I know Tescos price regionally as the one in Amersham we use is supposed to be one of the most expensive in the country according to the local news. I guess it all comes own to things like land costs. It will obviously cost more to rent a very large shop near London than pretty much anywhere else in the UK so the prices reflect this.
lower benefits for Northerners and longer school days
- Thread starter Locky
- Start date
I know Tescos price regionally as the one in Amersham we use is supposed to be one of the most expensive in the country according to the local news. I guess it all comes own to things like land costs. It will obviously cost more to rent a very large shop near London than pretty much anywhere else in the UK so the prices reflect this.
The thing thats annoying me is why does person x DESERVE more money than person y because they live in a different place?
Lets say 2 people lose there jobs.
They both earned 25k a year.
1 lived in the north east.
The other lived in the south west.
Why should 1 person on jsa get more than the other?
Its obsured.
Lets say 2 people lose there jobs.
They both earned 25k a year.
1 lived in the north east.
The other lived in the south west.
Why should 1 person on jsa get more than the other?
Its obsured.
It's not absurd, it costs more to live.
The person on 25k in London was on less money comparitevly and is on less money on benefits.
Benefits should have x-purchasing power. That purchasing power varies by region.
Again this is not a north south thing, it's every region of the uk.
The person on 25k in London was on less money comparitevly and is on less money on benefits.
Benefits should have x-purchasing power. That purchasing power varies by region.
Again this is not a north south thing, it's every region of the uk.
Couldn't be bothered to correct spelling
Couldn't be bothered with a full stop?
Relocate the poor? Why not go one better? We could just create camps specifically built for people on benefits. We could call them ghettos! What a brilliant idea
How about this.
Two people
One full time worker, working 40 hours a week, every week. They can just afford to live in a shared house with 4 other randoms, all who work.
One person on benefits who can, by virtue of the government paying for them, lives in their own flat in the same area...
Why should the person working full time have to share a flat (usually fairly poor condition as well) when someone who isn't working gets to stay in a nice flat on their own/with partner etc?
Or should the person that works be able to stay in a flat on their own and the person on benefits is moved out into either a shared house or a flat in a cheaper area?
The situation in London is if you are on less than around £50k (and don't have a partner) then you're probably sharing a house or commuting in from 20-30 miles away. Why should those that don't work get to live in central London in a private* residence, the very place most working people could not afford.
*private being not sharing with others.
But they both paid the same in. Why can't working people in the region where benefits are lower get tax relief?
People in the better off region's have more disposable income than those in the poorer areas by more than the cost of living.
If I understand correctly, this is what currently happens. By giving people benefits depndant on living costs, it means that people who are on benefits should all have similar amounts of disposable incomes.
Although, if one's on benefits, I don' understand why they should have any disposable income at all...
What you pay in has no bearing(well a very slight bearing, but no bearing in this example), never has never will.
Can I claim my tax back as I haven't claimed any benefits? Of course not.
The pot is only so large, paying in has. No bearing on your ability to claim or how much you claim.
Benefits is a safety net, as a safety net it should. Give you the minimum to survive. Not more just because you've paid in.
What does disposable incomes have anything to do with benefits? Zero.
Your entire starting position, is frankly odd. Again paying in has no bearing, disposable income has no bearing.
You say why should A get more than B, depending how you look at it, that's exactly what is happening at the moment. Benefits should cost the least to the country as possible and that is by purchasing power.
Last edited:
Im talking about the workers of the same area.
Why should my tax go to propping someones benefits up to live in an area they blatantly can not afford to live in?
Ten minutes of googling suggests it's more complicated than that and that a MW may even increase employment through increasing spending power:
e.g.
http://www.econ.yale.edu/conference/neudc11/papers/paper_272.pdf
http://www.ilo.org/employment/Whatwedo/Publications/WCMS_120232/lang--en/index.htm
Review of the theories at the start.
Starting at P21 you've got a quick review of studies on the effect of minimum wage in the UK.
What you going to do move people on benefits to cheaper areas? Which will form ghettos, have a massive imbalance of jobs and skills and will trap people on benefits far more.
People on benefits have to be spread out around the country.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Apr 2007
- Posts
- 6,647
ITT has anyone actually lived on benefits for a while? From arguements my guess is no...
Living on JSA is total and utter ****.....
People in this thread seem to make out people on benefits live like kings?! WTF ARE YOU SMOKING!? I've lived on jsa for a good while and IT SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Living on JSA is total and utter ****.....
People in this thread seem to make out people on benefits live like kings?! WTF ARE YOU SMOKING!? I've lived on jsa for a good while and IT SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It doesn't suck for everyone, you are also one example, not everyone claims same benefits, or are entitled not same benefits, someone. With kids for example will be able to claim far more than you did.
My uncle hasn't worked a year in his live, was more than happy living on benefits for his entire life. With a few jobs here and there. Usually to meet rules on benefits, they never lasted more than a few days. But when you don't drive, aren't interested in gadgets or a nice house. And just wants a pint down the pub and likes walking/cycling, then you can live on pretty much nothing. Despite having a savings account and actively hiding it from authorities, total scum bag.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 9 Dec 2012
- Posts
- 1,457
Shame they are not interested in real problems that the majority have, which is BTLs and house rents/prices.
It depends on how far you'd go with that statement. As Glaucus says, you do need to have them spread out to avoid ghettos, but I do agree that they shouldn't be allowed to live in the most expensive areas like central London when they could commute like the rest of us from suburbs. However, sending all benefit claimants to live in one area will just cause a massive depreciation of that area, that simply benefits nobody.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Apr 2007
- Posts
- 6,647
Yeah well go for it cut benefits for those kinds of people if they are living above their means but are people really though? aside a few dailymail examples, but baseline JSA for a single unemployed dude sucks balls.
Extend school hours, what's that going to achieve?? We already have a problem in the UK with not letting kids be kids and lack of family time.
When I was at school we started at 8.45am and finished at 3.30pm. They have now changed it to finishing at 3pm because health and safety reasons with kids walking back during dark winter nights. Finishing at 6pm would effect kids safety during those dark nights again.
When I was at school we started at 8.45am and finished at 3.30pm. They have now changed it to finishing at 3pm because health and safety reasons with kids walking back during dark winter nights. Finishing at 6pm would effect kids safety during those dark nights again.
Im not saying everyone on benefits should live in the same place but rather than giving people more money in areas just show them where they could live cheaper. Im not talking about the people on benefits for a month or 2 between jobs more the long term scroungers.
Nobody who has claimed benefits for x ammount of time should be allowed to claim the top rate benefit for that area they should be forced to move to a cheaper area.
Dumping benefits claimants all together in the same place is probably going to harm their chances of getting off benefits.