SBR wrote:They all appear to be referring to the short term and as we are in the middle of a recession it's hardly surprising. The claim was that over the last 30 years income has fallen against the cost of living.
It could be argued (indeed, has been argued) that low wages can cause recession. It's a valid point, if people don't have money then either a) they don't buy or b) they borrow to buy.
Freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice. Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality.
OOOOOOOOhhhh sorry for having an opinion.... sorry if it goes against some of your thoughts, but why should someone on benefits be allowed to claim and earnmore than someone doing a full weeks/months work for doing nothing for either the community or the economy. not made up but fact i know of one individual who in benefits and other allowences "earns" £1856 per month, and does nothing for it! how do i know because this scrounging individual is a cousin, one i add i have no respect for. our welfare system breeds idleness and corruption, i have no doubt many people deserve the system, but they should also have an incentive to get out of it too.
Joined: Feb 20 2002 Posts: 1437 Location: Leigh, where else?
liedetector wrote:OOOOOOOOhhhh sorry for having an opinion.... sorry if it goes against some of your thoughts, but why should someone on benefits be allowed to claim and earnmore than someone doing a full weeks/months work for doing nothing for either the community or the economy. not made up but fact i know of one individual who in benefits and other allowences "earns" £1856 per month, and does nothing for it! how do i know because this scrounging individual is a cousin, one i add i have no respect for. our welfare system breeds idleness and corruption, i have no doubt many people deserve the system, but they should also have an incentive to get out of it too.
I watched the TV programme on BBC 2 about the Welfare State a few weeks back. One married couple, both unemployed, with three kids got in total £21000 per year in benefits (that included their housing benefit).
I sat down and worked out our family earnings. I work 37 and 1/2 hours per week, my wife who does non paid voluntary work and we have four kids. Including the family tax credits I get I was less then £1000 per year better off then the family in the programme and I have more kids to provide for.
I'd argue that it's not benefits that are necessarily too high, it's rubbish wages that are far too low. However it does annoy me that if I gave up my crappy paid job and decided that it isn't worth working like the people in the programme I wouldn't get any dole money!
"If the American people knew tonight, exactly how the monetary and banking system worked, there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning."
-Abraham Lincoln
Joined: Nov 19 2005 Posts: 2359 Location: Marys Place, near the River, in Nebraska, Waitin' on A Sunny Day
liedetector wrote:OOOOOOOOhhhh sorry for having an opinion.... sorry if it goes against some of your thoughts, but why should someone on benefits be allowed to claim and earnmore than someone doing a full weeks/months work for doing nothing for either the community or the economy. not made up but fact i know of one individual who in benefits and other allowences "earns" £1856 per month, and does nothing for it! how do i know because this scrounging individual is a cousin, one i add i have no respect for. our welfare system breeds idleness and corruption, i have no doubt many people deserve the system, but they should also have an incentive to get out of it too.
For me that'll be when they find a cure for rheumatoid arthritis. That'll be my incentive to "get out of it".
A dog is the only thing on earth that loves you more than he loves himself.
When you rescue a dog, you gain a heart for life.
Handle every situation like a dog. If you can't Eat it or Chew it. Pee on it and Walk Away.
"No amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party. So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin. " Anuerin Bevan
LeighGionaire wrote:I watched the TV programme on BBC 2 about the Welfare State a few weeks back. One married couple, both unemployed, with three kids got in total £21000 per year in benefits (that included their housing benefit).
I sat down and worked out our family earnings. I work 37 and 1/2 hours per week, my wife who does non paid voluntary work and we have four kids. Including the family tax credits I get I was less then £1000 per year better off then the family in the programme and I have more kids to provide for.
I'd argue that it's not benefits that are necessarily too high, it's rubbish wages that are far too low. However it does annoy me that if I gave up my crappy paid job and decided that it isn't worth working like the people in the programme I wouldn't get any dole money!
As the average family gets ca. GBP 22,000 spent on them per annum by the State (per Robertson's programme on BBC 2 tonight) then I don't think anyone should complain.
Quote:Those higher up the income scale have enjoyed a more rapid rise n living standards than those in the bottom 60 per cent of the income distribution, while the super-rich have secured themselves a personal wealth boom on a scale not seen since the end of the nineteenth century.
Some people have benefited more than others.
The third result shows that incomes have risen but sadly does not correlate that with the rise in the cost of living.
Again, yes, income inequality has increased (I've never disputed that), but where is the evidence to backup up the claim that "everyone apart from those at the very top, have seen their incomes fall against the rising cost of living over the last 30 years"?
Mintball wrote:If that's down to the recession alone, then why isn't it impacting on those at the very top too?
I have access to Google – here's another search: 'falling Uk wages 30 years'. There's plenty.
Quote:Those higher up the income scale have enjoyed a more rapid rise n living standards than those in the bottom 60 per cent of the income distribution, while the super-rich have secured themselves a personal wealth boom on a scale not seen since the end of the nineteenth century.
Some people have benefited more than others.
The third result shows that incomes have risen but sadly does not correlate that with the rise in the cost of living.
Again, yes, income inequality has increased (I've never disputed that), but where is the evidence to backup up the claim that "everyone apart from those at the very top, have seen their incomes fall against the rising cost of living over the last 30 years"?
(23:25:06) Thecko: who'd want to rent a book? (23:25:10) Thecko: oh, libraries
We know that the cost of housing has risen to crackpot levels – £125,000K for a basic, one-bed flat if you're a 'key worker' now in Hackney, for instance. How many 'key workers' earn over £41K per annum? Let alone how many non-key workers can afford double that for a one-bed flat.
We know that people now have to pay tuition fees where once they didn't. We know that domestic utility bills are going through the roof. We know that many (in England at least) have to pay for prescriptions where once they didn't. We know that dental and eye care cost far more than they used to. We know that the cost of transport has risen massively.
These are not luxuries. These are basics. And incomes would have had to have risen a lot to have kept pace.
BTW SBR – perhaps you could find something to show just how pay has risen to mitigate all these rising costs?
We know that the cost of housing has risen to crackpot levels – £125,000K for a basic, one-bed flat if you're a 'key worker' now in Hackney, for instance. How many 'key workers' earn over £41K per annum? Let alone how many non-key workers can afford double that for a one-bed flat.
We know that people now have to pay tuition fees where once they didn't. We know that domestic utility bills are going through the roof. We know that many (in England at least) have to pay for prescriptions where once they didn't. We know that dental and eye care cost far more than they used to. We know that the cost of transport has risen massively.
These are not luxuries. These are basics. And incomes would have had to have risen a lot to have kept pace.
BTW SBR – perhaps you could find something to show just how pay has risen to mitigate all these rising costs?
Joined: Feb 18 2006 Posts: 18610 Location: Somewhere in Bonny Donny (Twinned with Krakatoa in 1883).
Lots of people have been able to ride out and offset these effects because they pay low interest rates on their mortgages, but after a few years of this that lower mortgage has been factored in and got used to. No money has been set aside probably. If the interest rates go up to double current rates and little else changes, then the faeces will hit the fan.
War does not determine who is right - only who is left.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
