When Are You Expecting The £ To Be Devalued ?

[snotty]

I do know what it's like to be out of work. I got sod all help from the job centre, no benefits, etc etc

 

 

Yes another valid point Ian, and in a similar vein I was unfortunate to be between jobs some time ago, I discovered a job club where people in my situation could go to browse job vacancies, get aid with CV preparation and use of facilities such as computers and phone.

There were even training courses going on.

However... and this is the rub.... you had to have been out of work for at least 6 months to use the facilities, I could have probably secured my next job in less than the five weeks it actually took me, if I'd had access to the equipment I couldn't afford to have at home.

As for re-training.... not a chance, for the 'long-termers' only.

 

If I was out of work for 6 months I would be so out of touch with what's going on that I'd probably never get another position, and would need to totally re-train anyway.

 

Things may have changed some in recent times but I expect the intransient attitudes of the jobsworths and the beaurocracy of the unfair system remain the same.

 

On the other hand, my OAP parents are better off now than they have ever been, as they now qualify for all sorts of benefits after a lifetimes scrimping and saving, they can even afford the odd holiday.

[Ken L]

Oh those terrible pulic servants and their pensions. Well, we may have a pay package that includes a "non-contributary pension scheme" (yeh right) but this is more than made up for by the pathetic salaries on offer.

In my own office, roughly a third of staff are on fractionally more than minimum wage, another third earn less than 17K a year (these are the folks on the counter being spat at, sworn at and assulted on a daily basis) and a little less than another third of the staff have a theoretical pay maximum of 22K a year but in reality, most of them earn nowhere near that because despite working in the grade of upto 10 years with satisfactory (or better) servis, they haven't got to the top if the (utterly impossible to understand) pay spines.

 

Fancy a management job ? My own ofice manager has responsibility for 580 staff, the building and a buget of billions of pounds (salaries, contracts and benefit payments) and earns a little over 30k a year.

 

Just as a point of interest, it's worth knowing what a terrible burden on the public purse that "none contributary pension" costs the taxpayer. Well, for the majority of customer facing public servants in the big departments like the DWP have a salary maximum of 17K a year. After 40 years of service, they will retire with a lump sum payment of about 20k and a yearly pension worth half of their final salary or about 8500 pounds a year.

 

 

Yes, there are some fat cat well healed public servants with almost no chance of ever getting sacked. One of them, Sir Richard Mottram was involved in the "Good day for bad news" scandal and when rumbled, came out with his classic quote "You're fu**ed, I'm fu**ed, we're all fu**ed!". Did he get sacked ? No, of course not. He got put in charge of the DWP to serve out his time prior to retirement and a nice little earner from the tax payer.

I really should take some time to look up his biography ut I suspect it will start off with "Attended the well know public school at...."

[yoxer]

". Really, is anyone truly happy about people being able to skim 5k, 10k or 20k a year in benefits??"

 

Oh yes , those sensible enough to have worked out that they need to do nowt more than wander down to the post office and stand in a queue for half an hour as those mugs out working seem quite happy and willing to have their pockets plundered by this theiving government in order to keep them .

[les middy]

". Really, is anyone truly happy about people being able to skim 5k, 10k or 20k a year in benefits??"

 

Oh yes , those sensible enough to have worked out that they need to do nowt more than wander down to the post office and stand in a queue for half an hour as those mugs out working seem quite happy and willing to have their pockets plundered by this theiving government in order to keep them .

 

 

walk down to the post office you must be joking

 

just get them to transfer it to your bank account

 

then more time to do what you want

[DavyR]

but we are not all equal and suggesting we should be (from a financial sense) is verging on the side of communism.

 

If you're seriously suggesting that any government of this country is aiming at equality of income for all, you are so far wide of the mark that it beggars belief. George Bernard Shaw suggested such an approach in 1926 in his book "The Thinking Woman's Guide to Socialism and Capitalism" and there wasn't exactly a rush to adopt it then or at any time since.

 

I've worked all my life for the NHS, and all through the 1980s when we were bringing up two small children, our income was always just above the level required for benefits. It's only since the kids have grown up and we've paid off the mortgage that we have anything like what most people would consider a decent standard of living.

 

If we were a family with young children now, we would be considerably better off.

 

We all know of people that seem to milk the system. We hear about it constantly in the tabloid press. It makes us angry. What we tend not to hear about so often is the way that the system is being equally milked by those well-off enough to employ accountants and lawyers, to use family and other "connections" and to make large amounts of unearned income through investments.

 

I get sick and tired of "self-made businessmen" (they're usually the worst culprits) treating cleaners (for example) like dirt because "anyone can do what I've done if they work hard enough." I know some women with three or four different cleaning jobs that are doing 10-12 hour days for little reward. Don't tell me that they don't work hard.

 

There will always be people, of all classes, who mis-spend their income. It's a fact of life. If you think that a voucher system for benefits is the answer, try reading George Orwell's "Down and out in Paris and London" and you'll see why it isn't.

[Andrew Boyd]

I'm a middle manager, on a middle mangers income. I live in the South East and with my wife, buying my own home ( it'll be ours in 5 years ). I have 3 children and run a company car. The car is needed for work and I do 12K business miles per year. My wife also works full time.

My wifes friend is single, her husband walked out years ago, has 3 children. The 'former' husband has vanished and does not provide anything towards 'his' children. But this friend has a higher disposable income than my wife and I. Ok she does not own her own home, the council pay all the rent, council tax, etc, etc.

 

We should protect those who need it in society, it's our social responsability. . . .

 

But when the earners find themselves paying for the "less fortunate" such that they can afford 2nd and 3rd TV's, a nice car, overseas holidays, etc, ect then something is wrong, very wrong.

 

 

 

I hear that 1 out of 5 ( or is it 4 ) work in the public sector. How the hell can those working ( ie; me and you ) afford to sustain that position?

[DavyR]

I hear that 1 out of 5 ( or is it 4 ) work in the public sector. How the hell can those working ( ie; me and you ) afford to sustain that position?

 

I hope you're not suggesting that those in the public sector *don't* work? Just try paying directly for everything (health, education, etc) that is currently provided by the public sector via taxation and then see how much "disposable income" you're left with.

[Vagabond]

Since this lot came into power about nine years ago the National Debt has gone up by £117 billion, Pensions have been stripped of £55 billion and the Public Sector pension liability anywhere between £100 to £400 billion, Blair has given the Euro community several billion a year and now Brown is going to start scraping the inside of dustbins to theive from dormant bank accounts.

 

Not to mention the likelihood of most workers not getting a state pension until age 69. Still, working until their late 60s will kill a few off rather earlier than the present actuarial expectation - saving Mr Brown's administration quite a bit in pensions. No mug, is he?

 

Still, even with the postponement of retirement age, the present pensions and benefits system will not be affordable much beyond 2020. Labour voters who are in work and are below retirement age have voted themselves a pretty miserable retirement even if they live long enough to reach it. A pity that non-labour voters will suffer too.

 

Me ? Already retired, and drawing pension as fast as I can. It's no good moaning chaps, you put 'em in, so when in fifteen years time you go for your pension, you will be told "there's no money left, 'cos Vagabonds had it all"

[Elton]

Me ? Already retired, and drawing pension as fast as I can. It's no good moaning chaps, you put 'em in, so when in fifteen years time you go for your pension, you will be told "there's no money left, 'cos Vagabonds had it all"

 

At least we get value out of you, such as catch reports and photos.

 

It's those the waste it on silly things like food and heating that get my goat!

[DavyR]

Labour voters who are in work and are below retirement age have voted themselves a pretty miserable retirement even if they live long enough to reach it. A pity that non-labour voters will suffer too.

 

Of course, if the Tories were back in (quite likely next time around, now they've got a leader who is better looking than either Blair or Brown - and that's what really counts), we wouldn't have a pensions crisis at all, would we?