Lewes Forum thread

Go on, tell 'em what you think

Lewes Forum New message

Still waiting...

On 8 Mar 2018 at 12:21pm bored wrote:
Another long thread full of complaints about foodbanks, lazy people etc etc so I'll pop this back here. Still waiting...

Let's put some facts in there. A minimum wage job gives someone take home pay of about 13,500 a year to cover:
Rent - 600 per month = 7,200 per year
Rates & utilities - 900 + 900 per year = 1,800 per year
Food - 150 per month = 1,800 per year
Travel - 100 = 1,200 per year
Household goods and services including small appliances and repairs - 50 per month = 600 per year
Personal goods and services (dentist/opticians) - 50 per month = 600 per year
This leaves 300 for the whole year for everything. Booze, fags, dope, birthdays, christmas, holidays, going out, TV licence, phone, sporting activities etc etc.
I'm glad people donate to foodbanks and others overcome the stigma to use them if it can improve their lives. It's society fighting back against the ridiculous situation of companies being able to pay people a wage that they can't live off. If you really don't like people using foodbanks then vote for a living wage.
Feel free to changes some figures and explain how the 2 million people on this wage can afford to live?
I expect nobody will take this opportunity to demonstrate their thinking and you'll instead chat anecdotal rubbish but I would love to be surprised.
On 8 Mar 2018 at 12:25pm Ferret wrote:
The people on this forum who are so mean spirited are a very few bitter individuals with nothing better to do. The vast majority of people in the town are kind and generous, and friendly to outsiders. They are the real Lewes.
On 8 Mar 2018 at 12:39pm Bongo wrote:
If you have a partner or children and earn minimum wage, your income increases very healthily, thanks to credits and social benefits.
The real losers are single people on minimum wage - they are entitled to zero social benefits or credits. I can honestly say that when I was working on minimum wage, it was the most stressful and worrying time ever. It's good to have this minimum wage, but it only benefits those with families.
On 8 Mar 2018 at 12:59pm Tim wrote:
On a previous thread, someone posted that benefits are paid up to 30k. Was he/she correct or is it a case of not having a clue?
On 8 Mar 2018 at 3:00pm bored wrote:
Bluntly, they are wrong.

There are different benefits for people in different situations. As pointed out by Bongo, single people with no kids in this situation (minimum wage full time) do not get any of the additional benefits.

If you have children you get more in benefits (various types) but you have increased expenditure. Given we allow companies to pay people a wage they struggle to live off as an individual we have to offer increased benefits when people have children.

If you have a partner there are ways to increase your benefits by claiming some as a couple. There are also a couple of extra benefits couples can claim but nothing major.
On 8 Mar 2018 at 3:04pm Tim wrote:
@bored. You seem to know your stuff. How do you max out the benefits?
On 8 Mar 2018 at 3:45pm @tim @bored wrote:
Bored you don't half talk rubbish, working tax credits are paid out to 18+ with a child or 25+ without. They continue to pay until you have over a 32k household income.
It's not that straight forward fill out the calculator, but to say "bluntly no" is rubbish.

Check it out here »
On 8 Mar 2018 at 3:50pm Tim wrote:
So does that mean that everyone should be able to earn 32k one way or another?
On 8 Mar 2018 at 4:36pm @Tim wrote:
Fill out the calculator but no, not by a long shot. I think 12k is the minimum they want you to earn, maximum topup from this benefit is around 10k (it's not a bad boost to low earnings).
On 8 Mar 2018 at 5:01pm Sell the roofs from over wrote:
their heads.....then pay out to landlords and other subsidies to crap wages. The politics of the asylum, but they are all sold off too. " Property owning democracy " My arse.
On 8 Mar 2018 at 5:26pm SHS wrote:
One solution is the return of traditional council housing at low rents. Surely of source of income for the councils too if managed well.
To criticize employers for not paying higher wages is not fair. Yes, the companies making big profits should share out the money better (thinking of top salary vs lowest salary) but many companies are barely breaking even (pubs?) given high costs and a competitive market that stops them raising prices.
Equally, another solution is for Britain to cuts costs (govt waste, not essential services!) and make money (manufacture, stuff that people want, export, devalue the ...), then perhaps our living costs can be reduced (cheaper public transport, lower rates, free education...).
On 9 Mar 2018 at 9:37am Q wrote:
It is complicated but in essence Gordon Brown's novel idea to boost low earners pay "and thereby encourage the work ethic" cannot be said to have worked perfectly. The main effect has been to remove any pressure on employers to increase pay as this would mean less in benefits. This has lead to an incremental reliance on the benefit by more and more people, dragging more and more people into the benefit system.
Now the whole economy has become distorted by both this benefit and high immigration which means there is never a labour shortage and there never will be. All businesses now arrange their pay scale so that most workers are on minimum wage, why do otherwise?
Reform tax credits and restrict unqualified immigration and businesses will have to compete for workers in a way that doesn't exist at the moment. Some businesses may fail, the economy may be smaller but if we continue as at present we will have the largest population in Europe, the largest economy in Europe but some of the lowest wages and poorest social outcomes inEurope.
On 9 Mar 2018 at 3:12pm @@Tim @bored wrote:
Bluntly no is correct. Hands up how many single people earning 20 to 29k are getting benefits? That was the specific point being made and is wrong.

You've used household income which implies at least two adults and possibly children. This is very different to saying a person who earns 30k get's benefits. A household earning 32k is the equivalent of 2 people working full time minimum wage jobs. Makes sense that that is where the threshold falls for 2 people claiming jointly.
On 9 Mar 2018 at 3:21pm bored wrote:
@@TIM @bored. Just FYI....

Income thresholds for 2016/17 for single people or couples with no children. Above these figures you don't get any Working Tax credits...

Single person Around 13,100
Couple around 18,000

Where's this 32k limit you talk about?

Check it out here »
On 10 Mar 2018 at 8:51am skinny wrote:
@Bored - you live in a fantasy.
150 a month on food???????????????????
Try 400 minimum.
600 rent??????????????
Try 1000 minimum
I have a family of three and have gone from earning 42000 per year to minimum wage. and owning a house to renting.
I don't smoke, I don't own a car, we don't drink or even have TV.
I we do not go out partying. (well once at New Years). and haven't had a holiday in 3 years now.
We do not scrounge either and have very healthy diet and our child is in many learning clubs.
On 10 Mar 2018 at 1:39pm @bored wrote:
Did I say no children?
I said fill out the calculator and see, I earn 32k and still get 97 a month, I'm not going into my personal circumstances as it depends on many factors.
But you're outright wrong giving the advice you're giving, benefits are still paid at 32k.
On 12 Mar 2018 at 1:05pm bored wrote:
reply above is not me, it's '@bored'. My figures were an attempt to show how a minimum wage job doesn't pay enough for a single person to live off. Figures would be very different for you like you say. Sorry for your troubles.

@@ bored. Are you saying that single people with no children still get benefits up to earning 32k? If not then we are talking about different situations. If you are then please share this information with the forum as there are no doubt many people who earn less than 32k not getting benefits who could.

20 posts left

Your response

You must now log in (or register) to post
Click here to add a link »
Smile Wink Sad Confused Kiss Favourite Fishing Devil Cool



lewes railway land 76:132
lewes railway land

@Basil Sorry Basil, but you are mistaken. There is absolutely nothing wrong with 'in regards', and its use doesn't signify... more
Liberty cannot be preserved without general knowledge among the people.
John Adams