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

Ian - this is the classic teamhurtmore tactic - its really very unpleasant.

he will refuse to listen to anyone whos view does not agree with his then comes in with this unpleasant mocking tone

he will refuse to listen to anyone whos view does not agree with his then comes in with this unpleasant mocking tone

Not sure you're the right person to be making this point.

LOL
so getting less than state benefit [ the bare minimum you need to keep you on the cusp of poverty] would not be a slave wage ...genius , well thought out policy.

Back in 2000 I found myself unemployed. I took a job as a labourer for a roofing company, earning £40 per week. No doubt I could have got more in benefits, but the job kept me busy, got me fit and gave me a sense of achievement rather than slobbing about the house all day because the government would give me more money.

TJ - listen to Ian and do yourself a favour.

You start by making assumptions about my first post, continue to state that I am 100% wrong, mis-quote your own references, tell me to open my mind, learn a bit about reality and then get upset by some mild ribbing. Get a grip! Or are you the internet bully who prefers to cry "bully"? Now that really is unpleasant!

Absolutely and currently live on a lot less. I am self employed though mostly unemployed and being priced out of work by people signing on who can afford to quote lower. It appears to be the usual tory option of tackling the easier targets but personaly I would say yes £26,000 a year is too high unless you have paid into the system for a very long time.

You shouldnt selectively quote your sources Jeremy. You missed a bit

For example, for someone paying income tax and national insurance, receiving Tax Credits at more than the family element, and housing benefit and council tax benefit, marginal deduction rates can currently be as high as 95.5%, meaning that someone would only keep 4.5p in each additional pound earned.

The Universal Credit claims to relieve this problem. It does this with a single withdrawal rate of 65% of net income, which, for households paying income tax and national insurance, leads to an overall marginal deduction rate of 76% - undoubtedly considerably lower than the 95.5% some households face

he will refuse to listen to anyone whos view does not agree with his then comes in with this unpleasant mocking tone

Ironing etc.

Nice to see nothing changes, TJ could you be any more supercilious?

he will refuse to listen to anyone whos view does not agree with his then comes in with this unpleasant mocking tone

Sorry, who are we talking about now? No idea about previous history, but in this thread teamhurtmore appears to be conducting a more civilised debate than TJ. Right up to the point where he clearly got impatient with being endlessly patronised, anyway 😉

really very unpleasant

Of course all economics is populated by the right wing who like to pretend it is science; i would treat it with a huge pinch of salt personally - the left get the equally powerful sociology to do the same for us.

Not sure you're the right person to be making this point.

+1

Spot on Mike - apologises for being drawn into such behaviour!!

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.

Teamhurtmore

It was so predictable you would make the personal attack. - shows the paucity of your argument

The think is I have real experience and real knowledge of the effects on real people and know that what you state is simply wrong.

I am simply not going to engage with you anymore.

Edinburgh defence is engaged.

Konabunny: Let me count the fallacies.

- You don't get 24k on JSA.

I never said you did.. I said that an unemployed couple with three kids living is a cheap rented house @ £400 per month get that in benefits.

Picking and choosing which benefits fit your slant on the story is silly.. £24k is the amount you get in total benefits excluding all the extras such as free school meals, clothing grants etc etc. That is a fact.

Thanks TJ - you a have merely answered my question on the previous page!

JY - steer clear of the LSE with comments like that!! 😉

I do not see why you cannot sign on if you have savings over £4000 if its still that.
As this is money I have already paid taxes on. If I have nothing I would be able to sign on. It does suggest that if you are on the financial edge you would be better off falling over it when dealing with the government.

I do not see why you cannot sign on if you have savings over £4000

IIRC you can obtain contribution based benefits if you've been made redundant and have a suitable history of NI payments behind you. This is not means tested and still applies even if you had a million quid in the bank. Only paid for a set number of months though.

26 weeks and you may only get your NI paid depending on the redundancy terms as they may still be "paying you" your notice period.
2 years full NI iirc
You can always sign on you just dont get any money but you will get your NO stamp paid

The think is I have real experience and real knowledge of the effects on real people and know that what you state is simply wrong.

I am simply not going to engage with you anymore.

I think we have been here before......

😐

elzorillo - Member

"Konabunny: Let me count the fallacies.

- You don't get 24k on JSA."

I never said you did.. I said that an unemployed couple with three kids living is a cheap rented house @ £400 per month get that in benefits.

Picking and choosing which benefits fit your slant on the story is silly.. £24k is the amount you get in total benefits excluding all the extras such as free school meals, clothing grants etc etc. That is a fact.

Um

elzorillo - Member

£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.

You did.

[img] [/img]

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

You don't get 24k on JSA.

I never said you did.

😆 🙄 😆

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.

So thats the Quuen screwed then, just before her retirement party.

If anyone is scared to read the Institute of Fiscal Studies right wing propoganda, I will save them the effort. They merely predict that 500,000 more children will be made poor by the proposed cuts. Bl**dy fascists, how dare they! 😉

kona, it's probably a combination of the two, if I'm honest. I was certainly entitled to claim, and you're correct to state that I've paid into the fund. Sure, I had savings to draw upon, but I could have drawn upon what is, effectively, my fund.

As I said, I chose not to. I suspect there are many others who do the same.

Lifer: Konabunny:

I dont know why you insist in twisting my words.. I have never mentioned JSA or any individual benefit. I said the amount an unemployed family will receive in benefits for a VERY modest house.

Here is a summary of how that benefit is made up.. exactly as I said, from the gov website.

[img] [/img]

Now you obviously have some agenda here, but it isnt working (mind the pun) but keep it up as it's fun to watch.

Have a go yourself.. you may find it's not worth working..[url= http://www.turn2ushelp.entitledto.co.uk/viewhelp.aspx?sid=13&ctyid=0&helpfile=howtouse ]Turn2us[/url]

Going back to my original point that it is the Labour Party that seems to be facing the biggest challenge in terms of knowing how to address his issue, there is an interesting article in The New Statesman today:

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2012/01/labour-market-benefits-support

..interesting thoughts on where Labour should be focused.

teamhurtmore - a basic error right at the beggining of that piece

and the jobs she's qualified to do would almost certainly leave her worse off.

Not suprising from another right wing propaganda organ

The illustration looks like an ex council house - that piece says there is no chance of her getting a council house. My point reinforced - the major issue here is the lack of affordable housing

Who removed the ability of the councils to set fair rent? who ensured that council housing was in short supply? Both tory policies and this is the foreseeen result.

I have never mentioned JSA

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

Is it:

a) Tone deaf organ grinder's monkey benefit?
b) XC jeyboy benefit?
c) Jobseeker's Allowance?

Is it:

a) Tone deaf organ grinder's monkey benefit?
b) XC jeyboy benefit?
c) Jobseeker's Allowance?

So is someone on benefits shown in my calculations above not required to look for work?

Edit: I truly dont get where you're coming from.. I say that the above unemployed family with receive £24k.. you pretty much call me a liar.. I show you the results from the gov page.. still I'm a liar.. I give you a link to the site so you can check the figures.. still a liar..

You sir, are a buffoon.

Not suprising from another right wing propaganda organ

The New Statesman ?

<raises eyebrow>

So is someone on benefits shown in my calculations above not required to look for work?

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

You don't get 24k on JSA.

I never said you did.

No. They could be in work and below the means testing income thresholds.

[img] [/img] I already said they were both unemployed about half a dozen times.

if you get income support you dont need to sign on so you would not be going into a job centre to prove anything- this is a fact and not just an Internet fact*.
Only JSA required you to sign on
It is a fairly meaningless STW spat though
TJ iam not sure you can claim someone will always be "significantly better of ". Better off yes but significantly No.
It could easily be less than 100 per month before travel for example

* to save time arguing
Income Support is extra money to help people on a low income. It’s for people who don't have to sign on as unemployed. Whether you qualify or not and how much you get depends on your circumstances. Find out more, including who can get it.
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/BenefitsTaxCreditsAndOtherSupport/On_a_low_income/DG_10018708

I already said they were both unemployed about half a dozen times.

And so the comment

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

Junkyard: so I get the £24k and I dont even have to prove I'm looking for work? this gets better all the time [img] [/img]

God damn those pesky, lazy cretins working away!

so I get the £24k and I dont even have to prove I'm looking for work?

elzorillo - Member
Lifer: Konabunny:

I dont know why you insist in twisting my words..

I quoted you directly. In full.

elzorillo - Member
Junkyard: so I get the £24k and I dont even have to prove I'm looking for work? this gets better all the

You think someone gets £24k income support?

muslamic rayguns

Those are my favourite weapons in Call of Duty. Awezoms

Sorry to come late to the party, I've been busy earning a living 😀

Junky

Wages are too low. If the bare minimum a society decides you need to live on is only marginally less than a wage you can earn from work then the problem lies with the wages not the benefits.
Many billion pound profit making multinationals pay the minimum wage for example. I would target these before those out of work as they can actually afford to do something about this.

Isn't that a fairly strong argument for the good old [b]free market[/b]?

If the companies don't pay enough for people to live on, then they need to pay more, or lose their staff, rather than the taxpayer artificially boosting low wages... if anything, its an argument for lower benefits.

Lifer: You think someone gets £24k income support?

I cant make it any clearer than the breakdown (screenshot) I posted above. Why you feel the need to ignore it is your business.

To repeat myself yet again.. £24k is the total benefits for the above family where both adults are unemployed and living in a very modest (£400 pm) rented property.

Figures from official site.

yes the days before we had benefits when the free market reigned were not the dark satanic mills of folk lore but a time of unbridled opportunity and wealth for the poor [ i am not sure how we had poor people before we had benefits though if it is so good ah well lets not dwell on that]. Its one of the free markets greatest strengths and you are right unregulated capitalist hell bent on profit at all costs would indeed look after their workers and not drive wages down.If the history of capitalism [ and the recent banking fiasco] has taught us one thing it is surely that regulation is bad and markets really work for the betterment of the poor.

Benefits were a response to the inequities of the market not the cause of it.