Working full-time, fined by government for going on holiday!

[sutty27]

There's bound to be a little surplus left over some weeks. Other weeks they might overspend due to unforseen circumstances. What do you want these people to do with the surplus? Give it back every week so they're left with a zero balance?

 

In which post did I get close to suggesting such a thing?

 

---------- Post added 26-04-2016 at 13:06 ----------

 

Then what did you mean when you said "none of which is relevant to the point I made"?

 

---------- Post added 26-04-2016 at 13:04 ----------

 

 

I understood it, but it wasn't correct.........we digress.

 

I meant that it isn't relevant to the point I made, and its not really possible for me to misunderstand my own point is it?

[Bonzo77]

In which post did I get close to suggesting such a thing?

 

What should they do with the surplus then? It would be impossible for there not to be one.......unless your weekly shop is exactly the same amount every week and your petrol station has a permanent fixed fuel price.

[Berberis]

I suspect we are at an impasse here and the issue is peoples understanding of what UV is for. I thought it was a safety net to keep people out of poverty. That's what the previous benefits are there for and as UV is to replace them, I can only surmise UV is for the same purpose. Others seem to think it's a state top up something akin to the state pension.

[sutty27]

What should they do with the surplus then? It would be impossible for there not to be one.......unless your weekly shop is exactly the same amount every week and your petrol station has a permanent fixed fuel price.

 

You answered that in your own post.

 

There's bound to be a little surplus left over some weeks. Other weeks they might overspend due to unforseen circumstances.

 

End result no saving, what they manage to save one week will be spent another week.

[Bonzo77]

You answered that in your own post.

 

 

 

End result no saving, what they manage to save one week will be spent another week.

 

Sometimes unforseen circumstances happen very rarely. Anyway, you didn't answer the question, for a change!

[sutty27]

Sometimes unforseen circumstances happen very rarely. Anyway, you didn't answer the question, for a change!

 

You had already answered your own question, and I'm sure that my post also contained an answer which agreed with you, they will save one week and spend it another week because each weeks spending will be different.

[Bonzo77]

You had already answered your own question, and I'm sure that my post also contained an answer which agreed with you, they will save one week and spend it another week because each weeks spending will be different.

 

And the surplus that builds up?

[sutty27]

And the surplus that builds up?

 

There shouldn't be a surplus that builds up, if there is and it isn't needed for the things they need then they didn't need it in the first place, so clearly being given too much.

[Cyclone]

There shouldn't be a surplus that builds up, if there is and it isn't needed for the things they need then they didn't need it in the first place, so clearly being given too much.

 

This still makes absolutely no sense for the reasons already stated.

 

---------- Post added 26-04-2016 at 15:10 ----------

 

You are clearly have difficulty understanding what I type.

 

No, what you type is quite clear, as is what you think.

 

---------- Post added 26-04-2016 at 15:11 ----------

 

In which post did I get close to suggesting such a thing?[

 

Every post where you declared that if they were able to save at all then they were being given too much.

 

---------- Post added 26-04-2016 at 15:12 ----------

 

You answered that in your own post.

 

 

 

End result no saving, what they manage to save one week will be spent another week.

 

And if they're lucky, and there are no bad weeks, then they continue to save.

Someone else in a very similar situation has slightly less good luck and doesn't save.

 

You've refused to say how you could 'solve' this and how exactly you'd ensure that the first person in this example didn't manage to save...

 

---------- Post added 26-04-2016 at 15:14 ----------

 

There shouldn't be a surplus that builds up, if there is and it isn't needed for the things they need then they didn't need it in the first place, so clearly being given too much.

 

It's like you imagine people have over the period of a few weeks or a month an expenditure which never varies and which is precisely predictable. Reality isn't like that of course.

[Bonzo77]

There shouldn't be a surplus that builds up, if there is and it isn't needed for the things they need then they didn't need it in the first place, so clearly being given too much.

 

Price of petrol stays the same does it? Price of food? There will always be a surplus, otherwise they're going to be living beyond their means.