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

😀

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.

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.

I think I wasn't typing clearly. 😳

The idiot was the Tory MP who didn't seem to care that people were being paid massive amounts of moolah for failure.

When I left Uni 6 years ago, I claimed JSA. The guy at the job centre appeared to pretty surprised when I presented all the job applications I'd completed and a fully completed job seekers diary. He didn't even read it he just ticked signed it and that was that. I asked what I should be doing, and he suggested reading the local papers job ads twice a week would be good.

It's good to know that standards have increased and applicants now have to prove they apply for 30 jobs a week. That must have been a very challenging change programme for the DWP but it's fantastic that they've pulled it off and turned things around.

Having just completed a masters in engineering, the best suggestion from the job centre was a job box packing as it was in an engineering business. Suffice to say I undertook my own job search!

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.

Did you believe that when you typed that. Despite your prejudice view just because you believe there's a few where you live that do this does not make it true and if it was it does not make it so for all on benefits. Working in the public sector, you know the independent reading guardian reading type, I see the extremes. I've been in properties of the mega rich and the properties of the poor and everything in between. General those that live on benefits for what ever reason don't have a great life style. There is a few who have a moderate one but you often find it's because they worked before that and either have a pension from their, redundancy or saved. Those that have never worked really don't have it cushy, there's the odd one yes but in reality they have enough to get by and if they're careful can treat there kids and themselves to something special.

It's easy to say look they have a 50" TV and Sky but they chose those thing over something else and probably in debt with the TV. Where as others will choose not to be so silly and use the money on other items. TJs basic figures are the basic figures but he's not including the free dental care, free prescriptions, free school meals and other little benefits that can be claimed such as heating allowances.

I believe there should be a maximum cap it's silly to keep paying out above a set limit to a few when the rest have to get by. It seems a sensible limit to cap it at too, it's more than some people earn who yes can get benefits too and not so much to be ridiculous.

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

That's an odd comment. Anyway, I did it a few years ago so all fine and now I'm on the other side of the counter proving what a little effort can achieve. 😉

What an extraordinary mess! This issue is full of so many contradictions at so many levels - economic, political, philosophical - and is probably an obvious outcome of welfare capitalism.

A simple concept - that unemployed people should not be paid more than (average) working families - gets confused by so many issues: the absurdity of universal benefits and child benefit; the assymetric outcome depending on employment history; and the less relevant/important idea that this discriminates against the SE. I am sure hearts are bleeding in the rest of the country.

The contradictions are best seen by the stances of the different parties here. No surprises where the Tories stand on the issue. Lib Dems interesting....some continue to mentally masturbate over their copies of The Guardian, others (Clegg) etc fall into line with their coalition chums and others (Ashdown) focus in the most important of the three criticisms ie the impact on children.

So this leaves the poor Labour party. How difficult to be torn effectively between two constituencies - those who for whatever reason have become utterly dependent on welfare and those who earn less than the average wage and will no doubt resent their income being taxed to support lifestyles that they cannot access themselves (shades of the pension debate.) No wonder that Labour's painful deliberations and positioning across the proverbial fence is helping to contribute to a further decline in the polls when they coalition should be on-the-ropes.

And finally, we are left with the unelected representatives of the CoE to save the day in the H of Lords. Yet another wonderful contradiction.

No wonder Rawls dreamed up the concept of the veil of ignorance to help tackle these issues. What absurd system leads us to the outcome that we face now on this issue - and no TJ its not just because Thatcher sold off council houses!! Can you imagine starting with a clean slate of paper and proposing such a truly absurd system.

Teamhurtmore - your usual line on this stuff.

1) you are always better off working - thats why the long taper on tax credits and why universal benefits 🙄
2) the selling off of council housing is a major issue in this as its people with high housing costs that push up the numbers.

its not the £105 per week for a couple adn £60 for a child that makes for these high numbers. its the £300 per week for an excouncil house now belonging to a private landlord that does

What is my line - other than its a mess! I haven't stated my line at all.

You are clearly not "always" better off working and selling off council housing may be one factor affecting the functioning of the property market. But so is artificially intervening in the supply of labour and the demand for housing. If only it was that simple.

But for once, TJ I'm sure you were happy with the support from the good old CoE!!

Why do you think Liam Byrne is in such a difficult position here?

and no TJ its not just because Thatcher sold off council houses!!

Agreed, that combined with abolished rent control certainly hasn't helped the cost of housing benefit though.

Nor has central banks artificially holding interest rates too low or banks extending credit to buy-to-letter at uneconomic levels.

TJ - I am pointing out the contradictions here - read the front of TG website today and the same contradictions are illustrated between two of the main articles in this subject.

Or you can read the Sun and focus on the more important issue of whether some drunk middle aged women pulled the trousers off a playboy girl - such is life!!

Anyway - coffee drunk, back to work.

I'm sure everyone can benefit from understanding others' perspective but probably wouldn't harm to read what hardship really means - Hard Times, The Grapes of Wrath, Twenty Years at Hull House, The Autobiography of Malcolm X etc.....

You are clearly not "always" better off working

No one things it is perfect but the issues is whether this helps or hinders.. I think it will make thins worse rather than better though we may save a few quid here and there

to argue that benefits are too high is just an acceptance that wages are too low

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

Alternatively,

2) You rely on others' support every time you do anything that you don't pay for entirely out of your own pocket: walking along the street, getting picked up by an ambulance after you step in front of a bus, get educated at a school/university etc.

£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.

Let me count the fallacies.

- You don't get 24k on JSA.

- I never said that no-one defrauds the DSS. I'm saying the statement "I would get 24k on JSA" leaves out the fact that you'd have to defraud the DSS in order to do so if you weren't genuinely seeking employment.

- The only time I've worked in a publicly-funded job was for about six weeks ten years ago (although I use the word "worked" extremely loosely). Apart from that, I've always worked in the ultra-efficient, lower-paid, more insecure private sector. 😆

- I don't read the Guardian.

Labour did try and fix this problem a long time ago. Blair made Frank Field Minister for Welfare Reform in 1997 with a mandate to "think the unthinkable". He lasted a year before Gordon Brown forced him out.

Europe, education reform, deficit reduction and now bringing some sanity to the welfare system, Labour is placing itself firmly against public opinion. Please do carry on Ed.

We spend more on benefits and state pensions than we do on health, education and defence COMBINED.

and over half of all those benefits go to the retired, those in work and the disabled .....the bastards

C'mon JY didn't you see the CAPITALS - MCBOO MAD! RAAAGGGGGHHH

Junkyard - Member
and over half of all those benefits go to the retired, those in work and the disabled .....the bastards

OK....so what about the other half?

JY - the benefits issue surely is about two different things.

1. The incentive to be in work rather than out of work - determined by the participation tax rate ie, % of pay taken in taxes and withdrawn benefits

2. The incentive of those in work to increase their earnings - determined by the marginal effective tax rate.

Despite all the tinkerings over the past 30 years by both parties the MEFTR in the UK has hardly changed. The Tories have had more impact on increasing incentives to work (not surprisingly), the Labour party has been broadly balanced on the issue. So that leaves us with a working population where:

20% have a strong incentive to work and a low PTR
30% who have a weak incentive to work and a high PTR

The rest are in-between. But there is a core of people - about 10% or approx 3m who have very high PTR circa 80%. For them, there is a very strong dis-incentive to work. Perhaps not surprisingly, most of the people in the category (and 1/2 of them do not work) face very low wages and although they don't have much of a tax burden, they face significant losses of benefits.

So you takes your choice as a political party - who do you support or where are you philosophically most aligned? Hence my previous point that this is relatively easy for the Tories but much more complicated for Labour. You also face the issue of targetting particular interest groups eg, children, the 10% etc or a more utilitarian approach to try to maximise the benefit for the majority. Not easy at all....full of contradictions and inconsistencies!!!

Teamhurtmore

You really do need to learn a bit more about this

Teh introduction of tax credits under Labour increased incentives to work hugely by reducing the marginal tax rate greatly

The tories on the other hand had prior to that reduced the incentive to work greatly by having marginal tax rates of 90+%

The new tory proposals will reduce the incentive to work my restoring the high marginal tax rate

Its the main barrier to work "I will be no better off working" Labour policy and acts reduced this hugely, tory policy and acts in the past increased it

I will bet as usual you will now slag me off rather than listening and trying to learn

there is a very strong dis-incentive to work. Perhaps not surprisingly, most of the people in the category (and 1/2 of them do not work) face very low wages and although they don't have much of a tax burden, they face significant losses of benefits.

[stern voice] Both of you play nicely now or I will take the internet away [/stern voice]

TJ - dont worry I have three books on the subject on my desk right now and a copy of the Mirrlees report for reference. If you don't mind, I will base my conclusions on their analysis. Thanks all the same for the lesson.

No need to slag you off TJ 😉 [your ad hominam attacks can come from elsewhere!)

The new tory proposals will reduce the incentive to work my restoring the high marginal tax rate

Well that would be the exact opposite of IDS's aim, in pursuit of which he is introducing a single universal benefit.

Evidence or retraction please.

1) All you would have been doing is claiming benefits from a system into which you previously paid and would pay into again once you started working. You were supporting yourself.

Kona, you're entirely correct. As I said, it was pride - the admission that I'd failed - which stopped me. I was certainly [i]entitled[/i] to claim, but my shame at being unable to provide an income overrode my desire to claim.

And let's not feel [s]too[/s] [i]even slightly[/i] sorry for me, eh? I earn many multiples of the average wage, so for me to be out of work for five or six months isn't quite the problem it is for others. Added to which, I could have got an interim job within a week if I'd really wanted to, albeit one earning far less than I'd previously been paid. Me not claiming meant there was a little more left for those who really needed it.

Well teamhurtmore you are 100% wrong. Working families tax credit reduced the marginal tax rate greatly. Prior to that it was 90%+ in most cases. after its introduction it was much much less.

There is no doubt this is true. The mirless report - from the institute for fiscal studies that well known rightwing propaganda outfit

Really you need to get some better sources and perhaps open your mind and learn a bit about reality

"I will be no better off working"

See, that attitude really annoys me. How about they have a bit of personal pride and go out and work, rather than simply thinking of it in monetary terms. The vicious cycle of social ills that plague those with that attitude will be perpetuated by that attitude.

I don't expect people to go out and work for free or for slave labour wages, but anyone that refuses work because they'll get more in state handouts, should be denied any benefits.

McBoo- plenty of sources

http://www.family-action.org.uk/standard.aspx?id=12569

Currently, tax credit recipients typically lose 71p for every extra £1 of gross earnings, courtesy of income tax, NIC and tax credit withdrawal. In the new system, they will lose 76p for every extra £1 of gross earnings: 20p in income tax, 12p in NIC, and 44p in UC withdrawal.

http://www.iea.org.uk/blog/does-the-welfare-bill-really-make-work-pay

Ok thanks TJ - your are of course correct. I will dish my academic economic journals/books and the Mirrless propoganda (spit!) and replace it with the Gospel (sic) of TJ. So much better analysed and thought through.

I will actually close my mind at your request (as one of the books is Labour sponsored - but lets not allow facts to get in the way of anything.) I await further enlightenment with interest and eager anticipation. Its so hard being isolated from reality, please forgive me.

[edit - I will ignore the irony, some might say hypocricy in the rolling eyes below. But thanks for the IEA link, interesting article. Doesn't quite say what you claim though does it? Hence I will continue to source my conclusions from the real thing!]

I will bet as usual you will now slag me off rather than listening and trying to learn

I don't expect people to go out and work for free or for slave labour wages, but anyone that refuses work because they they'll get more in state handouts, should be denied any benefits.

TJ that is sarcasm , dont be so touchy, and he has a point - he is quite well versed on this even if you do not like his view/opinion

TJ, Have a word with yourself.