x404.co.uk http://x404.co.uk/forum/ |
|
£26,000 http://x404.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=15701 |
Page 1 of 3 |
Author: | cloaked_wolf [ Mon Jan 23, 2012 1:20 pm ] | |||||||||
Post subject: | £26,000 | |||||||||
BBC News
|
Author: | cloaked_wolf [ Mon Jan 23, 2012 1:25 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: £26,000 |
£26,000 is feck loads. That's more than my parents earned. Hell, it's more than my paypacket for the first two years I worked as a doctor! I think I'm going to lie down! |
Author: | Linux_User [ Mon Jan 23, 2012 1:34 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: £26,000 |
It's not that much if you consider joint claims. Two people on my rather modest salary would be on over £35k. It is, however, still more than a couple would earn on minimum wage. |
Author: | adidan [ Mon Jan 23, 2012 1:57 pm ] | |||||||||
Post subject: | Re: £26,000 | |||||||||
If I heard IDS correctly the £26k is pretty much equivalent to a £35k gross salary after tax. Not too shabby. I often complain about Government plans but I must agree with the idea that if you are willing to move to an area for a job you must be willing to move away from an area if you cannot afford to live there when you lose your job. People have to alter their boundaries depending on what they can afford, not what the State can afford. That said, this takes doesn't account for differing situations. I would much prefer to see a system like that in Finland whereby you receive benefit proportionate to your wages (obviously more is paid into this system to make it work) that reduces to a basic level over a period of time. This may give some people enough time to find further employment in their field that may be relatively geographically specific rather than have them forced out due to funds. Cases like these will suffer more than those who have been unemployed and receiving benefit for some time who, realistically, should look to live within their means if nothing has been happening on the job front for them for some time. |
Author: | veato [ Mon Jan 23, 2012 2:32 pm ] | |||||||||
Post subject: | Re: £26,000 | |||||||||
I don't want to see kids suffer but maybe if they cut benefits enough and make housing more difficult to obtain then future generations wont see benefits as a lifestyle choice? |
Author: | jonbwfc [ Mon Jan 23, 2012 2:47 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: £26,000 |
I'm not one of those people who believes that people who don't work for themselves should only be given subsistence living. There seems to be a portion of the British population who would like to see a return to the Poor House. I believe we as a country are not, in the grand scheme of things, poor. we can afford to be generous particularly to ourselves and particularly, given most of us aren't for example an inherited millionaire and cabinet minister, 'there but for the grace of god go I'. I do like the idea in many mainland European countries that the state will support you if you lose your job but in the long term that support is limited, and scales down to a workable minimum. However, equally, I don't think we should make 'living off the state' a viable lifestyle choice. People who work should see that doing so gains them something over what the state would provide for them. I think therefore that state support should be limited to something around the national average wage but should maybe be a bit lower - not so low that people who don't have jobs live a miserable existence but low enough so that there's an obvious personal benefit to being in a job. (incidentally, this also means that IMO the minimum wage should be quite a bit higher but that's a separate discussion). I would be fine with a cap on state support at something like 'Uk average wage minus 10%', that gets revised every six months. However, I'm against the option that some benefits should be exempt from the cap. it's either a cap or its not. Jon |
Author: | davrosG5 [ Mon Jan 23, 2012 3:48 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: £26,000 |
The main thing that strikes me about this is that if it's a £26k cap applied uniformly across the entire country then it will effectively be pushing unemployed out of wealthy areas. £26k a year is quite a bit of money for a childless couple living in Hull but it's not going to go quite as far for a family of 5 somewhere in London or Surrey for example. Out of sight, out of mind so to speak. Job secuirty isn't exactly what it was so finding it necessary to move regularly is going be detrimental to childrens education nto to mention also being incredibly stressful for all concerned. I'm no more keen to have people deciding to 'live on the dole' for their entire lives than most other people but this seems like a rather bad way to go about changing the situation. |
Author: | jonbwfc [ Mon Jan 23, 2012 4:58 pm ] | ||||||||||||||||||
Post subject: | Re: £26,000 | ||||||||||||||||||
We're rather back to the 'don't have kids you can't afford' argument though. If someone has lost their job and already have a family then that's a fairly traumatic thing but a system that would cope with all possible eventualities is either going to be very broad (and therefore hugely expensive) or so mired in paperwork as to be unworkable. Some people -'outliers on the graph' if you will - are still going to have a somewhat hard time of it but there are never going to not be those people, in a scheme with a budget that's at all affordable. The state is not there to keep you in whatever lifestyle you have become accustomed to, in whatever place you have been accustomed to it. It's there to make sure you have a reasonable food diet and you have a roof over your head that doesn't leak or make you ill with damp or whatever and lights in your house at night and warmth in winter. If that means you have to move house, well, to a degree I think people should meet the state half way. Lots of families move house for various reasons who do have a job. Amazingly enough, we don't have huge numbers of traumatised children because of it. My family moved house twice while I was a child, I think I coped with it pretty well. As long as it's not happening every few months or more, I don't really see that the state should pay significantly to keep this person rather than that person, simply because of the place they want carry on living in. At some level, it's also not fair to the childless couple in Hull. Why should they get less help than someone else just because they don't live in Knightsbridge? No, I think you have to set a cap and let that be that. Anything else, you're just making money for lawyers and civil servants. With one cap everyone knows where they stand, they know what help they're going to get and they can figure out how to make the best of that. It comes back to the simple statement that the state is there to help you have a life but it's not there to help you have any life you feel like having.
I don't think it is a plan to change the situation, at least in terms of getting people back to work. It's simply a plan to limit public liability to the welfare state. In purely economic terms, it's something we've actually needed in some form for years. For the last few years, the state has paid out more in benefits that it's earned in income tax and the gap is getting increasingly broad. I don't think that's a sustainable situation in the long term, do you. And yes, I agree we should also be getting in a lot more tax from some people who are avoiding it... |
Author: | Spreadie [ Mon Jan 23, 2012 6:07 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: £26,000 |
Equivalent to £35k gross? ![]() That's a fair bit more than I earn. Why can't they link benefits to previous contributions? If you're suddenly claiming benefits after paying tax and NI for the last ten years, it's fair to assume you're not one who is content to sit on your ar$e. Some waster, with no health issues, who hasn't lifted a finger for the last ten years clearly isn't trying hard enough. Nooooo, we can't have that. Been in regular work for the last ten years but now find yourself unemployed? Super, let's see you make do on £65pw job seekers allowance. Serial scrounger? Come on in, how many bedrooms do you need in your council house. ![]() |
Author: | Fogmeister [ Mon Jan 23, 2012 6:41 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: £26,000 |
I was listening to Radio 2 this aft and they were talking about this very issue. They had a couple of people phone in and the only person who I would say was ranting on the phone was saying things like... "Why do the have to pick on the poor? Why don't they pick on the rich? Oh, maybe because it's [sic] their mates!" etc... What they don't seem to be realising is that the people that are getting the worst deal out of this are not the poor, nor are the rich, it is the people like me (and a couple of others on this board) who are working their arses off and getting a smaller salary than the hand outs that these guys are getting for doing b*gger all. Even after the cap they will be earning more than I do. You may argue that it's a family income etc... but there is a guy at work who is the only earner in a family of 4 and he earns only a little more than me. (Maybe around £30,000 if I took a guess). He is working hard for it and renting a house and getting by. He doesn't buy expensive TVs or go on holiday often because he can't afford to. I think any hand outs like this should just be cut. It is the only part of the whole "benefits" system that I think is a complete joke. |
Author: | l3v1ck [ Mon Jan 23, 2012 7:06 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: £26,000 |
I think there should be a cap. It's not right that you can scrounge more from benefits than you could if you went out to work. |
Author: | steve74 [ Mon Jan 23, 2012 7:51 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: £26,000 |
I had to laugh when I heard David Cameron on the news this morning talking about people who were, in his words, "earning benefits of more than £26,000". Sorry, but "earning"? Erm, earning implies that you do something in exchange for money. That's partly what's wrong with the system, people seem to think they're earning their benefits and are entitled to them. WTF? After tax, I take home less than £26,000 and I work a full week for it, sometimes extra unpaid hours and late nights if a deadline demands it. It makes you wonder why we bother. Sorry, this is starting to venture into Daily Mail territory! ![]() |
Author: | cloaked_wolf [ Mon Jan 23, 2012 8:24 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: £26,000 |
I've think I've recovered a little now. As above, capping benefits at £26k (equiv to £35k salary) - I could happily stop working and just live off benefits in that case. Why the fudge should I go to work? I don't agree with the idea of a Poor house but definitely feel the idea should be that working even a minimum paid job is far better than being on benefits. |
Author: | jonbwfc [ Mon Jan 23, 2012 9:37 pm ] | |||||||||
Post subject: | Re: £26,000 | |||||||||
Both your points are actually symptoms of the same issue - we pay far too many people far too little, and a few people far far too much. In reality, being a doctor should be a very, VERY well paid job. Even being trainee should be something people would aspire to be. There should be no question at any point that someone who could be a doctor would think they'd rather be kept by the state. Same with teachers and nurses. Same with Engineers and research scientists. But we don't. We pay most of those professions buttons. We pay some professions - finance, management, entertainment, professional sport - amounts of money that are way, way out proportion to what they contribute to the rest of us as a whole. So with the minimum wage. The minimum wage should be set high enough so that a full time job - any full time job - is a better option than unemployment. We don't. We set it to just above destitution levels to let a lot of companies get away with paying poor wages, and then we all take up the slack in taxes which are paid as benefits to the people companies won't pay proper wages to. The whole system is broken. Jon |
Author: | ProfessorF [ Mon Jan 23, 2012 10:07 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: £26,000 |
I genuinely think the Scandinavian system of the maximum salary being ten times the lowest salary inside any firm is a Good Idea. I'd also like some of the larger executive salaries to be justified to their employees. |
Page 1 of 3 | All times are UTC |
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |