Cost of living squeeze in 2022
Discussion
b
hstewie said:
hstewie 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
Don't worry, she's willing to put in 12 hour shifts at a care home, for 10 quid an hour, whilst they all head off for jobs at Coutts. Minister says people should work more hours or move to a better job to protect themselves from cost of living surge
roger.mellie said:
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.) 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.Someone's said there's a premium that could be reduced over time.
They're not making me argue the numbers - they're being challenged to show that the premium exists.
That they can't / won't give a 'non-premium' number is the end of it.
I don't see UBI happening here in the forseeable future, but I'd be happy to be wrong.
tannhauser said:
Biggy Stardust said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie 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.Minister says people should work more hours or move to a better job to protect themselves from cost of living surge
Maybe people should take some personal responsibility for where their lives are & where they're going.
It's amusing that there's a few who've jumped on the headline, but none have engaged on my post which gave the full quote...
monthou said:
roger.mellie said:
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.) 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.Someone's said there's a premium that could be reduced over time.
They're not making me argue the numbers - they're being challenged to show that the premium exists.
That they can't / won't give a 'non-premium' number is the end of it.
I don't see UBI happening here in the forseeable future, but I'd be happy to be wrong.
Gecko1978 said:
UC is not far off UBI thr issue is its just funding low wages so remove over time inwork benefits an watch wages rise.
Or alternativly remove in-work benefits and watch people not working.There has to be an incentive for people on benefits to work. Even if it's part time, even if the pay's not great.
GIYess said:
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.
I probably (maybe) know more benefits fiddlers than many on here. I grew up in two separate Ni council estates in the 80's to early 90's. They were masters and my parents (da working two jobs and a back hander, mother working three) were constantly questioned on why they bother by neighbours doing the barney. (Barney rubble, double). They might have been foolish for doing so but they've a set of doing alright sons who'll never see them stuck rather than relying on the whims of government, those that criticised them haven't and I see them the odd time around town. God I'm veering into agreeing with Biggy! down with that sort of thing. Flip side you have to make work worth it rather than make the alternative unpalatable. Do what works or give in to moralising, I joke but morals are flexible.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.
Other countries do it better in some ways. In some you'd have been on near or full pay with time limited terms rather than relying on a state pittance. The time limited bit has issues but in your specific case of someone temporarily out it would seem a hell of a lot better to me than the one you found yourself in.
So based upon 58% income tax + NI and then 85% income tax + NI and then 85% + NI plus loss of tax free allowance @£100k that would be beyond 100% tax.
So if we had UBI we would and should have National insurance set at a level to fund the NHS entirely and then an income tax.
We do not need to lose the tax free allowance especially at what was a high salary 15 + years ago which isn’t as much today (I’ve heard that in reality that the £100k threshold inflation adjusted should be £150k today which feels right)
So if we had UBI we would and should have National insurance set at a level to fund the NHS entirely and then an income tax.
We do not need to lose the tax free allowance especially at what was a high salary 15 + years ago which isn’t as much today (I’ve heard that in reality that the £100k threshold inflation adjusted should be £150k today which feels right)
roger.mellie said:
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 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
. 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. He would have run to 30 years service, but the changes to the pension scheme mean, for him, it's not really worth it, so he's gone at 51 with 25 years service. Pensions are pretty epic, but they work hard. Most of their customers are absolute scum, they are severely understaffed and i do not begrudge them.
RizzoTheRat said:
Sway said:
So you'd also agree that 50% of the population should have a 'below average' job, and 'below average' lifestyle?
Wasn't it Michael Gove who thought all schools should be better than average?Biggy Stardust said:
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.
I don’t want to dive too far into this, but we are facing something of a crisis in the form of galloping inflation and huge increases in energy prices. It’s estimated that currently 1.5m U.K. citizens qualify as ‘destitute’ and that number is only going in one direction. Maybe people should take some personal responsibility for where their lives are & where they're going.
We don’t appear to have many answers to this beyond food banks and blankets, all of which helps but will not raise people out of the poverty trap. I don’t mind my taxes going to help people out and if a few take the pi** so be it. Personally I get more agitated over people avoiding tax than all the benefits cheats and scrounges the Mail plants in our heads.
Sway said:
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).
My guess is that if you're on your arse you've probably done those things so having a Government Minister "helpfully" go on TV to suggest to you to just do more hours or get a new job might seem a bit patronising and perhaps tone deaf.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).
Might just be me though.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: My guess is that if you're on your arse you've probably done those things so having a Government Minister "helpfully" go on TV to suggest to you to just do more hours or get a new job might seem a bit patronising and perhaps tone deaf.
Might just be me though.
That is giving far too much credit (in both motivation, and capability).Might just be me though.
She very specifically didn't say "just do more hours" or "[just] get a different job". She said 'we're adding support for people so they can explore support to enable extra hours, or career development so that people might be able to protect themselves from cost of living increases (or indeed wider benefits above and beyond that) - whilst also saying that this won't work or be possible for everyone, so they're focusing on targeted specific support measures for that cohort too.
Sway said:
That is giving far too much credit (in both motivation, and capability).
She very specifically didn't say "just do more hours" or "[just] get a different job". She said 'we're adding support for people so they can explore support to enable extra hours, or career development so that people might be able to protect themselves from cost of living increases (or indeed wider benefits above and beyond that) - whilst also saying that this won't work or be possible for everyone, so they're focusing on targeted specific support measures for that cohort too.
If you completely insulate people from the real world then they have very little incentive to improve their lot. It's their life therefore their responsibility to try & improve it. By all means give them a helping hand up but they have to learn to stand on their own two feet.She very specifically didn't say "just do more hours" or "[just] get a different job". She said 'we're adding support for people so they can explore support to enable extra hours, or career development so that people might be able to protect themselves from cost of living increases (or indeed wider benefits above and beyond that) - whilst also saying that this won't work or be possible for everyone, so they're focusing on targeted specific support measures for that cohort too.
Castrol for a knave said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie 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
Don't worry, she's willing to put in 12 hour shifts at a care home, for 10 quid an hour, whilst they all head off for jobs at Coutts. Minister says people should work more hours or move to a better job to protect themselves from cost of living surge
At that point, what's the point? There's no way on earth I'll be making enough to make a material difference to my take-home, even excluding commuting costs.
Unless she means two professional jobs? I'm reasonably certain my current employer would take umbrage at that.
I don't disagree that people should try to improve and better themselves.
Afraid it gets slightly tiring seeing Ministers and MPs telling people already on their arse to just do more hours or get a different job or learn to cook and budget so they can eat for 30p/day by someone earning at least £80K a year and eating subsidised food at the various Commons restaurants.
Tone deaf.
Afraid it gets slightly tiring seeing Ministers and MPs telling people already on their arse to just do more hours or get a different job or learn to cook and budget so they can eat for 30p/day by someone earning at least £80K a year and eating subsidised food at the various Commons restaurants.
Tone deaf.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: I don't disagree that people should try to improve and better themselves.
Afraid it gets slightly tiring seeing Ministers and MPs telling people already on their arse to just do more hours or get a different job or learn to cook and budget so they can eat for 30p/day by someone earning £80K a year and eating subsidised foot at the various Commons restaurants.
Tone deaf.
Why are you repeating the same false phrases?Afraid it gets slightly tiring seeing Ministers and MPs telling people already on their arse to just do more hours or get a different job or learn to cook and budget so they can eat for 30p/day by someone earning £80K a year and eating subsidised foot at the various Commons restaurants.
Tone deaf.
She certainly did not say 'just do more hours' - at all.
Is someone who worked as a coal miner, and spends a huge amount of time volunteering at a food bank ineligible to pass comment because one day a week he gets to eat subsidised food in the Commons.
Take it up with the media who are using the same "false phrases" and as for Anderson yes he's allowed to comment and as we saw when the mask slipped slightly on Fox's podcast I'm allowed to form a view on him off the back of those comments.
I lean towards ignorance v malice but it's a bit of a theme with this lot.
I lean towards ignorance v malice but it's a bit of a theme with this lot.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: Take it up with the media who are using the same "false phrases" and as for Anderson yes he's allowed to comment and as we saw when the mask slipped slightly on Fox's podcast I'm allowed to form a view on him off the back of those comments.
I lean towards ignorance v malice but it's a bit of a theme with this lot.
Oh, the media are sI lean towards ignorance v malice but it's a bit of a theme with this lot.
ts. Which is why I've already complained about the headline being discussed with the bias loaded in - when the actual article presents an entirely different picture on her actual comments."The mask slipped" - b
ks. He's blunt, and has some 'challenging' opinions, but he absolutely knows his onions on the topic of nutrition based on his direct experiences (that accord with mine on the receiving end, hence why I've already pointed out the 'activists' that are actually helpful for people in that situation, rather than the ones that make it political). Apologies for quoting myself, but at least I won't get the hump about it.
Last week I postulated that:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10820467/...
"Fury as minister Rachel Maclean says people struggling with the cost-of-living crisis can work longer hours or get a better paid job to help pay the bills"
You couldn't make it up.
Last week I postulated that:
Ian Geary said:
Politically, if the Tory minister for food stood up and said "you can mitigate the cost of living crisis by buying bulk porridge and sacks of potatoes cheaply" they would be utterly shredded by Twitter etc.
And today in the Mail (of all places? who would I thought have lapped this up) I see this headline:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10820467/...
"Fury as minister Rachel Maclean says people struggling with the cost-of-living crisis can work longer hours or get a better paid job to help pay the bills"
You couldn't make it up.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff