Modern Britain.

I know we have our differences (to put it mildly) but I take my hat off to you for your volunteer work - you are clearly not a moaning socialist but putting your money, or more precisely time (and time is money) where your mouth is. Also I entirely agree that far too much of the Welfare budget is paid to working families. It is a hidden tax transferring money from taxpayers to companies to either increase their profits enabling them to supplement below market rate wages in the name of 'competitiveness'.
Although a little simplistic, my view is, that if a company cannot trade profitably without needing propping up by Govts because it does not pay a living wage, it should not be in business. As for zero hours contracts, whilst there is a limited place for them them in society for those who want it, it should ot be enforced on people and it is being deployed in far too many inappropriate situations to the detriment of employees simply to maximise company profits for shareholders.
One thing (of many) Thatcher did was to abolish the rent act. My late dad moved to Barnsley in the mid 70's having worked in the IR as a valuation officer to take up a position as a local Govt. Rent Officer. This entailed ensuring rents on private landlords reflected the value/condition of the property as well as ensuring the properties were fit for habitation- The rental ceiling was fixed and mandatory ensuring exploitation by private landlords was not (shouldn't be )possible. Of course, abolishing the rent act did away with all that and we ended up woith the situation we have now, exacerbated by the big sell off of Council hoiuses where the revenue generated did not go towards more social housing as promised.

 

)

Actually, does it include, for example, pensioners? I am 63, took early retirement (voluntary redundancy)and currently waiting for my state pension to kick in. My wife is reliant on an actuarily reduce teachers pension being one of those mid-50s wonmen who had two deferrals of state pension from 60 to 63 then 66. As a result, we currently have a net annual household income of around £14k which puts us in the poverty category (albeit we live in Italy which has a similar cost of living to the UK especially as the pound is weak relative to the Euro).

Here's the rub though. We have no mortgage, our car is paid for (bought from new ) , and we have no outstanding debt. Apart from annual holidays and extra one-off expenses we live comfortably within our budget. We also have our savings to supplement our monthly income pending receiving our state pension in a few years to pay for holidays, meals out etc. We are lucky in that we both worked for all our lives with reasonable salaries (although I have no real private pension to speak of). We are not rich by any means but my point is, that technically, if we lived in the UK we would be within the 'poverty ' statistics quoted.

 

Parts of Britain, including Cornwall, Wales and South Yorkshire, are among the poorest in the EU.

The largest part of the benefits budget is paid in pensions (£108b in 2015), followed by family benefits (£44b) and Incapacity (£41b). The rest is Personal Social Services (£34b), Housing benefit (£27b) and finally unemployment benefits (£3b). The pensions budget will increase significantly over the next 10 years, as will Personal Social Care and Incapacity, due to the increasing number of old people.

http://visual.ons.gov.uk/welfare-spending/

We've got effectively 4 choices:
1). Get more workers to pay tax (~300-400,000 per year for the next decade earning the average wage)
2). Charge everyone more tax (probably around 5-6% on every tax rate)
3). Increase the pension age (again!)
4). Implement Logan's Run

Guess which is the only option that isn't an immediate vote loser.

 

I agree that poverty exists but a LOT of it isn't due to income being too low but due to expenditure being too high.

Why can one family on benefits make the money last and buy things they need but yet another family of the same number n identical money needs a good bank and let's their kids go hungry? The only answer can be because it is the parents choices.

Why can i on minimum wage afford a nice house, mortgage, car and afford to feed and clothe myself but another person my age in the same job as me is skint every week, asking for loans left right and centre? The answer is choices.

 

What a fekin clueless idiot you are, Me and many millions more working people are getting poorer because we we have all experienced wage cuts, no pay rises or a pay rise which in real terms is a cut because of cost of living. I won't waste my time commenting on all your post apart from as usual it's a pile of right- wing *****

 

You forgot Option 5.

People start looking after their own families instead of expecting other tax payers to do it for them.

But that would need a radical change in culture - who the hell wants their mum cramping their style - even at 50.

However on reflection I'll go with Logans run. Saves the NHS a fortune, frees up housing, puts cash in young uns pockets, no mobility scooters running you over - world smells less of p!ss.

Anyone caught having a conversation in Morrisons blocking the aisle talking about "have you seen who'se died" on a saturday when they could just as easilty come on a Tuesday is immediatly vaporised. Sounds like a vote winner to me.

 

So people in poverty who can't afford much are making the wrong choices.

 

But you're in Italy

 

Not all people in poverty not but a hell of a lot are.
In some circumstances the combination of number of people in the family plus ability to work and everything combined makes the amount of money (and other uncounted benefits) insufficient. I fully understand that.
In other situations people have spent or arranged long term financial commitments when they have had money available but that has been taken away leaving them in debt such as people who have lost their job.

But when all things are equal which it is in a lot of situations then how can one person make it work but the other can't? The answer simply must be choices.

 

Theres always been poverty in society and no matter how hard you attempt to eradicate it there always will be.

Theres a number of good remarks in this thread about stagnation of wages, oppourtunites over seas and so forth.

For me there are two key issues. 1 you look after your own do not expect others to do this for you 'for free'

2) start to learn the value of money again.

Ad

 

...and that has precisely what to do with this thread?

 

I realise people want to live in a post Fact world where we don't trust experts but the figures are accurate based on tax income and the minimum income that the government itself says people need to live on. Personal experience is irrelevant. if you earn below a certain amount whatever you spend your money on you are in poverty.

 

Which they are. Don't let the modern media narrative convince you otherwise.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

 

Consider being 25 and the idea of having a state pension. Getting it at all, never mind being able to finish work early and have it kick in in your 60s when you've moved abroad. You complain about it disappearing/being delayed now. Imagine where it's going to be in 40 years time.

It's not immigration that's causing the problem, it's the fat, cast iron final salary schemes that have been being set for the last 30 years. That's what's swallowed all of Britain's money. It's just quicker and faster to blame immigrants.

 

No ones denying the fact if youve got less than min wage plus any tax credits you are entitled to coming then your going to to struggle.

But payrises,increases in min wage are irrelevant as the issues will not go away.

Until the modern mindset changes drastically change then things will continuento deteriate. Consumerism buy now pay forever I want it now credit reliant i want it now generations.

Supertykes comments him v his mate are very much the working of the modern world. There seems to to be less supertykes and more of folk like his mate.

The only things that are essential is a roof over your head. Ability to keep it warm. Ability to buy.and put hot food in your belly. Clothes on your back. Ability to get to your place of employment.

Owt else is a luxury.

I grew up in conditions that were a lot harsher than todays kids are under barring some of the very worst conditions.
So did a fair number of other on here.

I often get confused how people can cite they are in the **** money wise when theyve got a nice selction of mod cons in their gaff. .

 

Your previous comment "benefits are a right" (selectively quoted from my earlier post) Why are they a right? I agree in that a civilised society has a mechanism for looking after people in difficulty but with that comes individual responsibility. Immigration was not even mentioned by me but when the system is under strain, adding thousands of dependents on welfare to the system doesn't help. It has nothing to do with race, creed or colour, it is logistics. Disliking or abusing someone because of their nationality, colour of their skin, or ancestry is Racism. Showing concern for the strain placed on a societal structure when mass migration occurs for whatever reason is not, in spite of what left wing snowflakes keep asserting.

In respect to your comments about Pensions, which incidentally are NOT benefits nor included in the welfare budget as they are a separate issue the 'deferred pensions' was talking about are the State Pension NOT the TP . As regards fat cat final salary pension schemes, I wonder if you are aware that Teachers pensions for example were contributory with a monthly deduction from employees topped up by the LEA (Exactly the same as many private employers pension schemes) Someone working for 35+ years for the same LEA paying NI ((and as a monthly contribution being a percentage of taxable income the higher the salary the more paid into the NI pot).

Most importantly, Teachers pension scheme is well run and was never in deficit, the scheme was adjusted downwards when there was a possibily that it coul fall into deficit. The problem with Final Salary schemes occurred when Gordon Brown raided pension funds. When they were conceived they were affordable Funnily enough the PS sector schemes fell into deficit by roughly the same amount as he took. The media lumped all the PS schemes teachers, nurses, firemen, doctors Civil servants etc into one screaming headline when they declared the huge PS deficit, when in fact not all are.

In short 'Fat Cat' pensions, as you call them' do exist for some e.g. MPs, MEPs, Senior Civil Servants, Senior Police officers but are not as widespread in the PS as you may think. Whilst pay differentials have reversed to the point where Public sector pay has in many cases outstripped Private sector , 30 to 40 years ago people went into vocational jobs, nrsing, teaching, etc accepting that they would receive lower than average pay in exchange for job security and a decenbt pension at the end of it.

I think to put all the blame on the older generation for the state of public finances is unfair. Chronic debt brought on by the I want it all and I want it now did start after the austerity 50s and the banks made it easy to get credit from the mid 70s onwards ( no more saving for something or having to see the bank manager for an interview when you wanted loan to buy a car, or something on HP like I did when I was in my early twenties) It was a post war reaction to rationing, and extreme austerity.

The UK IS wealthy (in terms of generating income -GNP) but the accrued debt and interest on that debt is the problem but the people who would keep that wealth in circulation by spending in the UK i.e. joe average does not see that wealth. The money ends up in off shore accounts or in the bank accounts of the Ultra rich where it does little or no good. Don't bother calling me a hypocrite as it is a two way street migrant workers come to the UK we leave the UK. Besides, our state pension is taxable in UK NOT in the country of residence so we still contribute without being a drain on Welfare ( NHS, heating allowances etc.) Private pensions are taxed in the country of residence so both countries benefit to some extent



I have avoided making it personal, like you seem to do as you appear to imply that you resent me moving abroad. I always find it amusing that some of the Socialists/ Communist leaning posters on here criticise me for migratin whilst accusing anyone who criticises immigrants coming to the UK as racist xenophobic etc .

 

Top post. Its hard to find anything in that post that I disagree with.

 

I hate to go all 'age warfare' but they are a benefit. I'm 31 and nobody of my age or younger will get one, or if we do we'll be well into our 80s. We're paying for your pensions, not our own.

Even if you don't buy that argument, I don't see the fundamental difference between it and, say, JSA. I pay tax and NI so that it's there for others, and I don't see why I shouldn't consider myself to have a right to it when I'm in need.

 

I've done that! Kind of. Seeing as it apparently wasn't clear, you've got it backwards. I'm perfectly happy for anybody to migrate to wherever they like, and that includes you.

I just have a problem with the hypocrisy of a migrant criticising other migrants just for migrating (justifying it, as I remember, essentially along the lines of "I'm better off than they are so it's different", and ignoring any and all evidence which suggests that migrants, as a group, contribute to the economy), and somebody who lives quite happily in another country supporting a movement which removes my right to do exactly the same thing.

The latter, in particular, makes me angry - more angry than you can even begin to imagine. I'm glad you find it amusing though.

 

The state pension is the largest part of the welfare budget. Add in the social care and disability payments for pensioners it comes to 70-80% of the total welfare spend and it is increasing significantly over the next few years.

One of the advantages the teachers pension fund has is the average life expectancy of teachers on retirement. Llast I heard, it was under 2 years.