Page 10 | To think in the UK, in 2022...

HelenMirrensWeightedBlanket · 04/04/2022 08:46

@Florenz

I think the onus needs to be on people that are working rather than people that are on benefits. As long as Labour can be branded as the party for people on benefits, a lot of working people will find it difficult to vote for them. The party was founded to represent workers, I don't know at what point it got away from that.

As a PP said, it’s not either / or. Most people who receive benefits are in work.

Genuine question: why do you think Labour are ‘the party for people on benefits’? Curious to know where this came from.

Waxonwaxoff0 · 04/04/2022 08:57

@Florenz

There needs to be a benefit cap, no-one should earn more on benefits than someone does for working full time. Property prices are kept artificially high by the benefits system. If people could only rent or buy according to what they earnt, prices would fall dramatically.

Er, there is a benefit cap. There is also a cap on how much you can claim towards housing which is often much less than private rent costs. For example, the maximum housing benefit you can claim for a 2 bed property where I live is about £450pm. Private rent costs for 2 bedroom properties are about £575-£650, so benefits do not cover the rent costs.

Waxonwaxoff0 · 04/04/2022 09:04

[quote bigyellowTpot]@Waxonwaxoff0 No not at all this is honestly true as I often wonder myself how they afford it. I do know quite a few of the families are claiming to be single parents but actually have their partners living with them, nobody checks up so they get away with it for years. Also maybe some are using credit cards. When you live in these so called deprived areas you do see how well off people actually are. I actually think the people who are the worst off In society are single people with no children who are working in minimum wage or low paid jobs as they get very little help and support. Many cannot afford to live alone so have to stay living at home or house/flat share as could not manage the bills alone.[/quote]
I do live in a deprived area and I see none of what you're talking about. I see a fuck ton of alcoholism on a daily basis.

Maverickess · 04/04/2022 09:07

[quote shabbalabba]@justonanote

The lowest incomes should be able to -

Have food in at all times and be able to do a shop without fear they haven't got enough -YES

Adequately heat their homes and have as much hot water as they need-YES

Have a enough left over for a few little treats. An ice cream, a coffee out once a week, enough to enjoy a cheap trip out every now and then?*- NOT NECESSARILY NO...
[/quote]
So people on a low wage should just exist to provide the service they do in return for their low wages that don't even cover the basics?

Just the endless cycle of working to create profit for someone else while paying bills that create profit for another lot of people, and a right royal telling off if you get ideas above your station that you might be a person with needs and wants too and expect that by working your arse off you should be able to afford them.

Nope, know your place poor people, your existence is merely to facilitate other people and no more, and what's more you should be grateful for being exploited by your betters, it's an honour!

daimbarsatemydogsbone · 04/04/2022 09:11

@BambinaJAS

18:05daimbarsatemydogsbone

The EU was sending EU structural funds to those areas to get them to improve. £Billions over the years.

Many of those same areas voted leave.

You just can't make this up.

And now those same areas (Wales, Cornwall, and in NE/NW) are going to be made materially poorer.

I am done with sympathy. They deserve every inch of poverty coming their way.

So the EU poured in billions of our own money (minus its cut) for years and yet didn't manage to address these issues. Some places remained amongst the most deprived in the EU. What is the point of the EU then? Evidently people in those areas didn't feel they were being helped much, and the factual evidence shows they were amongst the most deprived.

Or is it Schrödinger's EU where only anything good that happens is from the EU and anything negative is attributed to the member state being crap?

mudgetastic · 04/04/2022 09:20

The EU funding DID help the regions

In Scotland this was often made clear- road improvements funded by EU for example always had a big sign up saying so

In the English regions it was not made clear - may be an example of how the English were manipulated against the EU for decades - road improvements and fibre broadband are two examples I know of where areas like Cornwall have had EU funding for provision - otherwise they would have had even less of both

daimbarsatemydogsbone · 04/04/2022 09:24

@mudgetastic

The EU funding DID help the regions

In Scotland this was often made clear- road improvements funded by EU for example always had a big sign up saying so

In the English regions it was not made clear - may be an example of how the English were manipulated against the EU for decades - road improvements and fibre broadband are two examples I know of where areas like Cornwall have had EU funding for provision - otherwise they would have had even less of both

Not suggesting they didn't have the funds - they clearly did, just that it wasn't very effective in some places.

Also this idea about EU funding - yes it came from the EU, but it was UK money coming back from our contributions - we were always net contributors to the EU, so they were only ever returning UK cash to the UK.

mudgetastic · 04/04/2022 09:28

Sayings it's not effective
You have no evidence to support that

All you can say is that it wasn't enough to overcome the inequalities

mudgetastic · 04/04/2022 09:34

Abs yes returning cash to the uk but forcing the uk to spend it to support the less well off regions
Which the uk could have done before but hadn't

That's how taxes generally should work you know - take from the richer people to give to the poorer people , take from the richer regions to fund the less well off regions , take form those that can afford to fund services that help us all like roads and the NHS.

Because everyone is better off if we work together

( should be able to afford if they had basic financial management capability before anyone on 100k starts ranting about their desperate situation)

daimbarsatemydogsbone · 04/04/2022 09:48

@mudgetastic

Sayings it's not effective You have no evidence to support that

All you can say is that it wasn't enough to overcome the inequalities

I'm sorry - you are of course correct, that's what I'm saying.

Original poster

justonanote · 04/04/2022 09:52

@Florenz

There needs to be a benefit cap, no-one should earn more on benefits than someone does for working full time. Property prices are kept artificially high by the benefits system. If people could only rent or buy according to what they earnt, prices would fall dramatically.

Why not? I had a good job before I became a full time carer for a severely disabled DC. I didn't pick his disability

Good luck finding someone else to survive on 2/3 hours sleep max a night

OP posts:

Fandangofran · 04/04/2022 10:47

I'm still trying to get my head around the previous poster who said benefits should be abolished as two people working full time on minimum wage would bring home £3k a month.

How?

37 hours per week is full time at my workplace - no overtime available. If I earned NMW (thank god I don't) according to my calculations I'd only bring in £1523 BEFORE any deductions so a lot less afterwards. I suppose in that case you could find a job with more hours? Or work two jobs? or Three? But there are only so many jobs to go around and, unless you have family support it's hard to work evenings and weekends when childcare is only available Mon-Fri 7-6. Of course ideally partners could work opposite shifts and split childcare and everything would be rosy but again that's ideal world stuff....

As to where the money goes - if you work you generally have to pay for childcare (unless of course we're saying the poor shouldn't breed?? - that's a whole other debate) that can be £1k per child for a full time place. I pay nearly £100 a WEEK just for 2 hours after school club for my two kids. You also need a means to travel to work unless you live right round the corner and that doesn't come for free.

That's before you start on essential bills like utilities, ctax, etc.

No, people who work shouldn't need topping up by the state but unless the minimum wage increases to a more reasonable level (again not ideal if it leads to businesses folding) then that's how it needs to be. Working should guarantee a standard of living.

Ditto basic benefits - the standard allowances were calculated to provide the basics just to allow someone to survive - so they were already bare minimum - unfortunately they haven't increased with the massive cost of living increases so its impossible to live - nothing to do with inabity to budget - you can't budget what you don't have and a fixed income will only stretch so far.

Basic universal credit for a couple is only £509 a month - I can't imagine anyone choosing that as a "lifestyle choice" yes I know a few play the system and claim things they shouldn't but that shouldn't mean we condemn thousands of others to ongoing crushing poverty.

No-one should have to worry about being able to afford basic food and heating. It's fucking barbaric.

Original poster

justonanote · 04/04/2022 10:55

@Fandangofran I find people who think having a full belly and a warm house should be something to ' aspire to' very very worrying individuals, incapable of basic compassion

OP posts:

mudgetastic · 04/04/2022 10:59

NMW
Take home about 1200 a month

Fandangofran · 04/04/2022 11:01

[quote justonanote]@Fandangofran I find people who think having a full belly and a warm house should be something to ' aspire to' very very worrying individuals, incapable of basic compassion

[/quote]
People are sadly conditioned by the media and politicians to believe that anyone in poverty must obviously have done something to deserve it.

Lovemyheathershimmer · 04/04/2022 12:23

I don’t think anyone is having a go at disability benefits. That wasn’t my intention either. The vulnerable and disabled in our society deserve the help and care.

Chestnutpony · 05/04/2022 12:36

@Fandangofran

I'm still trying to get my head around the previous poster who said benefits should be abolished as two people working full time on minimum wage would bring home £3k a month.

How?

37 hours per week is full time at my workplace - no overtime available. If I earned NMW (thank god I don't) according to my calculations I'd only bring in £1523 BEFORE any deductions so a lot less afterwards. I suppose in that case you could find a job with more hours? Or work two jobs? or Three? But there are only so many jobs to go around and, unless you have family support it's hard to work evenings and weekends when childcare is only available Mon-Fri 7-6. Of course ideally partners could work opposite shifts and split childcare and everything would be rosy but again that's ideal world stuff....

As to where the money goes - if you work you generally have to pay for childcare (unless of course we're saying the poor shouldn't breed?? - that's a whole other debate) that can be £1k per child for a full time place. I pay nearly £100 a WEEK just for 2 hours after school club for my two kids. You also need a means to travel to work unless you live right round the corner and that doesn't come for free.

That's before you start on essential bills like utilities, ctax, etc.

No, people who work shouldn't need topping up by the state but unless the minimum wage increases to a more reasonable level (again not ideal if it leads to businesses folding) then that's how it needs to be. Working should guarantee a standard of living.

Ditto basic benefits - the standard allowances were calculated to provide the basics just to allow someone to survive - so they were already bare minimum - unfortunately they haven't increased with the massive cost of living increases so its impossible to live - nothing to do with inabity to budget - you can't budget what you don't have and a fixed income will only stretch so far.

Basic universal credit for a couple is only £509 a month - I can't imagine anyone choosing that as a "lifestyle choice" yes I know a few play the system and claim things they shouldn't but that shouldn't mean we condemn thousands of others to ongoing crushing poverty.

No-one should have to worry about being able to afford basic food and heating. It's fucking barbaric.

My hypothesis is that increasing the basic wages should be good for business. Yes, it increases costs, but how can businesses make money if people have none to spend?

mudgetastic · 05/04/2022 16:15

Businesses make money when enough people have the money to buy thier products

They don't need the whole population to be able to buy thier products

Many financially successful countries /times have been based around 80% of the population living in utter poverty and 20% doing all the spending

Currently I think we are around 10% , likely to rise to 20% of our population in severe poverty

It's not enough for politics to care ( people in severe poverty being less likely to vote ) and the economy actually works better for the ultra rich ( top 10% I guess ) than a more equitable division of wealth

(Their might better spelling )

Chestnutpony · 05/04/2022 22:06

@mudgetastic

Businesses make money when enough people have the money to buy thier products

They don't need the whole population to be able to buy thier products

Many financially successful countries /times have been based around 80% of the population living in utter poverty and 20% doing all the spending

Currently I think we are around 10% , likely to rise to 20% of our population in severe poverty

It's not enough for politics to care ( people in severe poverty being less likely to vote ) and the economy actually works better for the ultra rich ( top 10% I guess ) than a more equitable division of wealth

(Their might better spelling )

People at the top end may have more money in a less equitable society, but actually still have worse life expectancy and wellbeing that people at the top end in a more equitable society (when comparing wealthy countries). See Roger Wilkinson's TED talk.