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

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.