Britain a failing nation ?

told us that as of next month she is entitled to draw her State Pension.......£129 per week.

Nice work if you can get it.

Blimey thats enough to go see Arsenal play.

Unfortunately not enough for the train ticket.

 

[Rasta Pickles]

Blimey thats enough to go see Arsenal play.

Unfortunately not enough for the train ticket.

But how on Earth do you qualify for £129 pension when you've spent the last 25 years contributing nothing to the pot and taking out of it?

 

But how on Earth do you qualify for £129 pension when you've spent the last 25 years contributing nothing to the pot and taking out of it?

Well because you and I plus millions of others are quite happy to help those less fortunate than ourselves.

Although I must admitt I get a tad pee'd with giving to Brenda and her idle greedy scrouts as I don't think they qualify for public hand outs.:|

 

[Matt1959]

Have to disagree Sirearl....

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-23934336.html

these houses are cheap for a reason and low employment is one of the biggest reasons. that said, you say its commutable to Manchester - whats the job market like in Manchester? If theres jobs, then the houses is cheap because its in a sh$t area and who but those with the thickest of skins would want that? not to mention what the local schools are like should you ever have kids. Another thing - 25K houses are not that easily mortagable I would suggest but am happy to be proved wrong on that.....

 

[DavidAshdown]

If you put into s pension then quite frankly you deserve to get shafted

 

[toastking]

If you put into s pension then quite frankly you deserve to get shafted

Why? Not withstanding that this is a daft statement that screams of ill thought out planning for the future, but its simply awful that people think this and then think oh well the government will look after me... urm.... no they won't and the state pension is only going to get more measly.

I do have a pension, but its on some clever scheme at work where the money out of my pocket is so stupidly tiny I never realise it, so when I retire and it pays out, it will have been un-noticed but whatever I get will be appreciated. So why do I deserve to get shafted? Because it will lose value and the government will pick up the tab from tax payers? Think I'll stick to my pension and I am not even that staunch a supporter, I just think this comment was a bit daft and 'tar everything with the same brush' like.

 

[DavidAshdown]

Why? Not withstanding that this is a daft statement that screams of ill thought out planning for the future, but its simply awful that people think this and then think oh well the government will look after me... urm.... no they won't and the state pension is only going to get more measly.

I do have a pension, but its on some clever scheme at work where the money out of my pocket is so stupidly tiny I never realise it, so when I retire and it pays out, it will have been un-noticed but whatever I get will be appreciated. So why do I deserve to get shafted? Because it will lose value and the government will pick up the tab from tax payers? Think I'll stick to my pension and I am not even that staunch a supporter, I just think this comment was a bit daft and 'tar everything with the same brush' like.

I don't think for one moment the government will look after me. The state pension is a joke and so are personal pensions.

What is the point of giving someone your money, only for it to be invested poorly (in most cases) and then only be allowed to take 25% of it back and rely on the balance paying a pittance of a monthly amount ?

Then to add insult to injury half of that balance goes to the taxman when you die. Its great for the taxman, not so great for you !

 

Why? Not withstanding that this is a daft statement that screams of ill thought out planning for the future, but its simply awful that people think this and then think oh well the government will look after me... urm.... no they won't and the state pension is only going to get more measly.

I do have a pension, but its on some clever scheme at work where the money out of my pocket is so stupidly tiny I never realise it, so when I retire and it pays out, it will have been un-noticed but whatever I get will be appreciated. So why do I deserve to get shafted? Because it will lose value and the government will pick up the tab from tax payers? Think I'll stick to my pension and I am not even that staunch a supporter, I just think this comment was a bit daft and 'tar everything with the same brush' like.

Not quite so daft thinks I.:|

http://www.pensionsworld.co.uk/pw/article/pension-reform-going-dutch-1238281

Something rotten in the state of Denmark methinks

 

[DavidAshdown]

Just did a quick calculation on a government pension website.

A 30 year old person paying in £100 a month for 20 years (i.e. £30,000) will receive £10,400 (which by then will be worth considerably less than that) and also a monthly income of £59 (again which will be worth a lot less).

Whoopee, great investment that......I don't think !

 

[toastking]

But my contribution is tiny in comparison to what I get back due to tax breaks and company contribution. I stand by it, great investment for me as it really is money for nothing!

in fact ignore my points and this is why, just checked a pay packet and saw I am taking home about thirty more a month since I signed up and the pension pots growing fast after just a year and a half. But having looked at it, think a good deal is blinkering my view of the overall situation possibly?

 

[Suzuki]

Work doesn't pay because wages are a pittance not because benefits are so generous.

I love these outlandish post from people who spend more on a night out than a job seeker has to live on for a week.

That comparison is pointless. People here who work 60+ hours a week are perfectly entitled to blow a few hundred £ on a night out... they've earned it.

Job seekers allowance should be hard to live on - if it wasn't then you're just encouraging people to stay on it. At least just now they need to put some effort into their non-working... usually by faking illnesses or having a few kids.

 

[Podge]

That comparison is pointless. People here who work 60+ hours a week are perfectly entitled to blow a few hundred £ on a night out... they've earned it.

Job seekers allowance should be hard to live on - if it wasn't then you're just encouraging people to stay on it. At least just now they need to put some effort into their non-working... usually by faking illnesses or having a few kids.

You make it sound like all the unemployed are in that circumstance because they want to be.
Are they?
I resent being told by people who live in "relative" luxury that I'm not entitled to the protection I've payed for all my working life.

 

[DavidAshdown]

The problem is, there are an awful lot, but not all, people who are on benefits with no intention of working or who believe its better to stay on benefits because any possible job they take doesn't pay much more.

This is therefore wrong and people who aren't on benefits become very resentful of this.

I feel sorry for those who genuinely want to work but can't find work, although I've always believed that there are ways of earning a living if one is prepared to do anything they possibly can, cleaning, gardening etc.

 

[Suzuki]

You make it sound like all the unemployed are in that circumstance because they want to be.
Are they?
I resent being told by people who live in "relative" luxury that I'm not entitled to the protection I've payed for all my working life.

I would have absolutely no problem with the job seekers allowance system paying people in relation to what they've put in - if you're out of work after having a job for 20 years then paying you say 80% of your old salary would be okay with me.

My problem is the people claiming it for years on end with no intention of of taking part in the 'job seeking' - they just want the 'allowance'. A lot of these people haven't even put anything in in the first place. I'm 30 years old and could point to several people who were in my class at school that have not had any real employment since we left 14 years ago. To me thats an absolute disgrace.

 

[Podge]

The problem is, there are an awful lot, but not all, people who are on benefits with no intention of working or who believe its better to stay on benefits because any possible job they take doesn't pay much more.

This is therefore wrong and people who aren't on benefits become very resentful of this.

I feel sorry for those who genuinely want to work but can't find work, although I've always believed that there are ways of earning a living if one is prepared to do anything they possibly can, cleaning, gardening etc.

Doesn't pay any more.

Cleaning and gardening yeah it sounds great but can I be certain to get enough work to come off benefits ? I doubt it. Maybe I should peddle my a**e down Piccadilly but I doubt that would earn me more than minimum wage given my age.

 

My problem is the people claiming it for years on end with no intention of of taking part in the 'job seeking' - they just want the 'allowance'. A lot of these people haven't even put anything in in the first place. I'm 30 years old and could point to several people who were in my class at school that have not had any real employment since we left 14 years ago. To me thats an absolute disgrace.

Your attacking the wrong end of the spectrum.

The media does a good job of deflecting the probems away from the real culprits.

Bear in mind getting money and earning it are two different things.

 

[Podge]

Suzuki I agree it is a disgrace, but they don't work because it's not worth working. Blame the system not the people who take advantage of it. A bit like tax evasion really you blame HMRC for keeping open the loopholes that allow it, not the people that are taking advantage of it.

 

[ScottishInvestments]

I agree with podge. You can't really blame the folk, it's the policy.

I can only see the socialist welfare state getting worse when the opportunist Labour get back in 2015!

ScotInvest

 

Suzuki I agree it is a disgrace, but they don't work because it's not worth working. Blame the system not the people who take advantage of it. A bit like tax evasion really you blame HMRC for keeping open the loopholes that allow it, not the people that are taking advantage of it.

Two examples:

Seems the country may have become totally corrupt since maggie told people to grab what the can and sod everyone else.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20197710

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20157878

 

[DavidAshdown]

The system IS wrong but why does everyone want to just solely blame the government ?

In my early days I worked for less than I could have got on benefits and I've even been without work in the past but did whatever I could do to change that and refused to take benefits.

I'm not against people receiving benefits and there are times when its essential but as much as the system needs changing and policing better, people have a moral duty not to simply rely on it when they could be finding ways of earning money.

To say its not worth me taking a job because I will be no better off is a disgrace and unacceptable.

 

The system IS wrong but why does everyone want to just solely blame the government ?

So who do you think is responsible?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/20/us-pht-newscorp-britain-corruption-idUSTRE76J25L20110720

 

[Podge]

To say its not worth me taking a job because I will be no better off is a disgrace and unacceptable.

I think employers who pay wages that are not enough to live on is a disgrace and unacceptable,and by the look of it a lot of people would agree with me. There must be another reason why people won't work other than laziness.

 

[DavidAshdown]

I don't get these continual links to news items.

I thought this forum was for people to give their own opinions based on their experiences not to just keep quoting opinions from various journalists.

There are millions of news items from different journalists all with different opinions all of which I can read at anytime if I wanted but I'm more interested in debate based on peoples experiences.

 

[DavidAshdown]

I think employers who pay wages that are not enough to live on is a disgrace and unacceptable,and by the look of it a lot of people would agree with me. There must be another reason why people won't work other than laziness.

Employers are in business to make money, they are not in business to employ people.

 

[ScottishInvestments]

Perhaps we need more ethical and socially responsible businesses then?

ScotInvest

 

I don't get these continual links to news items.

I thought this forum was for people to give their own opinions based on their experiences not to just keep quoting opinions from various journalists.

There are millions of news items from different journalists all with different opinions all of which I can read at anytime if I wanted but I'm more interested in debate based on peoples experiences.

Peoples opinions are just that.

Debates are generally settled by facts established by the majority.

Most peoples opimions are based on the indoctrination they recieve during there lifetime.

Indoctrination probably being the biggest problem mankind faces according to Noam Chomsky and I tend to agree.

"For those who stubbornly seek freedom around the world, there can be no more urgent task than to come to understand the mechanisms and practices of indoctrination. These are easy to perceive in the totalitarian societies, much less so in the propaganda system to which we are subjected and in which all too often we serve as unwilling or unwitting instruments"

 

[DavidAshdown]

Another quote !

People still have their own opinions and I really can't see why i'd want to be on this forum if everyone just quoted various articles from the net all the time.

 

[Podge]

Employers are in business to make money, they are not in business to employ people.

Business has to make profit I understand that but making profit shouldn't preclude paying fair wages, and if you can't or won't you shouldn't be employing people.

 

[DavidAshdown]

Business has to make profit I understand that but making profit shouldn't preclude paying fair wages, and if you can't or won't you shouldn't be employing people.

How do you determine 'fair'. Most business I know off, pay people what is fair for what they do but most individuals always believe they are worth more.

 

[DavidAshdown]

Business has to make profit I understand that but making profit shouldn't preclude paying fair wages, and if you can't or won't you shouldn't be employing people.

The correct wage has nothing to do with how much somebody needs to live on, its to do with what the job is worth to the employer, not the other way round.

 

[Podge]

I'd say a living wage would be fair. To employ somebody and then expect them to rely on government hand outs to survive is tantamount to a slap in the face. Then employers wonder why the workers they do get are not up to scratch.

 

[DavidAshdown]

I'd say a living wage would be fair. To employ somebody and then expect them to rely on government hand outs to survive is tantamount to a slap in the face. Then employers wonder why the workers they do get are not up to scratch.

As I say, an employer should pay what he/she thinks is right for the job, its their money and their choice and its got nothing to do with a living wage. Everyone has different 'living' standards so what is a living wage ?

There is no law saying an employer should employ anyone but if they decide to, then its up to them what they decide to pay. You dont have to accept it and the government shouldn't be supporting people who don't want to work or choose not to take a job.

 

[Podge]

As I say, an employer should pay what he/she thinks is right for the job, its their money and their choice and its got nothing to do with a living wage. Everyone has different 'living' standards so what is a living wage ?

There is no law saying an employer should employ anyone but if they decide to, then its up to them what they decide to pay. You dont have to accept it and the government shouldn't be supporting people who don't want to work or choose not to take a job.

£7.20 is the figure bandied about.

Thank god they do as otherwise we would all be working for a bowl of rice a day.

 

[DavidAshdown]

£7.20 is the figure bandied about.

Thank god they do as otherwise we would all be working for a bowl of rice a day.

I think the average wage in the UK is above this figure so I guess most are paying more than a living wage.

A bowl of rice ! What a great idea !

 

[Podge]

I think the average wage in the UK is above this figure so I guess most are paying more than a living wage.

A bowl of rice ! What a great idea !

There are millions earning a £1 ph less than the £7.20.

Rice (pah ) give me spuds any day.

Anyway it's past my bedtime, good night and sleep well.

 

Another quote !

People still have their own opinions and I really can't see why i'd want to be on this forum if everyone just quoted various articles from the net all the time.

Well its quite likely they are that persons opinion ,but supported by a bit of evidence and not based on their own emotional feelings which seems to be what many posts are based on.

I did this or I did that is hardly conducive to a debate on the wider issues.IMHO

 

[matt seymour]

Employers are in business to make money, they are not in business to employ people.

And people go to work in order to make a living and support their family. If the wages on offer aren't enough to support that person they have every right to turn their nose up at them.

 

[DavidAshdown]

There are millions earning a £1 ph less than the £7.20.

Rice (pah ) give me spuds any day.

Anyway it's past my bedtime, good night and sleep well.

I'm not sure its millions but I take your point. The average wage is still in excess of this, so I think the number of people below the minimum wage are more of an exception rather than the rule, and unfortunately there are always exceptions in life.

Enjoyed the debate though

 

[DavidAshdown]

Well its quite likely they are that persons opinion ,but supported by a bit of evidence and not based on their own emotional feelings which seems to be what many posts are based on.

I did this or I did that is hardly conducive to a debate on the wider issues.IMHO

But surely that is what a forum is about......ordinary peoples opinions and views based on their beliefs, emotions and experiences not on quoting journalists who get paid to sell stories and whose views are very often based on, ermmm.....well lets just say they hardly seem the most credible people around.

How often do you read an article, knowing that the journalist has picked up on a small failing of something and reported it as if its the norm and blown it out of all proportion, very often destroying things for the sake of self promotion !

Sorry but I just don't get it, I could just go online and copy and paste all sorts of articles but I'd rather express my own views from what I've learned rather than someone with little or no experience in business, such as a media muppet. I'm not one that automatically believes everything I read I'm afraid.

 

[DavidAshdown]

And people go to work in order to make a living and support their family. If the wages on offer aren't enough to support that person they have every right to turn their nose up at them.

Exactly but the point being, no one owes anyone a living. It's up to the individual to fend for him/herself and if they don't like whats on offer, go find something else and if something else doesn't exist then they need to find a way of creating it. It's not up to the state or employers to nurse feed people, except of course those that are really in need but they are far fewer than those that are taking because they believe others owe them.