Minimum Wage should be a Living Wage

[Bletchleyite]

Of course but you said 'Having a family is a choice you should exercise only when you are able to afford it' and the risk remains that even if you are careful that choice might be taken out of your hands.

Indeed, which is where you get justifiable cases for benefit claims...

But I realise I am, perhaps, being a tad factious

Indeed! This is a family friendly forum! So kids if you've got questions about anything we've discussed tonight please ask your parents. They'll be happy to answer your questions!

Neil

 

[AM9]

Indeed! This is a family friendly forum! So kids if you've got questions about anything we've discussed tonight please ask your parents. They'll be happy to answer your questions!

Except maybe the suggestion concerning Ann Widdicombe and Susan Boyle.

 

[455driver]

I have always had a soft spot for Anne, I quite like her!

(not in that way though)

What about all the people that get pregnant at 15 so they can get a Council flat, drop a few more kids by the time they are 20 so they can get a Council house and then sit at home all day playing the Xbox because it isnt worth getting a job when you can get all the money and benefits handed to you for nothing?

Meanwhile some other people are trying to earn enough money to pay their bills but get very little help because they earn just that little bit too much!

 

[21C101]

I have always had a soft spot for Anne, I quite like her!

(not in that way though)

What about all the people that get pregnant at 15 so they can get a Council flat, drop a few more kids by the time they are 20 so they can get a Council house and then sit at home all day playing the Xbox because it isnt worth getting a job when you can get all the money and benefits handed to you for nothing?

Meanwhile some other people are trying to earn enough money to pay their bills but get very little help because they earn just that little bit too much!

Indeed. The benefits for single people and couples without children/children grown up are derisory. Benefits if you have kids are so generous that they are an incentive to have more, as can be seen by playing around with the calculator at entitledto.co.uk

Result. People tempted into a life of benefits at 20 then find themselves unemployable and trapped in dire poverty at 45.

 

[richw]

Benefits if you have kids are so generous that they are an incentive to have more, as can be seen by playing around with the calculator at entitledto.co.uk

My circumstances- married 2 kids, 21.5k tax free for not working. wow! My gross salary is higher than this, but once national insurance and income tax is deducted I'd be better off not working. How is that right?

I think about £1000-£1100 a month is the minimum I would need, if I didn't have a car, walked everywhere and ditched things like life insurance, and bought value range food. (My council tax is calculated over 10 months)
£21.5k would be just short of £1700 a month leading to a nice lifestyle.
Says why certain people don't work! Can you tell this makes me angry!!!

 

[21C101]

My circumstances- married 2 kids, 21.5k tax free for not working. wow! My gross salary is higher than this, but once national insurance and income tax is deducted I'd be better off not working. How is that right?

I think about £1000-£1100 a month is the minimum I would need, if I didn't have a car, walked everywhere and ditched things like life insurance, and bought value range food. (My council tax is calculated over 10 months)
£21.5k would be just short of £1700 a month leading to a nice lifestyle.
Says why certain people don't work! Can you tell this makes me angry!!!

Most people also have travel to work costs. Say you are on £40k, you pay £6000 tax on that and £3,845 national insurance. So you have £30,154 left.

You commute on an annual season ticket from Horsham to London and use the tube to the office. £4,592 straight off your net salary.

So you have £25,562 left for a high responsibility stressful job. All of £4,562 more than the guy doing nothing.

Did you ever wonder why there are all these small semi domestic businesses often run from home these days and wonder how they ever made a worthwhile profit? Answer - they don't need to. Bring in £5k or £6k a year and that passports you to the tax credits while keeping below the tax and NI threshold.

When universal credit comes in (if it ever does), anyone self employed for more than a year will be deemed to have profits equivalent to minimum wage x 35 hours x 52 weeks (£11,830); even if they don't make that much. No such restriction on tax credits.

Also tax credits don't assess capital, only income. So if you have millions you can still claim tax credits (providing the income from interest isn't too much)

Ever wondered how Brown caused such a massive deficit?

 

[455driver]

Most people also have travel to work costs. Say you are on £40k, you pay £6000 tax on that and £3,845 national insurance. So you have £30,154 left.

You commute on an annual season ticket from Horsham to London and use the tube to the office. £4,592 straight off your net salary.

So you have £25,562 left for a high responsibility stressful job. All of £4,562 more than the guy doing nothing.

Did you ever wonder why there are all these small semi domestic businesses often run from home these days and wonder how they ever made a worthwhile profit? Answer - they don't need to. Bring in £5k or £6k a year and that passports you to the tax credits while keeping below the tax and NI threshold.

When universal credit comes in (if it ever does), anyone self employed for more than a year will be deemed to have profits equivalent to minimum wage x 35 hours x 52 weeks (£11,830); even if they don't make that much. No such restriction on tax credits.

Also tax credits don't assess capital, only income. So if you have millions you can still claim tax credits (providing the income from interest isn't too much)

Ever wondered how Brown caused such a massive deficit?

You also have your rent/mortgage to pay which mr jobdodger doesnt, there goes your remaining £4.5K so you are effectively worse off!

 

[ainsworth74]

'Jobdodger' or just not able to find work? I've come across the odd person that really did seem to believe the state (and therefore society) owed them a living but they are by far the minority. Most would much rather be in paid work than claiming just about any benefits.

Though the way the system is set up quite often they end up being worse off as they end up in the middle. Not earning enough to survive without claiming benefits but earning too much to be able to get all the support they might need.

Also in terms of rent/mortgage and not 'having to pay' on benefits. If you've got a mortgage the only help you'll get is some money towards the cost of your interest and it never comes close to covering the full cost of the mortgage each month. As for rent? If your in social housing and have the right number of occupants to avoid the bedroom tax it'll cover most of your rent to be fair but the bedroom tax applies for quite a lot of people. If you're in private it's capped at a maximum amount depending on how many bedrooms your entitled to and the local housing market.

In my area for example a single person over 35 or couple (with no kids) can get £80.56 per week maximum towards their rent and there aren't all that many one bedroom flats/houses going in my area.

As above if you want to look for the big cost in terms of benefits check out Tax Credits. If you have a kids you can get a maximum of £2,750 per child per year + an additional £545 per year family component. Have three kids that's the best part of £9,000 per year and you need to be earning over about £6,000 per year before you'll start to lose that money.

Jobseekers, Employment Support Allowance even Housing Benefit they're all small fry compared to the kind of money you can rack up with Tax Credits. Though the elephant in the room when it comes to benefit expenditure is the State Pension and Pension Credit. By far the biggest item on the benefits bill is support for pensioners and it's by far the biggest. It blows the bill for Jobseekers out of the water and into space. Yet all we hear about are the 'jobdodgers'...

 

[455driver]

'Jobdodger' or just not able to find work? I've come across the odd person that really did seem to believe the state (and therefore society) owed them a living but they are by far the minority.

3rd or 4th generation jobdodger!

I do agree that most unemployed people do want to work there are still a hard core minority that thinks the world owes them because they dropped a few sprogs when they were teenagers!

I have several friends who are unemployed but there simply are no jobs that pay them enough to make up for all the benefits they would lose, there are others that only work part time so they keep enough benefits to make it worthwhile, but they are only a few pounds in front when they take their commuting costs into account.

The whole system needs binning and starting again with a tiered benefits system so the more money you earn you lose your benefits a bit at a time (so you are still better off working) rather than now where you earn £5 too much you lose the lot!

 

[Butts]

Jobseekers, Employment Support Allowance even Housing Benefit they're all small fry compared to the kind of money you can rack up with Tax Credits. Though the elephant in the room when it comes to benefit expenditure is the State Pension and Pension Credit. By far the biggest item on the benefits bill is support for pensioners and it's by far the biggest. It blows the bill for Jobseekers out of the water and into space. Yet all we hear about are the 'jobdodgers'...

Pensioners vote a lot of "job dodgers" don't hence the Governments priority towards the former

 

[ainsworth74]

Why how cynical of you

 

[Butts]

Why how cynical of you

With regard to statistics....there are lies, damn lies and some of them as in this case are actually true

 

[Tetchytyke]

There is always a small risk with contraceptives, but it is not excessively high.

I know from experience that it is high enough.

Universal Credit is supposed to make the benefit system more tiered, so that there isn't the same level of marginal benefit at the edges. The think tank who dreamed up Universal Credit decided that people needed to be allowed to keep around 70p of what they earned in order to make work worthwhile. So naturally Iain Duncan Smith- a man who seems to be equal parts sociopath and moron- set the level at 40p.

Tax credits were designed in the way that they are in order to make work worthwhile, too. Child Tax Credit replaced the child element of Income Support (as well as partly replacing Family Credit) precisely to tempt people into work. On IS if you worked more than 16 hours a week you lost every single penny of benefit, so nobody worked. On tax credits you can work as many hours as you want and you get to keep some of what you earn. Working tax credits are directly linked to how much you work.

The thing I hate most about welfare reform at the minute is being lectured by a sociopathic slaphead about "scrounging" when he thinks nothing of sticking a £49.99 breakfast on expenses.

 

[Butts]

I know from experience that it is high enough.

Universal Credit is supposed to make the benefit system more tiered, so that there isn't the same level of marginal benefit at the edges. The think tank who dreamed up Universal Credit decided that people needed to be allowed to keep around 70p of what they earned in order to make work worthwhile. So naturally Iain Duncan Smith- a man who seems to be equal parts sociopath and moron- set the level at 40p.

Tax credits were designed in the way that they are in order to make work worthwhile, too. Child Tax Credit replaced the child element of Income Support (as well as partly replacing Family Credit) precisely to tempt people into work. On IS if you worked more than 16 hours a week you lost every single penny of benefit, so nobody worked. On tax credits you can work as many hours as you want and you get to keep some of what you earn. Working tax credits are directly linked to how much you work.

The thing I hate most about welfare reform at the minute is being lectured by a sociopathic slaphead about "scrounging" when he thinks nothing of sticking a £49.99 breakfast on expenses.

Is this person an associate of yours with a problem of the folic variety or a certain ex- Scot's Guards Officer and one time leader of a Political Party
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I take back everything I said about Wales .....

Lovely Leanne on Question Time tonight states Plaid Cymru policy encompasses the Living Wage.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

What about all the people that get pregnant at 15 so they can get a Council flat, drop a few more kids by the time they are 20 so they can get a Council house and then sit at home all day playing the Xbox because it isnt worth getting a job when you can get all the money and benefits handed to you for nothing?

Pregnant at 15.....must be late developers round your way. There is a certain very large area of social housing to the south of Manchester where if girls are not pregnant at 13, their 39 year old grandmothers begin to worry...:roll:

It's not like you to miss out the obvious in your postings, but surely the highlight of their day will be watching the TV programme that reflects life as seen through their eyes as normal...I give you "The Jeremy Kyle Show" (the type of TV programme that has a sponsor to match...."Foxy bingo.com")...

 

[ainsworth74]

Can we not fall into the trap that would lead us to believe that the Teenage pregnancy rate is out of control and girls are lucky if they finish Year 11 without being on at least their second child? Teenage birth rates are at their lowest since the 1960s and have been declining pretty much without a break since the 1990s. Whilst the UK rate remains the highest in Western Europe (so there's still work to do) it isn't an epidemic so perhaps a little less moral indignation?

 

[21C101]

Can we not fall into the trap that would lead us to believe that the Teenage pregnancy rate is out of control and girls are lucky if they finish Year 11 without being on at least their second child? Teenage birth rates are at their lowest since the 1960s and have been declining pretty much without a break since the 1990s. Whilst the UK rate remains the highest in Western Europe (so there's still work to do) it isn't an epidemic so perhaps a little less moral indignation?

I think you will find the decline is due to increasing numbers of these pregnancies being terminated by abortions and morning after pills rather than an outbreak of teenage chastity.

 

[ainsworth74]

So what? I never suggested it was.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The abortion rate is falling. The most recent stats are from 2013 and, for teenagers, the abortion rate is 12.8 abortions per 1000 people (or 1.28% if you prefer).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-23267842

 

[Greenback]

Can we not fall into the trap that would lead us to believe that the Teenage pregnancy rate is out of control and girls are lucky if they finish Year 11 without being on at least their second child? Teenage birth rates are at their lowest since the 1960s and have been declining pretty much without a break since the 1990s. Whilst the UK rate remains the highest in Western Europe (so there's still work to do) it isn't an epidemic so perhaps a little less moral indignation?

Please don't let facts get in the way of a good old fashioned rant against easy targets!

 

[muz379]

You also have your rent/mortgage to pay which mr jobdodger doesnt, there goes your remaining £4.5K so you are effectively worse off!

It is true that whilst we are in work Mr Jobdodger is doing well for himself and having a laugh at us all going out and working our backsides off .

However when it comes to retirement and you have a massive asset to sell(house) to fiance your retirement , or you have a decent pension to live off into your retirement and Mr Jobdoger has the bare minimum the state give him the tables are turned
Mr Jobdoger wont get a £55,000 lump sum because he has reached 59 (what one of my relatives got when he retired)

Even if you decide not to sell your house and pass it onto your kids at least you can die knowing you are leaving them financial security

I hate Mr Jobdodger too which is why when I retire I will be happy that I can have the last laugh .

 

[21C101]

The abortion rate is falling. The most recent stats are from 2013 and, for teenagers, the abortion rate is 12.8 abortions per 1000 people (or 1.28% if you prefer).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-23267842

Morning after pills dont count in the stats

 

[ainsworth74]

Morning after pills dont count in the stats

Presumably neither do condoms, birth control pills, IUDs, diaphragms, patches or injections. Again I'm not sure what the point is? Teenage pregnancy rates are declining that is a fact. Are the reasons of any particular interest beyond working out how we can make sure it continues to decrease?

 

[21C101]

Presumably neither do condoms, birth control pills, IUDs, diaphragms, patches or injections. Again I'm not sure what the point is? Teenage pregnancy rates are declining that is a fact. Are the reasons of any particular interest beyond working out how we can make sure it continues to decrease?

Less teenage pregnancies because they are not getting pregnant in the first place is one thing. Less teenage pregnancies because they are getting pregnant and then becoming unpregnant due to intrusive medical intervention dosen't reflect well on anybody.

 

[ainsworth74]

Right so it's alright for say a 30 year old woman to have an abortion but not a teenager? Or for our 30 year old to use the morning after pill but not the 15 year old? I'm sorry I just don't understand the issue. Is it that you're opposed to abortion? Certainly that I can understand but why bring teenagers into if it's the procedure you have an issue with?

I'm sorry but I do not understand the moral indignation at the thought that teenagers might, just possibly, be having sex. Much like teenagers always have done throughout history! I note that the honourable member from the posh part of Cheshire has not commented since

 

[21C101]

Right so it's alright for say a 30 year old woman to have an abortion but not a teenager? Or for our 30 year old to use the morning after pill but not the 15 year old? I'm sorry I just don't understand the issue. Is it that you're opposed to abortion? Certainly that I can understand but why bring teenagers into if it's the procedure you have an issue with?

I'm sorry but I do not understand the moral indignation at the thought that teenagers might, just possibly, be having sex. Much like teenagers always have done throughout history! I note that the honourable member from the posh part of Cheshire has not commented since

I don't know of anyone who thinks abortion is a "alright" for anyone (other than those who make fat profits out of it). Its legal but, leaving any moral considerations aside, unpleasant with long lasting effects in many cases; there are very few people who come out of the other side wholly unaffected. A teenager going through that doubly so.

Getting a doctor to chop your leg off if it has gangrene might be the appropriate remedy; but no one would disagree that it is very sad and regrettable and it would be better for all concerned if your leg hadn't got infected and had to get chopped off in the first place; especially if the cause of infection was something that might have been avoided if education on the matter had encouraged people, especially teenagers, to avoid the cause of infection rather than "don't worry, enjoy yourself and if you do get infected you can chop your leg off and it won't make any difference to you, no really"

Safe sex is a myth. For example, a condom has 98% reliability, so 1 in 50 chance of it not working. If a person has sex 100 times a year then on two of those occasions a pregnacy will result if the woman is fertile at the time. A woman is fertile roughly 3 days a month so 10% of the time. So overall if you use a condom twice a week you are guaranteed statistically to get someone pregnant within 5 years - and that is if you use the thing properly, which many teenagers probably won't!

If railway signalling had the reliability of any contraceptive there would be daily carnage. THAT is what sex education should be teaching and THAT is why sex education over the last 50 years has been disastrous.

 

[muz379]

I don't know of anyone who thinks abortion is a "alright" for anyone (other than those who make fat profits out of it). Its legal but, leaving any moral considerations aside, unpleasant with long lasting effects in many cases; there are very few people who come out of the other side wholly unaffected. A teenager going through that doubly so.

Getting a doctor to chop your leg off if it has gangrene might be the appropriate remedy; but no one would disagree that it is very sad and regrettable and it would be better for all concerned if your leg hadn't got infected and had to get chopped off in the first place; especially if the cause of infection was something that might have been avoided if education on the matter had encouraged people, especially teenagers, to avoid the cause of infection rather than "don't worry, enjoy yourself and if you do get infected you can chop your leg off and it won't make any difference to you, no really"

Safe sex is a myth. For example, a condom has 98% reliability, so 1 in 50 chance of it not working. If a person has sex 100 times a year then on two of those occasions a pregnacy will result if the woman is fertile at the time. A woman is fertile roughly 3 days a month so 10% of the time. So overall if you use a condom twice a week you are guaranteed statistically to get someone pregnant within 5 years - and that is if you use the thing properly, which many teenagers probably won't!

If railway signalling had the reliability of any contraceptive there would be daily carnage. THAT is what sex education should be teaching and THAT is why sex education over the last 50 years has been disastrous.

are you personally/morally opposed to abortion ?
If so that is a fully acceptable opinion to have - not one I agree with but I respect your right to hold that opinion and understand how you could arrive at that conclusion .

What I cant however respect is getting facts and opinion conflated .

How do you know that majority of people who have an abortion have long lasting effects . How do you know these effects are harsher on teenagers having them ?

Your analogy of having a gangrened leg chopped off is not exactly appropriate because if you dont have your leg chopped off it poses a risk to you life if you wish to carry on living you really dont have a choice .
However having an abortion , neither decision you make has a direct impact on your continued existence , you actually have a real choice in what you do .people have multiple abortions and continue on with their life normally .
Having your leg cut off is going to impact upon your life in a very real and direct way .


I agree that better education aimed at preventing teenagers getting pregnant is much better in the first place ,

And I also agree with what you are saying about the failure rate of condoms , I was always dubious when relying on them and was much more comfortable when using them as an additional method to double up rather than soley relying on them . Now I rely on something much more reliable than condoms .

I would much rather teenagers where advised to double up to prevent the risk of accidental pregnancy . However this has nothing to do with the above comments about telling them to enjoy themselves irrelevant of the consequences because if they are using condoms but they are failing they have done exactly what the conventional wisdom is

When I did sex ed we where told the failure rate of the various methods out there and what that meant , however I like many others would hedge my bets on a 1 in 5 years chance . that to me is especially good odds .

 

[radamfi]

The Dutch way is to use both birth control pills and condoms at the same time. Teenage pregnancies are particularly low in the Netherlands.

However, governments don't really care that much about that issue now, as they are more concerned with falling birth rates. They would rather have teenage pregnancies than people having kids when over 30 which is the middle class norm now. Biologically, having a child is easier when young, and historically what was usual.

I personally think having kids is unethical for many reasons. Yes, I know the human race would die out. And so what?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Can we not fall into the trap that would lead us to believe that the Teenage pregnancy rate is out of control and girls are lucky if they finish Year 11 without being on at least their second child? Teenage birth rates are at their lowest since the 1960s and have been declining pretty much without a break since the 1990s. Whilst the UK rate remains the highest in Western Europe (so there's still work to do) it isn't an epidemic so perhaps a little less moral indignation?

Urban myths are not always based on non-truths. I do take heed of the facts appertaining to the easier methods of pregnancy rate reduction of girls under the legal age of consent that so apply in 2014 rather than in 1964 (when I was 19 years of age). Can anyone inform me of the accumulated number of legally performed abortions performed in Britain since the Act was passed that led to this being placed upon the Statute Book?

Is moral indignation something that only a generation that was raised with an appreciation of good behaviour can espouse. If so, I stand so accused...but totally and utterly unrepentant. (P.S.....I am no relation to "Offended of Orpington" whose letters to the Daily Telegraph in much earlier years achieved some notoriety).

To bring back a little humour into this most serious of thread discussions, I know of certain people (who shall remain nameless) who view the stranding of elderly rail enthusiasts on Liverpool South Parkway railway station as a just punishment in the 21st century for over-enthusiastic thread postings on this website....
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'm sorry but I do not understand the moral indignation at the thought that teenagers might, just possibly, be having sex. Much like teenagers always have done throughout history! I note that the honourable member from the posh part of Cheshire has not commented since

The honourable member from "the posh part of Cheshire" has awaited a little time to further read recent further postings, but has indeed made a posting response, with a final paragraph that may ring "certain bells in certain quarters"....

 

[muz379]

Is moral indignation something that only a generation that was raised with an appreciation of good behaviour can espouse. If so, I stand so accused...but totally and utterly unrepentant. (P.S.....I am no relation to "Offended of Orpington" whose letters to the Daily Telegraph in much earlier years achieved some notoriety).

Ahh of course the old daily mail readers view of the world . Its all going down hill because people arent brought up properly anymore and kids these days are out of control I tell you :roll: