credits have a long taper and can be gained even at relativly high levels of income.

the Condems have (hit) the poorest with a big shitty stick

And here's me thinking that the average wage didn't equate to poverty. My mistake. Do we go straight from poor to rich once we cross the £35000 taxed wage that the proposed cap corresponds to?

so you think people on benefits are not amongst the poorest in our society?
Good news dave and george are making it a piece of piss to join this rich elite section of society

[i]Do we go straight from poor to rich once we cross the £35000 taxed wage that the proposed cap corresponds to?[/i]

Seems so, based on a previous CB post. TJ and others decided that once a higher rate tax payer you were in the 'Elite'...

The poorest in our society are probably on benefits. That's not the point. Is someone receiving the equivalent of a taxed wage of £35000 poor? I suspect that makes the majority of the people posting on here poor.

No one is better off on benefits that working - thats why tax credits have a long taper and can be gained even at relativly high levels of income.

Well depends on how you value your time really. Is it worth working for x extra pounds?

Is someone receiving the equivalent of a taxed wage of £35000 poor

and over £40k is rich elite apparently.

So are benefits recipients going to be expected to doff these caps as well, then?

Rio - Member
The poorest in our society are probably on benefits. That's not the point. Is [s]someone[/s] a [b]household[/b] receiving the equivalent of a taxed wage of £35000 poor? I suspect that makes the majority of the people posting on here poor.

FTFY

The poorest in our society are probably on benefits. That's not the point.

Well depends on how you value your time really. Is it worth working for x extra pounds?

This is where I agree with the Mail-readers.

Even if you're a few quid better off, it's a good thing. You have a sense of self-esteem, the chance to progress in the company, the opportunity to earn bonuses/do overtime etc....and you're not stagnating.

In this sort of situation, I don't think the benefit claimant really should be given the [i]choice[/i] of whether they think it's worth their time to do a particular job. If they can come up with something better, so-one's stopping them, but if there's a viable job, they should take it.

I've had appalling jobs in the past, and hated them, but I've always found it much easier to get a job once in work.

If you remove the rent costs which they dont actually see a penny of.

So, if you have earned household income of £35000 and have to pay your own accommodation like most people you're not poor, but if you have the equivalent in benefits but have to pay for your housing out of that you are poor? How does that work then?

You have a sense of self-esteem, the chance to progress in the company, the opportunity to earn bonuses/do overtime etc....and you're not stagnating

Most minimum wage jobs have no career progression whatsoever. You are stagnating just in work

IMHO the work gives you self esteem nonsense is the greatest trick they ever pulled on is

Of course the masters need us to work hard like good little proles FFS they are not going to do actual work themselves are they, they are going to enjoy the fruits of your labour as that how they make their money, from your work and paying you Fa ll to do it..yours Marx

I never said everyone in work was rich did i?

However, I could earn 2 million and buy a very expensive house with astronomical running costs and still be poor in the way you work it out.
It is not a black and white issue here an there are many shades of grey in working out as my example[ and yours to some degree] show.
Simplistic statements wont help her and it is not hard to create exemplars to attempt to disprove alternatives views

Those on benefits are poor, this will punish children, Ghettoise the poor and is a knee jerk reaction as those of us in work dont want to feel like those out of work are better of than us.
again you may find the odd exception ia working pop of 30 + million but as a general rule they [ unemployed folk] will be worse of than 99% + of the working population.

basic benefits are in the region of £105 per week for a couple and £60 a week per child excluding most housing costs.

I don't think the benefit claimant really should be given the choice of whether they think it's worth their time to do a particular job. If they can come up with something better, so-one's stopping them, but if there's a viable job, they should take it.

3 million unemployed and more than that workless. there simply are not the jobs for them

Yes, I'd love £26k a year. Currently on £15k which isn't really enough for me to comfortably move away from home.

_tom_ - Member
Yes, I'd love £26k a year. Currently on £15k which isn't really enough for me to comfortably move away from home.

It's household. You wouldn't get £26k. No-one does.

can someone with a P please tag this 'rabid workers fight for scraps'

thanks

TandemJeremy - Member
I don't think the benefit claimant really should be given the choice of whether they think it's worth their time to do a particular job. If they can come up with something better, so-one's stopping them, but if there's a viable job, they should take it.
3 million unemployed and more than that workless. there simply are not the jobs for them

Not entirely true, there is an element of not wanting to 'demean' themselves with certain types of job.

Not sure if it's been argued already, but there are folk working here for 15k p.a and getting up in the morning and cycling 8 miles to work every day, we've also had folk work here getting benefits as well and witnessing the culture first hand of having kids defined as having various states of mental or educational issues purely to get more benefit.

There does need to be a shake up t the system, it also needs to be noted and I'm surprised it hasn't actually been mentioned by the fascist right press, but we are actually borrowing that 20 billion to give to folk to do nothing and pretty much all our taxes are doing is funding the interest on the accumulating loan..

So in short, right or wrong and it is a complex issue and not everyone gets the entire 26k, but simply stated we actually cannot afford it as things currently stand, not and pay all these top executives that hand it out and talk about it as much as they do..

Yunki no probs freeloader scum, living off my taxes [ subs]

I just used the 'Turn2Us' online benefit checker to see how much I would be eligible for should me and my wife be unemployed (with 3 children).

Result was £23,936 per annum tax free. I could live with that amount quite comfortably.

And that's excluding other 'perks' such as free school meals, school clothing grants etc.

Edit: those calculations were bases on the rental of a small bottom of the market semi @ £400 per month. Of course I could have rented a much larger house and without the proposed cap, the benefit would have increased to accommodate it. Indeed, I could have moved to the wealthiest part of town, all paid for by benefits.

Sorry Junkyard, have to disagree with you. Sure, there are jobs that offer no progression, but there are equally many that do. My father left school at 15 with no qualification, as a face worker in the mines. Made it to mine manager, then university lecturer. Progression is possible - how d'you think the middle-management types get there?

As for self-esteem, I've been unemployed. I didn't claim any benefits, but I felt like s*** when i wasn't working, and it completely destroyed me mentally. When I got a decent job, I was happy.

This may well be because I've been conditioned by The Man to feel that work is good, idleness is not, but it's good to feel valued, to be able to create things that few others can, and to be part of an organisation that does stuff. Rather harder to see when you're flipping burgers, I accept, but then most of the McDonalds managers come from the shop floor. I hate the product but have to respect the fact that they do promote from within.

😀

IMHO the work gives you self esteem nonsense is the greatest trick they ever pulled on is

Hmm well some people would rather pay their way and some would rather not. Whilst on my degree I worked stocking shelves in Boots, when I graduated I worked in McDonalds - easiest thing to do as I was going onto a Masters. Many are the same, many would turn their noses up at that.

My father left school at 15 with no qualification, as a face worker in the mines. Made it to mine manager, then university lecturer. Progression is possible

Of course some people break free and work there way up but the vast majority do not.
Socoal mobility is in decline - decreased massively under labour iirc

Mudshark - give up your masters and stack shelfs for the rest of your life and then get back to me on happiness and self esteem- all stidents had poor jobs but they were a stepping stone not a reality 😉

see how much I would be eligible for should me and my wife be unemployed (with 3 children).

I've been unemployed. I didn't claim any benefits

We're all getting a bit het-up about the principle here, but what are the actual figures?

I reckon the tories are doing their usual 'bash the poor' while quite happily helping the super-rich avoid their taxes. Like that fool on the 'Today' program was on about this morning about excessive executive pay for failure.

You'd be eligible for an allowance which is dependent on you genuinely seeking employment. If you're not genuinely seeking employment, then either you can give up the JSA (in which case your luxury life on 24 grand a year is going to take a hit) or you can defraud the Buroo (in which case all you're saying is you could make money through fraud - well, big deal).

£24k for popping down to the job centre once a while with a list of companies I unsuccessfully contacted looking for work... easy money.

I am truly gobsmacked that there are people out there who think this sort of thing doesn't go on. Then again, as I said elsewhere.. the guardian/independent readers of this world have a seriously clouded view of reality from their safe public funded job.

Of course it's possible to live on £26k as a family, many working families do exactly that. The benefit system has been abused, it's time to put it right, this is just the first step. Had Labour done so perhaps they'd still be in government.

£26k after tax is approx £35k before. To have a pension income of £35k you need savings of £900,000 and that is not index linked income either, that's flat.

Mudshark - give up your masters and stack shelfs for the rest of your life and then get back to me on happiness and self esteem- all stidents had poor jobs but they were a stepping stone not a reality

But they do lead on to things if you have some potential, many people in the past have done unskilled jobs that wouldn't lead to anything but they still did them; unfortunately there aren't so many of these jobs about now due to automation or whatever. BTWm McDonalds offers great potential for the under qualified.

I am truly gobsmacked that there are people out there who think this sort of thing doesn't go on. Then again, as I said elsewhere.. the guardian/independent readers of this world have a seriously clouded view of reality from their safe public funded job.

🙄

£24k for popping down to the job centre once a while with a list of companies I unsuccessfully contacted looking for work... easy money.

I am truly gobsmacked that there are people out there who think this sort of thing doesn't go on. Then again, as I said elsewhere.. the guardian/independent readers of this world have a seriously clouded view of reality from their safe public funded job.

Give it a go if it is as easy as you think

The average claimant has to prove they applied for 30 jobs a week - thats is prove not just say they did. An entire nationally based dept checks to see if you did apply for jobs they match you to and then stop your benefits if you dont etc
I wont bore you with actual facts though
yours person who has actually worked in a job centre

Mudshark we did that up there and even covered Mcd's - I hope you pay ore attention with your masters 😉

Guys - its housing costs that push this up to £26 000+
The problem here is the lack of council houses as they have all been sold off.

benefits are £105 for a couple and £60 for a child after housing costs. Hardly enough for a life of luxury and contrary to popular belief housing benefit is already capped so you cannot move to the poshest part of town once you loose your job

Anyone who thinks JSA is riches is deluded. £105 for a couple! anyone working will get more that they would on JSA as thats how tax credits work hence the long taper that allows some comfortably off folk to claim them

AdamW - Member
We're all getting a bit het-up about the principle here, but what are the actual figures?

I reckon the tories are doing their usual 'bash the poor' while quite happily helping the super-rich avoid their taxes. Like that fool on the 'Today' program was on about this morning about excessive executive pay for failure.

[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jan/23/stephen-hester-payout-bad-for-taxpayer ]Eyes on RBS boss[/url]

Yet Hester isn't some kind of super-banker. Pay-watchers One Society point out that in 2010, while Hester's total remuneration went up 71%, the value of his bank rose 33%. And over the past year, RBS's share price has nearly halved.

TandemJeremy - Member
Guys - its housing costs that push this up to £26 000+
The problem here is the lack of council houses as they have all been sold off.

benefits are £105 for a couple and £60 for a child after housing costs. Hardly enough for a life of luxury and contrary to popular belief housing benefit is already capped so you cannot move to the poshest part of town once you loose your job

Anyone who thinks JSA is riches is deluded. £105 for a couple! anyone working will get more that they would on JSA as thats how tax credits work hence the long taper that allows some comfortably off folk to claim them

Think it's worth reiterating that housing benefit is paid straight to the landlord.

Why not?

Pride, really. I don't want to be supported by anyone other than me.

yes your right in a race all can be winners.
Can you tell me about everyone else who worked in the pit and we will look at how they all faired as group rather than focus on the one who achieved the best outcome- part of the myth work hard enough you can escape here look this one did it, it could be you next. It is like arguing we could all win the lottery because someone has[ no disrespect to your dad obviously worked hard etc]

Not everyone can be a winner, patently that's not possible. But some can, and the only way to do it is to be there. In the case of my father, he decided that he absolutely hated the mines, and studying was the best way out. Same with his other progressions.

People tend to progress to the point of indifference - if they really can't be bothered to progress further, they're accepting the trade between responsibility and pay, and they'll stop where they are. Keep the same grade, stay in the same job. Fair enough If you want to be told what to do, and are happy to live under somone else's direction

I'm one of those who rejected this. I'm ruthlessly careerist, and was determined to get to the very top of the greasy pole. I've had to move jobs every three years (basically, when the company opportunities ran out), exploit every opportunity, do some very unpleasant things (firing people, closing down factories, outsourcing whole divisions ... that's just the start of it) and work 16-hour days on a more-or-less permanent basis. It's worked for me, but I've had to make my own opportunities. And it's not based on innate talent; there are [i]many[/i] people far more technically able in my field; I just have sharp elbows and a huge degree of determination

If you're very determined, you can achieve more than the average. How much more depends on your abilities and qualifications, how much of your soul you're prepared to sell, how many hours you're prepared to do, and how much time you're prepared to give to your family.

Not everyone can be winners. But being stuck at the bottom on benefits strikes me as the least winning option.