- Joined
- 9 Dec 2012
- Posts
- 1,457
Out of many.
lower benefits for Northerners and longer school days
- Thread starter Locky
- Start date
Thats nice and easy to say but not always so easy even for people who are actively looking for work and compouding an already miseable situation by barely able to afford the essentials let alone the odd luxury isn't something I'd wish on anyone - life just isn't worth living like that.
I was very fortunate that I was able to move to a different area (where I almost immediately found a job) where I was living previously to where I am now I was unable to get a job after becoming unemployed no matter how much effort I put in and for some people moving to another area just isn't a possibility.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 12,050
- Location
- Manchester
Why bother answering such a stupid post?
- Joined
- 9 Dec 2012
- Posts
- 1,457
One thing they are not talking about is homes, cheap home, affordable homes, and i agree with you the majority on benefits are people that work 87%.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 12,050
- Location
- Manchester
Exactly it's a neglible amount that can be negated by shopping around
That would explain it - a friend of my parents is in a similar position and it sounds awful: would definitely make me think twice about leaving a job no matter how much I hated it.Probably, Of course I'm single young man etc. I guess in that sense if people are doing that then I am annoyed.... but on JSA really I had to stop buying nicer/healthier food which sucks. Lived on bags of pasta and eggs
I totally agree, I'm simply saying that people on benefits often live above the bare essentials and it does need to be considered, even if we disagree with it.
It's not lowering benefits in the north, the purposal is to make it regionally based, for the entirety of England, this is not just a purposal for the north.
Fuel cost is one of just many costs that are cheaper in the north, fuel on its own, not much. But benefits doesn't just pay for fuel does it.
I agree with lengthening the school days and (I assume they will do this as there will be little chance of doing it otherwise) removing homework during the week. Homework for me and a lot of my class mates (that bothered to do any at all) was to do the minimum that you could get away with. Hopefully in the extra school time there will be more sports and more preparation for the outside world including cooking classes.
I don't see the point in the lower benefits for the north, food will be close to the same as well as gas and electricity?
I don't see the point in the lower benefits for the north, food will be close to the same as well as gas and electricity?
Because the market will correct itself, the min wage pushes prices upwards, makes jobs pay more than they are worth and likely leads to unemployment.
they also need to get tough on corporate tax dodgers, but that aint gonna happen whilst they keep making political donations, benefit fraud is very low compared to tax fraud, yet the daily mail dont shout about it, hmmm wonder why
Im not saying benefit fraud should be ignored, but it doesnt deserve all the attention from the media, when fatcats are doing much much worse with their taxes
We'll just have more businesses leave the UK and more unemployment yeah?
Sickening? Wealthy?
How do you pay for the long retirement we now have, due to average length of life.
Money is finite. It isn't sustainable, it's a modern thing which when introduced retirement was for a few years, not a couple of decades.
On top of that due to length of life, health bills are shooting up as people need more medical attention and new medical treatments are increasing in price due to complexity.
So it's a double whammy, people live longer and it's costs more for retirement funds and more in health funds.
Central funding should not pay. For these long retirements, which means private and well they aren't going to run at a loss, so you will either have to pay huge amounts into a pension pot, or work. Longer. It's not sickening at all, it's just reality. I have no doubt my lovely final salary pension with retirement at 60 will not exist in 3 decades.
Last edited:
What does that mean, in this context, or is it just a fancy sound bite
Actually inflation pushes prices up
Even the most menial job should pay a living wage, else you have the situation we are in now where the tax payer subsidises businesses profits through working tax credits, which isn't right.
I would prefer a fully decentralised system of taxation whereby taxes spent in a region can only match taxes collected in a region. I really don't like this talk whereby a Londoner claims he subsidises me like I'm some sort of scrounger..
I totally welcome benefits being paid relative to living costs in the area. The idea that everyone pays the same to live is laughable. It's well known that companies price their goods in accordance to the local demographic. If you live up North and you pay the same as Londoner then you won't be affected. If it can be accurately determined that you don't then you'll receive less and I fail to see how that's unfair.
Originally Posted by jimmy321 View Post
Because the market will correct itself
It's means exactly what is says, when the price of the job reaches a point it's not worth doing it will reach the lowest price point, on the flip side of that when you can't get someone to do the job the pay will increase till the positions are filled.
Providing tax credits etc to plug the gap distorts the market, it's bad for the long term, unless your goal is to make the market uncompetitive and push jobs abroad.
Because the market will correct itself
It's means exactly what is says, when the price of the job reaches a point it's not worth doing it will reach the lowest price point, on the flip side of that when you can't get someone to do the job the pay will increase till the positions are filled.
Providing tax credits etc to plug the gap distorts the market, it's bad for the long term, unless your goal is to make the market uncompetitive and push jobs abroad.
Because its well documented that the quality of life isnt as good up north thats why things are cheaper everyone in the country cant live in the same place.
The prices of things that should be taken into account when working out what people "need" to live on is negligible across the country.
You haven't showed any figures to suggest its similar. Yet everything shows its different.
If it is the same, benefits won't be lowered, again this is not a northern thing either, it's all regions of uk.
Combine that with what someone else said, about the entire way benefits are paid.
People on benefits in such areas are paid comparatively more, and even closer to how much working people in that area are paid, closing the gap between benefits and pay is not a good thing, there should be a substantial gap. It should always be better to work, than live on benefits.
If it is the same, benefits won't be lowered, again this is not a northern thing either, it's all regions of uk.
Combine that with what someone else said, about the entire way benefits are paid.
People on benefits in such areas are paid comparatively more, and even closer to how much working people in that area are paid, closing the gap between benefits and pay is not a good thing, there should be a substantial gap. It should always be better to work, than live on benefits.
Last edited: