..his policies worked better in the thirties depression than the austerity in Britain today.
Boom and then bust worked ? Strange.
And are we not back to boom and bust too? We have tried a borrowing boom for the last few years.
Austerity is arriving extremely late unless you count those scapegoats at the bottom.
Would be hard and unfair, 2 people working in the same office doing the same job, would be on differant pay because one lives in london and 1 lives outside london but are doing the same job for the same company in the same office, so are no longer paid for the job they do but for were they live
No becausee if they have to commute in to a different location then that should be an excemption as to why they should be paid the same or get the weighting allowance. Laws always have guidance and excemtptions atteched with them.
Also on your example, it could well be that people living within commutable distance of a job would be on the same rates anyway.
And are we not back to boom and bust too? We have tried a borrowing boom for the last few years.
Austerity is arriving extremely late unless you count those scapegoats at the bottom.
If we never sold off the council houses and spent so much on housing benefits and other in work benefits as a consequence of selling off those houses and not replacing them, allowing employers to get away paying mickey mouse wages, then we would have sustainable living and shoud have had no structual deficit!
Council houses should never have been sold off and all those who come out with that parrot argument about aspiration of buying their own house, they should have been told to buy a private house rather than expecting to buy a council house! They had cheaper rents with council houses, they should have used their "inspiration" to save for a deposit for a private house etc etc!
No becausee if they have to commute in to a different location then that should be an excemption as to why they should be paid the same or get the weighting allowance. Laws always have guidance and excemtptions atteched with them.
Also on your example, it could well be that people living within commutable distance of a job would be on the same rates anyway.
Up to 45 minutes worth on a train journey in. Those that choose to live further away its up to them if they get paid less as a result.
But even now its not a choice is it, because the rules dont allow you this choice, As the rules changed last year you are expected to commute up to 90 minutes into work, so commuting 3 hours a day. Jobseekers must commute for up to three hours a day to work or risk losing their benefits.
Tough new rules this spring will also force them to accept any job that pays the minimum wage.
They will be expected to take jobs up to one-and-a-half hours away from home, and job offers will have to be taken up immediately, not deferred.
But even now its not a choice is it, because the rules dont allow you this choice, As the rules changed last year you are expected to commute up to 90 minutes into work, so commuting 3 hours a day. Jobseekers must commute for up to three hours a day to work or risk losing their benefits.
Tough new rules this spring will also force them to accept any job that pays the minimum wage.
They will be expected to take jobs up to one-and-a-half hours away from home, and job offers will have to be taken up immediately, not deferred.
I doubt Job centres really expect people to travel up to 90 minutes worth to get a job. In any case its up to the Government in how they implement a living wage but it needs to happen and take the burden off the tax payer in paying in work benefits and get this deficit down.
Put up the top rate of tax again and build the council houses needed and most of the deficit should be back down to pre crash levels of 30 Billion or less.
I doubt Job centres really expect people to travel up to 90 minutes worth to get a job. In any case its up to the Government in how they implement a living wage but it needs to happen and take the burden off the tax payer in paying in work benefits and get this deficit down.
Put up the top rate of tax again and build the council houses needed and most of the deficit should be back down to pre crash levels of 30 Billion or less.
I agree, but governments are only botherd about getting the unemployment figures down. The biggest problem we have is jobs are not were people live, no point in all the jobs being down south if we have millions of people living up north, better to encourge buisness to spread out more and make the jobs cover were people live.
And are we not back to boom and bust too? We have tried a borrowing boom for the last few years.
Austerity is arriving extremely late unless you count those scapegoats at the bottom.
Up to 45 minutes worth on a train journey in. Those that choose to live further away its up to them if they get paid less as a result.
I used to work in one place which was over 250 miles away from my home and to that Fridays/Sundays. And I had to commute from the first workplace to London (2 hours each way) twice a week. And I was by no means alone in that - one used to commute from Brittany weekly, and then to London three times within that.
How the hell do you work that one out?
I doubt Job centres really expect people to travel up to 90 minutes worth to get a job.
Oh yes they do. I know someone who they sent for a job interview in Bristol (£22k) despite knowing he cannot drive or afford the fares and he cannot move because of family commitments due to serious long-term illness. He refused, they sanctioned. We fought it for a long while before he got an apology.
The next job suggested was in Newcastle.
EDIT: just remembered, somewhere I have an old book about Civil Service rules from the late 1940s. Under what to do in emergency no transport situations, a member of staff was expected to be able to walk 6 miles to work daily
I used to work in one place which was over 250 miles away from my home and to that Fridays/Sundays. And I had to commute from the first workplace to London (2 hours each way) twice a week. And I was by no means alone in that - one used to commute from Brittany weekly, and then to London three times within that.
How the hell do you work that one out?
Oh yes they do. I know someone who they sent for a job interview in Bristol (£22k) despite knowing he cannot drive or afford the fares and he cannot move because of family commitments due to serious long-term illness. He refused, they sanctioned. We fought it for a long while before he got an apology.
The next job suggested was in Newcastle.
EDIT: just remembered, somewhere I have an old book about Civil Service rules from the late 1940s. Under what to do in emergency no transport situations, a member of staff was expected to be able to walk 6 miles to work daily
Re bib, Brittany, in France you mean? That's your choice to live there. If you got left out of a living wage because of an anaomaly in geography then you'd have a choice to make would't you?
As for this outrageous Government and what they are doing to people on JSA, I sure hope those people on JSA vote at the next election and cost these Tories their seats!
Obviously this has been (or going to be) made worse by the ridiculous increase of the tax threshold to £10,000.
Given that wages have been in probably the longest ever downward slump during the Government's term of office how much worse do you think things would be if the Government hadn't at least offered this small crumb?
I also notice you don't mention the effective 30% cute in the corporation tax rate.
The Government can boast about its 3% GDP growth if it wants but the fact is, as borne out by its income tax receipts that is about the only economic data that still doesn't look like its in recession.
Depends what you mean by left wing. I wouldn't say Franklin Roosevelt was left wing, and his policies worked better in the thirties depression than the austerity in Britain today.
well they didnt work in 1930's America better than the real Austerity practised in the UK at the time - perhaps we just have the wrong kind of 'austerity' ;-)
Re bib, Brittany, in France you mean? That's your choice to live there. If you got left out of a living wage because of an anaomaly in geography then you'd have a choice to make would't you?
Agreed of course.
But this is an extreme example of what happens when you design policies - they have to cover all the possibilities, and often grind to a halt for years before implementation as a result
We end up back at the fundamental question. What would you use as a yardstick for their wages?
1 the same as those in the office who live locally
2 those in the office who live further away in the UK (you could just draw the line at Dover).
Even for UK only residents, it's complicated. The living wage for where? The job location or where you live. Either choice presents the scenario of
1 The workplace being in an area where costs are higher, so if you live in a cheaper area and commute you're better off than local workers
2 The workplace being in an area where costs are low, so if you live ourside that, in a more expensive area, you lose out to local workers.
Either way, you would have people doing the same job and being paid differently.
Whatever the area - what do you base the figures on? You can't use Council Tax - houses in the same street can have different rates. Average GDP of the area?
The extreme possibility is mass movement of people to take advantage of thepay rates, and it's not an easy call. It's not just 'cheaper up North' you could be less than 10 miles difference.
What should the area definition be? Town? Council boundaries?
Agreed of course.
But this is an extreme example of what happens when you design policies - they have to cover all the possibilities, and often grind to a halt for years before implementation as a result
We end up back at the fundamental question. What would you use as a yardstick for their wages?
1 the same as those in the office who live locally
2 those in the office who live further away in the UK (you could just draw the line at Dover).
Even for UK only residents, it's complicated. The living wage for where? The job location or where you live. Either choice presents the scenario of
1 The workplace being in an area where costs are higher, so if you live in a cheaper area and commute you're better off than local workers
2 The workplace being in an area where costs are low, so if you live ourside that, in a more expensive area, you lose out to local workers.
Either way, you would have people doing the same job and being paid differently.
Whatever the area - what do you base the figures on? You can't use Council Tax - houses in the same street can have different rates. Average GDP of the area?
The extreme possibility is mass movement of people to take advantage of thepay rates, and it's not an easy call. It's not just 'cheaper up North' you could be less than 10 miles difference.
What should the area definition be? Town? Council boundaries?
Well something that has just occured to me is that apart from house prices, the cost of living is not really that different at all. The living wage which should be at least £10 an hour now is not exactly going to make people live the high life wherever they live and I personally would not begrudge people living in areas where house prices are lower getting that rate on a universal basis.
I wonder if the cost of trying to calculate differentials in living costs and regular reviews and all the other associated bureaucracy might not soak up almost as much as just paying the flat rate as you suggest.
And no, I'm not going to attempt it
well they didnt work in 1930's America better than the real Austerity practised in the UK at the time - perhaps we just have the wrong kind of 'austerity' ;-)
I wouldn't say we had full blown austerity in the UK in the thirties, and anyway Roosevelt's policies did a lot of good in the US.
Well something that has just occured to me is that apart from house prices, the cost of living is not really that different at all. The living wage which should be at least £10 an hour now is not exactly going to make people live the high life wherever they live and I personally would not begrudge people living in areas where house prices are lower getting that rate on a universal basis.
Really? Two people can live reasonably well on a household income of £35,000 a year.
Assuming living costs of £20k, that leaves £15k to play with.
Depends what you mean by left wing. I wouldn't say Franklin Roosevelt was left wing, and his policies worked better in the thirties depression than the austerity in Britain today.
Comments
And are we not back to boom and bust too? We have tried a borrowing boom for the last few years.
Austerity is arriving extremely late unless you count those scapegoats at the bottom.
No becausee if they have to commute in to a different location then that should be an excemption as to why they should be paid the same or get the weighting allowance. Laws always have guidance and excemtptions atteched with them.
Also on your example, it could well be that people living within commutable distance of a job would be on the same rates anyway.
If we never sold off the council houses and spent so much on housing benefits and other in work benefits as a consequence of selling off those houses and not replacing them, allowing employers to get away paying mickey mouse wages, then we would have sustainable living and shoud have had no structual deficit!
Council houses should never have been sold off and all those who come out with that parrot argument about aspiration of buying their own house, they should have been told to buy a private house rather than expecting to buy a council house! They had cheaper rents with council houses, they should have used their "inspiration" to save for a deposit for a private house etc etc!
Define what a commutable distance is.
Up to 45 minutes worth on a train journey in. Those that choose to live further away its up to them if they get paid less as a result.
But even now its not a choice is it, because the rules dont allow you this choice, As the rules changed last year you are expected to commute up to 90 minutes into work, so commuting 3 hours a day. Jobseekers must commute for up to three hours a day to work or risk losing their benefits.
Tough new rules this spring will also force them to accept any job that pays the minimum wage.
They will be expected to take jobs up to one-and-a-half hours away from home, and job offers will have to be taken up immediately, not deferred.
I doubt Job centres really expect people to travel up to 90 minutes worth to get a job. In any case its up to the Government in how they implement a living wage but it needs to happen and take the burden off the tax payer in paying in work benefits and get this deficit down.
Put up the top rate of tax again and build the council houses needed and most of the deficit should be back down to pre crash levels of 30 Billion or less.
I agree, but governments are only botherd about getting the unemployment figures down. The biggest problem we have is jobs are not were people live, no point in all the jobs being down south if we have millions of people living up north, better to encourge buisness to spread out more and make the jobs cover were people live.
Actually it was growth and growth.
How the hell do you work that one out?
Oh yes they do. I know someone who they sent for a job interview in Bristol (£22k) despite knowing he cannot drive or afford the fares and he cannot move because of family commitments due to serious long-term illness. He refused, they sanctioned. We fought it for a long while before he got an apology.
The next job suggested was in Newcastle.
EDIT: just remembered, somewhere I have an old book about Civil Service rules from the late 1940s. Under what to do in emergency no transport situations, a member of staff was expected to be able to walk 6 miles to work daily
Re bib, Brittany, in France you mean? That's your choice to live there. If you got left out of a living wage because of an anaomaly in geography then you'd have a choice to make would't you?
As for this outrageous Government and what they are doing to people on JSA, I sure hope those people on JSA vote at the next election and cost these Tories their seats!
Given that wages have been in probably the longest ever downward slump during the Government's term of office how much worse do you think things would be if the Government hadn't at least offered this small crumb?
I also notice you don't mention the effective 30% cute in the corporation tax rate.
The Government can boast about its 3% GDP growth if it wants but the fact is, as borne out by its income tax receipts that is about the only economic data that still doesn't look like its in recession.
well they didnt work in 1930's America better than the real Austerity practised in the UK at the time - perhaps we just have the wrong kind of 'austerity' ;-)
But this is an extreme example of what happens when you design policies - they have to cover all the possibilities, and often grind to a halt for years before implementation as a result
We end up back at the fundamental question. What would you use as a yardstick for their wages?
1 the same as those in the office who live locally
2 those in the office who live further away in the UK (you could just draw the line at Dover).
Even for UK only residents, it's complicated. The living wage for where? The job location or where you live. Either choice presents the scenario of
1 The workplace being in an area where costs are higher, so if you live in a cheaper area and commute you're better off than local workers
2 The workplace being in an area where costs are low, so if you live ourside that, in a more expensive area, you lose out to local workers.
Either way, you would have people doing the same job and being paid differently.
Whatever the area - what do you base the figures on? You can't use Council Tax - houses in the same street can have different rates. Average GDP of the area?
The extreme possibility is mass movement of people to take advantage of thepay rates, and it's not an easy call. It's not just 'cheaper up North' you could be less than 10 miles difference.
What should the area definition be? Town? Council boundaries?
Well something that has just occured to me is that apart from house prices, the cost of living is not really that different at all. The living wage which should be at least £10 an hour now is not exactly going to make people live the high life wherever they live and I personally would not begrudge people living in areas where house prices are lower getting that rate on a universal basis.
And no, I'm not going to attempt it
I wouldn't say we had full blown austerity in the UK in the thirties, and anyway Roosevelt's policies did a lot of good in the US.
you cant taper a Ponzi
well there is a good argument that they actually extended the depression.
Really? Two people can live reasonably well on a household income of £35,000 a year.
Assuming living costs of £20k, that leaves £15k to play with.
Every year.
In what way?
In what way was it not left wing or how did it help the economy?
There is?
That's £50K before tax.