lower benefits for Northerners and longer school days

Does that mean people up north would be able to pay less tax as less of there money would be going to benefits in the area?

People up north get stiffed enough as it is we pay into the tax pot and get very little back compared to other parts of the country.
 
geekman said:
Food (and drink!) is less expensive and petrol is less expensive in most areas, although I take your point about bills. I live in london and whenever I stay up north the differing cost of living is extremely noticeable - a night out easily costs me £20-£30 less than it does around here. House prices and rents are also far cheaper.
Click to expand...

Food, Fuel, Electronics, water ect are the same across the country.
The price of a night out should not be taken into account at all this isnt what benefits are about.
 
Locky said:
Does that mean Northerners will pay less Tax too?
Click to expand...

They do, they earn less, it costs less to live and as such benefits should not be standardised nationwide. Well depending on cost of administration.

This is in no way anti northern, it apples to everywhere dependent on living costs.

I don't see lengthening the school day to be workable.
 
Glaucus said:
They do, they earn less, it costs less to live and as such benefits should not be standardised nationwide. Well depending on cost of administration.

This is in no way anti northern, it apples to everywhere dependent on living costs.
Click to expand...

No northern money should be sent south then. All tax should be kept in the area its earned then maybe things would be fair.
 
Cupra said:
No northern money should be sent south then. All tax should be kept in the area its earned then maybe things would be fair.
Click to expand...

:confused:
Generally money from the better areas are sent elsewhere, no vice verses.
But I do think generally money should be reinvested where its made, but you still need to divert money to less well of councils.

Input and no, food, fuel etc are not the same throughout the country.
North west has the cheapest fuel for example.
 
Glaucus said:
:confused:
Generally money from the better areas are sent elsewhere, no vice verses.
But I do think generally money should be reinvested where its made, but you still need to divert money to less well of councils.

Input and no, food, fuel etc are not the same throughout the country.
North west has the cheapest fuel for example.
Click to expand...

What genuinly costs less in the north?
Housing doesnt count as that is a seperate benefit.
 
Shouldn't all this wage differential stuff be sorted out by the free market economy, govt. interference is the problem.
 
Cupra said:
What genuinly costs less in the north?
Housing doesnt count as that is a seperate benefit.
Click to expand...

August prices
Region
Price
Yorkshire & Humberside
133.4 pence per litre
South West
133.2 pence per litre
Wales
133.1 pence per litre
West Midlands
133.0 pence per litre
Scotland
132.8 pence per litre
East Midlands
132.8 pence per litre
North East
132.5 pence per litre
London
132.3 pence per litre
East of England
132.3 pence per litre
South East
132.2 pence per litre
Northern Ireland
132.1 pence per litre
North West
131.9 pence per litre
Click to expand...

Average household expenditure, 1Excluding mortgage interest payments and council tax
http://neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/HTMLDocs/images/Family Spending Regional_tcm97-109491.pdf
North East
North West
Yorkshire and The Humber East Midlands
West Midlands
East
London
South East
South West
Recreation & culture Recreation & culture Recreation & culture Transport
Transport
Transport
Housing (net)1, fuel & power Transport
Recreation & culture
51.20 55.30 53.70 63.30 61.50 67.10 80.10 75.30 63.20
Click to expand...

Average house price
http://www.landregistry.gov.uk/__data/assets/file/0016/30247/november-hpi-report.pdf
photojan06160811.jpg
 
Last edited:
Cupra said:
No northern money should be sent south then. All tax should be kept in the area its earned then maybe things would be fair.
Click to expand...

You can't get fairer than a percentage. Also a lot of your tax will be locally spent, a good example of this is council tax. Simple fact of the matter is for countries to generate real income they need to focus on the cities. The north gets plenty of money spent on it, a whole new railway iirc, those don't come cheap. Mind you, if you really want to keep your benefits then we could stop the railway (a fast convenient link between the north and south), this would be a good way to stop the north south divide?
 
Glaucus said:
August prices


Average household expenditure, 1Excluding mortgage interest payments and council tax
http://neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/HTMLDocs/images/Family Spending Regional_tcm97-109491.pdf


Average house price
http://www.landregistry.gov.uk/__data/assets/file/0016/30247/november-hpi-report.pdf
photojan06160811.jpg
Click to expand...

From the pdf you linked to it also states people in the south have more expendable income so why give them more money?
The reason people further north spend less could be because they have less so they do more "getting by"
So what costs more down south?
The weekly shopping is the same and the heating/electricity is the same. The cost of a new tv is the same as is digital subscriptions?

Also its average house price from an area so what about those who live in the nice towns where house prices are around £250,000 up north do they get the benefit of the higher benefits or do they have to move to a town thats cheaper?
 
Cupra said:
From the pdf you linked to it also states people in the south have more expendable income so why give them more money?
The reason people further north spend less could be because they have less so they do more "getting by"
So what costs more down south?
The weekly shopping is the same and the heating/electricity is the same. The cost of a new tv is the same as is digital subscriptions?
Click to expand...

We aren't, benefits generally aren't given to people with disposable income.
Shopping is not the same at all.

Giving money to people should be equal, costs less to live, less benefits. It should have the same buying power. This is dependent on cost of administration, if administrations is equal or costs more, then there no point doing it.


Transport costs
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/famil...-2010--living-costs-and-food-survey-2009-.pdf
During the three-year period, 2007–2009, spending on transport was highest among households in the South East (£75.30 per week) and lowest among those in the North East (£49.00 per week). Households in London spent the most on housing, fuel and power (£80.10 per week) compared with the UK national average of £54.00 per week (Table A37). Housing expenditure is looked at in more detail in chapter two.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
It's not much that much cheaper up north. I moved from near Bristol to Leeds.

Rent is above the rent benefit in Leeds anyway most places, and Gas / electric is about the same and bills etc

How is cutting benefits going to do ****?

Lol................just lol
 
Cupra said:
Food, Fuel, Electronics, water ect are the same across the country.
The price of a night out should not be taken into account at all this isnt what benefits are about.
Click to expand...
Food and fuel are not, I've experienced it first hand. As for the price of a night out, of course it techinically shouldn't be taken into account, but as much as we'd like to think otherwise, people on benefits aren't a different species and they do go out and spend money on luxuries. I'd say around 90% of the people I meet during work are receiving some kind of benefits and the majority have considerably more "luxuries" than I do. I don't want to open the whole "fat people claiming benefits sitting on their arse watching sky HD" can of worms but it's short-sighted not to think about the price of non-essentials when comparing living costs because like it or not, people do not live their lives on the bare essentials.
 
The way benefits are currently setup they already pay a LOT more to people in the south, or area's where property in more expensive. The housing benefits paid are one of the reasons this country is in so much debt!

Petrol and food prices don't really make that much difference in the grand scheme of things.

What this is about is the huge change that is coming to the benefits system. Currently somebody claiming JSA will get something like:

£180 every 2 weeks cash
Their rent paid - (they don't see this money, it's paid for them, usually 100%)
Council Tax is paid - (they don't see this money, it's paid for them)
+ anything else they can claim depending on circumstances

With the new benefits sytem claimants will just get all their benefits in one big lump sum every month, in cash. Very much like a monthly wage. In this scenario it would be grossly unfair to pay people the same amount. Example someone living in Middlesbrough would need a lot less to pay their rent/mortgage/council tax than someone living in London. To pay them the same would lead to one having a lot more disposable income. Unfair.

I agree with the school hours increasing but only by 1 hour. 3 is far too much!!
 
geekman said:
Food and fuel are not, I've experienced it first hand. As for the price of a night out, of course it techinically shouldn't be taken into account, but as much as we'd like to think otherwise, people on benefits aren't a different species and they do go out and spend money on luxuries. I'd say around 90% of the people I meet during work are receiving some kind of benefits and the majority have considerably more "luxuries" than I do. I don't want to open the whole "fat people claiming benefits sitting on their arse watching sky HD" can of worms but it's short-sighted not to think about the price of non-essentials when comparing living costs because like it or not, people do not live their lives on the bare essentials.
Click to expand...

On JSA literally all I could afford was essentials.

I had to cut food bill, also I stopped going out.

I've never had any of those experiences of people living it up on benefits? wonder how they do it, cause I sure as hell couldn't....
 
2 people receiving housing benefit are already getting a percentage depending on where they live.

1bed flat in London will cost much more than a 1bed flat up north - Cost of other things is roughly the same.
 
Cupra said:
What genuinly costs less in the north?
Housing doesnt count as that is a seperate benefit.
Click to expand...

For lack of better sources I've used university sites, taken the average figure, subtracted the accomodation costs and extrapolated for the full year:

http://www.sussex.ac.uk/study/ug/funding/2013entry/livingexpenses
Sussex - £6840

http://www.manchester.ac.uk/international/finance/costofliving/
Manchester - £5400

http://www.brookes.ac.uk/studying/finance/living_costs
Oxford - £6136

http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/students/support/moneyadvice/living.aspx
Birmingham - £7956

http://www.gla.ac.uk/international/support/costofliving/
Glasgow - £4200

http://www.rhul.ac.uk/international/feesandfunding/livingexpenses.aspx
London - £7280



I don't know why Birmingham quote such high prices, so maybe that one is best left ignored.


Its obvious though that location does make a difference in cost of living even after accommodation is taken out of the equation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom