Brexit questions, from an American, to the British members here

So, I'm given to believe that one of the major reasons behind Brexit was that too many EU migrants were coming over and claiming benefits fraudulently.

I know that the reason I have to have 44,000 pounds to live with edds and our kids is because of this *alleged* problem.

So here are my questions:

* What is the figure, in pounds and pence, that EU migrants cost the UK with their unscrupulous claiming of benefits, over the past decade or so?

* What percent (pro-rated) is that figure of the annual government budget?

* Have any of the Brexiteers (Farage, Johnson, etc.) shared this figure publicly, and if not, has anybody asked why not?

BIAS CONFESSION:

I'm biased on this issue because I believe that the problem of people dishonestly claiming benefits was likely not so big that it should have led to a policy that forces me to prove that I have 44,000 pounds in savings before living with my wife and children.

I'm biased because I believe that separating families is too egregious of an outcome to save the UK government the cost of paying benefits gained through fraudulent means.

So I want to know if Farage or Johnson or whoever actually ever said what fraudulent benefits claims ACTUALLY COST the UK on an annual basis, and whether the only solution to said fraudulent claims was to require the average non-EU immigrant to have more than twice the average UK annual salary in savings.

Like Trump, Farage and Boris are serial liars, and are in it not for politics gain, but for the money and the personal. gain.
For example, Boris had 2 speeches prepared, 1 supporting Brexit, 1 against it.
He changed his tack.
As for Farage, he will soon be a self employed far right media pundit, spewing his hate and ideology on LBC and in the right wing press. I don't do it he will get a regular spot alongside Bullingdon Dimbleby on Question time.
He will certainly never become an MP, played 7, lost 7 so far. Not a great track record.

Does anybody have an answer for my question?

Firstly, I don't see what Brexit has to do with UK immigration policies, and secondly, I doubt that anyone could comment on such a small amount of information. This is about savings and not income, yes? How would you expect to live here without a large amount of savings then?

Raggamuffin wrote:Firstly, I don't see what Brexit has to do with UK immigration policies, and secondly, I doubt that anyone could comment on such a small amount of information. This is about savings and not income, yes? How would you expect to live here without a large amount of savings then?

By working, but I'm not allowed to even look for a job due to UK immigration policies.

And the Brexit tie-in is that the UK largely left Europe in order to end freedom of movement, right?

Raggs, can you tell me in pounds and pence how much money EU migrants took in fraudulent UK benefits?

*THE Ben Reilly* wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Firstly, I don't see what Brexit has to do with UK immigration policies, and secondly, I doubt that anyone could comment on such a small amount of information. This is about savings and not income, yes? How would you expect to live here without a large amount of savings then?

By working, but I'm not allowed to even look for a job due to UK immigration policies.

And the Brexit tie-in is that the UK largely left Europe in order to end freedom of movement, right?

I presume that the immigration policies re US citizens were in place before Brexit though, so Brexit has no bearing on the issue. As for working, can I just turn up in the US with no money and get a job? I doubt it. Do you not give priority to US citizens?

*THE Ben Reilly* wrote:Raggs, can you tell me in pounds and pence how much money EU migrants took in fraudulent UK benefits?

Of course I can't. In any case, if there were concerns about people coming to the UK and getting benefits, it was probably legal benefits to which they were entitled rather than fraudulent benefits.

Raggamuffin wrote:

*THE Ben Reilly* wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Firstly, I don't see what Brexit has to do with UK immigration policies, and secondly, I doubt that anyone could comment on such a small amount of information. This is about savings and not income, yes? How would you expect to live here without a large amount of savings then?

By working, but I'm not allowed to even look for a job due to UK immigration policies.

And the Brexit tie-in is that the UK largely left Europe in order to end freedom of movement, right?

I presume that the immigration policies re US citizens were in place before Brexit though, so Brexit has no bearing on the issue. As for working, can I just turn up in the US with no money and get a job? I doubt it. Do you not give priority to US citizens?

* What is the figure, in pounds and pence, that EU migrants cost the UK with their unscrupulous claiming of benefits, over the past decade or so?

* What percent (pro-rated) is that figure of the annual government budget?

* Have any of the Brexiteers (Farage, Johnson, etc.) shared this figure publicly, and if not, has anybody asked why not?

Raggamuffin wrote:

*THE Ben Reilly* wrote:Raggs, can you tell me in pounds and pence how much money EU migrants took in fraudulent UK benefits?

Of course I can't. In any case, if there were concerns about people coming to the UK and getting benefits, it was probably legal benefits to which they were entitled rather than fraudulent benefits.

* What is the figure, in pounds and pence, that EU migrants cost the UK with their unscrupulous claiming of benefits, over the past decade or so?

* What percent (pro-rated) is that figure of the annual government budget?

* Have any of the Brexiteers (Farage, Johnson, etc.) shared this figure publicly, and if not, has anybody asked why not?

No idea.

In the last 12 Months illegal immigrants claimed fuck all, they make their money by working on the sly for other immigrants who pay them starvation wages ! Other legal Asylem seekers claim for children they haven't got. Stop hinting that WE rip them off. There are untold numbers that come here because word of mouth is that we are easily conned into giving them money for fuck all, and they are right. Take the Gren fell Tower rip off, up till now 27 scum bags have claimed money, some 10' of thousands pounds to people who did not live here. Yet people like yourself who are willing to work get the brush off ! Your are the wrong colour and too honest,

It's not about benefits really...

It's about restoring our democracy and regaining control over our laws our borders and our money and our territorial waters.

How can anyone honestly answer the questions Ben has asked?

I have to say I doubt many people voted out based on their worry about people claiming benefits fraudulently.

I can't answer those questions.
I voted to leave because this all started out as a trading group, which I voted no thanks in 1975 to staying in, the Common Market look at it now. The people in the EU should all vote on all major changes, if they want this kind of community and no having the vote again if a country doesn't vote the 'right' way and not have rules steam rollered or slipped in with other stuff. I prefer co operation to press ganging.
As for immigration, this is a small island, I would prefer better controlled immigration from everywhere, people outside the UK should be able to apply for jobs, like Ben for instance.
I have relatives who moved to Canada, they had to have a job to go to and the where with all or a sponsor to keep them for six months if anything went wrong with the job, that was in the sixties.
With free movement, until each country in the EU has a similar standard of living its obvious that people from the poorer regions are going to go to the wealthier regions, who can blame them but with industry all but gone from Britain this makes things difficult for those in the lower skilled areas of work, it worries them that we pay into the EU and some of this goes to other countries for development while their town is on its uppers ( yes some places in Britain do get grants from the EU but there seems little to show for it for the ordinary man and woman). It also seems to allow criminals to transfer their 'skills' far too easily as in people trafficking.
As for marry a non citizen and bringing them here the problem is an industry has built up around this in bogus marriages for money which is now hurting genuine people, not to mention a lot of those involved in this scam, there must be a way around this though. The brides from Pakistan thing is a problem it isn't as though these people have met and fallen in love its arranged between cousin to keep money and land in the family, there are plenty of potential partners available here by now, I would have thought.
Fitting in is the other thing, people generally used to integrate pretty well, now many don't, the number of people of like culture and religion in some areas are such that there isn't any need to do so. My local city is Cardiff, once a vibrant port, the city was famous for its mix of people all getting along at least as much as people normally do.
Now we have specific areas for specific cultures, we used to have one community of all sorts of people, the one famous spokesperson for everyone for many years was an imam, but in those days we just had religious Islam which was pretty tolerant, never saw a burkha in those days, now we political Islam an entirely different kettle of fish. If people want to come here and join in great.

Ben, given that you are arguing from a false premise (that brexit is principally about migration) to start with It is virtually impossible to answer your question. However the requirement that you have a set amount of savings (which I think is actually excessive and in fact quite wrong) is NOT that unusual, Australia has a similar system for one.....

*THE Ben Reilly* wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Firstly, I don't see what Brexit has to do with UK immigration policies, and secondly, I doubt that anyone could comment on such a small amount of information. This is about savings and not income, yes? How would you expect to live here without a large amount of savings then?

By working, but I'm not allowed to even look for a job due to UK immigration policies.

And the Brexit tie-in is that the UK largely left Europe in order to end freedom of movement, right?

I get totally a different impression.  My take is that the EU was unpopular because it took Britishness away from the Brits...immigration was but a small part of that.

Listen to Brexit supporters: they didn't want to be subsumed into some European society. It was an affront to their self-determination and self-government. It was something of a nationalist argument.

Original Quill wrote:

*THE Ben Reilly* wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Firstly, I don't see what Brexit has to do with UK immigration policies, and secondly, I doubt that anyone could comment on such a small amount of information. This is about savings and not income, yes? How would you expect to live here without a large amount of savings then?

By working, but I'm not allowed to even look for a job due to UK immigration policies.

And the Brexit tie-in is that the UK largely left Europe in order to end freedom of movement, right?

I get totally a different impression.  My take is that the EU was unpopular because it took Britishness away from the Brits...immigration was but a small part of that.

Listen to Brexit supporters: they didn't want to be subsumed into some European society.  It was an affront to their self-determination and self-government.  It was something of a nationalist argument.

a.k.a Hill-shepherdism

I like Hill Shepherds , especially English ones. Their Lamb tastes much better than the frozen crap from Oz !

Ben has gone further than to claim that Brexit is about immigration though, he's implying that it's about benefit fraud committed by immigrants. Of course it depends on what he means by fraud, but I don't think he's asking the right question. What he really wants to know is why he needs so much money to come here, and that's nothing to do with Brexit.

nicko wrote:I like Hill Shepherds ,    especially English ones.   Their Lamb tastes much better than the frozen crap from Oz !

it's true about freshness of meat
that's why i do groceries in Goulburn
it's the rural regional center for southern NSW east of the great dividing range
and has a big abattoir, mainly sheep and cattle.

I'm sure it's not as good after being shipped to the other side of the world, we don't even get lamb imports

Lord Foul wrote:Ben, given that you are arguing from a false premise (that brexit is principally about migration) to start with It is virtually impossible to answer your question. However the requirement that you have a set amount of savings (which I think is actually excessive and in fact quite wrong) is NOT that unusual, Australia has a similar system for one.....

Here it is based on the Australian's savings, i think  

I have heard that a loop hole is you can just prove you can get that sum on a secured loan, so if they own a house in Australia that's pretty easy.... I'm not sure if that's an option or a similar loophole exists in the UK  

I agree that figure seems a lot, I'm not sure what it is down here.

I presume that figure isn't a set one for anyone wanting to come here.

If someone comes to live here from the US and they're not allowed to work, obviously they need money to live on as they can't get benefits. How much they need would depend on their personal circumstances and how long they're not allowed to work for.

Does it depend on how much their partner earns or has in savings? If the partner claims benefits, that would also be affected if they then live with someone.

Your average Brit isn't likely to know all the rules re immigration because they don't need to, so Ben probably knows more than the Brits on here.

Raggamuffin wrote:I presume that figure isn't a set one for anyone wanting to come here.

If someone comes to live here from the US and they're not allowed to work, obviously they need money to live on as they can't get benefits.  How much they need would depend on their personal circumstances and how long they're not allowed to work for.

Does it depend on how much their partner earns or has in savings? If the partner claims benefits, that would also be affected if they then live with someone.

Your average Brit isn't likely to know all the rules re immigration because they don't need to, so Ben probably knows more than the Brits on here.

Yet hilariously often make appalling voting decisions based on their anger at something of which they know so little

Eilzel wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I presume that figure isn't a set one for anyone wanting to come here.

If someone comes to live here from the US and they're not allowed to work, obviously they need money to live on as they can't get benefits.  How much they need would depend on their personal circumstances and how long they're not allowed to work for.

Does it depend on how much their partner earns or has in savings? If the partner claims benefits, that would also be affected if they then live with someone.

Your average Brit isn't likely to know all the rules re immigration because they don't need to, so Ben probably knows more than the Brits on here.

Yet hilariously often make appalling voting decisions based on their anger at something of which they know so little

Maybe

They probably know more about immigration rules re EU member states though, and their concerns might be to do with lack of jobs in their area or something. They obviously would want local people to have those jobs.

Maybe this will help

Didge wrote:Maybe this will help

If you have property , sell that .

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:If you have property , sell that .

I have a 2009 Chevy Aveo with a dented door and a shitty transmission, that's about it as far as property worth more than a few hundred beans. To be fair, I don't know that it's worth that much ...

*THE Ben Reilly* wrote:

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:If you have property , sell that .

I have a 2009 Chevy Aveo with a dented door and a shitty transmission, that's about it as far as property worth more than a few hundred beans. To be fair, I don't know that it's worth that much ...

You are a journalist, can you freelance and sell your articles to a wider audience?
If it was me and I needed money I would concentrate on what I was good at and try to make money that way.

Okay, I wrote my original post when I was pretty upset and maybe it didn't come out clearly. But this is what I'm given to understand:

* The British public is (rightly or wrongly) fed up with (perceived) high immigration levels, which are largely fueled by EU membership and free movement.

* In order to reduce immigration, the UK government created a financial requirement for spousal immigration: https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/theresa-may-general-election-immigration-brexit-policies-spouse-via-wage-18600-cap-driving-citizens-a7703031.html

From that source:

The policy was designed to ensure that family members brought to the UK did not become a burden on taxpayers, labelling their partner a “sponsor” who would, by their own earnings, pay for any benefits they qualified for.

As we head into a general election in which immigration numbers will play a key part, the Prime Minister will be attempting to paint this as one of her crowning achievements. But the policy simply doesn’t work.

First, it doesn’t make any practical sense. Migrants from outside the EU, children or spouses included, are not entitled to any public benefits. “Sponsoring” them to compensate taxpayers makes little sense; it is a cheap gimmick to fool those who have little understanding of our immigrants and benefits system. I should know. I am an immigrant, and my visa is incredibly clear: I am entitled to nothing.

Clearly, the issue of immigration is tied to benefits. Currently, EU citizens are entitled to UK benefits, while I am not, and I was given to believe that one of the reasons for Brexit is to save the UK money by empowering it to not pay benefits to EU citizens (or to just kick them out entirely).

The argument against Brexit always comes back to immigrants.     There's so much more to it.  

Try telling the poor people who lost their homes at Cockermouth to flooding because of EU directives against river dredging.    Cessation of dredging of our rivers since we were required to accept the European Water Framework Directive into UK law in 2000.

Yet until then, for all of recorded history, a river needed to be big enough to take water that flowed into it, otherwise it would overflow and inundate the surrounding land and houses.  A no fucking brainer.

Then we have the  Working Time Directive, which has been a source of complaint among surgeons and medical staff.  Or the EU’s Renewable Energy Directive, which requires the UK to generate 15 per cent of its energy from renewable sources  the cost of which will ultimately be passed to the consumer through their bills.

The majority of people voted for Brexit because they are sick and tired of EU rules governing their lives and their businesses.   Nothing to do with fear of foreigners!  

What the Remainers are doing is focusing on the one thing they think is a big enough  club to smash Brexiteers with...racism and xenophobia.   When all else fails scream RACIST!  Works every fucking time.  It's becoming a jaded, tedious and increasingly crass means to justify staying in the EU.   Britain is one of the most accommodating and least racist countries in Europe.   If you don't think so, then why are they banning the Burqa all across Europe? Isn't that racist?   I have a friend who's African, lived in the UK most of her life, feared for her life when she visited Florida, got abused and racially scorned in the States.

As for the policies of immigration for Americans like Ben, those have always been in place and always will be.   You'd have the same problem in most countries.  Nothing to do with Brexit.

The EU dishes out directives to Britain like cheap sweets.  You can't use this light bulb, or that vacuum cleaner.   Yet it still allows the torture and slaughter of bulls in Spain.  

Greece is on the bones of its economic arse. In Sweden the problems are bubbling away under the surface and the far right Swedish Democrats are gaining more support ahead of the 2018 election.

The whole thing is like one big pressure cooker.  The Nordic governments are reducing their desirability as destinations by tightening asylum benefits to the minimum standards.  
Norway attempted to deport approximately over 5K Middle Eastern asylum seekers to Russia.  Russia were like... Fuck off.

The sooner we're out the better.   The whole of Europe is watching us.   When we go, others will follow suit.

Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it That's the EU

Great post /\.
I agree and have said here that we will lead, get all the flak thrown at us, have to fight tooth and nail to get a fair deal whilst half the UK politicians are shooting us all in the foot by whinging for another referendum (which obviously wont happen)...but once we are out and thriving others will follow.

I also think once we get rid of this absolutely ridiculous free movement policy which has seen so many local people lose jobs after being undercut by cheap foreign labour, even denied the chance of applying for jobs as they have already been filled by EU members BEFORE they have been advertised here, we may then be able to accommodate other people from other countries outside of the EU in a fairer way.

Im sure I was shouted down on here the last time I mentioned that.  

HT, I couldn't agree more. !

*THE Ben Reilly* wrote:Okay, I wrote my original post when I was pretty upset and maybe it didn't come out clearly. But this is what I'm given to understand:

* The British public is (rightly or wrongly) fed up with (perceived) high immigration levels, which are largely fueled by EU membership and free movement.

* In order to reduce immigration, the UK government created a financial requirement for spousal immigration: https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/theresa-may-general-election-immigration-brexit-policies-spouse-via-wage-18600-cap-driving-citizens-a7703031.html

From that source:

The policy was designed to ensure that family members brought to the UK did not become a burden on taxpayers, labelling their partner a “sponsor” who would, by their own earnings, pay for any benefits they qualified for.

As we head into a general election in which immigration numbers will play a key part, the Prime Minister will be attempting to paint this as one of her crowning achievements. But the policy simply doesn’t work.

First, it doesn’t make any practical sense. Migrants from outside the EU, children or spouses included, are not entitled to any public benefits. “Sponsoring” them to compensate taxpayers makes little sense; it is a cheap gimmick to fool those who have little understanding of our immigrants and benefits system. I should know. I am an immigrant, and my visa is incredibly clear: I am entitled to nothing.

Clearly, the issue of immigration is tied to benefits. Currently, EU citizens are entitled to UK benefits, while I am not, and I was given to believe that one of the reasons for Brexit is to save the UK money by empowering it to not pay benefits to EU citizens (or to just kick them out entirely).

That article is talking about the income of the person in the UK, not the savings of the person wanting to move to the UK, so what does that have to do with your figure of £44,000?

I would say that £18,600 is not enough to keep a family actually, so they've set that rather low.

*THE Ben Reilly* wrote:Okay, I wrote my original post when I was pretty upset and maybe it didn't come out clearly. But this is what I'm given to understand:

* The British public is (rightly or wrongly) fed up with (perceived) high immigration levels, which are largely fueled by EU membership and free movement.

* In order to reduce immigration, the UK government created a financial requirement for spousal immigration: https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/theresa-may-general-election-immigration-brexit-policies-spouse-via-wage-18600-cap-driving-citizens-a7703031.html

From that source:

The policy was designed to ensure that family members brought to the UK did not become a burden on taxpayers, labelling their partner a “sponsor” who would, by their own earnings, pay for any benefits they qualified for.

As we head into a general election in which immigration numbers will play a key part, the Prime Minister will be attempting to paint this as one of her crowning achievements. But the policy simply doesn’t work.

First, it doesn’t make any practical sense. Migrants from outside the EU, children or spouses included, are not entitled to any public benefits. “Sponsoring” them to compensate taxpayers makes little sense; it is a cheap gimmick to fool those who have little understanding of our immigrants and benefits system. I should know. I am an immigrant, and my visa is incredibly clear: I am entitled to nothing.

Clearly, the issue of immigration is tied to benefits. Currently, EU citizens are entitled to UK benefits, while I am not, and I was given to believe that one of the reasons for Brexit is to save the UK money by empowering it to not pay benefits to EU citizens (or to just kick them out entirely).

No. EU citizens are not automatically entitled to benefits. They can stay for three months, but to stay longer they have to be: in work; or actively seeking work with a genuine chance of being hired; or be able to show they have enough money not to be a burden on public services. Apart from that, evidence of benefit abuse or fraud is grounds to exclude or expel a person from the country. a migrant still has to pass a "habitual residence test" under EU law.

The test covers factors such as the duration of the migrant's stay; their activity, including their source of income if they are students; their family status; and their housing situation. The migrant has to demonstrate a sufficient degree of attachment to the host country. The amount of time already spent in the country is not sufficient qualification in itself.

Raggamuffin wrote:

*THE Ben Reilly* wrote:Okay, I wrote my original post when I was pretty upset and maybe it didn't come out clearly. But this is what I'm given to understand:

* The British public is (rightly or wrongly) fed up with (perceived) high immigration levels, which are largely fueled by EU membership and free movement.

* In order to reduce immigration, the UK government created a financial requirement for spousal immigration: https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/theresa-may-general-election-immigration-brexit-policies-spouse-via-wage-18600-cap-driving-citizens-a7703031.html

From that source:



Clearly, the issue of immigration is tied to benefits. Currently, EU citizens are entitled to UK benefits, while I am not, and I was given to believe that one of the reasons for Brexit is to save the UK money by empowering it to not pay benefits to EU citizens (or to just kick them out entirely).

That article is talking about the income of the person in the UK, not the savings of the person wanting to move to the UK, so what does that have to do with your figure of £44,000?

I would say that £18,600 is not enough to keep a family actually, so they've set that rather low.

Definitely not. That's just about the breadline for a single person.

*THE Ben Reilly* wrote:

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:If you have property , sell that .

I have a 2009 Chevy Aveo with a dented door and a shitty transmission, that's about it as far as property worth more than a few hundred beans. To be fair, I don't know that it's worth that much ...

You could always sell your arse.

eddie wrote:

*THE Ben Reilly* wrote:

I have a 2009 Chevy Aveo with a dented door and a shitty transmission, that's about it as far as property worth more than a few hundred beans. To be fair, I don't know that it's worth that much ...

You could always sell your arse.

I bet it's worth a few bob

HoratioTarr wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

*THE Ben Reilly* wrote:Okay, I wrote my original post when I was pretty upset and maybe it didn't come out clearly. But this is what I'm given to understand:

* The British public is (rightly or wrongly) fed up with (perceived) high immigration levels, which are largely fueled by EU membership and free movement.

* In order to reduce immigration, the UK government created a financial requirement for spousal immigration: https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/theresa-may-general-election-immigration-brexit-policies-spouse-via-wage-18600-cap-driving-citizens-a7703031.html

From that source:



Clearly, the issue of immigration is tied to benefits. Currently, EU citizens are entitled to UK benefits, while I am not, and I was given to believe that one of the reasons for Brexit is to save the UK money by empowering it to not pay benefits to EU citizens (or to just kick them out entirely).

That article is talking about the income of the person in the UK, not the savings of the person wanting to move to the UK, so what does that have to do with your figure of £44,000?

I would say that £18,600 is not enough to keep a family actually, so they've set that rather low.

Definitely not.   That's just about the breadline for a single person.

On an only kind of related note, isn't it absolutely disgusting that the UK minimum wage falls heavily below that number?

Surely to god the lowest amount people can earn should NOT be way lower than the 'breadline' for a single person...

Margaret Thatcher fucked over Britain's minimum wage, pensions and unemployment benefits systems during her free markets/"supply side"/economic rationalist/"trickle down" regime's pro-big business escapades, while virtually crippling your manufacturing and agricultural sectors...

John Howard's pro-'Thatcherist'/'Reaganomics' gov't did the same to Oz a decade later..

(The USA doesn't even get a look-in on these discussions, as they have never had a realistic minimum wage, nor a genuine unemployment support scheme;   while at the same time also having even higher poverty levels than the UK, Canada, Oz or NZ..).      

Thatcher saved Britain from being ruled by the Greedy Communist lead Unions. Get your facts straight Wolfie and stop reading the Mirror !

Eilzel wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Definitely not.   That's just about the breadline for a single person.

On an only kind of related note, isn't it absolutely disgusting that the UK minimum wage falls heavily below that number?

Surely to god the lowest amount people can earn should NOT be way lower than the 'breadline' for a single person...

Yes it is. The National Living Wage isn't that much even for full time, and the mimimum wage for those under 25 is a lot less. It's not so bad if there are two people earning in a household but a single person would struggle unless they can get subsidised housing - not easy to get. It's housing costs which are the problem.

Eilzel wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Definitely not.   That's just about the breadline for a single person.

On an only kind of related note, isn't it absolutely disgusting that the UK minimum wage falls heavily below that number?

Surely to god the lowest amount people can earn should NOT be way lower than the 'breadline' for a single person...

Pretty much, yes. A single person cannot survive on a minimum wage if they want the kind of lifestyle most people desire in this day and age.

People keep banging on about austerity...but they have no idea what real austerity is.

*THE Ben Reilly* wrote:

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:If you have property , sell that .

I have a 2009 Chevy Aveo with a dented door and a shitty transmission, that's about it as far as property worth more than a few hundred beans. To be fair, I don't know that it's worth that much ...

Ah I see, are you self employed or do you work for a company? maybe get them to transfer you here to work just thinking to try and help you .

Eilzel wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Definitely not.   That's just about the breadline for a single person.

On an only kind of related note, isn't it absolutely disgusting that the UK minimum wage falls heavily below that number?

Surely to god the lowest amount people can earn should NOT be way lower than the 'breadline' for a single person...

Blame mass immigration for massively pushing up cost of living while keeping wages low...

The Left wont agree with that ! I do though .