Reply to: Tory spat over Cameron's plan to purge Central London of poor people

[Doggy Styles]

Probably. But running a household on a single salary isn't easy even without children. Two salaries makes a massive difference.

That is true, but the average wage times two is not much more than our £36,000, and millions of other families seem to get by, even if some struggle.

But if you have an income from not working that would take you into the top quartile of earners, where is the incentive to scratch around for shelf-stacking, fruit-picking or MacDonalds jobs?

[fullyautomatix]

It's hardly a hair. If the government told us they'd reduced our national debt by £20bn it would sound like a lot but be an equally small amount.

In real terms, the amount spent has barely increased over the last decade. In fact using the widely ridiculed AtW inflation index (which claims inflation is about 20%), real-term spending on benefits has dropped about 90%

That doesn't mean it's not too much. Just that it hasn't sky-rocketed as was insinuated in this thread, it's remained equally over-size.

When I cannot afford a 4 bedroom house for my 4 children I settle for a 3 bedroom or a smaller one. So I take up what I can afford. Why should my taxes go to house workshy muppets who are intent on producing as many babies as they can ?

[d000hg]

Thanks MrRobin.

To summarise the numbers, the benefits total that some say will cause families hardship is a tax-free £26,000 per annum. To obtain that, a worker paying taxes would need a salary of £36,000.

That is a tidy sum indeed. Isn't it more than three-quarters of wage-earners?

Probably. But running a household on a single salary isn't easy even without children. Two salaries makes a massive difference.

[Doggy Styles]

Thanks MrRobin.

To summarise the numbers, the benefits total that some say will cause families hardship is a tax-free £26,000 per annum. To obtain that, a worker paying taxes would need a salary of £36,000.

That is a tidy sum indeed. Isn't it more than three-quarters of wage-earners?

[AtW]

You are in no position to make any arguments since you claim inflation is way above the official figure, which contradicts what you claim in this thread.

SALARY inflation isn't higher than official claimed, in fact I'd say probably lower (for same job).

[d000hg]

Around 30% reduction in current housing bill is the same number as around 50% growth it experienced in the last decade.

HTH

You are in no position to make any arguments since you claim inflation is way above the official figure, which contradicts what you claim in this thread.

[AtW]

Although 30% is a lot less than the quoted %50.

Around 30% reduction in current housing bill is the same number as around 50% growth it experienced in the last decade.

HTH

[d000hg]

I'm tired now. Can we subtract percentages that way? But if so, fair enough. Although 30% is a lot less than the quoted %50.

[MrRobin]

It's hardly a hair. If the government told us they'd reduced our national debt by £20bn it would sound like a lot but be an equally small amount.

In real terms, the amount spent has barely increased over the last decade. In fact using the widely ridiculed AtW inflation index (which claims inflation is about 20%), real-term spending on benefits has dropped about 90%

That doesn't mean it's not too much. Just that it hasn't sky-rocketed as was insinuated in this thread, it's remained equally over-size.

According to ONS, inflation between 1999 and 2009 equaled 20% i.e. 20 ^ (1/10) = 1.83% a year.
The benefits bill has increased 50% over the same period and as you correctly pointed out, this is 4.1%
Therefore, in real terms, the benefits bill has increased by 30% in 10 years. Hardly 'barely increased'.

[d000hg]

Stop splitting hairs. The main issue is that we are paying way too much to way too many people for doing way too little productive endeavour.
Until we stop rewarding laziness this abortion will continue.

It's hardly a hair. If the government told us they'd reduced our national debt by £20bn it would sound like a lot but be an equally small amount.

In real terms, the amount spent has barely increased over the last decade. In fact using the widely ridiculed AtW inflation index (which claims inflation is about 20%), real-term spending on benefits has dropped about 90%

That doesn't mean it's not too much. Just that it hasn't sky-rocketed as was insinuated in this thread, it's remained equally over-size.

[shaunbhoy]

Learn the difference between absolute and relative growth. If we were paying £1trillion, even a 1% growth would be £10billion but it wouldn't be a big increase.

Stop splitting hairs. The main issue is that we are paying way too much to way too many people for doing way too little productive endeavour.
Until we stop rewarding laziness this abortion will continue.

[d000hg]

Did average salary go up in the same time by 50%???!?!

This data is proving hard to find, I thought a graph would be easily found via Google. Anyone? I found this which says 13% rise from 1999 to 2009, but I thought 23k was the average now.

£14 bln is shocking, and having it to up to £21 bln is totally crazy

Learn the difference between absolute and relative growth. If we were paying £1trillion, even a 1% growth would be £10billion but it wouldn't be a big increase.

[AtW]

from £14 -> 21bn in a decade isn't anything shocking.

Did average salary go up in the same time by 50%???!?! £14 bln is shocking, and having it to up to £21 bln is totally crazy - that's like what extra 2.5% VAT should collect - nearly half of corporation tax revenues this figure is, ffs - if UK dropped Corp Tax to 12-14% (half of current and near future figure) then it would have resulted in massive flow of investment.

[MrRobin]

[URL="http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23892352-pound-80000-a-year-and-no-chance-of-mortgage.do"]
Here's a few radical ideas:

1. Move out of Battersea to somewhere where your rent is half of what is is now - I know a 1.5/2 hour commute into work is tough but...

I read this in the paper and felt rage too. They hardly need to move 1.5/2hrs away... it's 1 bed flat! Jesus you can just cross the river to Putney and save about a third...

Let's get some perspective here. Your total is £26K a year untaxed, the equivalent of a salary of over £30K.

From thesalarycalculator.co.uk, based on comparing to a worker who's put themselves through university:

Yearly
Gross Income £37,834.65
Taxable Income £31,359.65
Tax £6,271.93
National Insurance £3,533.16
Student Loan £2,055.12
Take Home £25,974.44

[d000hg]

Did science/research budgets increase by 50% in the corresponding periods? Even at £14 bln it's too ****** high - whole of UK transport gets £10 bln, culture - £5 bln ffs. For this sort of money it makes sense to build lots of houses BUT not in expensive London.

Not debating if it's too much or a large amount. Only pointing out that from £14 -> 21bn in a decade isn't anything shocking. It's the fact it was £14bn to start with that is the problem, not how it's (barely) grown.