....and there was me thinking this country was broke....

[X-13]

Putting rules in like must attend x interviews in x timeframe dosent help thats easy enough to get round (and not just turning up and obviously blowing the interview you can be much more subbtle about it so it dosent look as suspect).

 

Eh, there's an even bigger flaw with that...

 

Before I started here, I'd be applying for all sorts of jobs. I think I managed around 20-30 a day.

 

I got a total of 1 reply in 6 months...

 

 

It's hard to attend x interviews in y months when you're getting 0 replies.

[LiamH]

It's not really fair to say "You are a poor single mother so you don't get to raise your own child". That's what would be wrong.

 

I think he meant while they were at work, like the rest of society that don't scrounge on benefits. I think its perfectly fine to say "You had a child, now raise it with your own money" Its not like the mothers get pregnant out of the blue...

 

I think unemployment benefits should have diminishing returns, IE, full benefits Year 1, food and cloth stamps year 2, stale bread year 3 ;x even in this current climate if you cant find any job after 3 years of searching you are single handedly disproving Darwinism

[X-13]

if you cant find any job after 3 years of searching you are single handedly disproving Darwinism

 

 

Took me about 3 years to get my job.

 

Not for lack of trying.

 

 

Hell, I even offered to work for free... [even though I despise volunteer work.]

[Sdrawkcab]

I think unemployment benefits should have diminishing returns, IE, full benefits Year 1, food and cloth stamps year 2, stale bread year 3 ;x even in this current climate if you cant find any job after 3 years of searching you are single handedly disproving Darwinism

 

It's really not that simple. You may have been able to walk into a job easy peasy, but it's not so easy for others. Don't you make any attempt at all to see things from the POV of other people? Ignorance like this from certain members of this site reminds me why I don't post on here very often.

Edited April 27, 2012 by Sdrawkcab

[LiamH]

Took me about 3 years to get my job.

 

Not for lack of trying.

 

 

Hell, I even offered to work for free... [even though I despise volunteer work.]

 

maybe im being too harsh then my apologies, in my area I see employee's wanted signs everywhere, my cousin runs a pub and has been advertising for a barworker for months and gets no interest. If i was unfortunate enough to be out of work i would take anything i could get.

[X-13]

If i was unfortunate enough to be out of work i would take anything i could get.

 

 

True facts.

 

I even applied to test FPS games... I [censored]ing HATE FPS games.

 

Tue story. I even got an offer... then nothing. "Oh, we're really busy with new releases at the moment... Can we get back to you in a couple of weeks?"

 

 

"A couple of weeks" is 5 years and counting...

Edited April 27, 2012 by X-13

[alttab]

Well I'm glad that it's "clear" to you that the taxes paid to fund the lifestyle of person A don't come from person B.

 

 

 

So it's completely the fault of government that they don't pander to the whims of dole bludgers? No, person A is reliant on benefits because the government makes it far more profitable for them to loaf around on their fat backside. It is not the job of Government to provide jobs and childcare!!

 

 

I'm sorry, but it is the governments role to intervene. It does so already by subsidising low paid employment, through the tax credits system. You think those people on barely above minimum wage, working 24-30 hours a week can afford to do those jobs without government intervention. Trouble is even the security of those jobs is like gold dust, and good luck with getting anyone to aspire to anything further as the tax system system would disincentivise. Nothing to do with laziness. The other problem is the government needs to support the incomes of 'dole bludgers' with dependants through child tax credits because their benefit checks alone aren't enough!! I'd rather see people work for a living wage than work for their benefits.

But how can the former happen if the government doesn't create the jobs and/or provide the subsidies. So by all means, cut benefits and reduce the welfare state if there exists an alternative that can support the numbers we're talking about.

 

 

 

 

Yeah, that's it. It's all the fault of those evil middle and high earners taking all the consultancy and entrepreneurial jobs away from people who dropped out of school at 15 to have 3 children by 3 different fathers.

 

I didn't say they were evil, i just don't see them as being as unconditionally deserving as you clearly seem to do!!!

I'm irked by all those who play the system, i'm not excusing feckless behaviour. But nor do i approve of cronyism. I'm not arguing for communism either - we're talking about a fundamental tenet of a democracy - a welfare system, just pointing out that handouts exist at all levels, but at only one level is it ever given media attention.

 

It doesn't work under Communism either. The difference is that under a Capitalist system you at least stand a chance of making it. Under a communist one, you go where the government tells you.

 

wrong again. Government influences behaviour under a capitalist system all the time. Which other entity do you know that has the power to tax ?

Plus individuals and companies always follow where the government decides to spend it's checks. Because that's how most jobs are created, by government paying for something. A road, a hospital, a school, rural broadband........

Edited April 27, 2012 by alttab

[Flatpackhamster]

I'm sorry, but it is the governments role to intervene.

 

In your view.

 

It does so already by subsidising low paid employment, through the tax credits system.

 

Which is an administrative nightmare.

 

You think those people on barely above minimum wage, working 24-30 hours a week can afford to do those jobs without government intervention.

 

They seem to manage in other countries.

 

Trouble is even the security of those jobs is like gold dust, and good luck with getting anyone to aspire to anything further as the tax system system would disincentivise. Nothing to do with laziness. The other problem is the government needs to support the incomes of 'dole bludgers' with dependants through child tax credits because their benefit checks alone aren't enough!! I'd rather see people work for a living wage than work for their benefits.

 

Funded by the Evil Middle Classes, no doubt.

 

But how can the former happen if the government doesn't create the jobs and/or provide the subsidies. So by all means, cut benefits and reduce the welfare state if there exists an alternative that can support the numbers we're talking about.

 

You start from the assumption that we, taxpayers should be supporting people. That's your perspective, of course. Don't assume it applies to everyone.

 

I didn't say they were evil, i just don't see them as being as unconditionally deserving as you clearly seem to do!!!

 

Actually I, probably selfishly, assume they've got a right to keep at least some of their earnings. Shame on me, eh?

 

I'm irked by all those who play the system, i'm not excusing feckless behaviour. But nor do i approve of cronyism. I'm not arguing for communism either - we're talking about a fundamental tenet of a democracy - a welfare system, just pointing out that handouts exist at all levels, but at only one level is it ever given media attention.

 

You are excusing feckless behaviour. By your (and so many others) support of the welfare system, the safety net has become a hammock.

 

wrong again. Government influences behaviour under a capitalist system all the time. Which other entity do you know that has the power to tax ?

Plus individuals and companies always follow where the government decides to spend it's checks. Because that's how most jobs are created, by government paying for something. A road, a hospital, a school, rural broadband........

 

Yes, in the 18th century when governments were the only ones who had money this was true. Nowadays there are companies who are richer than governments. Take a look at Lyle's, or the railway companies, or Terrys or Cadbury's from the 19th century. They built infrastructure, housing, schools, hospitals.

[X-13]

They seem to manage in other countries.

 

We're taxed a lot more than other countries.

 

[Not getting involved... just saying.]

[alttab]

In your view.

 

 

it's not a view, i thought it was a known fact, that government's role is to intervene in the economy. What else are they their for ?

 

Which is an administrative nightmare.

 

agreed. but then companies small and large would have to increase substantially how much they pay their employees to compensate.

It's not good enough to say that the current minimum wage alone is sufficient for families given the cost of living. Alternatively, taking part-time workers out of income tax altogether and reducing the tax burden of others is a start, but it's not really happening aggressively enough. Here you have an opportunity whereby government can provide a job at sufficient pay for anyone who wants one. There are plenty of examples of how government can employ on a large scale, and it's focus would be entirely on providing roles for people not maximising profit.

 

 

They seem to manage in other countries.

 

But then other developed countries also seem to manage with more public holidays and lower tax burden relative to the size of

government they have.

 

 

 

You start from the assumption that we, taxpayers should be supporting people. That's your perspective, of course. Don't assume it applies to everyone.

 

yes, i did assume it was the role of government. you have to have some agency which performs that role, you can't simply rely on charities and religious institutions.

 

 

Actually I, probably selfishly, assume they've got a right to keep at least some of their earnings. Shame on me, eh?

 

As a taxpayer also, it actually cheeses me off. But, good luck to them, if they can take advantage of the tax system and keep their earnings - not having such tax breaks would otherwise discourage entrepreneurship, and good luck to someone on benefits if they're able to continue to stay in their homes and keep the lights on. I'd no sooner force someone to work to barely scrape an existence than i would force someone paying 20% or less tax to pay 40% tax that they would ordinarily be paying if they were taxed under PAYE.

 

Yes, in the 18th century when governments were the only ones who had money this was true. Nowadays there are companies who are richer than governments. Take a look at Lyle's, or the railway companies, or Terrys or Cadbury's from the 19th century. They built infrastructure, housing, schools, hospitals.

 

There's no company on earth that has anywhere near the money that any one of the developed countries or the eurozone have. Where will the money come from to rebuild tsunami ravaged Japan, if not the national government ? Similarly, while Cadbury's built small communities, it's hardly the same as national housebuilding or motorway building projects that only government can afford. I think both forms of infrastructure spending can exist, and it's a tremendous boon for any area where a profitable company can use it's cash pile to deliver something socially useful. But government has to build and maintain beyond these small pockets of investment.

 

But even if you push government further into the background it still writes the cheques, because it has to in order to convince the private sector companies to make the investments. Whether that's massive rail subsidies or massive pfi.

Edited April 28, 2012 by alttab

[Dos_Box]

Similarly, while Cadbury's built small communities, it's hardly the same as national housebuilding or motorway building projects that only government can afford.

 

I'll have to disagree with you on that point. Almost every industrialized northern town was constructed with private money. All those terraced houses? All paid for by the mill and factory owners with their own cash (and rented back to their workers of course) plus the streets and canals and even the early roads. Interestingly, one thing that Maggie thought was going to happen when she opened up the UK's financial markets and sold off the nationalized industries (almost all of which were taken out of private hands by the govt during or shortly after WWII) in the 80's was that the large companies would adopt a Victorian attitude of building facilities for the public good such as parks, schools and libraries etc. She got that very, very wrong indeed.

[sted]

As to tax credits being a nightmare ive never got that system why take money off someone to give it back wouldn't it be better to raise their tax allowance so they dont pay it in the first place?

 

Infact why not simplify tax have a flat system the first say 12k is tax free (maybe have allowances for kids etc) then any thing above that is taxed at x% should Be much easier and cheaper to administer and nobody can claim its unfair

[Dos_Box]

As to tax credits being a nightmare ive never got that system why take money off someone to give it back wouldn't it be better to raise their tax allowance so they dont pay it in the first place?

 

Look up the phrase 'tax churning'.

[alttab]

I'll have to disagree with you on that point. Almost every industrialized northern town was constructed with private money. All those terraced houses? All paid for by the mill and factory owners with their own cash (and rented back to their workers of course) plus the streets and canals and even the early roads. Interestingly, one thing that Maggie thought was going to happen when she opened up the UK's financial markets and sold off the nationalized industries (almost all of which were taken out of private hands by the govt during or shortly after WWII) in the 80's was that the large companies would adopt a Victorian attitude of building facilities for the public good such as parks, schools and libraries etc. She got that very, very wrong indeed.

 

and at the tail end of the 19th century and beginning of the early 20th you had massive government subsidised house building and clearance of slum dwellings. Then again during the interwar years. I don't think private capital is automatically preferable to state spending. Especially today, as government isn't technically as constrained as it was in the past, but there exists the problem in that we believe we are constrained in not being able to invest without bankrupting our grandchildren [thatcher's famous comment about the government not having any money itself - it being taxpayers money]

 

. And so the government seems content to sit on it's hands.... and the spending that can and should be happening just isn't getting done. Probably because government has long since lost it's nerve on delivering socially useful initiatives for fear of 'wasting taxpayers money'. The 10bn to the IMF is neither hear nor there, it's just another number on a spreadsheet as far as the government is concerned. If government decided to spend 50bn building half a million new homes i wouldn't lose any sleep over that either. Or if it decided to allocate a few more billion to bring forward tax changes i wouldn't worry either, it's all socially useful stuff. And it wouldn't bankrupt us either. And we could still afford to pay welfare benefits.

 

I think that situation will arise Eventually anyway, with spending increases and tax cuts and then they'll realise they'll never be able to raise interest rates and clear the deficit for fear of sending everything down the swanny.

[localzuk]

We're taxed a lot more than other countries.

 

[Not getting involved... just saying.]

 

Just to point out that this is a ridiculous falsehood perpetuated by the Daily Mail and its journalists who lack basic maths skills.

 

When you add all the different taxes that we pay up, and do similarly around the world, the average individual in the UK pays less than the vast majority of European people. We're about 1% higher than the OECD average.

 

Interestingly enough, Spain, Ireland, & Greece all have tax rates significantly lower than the OECD average...

[Dos_Box]

and at the tail end of the 19th century and beginning of the early 20th you had massive government subsidised house building and clearance of slum dwellings.

 

You are forgetting that many of the slums that were cleared were a lot older than the industiral revolution and many were demolished to make way for more mill terraces. If you read the reoprt here it makes intersting reading: England has the oldest housing stock in Europe Welcome to site

 

England has 21.6million homes, amongst the oldest in Europe. Around 45% is over 50 years old compared to 39% in France, 30% in Germany and 24% in the USA. Over one quarter was built before 1914 and half before 1945.

Lord Brooke, president of the National Home Improvement Council, points out: "In fact a very large proportion of UK's housing stock has been around for over 100 years and the way demographic changes are going with 4.5million new households required by 2020, they are likely to be around for at least another 100 years. This is mainly because new build housing just will not be able to meet the demand."

 

 

As I said, if you go to any industrial northern town you will see vast numbers of houses contructed by mill owners for their workforce. These have NOT been demolished en-mass, only a street here or there to erect tower blocks in the 50's and 60's. And we know what a success they were.

Also remeber that in other major cities the terraces were destroyed en-mass during WWII due to bombing and the remainder demolished for safety reasons. I still like going down London streets and seeing a new building wedged in between older ones marking where a German bomb fell during the blitz.

[Flatpackhamster]

it's not a view, i thought it was a known fact, that government's role is to intervene in the economy. What else are they their for ?

 

Since 1945 they've seen their role as intervening in the economy. The purpose of government, IMO, is primarily law and war. By that I mean that their role is defending the citizens of that country from outside aggression, and providing a trusted, stable judicial system which offers justice to all. Government intervention in the economy isn't a success.

 

agreed. but then companies small and large would have to increase substantially how much they pay their employees to compensate.

It's not good enough to say that the current minimum wage alone is sufficient for families given the cost of living. Alternatively, taking part-time workers out of income tax altogether and reducing the tax burden of others is a start, but it's not really happening aggressively enough. Here you have an opportunity whereby government can provide a job at sufficient pay for anyone who wants one. There are plenty of examples of how government can employ on a large scale, and it's focus would be entirely on providing roles for people not maximising profit.

 

What you're doing with this scheme is artifically raising the cost of labour. You're taking money from taxpayers and businesses, and you're making it more expensive to hire low-skilled staff. So small businesses will be paying tax, and paying higher staffing costs. And they have to pass on those costs to customers.

 

And you wonder about the high cost of living. Government creates the high cost of living with its blundering intervention.

 

But then other developed countries also seem to manage with more public holidays and lower tax burden relative to the size of

government they have.

 

Oh, there's plenty that could be done with government. We could remove all regional government and a heap of central and localise the whole system and I'm sure you'd see costs fall. Sadly, that's a pipe dream.

 

yes, i did assume it was the role of government. you have to have some agency which performs that role, you can't simply rely on charities and religious institutions.

 

Every major public building in every town before about 1945 was built with private money. Your swimming pools, your piers, your town halls, your theatres, your schools and hospitals. What the council did was they went to the wealthy of the town and asked them to pony up. And the wealthy did.

 

There's no company on earth that has anywhere near the money that any one of the developed countries or the eurozone have. Where will the money come from to rebuild tsunami ravaged Japan, if not the national government ? Similarly, while Cadbury's built small communities, it's hardly the same as national housebuilding or motorway building projects that only government can afford. I think both forms of infrastructure spending can exist, and it's a tremendous boon for any area where a profitable company can use it's cash pile to deliver something socially useful. But government has to build and maintain beyond these small pockets of investment.

 

If you look at debt vs earnings, even my company is better off than the UK. I agree, there are some things government should do. But I think that the system as it stands is horribly broken. How long have we been waiting for another runway at Heathrow or Gatwick, or a new airport in the Thames estuary? 30 years? And the bloody government is still sitting on its arse on that, kicking the difficult decision down the road because it'll make the ecomentalists and Pious-drivers cry.

 

But even if you push government further into the background it still writes the cheques, because it has to in order to convince the private sector companies to make the investments. Whether that's massive rail subsidies or massive pfi.

 

No, government just needs to provide a safe, reliable place for business to spend. Businesses spend when they can see their money pile getting bigger. Subsidies reward corporates. If governments provide handouts, in any form, it distorts the market and in the end we, the consumer, pays.

[alttab]

Since 1945 they've seen their role as intervening in the economy. The purpose of government, IMO, is primarily law and war. By that I mean that their role is defending the citizens of that country from outside aggression, and providing a trusted, stable judicial system which offers justice to all. Government intervention in the economy isn't a success.

 

So government can't intervene or shouldn't intervene to reduce things like child poverty ? We should just go back to pre-war statistics on a whole range of social issues, dismantle the welfare state maybe - send homeless soaring again...if it means more nice old buildings get built by wealthy benefactors ?

 

If it can be shown that schools, hospitals, roads, rail can be built without state subsidy AND made freely available where needed then i won't hold on to the notion that government needs to intervene. But i've no idea how any of that would be profitable to do for a private sector company or financier.

And good luck with the councils going round with a cookie jar asking the local businesses to build a local swimming pool. The nearest thing you'd get is a bank lending money for a community building project, because it portrays them in a good light. But that only serves to increase private sector debt, and i don't think you can rebuild britain based on that model. Whichever way dress it up as, the funding model involves debt of some sort, the choice is whether it's an increase in private borrowing or government borrowing.

 

excessive private borrowing = financial crisis.

excessive government borrowing = no big deal.

 

the cash all private companies combined equal to the governments ability to spend ? not even close. don't apply private sector debt-earnings ratio's to a government which isn't as restricted.

 

What you're doing with this scheme is artifically raising the cost of labour. You're taking money from taxpayers and businesses, and you're making it more expensive to hire low-skilled staff. So small businesses will be paying tax, and paying higher staffing costs. And they have to pass on those costs to customers.

 

I'd rather low skilled staff be paid a decent wage, rather than bending over backwards to implement in initiatives to keep their pay down. It doesn't have to be one or the other, we can have higher pay and lower taxes.

 

And you wonder about the high cost of living. Government creates the high cost of living with its blundering intervention.

 

No, high cost of living is because government doesn't use properly it's powers to intervene. If it has the regulatory power to break up a monopoly would that not help raise competition and keep prices low ? What other agency has the power to protect consumer rights through law and regulation. If that isn't intervening in the economy then i don't know what is.

 

Oh, there's plenty that could be done with government. We could remove all regional government and a heap of central and localise the whole system and I'm sure you'd see costs fall. Sadly, that's a pipe dream.

 

Every major public building in every town before about 1945 was built with private money. Your swimming pools, your piers, your town halls, your theatres, your schools and hospitals. What the council did was they went to the wealthy of the town and asked them to pony up. And the wealthy did.

 

So how would that work today, we abandon taxation and ask people to contribute to the building of new hospitals and schools ? No government money at all, just donations. Who decides what get's built where, do all those who've made a monetary contribution get a say irrespective of size of donation?

 

If you look at debt vs earnings, even my company is better off than the UK. I agree, there are some things government should do. But I think that the system as it stands is horribly broken. How long have we been waiting for another runway at Heathrow or Gatwick, or a new airport in the Thames estuary? 30 years? And the bloody government is still sitting on its arse on that, kicking the difficult decision down the road because it'll make the ecomentalists and Pious-drivers cry.

 

you can't apply debt to earnings calculations to a country like the UK. if i borrow money to buy a house, i take out a loan that i have to repay through earnings. When government 'borrows' it's promising to pay people after a certain period of time a fixed amount of money that it creates by some people in an area of government typing into a computer. That's something that governments can do that you or me can't.

 

 

No, government just needs to provide a safe, reliable place for business to spend. Businesses spend when they can see their money pile getting bigger. Subsidies reward corporates. If governments provide handouts, in any form, it distorts the market and in the end we, the consumer, pays.

 

businesses make money from consumers. So, to support the huge number of businesses in our economy and their desire for profitability, we as a nation of private sector spenders need to go massively (and i mean massively) in debt to keep these businesses profitable, if we decide to take most of the state spending and subsidy away. We can't apply a pre-1945 model of smaller population, far fewer people in the workforce, far fewer profit speaking businesses, and apply it to the situation we have today where we don't have the same fiat money restrictions. And then just say, we'll build everything with money that rich businesses and individuals don't mind if they don't see back!!!

Edited May 6, 2012 by alttab

[sted]

High cost of living has lots of reasons one is house prices itself having several causes one being caused by government when Thatcher sold off council houses they weren't replaced iirc councils were forbidden to use money made to replace them so cheap housing diminished pushing up prices.

 

What people forget about old now public buildings is they were built at a time pretty much tax free and because sick workers are a problem it in most cases wasnt as altruistic as we think

[alttab]

High cost of living has lots of reasons one is house prices itself having several causes one being caused by government when Thatcher sold off council houses they weren't replaced iirc councils were forbidden to use money made to replace them so cheap housing diminished pushing up prices.

 

What people forget about old now public buildings is they were built at a time pretty much tax free and because sick workers are a problem it in most cases wasnt as altruistic as we think

 

what would motivate companies to fund a lot of these projects that serve a public good ? If not the ability to extract rents.

 

Sure there is a social responsibility element that the large companies get involved in, but there primarily reason for existence is to make profits and keep investors happy.

 

there has to be a mixture of private and public sector investment, At the moment it's supposedly the case that 40% of the economy is the public sector. But i believe the government sector involvement in a modern economy is far higher than that. It's just not identified as such, call it an invisible hand if you like. One of the reasons i think people want to see a smaller public sector or public sector involvement is because they don't have any faith in the beuracracies that accompany the machinery of goverment - and it's easier to have a go at those beuracracies rather than the beuracracies of the private sector, becuase people perceive that they're funding waste through their taxes.

 

. But then spending public money at any level involves creating beuracracies and an element of waste and ineffeciencies, a community cooperative which receives funds from some local or national pot of money still needs people to take on administrative and managerial roles and be accountable so as projects can be completed.

 

With more and more people withdrawing into a world of work and family and less interest in taking on responsible roles in the community, we can't complain if local or national government decides it can't take the risk and is better off investing using the existing mechanisms. It's no good an individual saying that they should be taxed less/get to keep more money in their pockets, and therefore for investment decisions around the country be based on the populaces spending habits, because governments' role in providing a public good has whittled away to nothing. We'd end up with nothing but shopping centres. Not all of the stuff that local and national govt. does is strictly necessary, ...and there are always consequences to taking stuff away or not doing it anymore. And a lot of stuff would just be too big of a void to fill by any other means.

[featured_spectre]

Right...reading through this whole thread and how its now turned to benefits and jobs etc...The government created 8000 jobs as a test 4 years ago (back in the days of labour, and ConDems carried it on)...less than 300 jobs got applied for, and those jobs are STILL going. People say about the government not creating jobs, its people need to apply and take the jobs and it needs to make financial sense to do so. In this day in age, a job is a job. I got the point I applied for cleaning, IT, construction, labouring, shelf stacking etc...didn't care for the job, as long as it paid more than Job Seekers and the remaining benefits I was getting. I am thankful I am in a job that I like.

 

Most people stay on JS and associated benefits because it makes financial sense to do so. A friend of mine has a Masters Degree in Maths from Imperial University, and he could walk into many jobs, but he said it makes more financial sense for him to stay on Job Seekers and such benefits because after tax and NI etc he would get LESS than what he is currently getting. He is looking for work and hates being on benefits, but he wants a job where the salary after tax at the very least meets what he gets in benefits (Currently £27000pa or so).

 

Until the cost of living is either reduced or government forces companies to make wage increases to match the European and US job market, things won't improve An IT Tech job in a middle school in Germany near to where my nan lives is paying 29'000 Euros (£23'505) and network manager job is paying 46'000 Euros (£37'284)...cost of living is nowhere near as high as over here so you get even more in your pocket at the end of the day. It doesn't help over here the majority of companies and government sectors try to squeeze as much out for as little as possible (except at the very very top) whereas many European models do not follow that. Such a sad state of affairs.

[sted]

But if wages suddenly go up wouldn't that lead to huge inflation issues. Besides im not sure comparing to eu or us is helpful as unless you equalise the cost of everything its an imaginary number.

 

Income 10k outgoings 12k bad.

 

Income 5k outgoings 4k good the actual numbers dont matter its what you have left that matters

[featured_spectre]

ok...figures from my nan...who is on her pension and in rented accomodation in Germany... Income 18k, Outgoings 13k...after bills etc, from her pension she still has over 400 Euros a month for herself. When she was earning, the income was much higher, but the outgoings were maybe 5k higher (to account for fuel costs and income tax etc). My nan was a nurse before retirement, and she was on about 40k give or take and her outgoings were around 18-19k a year (if you include tax and health insurance)...she had a tonne of cash left at the end of the month (over 1700 Euro's)...so much so she actually subsidised my first year of university and paid for most of the costs because she had the money spare.

 

She didn't shop at cheap shops either, she is a "brand names" or "home made with fresh" type of person...so yeah, cost of living is drastically different as is the wage gap.

Edited May 6, 2012 by featured_spectre

[alttab]

Right...reading through this whole thread and how its now turned to benefits and jobs etc...

 

not really. i was still making the point about the nature of public spending and how the government chooses to spend. The point i'm hoping will become crystal clear over the next few years is that government spending constraints on social security, defence, education, nhs etc. are a political choice. 10bn to the IMF in monetary terms is neither here nor there for a country that spends in excess of 1 trn pounds a year. Even then by the very nature of such things, the government get's something back in return.

 

When the government intervened during the financial crisis it took large equity stakes in some very big banks. That course of action wasn't strictly necessary, but it's not a commitment that bankrupts any grandchildren. And the government get's something in return. Neither is running a large deficit a real problem, i refuse to believe that the UK can ever go broke except if it voluntarily chooses to renege on making it's payments - and given that's nothing more than tapping some numbers on a keyboard, why would they ever want to go down that route!!!

 

There are just too many people willing and needing to work and pay taxes - irrespective of how unbalanced the tax and benefits system has been, for investors to ever really lose confidence in the UK. Even if you look at somewhere like Greece with all the problems it has - tenfold the issues we face, those problems still aren't enough for the eurozone to fall in on itself because it has a buyer of last resort. It's not totally exposed to the markets.

 

From a personal point of view, i feel localism has a lot going for it - and the idea that local people and communities should have a greater say in how and where money is spent. The things that could be done in my area which would have significant impact if only a fraction of the billions that get earmarked regionally can filter through...it's all political rather than monetary limitations.

[Flatpackhamster]

not really. i was still making the point about the nature of public spending and how the government chooses to spend. The point i'm hoping will become crystal clear over the next few years is that government spending constraints on social security, defence, education, nhs etc. are a political choice. 10bn to the IMF in monetary terms is neither here nor there for a country that spends in excess of 1 trn pounds a year. Even then by the very nature of such things, the government get's something back in return.

 

When the government intervened during the financial crisis it took large equity stakes in some very big banks. That course of action wasn't strictly necessary, but it's not a commitment that bankrupts any grandchildren. And the government get's something in return. Neither is running a large deficit a real problem, i refuse to believe that the UK can ever go broke except if it voluntarily chooses to renege on making it's payments - and given that's nothing more than tapping some numbers on a keyboard, why would they ever want to go down that route!!!

 

There are just too many people willing and needing to work and pay taxes - irrespective of how unbalanced the tax and benefits system has been, for investors to ever really lose confidence in the UK. Even if you look at somewhere like Greece with all the problems it has - tenfold the issues we face, those problems still aren't enough for the eurozone to fall in on itself because it has a buyer of last resort. It's not totally exposed to the markets.

 

From a personal point of view, i feel localism has a lot going for it - and the idea that local people and communities should have a greater say in how and where money is spent. The things that could be done in my area which would have significant impact if only a fraction of the billions that get earmarked regionally can filter through...it's all political rather than monetary limitations.

 

We'll just have to agree to disagree. You think that money comes from unicorns and fairy dust and debt isn't really a problem, and I think that spending more than you tax leads to economic ruin. Apparently the evidence of failed socialist states around the world isn't enough, so we'll just have to watch the Eurozone go under and see whether you're convinced then.