Could you live on 60 quid a week?

[AlfredJPruffock]

Seriously though, I don’t see how anyone can actually make themselves presentable in the job market on 60 pounds per week.



I recall that you can now claim for a suit if you are on benfefits for an interview- sure I read that couple of months back.

Some may recall that we used to have ERB (Earnings Related benefits) in the UK - so if you lost your job you did not drop your income to say 60 quid a week - youw ould receive appox 60 per cent of your takehome for a bout a year I recall - this is the system they have in most EC states.

Thatcher stopped this benefit - meanwhile your taxes have risen and even NL would not dream of giving people Earnings Related Benfit.


ERB meant if you lost your job you could live in a dignified manner and not suffer the stresses of poverty whilst looking for your next job.

Especially if you were a high wage earner and contribued more to the system in terms of taxes.

So - Will we see the return of ERB ?

No Chance.

Well - they need 200 Billion for the Trident upgrade.

NL - ha ha - charade you are

[Francko]

pay attention to the spec.
He asked, can you live on £60, heating, food, clothing

now just think hard about that for a minute.

Can you dress for 0-60(=x) pounds a month?
Can you feed yourself for 0-60(=y) pounds a month?
Can you heat yourself for 0-60(=z) pounds a month?

As a constraint that the sum of x,y and z is no more than 60.

This is a bit more accurate description of the problem.

[d000hg]

Some may recall that we used to have ERB (Earnings Related benefits) in the UK - so if you lost your job you did not drop your income to say 60 quid a week - youw ould receive appox 60 per cent of your takehome for a bout a year I recall - this is the system they have in most EC states.
...
ERB meant if you lost your job you could live in a dignified manner and not suffer the stresses of poverty whilst looking for your next job.

Why do people think they "deserve" to live in luxury? If they were on a high "dignified" salary they should have saved money in case of unforeseen circumstances.

[AlfredJPruffock]

Why do people think they "deserve" to live in luxury? If they were on a high "dignified" salary they should have saved money in case of unforeseen circumstances.

On the contrary -

Any government which is capable of spending eye watering astronomical sums during an economic slump to the US defence industries - so they can destroy the planet 4 times rather than twice - can afford to ensure that all their citizens live in a dignified manner.

ERB was supposed to be a kind of tax rebate - you had to have previous earnings to be entitled to it.

A kind of tax rebate.

[Mich the Tester]

pay attention to the spec.
He asked, can you live on £60, heating, food, clothing

now just think hard about that for a minute.

No. You need clothing that you can wear to a job interview; the clue´s in the phrase ´Job Seekers Allowance´. As much as I approve of thrifty people who repair their clothes instead of replacing them, you can´t turn up to an interview with patched up trousers and still have a chance of getting the job.

Of course, people should have savings that they can break into when they need it. But savings are taxed over a certain limit, interest rates are low, and people can´t save at the same rate. The secretary sitting in this room earns 6 euros per hour after taxes. How is she to save enough to help her through a period of unemployment?

If Britain’s social security is still so crap after years of a Labour government, does this mean that the Labour party now has no reason to exist?

Either abolish social security and cut taxes down to a flat rate of about 20% with no tax on savings or set up a proper insurance system that allows people to insure their own specific situation. A graduate level employee might want to insure just 50% of his income for 9 months and then nothing. Someone lower down the scale might need to insure 90% for a year or more. Let people arrange their social security payments and benefits according to their own needs instead of this stupid system that taxes everyone and helps nobody. There must be enough unemployed insurance experts around now to set a decent system that works for individuals and families without requiring a massive state bureaucracy.

Oh and yes, people should save more if they can. But who should they trust with their savings? Commercially run banks? I'd sooner trust Arthur Daley to sell me a guaranteed low mileage top class second hand Lada.

[Pogle]

When i was younger I lived on the dole in a squat for a bit and survived on whatever it was then, but I really wouldn't want to be in that position again.

Nowadays I couldn't imagine trying to survive on £60 and thank God I don't have to.

[AlfredJPruffock]

If Britain’s social security is still so crap after years of a Labour government, does this mean that the Labour party now has no reason to exist?

No matter whom you vote for - the Government always gets in.

They are simply managing Capitalism - some slight differnces in policy - but its the same old , same old ... meet the new boss - same as the old boss.

[Mich the Tester]

If Britain’s social security is still so crap after years of a Labour government, does this mean that the Labour party now has no reason to exist?

No matter whom you vote for - the Government always gets in.

They are simply managing Capitalism - some slight differnces in policy - but its the same old , same old ... meet the new boss - same as the old boss.

They aren’t managing capitalism at all. They left the banks unsupervised so that the whole finance system underlying capitalism has almost collapsed. Politicians and their cronies have sat around profiting from capitalism while ignoring the risks that people run; the message they’re giving to unemployed people is ‘it’s your fault that we f**ked up our basic task of supervising the banks so you can dig yourselves out of the hole we threw you in’.

[BrowneIssue]

Think of the costs of decent clothing, travel, books and courses, stamps and an internet connection that you need to get yourself an interview and a chance of getting the job.

When signing on, one can ask to be sent to the Job Club (or whatever they call it now). This is the place they send the skivers as a punishment: you have to attend for an hour a week and browse the local paper or they stop your benefits.

They're typically open five mornings a week and by attending you can use their stationery, their PCs, their printers, their paper and their stamps. They will pay for any job-bearing newspapers you want and pay for subscriptions to journals with relevant jobs pages (Computing / Computer Weekly) for you. They (can) keep a record of your applications and they report your attendance and how hard you are trying back to the Job Centre.

It was my experience (in South Wales) that if you were clearly trying hard to find work, they could be very sympathetic with travel expenses and even accommodation. It helps if they see your face in the Job Centre every day at the job search terminals.

So that saves you a few quid in postage, travel costs to interviews and gives you free access to job ads.

But you still need your own suit, books, courses...

Oh, and you carry a form to the interview with you for them to sign to prove you were there. Which looks pretty crap at a £300 / day contract interview and rather slants the rate negotiation in their favour!



NB: My experience of Job Centres in London was the opposite: such places should be torched with the staff still inside. And that would be too good for them.

[EternalOptimist]

No. You need clothing that you can wear to a job interview; the clue´s in the phrase ´Job Seekers Allowance´. As much as I approve of thrifty people who repair their clothes instead of replacing them, you can´t turn up to an interview with patched up trousers and still have a chance of getting the job.

Of course, people should have savings that they can break into when they need it. But savings are taxed over a certain limit, interest rates are low, and people can´t save at the same rate. The secretary sitting in this room earns 6 euros per hour after taxes. How is she to save enough to help her through a period of unemployment?

If Britain’s social security is still so crap after years of a Labour government, does this mean that the Labour party now has no reason to exist?

Either abolish social security and cut taxes down to a flat rate of about 20% with no tax on savings or set up a proper insurance system that allows people to insure their own specific situation. A graduate level employee might want to insure just 50% of his income for 9 months and then nothing. Someone lower down the scale might need to insure 90% for a year or more. Let people arrange their social security payments and benefits according to their own needs instead of this stupid system that taxes everyone and helps nobody. There must be enough unemployed insurance experts around now to set a decent system that works for individuals and families without requiring a massive state bureaucracy.

Oh and yes, people should save more if they can. But who should they trust with their savings? Commercially run banks? I'd sooner trust Arthur Daley to sell me a guaranteed low mileage top class second hand Lada.

Just thank God that at least you are not rigid in your thinking Mitch