Remember this figure: more than £18k per head

[Ffermer Bach]

Working Tax Credits shouldn't exist. People should be paid well for doing good jobs.

Housing Benefit shouldn't exist either. Government should be building housing for people that need it and giving low paid people good skills to remove the need for Working Tax Credits.

Housing = Greed at Council level.

I always thought working families tax credit allows the likes of Amazon to pay below the living wage, while the government subsidises their wages (and at the same time, don't pay much tax either!).

Lockdown, has shown us, that the jobs on the minimum wage are usually the indispensable jobs, whilst often the higher paid jobs can "migrate to work from home" and really not do that much and don't make that much difference either. If everyone stacking shelves in Tesco had decided to work from home the country would have collapsed!

 

[Old Boar]

Zero hour contracts are the work of the devil. You do not know how many hours you will get from one day to the next, so have no idea if you will make the rent this week. (Mortgage lenders will not lend on a zero hours contract).
You also cannot claim any benefits until the month is up and you can prove what you earned. Then wait 6 weeks for the benefit people to make a decision...
Then go back to square one as a different week does not count as the income could be different.
It is also difficult to find other jobs while working. Come for an interview or lose half a days pay and then no job offer.

Many women juggled part time work with child care in the past, and were not entitled to a pension from the part time jobs. Add in many women born in the 1950's get less pension than a man born on the same day, even if they have more stamps.

18k per year is £305 a week.

 

[ollie989898]

The public sector is far too large, you have Tony Bliar to thank for that. Needs to be drastically shrunk, the good thing is that private enterprise would gladly take a lot of these people as we have a general shortage of labour in the country.

 

[ollie989898]

Zero hour contracts are the work of the devil. You do not know how many hours you will get from one day to the next, so have no idea if you will make the rent this week. (Mortgage lenders will not lend on a zero hours contract).
You also cannot claim any benefits until the month is up and you can prove what you earned. Then wait 6 weeks for the benefit people to make a decision...
Then go back to square one as a different week does not count as the income could be different.
It is also difficult to find other jobs while working. Come for an interview or lose half a days pay and then no job offer.

Many women juggled part time work with child care in the past, and were not entitled to a pension from the part time jobs. Add in many women born in the 1950's get less pension than a man born on the same day, even if they have more stamps.

18k per year is £305 a week.

Zero hours contracts work for me in my present situation- both of my roles are on this basis and have been for over the last 18 months. I choose when I want to work and if I can't do any shifts, that's my decision. Both employers would rather I was on a full/part time basis and I was so offered this from both at the start but I chose not to as I knew I wouldn't be able to work full time for long.

 

[Ashtree]

The UK has, by generally recognised figures*, just over eleven million people on 'low incomes' / 'in poverty', and spends over £210 billions on welfare. That work out at over £18k per head - not per family, but for every single person in these categories, man, woman and child.

This being so how is it in any way possible that we still have 'poor' people? Take a typical family, two adults and two children, and there will be over £70k spent on them.

This is madness.






*meaning that neither HMG nor the Opposition challenge them

Speaking of figures….

Redirect Notice

 

[Danllan]

Speaking of figures….

Redirect Notice

Yep, that's billions and billions of pounds remaining in the UK rather than going to subsidise them over in Europe.

 

[HatsOff]

The UK has, by generally recognised figures*, just over eleven million people on 'low incomes' / 'in poverty', and spends over £210 billions on welfare. That work out at over £18k per head - not per family, but for every single person in these categories, man, woman and child.

This being so how is it in any way possible that we still have 'poor' people? Take a typical family, two adults and two children, and there will be over £70k spent on them.

This is madness.






*meaning that neither HMG nor the Opposition challenge them

Errr....

£212, 000, 000, 000 ÷ 67, 200, 000 = £3154.76

 

[Danllan]

Errr....

£212, 000, 000, 000 ÷ 67, 200, 000 = £3154.76

Err... I wrote of eleven millions, derr...!

 

[Lowland1]

Figures from 2015, but I doubt the proportions have changed much...

View attachment 1011775

Which would you do away with @Danllan ?

Easy means or asset test State pensions. If you are an old couple living in a multi-bedroomed house worth several hundred thousand pounds you shouldn’t be allowed a State pension. This might force people to liquidate their assets and downsize thus freeing up housing for poorer families by reducing house prices and increasing their availability which in return will reduce housing benefit . Sorted . When do i get my cut of the Chancellor of the Exchequors salary for this inspired idea.

 

[capfits]

Easy means or asset test State pensions. If you are an old couple living in a multi-bedroomed house worth several hundred thousand pounds you shouldn’t be allowed a State pension. This might force people to liquidate their assets and downsize thus freeing up housing for poorer families by reducing house prices and increasing their availability which in return will reduce housing benefit . Sorted . When do i get my cut of the Chancellor of the Exchequors salary for this inspired idea.

Radical.
Probably make Daily fail run out of ink campaigning against it.

 

[Lowland1]

Radical.
Probably make Daily fail run out of ink campaigning against it.

Yeah I know. I don’t think it would win many votes amongst the older folk but it might work for the younger generation. Obviously it’s all about getting elected not necessarily doing what’s best.

 

[Muck Spreader]

Easy means or asset test State pensions. If you are an old couple living in a multi-bedroomed house worth several hundred thousand pounds you shouldn’t be allowed a State pension. This might force people to liquidate their assets and downsize thus freeing up housing for poorer families by reducing house prices and increasing their availability which in return will reduce housing benefit . Sorted . When do i get my cut of the Chancellor of the Exchequors salary for this inspired idea.

Why should I be forced into contributing to my state pension, if I can only ever receive it by going to live in a caravan?

 

[Hindsight]

Why should I be forced into contributing to my state pension, if I can only ever receive it by going to live in a caravan?

I suppose none of us actually contribute directly toward our state pension, as it doesn't go to a fund but just pays those currently being paid state pension. We rely on the next cohort along to do the same through compulsion of taxation.?

 

[Lowland1]

Why should I be forced into contributing to my state pension, if I can only ever receive it by going to live in a caravan?

As @Hindsight says you don’t pay for your pension directly or healthcare or education etc the Government takes your money and does with it what it wants. I wouldn’t force anyone into a caravan I’m not a monster but single bed flats would be fine. Anyway the question was where to reduce Government spending and that’s my plan.

 

[caveman]

As @Hindsight says you don’t pay for your pension directly or healthcare or education etc the Government takes your money and does with it what it wants. I wouldn’t force anyone into a caravan I’m not a monster but single bed flats would be fine. Anyway the question was where to reduce Government spending and that’s my plan.

Be better if the youngsters could build a mud hut as a start on whatever piece of land they could aquire.
No planning restrictions.
Only qualification being in need of their first home.

 

[Hindsight]

Why should I be forced into contributing to my state pension, if I can only ever receive it by going to live in a caravan?

As @Hindsight says you don’t pay for your pension directly or healthcare or education etc the Government takes your money and does with it what it wants. I wouldn’t force anyone into a caravan I’m not a monster but single bed flats would be fine.

There was a fella being interviewed on radio 4 news yesterday about the rising price of energy. He and his wife in early 70's. Live in Surbiton or somewhere nearby. He described his way of life. Live in a four bed detached house, which he describe as modest (as I would ours, and everyone does who considers themselves well - normal) Runs a car. And he said he and his wife have some modest occupational pension. Anyway the upshot was that he and his wife he said will if cost of living continues inflationary rise will be forced to consider selling there house and moving somewhere smaller and cheaper. He sounded very pleasant chap. Could easily have been me or many, many 'normal' folk I know. And this is the difficulty for any government of any colour. SO many millions of 'normal' people have wealth. But none of us consider ourselves wealthy. And none of us wish or consider we should liquidate the wealth to pay for our day too day living. A real problem emanating from 60 years of the baby boomer generation and change in society. Much simpler when most normal folk rented a house. Undertook manual work. Didn't expect to have a car or holiday abroad and all the things we have become used to. Worked until mid 60s and then retired on a state pension and died soon after or managed by living simply. And the children would be local so could be cared for until death without repairing to a care home. Interesting world. Hey ho. Cheers.

 

[Muck Spreader]

As @Hindsight says you don’t pay for your pension directly or healthcare or education etc the Government takes your money and does with it what it wants. I wouldn’t force anyone into a caravan I’m not a monster but single bed flats would be fine. Anyway the question was where to reduce Government spending and that’s my plan.

I don't want to live in a single bed flat either. You still pay one way or another and the pension you ultimately get is dependent on what you contribute. Probably not just a matter of reducing spending, the Tories did that for 9 years without much benefit, but picking up more of the tax revenue that ends up in UK controlled tax havens. I doubt there is any UK domiciled cooperate or members of the superrich who don't make use of such facilities, that we basically subsidise.

 

[Lowland1]

Be better if the youngsters could build a mud hut as a start on whatever piece of land they could aquire.
No planning restrictions.
Only qualification being in need of their first home.

That won’t help the construction industry. One day someone will expose the scam that’s the housing industry but as long as peoples houses are going up in price it’s going to be a long while coming.

 

[caveman]

That won’t help the construction industry. One day someone will expose the scam that’s the housing industry but as long as peoples houses are going up in price it’s going to be a long while coming.

That'd be a great big shame.