Are there more people working than not working in the UK?

[mph1977]

DervVW said:

dibbers006 said:

Question: In a few hours time, how significantly will the 'in-work'/ 'not-in-work' statistic be altered

I dont get it...? Parrot incoming?

I assume it was thus , in the case of a 'yes' vote what's the figures for Scotland vs the figures for the rest of the UK ...

[DervVW]

mph1977 said:

DervVW said:

dibbers006 said:

Question: In a few hours time, how significantly will the 'in-work'/ 'not-in-work' statistic be altered

I dont get it...? Parrot incoming?

I assume it was thus , in the case of a 'yes' vote what's the figures for Scotland vs the figures for the rest of the UK ...

Ah.. makes sense when you put it like that, cheers

[BGARK]

1. There are people who generate wealth or sometimes share some around a bit to keep themselves amused.

2. There are those who service the people who generate wealth.

Nothing has changed much fundamentally throughout humanity, other than the peasants now have too much choice and will destroy the world through their combined stupidity in who they vote for.

[xjsdriver]

Eric Mc said:

Many, many people "on benefits" are also receiving a wage - legally. "On benefits" does not mean a person is not actually working and receiving earned income.

Also, does the "60%" figure include people receiving state pension? Are you implying that those who have worked hard all their lives are NOT entitled to state support in old age? After all, they most probably will only receive a fraction of what they contributed in their working lives.

Yes, this figure includes pensioners too!!! - but it's not a vote winning soundbite!!!

[Rovinghawk]

BGARK said:

1. There are people who generate wealth or sometimes share some around a bit to keep themselves amused.

2. There are those who service the people who generate wealth.

There are also those who contribute nothing and merely take. I think that was the point of the OP, wondering what percentage of the population fall into that category.

[Murph7355]

Eric Mc said:

... Also, does the "60%" figure include people receiving state pension? Are you implying that those who have worked hard all their lives are NOT entitled to state support in old age? After all, they most probably will only receive a fraction of what they contributed in their working lives.

Not doubting that some will have worked hard all their lives, but I don't think your "probably" statement is true.

Back of a fag packet figures:

- avg UK life expectancy = 81
- assume retirement age = 68 (it's not for the majority of current pensioners, but let's take the best case)
- years drawing pension = 13
- annual state pension = £5,880
- total state pension drawn = £76,440
- working life = 52yrs (assume every starts working and paying tax at 16. They don't but let's take best case)
- contribution per annum to break even = £1,470 (we know the govts of any colour invest nothing)
- average UK salary = £26,500 pa
- typical tax on avg salary = £5,500 pa
- amount spent on pensions = £150bn
- total spend = £730bn
- % of your tax bill spent on pensions = 21%
- 21% of £5,500 is £1,130.

So by my admittedly crude reckoning, I reckon most people don't actually get less than they put in. They probably get something like £300 a year (for 52yrs) more than they put in.

The reality of our tax and benefit systems are such that I actually think the great majority will be even better off than that.

The two big institutions that have been sacrosanct in these times of "austerity" (NHS & Pensions) are, IMO, the two that we would need to hit radically if the country is ever to balance it's books.