Cost of living squeeze in 2022

[JagLover]

monthou said:

JagLover said:

f UBI is ever going to happen in this country, without the penal tax rates highlighted, it would be a gradual change. I.E. move all on benefits off legacy benefits and on to UC. Then, over time, reduce the percentage rate of benefit withdrawal and reduce the premium that subsidises lifestyle choices.

Premium? Lifestyle choices?

gov.uk said:

Single and under 25 £265.31
Single and 25 or over £334.91
In a couple and you’re both under 25 £416.45 (for you both)
In a couple and either of you are 25 or over £525.72 (for you both)
'''
If you have 1 or 2 children, you’ll get an extra amount [£244.58] for each child.

https://www.gov.uk/universal-credit/what-youll-get

It doesn't look that tempting to me.

You are highlighting the premium in your post.

Under a UBI each individual would receive the same so being in a couple would have the benefit of two times the UBI.

[monthou]

JagLover said:

monthou said:

JagLover said:

f UBI is ever going to happen in this country, without the penal tax rates highlighted, it would be a gradual change. I.E. move all on benefits off legacy benefits and on to UC. Then, over time, reduce the percentage rate of benefit withdrawal and reduce the premium that subsidises lifestyle choices.

Premium? Lifestyle choices?

gov.uk said:

Single and under 25 £265.31
Single and 25 or over £334.91
In a couple and you’re both under 25 £416.45 (for you both)
In a couple and either of you are 25 or over £525.72 (for you both)
'''
If you have 1 or 2 children, you’ll get an extra amount [£244.58] for each child.

https://www.gov.uk/universal-credit/what-youll-get

It doesn't look that tempting to me.

You are highlighting the premium in your post.

Under a UBI each individual would receive the same so being in a couple would have the benefit of two times the UBI.

You've lost me. The figures are there for you in black and white. So how much less would your hypothetical UBI be to stop subsidising these lifestyle choices?
Obviously less than the current £335 per month for over-25s, but how low would you go?

[roger.mellie]

Earthdweller said:

I’m assuming that Armchair is talking about the Police pension scheme which can be accessed at 48 1/2 at the earliest age

There are currently three different schemes in play ..the best being the now defunct 1987 scheme which allows you to take your full pension at 48 + if you have 30 years service

Beyond that it’s age 50 with at least 25 years service

Taking the full commutation would leave you with 50% of your best 12 months in the last three years service

It’s quite possible to take a pension of £22k at 48 on that scheme assuming you joined at 18

Wait what now, 48 and a half. I'm not many years off that . I don't even know what my wife's entitled to due to changes tweaked over the years, I've suggested she gets an advisor, but I know it'll be way ahead of mine pound for pound, like for like. I like joking she'll be the one keeping me in retirement years, she likes joking about how much better paid I am for doing nothing of importance, just because I don't save lives every day, as if I'd want to save them anyway.

[JagLover]

monthou said:

You've lost me. The figures are there for you in black and white. So how much less would your hypothetical UBI be to stop subsidising these lifestyle choices?
Obviously less than the current £335 per month for over-25s, but how low would you go?

There is a premium for being single in the UC system. Most proposed schemes for UBI do not contain such a premium.

[lemmingjames]

Saw this, why use your own water supply when you can steal from the neighbours whilst they are away, maybe one for the council thread...

[monthou]

JagLover said:

monthou said:

You've lost me. The figures are there for you in black and white. So how much less would your hypothetical UBI be to stop subsidising these lifestyle choices?
Obviously less than the current £335 per month for over-25s, but how low would you go?

There is a premium for being single in the UC system. Most proposed schemes for UBI do not contain such a premium.

So what's your figure?
I've given you the current UC rates. You're talking premiums / lifestyle choices. What's your number?

[JagLover]

monthou said:

So what's your figure?
I've given you the current UC rates. You're talking premiums / lifestyle choices. What's your number?

Over time "reduce the premium that subsidises lifestyle choices" means exactly what is says reduce the premium in the benefit system attached to lifestyle choices, that could be accomplished in a variety of ways including increasing the part of the UC payment that does not relate to this.

You seem to have interpreted this as an immediate call for a cut in benefits when it was clearly prefaced with a "over time" and relates to a "premium" not the actual amount received.

[monthou]

JagLover said:

monthou said:

So what's your figure?
I've given you the current UC rates. You're talking premiums / lifestyle choices. What's your number?

Over time "reduce the premium that subsidises lifestyle choices" means exactly what is says reduce the premium in the benefit system attached to lifestyle choices, that could be accomplished in a variety of ways including increasing the part of the UC payment that does not relate to this.

You seem to have interpreted this as an immediate call for a cut in benefits when it was clearly prefaced with a "over time" and relates to a "premium" not the actual amount received.

I don't think someone living on the standard UC rates is receiving a premium.
Maybe eating is a lifestyle choice?

That you won't be drawn on a number says it all.
No idea what the bold part means. If anything.

[Sway]

lemmingjames said:

Saw this, why use your own water supply when you can steal from the neighbours whilst they are away, maybe one for the council thread...

Prick!

That's my garden wall, coming from my outside tap...

The bush looks a hell of a lot better a year on.

Nicking pics off Facebook to then look like a plum - definitely council J!

[roger.mellie]

JagLover said:

monthou said:

So what's your figure?
I've given you the current UC rates. You're talking premiums / lifestyle choices. What's your number?

Over time "reduce the premium that subsidises lifestyle choices" means exactly what is says reduce the premium in the benefit system attached to lifestyle choices, that could be accomplished in a variety of ways including increasing the part of the UC payment that does not relate to this.

You seem to have interpreted this as an immediate call for a cut in benefits when it was clearly prefaced with a "over time" and relates to a "premium" not the actual amount received.

It's a stupid argument lads. The number of people on UC leading fancy lifestyles is minimal. See the wood instead of the trees and address whether UC is sufficient to cover a cost of living, and lay off the moralising on spending choices unless you'd like your own bills subject to government inspection.

[bitchstewie]

It's the empathy that just oozes through.

Minister says people should work more hours or move to a better job to protect themselves from cost of living surge

[JagLover]

roger.mellie said:

JagLover said:

monthou said:

So what's your figure?
I've given you the current UC rates. You're talking premiums / lifestyle choices. What's your number?

Over time "reduce the premium that subsidises lifestyle choices" means exactly what is says reduce the premium in the benefit system attached to lifestyle choices, that could be accomplished in a variety of ways including increasing the part of the UC payment that does not relate to this.

You seem to have interpreted this as an immediate call for a cut in benefits when it was clearly prefaced with a "over time" and relates to a "premium" not the actual amount received.

It's a stupid argument lads. The number of people on UC leading fancy lifestyles is minimal. See the wood instead of the trees and address whether UC is sufficient to cover a cost of living, and lay off the moralising on spending choices unless you'd like your own bills subject to government inspection.

Well it is a stupid argument if it ignores the whole point of why we had this digression, which is that if you want a UBI, or something close to it, then the best way is a gradual evolution in the UC.

This seems a great opportunity for some to tilt at straw men and to invent arguments that have not been made.

[monthou]

roger.mellie said:

It's a stupid argument lads. The number of people on UC leading fancy lifestyles is minimal. See the wood instead of the trees and address whether UC is sufficient to cover a cost of living, and lay off the moralising on spending choices unless you'd like your own bills subject to government inspection.

Here's me thinking that was the exact point I was making.

[roger.mellie]

monthou said:

Here's me thinking that was the exact point I was making.

Maybe it was . Maybe I'm arrogant trying a divert before it became a numbers argument rather than a point of principle.

[Sway]

bhstewie said:

It's the empathy that just oozes through.

Minister says people should work more hours or move to a better job to protect themselves from cost of living surge

She says quite a bit more though:
We have often heard in the past when people are facing problems with their budgets that one of the obstacles - and it may not be for everybody - is about being able to take on more hours or even move to a better-paid job.

Of course, it's an individual situation, depending on that particular family's situation but that's why the job centres exist, that's why the work coaches exist, that's why we've put the support into those job centres - to work with individuals on their own individual situation.

So it may be right for some people - they may be able to access additional hours.

But of course it's not going to work for people who are already working in three jobs."

Help being given to schools and through local authorities would target assistance "where it's most needed", she said.

Ms Maclean added: "We've already taken action to help people with energy bills and there's more help coming."

None of that seems to be lacking empathy. For some people, there are opportunities (with support) to increase hours (for example, increasing part time hours by making use of support networks for childcare, etc.) or through upskilling in a targeted way through job/career coaches gain higher renumerated work - indeed, this sort of thing is the norm in many large firms (we have the 'career framework' with a tonne of supporting materials, coaches including line managers to enable people to do just this).

For others, it's not possible - and so they're looking at what support can be provided, in targeted manner (which is entirely appropriate).

[monthou]

roger.mellie said:

monthou said:

Here's me thinking that was the exact point I was making.

Maybe it was . Maybe I'm arrogant trying a divert before it became a numbers argument rather than a point of principle.

If someone says there's a premium there then numbers are everything.

[Biggy Stardust]

bhstewie said:

It's the empathy that just oozes through.

Minister says people should work more hours or move to a better job to protect themselves from cost of living surge

So many people- you are a perfect example- take the attitude that the only acceptable answer is "The poor souls; let's give them lots of taxpayer money to make their lives happier". Anything else is grounds for vilification.

Maybe people should take some personal responsibility for where their lives are & where they're going.

[tannhauser]

Biggy Stardust said:

bhstewie said:

It's the empathy that just oozes through.

Minister says people should work more hours or move to a better job to protect themselves from cost of living surge

So many people- you are a perfect example- take the attitude that the only acceptable answer is "The poor souls; let's give them lots of taxpayer money to make their lives happier". Anything else is grounds for vilification.

Maybe people should take some personal responsibility for where their lives are & where they're going.

Or maybe an average job should possibly buy you an average lifestyle? Not everyone has the means or the capacity to “do better”. Not everyone can be tremendous. This forum is full of elitist tossers.

[roger.mellie]

monthou said:

roger.mellie said:

monthou said:

Here's me thinking that was the exact point I was making.

Maybe it was . Maybe I'm arrogant trying a divert before it became a numbers argument rather than a point of principle.

If someone says there's a premium there then numbers are everything.

No, and I really will get on my high horse on this, no. If someone says there's a premium and makes you argue the numbers rather than the principle you've already lost. It's easy to play with numbers and select your terms, I do it every day. It's not so easy to have principles and buck the numbers. I know you're being more honest than I would and I like Jag (sometimes ) but I stuck my oar in because I disliked arguments heading towards numbers. How it can be done is a very valid argument but should it be done comes first and if yes then the answer's follow, and arguments about difficulty should be categorised accordingly. Don't ever start with the we can't because numbers argument (I know you haven't). As to UBI, I still think it's a potentially looming necessity for first world countries unless they can think of a better alternative, if the alternative is work and more work without the social contract of a good pension at the end there's a non zero chance of heads ending up on the end of pikes.

[GIYess]

Always a bit of a 'touchy subject.' I now that if it comes to the bit where we are struggling to pay bills I will be looking for a second job. I suppose people like single mothers aren't really in a position to do this though.
On the benefits thing I am torn. I know first hand a family who are living better than myself and my family (money wise anyway) on benifit with new car every 2 yrs, spending hundreds on children's toys etc.
I also had the misfortune of signing on for a couple of months when I lost my job 7yrs ago. I was offered £30 per week. I was married had one child and £450 rent a month. I don't need to tell you that £30 didn't go far.