Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Savings and Investments thread
Comments
-
If we spent money at the grocer's back in the day, that money circulated back into the local/national economy. Wages stayed local and profits stayed local. The money kept circulating and the economy grew. But that local multiplier has collapsed.
We have spent the last 20-30 years breaking that system down, and allowing money that's spent in this country to be taken offshore. Even critical infrastructure has been handed over to foreign ownership. If profit leaves the country and isn't taxed here, the government leans more on PAYE, NI, etc. to fill the gap. It's a circle that will continue to get worse, but nobody wants to take it on and spook the markets, because the markets are our lord and god.
So instead we increase the individual tax burden, which leads to less disposable income, and less money to grow the economy - and yet, even if we were spending more, most of the profit wouldn’t be staying here anyway. It seems like there's no way out.
That's why I don’t see any hope for this country, even in the medium-to-long term. The economies that are going to thrive in the coming decades are the ones where the profit is being taken. No government will take this on because they can't spook the markets, even while the markets continue to bleed us dry.
7 -
Athletico Charlton said:bobmunro said:cantersaddick said:
Did it cost significantly more than rent/mortgage "back in the day"? Were both parents expected to work full time just to avoid being I'm poverty "back in the day"?bobmunro said:cantersaddick said:
Yeah you don't actually get 30 hours. You get a voucher for what the government deems should be enough to pay for 30 hours. The reality is if you go to even a middle of the road nursery you have to top that up significantly.shine166 said:
30 hours PW if you earn under 100k but that doesn't cover food or outings (the park/forrest school). Bang average nurserys are £70 per day where I am without the extras.Rob7Lee said:
I think what people are saying (and I'm very much generalising here) is don't ask me to pay for your decisions, i.e. whether thats someone being lazy and not working as you mention, someone having children etc etc.cantersaddick said:
I don't think that is what people were alluding to. Most of the comments on here have been around people being lazy and no working at all. Not a family working as much as they can with childcare. And in the situation I described I dont see how having less support would help the situation. Bit I can see how either higher pay or cheaper childcare would help.Rob7Lee said:
Is that not something many are alluding to. In your example a couple decide to have a baby, can't then afford the childcare so one goes part time/gives up work, the state then has to step in and help financially. In my view thats not what the welfare system was designed for, at least not to the level it is.cantersaddick said:
With children below school age unless you have family help around you sometimes one parent working full time or both part time is all they can manage. If you're on minimum wage the cost of childcare is prohibitive to working beyond that.ForestHillAddick said:
Agree with that, but from your stats 82% of households in poverty have only one adult in full time work or two adults in part time work at most.cantersaddick said:
Where we are talking about children (in the context of the 2 child limit) we have to remember that childcare is a factor. Unless we are going to make breakfast clubs, after school clubs and pre school aged childcare free (I'm in favour) we cant expect both parents to be working full time. The cost of childcare currently is prohibitive to that.ForestHillAddick said:
Well to me those stats read that the vast majority (82%) of households living in poverty are under underemployed.cantersaddick said:
Not sure that really changes the story from how I read them. Still pretty stark. 35% is ridiculously low and goes against the narrative that its a majority of people who are lazy and not working. If it was all about work vs lazy then that number would be massively higher. One parent working part time to manage childcare arrangements should not be something that pushes a family into poverty.ForestHillAddick said:
Just to play devil's advocate a bit on these DWP stats. Surely the same stats presented in a different way lead to a different implication. If I were to say:cantersaddick said:
I completely agree that the social contract has broken down. The other side to that social contract is low pay. the minimum wage was effectively brought in as part of that social contract to say that if you worked 40 hours a week you would be able to provide for yourself and your family and not be in poverty. Unfortunately that side of the social contract has also broken down. We now have massive and growing in work poverty. Thats a real issue and for me is the main factor in why welfare has exploded. Its not that the safety net is too high its that we have had a whole generation of wage suppression which means those in work also need the safety net. Yes there will be a minority who choose not to work but thats not because the safety net is too high but because the pay is too low (otherwise they wouldn't be in poverty).Carter said:
Its a fair chunk of both in my eyesbobmunro said:Rob7Lee said:
£1100 rentcantersaddick said:
What housing costs assumption did you use in this example? was it a single parent family or 2 parent, what ages are the children? I think some pretty unrealistic and extreme assumptions will have been needed to get these figures. E.g. I think all 5 of the kids will need to be below school age and housing costs would need to be extreme.Rob7Lee said:I saw it on Twitter and immediately called bull, I then put the info myself into a benefit checker (entitled.co.uk if anyone wants to have a go and depress themselves!)
Clearly someone had worked out what the absolute maximum you could get based on circumstance.
£4,287 in benefits (made up of UC and Child allowance and council tax help). £11k a year on minimum wage/16 hours each gives you £6,120 a month.
Someone also made the point that if you also suffer with 'anxiety' (probably from having 5 kids and so much money) you can also get a brand new car on Mobility although I'm not convinced it's that simple!!
I'll get my coat......... someone turn the lights out on the way out
Not saying its impossible but its gonna be extremely unlikely to get numbers like this.
And it was discussed on the general things that annoy you thread a couple of weeks ago but anxiety alone is not enough for motability. It Needs a few other conditions/criteria to be met alongside that to become eligible.
Dual parent (hence two x minimum wage salaries x 16 hours each per week)
All school age (5-15).
I don't know the full calculation and exactly what it is made up from as it's an online calculator as linked to above.
As I say, I'm sure this is based on an extreme, but even still there should be no circumstances really where a couple with 5 children are working 16 hours a week each on minimum wage and are getting the equivalent of north of a £100k salary.
!00% agree. The benefits system is/was designed as a safety net - and those in genuine need should be supported. What it should never be is an alternative lifestyle choice, which it is for some. That's the fault of the system, not the individuals.
Just because you can do something definitely doesn't always mean you should
Being out of work is more about lack of purpose, structure and drive. I'm not talking about high performers or over achievers. Not doing that will absolutely wallop your mental health
For my part, its the societal contract, I don't mind paying tax what I can't abide is how that money is wasted and given to people who have chosen not to take part in their end of the societal contract
https://www.health.org.uk/evidence-hub/money-and-resources/poverty/in-work-poverty-trends- 65% of children and working-age adults in poverty in 2023/24 lived in families where at least one adult was working part-time or more, up from 56% in 2012/13 and 44% in 1996/97.
- 18% of children and working-age adults in poverty in 2023/24 lived in families where all adults were working and at least one adult was working full-time (referred to here as high work intensity families), which is up from 13% in 2012/13 and 9% in 1996/97.
35% of children and working age adults living in poverty live in families with no working adult
82% of children and working aged adults living in poverty lived in families where either one adult was working full time with remaining adult(s) not working, OR no adults are in full time work
Then the exact same stats would support the other side of the argument no?
I suppose it's all a matter of perspective then I guess.
To me that would suggest that either one adult could take up part time work again or one adult could move from part time to full time, which would still leave one adult in each household part time to help with childcare.
I think the safety net was designed for those 18% (admittedly, plus a good few more for whom circumstance has changed for the worse).
I agree for some they are likely under employed but it's just not as black and white as people make out. And that's before we even get to thinks like zero hour contracts and insecure working meaning a large number of people dip in and out of needing support.
We also in the main seem to have lost that overarching drive/desire to graft to earn more, my parents/in laws was collecting the pools in the evening, driving as a wedding chauffeur etc all on top of the day job, my mum when she gave up the day job initially did cleaning in the evenings in offices when my dad got in. In my day it was a few evenings in the week in bars, doing weddings at weekends, sometimes overtime at the weekend etc. A lot of my mates dads did cabbing in the evenings and weekends. My mum was a dinner lady at one point and a lot of the other ladies also did the night shift in Sainsburys re-stocking shelves. People found ways to make more to try and make ends meet....... probably because there was no state alternative. I can't honestly remember the last person I knew to do anything like that.
On your second paragraph. I don't think that's gone anywhere. Hustle culture is a massive thing. It's just moved online now. My wife (despite earning more than me) has an etsy business that pays for our phones, internet and subscriptions. I have a little side hustle selling woodwork online that I pick up as and when (selling a lot of mini wooden Christmas trees right now). Lots of our friends have something. My sister in law has a legal background so did loads of online proof reading while on maternity leave. There have been multiple threads on here about side hustles. It definitely still exists just is less visible. It's all over social media targetted at young people.
Equally I still think we should strive for a world where people don't need second jobs to survive.
isnt there already 30 hours free childcare a week for lower earners? Plus 15 for everyone at a certain age?
The side hustle you refer to, may be present (and I know a few of my daughters friends who do solely that, so less side, more hustle), but I don’t see it in certain circles, unless we can start to get people out of needing benefits, the cost is only going one way and it’s already unsustainable at its current levels.
maybe it’s just me, but the last 20 years has been a race to the bottom, we seem to be continuing on that path and it’s getting worse not better. Unless someone gets a grip on things, we’re heading for an even more unpleasant time.
instead we tinker with Cash ISA’s and tax on savings 🙈
Luckily I have 2 side hustle, my Art and buying selling trading cards/pokemon or even a 30k gig wouldn't be enough to do more than the basics
And if you work full time you've got to cover another probably 20 hours a week to cover you 10 additional working hours plus commute to and from the nursery for pick up and drop off. And if your trains are delayed so you're late picking them up you get a fine.
Fuck me - we had to cover all of it back in the day. Everybody wants jam on it as well.When we bought our first house my net pay was swallowed up by the mortgage and we lived on my wife's pay. When we started a family we decided that it would be better for our children for my wife to stay home while I went to work during the day. I would get home from work at around 7pm and my wife and I passed like ships in the night as she went off to do the night shift five nights x 8 hours per week stacking shelves in Tescos. She would get home around six in the morning just in time for me to leave for work. Total amount of benefit from the state, child care paid for etc...? The square root of fuck all.Back in the day.
Interested to know, if you were starting in the equivalent role pay wise today as you had when you bought your first house, whether you would be able to buy that same house today.
Your story sounds like my parents one, they bought their house in 1976. He would not have been able to afford the same house from about 1990 onwards. Someone starting out in his profession now would be lucky to afford a flat
As someone looking in as an exile, this is the key question, and I did put my own experience with this on here a few years ago, as I managed to do the maths on it. I bought a 3 bed townhouse in Surbiton in 1985 for 57k and at the time I was on an upward career trajectory in my first ad agency. Actually Surbiton was seen as a bit uncool in agency circles, should have been Fulham or Barnes, but I wanted to stay close to friends. Anyways, I hung on to it all the way through to 2022, and it was the best financial decison I made. At one point I compared the increase in salary of the position I held in 1993 with the increase in my house value. I think I did this exercise around 2016. The result was that the salary had increased by around 80%, whereas the house had increased by 500% !!! One factor on the salary side was that the average salaries had dipped sharply after the financial crisis in 2008 and were only recently recovering, whereas my house hardly missed a beat in that context.The implications of that are stark, and if you want to find a source of the general discontent and complaints about the cost of living in London ( which seem to me to be entirely justified whenever I visit) start with those figures.1 -
This. We brought our first house in Feb 2022 - 3 bed semi in New Eltham. The previous owner was a postman who was able to buy the house in 1996 and support his wife and 3 kids as the only one working in the family. What he paid for it all in was less than what we had to pay as a 15% deposit plus stamp duty and fees.PragueAddick said:Athletico Charlton said:bobmunro said:cantersaddick said:
Did it cost significantly more than rent/mortgage "back in the day"? Were both parents expected to work full time just to avoid being I'm poverty "back in the day"?bobmunro said:cantersaddick said:
Yeah you don't actually get 30 hours. You get a voucher for what the government deems should be enough to pay for 30 hours. The reality is if you go to even a middle of the road nursery you have to top that up significantly.shine166 said:
30 hours PW if you earn under 100k but that doesn't cover food or outings (the park/forrest school). Bang average nurserys are £70 per day where I am without the extras.Rob7Lee said:
I think what people are saying (and I'm very much generalising here) is don't ask me to pay for your decisions, i.e. whether thats someone being lazy and not working as you mention, someone having children etc etc.cantersaddick said:
I don't think that is what people were alluding to. Most of the comments on here have been around people being lazy and no working at all. Not a family working as much as they can with childcare. And in the situation I described I dont see how having less support would help the situation. Bit I can see how either higher pay or cheaper childcare would help.Rob7Lee said:
Is that not something many are alluding to. In your example a couple decide to have a baby, can't then afford the childcare so one goes part time/gives up work, the state then has to step in and help financially. In my view thats not what the welfare system was designed for, at least not to the level it is.cantersaddick said:
With children below school age unless you have family help around you sometimes one parent working full time or both part time is all they can manage. If you're on minimum wage the cost of childcare is prohibitive to working beyond that.ForestHillAddick said:
Agree with that, but from your stats 82% of households in poverty have only one adult in full time work or two adults in part time work at most.cantersaddick said:
Where we are talking about children (in the context of the 2 child limit) we have to remember that childcare is a factor. Unless we are going to make breakfast clubs, after school clubs and pre school aged childcare free (I'm in favour) we cant expect both parents to be working full time. The cost of childcare currently is prohibitive to that.ForestHillAddick said:
Well to me those stats read that the vast majority (82%) of households living in poverty are under underemployed.cantersaddick said:
Not sure that really changes the story from how I read them. Still pretty stark. 35% is ridiculously low and goes against the narrative that its a majority of people who are lazy and not working. If it was all about work vs lazy then that number would be massively higher. One parent working part time to manage childcare arrangements should not be something that pushes a family into poverty.ForestHillAddick said:
Just to play devil's advocate a bit on these DWP stats. Surely the same stats presented in a different way lead to a different implication. If I were to say:cantersaddick said:
I completely agree that the social contract has broken down. The other side to that social contract is low pay. the minimum wage was effectively brought in as part of that social contract to say that if you worked 40 hours a week you would be able to provide for yourself and your family and not be in poverty. Unfortunately that side of the social contract has also broken down. We now have massive and growing in work poverty. Thats a real issue and for me is the main factor in why welfare has exploded. Its not that the safety net is too high its that we have had a whole generation of wage suppression which means those in work also need the safety net. Yes there will be a minority who choose not to work but thats not because the safety net is too high but because the pay is too low (otherwise they wouldn't be in poverty).Carter said:
Its a fair chunk of both in my eyesbobmunro said:Rob7Lee said:
£1100 rentcantersaddick said:
What housing costs assumption did you use in this example? was it a single parent family or 2 parent, what ages are the children? I think some pretty unrealistic and extreme assumptions will have been needed to get these figures. E.g. I think all 5 of the kids will need to be below school age and housing costs would need to be extreme.Rob7Lee said:I saw it on Twitter and immediately called bull, I then put the info myself into a benefit checker (entitled.co.uk if anyone wants to have a go and depress themselves!)
Clearly someone had worked out what the absolute maximum you could get based on circumstance.
£4,287 in benefits (made up of UC and Child allowance and council tax help). £11k a year on minimum wage/16 hours each gives you £6,120 a month.
Someone also made the point that if you also suffer with 'anxiety' (probably from having 5 kids and so much money) you can also get a brand new car on Mobility although I'm not convinced it's that simple!!
I'll get my coat......... someone turn the lights out on the way out
Not saying its impossible but its gonna be extremely unlikely to get numbers like this.
And it was discussed on the general things that annoy you thread a couple of weeks ago but anxiety alone is not enough for motability. It Needs a few other conditions/criteria to be met alongside that to become eligible.
Dual parent (hence two x minimum wage salaries x 16 hours each per week)
All school age (5-15).
I don't know the full calculation and exactly what it is made up from as it's an online calculator as linked to above.
As I say, I'm sure this is based on an extreme, but even still there should be no circumstances really where a couple with 5 children are working 16 hours a week each on minimum wage and are getting the equivalent of north of a £100k salary.
!00% agree. The benefits system is/was designed as a safety net - and those in genuine need should be supported. What it should never be is an alternative lifestyle choice, which it is for some. That's the fault of the system, not the individuals.
Just because you can do something definitely doesn't always mean you should
Being out of work is more about lack of purpose, structure and drive. I'm not talking about high performers or over achievers. Not doing that will absolutely wallop your mental health
For my part, its the societal contract, I don't mind paying tax what I can't abide is how that money is wasted and given to people who have chosen not to take part in their end of the societal contract
https://www.health.org.uk/evidence-hub/money-and-resources/poverty/in-work-poverty-trends- 65% of children and working-age adults in poverty in 2023/24 lived in families where at least one adult was working part-time or more, up from 56% in 2012/13 and 44% in 1996/97.
- 18% of children and working-age adults in poverty in 2023/24 lived in families where all adults were working and at least one adult was working full-time (referred to here as high work intensity families), which is up from 13% in 2012/13 and 9% in 1996/97.
35% of children and working age adults living in poverty live in families with no working adult
82% of children and working aged adults living in poverty lived in families where either one adult was working full time with remaining adult(s) not working, OR no adults are in full time work
Then the exact same stats would support the other side of the argument no?
I suppose it's all a matter of perspective then I guess.
To me that would suggest that either one adult could take up part time work again or one adult could move from part time to full time, which would still leave one adult in each household part time to help with childcare.
I think the safety net was designed for those 18% (admittedly, plus a good few more for whom circumstance has changed for the worse).
I agree for some they are likely under employed but it's just not as black and white as people make out. And that's before we even get to thinks like zero hour contracts and insecure working meaning a large number of people dip in and out of needing support.
We also in the main seem to have lost that overarching drive/desire to graft to earn more, my parents/in laws was collecting the pools in the evening, driving as a wedding chauffeur etc all on top of the day job, my mum when she gave up the day job initially did cleaning in the evenings in offices when my dad got in. In my day it was a few evenings in the week in bars, doing weddings at weekends, sometimes overtime at the weekend etc. A lot of my mates dads did cabbing in the evenings and weekends. My mum was a dinner lady at one point and a lot of the other ladies also did the night shift in Sainsburys re-stocking shelves. People found ways to make more to try and make ends meet....... probably because there was no state alternative. I can't honestly remember the last person I knew to do anything like that.
On your second paragraph. I don't think that's gone anywhere. Hustle culture is a massive thing. It's just moved online now. My wife (despite earning more than me) has an etsy business that pays for our phones, internet and subscriptions. I have a little side hustle selling woodwork online that I pick up as and when (selling a lot of mini wooden Christmas trees right now). Lots of our friends have something. My sister in law has a legal background so did loads of online proof reading while on maternity leave. There have been multiple threads on here about side hustles. It definitely still exists just is less visible. It's all over social media targetted at young people.
Equally I still think we should strive for a world where people don't need second jobs to survive.
isnt there already 30 hours free childcare a week for lower earners? Plus 15 for everyone at a certain age?
The side hustle you refer to, may be present (and I know a few of my daughters friends who do solely that, so less side, more hustle), but I don’t see it in certain circles, unless we can start to get people out of needing benefits, the cost is only going one way and it’s already unsustainable at its current levels.
maybe it’s just me, but the last 20 years has been a race to the bottom, we seem to be continuing on that path and it’s getting worse not better. Unless someone gets a grip on things, we’re heading for an even more unpleasant time.
instead we tinker with Cash ISA’s and tax on savings 🙈
Luckily I have 2 side hustle, my Art and buying selling trading cards/pokemon or even a 30k gig wouldn't be enough to do more than the basics
And if you work full time you've got to cover another probably 20 hours a week to cover you 10 additional working hours plus commute to and from the nursery for pick up and drop off. And if your trains are delayed so you're late picking them up you get a fine.
Fuck me - we had to cover all of it back in the day. Everybody wants jam on it as well.When we bought our first house my net pay was swallowed up by the mortgage and we lived on my wife's pay. When we started a family we decided that it would be better for our children for my wife to stay home while I went to work during the day. I would get home from work at around 7pm and my wife and I passed like ships in the night as she went off to do the night shift five nights x 8 hours per week stacking shelves in Tescos. She would get home around six in the morning just in time for me to leave for work. Total amount of benefit from the state, child care paid for etc...? The square root of fuck all.Back in the day.
Interested to know, if you were starting in the equivalent role pay wise today as you had when you bought your first house, whether you would be able to buy that same house today.
Your story sounds like my parents one, they bought their house in 1976. He would not have been able to afford the same house from about 1990 onwards. Someone starting out in his profession now would be lucky to afford a flat
As someone looking in as an exile, this is the key question, and I did put my own experience with this on here a few years ago, as I managed to do the maths on it. I bought a 3 bed townhouse in Surbiton in 1985 for 57k and at the time I was on an upward career trajectory in my first ad agency. Actually Surbiton was seen as a bit uncool in agency circles, should have been Fulham or Barnes, but I wanted to stay close to friends. Anyways, I hung on to it all the way through to 2022, and it was the best financial decison I made. At one point I compared the increase in salary of the position I held in 1993 with the increase in my house value. I think I did this exercise around 2016. The result was that the salary had increased by around 80%, whereas the house had increased by 500% !!! One factor on the salary side was that the average salaries had dipped sharply after the financial crisis in 2008 and were only recently recovering, whereas my house hardly missed a beat in that context.The implications of that are stark, and if you want to find a source of the general discontent and complaints about the cost of living in London ( which seem to me to be entirely justified whenever I visit) start with those figures.
Our next door neighbour was able to buy his house on his own in 2005 as a vending machine repair engineer. He's just retired early.
For us it took 2 people with advanced degrees, accelerated career paths, salaries in the top 5% for our age, some family help and we had to move back in with parents for a while to save the cash. Ohh and the entire house needed renovating.2 -
This is exactly how I see it. If we don't tackle oligopoly power then we will only squeeze individuals and small businesses until there is nothing left. We will never get growth, inequality will continue to rise, living standards will contibue to fall and we will continue to create a growing underclass of working poor people.Chunes said:If we spent money at the grocer's back in the day, that money circulated back into the local/national economy. Wages stayed local and profits stayed local. The money kept circulating and the economy grew. But that local multiplier has collapsed.
We have spent the last 20-30 years breaking that system down, and allowing money that's spent in this country to be taken offshore. Even critical infrastructure has been handed over to foreign ownership. If profit leaves the country and isn't taxed here, the government leans more on PAYE, NI, etc. to fill the gap. It's a circle that will continue to get worse, but nobody wants to take it on and spook the markets, because the markets are our lord and god.
So instead we increase the individual tax burden, which leads to less disposable income, and less money to grow the economy - and yet, even if we were spending more, most of the profit wouldn’t be staying here anyway. It seems like there's no way out.
That's why I don’t see any hope for this country, even in the medium-to-long term. The economies that are going to thrive in the coming decades are the ones where the profit is being taken. No government will take this on because they can't spook the markets, even while the markets continue to bleed us dry.
2 -
Everyone eagerly awaiting their PB wins for Dec ? Will be interesting to see if the prizes have reduced again.0
-
Tuesday, the anticipation is killing me 😂golfaddick said:Everyone eagerly awaiting their PB wins for Dec ? Will be interesting to see if the prizes have reduced again.
jokes aside, I wonder if they’ll become even more popular in future with the reduction in cash ISA allowance.1 -
They have not extended benefits to children. They have extended them to the parents. There is a difference.cantersaddick said:
Don't disagree on the tax thresholds. But to say they have increased out of work benefits is simply not true. They have extended a benefit to children who were previously excluded. As the DWP official stats I posted yesterday showed 59% of those affected are in working households. So that's a fundamental misunderstanding of what it is.blackpool72 said:
Well the best way to lower work poverty is to raise the tax threshold.cantersaddick said:
I think the stats I posted yesterday about high in work poverty and it doubling in the last 2 decades is pretty damning proof tbh.blackpool72 said:
I think the only point we disagree on is the amount of people who don't want to work.cantersaddick said:
Agree with that. My point is its a minority who don't want to work. And that work alone is not always enough now, as demonstrated by the large numbers of people in work still in poverty orneeding state support.blackpool72 said:
Can't argue with a lot of what you are saying.Leuth said:I have nothing but respect for those who have grafted to get where they are. I too believe in working to live, and there being dignity in all work.
What I'm saying is that even these grafts are less available now. You don't just get a job at a market or a shift at the paper mill by walking along and asking (I got a summer job at Brewer's once by doing this but that was in 2005). Job applications are a terrible whirl of automated responses and rejection. If you still somehow secure a dogsbody job it won't earn enough to cover much of anything (my brother is ongoingly experiencing this and only stays out of trouble cos he lives with our folks aged nearly 35).
Fair play to those of you who grafted, but I would say, you had the clarity of knowing graft would help you prevail. Young people now don't know that, I'd argue
I have a daughter of 35 and a son who's 33 and im well aware of what it's like nowadays.
My point was that in order to get anywhere in life you have to be prepared to work for it regardless of when you were born.
You say it's a small minority, I believe it's more than that.
No way of proving one way or the other so best leave it there
Unfortunately this budget has decided to keep the tax threshold for a further 3 years and increase out of work benefits instead.2 -
Yes obviously it goes to the parents but also not what I said. I said they have extended a benefit to include children who were previously excluded. Didnt comment on who gets the actual payment.Southbank said:
They have not extended benefits to children. They have extended them to the parents. There is a difference.cantersaddick said:
Don't disagree on the tax thresholds. But to say they have increased out of work benefits is simply not true. They have extended a benefit to children who were previously excluded. As the DWP official stats I posted yesterday showed 59% of those affected are in working households. So that's a fundamental misunderstanding of what it is.blackpool72 said:
Well the best way to lower work poverty is to raise the tax threshold.cantersaddick said:
I think the stats I posted yesterday about high in work poverty and it doubling in the last 2 decades is pretty damning proof tbh.blackpool72 said:
I think the only point we disagree on is the amount of people who don't want to work.cantersaddick said:
Agree with that. My point is its a minority who don't want to work. And that work alone is not always enough now, as demonstrated by the large numbers of people in work still in poverty orneeding state support.blackpool72 said:
Can't argue with a lot of what you are saying.Leuth said:I have nothing but respect for those who have grafted to get where they are. I too believe in working to live, and there being dignity in all work.
What I'm saying is that even these grafts are less available now. You don't just get a job at a market or a shift at the paper mill by walking along and asking (I got a summer job at Brewer's once by doing this but that was in 2005). Job applications are a terrible whirl of automated responses and rejection. If you still somehow secure a dogsbody job it won't earn enough to cover much of anything (my brother is ongoingly experiencing this and only stays out of trouble cos he lives with our folks aged nearly 35).
Fair play to those of you who grafted, but I would say, you had the clarity of knowing graft would help you prevail. Young people now don't know that, I'd argue
I have a daughter of 35 and a son who's 33 and im well aware of what it's like nowadays.
My point was that in order to get anywhere in life you have to be prepared to work for it regardless of when you were born.
You say it's a small minority, I believe it's more than that.
No way of proving one way or the other so best leave it there
Unfortunately this budget has decided to keep the tax threshold for a further 3 years and increase out of work benefits instead.
And still not an out of work benefit which is the point I was replying to. As evidence by the 59% of children affected are in working households.
0 -
7 -
A drastic change of circumstances can happen to anyone, benefits are there to support those in need.Covered End said:4 -
Sponsored links:
-
I agree. But over the last 30 years things have changed & now benefits in the shape of Universal Credit has been the norm for anyone with a household income under c£40k. If you lose your job & need support then this should be limited to a few months.....maybe 6 or so. Not indefinitely.ME14addick said:
A drastic change of circumstances can happen to anyone, benefits are there to support those in need.Covered End said:1 -
It's not true that any household with an income under 40K can claim UC.golfaddick said:
I agree. But over the last 30 years things have changed & now benefits in the shape of Universal Credit has been the norm for anyone with a household income under c£40k. If you lose your job & need support then this should be limited to a few months.....maybe 6 or so. Not indefinitely.ME14addick said:
A drastic change of circumstances can happen to anyone, benefits are there to support those in need.Covered End said:2 -
Pretty disgusting meme to post tbh mate.golfaddick said:
I agree. But over the last 30 years things have changed & now benefits in the shape of Universal Credit has been the norm for anyone with a household income under c£40k. If you lose your job & need support then this should be limited to a few months.....maybe 6 or so. Not indefinitely.ME14addick said:
A drastic change of circumstances can happen to anyone, benefits are there to support those in need.Covered End said:
Even if that were true (which it isnt) then surely that would suggest that pay has been suppressed so far that people who are in work still need support just to live. It was recently revealed that a couple of the big supermarkets have a part of their onboarding that teaches people how to claim UC to top up their meagre pay. These are companies that collectively make multi billions in profits - and profits have grown exponentially during the cost of living greed crisis. But apparently its okay that they wont pay their workers enough to not need state support. Cant you see we are all being taken for fools?
Taking away the state support isnt going to solve that problem. Large oligopolies have been given untold power, they are speeding up how much they abuse that power and will continue to do so whether or not the state support is there.
Feel free to continue punching downwards. The large corporations are laughing at you and thanking you for your support of their tax avoidance and purchases of a 10th Mega yacht.
6 -
@cantersaddick in case you didn’t spot it wasn’t Golfie who posted the meme.
we’ve gone off on a bit of a tangent (me included). I don’t think everyone on here has an issue with benefits as such, more the level at times (all be it these are not the norm). It’s something that needs addressing (along with 1,001 other things).2 -
Still premium bonds tomorrow!!0
-
cantersaddick said:
Pretty disgusting meme to post tbh mate.golfaddick said:
I agree. But over the last 30 years things have changed & now benefits in the shape of Universal Credit has been the norm for anyone with a household income under c£40k. If you lose your job & need support then this should be limited to a few months.....maybe 6 or so. Not indefinitely.ME14addick said:
A drastic change of circumstances can happen to anyone, benefits are there to support those in need.Covered End said:
Even if that were true (which it isnt) then surely that would suggest that pay has been suppressed so far that people who are in work still need support just to live. It was recently revealed that a couple of the big supermarkets have a part of their onboarding that teaches people how to claim UC to top up their meagre pay. These are companies that collectively make multi billions in profits - and profits have grown exponentially during the cost of living greed crisis. But apparently its okay that they wont pay their workers enough to not need state support. Cant you see we are all being taken for fools?
Taking away the state support isnt going to solve that problem. Large oligopolies have been given untold power, they are speeding up how much they abuse that power and will continue to do so whether or not the state support is there.
Feel free to continue punching downwards. The large corporations are laughing at you and thanking you for your support of their tax avoidance and purchases of a 10th Mega yacht.
@cantersaddick - just to reassure you, I think we have indeed got the message over the past few days that you don’t like the big supermarkets, energy companies, the power of oligopolies, multinationals etc etc.1 -
My apologies to Golfie for misassigning the meme post to him.Rob7Lee said:@cantersaddick in case you didn’t spot it wasn’t Golfie who posted the meme.
we’ve gone off on a bit of a tangent (me included). I don’t think everyone on here has an issue with benefits as such, more the level at times (all be it these are not the norm). It’s something that needs addressing (along with 1,001 other things).0 -
Apology accepted.cantersaddick said:
My apologies to Golfie for misassigning the meme post to him.Rob7Lee said:@cantersaddick in case you didn’t spot it wasn’t Golfie who posted the meme.
we’ve gone off on a bit of a tangent (me included). I don’t think everyone on here has an issue with benefits as such, more the level at times (all be it these are not the norm). It’s something that needs addressing (along with 1,001 other things).
Think its time we moved past the Budget & associated issues.
As @Rob7Lee says.....PB's tomorrow.2 -
£275 max. Merry Christmas0
-
£200 on PB's0
-
Sponsored links:
-
£0 for the first time ever.
Reduced my holding from £50k to £20k earlier in the year so I could invest more in pension and stocks. Don’t plan to reduce what I’ve got as this is effectively part of my 6 month emergency fund, and is *usually* better served in PBs than in a high interest bank account as a 45% tax payer.
Bloody annoying to get completely zilch though.0 -
£100 each for me and my wife, both on £30k. Not great but after two blank months each better than nothing.0
-
£75 on £30K. 2.9% on this year's winnings.0
-
Big fat zilch for me second month running, £350 for Mrs R7L (7 prizes) both with Maximum. Daughter £175 (3 prizes) on roughly half
£75 for father in law0 -
£200 on £45k yearly total £13250
-
£200 on slightly more than half. Best for a long time0
-
£250 for me on max. £75 for Margaret on same.
0 -
0 for me and twins, second month running0
-
£50 for me to round of what has been a very good year on PBs.
On a holding of £22k i have won £1475 for the year.
That beats plenty of other investments i could have used.
For a bit of perspective i only won £475 last year so I realise a good year is not guaranteed.1 -
£100 on max holding…3.8% (tax free) return in the calendar year.0
