Working 12 hours a day every day of the week, worth less than a London cube

[LeMaquis]

Consider a man working 12 hours a day, everyday of the week.

 

What does he earn?

 

Supposing he is an adult and gets the minimum wage of £5.93.

 

He earns just under £500 before tax. After tax and NI (tax) he earns £384.14.

 

Consider a cube in London. Housing benefit will pay up to £400 per week.

 

The man is worthless in comparison, he can yield more money to a landlord when he is on the dole, than he can when he works 12 hours a day, everyday.

 

The two figures (£384 and £400) you quote aren't comparable. The £400 HB limit is for a four-bedroom property. Only a family with at least 3 kids would get that. If it were a case of a family of at least 3 kids on that income the bloke would qualify for Working tax Credit which he wouldn't get were he on the dole. Therefore his wage would be topped up above the £400 and he'd be better off than the figure you quote. Okay he'd lose about £100 quid a week dole (for a couple) but his WTC would still be a nice earner. He may also qualify for some HB and Council Tax Benefit anyway as these are means-tested and he might well get some of his rent paid.

 

Anyway. All this is a hypothesis. He doesn't exist and nor do his wife, kids, home and job. It's not as black and white as you paint it but given WTC and the strong possibilty of some HB/CTB he'd be better off.

[Grandad.Malky]

Here is a link to help you understand,Working time limits (the 48-hour week)

 

I know someone that works 6 12hr nights and as 1 night off …… and they love it.

[chem1st]

The two figures (£384 and £400) you quote aren't comparable. The £400 HB limit is for a four-bedroom property. Only a family with at least 3 kids would get that. If it were a case of a family of at least 3 kids on that income the bloke would qualify for Working tax Credit which he wouldn't get were he on the dole. Therefore his wage would be topped up above the £400 and he'd be better off than the figure you quote. Okay he'd lose about £100 quid a week dole (for a couple) but his WTC would still be a nice earner. He may also qualify for some HB and Council Tax Benefit anyway as these are means-tested and he might well get some of his rent paid.

 

Anyway. All this is a hypothesis. He doesn't exist and nor do his wife, kids, home and job. It's not as black and white as you paint it but given WTC and the strong possibilty of some HB/CTB he'd be better off.

 

100 years ago, working 84 hours a week, he could have supported his entire family. Now he needs benefits just to put a roof over his families head! That is when he works 84 hours a week.

 

A hell of a lot of trouble is coming to the UK. The working man has been screwed left right and centre. People cannot live like this. It is intolerable, it is unjust, it is unfair.

 

Where is the working mans share of technological advance? Increased production? Automation?

[ECCOnoob]

Oh goody, Another one of your daily threads banging on about rents being too high. You never get bored of them do you.

 

PS: Just because you put FACT next to something does not actually verify it. Try actually providing some facts.

 

Once again there is absolutely no point to your post.

 

As a renter of such a 'cube' in London I have no doubt more knowledge than you. My rent is about £110 p/w including council tax. Now, this is a private rental (you know Chem1st..... one of those nasty evil people who contribute nothing and scam and rob poor old tenants). My flat is also still within zone 2 so you can quite happily call it central london. That still leaves after rent £274.14 per week for everything else. Its hardly a poor amount for someone earning the minimum wage and hardly like the landlord has got them over a barrel.

 

For those living outside the central boundaries - as many people working in the capital do - the rents will be even cheaper or the same for something bigger. £400 p/w housing benefit is the max for a london property - particularly those controlled by the state or housing associations. I bet very few people are entitled to such a high rate and will be very limited to where they can live. Unlike most people who work in London. I have clearly pointed out above how someone on minimum earnings can easily afford to live in the capital. Plus, lets not forget, most people dont get minimum wage and many firms put a London allowance on top of their salary. I doubt there are many people who feel 'worthless' compared to someone on the state.

[LDeville]

If it wasn't for the sneaky RSL opt out, many people's rents would be limited to £32.27 per week! FACT

 

£1200!

 

People on minimum wage working 48 hours could not afford to pay that even if they devoted 100% of take home pay to rent!

 

The RENT is way too high!

 

When people around us lose their homes as can't keep up payments, many in rented social hosuing pay naff all and may live in 700k homes near to where we live and all of them are soical housing places. Even up our raod to our surprise a big house converted to fourr three and two bedroom apartments, three of whick belong to a housing association and estimated to be worth around 850k each

[ECCOnoob]

100 years ago, working 84 hours a week, he could have supported his entire family. Now he needs benefits just to put a roof over his families head! That is when he works 84 hours a week.

 

A hell of a lot of trouble is coming to the UK. The working man has been screwed left right and centre. People cannot live like this. It is intolerable, it is unjust, it is unfair.

 

Where is the working mans share of technological advance? Increased production? Automation?

 

Nobody needs to work 84 hours a week or benefits to put a roof over their family's head. Now you are just talking crap. If you cannot afford to live where you live the answer simple. You are living above your means and you MOVE to something cheaper. Its not rocket science and its what everyone with a brain has been doing for years. What is wrong with people taking responsibility. If you decide to have a family you need to make sure you can afford it. Why should it be the state's responsibility to sort out moron couples who decide to pop them out without thinking about the responsibility. Support should be provided for those in difficulty but state money should never be accepted as a status quo for funding YOUR kids.

 

Secondly, this 'intolerable living' you so claim. Society has got better standards and more choice in life than ever before. Take a look back at the world in the 70s 60s 40s and see how life was.

 

For a starters the enjoyment of mass consumerism.

Cheaper electrical and mechanical goods thanks for foreign manufacture.

Huge variety and choice of cheap food from across the globe thanks to foreign import, brand globalisation and foreign manufacture.

The introduction of the digital age (primarilly thanks to the far east and USA) giving us multiplatform television, computers, advances in communications etc. Similarly an avaliability and massive price reduction in technology. widescreen TVs from asda as an example.

The avaliability of cheaper automobiles allowed the car to be a tool for the masses not just the few. etc.... etc.....

 

Would you like to go back to the days before all that eh. When everything we consumed, manufactured and used here had to be made or grown here. Ah yeah the good old days of say, British Leyland, Rover, Amstrad, Sinclair, Lyons Corner House, Little Chef, Happy Eater and Bass Taverns.

 

I wonder why all that failed...... hmmm.

[love_rat]

What Chem1st is getting at, is that it does not pay to work and its easy to see why if you do the maths

 

Min wage of around £6 x 40hrs = £240, less tax = take home of around £200 a week.

 

Now remember the fuss when benefits were to be capped at £25,000 per annum (or £35,000 before tax), then if you put it around a but + don't work you could get £700 in benefits a week. Much better than the poor bloke on the minimum wage.

[ECCOnoob]

Fair enough. I agree the benefits system is a joke. Although its very rare for anyone to get such a high amount - unless they seriously play the system. Most people are stuck on JSA (£68 p/w) with a bit extra for housing.

 

But I cant argue with the potential amounts you say. Well, there is simple solution IMO. Drop all Jobseeker benefits to the equivilent of someone on minimum wage. Cutting housing benefit and council benefit altogether. That way they would have no advantage whatsoever with anyone earning their crust in the real world.

 

That would solve two problems.

 

1. It would stop anyone living on beyond the minimum time necessary and force them to get a job - even if its something they dont like. As they would get no extra for choosing to have kids or sitting around on their backside all day.

 

2. It would provide more money into the benefits fund for people who actually need it such as the genuinely disabled and elderly.

 

Perfect solution.

[chem1st]

Fair enough. I agree the benefits system is a joke. Although its very rare for anyone to get such a high amount - unless they seriously play the system. Most people are stuck on JSA (£68 p/w) with a bit extra for housing.

 

But I cant argue with the potential amounts you say. Well, there is simple solution IMO. Drop all Jobseeker benefits to the equivilent of someone on minimum wage. Cutting housing benefit and council benefit altogether. That way they would have no advantage whatsoever with anyone earning their crust in the real world.

 

That would solve two problems.

 

1. It would stop anyone living on beyond the minimum time necessary and force them to get a job - even if its something they dont like. As they would get no extra for choosing to have kids or sitting around on their backside all day.

 

2. It would provide more money into the benefits fund for people who actually need it such as the genuinely disabled and elderly.

 

Perfect solution.

 

All jobseeker benefits are below minimum wage, the only reason benefits get to become higher than minimum wage is when you factor in housing costs & disability premiums.

 

The cost of housing is too much, and the benefits keep the cost of housing high, hence my dislike for landlords who are taking a hell of a lot of money from the state and workers, due to the high cost of housing, some of them like Obelix even believe they produce something, he believe's he produces CAPITAL, I don't know whether I should laugh, cry or worry for the future!

 

1. Reducing benefits to below minimum wage would encourage work, but the only people whom could have their benefits reduced below minimum wage are the disabled.

 

2. Many disabled people already get more than minimum wage, which quite frankly is a disgrace. They should get the equivalent of minimum wage and no more. The NHS and various other subsidies meets additional costs and provides them with vast amounts of very expensive healthcare. Why the hell should they get free travel, free motability cars and free taxis?

 

I do agree the elderly should get more (via the state pension - in a way which would not affect private pensions, in order for the prudent to be rewarded)

[salsafan]

What Chem1st is getting at, is that it does not pay to work and its easy to see why if you do the maths

 

Min wage of around £6 x 40hrs = £240, less tax = take home of around £200 a week.

 

Now remember the fuss when benefits were to be capped at £25,000 per annum (or £35,000 before tax), then if you put it around a but + don't work you could get £700 in benefits a week. Much better than the poor bloke on the minimum wage.

 

If everybody thought like that, then there would be no society, but people continues. I mean, you gotta carry on. Don't you ? It is nice to have choices, but I guess sometimes we cannot choose. If you cannot choose, do you not continue and then speculate further? If you do not work, then you are out of the running, but then if you worked, then you speculate in a future.