Re: State Sponsored Slavery : Wed Nov 23, 2011 5:41 pm  

SBR wrote:

They all appear to be referring to the short term and as we are in the middle of a recession it's hardly surprising. The claim was that over the last 30 years income has fallen against the cost of living.

It could be argued (indeed, has been argued) that low wages can cause recession.
It's a valid point, if people don't have money then either a) they don't buy or b) they borrow to buy.

Re: State Sponsored Slavery : Wed Nov 23, 2011 6:06 pm  

OOOOOOOOhhhh sorry for having an opinion.... sorry if it goes against some of your thoughts, but why should someone on benefits be allowed to claim and earnmore than someone doing a full weeks/months work for doing nothing for either the community or the economy. not made up but fact i know of one individual who in benefits and other allowences "earns" £1856 per month, and does nothing for it! how do i know because this scrounging individual is a cousin, one i add i have no respect for. our welfare system breeds idleness and corruption, i have no doubt many people deserve the system, but they should also have an incentive to get out of it too.

Re: State Sponsored Slavery : Wed Nov 23, 2011 9:12 pm  

liedetector wrote:

OOOOOOOOhhhh sorry for having an opinion.... sorry if it goes against some of your thoughts, but why should someone on benefits be allowed to claim and earnmore than someone doing a full weeks/months work for doing nothing for either the community or the economy. not made up but fact i know of one individual who in benefits and other allowences "earns" £1856 per month, and does nothing for it! how do i know because this scrounging individual is a cousin, one i add i have no respect for. our welfare system breeds idleness and corruption, i have no doubt many people deserve the system, but they should also have an incentive to get out of it too.

I watched the TV programme on BBC 2 about the Welfare State a few weeks back. One married couple, both unemployed, with three kids got in total £21000 per year in benefits (that included their housing benefit).

I sat down and worked out our family earnings. I work 37 and 1/2 hours per week, my wife who does non paid voluntary work and we have four kids. Including the family tax credits I get I was less then £1000 per year better off then the family in the programme and I have more kids to provide for.

I'd argue that it's not benefits that are necessarily too high, it's rubbish wages that are far too low. However it does annoy me that if I gave up my crappy paid job and decided that it isn't worth working like the people in the programme I wouldn't get any dole money!

Re: State Sponsored Slavery : Wed Nov 23, 2011 10:10 pm  

liedetector wrote:

OOOOOOOOhhhh sorry for having an opinion.... sorry if it goes against some of your thoughts, but why should someone on benefits be allowed to claim and earnmore than someone doing a full weeks/months work for doing nothing for either the community or the economy. not made up but fact i know of one individual who in benefits and other allowences "earns" £1856 per month, and does nothing for it! how do i know because this scrounging individual is a cousin, one i add i have no respect for. our welfare system breeds idleness and corruption, i have no doubt many people deserve the system, but they should also have an incentive to get out of it too.

For me that'll be when they find a cure for rheumatoid arthritis. That'll be my incentive to "get out of it".

Re: State Sponsored Slavery : Wed Nov 23, 2011 10:32 pm  

liedetector wrote:

OOOOOOOOhhhh sorry for having an opinion...

OOOOOOOOOOhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh (see, we can all go OTT), sorry for having an opinion about your opinion.

That's the way debates and discussion and free speech work.

Re: State Sponsored Slavery : Wed Nov 23, 2011 10:36 pm  

LeighGionaire wrote:

I watched the TV programme on BBC 2 about the Welfare State a few weeks back. One married couple, both unemployed, with three kids got in total £21000 per year in benefits (that included their housing benefit).

I sat down and worked out our family earnings. I work 37 and 1/2 hours per week, my wife who does non paid voluntary work and we have four kids. Including the family tax credits I get I was less then £1000 per year better off then the family in the programme and I have more kids to provide for.

I'd argue that it's not benefits that are necessarily too high, it's rubbish wages that are far too low. However it does annoy me that if I gave up my crappy paid job and decided that it isn't worth working like the people in the programme I wouldn't get any dole money!

As the average family gets ca. GBP 22,000 spent on them per annum by the State (per Robertson's programme on BBC 2 tonight) then I don't think anyone should complain.

Re: State Sponsored Slavery : Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:08 am  

Mintball wrote: If that's down to the recession alone, then why isn't it impacting on those at the very top too? I have access to Google – here's another search: 'falling Uk wages 30 years'. There's plenty. http://www.google.co.uk/search?client=s ... -gaU_Ny7Dg Taking the first hit, from the TUC: Those higher up the income scale have enjoyed a more rapid rise n living standards than those in the bottom 60 per cent of the income distribution, while the super-rich have secured themselves a personal wealth boom on a scale not seen since the end of the nineteenth century. Some people have benefited more than others. The third result shows that incomes have risen but sadly does not correlate that with the rise in the cost of living. Again, yes, income inequality has increased (I've never disputed that), but where is the evidence to backup up the claim that "everyone apart from those at the very top, have seen their incomes fall against the rising cost of living over the last 30 years"?

Mintball wrote: If that's down to the recession alone, then why isn't it impacting on those at the very top too? I have access to Google – here's another search: 'falling Uk wages 30 years'. There's plenty. http://www.google.co.uk/search?client=s ... -gaU_Ny7Dg Taking the first hit, from the TUC: Those higher up the income scale have enjoyed a more rapid rise n living standards than those in the bottom 60 per cent of the income distribution, while the super-rich have secured themselves a personal wealth boom on a scale not seen since the end of the nineteenth century. Some people have benefited more than others. The third result shows that incomes have risen but sadly does not correlate that with the rise in the cost of living. Again, yes, income inequality has increased (I've never disputed that), but where is the evidence to backup up the claim that "everyone apart from those at the very top, have seen their incomes fall against the rising cost of living over the last 30 years"?

Re: State Sponsored Slavery : Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:09 am  

LeighGionaire wrote:

I'd argue that it's not benefits that are necessarily too high, it's rubbish wages that are far too low.

And you'd find many here who would agree with that.

Part of the issue is the cost of housing, reduce that and you'd reduce a great deal of the need for wage rises and reduce the welfare bill too.

Re: State Sponsored Slavery : Thu Nov 24, 2011 9:37 am  

http://www.hrmagazine.co.uk/hro/news/10 ... west-world http://www.financialadvice.co.uk/news/h ... iving.html We know that the cost of housing has risen to crackpot levels – £125,000K for a basic, one-bed flat if you're a 'key worker' now in Hackney, for instance. How many 'key workers' earn over £41K per annum? Let alone how many non-key workers can afford double that for a one-bed flat. We know that people now have to pay tuition fees where once they didn't. We know that domestic utility bills are going through the roof. We know that many (in England at least) have to pay for prescriptions where once they didn't. We know that dental and eye care cost far more than they used to. We know that the cost of transport has risen massively. These are not luxuries. These are basics. And incomes would have had to have risen a lot to have kept pace. BTW SBR – perhaps you could find something to show just how pay has risen to mitigate all these rising costs? 'How young need twice salary of their parents to match the lifestyle'.

http://www.hrmagazine.co.uk/hro/news/10 ... west-world http://www.financialadvice.co.uk/news/h ... iving.html We know that the cost of housing has risen to crackpot levels – £125,000K for a basic, one-bed flat if you're a 'key worker' now in Hackney, for instance. How many 'key workers' earn over £41K per annum? Let alone how many non-key workers can afford double that for a one-bed flat. We know that people now have to pay tuition fees where once they didn't. We know that domestic utility bills are going through the roof. We know that many (in England at least) have to pay for prescriptions where once they didn't. We know that dental and eye care cost far more than they used to. We know that the cost of transport has risen massively. These are not luxuries. These are basics. And incomes would have had to have risen a lot to have kept pace. BTW SBR – perhaps you could find something to show just how pay has risen to mitigate all these rising costs? 'How young need twice salary of their parents to match the lifestyle'.

Re: State Sponsored Slavery : Thu Nov 24, 2011 9:45 am  

Lots of people have been able to ride out and offset these effects because they pay low interest rates on their mortgages, but after a few years of this that lower mortgage has been factored in and got used to. No money has been set aside probably.
If the interest rates go up to double current rates and little else changes, then the faeces will hit the fan.