How much does a civil servant have to earn for cutting their job to make financial sense?

[DJKillaQueen]

No it wouldn't..... a raise in minimum wage would save the country millions in top up benefits (which then really could be directed to those more in need).

It's not difficult to work out what a single person, more or less, basically needs to live on. That's why we then have child benefits and child tax credits to take children and the cost of them into account as a seperate factor and indeed maybe there's an argument for means testing child benefit and raising it for those most in need. In London, because of the massive HB bill there could be a further arguement for weighting to help reduce the HB bill, although I agree it wouldn't actually make the recipient any better/ worse off...but it would make the tax payer better off.

Just because the one size fits all isn't a totally accurate measure of living costs doesn't justify not raising minimum wage to a living level...which according to various poverty action groups and the Labour Force Survey (nothing to do with the Labour party btw lol) needs to be ?7 per hour or thereabouts.

Incidently beer in a pub is a lot more expensive here than in my home town of Liverpool where the aeverage price for a pint is ?2.30 compared to ?3.30 - ?4 in London. That's a different of 30% plus.

[taffers]

There have been many valid points raised here.

DJKQ, mentions that sport is known to reduce stress and depression levels, I have too agree, for after almost an hour of hurling myself around the squash court I much better in myself, and obviously I sleep much better for it too.

As for skills, I have enquired about doing an advanced Excel course, but because I am only recently unemployed I have been told it is unlikely qualify for a subsidy, so I will have to fund it myself, which I will be doing come the new accademic year in September.

DJKQ, I have spoken to someone in the same building as me, he too was until recently unemployed, he also found that has he had skills the job centre would not offer him any further training, probably for the same reasons you mentioned.

Also about top-up benefits, prior to being made redundant, when I ever I needed some extra cash, I would do a few evening shifts at the local sports club as I always have believed in paying your own way.

DJKQ, you mentioned that fresh food costs more, it certainly does, I am now being very careful with how I spend my money, cheaper cuts, own brands etc to make my money last.

One thing I find dissapointing is that once my JSA entitlement expires, and I go on Income Support, if my savings are more than ?6,0000.00 I will not be entitled to the full entitlement, which at the moment they are due to my redundancy, while I accept there has to be a limit, I was hoping use this money to go towards a deposit for a house when I get a decent job.

Out of interest to others, one of the first things I did when I got my redundancy was to pay my electric, water, mobile, landline and internet and council tax off until next April as I knew JSA isn't very much, I am also tempted to pay my rent off for the next few months too.

DJ, as for beer, it is about the same price where I live, which is in Swindon, unless I go to a Weathersppons pub, which can often be full of young drinkers.

I am looking at applying for jobs in Mold, N. Wales, where my uncle and aunt live, but the wages there are less than what is offered here, but if succesful, I would consider moving, especially if a lot of my redundancy is still left.

[Jeremy]

Just to be clear, DJKQ... I wasn't arguing about the raise in minimum wage. In theory it sounds like a good idea - although of course a lot of thought would need to be given to the knock-on affects, including inflation.

Rather, I am curious about the disdain you and Brendan show towards housing benefit. Particularly in your last message, you seem to be suggest removing housing benefits, and in some cases replacing it by augmenting benefits for families. Maybe I'm missing something here, but does it really matter? Do people care what there benefits are labelled as?

The London weighting thing... we'll have to agree to disagree, I think the costs of living (apart from housing) are not that different. I was at uni in Liverpool by the way - albeit many years ago. I don't remember things being that much cheaper. Beer is a minor expense in the scheme of things.

[Brendan]

I don?t have a disdain for it. I just think that a properly run economy shouldn?t need it. If a country had equally opportunity and a fair system such a skewed amount of land money and power wouldn?t be in the hands of so few and homes would be available on the open market fro what people could afford dot pay rather than having to rely on a benefits system for people just to get by. A benefits system that is then in turn resented by the very people who make it necessary. Cunts that they are.

[Jeremy]

I hear what you're saying. Houses are too expensive, and too many fall into the hands of investors. The lowest wages are not enough to house yourself - let alone a family - without benefits. Yes, this should be addressed.

But I don't think it's realistic (or even appropriate) to strive for everyone, regardless of their situation, to be paid a sufficient wage to buy - for example - a decent 3 bedroom house. Resources are finite, the numbers don't add up. And not everyone needs a home large enough to house a family.

That's where the benefits system is useful, so we can try to distribute the resources according to need. It has nothing to do with oppression, there is no conspiracy. Sure, it is far from perfect - I know that many people live in sub-standard accomodation - but the principle is sound. At least in my mind.

[DJKillaQueen]

I also have no problem with housing benefit for the unemployed etc.

What I do have a problem with is taxpayers subsidisng one third of wages because we have an over-inflated housing market, a market that has not been subject to the natural impacts of market conditions, but has been kept artificially bouyant by banks and mortgage lenders (the moment first time buyers began to begin to be priced out) by the creation of ludicrous products like self certified mortgages and part buy part rent and indeed buy-to-let - where most investers are paying interest only and nothing back on the capital loan - something the FSA is now seeking to change.

The rate at which house prices and rents have risen over the last 30 years is completely ridiculous. No other sector has seen anything like that growth - not even close. No wonder the banks finally got their fingers burned. But it's us (including those that don't own and have no hope of ever owning thier own home) who are paying for it now. Incidently the HB bill has more than doubled over that period too - so no suprise there.

Hopefully the changes that the FSA are seeking to bring about will help the rate of growth to slow to more sensible rates - so that housing returns to being a long term investment, and over time salaries will have a chance to close the gap - and the reliance on HB reduce.

We spend ?20.8 billion on HB. That is tax payers money being used to pay private landlords mortgages. The coming blanket cap on HB (as there already in a capping system linked to average LOCAL rents) will only make a dent in that bill.

As I've stated before, I would prefer a system that caps rents in the private sector. I think that would be a far more effective way to cut the HB bill and would in turn require buy-to-let investors to have some kind of capital investment in the property compared to at the moment where in most cases (not all as I know some investors have been burned) there is little or no risk or investment required, the bank loan is the only investment with the payments paid off by the rental income - an easy way to make money (not that there's anything intrinsically wrong with that) but it should not be made at the expense of tax payers. Raising the minumum wage would also help reduce the benefits bill.

We have a shortage of affordable rental accommodation. Chucking HB at the market is the not the way to deal with that.

According to official figures, only 24% of the country's welfare bill is spent on adults of working age. 60% of the bill is spent on the over 60's, and that is set to rise as we live longer and less people reach retirement age with no pension plan. No government has really got into it yet but raising the retirement age is only the start of what's to come. Property investment has become the pension scheme for many people so any adjustments or regulation of that market has to also address why the role of pension schemes is diminishing. In the private sector 62.9% of workers don't have a pension plan compared to the generous pension plans that 85% of public sector workers pay into and benefit from on retirement.

At present benefits are 24.6% of GDP (compared to the European average of 26.9%).

[Brendan]

It's necessary yes in the situation you have in this country. But it isn't ok. Somebody who works in full time employment should be able to support themselves and their family without state handouts. Otherwise we may as well either regress into feudalism or adopt a completely socialist society. Maintaining a capitalist free market which nevertheless excludes a section of society is just hypocrisy.

(This was in reply to Jeremy, DJKQ gazumped me)

[Jeremy]

If everyone who works could afford a family home, would 1/2 bed flats be exclusively for the unemployed? Surely nobody will voluntarily live in a flat.

Or would housing be assigned according to need?

[Brendan]

Well there aren't enough suitable homes in this country. That is part and parcel of the historical problem.

Single people tend to live in what suits their needs and move somewhere cheaper when they need a bigger place.

You need to think outside of the, that?s how things are, mentally restrictive status quo that people in this country can?t seem, to break free from.

[taffers]

I live in a council flat, got it after being on the waiting list for about 7 years, been here now for 6 years, and I would much rather buy my own house, I find houses more friendly and personable. But due to cost of the rent, which isn't much less than the private sector, and the other normal bills I have not been able to save up the required deposit, and whilst I was in employment I had no intention of going down the 100% mortgage route, too risky.

Prior to that I lodged with a friend, who was only able to buy his house after he got an inheritance, before that we rented a house together.

My brother has a part buy-part rent house, and he is struggling to pay his rent/mortgage, and is having to work two sometimes three jobs to make ends meet.

With my last employers I had a final salary pension scheme which I had paid in to for 11 years, I also topped it up using AVC's, as I know our pension is not that much, but it is better than some other countries. it is currently suspended pending my gaining more employment.

My mother, who has recently inherrited some money following the death of her mother, has said she is going to give me ?10k, once I have a new job, and that it has to be used as a deposit for a house. What with the average house price where I live in Swindon being about ?120k for a two bed terrace, I know this is far cheaper than many parts of London, unless I can get a job earning ?28k or find myself a partner I will be renting my current home for a quite a while longer.

I quite agree house prices are rediculously high, but I cannot see how the prices can be capped, I had hoped that when there were no first time buyers, the prices would have dropped drastically, but they didn't.

I do hope that as DJKQ as pointed out that the FSA will be able to do something about this terrible situation, for every person that is able to afford to buy their own home without struggling would be a benefit to society as there wouldn't be such a drain on valuable resources.

One thing I did find very disheartening recently was listening to young women in the lift, one was complaining that after the council gave her the flat, that the social wouldn't give her the cash to get a fridge or a cooker, she couldn't have been more than 20, and I know I am stereotyping, but I suspect that her parents have been on the social for many years too.

I find it embarrassing having to tell people I am on the dole as I am so used to earning and paying my way.

On a potentionally better note, I have been told of a firm that is often recruiting staff to work in their factory/warehouse as they have a high staff turnover due to working a 3 shift rotating pattern, the wages are reasonable, and I don't mind working nights or daft shifts. My application was posted yesterday, and next Thursday I will cycle out to them to show that I am very interested in working for them.

[Jeremy]

Brendan Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> You need to think outside of the, that?s how

> things are, mentally restrictive status quo that

> people in this country can?t seem, to break free

> from.

I don't think I'm being mentally restrictive, I'm just trying to understand how your ideas could work... what sort of mechanisms would need to be put in place. Any ideas?

[Brendan]

Wholesale destruction and rebuilding.

[DJKillaQueen]

It would be insane to cap house prices but rents can be capped....many european countries like France do just that, with the local authority setting the rate and regulating annual increases. Rent capping would not affect those who are buying a house as a home for example, only those buying to rent. The aim (along with other measures) would be to slow the rate at which house prices rise in the future.

One of the reasons why 100% mortgages came about is precisely because so many people don't have inheritted money or parental help to supply a deposit. When you look at the range of products and the timeline at which they came about, it becomes blatently obvious that the mortgage industry knows that housing has become increasingly unaffordable for growing numbers of people. But instead of letting natural market forces in turn keep prices within range, they just found ways to lend people greater and greater sums of money with increasing risk of default (along with easy 'no capital investment required' ways of acquiring second and third properties) .....where does it all stop?

At the end of the day, no-one owns anything until the mortgage is paid off - the house belongs to the bank.

Of course, there is an arguement to say, why do we all have to aspire to be homeowners? But for many families, cramped in unsuitably small accomodation, buying seems to be their only option of having a suitable home. This is true within the social housing sector where there is a distinct shortage of family homes, with many families crammed into flats with very small rooms (room size aso being an issue with new builds). There is suitable accomodation in the private sector of course but rents are higher and there is a lack of security for tenants, compared to the security of tenure afforded by social housing (where rents are controlled by government legislation).

[DJKillaQueen]

I have lots of ideas Jeremy and think many of them could work but speaking of work, I have to go and do some lol so will return later to post them :).

[Brendan]

To be honest with you I don?t think the reliance on benefits and subsidised housing can be moved away from in less than a generation. Because of the situation being what it is now you need it but in the long term you?d have to build proper housing and enough of it and curb population growth. Then scale back the welfare system proportionally removing the tax burden on employers in conjunction with imposing equitable pay regulations on them.

[Jeremy]

Brendan Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> build proper housing and enough of it and curb population growth.

That's what I was getting at. I'm all for (much) more housing and rebalancing the supply/demand... but curbing population growth? That's one dystopian route I wouldn't want to go down!

[Brendan]

I?m not talking Chinese style 1 child policies or anything of the sort. More like tighter restrictions on immigration from places like Ireland and South Africa.

[Jeremy]

Can we put a ban on the Scots too, please? And the Aussies, always moaning about the weather.

Interestingly, you can have more kids in China if you can pay for the "fines". So much for the socialist dream.

[Brendan]

Yeah, fine, Scotland, Australia, Penge anywhere annoying.

[taffers]

Just had an email from the department store I had applied to for a job as an administrator saying thanks but no thanks, then two minutes later they ring me to say that was an error, and that they haven't made their minds up yet, and they will let me know by early August. Hope it is a yes this time.

[Brendan]

Good luck!

[Earl Aelfheah]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> nashoi,

>

> His figures came up with a net gain to

> the govt, for a person earning ?25K, of ?9140.

> You need to add in the salary (?25K) though you

> can probably leave out NI, etc, as these go back

> to the government and nets itself out, but you

> need to add in 17% (?4250) for public sector

> pension costs.

>

> So, to employ someone in government has a net cost

> of ?21110. This does not factor in costs for

> buildings, lighting, heating, support services (ie

> HR departments), computer licensing, etc, etc, but

> those are difficult to quantify on the back of a

> fag packet.

>

> According to the article, an unemployed person has

> a net costs to the government of ?12160 (this does

> not include any redundancy payments, which could

> be up to 2x salary in the PS). This cost would

> hopefully be temporary, though in a recession that

> may not be the case especially as most public

> sector workers usually jump from one PS job to

> another. An employment freeze would stop this and

> force them out to seek work in the private sector

> - which is the general idea, but may take time.

>

> Not an exhaustive analysis, by any means.

You also have to look at the knock on cost to private sector growth. Public sector workers spend the money they earn on goods and services which generally boost the economy. Also, much of the work they do (which involves infrastructure, educatoin, health etc), does create wealth (it's not valueless work, despite what some would have you believe).

This is why it is often better to employ someone inefficiently in the public sector, than pay for them not to work at all.

To work out how you balance it all, is exteremly difficult.

[taffers]

I had lunch with my mother today, and she prior to retirement, was a public authority employee for over twenty years, her public service pension is roughly ?330 pounds, and her husband gets a bit more than that, they weren't in high ranking jobs, just a clerk (her) and a cleansing supervisor.

And while I don't like to agree about keeping inefficient public employees in work, I have to say that if it came to a case of pure economics, then yes keep them in employment, and as people leave through natural wastage, don't full the place, redistribute their work.

I also dislike the public service unions, for they kept quiet, when the private sector was being savaged by the recession, now their members are affected they speak up.

I was having a conversation last week with one of the temp agencies, they sometimes supply a local govt dpt here, and they told me, that they sent them a temp as they had a lot of work on, and that temp, once trained (took 2 hrs) did the eqivualent of 8 hrs work in under 4 hours, and asked for more, this happened for a couple of days, his colleagues asked him to slow down as he was making them look bad.

[taper]

"I also dislike the public service unions, for they kept quiet, when the private sector was being savaged by the recession, now their members are affected they speak up."

A union's role is to speak for its members. Some unions, Unite in particular, cover employees in both public and private sector.

I've heard the story about the Temp so many times it must be an urban myth.