An interesting analysis by the ONS though not exactly a new one as obviously different spending habits impact some groups differently as opposed to a generic index such as CPI or RPI. The term "a democratic price index" is a rather amusing and silly one.
Ultimately unless the government somehow attempts to and actually can target the inflation of specific goods and services it is a rather academic exercise leaving aside what the views of voters would be if they did for one group of households.
If wage inflation is ahead of price inflation that is no bad thing.
The government can easily target inflation that effects different groups disproportionately becasue their spending habits are largerly down to cost of living. The poorer you are the higher the percentage of your income that goes on food and utility bills for example, utility bills for one are state regulated. And those on lower incomes are also disproportionately hit by vat despite food being mostly vat exempt. And the goverment can also target those facing higher inflation from the opposite direction by increasing their income, through shifting the tax burend by the use of progressive tax rates and redistribution.
As an IT consultant (well sort of as I'm out of work..) I apply for about 5 jobs a day for the last 12 months but I guess my age, 56, is against me, I know of several others in a similar position, none of us signed on as yet so we don't appear in the unemployment figures.
I've seen many a boom and bust, not seeing much boom this time round.
Has this Government got rid of the over 50's New Deal ?
It's a shame if they have because it got many of the over 50's who lost their jobs in the 80's/90's back into work when Labour introduced it.
I guess that if they have scrapped it this Tory led government have again abandoned the over 50's just as the then Tory Government did in the 80's and 90's
especially if someone posted figures as to what "economically inactive" means.;-)
Looking in more detail at the 9.06 million people aged from 16 to 64 who were economically inactive for August to October 2014:
2.35 million were students, 15,000 more than a year earlier.
2.29 million were looking after the family or home, 68,000 fewer than a year earlier.
2.02 million were long-term sick, 47,000 more than a year earlier.
1.30 million were retired, 39,000 fewer than a year earlier. This fall in the number of economically inactive people who had retired before reaching the age of 65 reflects ongoing changes to the state pension age for women resulting in fewer women retiring between the ages of 60 and 65.
180,000 were temporarily sick, 13,000 fewer than a year earlier.
48,000 were discouraged (not looking for work because they thought that no suitable jobs were available), 6,000 fewer than a year earlier.
The remaining 861,000 people gave other reasons for not looking for work or declined to provide a reason in their Labour Force Survey interview, 73,000 more than a year earlier.
it's definitely your age. applying for five jobs a day for a year shows the jobs are there. (or its your CV). Good luck though.
Am ex-colleague of mine (somewhat younger), who Id say way the best IT project manager I've worked with in 30 odd years, took over 2 1/2 years and nearly 4,000 applications before he got a suitable job, takes time just frustrates me how politicians gloss over the truth about the job market.
especially if someone posted figures as to what "economically inactive" means.;-)
Looking in more detail at the 9.06 million people aged from 16 to 64 who were economically inactive for August to October 2014:
2.35 million were students, 15,000 more than a year earlier.
2.29 million were looking after the family or home, 68,000 fewer than a year earlier.
2.02 million were long-term sick, 47,000 more than a year earlier.
1.30 million were retired, 39,000 fewer than a year earlier. This fall in the number of economically inactive people who had retired before reaching the age of 65 reflects ongoing changes to the state pension age for women resulting in fewer women retiring between the ages of 60 and 65.
180,000 were temporarily sick, 13,000 fewer than a year earlier.
48,000 were discouraged (not looking for work because they thought that no suitable jobs were available), 6,000 fewer than a year earlier.
The remaining 861,000 people gave other reasons for not looking for work or declined to provide a reason in their Labour Force Survey interview, 73,000 more than a year earlier.
.
I know what it says I do not need to look at it in more detail I'm not sure why you have gone to the trouble of breaking it down, I provided the link as is expected of FM's.if they state something as being fact. Unless of course you're implying I'm unable to understand it being a Labour voter.
I know what it says I do not need to look at it in more detail I'm not sure why you have gone to the trouble of breaking it down, I provided the link as is expected of FM's.if they state something as being fact. Unless of course you're implying I'm unable to understand it being a Labour voter.
i posted the figures to show people the summary of the breakdown for folks who couldn't be bothered (or didn't have time) to dissect the figure of 9.06 million you posted.
you're a labour voter? i'm puzzled, because i am sure you posted a few months ago that you have never voted. correct me if i'm wrong though.
your level of understanding does not correlate to the way you vote, so no, i am not implying anything.
Average pay grew by 1.6% ahead of the 1.3% cpi inflation figure
If anyone believes the unemployment figures.... Well. The number of self employed has gone through the roof. Not many of those will be earning a wage comparable to the salary from the job they lost. Thousands are on zero hours contracts. Take one of those "jobs" and you are off the unemployment register regardless of the fact that the state is still making up your living by paying you tax credits.
If the jobs picture is so good, why are income tax receipts not keeping pace with the so called growth in employment?
Bad news for Labour if this trend continues right up to the election.
All they have to do is remind people of zero hours contracts, lower than expected PAYE receipts and massively increasing tax credits required to top up wages from minimum wage jobs to something people can live on.
Am ex-colleague of mine (somewhat younger), who Id say way the best IT project manager I've worked with in 30 odd years, took over 2 1/2 years and nearly 4,000 applications before he got a suitable job, takes time just frustrates me how politicians gloss over the truth about the job market.
It goes against what I am seeing in the market right now, I have been on contract with my current organisation for 10 months and they are utilising a large number of contractors for various one-off projects - The contractors are leaving left right and centre for better contracts rather than accepting contract renewals - The market appears to be very bouyant at the infrastructure level.
If anyone believes the unemployment figures.... Well. The number of self employed has gone through the roof. Not many of those will be earning a wage comparable to the salary from the job they lost. Thousands are on zero hours contracts. Take one of those "jobs" and you are off the unemployment register regardless of the fact that the state is still making up your living by paying you tax credits.
If the jobs picture is so good, why are income tax receipts not keeping pace with the so called growth in employment?
A lot of people who have got jobs might only earn up to £12,000, so they don't pay tax due to the threshold of the personal tax allowance. Hence lower tax receipts for the Government.
A lot of people who have got jobs might only earn up to £12,000, so they don't pay tax due to the threshold of the personal tax allowance. Hence lower tax receipts for the Government.
Yet they still pay national insurance and accept it because they have been brainwashed into believing it is an insurance scheme rather than a tax.
Yet they still pay national insurance and accept it because they have been brainwashed into believing it is an insurance scheme rather than a tax.
Hence the idea of merging NI and Income tax so people have a much clearer idea of what tax they are actually paying.
Mind you I cannot see why someone on the NMW should pay a single penny in income taxes (NI & Income Tax) - it is called a minimum for a reason - why reduce it even further.
Hence the idea of merging NI and Income tax so people have a much clearer idea of what tax they are actually paying.
Mind you I cannot see why someone on the NMW should pay a single penny in income taxes (NI & Income Tax) - it is called a minimum for a reason - why reduce it even further.
An idea that I passionately support.
Completely agree, the idea of taxing the incomes of anyone on NMW is stupid, especially since they will be claiming it back in the form of tax credits. The inefficiencies of the welfare state, eh?
NI is a complicated calculation, I can work out how much Tax I pay on a piece of paper, but would struggle working out how much NI I pay without reading up on the rules
I think at one point the Lower earnings threashold was in line the the Lower Tax bands ?
but on the other hand NI is supposed to give you an entitlement to certain state benefits and of course the state pension ? so no NI Paid no pension ?
NI is a complicated calculation, I can work out how much Tax I pay on a piece of paper, but would struggle working out how much NI I pay without reading up on the rules
I think at one point the Lower earnings threashold was in line the the Lower Tax bands ?
but on the other hand NI is supposed to give you an entitlement to certain state benefits and of course the state pension ? so no NI Paid no pension ?
This is the myth that assumes the existence of a 'pot' that you pay into. This is not the case. You are not paying for your future access to the money, you are paying to keep those already retired or claiming benefits.
Unless that is you want to create a client-state that will always vote in ways to continue those benefits. The ironic thing is that benefits are paid out of taxes - if we did not pay the benefits then those people at the lowest end could actually keep the money and not need the benefits (or at least less of them).
Of course the movement of the money from worker to government and then back to worker is not 100% efficient - so just collecting it and redistributing it costs money.
The cost of living crisis argument is certainly fading away now for Labour. I'm not sure they'll be able to use it in May.
Still well below RPI the normal benchmark used in pay negotiations and lets be honest a 1.6% pay award after a half decade or more of decline is hardly likely to make people think "they've never had it so good", is it?:o
This is the myth that assumes the existence of a 'pot' that you pay into. This is not the case. You are not paying for your future access to the money, you are paying to keep those already retired or claiming benefits.
Yes but you need so many years NI contribution to have access to the second state pension (or whatever it's called this week), so it does have a "value", even though it's not going into a bank account with my name on it
Unless that is you want to create a client-state that will always vote in ways to continue those benefits. The ironic thing is that benefits are paid out of taxes - if we did not pay the benefits then those people at the lowest end could actually keep the money and not need the benefits (or at least less of them).
Of course the movement of the money from worker to government and then back to worker is not 100% efficient - so just collecting it and redistributing it costs money.
The IFS calculated a £1 per hour increase to the minimum wage could reduce the welfare bill by £3 billion. It isn't just about taxes its expecting employers to offer a fair days wage for a fair days work and not offloading that burden to the taxpayer.
Yes but you need so many years NI contribution to have access to the second state pension (or whatever it's called this week), so it does have a "value", even though it's not going into a bank account with my name on it
That's just a criteria imposed on claiming similar to the proposed 5 years for new migrants into the country. You are paying into a system that may not exist in 10 or 20 years after which you would be entitled to nothing. Better to allow the low paid to keep what they earn and do with it what they see fit.
Personally, I would up my contributions into my work pension.
I do wonder what the retirement age will be in a couple years time? Would it be into the 70+? I can imagine maybe in 10-20 years time it'll be into the 80's.
Do people even live long enough to have access to it, and would people be so old and disabled still have to keep working cause they haven't reached the age required yet.
Comments
If it's his age per se it's illegal discrimination, though good luck proving it.
Has this Government got rid of the over 50's New Deal ?
It's a shame if they have because it got many of the over 50's who lost their jobs in the 80's/90's back into work when Labour introduced it.
I guess that if they have scrapped it this Tory led government have again abandoned the over 50's just as the then Tory Government did in the 80's and 90's
Am ex-colleague of mine (somewhat younger), who Id say way the best IT project manager I've worked with in 30 odd years, took over 2 1/2 years and nearly 4,000 applications before he got a suitable job, takes time just frustrates me how politicians gloss over the truth about the job market.
I know what it says I do not need to look at it in more detail I'm not sure why you have gone to the trouble of breaking it down, I provided the link as is expected of FM's.if they state something as being fact. Unless of course you're implying I'm unable to understand it being a Labour voter.
900 000 Jobseekers sanctions in just the last year.
i posted the figures to show people the summary of the breakdown for folks who couldn't be bothered (or didn't have time) to dissect the figure of 9.06 million you posted.
you're a labour voter? i'm puzzled, because i am sure you posted a few months ago that you have never voted. correct me if i'm wrong though.
your level of understanding does not correlate to the way you vote, so no, i am not implying anything.
If anyone believes the unemployment figures.... Well. The number of self employed has gone through the roof. Not many of those will be earning a wage comparable to the salary from the job they lost. Thousands are on zero hours contracts. Take one of those "jobs" and you are off the unemployment register regardless of the fact that the state is still making up your living by paying you tax credits.
If the jobs picture is so good, why are income tax receipts not keeping pace with the so called growth in employment?
All they have to do is remind people of zero hours contracts, lower than expected PAYE receipts and massively increasing tax credits required to top up wages from minimum wage jobs to something people can live on.
You are joking.
It goes against what I am seeing in the market right now, I have been on contract with my current organisation for 10 months and they are utilising a large number of contractors for various one-off projects - The contractors are leaving left right and centre for better contracts rather than accepting contract renewals - The market appears to be very bouyant at the infrastructure level.
Yet they still pay national insurance and accept it because they have been brainwashed into believing it is an insurance scheme rather than a tax.
Hence the idea of merging NI and Income tax so people have a much clearer idea of what tax they are actually paying.
Mind you I cannot see why someone on the NMW should pay a single penny in income taxes (NI & Income Tax) - it is called a minimum for a reason - why reduce it even further.
An idea that I passionately support.
Completely agree, the idea of taxing the incomes of anyone on NMW is stupid, especially since they will be claiming it back in the form of tax credits. The inefficiencies of the welfare state, eh?
NI is a complicated calculation, I can work out how much Tax I pay on a piece of paper, but would struggle working out how much NI I pay without reading up on the rules
I think at one point the Lower earnings threashold was in line the the Lower Tax bands ?
but on the other hand NI is supposed to give you an entitlement to certain state benefits and of course the state pension ? so no NI Paid no pension ?
This is the myth that assumes the existence of a 'pot' that you pay into. This is not the case. You are not paying for your future access to the money, you are paying to keep those already retired or claiming benefits.
Unless that is you want to create a client-state that will always vote in ways to continue those benefits. The ironic thing is that benefits are paid out of taxes - if we did not pay the benefits then those people at the lowest end could actually keep the money and not need the benefits (or at least less of them).
Of course the movement of the money from worker to government and then back to worker is not 100% efficient - so just collecting it and redistributing it costs money.
Still well below RPI the normal benchmark used in pay negotiations and lets be honest a 1.6% pay award after a half decade or more of decline is hardly likely to make people think "they've never had it so good", is it?:o
Yes but you need so many years NI contribution to have access to the second state pension (or whatever it's called this week), so it does have a "value", even though it's not going into a bank account with my name on it
The IFS calculated a £1 per hour increase to the minimum wage could reduce the welfare bill by £3 billion. It isn't just about taxes its expecting employers to offer a fair days wage for a fair days work and not offloading that burden to the taxpayer.
That's just a criteria imposed on claiming similar to the proposed 5 years for new migrants into the country. You are paying into a system that may not exist in 10 or 20 years after which you would be entitled to nothing. Better to allow the low paid to keep what they earn and do with it what they see fit.
Personally, I would up my contributions into my work pension.
Do people even live long enough to have access to it, and would people be so old and disabled still have to keep working cause they haven't reached the age required yet.