To wonder how people will financially survive?

[Cupcakeicecream]

To think that many people are struggling already. Food price rises, gas and electric costs. The general cost of living due to inflation from either brexit since the pandemic and Ukraine war. But come on some people were struggling before any of those factors. Financially people will be pushed to breaking christmas will be off the cards general life will stagnate no meals out leisure activities cinema socialising new clothes treat foods. The threat of blackouts and wondering how we will pay bills to keep warm or keep a house running. Never mind buying food the price of it plus the large gaps on shelves. Winter will be miserable. It's becoming impossible to live in this country.

This is ridiculous. So should people sell or kill their children that they had when they were earning a lot but because of say disability or redundancy now can't do that job anymore?*

Haha You're logic is ridiculous! I'm not even sure where to start or how you jumped to that conclusion from what I said! You're adding 1+1 and getting 1 x 10^6!!!!!!

In so far that it warrants and I'm not sure it even does but.... clearly not. But what they may have considered is putting money aside or income insurance whilst they were working prior to being made redundant.... and those with disabilities should be looked after properly with more support than current given to them.

Where did I say or imply people would be living in unheated houses? Clearly they wouldn't and should be. You're assuming will be stuck doing / stay doing the same roles. This assumption is wrong. Why would anyone do this?

By April 2023, if the government does nothing, most of the country won't be able to afford their bills.

By October 2023 everyone who relies on a monthly wage will be struggling.

@blahblahblahspoons

-it's not about some jobs being harder than others. How hard they are is almost irrelevant, whether or not they are valuable to society is what's relevant for setting the minimum wages. How hard they are only comes into it (alongside other factors) when the market (ie other people buying & willing to sell their service!) in setting the price above that
-yes, employers have a responsibility to pay; smart employers who recognise they need to attract and retain good talent already do
-nursing lay freezes. I understood this to be due to bringing historically inflated public sector pay back in alignment with comparable private sector roles (then coupled with a tightening of the public purse following various crises); in any event… your nursing example is actually in alignment with and strengthens my point and is a good example of why it would work: these roles are clearly critical and valuable to society so they should have minimum wages (higher than present) applied that mean they are properly paid (and thus resourced). I don’t see how you think this isn’t exactly what I’m advocating for?
-I 100% agree that MPs shouldn’t have second jobs. Whilst the general public are allowed second jobs (so some might argue so should they be), I believe the requirements of their roles mean they must surely not be performing them properly if distracted by a second role

Much like the min wage-public, sector wages aren't governed by market forces. Wages/salaries are rigid and non-negoitiable when a government decides.
Private sector remuneration is always open to negotiation.
Government actions are always arbitrary.

People don't seem to realise that if energy cost get too high manufacturing will have to shut down and there'll be less jobs and less exports. The government likely doesn't give a shit about people not being able to afford to heat their houses or eat but they will care when the whole economy tanks.

So should people sell or kill their children that they had when they were earning a lot but because of say disability or redundancy now can't do that job anymore?

Always some hyperbole on mumsnet.

The disabled should be well looked after, not many people would disagree. As should those who have paid in and are made redundant, there should be a better safety net until they are back on their feet.

There is an issue with women who have children, expecting the state to provide for them for life. They think they should be paid to be a mother and that pay should cover things like holidays.

The Which? calculator gives a good idea of what our household bills are going to look like:

www.which.co.uk/news/article/energy-price-cap-rises-to-3549-how-will-it-affect-your-bills-aZkHR2p2t2P7

Well said @ShelfyMcShelfface !

Honestly nobody expects that.

I assume that those who are against children being provided for by the state refuse any and all help that they themselves may be offered? I expect they have already written to their MP to decline the £400 off their £8000 energy bill for 2023?

If you put your current direct debit in here you'll get a look at where your energy bill is headed.
www.which.co.uk/news/article/energy-price-cap-rises-to-3549-how-will-it-affect-your-bills-aZkHR2p2t2P7

No, I assume many will rightly accept it as a way to claw back some of the money they've already handed over to the state to pay for someone else's kids....

Many will also accept it as they realise it's not a real handout, they'll be paying for it over the next x number of years as they continue to pay their taxes... that's unless the government has finally found the magical money tree that many seem to think it has

I'm grateful for the £400 , I had child benefits stopped years ago when those rules changed ( rightly so ) but I was grateful for that too when the children were small. It really did help.
I'm lucky we live in a society that does help people , plus I can't give the 400 away as it'll be on my energy account , but I can do other things to help ( charity donations , the food collections in the supermarket , give blood , support the local school)
If I didn't receive the 400 it would be tough , but lucky that we both work and can keep our energy account fairly healthy , for now anyway. Many won't be able to or are already in debt with it and people will struggle. It is going to be bad for many people .

I assume that those who are against children being provided for by the state refuse any and all help that they themselves may be offered? I expect they have already written to their MP to decline the £400 off their £8000 energy bill for 2023?

Hyperbole again.

You do realise that the welfare state was set up so that everyone paid in and everyone got something out. That was done deliberately so that everyone felt they had a stake in it.

Perhaps you'd like to explain why you think that one part of the population should only pay in and get nothing back and why another part of the population should never contribute but just take out? Maybe you could really sell your idea to those who you expect to pay in.

Exclude those who are too disabled to work from your answer, as we've already established that they should be well looked after by the state.

How does the government paying part of your energy bill fit into that?

Jesus, what an appalling view. No doubt you are an admirer of Thatcher and her “there is no society, just men, women and families” 🙄 I’m guessing you haven’t noticed that the Tory Government find the magic money tree when they want to waste huge amounts of public money on vanity projects, or in giving huge contracts to their mates who are completely inexperienced at providing the services required when existing, experienced people/companies (who are not their mates) can provide the services much cheaper. Test and Trace and Ventilators for the NHS anyone!

@AnnieSnap nope, that's why I have my head in my hands every time I hear government commit "more help" or "commit to investing" as there's no money tree so ultimately it's our pockets that are funding it.

I believe the stat is £37 per household on average for each £1Bn the government spends. Think about it, that's on average and given less than 50% of households are net contributors that means it costs those that are approx £74 per Billion.

So surely you can empathise with those families that are struggling to pay their own bills every time they hear the government announce they're "committing £xBn in help" that they're exlcuded from as (in someone's arbitrary calculation) they can "help themselves". It's not right.

TakeTheOffPisteRoute · Yesterday 23:43
@Blossomtoes I think you might be confusing living wage with minimum wage... easily done I'm sure, somehow?

www.gov.uk/national-minimum-wage-rates can you explain what the difference between living wage and minimum wage is? I can't see a difference

You've fallen for the Conservative government ploy of renaming the highest national minimum wage band as the "living wage", without actually changing is such that it is a real living wage.

There's plenty of articles on the internet that explains why, here's just one of them:

www.livingwage.org.uk/news/real-living-wage-vs-national-living-wage-whats-difference%3F

There is an issue with women who have children, expecting the state to provide for them for life. They think they should be paid to be a mother and that pay should cover things like holidays.

you misspelt parent twice

Nope. It’s not me confusing them.

TakeTheOffPisteRoute

you've linked to an article about the real living wage and the national living wage

I asked whats the difference between the NMW and living wage

@ivykaty44

Can men give birth now?

Mumsnet is a place of denial when it comes to women choosing to have children and expecting the state to provide. I realise that choices are limited sometimes. Some women leave school with few qualifications, so the choice is a minimum wage job or having children and working part time, topped up by the state. A high proportion of women I went to school with have done exactly this - deprived area.

I don’t think anyone who isn’t properly wealthy should have to deal with these levels of household fuel increases. They should assist everyone with the exception of the top 1%. They such then put a heavily tax the astronomical profits of the energy producers and put that money back into the public purse as an interim measure to re-nationalisation. Essential services should not be run for profit otherwise situations like this are almost inevitable.

ShelfyMcShelfface men have 50% responsibility in their actions - nothing to stop them wearing a condom regardless if they don't want to pay for a child and the holidays.
Parents bring babies into he world not just mothers and woman tricks a man to not wear a condom