George Osborne To Increase National Minimum Wage To £7-An-Hour, An Above-Inflation Increase

by Guest Fri Jan 17, 2014 6:20 am

George Osborne has signalled that he is willing to raise the national minimum wage to £7-an-hour, an above-inflation increase. The current minimum sits at £6.31-an-hour, with the chancellor indicating to the BBC that the increase to £7 was currently under consideration.
He said: "I think Britain can afford a higher minimum wage. I think we have worked hard to get to this point and we can start to to enjoy the fruits of all that hard work."
Osborne's remarks follow the submission by the Department for Business to the Low Pay Commission, which is expected to recommend a similar rise in the near future.
Osborne continued: "Because we are fixing the economy, because we are working through our plan I believe Britain can afford an above-inflation increase in the minimum wage so we restore its real value for people and we make sure we have a recovery for all and that work always pays.
"The exact figure has to be set by the Low Pay Commission, which talks to business, talks to other bodies in our economy. But, if for example, the minimum wage had kept price with inflation it would be £7 by 2015/16. It's £6.31 at the moment, so, that's an increase.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/01/16/osborne-increase-minimum-wage-_n_4611537.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

A step in the right direction though still believe we should have a living wage, still that is an increase of £1300 a year for those on this wage doing an average 37.5 hour week

by Guest Fri Jan 17, 2014 6:39 am

...When did you ever suggest a minimum wage, let alone a living one!

You are just a Tory scum puppet, that changes the record, according to the doffers, that tell you what to say!

I'm sure that someone will pull you up over what you posted yesterday, now you have changed your whole reasoning, where as the posters on the left have always been very consistent, anda 70p an hour increase isn't enough.

by Guest Fri Jan 17, 2014 7:51 am

Here we go, you can see electioneering beginning.

by Guest Fri Jan 17, 2014 9:41 am

Catman wrote: ...When did you ever suggest a minimum wage, let alone a living one!

You are just a Tory scum puppet, that changes the record, according to the doffers, that tell you what to say!

I'm sure that someone will pull you up over what you posted yesterday, now you have changed your whole reasoning, where as the posters on the left have always been very consistent, anda 70p an hour increase isn't enough.

Yes weasel please do pull up where I have always supported that we have a living wage and then wipe the egg off your face :D and this is a step in the right direction of course militants and never happy with anything they are stuck at home living off us hard working tax payers

by Guest Fri Jan 17, 2014 10:40 am

You support a living wage? Then you support more than £7 an hour, because a living wage is calculated higher than that. And if the NMW had kept pace with pay rises for CEO's in the FTSE 100 companies, it would be over £18 an hour. The £7 is not here yet, the exact figure has to be set by the independent Low Pay Commission following consultations with businesses and other bodies, and they are already screaming blue murder.

by Guest Fri Jan 17, 2014 10:50 am

Yes I support the idea of a living wage and again this is a step in the right direction, again this is a start and will help people, how difficult is that to grasp?

by Guest Fri Jan 17, 2014 10:58 am

This is great news and will hopefully encourage people to get back into work.

Loads of jobs out there.

by Guest Fri Jan 17, 2014 10:59 am

Well said Costa, it works out as £1300 more a year

by Guest Fri Jan 17, 2014 11:05 am

I keep repeating that the introduction of the minimum wage resulted in an increase in the gap between highest and lowest pay because the minimum is set by a commission so after it is set the bosses can spread what is left whereas before they had to try and work out how to spread it among everyone.

I also keep saying that the way to fix the problem is to abolish the minimum wage and introduce a linked maximum wage so the wage of the highest paid is indelibly tied to the lowest - if the boss wants a 10% rise the cleaner gets the same and if the boss wants the cleaner to have pay frozen his gets frozen as well.

by Guest Fri Jan 17, 2014 11:23 am

sphinx wrote:I keep repeating that the introduction of the minimum wage resulted in an increase in the gap between highest and lowest pay because the minimum is set by a commission so after it is set the bosses can spread what is left whereas before they had to try and work out how to spread it among everyone.

I also keep saying that the way to fix the problem is to abolish the minimum wage and introduce a linked maximum wage so the wage of the highest paid is indelibly tied to the lowest - if the boss wants a 10% rise the cleaner gets the same and if the boss wants the cleaner to have pay frozen his gets frozen as well.

Agree Sphinx and we should scrap it, but for the moment this is a step in the right direction, but agree they should look to have a living wage which I have stated from the start

by Guest Fri Jan 17, 2014 12:32 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
sphinx wrote:I keep repeating that the introduction of the minimum wage resulted in an increase in the gap between highest and lowest pay because the minimum is set by a commission so after it is set the bosses can spread what is left whereas before they had to try and work out how to spread it among everyone.

I also keep saying that the way to fix the problem is to abolish the minimum wage and introduce a linked maximum wage so the wage of the highest paid is indelibly tied to the lowest - if the boss wants a 10% rise the cleaner gets the same and if the boss wants the cleaner to have pay frozen his gets frozen as well.

Agree Sphinx and we should scrap it, but for the moment this is a step in the right direction, but agree they should look to have a living wage which I have stated from the start

Any rules set around a minimum will backfire because any minimum has increases set by the government. Therefore when a company has an extra amount of money from increased profits which it wants to use for pay increases it will wait to see what the bottom gets from the government then divide what is left between higher pay grades which nearly always results in the top bad getting bigger percentage rises than the middle and bottom. This of course means that over time the gap between the 2 increases as does the relative value - if a living wage is current 50% of the average and 5% of the top (random figures for demonstration purposes) then after 10 years it would be more like 40% of average 2% of top - and therefore probably no longer classed as livable.

Rules therefore have to involve maximums - maybe a living wage could be defined as 50% of average or something but that would probably have an adverse affect on wage inflation (as the minimum increases the average increases) so I suggest linking minimum and maximum by a multiple.

by Guest Fri Jan 17, 2014 12:58 pm

And nobody on benefits should be getting more than the NMW.

Nobody.

by Clarkson Fri Jan 17, 2014 2:43 pm

I doubt Phil will return to work at any rate of pay. Scatman doesn't do work.

Every metric is moving in the right direction how galling it must be for the comrades. With inflation falling employment rising and wages rising to counter the sharp rises in the cost of living Red E will have nothing to hang his hat on but the politics of envy.

It must be really sickening being a Labour puppet these days particularly intellectually challenged ones like Scatman and Dobbin.

by Guest Fri Jan 17, 2014 2:47 pm

BigAndy9 wrote:And nobody on benefits should be getting more than the NMW.

Nobody.

Oh dear, didn't you know that most people on National Minimum Wage get benefits?

by Guest Fri Jan 17, 2014 2:53 pm

While I have expressed my distrust of the national minimum wage if we are using it which we are then it strikes me as obscene that it should be taxable - surely a minimum is a minimum? How the hell can the powers that be say something is a minimum and then deduct from it?

by Original Quill Fri Jan 17, 2014 5:55 pm

sphinx wrote:I keep repeating that the introduction of the minimum wage resulted in an increase in the gap between highest and lowest pay because the minimum is set by a commission so after it is set the bosses can spread what is left whereas before they had to try and work out how to spread it among everyone.

I also keep saying that the way to fix the problem is to abolish the minimum wage and introduce a linked maximum wage so the wage of the highest paid is indelibly tied to the lowest - if the boss wants a 10% rise the cleaner gets the same and if the boss wants the cleaner to have pay frozen his gets frozen as well.

Interesting idea, sphinx. But it's two different things. The minimum wage is an absolute guarantee. The "linked wage," as you term it, is merely a guarantee of parity...essentially, equity.

If equity is what you want, why stop at bosses? They are just another rung on the ladder. Why not link wages to the capital investors of any given enterprise? That might provide the 'guarantee' factor...at least more closely.

by Guest Fri Jan 17, 2014 6:31 pm

Original Quill wrote:
sphinx wrote:I keep repeating that the introduction of the minimum wage resulted in an increase in the gap between highest and lowest pay because the minimum is set by a commission so after it is set the bosses can spread what is left whereas before they had to try and work out how to spread it among everyone.

I also keep saying that the way to fix the problem is to abolish the minimum wage and introduce a linked maximum wage so the wage of the highest paid is indelibly tied to the lowest - if the boss wants a 10% rise the cleaner gets the same and if the boss wants the cleaner to have pay frozen his gets frozen as well.

Interesting idea, sphinx. But it's two different things. The minimum wage is an absolute guarantee. The "linked wage," as you term it, is merely a guarantee of parity...essentially, equity.

If equity is what you want, why stop at bosses? Why not link wages to the capital investors of any given enterprise? That might provide the 'guarantee' factor...at least more closely.

Was not the minimum wage supposed to be about parity? To guarantee that people would have to earn a certain level to ensure a certain quality of life?

I do not think wages should be linked to capital investors - because anyone can choose to become a capital investor. There are clubs of ordinary people who put in a couple of pounds or dollars each a month to get enough to invest. There are online sites allowing investments of a matter of pennies. I mean someone one invested in something called "facebook" by painting the offices - they took shares instead of pay.

I mean looking around I can see areas that the minimum wage has hurt - small businesses with the owner taking home very little who have enough work to take someone on but who cant afford adult minimum while at the same time there are people looking for second jobs or who have kids and a partner who supports them who would accept lower wages - especially if they knew that as the company got more successful their money would go up.

The minimum wage acts to sap bottom level workers of motivation - why should they put in extra if all the benefits go to the boss? A linked wage will give them motivation - the knowledge that if they get the company does better they get more money will provide that.

by Original Quill Fri Jan 17, 2014 6:56 pm

sphinx wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Interesting idea, sphinx. But it's two different things. The minimum wage is an absolute guarantee. The "linked wage," as you term it, is merely a guarantee of parity...essentially, equity.

If equity is what you want, why stop at bosses? Why not link wages to the capital investors of any given enterprise? That might provide the 'guarantee' factor...at least more closely.

Was not the minimum wage supposed to be about parity? To guarantee that people would have to earn a certain level to ensure a certain quality of life?

No. It was supposed to be an absolute guarantee. It is adjusted merely because the economy adjusts. But it was never intended to equalize incomes overall.

sphinx wrote:I do not think wages should be linked to capital investors - because anyone can choose to become a capital investor. There are clubs of ordinary people who put in a couple of pounds or dollars each a month to get enough to invest. There are online sites allowing investments of a matter of pennies. I mean someone one invested in something called "facebook" by painting the offices - they took shares instead of pay.

But you think it's OK to link wages to someone who bears no relevance at all to the system?? Bosses are just the next rung on the ladder. Why single them out? What would be the purpose?

At least if you link wages to investors, you are assured that return on investment is not at the expense of wage suppression. You bring parity to the enclosed system of one enterprise.

sphinx wrote:I mean looking around I can see areas that the minimum wage has hurt - small businesses with the owner taking home very little who have enough work to take someone on but who cant afford adult minimum while at the same time there are people looking for second jobs or who have kids and a partner who supports them who would accept lower wages - especially if they knew that as the company got more successful their money would go up.

The minimum wage acts to sap bottom level workers of motivation - why should they put in extra if all the benefits go to the boss? A linked wage will give them motivation - the knowledge that if they get the company does better they get more money will provide that.

C'mon sphinx. You think McDonald's is a poor small investor? You are living in la-la land...or, at least, the 1600's, when the world was just shopkeepers and craftsmen.

Businesses like Walmart and Big Lots thrive, and then make more because they suppress their own labour costs. If you paid such workers a decent wage, the economy would improve vastly. People would have more disposable income, and in spending it they would stimulate economic activity throughout. By suppressing wages, you improve the profits of only one company, and thus limit economic activity...and that one company rushes over to Malaysia or Bangladesh in order to pay more miserable wages.

by Guest Fri Jan 17, 2014 7:11 pm

Original Quill wrote:
sphinx wrote:

Was not the minimum wage supposed to be about parity? To guarantee that people would have to earn a certain level to ensure a certain quality of life?

No. It was supposed to be an absolute guarantee. It is adjusted merely because the economy adjusts. But it was never intended to equalize incomes overall.

sphinx wrote:I do not think wages should be linked to capital investors - because anyone can choose to become a capital investor. There are clubs of ordinary people who put in a couple of pounds or dollars each a month to get enough to invest. There are online sites allowing investments of a matter of pennies. I mean someone one invested in something called "facebook" by painting the offices - they took shares instead of pay.

But you think it's OK to link wages to someone who bears no relevance at all to the system?? Bosses are just the next rung on the ladder. Why single them out? What would be the purpose?

At least if you link wages to investors, you are assured that return on investment is not at the expense of wage suppression. You bring parity to the enclosed system of one enterprise.

sphinx wrote:I mean looking around I can see areas that the minimum wage has hurt - small businesses with the owner taking home very little who have enough work to take someone on but who cant afford adult minimum while at the same time there are people looking for second jobs or who have kids and a partner who supports them who would accept lower wages - especially if they knew that as the company got more successful their money would go up.

The minimum wage acts to sap bottom level workers of motivation - why should they put in extra if all the benefits go to the boss? A linked wage will give them motivation - the knowledge that if they get the company does better they get more money will provide that.

C'mon sphinx. You think McDonald's is a poor small investor? You are living in la-la land...or, at least, the 1600's, when the world was just shopkeepers and craftsmen.

Businesses like Walmart and Big Lots thrive, and then make more because they suppress their own labour costs. If you paid such workers a decent wage, the economy would improve vastly. People would have more disposable income, and in spending it they would stimulate economic activity throughout. By suppressing wages, you improve the profits of only one company, and thus limit economic activity...and that one company rushes over to Malaysia or Bangladesh in order to pay more miserable wages.

Sorry its me being imprecise with language again.

When I say bosses I am referring to highest paid in organization.

So the lowest paid is linked to highest paid by multiples. This includes all perks etc and would have to include legal protection to prevent circumnavigation by claiming self employment as consultants and stuff.

So boss is on half million a year plus car, plus stock options, holiday, health etc then cleaner gets (at 30x) 16,666 plus one thirtieth of the cost of the car, stock options 1 30th the value of the bosses, contributions to health and holiday etc.

by Original Quill Fri Jan 17, 2014 7:19 pm

You can run all the numbers you want, it still doesn't relate to the scope and nature of the enterprise. We tend to think that CEO's are somehow linked to ownership, and so they are in many cases. But many are not--the Koch Brothers, for example, are not CEO's (to my knowledge) to anything but themselves.

The CEO is just incidental. I would want to see a link to investment.

by Guest Fri Jan 17, 2014 7:25 pm

Original Quill wrote:You can run all the numbers you want, it still doesn't relate to the scope and nature of the enterprise. We tend to think that CEO's are somehow linked to ownership, and so they are in many cases. But many are not--the Koch Brothers, for example, are not CEO's (to my knowledge) to anything but themselves.

The CEO is just incidental. I would want to see a link to investment.

Hence the bit about legally preventing unattached CEOs. So even if the CEO is not "employed" by an organization their pay is used for the calculations

by Original Quill Fri Jan 17, 2014 7:35 pm

I understand, but I still think tying in investment would give more assurances.

As far as your argument about the small investor, well that would work moderate wages, wouldn't it?

My point is that the great disparities that we are seeing today in worth and income, are coming from the capital side, not from within labour. Investors are the ones who are running away with national worth, not to mention abuses like off-shoring and manufacturing in suppressed countries.

by Guest Fri Jan 17, 2014 7:40 pm

Original Quill wrote:I understand, but I still think tying in investment would give more assurances.

As far as your argument about the small investor, well that would work moderate wages, wouldn't it?

My point is that the great disparities that we are seeing today in worth and income, are coming from the capital side, not from within labour. Investors are the ones who are running away with national worth, not to mention abuses like off-shoring and manufacturing in suppressed countries.

The legal requirement for companies to provide all employees with stock options if any employee is provided with them would have the effect of changing the balance in investment power anyway.

by Original Quill Fri Jan 17, 2014 7:46 pm

That was my point about small investors.

by Guest Fri Jan 17, 2014 8:01 pm

Original Quill wrote:That was my point about small investors.

Investing is a complex system - and in complex systems small changes such as the number of small investors - can have huge impacts.

by Guest Fri Jan 17, 2014 8:36 pm

..above inflation Didge?...what 15 fucking pence or something like that?...

Yeah,that will cover the massive hikes in energy bills and what not.

Ffs Didge.

by Guest Fri Jan 17, 2014 8:37 pm

Joy Division wrote:..above inflation Didge?...what 15 fucking pence or something like that?...

Yeah,that will cover the massive hikes in energy bills and what not.

Ffs Didge.

Dont forget the tax

by Guest Fri Jan 17, 2014 8:38 pm

Actually it works out as 1,300 a year more!

So that is not bad and it is step forward

by Guest Fri Jan 17, 2014 8:42 pm

PhilDidge wrote:Actually it works out as 1,300 a year more!

So that is not bad and it is step forward

Minus the tax.

by Guest Fri Jan 17, 2014 8:47 pm

sphinx wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:Actually it works out as 1,300 a year more!

So that is not bad and it is step forward

Minus the tax.

Yes minus the Tax, but where before they were earning £931 per month they now earn £1008 per month, which is a good start to better pay for some people!

by Guest Fri Jan 17, 2014 9:00 pm

Still think it is obscene to call something minimum and they take away from it.

by Guest Fri Jan 17, 2014 9:04 pm

sphinx wrote:Still think it is obscene to call something minimum and they take away from it.

Maybe so and agree with your view point, to me though what is a decent wage for some work that is not taxing or hard compared to roles where you need to spend a chunk of your life learning a role, taking years of your life, where what you have learned should be rewarded better for the time you have put in for?

Am not knocking people who do minimum wage jobs just interested what constitutes a fair wage for doing such roles where there is little need for skills in most cases?

by Guest Fri Jan 17, 2014 9:06 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
sphinx wrote:Still think it is obscene to call something minimum and they take away from it.

Maybe so and agree with your view point, to me though what is a decent wage for some work that is not taxing or hard compared to roles where you need to spend a chunk of your life learning a role, taking years of your life, where what you have learned should be rewarded better for the time you have put in for?

Am not knocking people who do minimum wage jobs just interested what constitutes a fair wage for doing such roles where there is little need for skills in most cases?

I just think if something is described as minimum it should not then be reduced.

by Guest Fri Jan 17, 2014 9:16 pm

£ 13,000 a year basic?????

christ...I was on that 25+ years ago

I've got 2 contracts coming up this year (about 1 months work each) that are worth far more than that EACH, Let alone the smaller stuff...

and folks are stuck on that for years, with no way out and up....

by Guest Fri Jan 17, 2014 9:18 pm

sphinx wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Maybe so and agree with your view point, to me though what is a decent wage for some work that is not taxing or hard compared to roles where you need to spend a chunk of your life learning a role, taking years of your life, where what you have learned should be rewarded better for the time you have put in for?

Am not knocking people who do minimum wage jobs just interested what constitutes a fair wage for doing such roles where there is little need for skills in most cases?

I just think if something is described as minimum it should not then be reduced.

I agree on that Sphinx, but that is not what I was asking!

by Guest Fri Jan 17, 2014 9:20 pm

grumpy old git wrote:£ 13,000 a year basic?????

christ...I was on that 25+ years ago

I've got 2 contracts coming up this year (about 1 months work each) that are worth far more than that EACH, Let alone the smaller stuff...

and folks are stuck on that for years, with no way out and up....

And yet people live on it comfortably, because some people are sensible with their money.

You forget I grew up on little and had no want for more!

by Guest Fri Jan 17, 2014 9:52 pm

I doubt they live "comfortably" Didge, they may "get by" on it but comfortably...nahh...
what does 13,000 get you

well accomodation....certainly not your own property, so No change for a lot of things in most cases...no pets no this no that....

now lets see

after tax and NI, will be about well Ni is 11% of everything, over the LEL so thats less about 1000 and tax at 20% in 3000 is 600 so 13,000-1600 is 11,400 which is about 950/month

most accomodation round here ...even in the crap areas is at least £400+ for a 2 bed terrace (and as far as i know there are NO 1 bed terrace places available) will be about 250-300 for bed sit...unsuitable for MOST folks...
a decent 2 bed or single bed modern apartment will be at least £550 and up....

so lets take an average of around 400

MOST people will need either a car or use public transport...neither is much more or less expensive than the other when usage is considered ONLY for work/shopping and will likely be (but depends on mileage of course)

around £200/month for essential transport...

food .well for a single person a GOOD diet would cost around £40/week then there are other essentials such as cleaning goods, and other general household goods.

so 160 per month

Then they need power. heating ...i recon about £100 per month for a single person at work 5/7

Nowadays a phone is an essential, moreover employers often EXPECT employees to have a phone

40/month (£10 quid pay and go lasts me about a week)

then there's clothing to be replaced every so often, bed linnen....all the usual depreciation...cookers break down etc

so we will put the remaining 50 into savings for the eventuality

NOW......what do they have left to "live on" I.e do the things that make life worth living. like a pint or two with your mates, a computer perhaps to chat with "online friends", to just"go out and enjoy a walk in the country, simple things ....

and dont forget Didge... we are talking here about folks living (not as a first choice) in run down terraces in the arse end of the god forsaken back of beyond....not exactly what I would call a stimulating environment (unless your hobbies include hunting chavs and scroats)

agreed it can be done, but ughhhh...what a life....

by Guest Fri Jan 17, 2014 9:59 pm

Again I lived on very little growing up, are you now telling me whether what I constitute is comfortable?

You seem to think you should now what I should feel now when in that given situation, I don't need you to tell me because I know people can and do. What you fail to address is why people do and ignore this factor, you try to seek the view that they will all be unhappy or that our lives are terrible, sorry that is bullshit. Again people on low incomes get help with accommodation, they get council places do they not, something my family never got until I was 12 years old, and me being the second youngest.

The reality is again here Victor you excuse or ignore people can live happy, you seem to place a price on happiness with money, sorry, that shows more to me what is in essence wrong with the world that so many people do. The one thing I look back with happiness is that we spent so much time together, that now we are older and I see this with so many others, people come home and switch on the TV, they don't much interact, money and the belief in more money has allowed a perception of needs, when you can have little money and yet feel like you live like Kings!

by Guest Fri Jan 17, 2014 9:59 pm

You think it needs £40 a week to provide a good diet for one person? I would be ashamed if I could not do that for a family of 4 with that amount.

by Guest Fri Jan 17, 2014 10:03 pm

Also your maths is appalling Victor, after Tax and NI it was £931 per month they now earn £1008 per month.

by Guest Fri Jan 17, 2014 10:08 pm

sphinx wrote:You think it needs £40 a week to provide a good diet for one person? I would be ashamed if I could not do that for a family of 4 with that amount.

Well, that would mean that you could feed someone a good diet for £10 a week. Please, write out the shopping list, I'm a good cook and living on £1.50 a day with a decent diet, I'd love to know that. I'm off to bed now, but will look out for the shopping list and menu with bated breath tomorrow.

by Guest Fri Jan 17, 2014 10:11 pm

Sassy, do you think the many people of China have a healthy diet, even more so the poor ones?

What do they eat?

by Guest Fri Jan 17, 2014 10:16 pm

PhilDidge wrote:Also your maths is appalling Victor, after Tax and NI it was £931 per month they now earn £1008 per month.

was taking a "rough estimate" didge...nothing more... just like I probably underestimated costs....ball park figures....

my point is quite valid...MOST folks on this will be singles they have no-one to interact with.....unless they "go out". you said it yourself ..."wespent so much time together." moreover THAT world has been and gone ..times have changed...people are FORCED to move away from family and friends, for any number of reasons...to get work (else they are scroungers) the despicable bedroom tax, any number of reasons....without the family or friends network they are stuffed. Agreed there is some help out there...sometimes for some....but the single person gets very very little...

by Guest Fri Jan 17, 2014 10:17 pm

PhilDidge wrote:Sassy, do you think the many people of China have a healthy diet, even more so the poor ones?

What do they eat?

actually didge...NO they dont, and the overall health of the poor shows it......

by Guest Fri Jan 17, 2014 10:18 pm

sphinx wrote:You think it needs £40 a week to provide a good diet for one person? I would be ashamed if I could not do that for a family of 4 with that amount.

sphinx...dont be daft....

by Guest Fri Jan 17, 2014 10:25 pm

grumpy old git wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:Sassy, do you think the many people of China have a healthy diet, even more so the poor ones?

What do they eat?
actually didge...NO they dont, and the overall health of the poor shows it......

You are saying the health of Chinese is poor, really?

by Guest Fri Jan 17, 2014 10:27 pm

grumpy old git wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:Also your maths is appalling Victor, after Tax and NI it was £931 per month they now earn £1008 per month.

was taking a "rough estimate" didge...nothing more... just like I probably underestimated costs....ball park figures....

my point is quite valid...MOST folks on this will be singles they have no-one to interact with.....unless they "go out". you said it yourself ..."wespent so much time together." moreover THAT world has been and gone ..times have changed...people are FORCED to move away from family and friends, for any number of reasons...to get work (else they are scroungers) the despicable bedroom tax, any number of reasons....without the family or friends network they are stuffed. Agreed there is some help out there...sometimes for some....but the single person gets very very little...

No I worked out the maths deducting Tax and NI, try it yourself, if your maths is good you will come to the same approx amounts!

God here we go again with the guilt argument, ignoring the many people who are not unhappy, who many people need to start taking a leaf out of their books!

by Guest Fri Jan 17, 2014 10:39 pm

I found this for you Victor

http://www.listentotaxman.com/

Ciao

by Guest Fri Jan 17, 2014 10:41 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
grumpy old git wrote:
actually didge...NO they dont, and the overall health of the poor shows it......

You are saying the health of Chinese is poor, really?

In the rural poor areas it certainly aint brilliant....granted they have lower incidences of cardiac disease, but they still have other nutritional problems...vitamin deficiencies, underweight children, poor outcomes with recovery from disease in general, parasitic infections run high,

by Guest Fri Jan 17, 2014 10:42 pm

And yet many of the poor there live by far the longest on average

Odd that eh?

by Sponsored content