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

with kids and you work 16 hours or single and over 30 hours and you are better off.
Outside these rules it may depend but the system is designed to make it better off in work that out of work. Odd exceptions but its a system to benefit the majority which it does for all but a few atypical exemplars
Paradoxically this often means subsidising the super rich to maximise their profits by paying lower wages as we all bale out low paid workers via the benefits system.
yes the system is imperfect but I am not sure this is the best method of achieving this
Its worth noting many low paid workers still get Housing benefit…will be interesting to see how the SE functions without low paid cleaners etc…perhaps we could just use east Europeans living 6 to a house to solve it…this should keep the right win happy

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.

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.

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.

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.
I am sure they will say all the things they said about the minimum wage

[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 entitled to claim, but my shame at being unable to provide an income overrode my desire to claim.

And let’s not feel too even slightly 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.

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.

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.

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

Its fairly sarcastic and mildly condescending but it is NOT very unpleasant, it is barely mildly unpleasant]. He said he is reading proper stuff on this in proper economics journals rather than internet links…not that silly a strategy for the pursuit of knowledge

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.