Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Osborne and the Conservatives to cut public services to pre-war levels watch

    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    How dare you comment against the neo-con agenda!


    The disabled are scroungers because they have contributed less than what they have taken out!


    Taxing the rich to give welfare to the poor is morally wrong. They should all starve instead because that is morally right!


    People only go to food banks because they spend all their money on **** and alchohol.


    I disagree there has been a 600% rise in food bank use. If there was then there would be a 600% rise in **** and alchohol purchases.


    - Some Tory!
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DErasmus)
    lol at people defending these cuts in the name of ideology
    Don't you want ideology and real differences between parties? If all parties subscribed to same basic policies, who do you vote for if you want something different?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pickup)
    Most people on the minimum wage are one unexpected expense away from a crisis. You may be able to manage, just, as long as you don't need to buy a suit for an interview, fill the car with petrol, or a new pair of shoes, or a fridge, or a train/ bus ticket for an interview. When budgets are very tight it doesn't take much to wreck it.
    You are talking about expenses on the order of £100. Someone on the minimum wage would only have to save 10% of their after tax income to add £100 to their savings every month. After two or three years of being employed these "crisis" expenses would be essentially irrelevant.

    If you have a sick child or an elderly relative who needs extras it's a nightmare.
    Yes, granted, dependants make it hard and perhaps don't permit a 10% savings rate. But who is living on the minimum wage in their own property alone with kids and not receiving a whole host of benefits? Without a partner? In the first place,is having a child you can't support really an unlucky circumstance, or is it a lifestyle choice?

    How is anyone in this position supposed to save enough for their retirement or for unexpected episodes of flu or worklessness due to an accident? No wonder many people are on antidepressants.

    It may salve richer people's consciences, imagining that all poor people are just incompetents or immoral layabouts who deserve their misfortunes but what is needed is more imagination and more compassion - and above all more justice- a living wage.
    I am a PhD student living alone without dependants in a (high income European) foreign country with a stipend about 20% above the UK minimum wage; I have a lot of luxuries, a high savings rate, and never feel myself at risk.

    If I spent all my money as soon as I earned it - and I can certainly think of ways to do it - and then took out supplemental loans things would be very different. Many people live like that. But that is not an external imposition, it's their choice.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by illegaltobepoor)
    How dare you comment against the neo-con agenda!


    The disabled are scroungers because they have contributed less than what they have taken out!
    It's hardly an untrue statement


    Taxing the rich to give welfare to the poor is morally wrong. They should all starve instead because that is morally right!
    As per usual you're speaking crap and putting words in the voices of all but a very small minority


    People only go to food banks because they spend all their money on **** and alchohol.
    See above. Also, I think far more are doing it because they don't know how to cool properly, either not cooking or doing so very ineffectively. Relying on cheap ready meals isn't exactly very good; even the expensive ones aren't very good for you, the cheap ones even less so so, so they will be making you nice and unhealthy, meanwhile they're far more expensive than just cooking stuff yourself so they're draining the coffers.


    I disagree there has been a 600% rise in food bank use. If there was then there would be a 600% rise in **** and alchohol purchases.


    - Some Tory!
    Does this mean that I use a food bank because I drink? I didn't know that the only people who drink and smoke are those using food banks.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by meenu89)
    Don't you want ideology and real differences between parties? If all parties subscribed to same basic policies, who do you vote for if you want something different?
    Ideology is for dumb folk. Reality is too complex to be fixed in little categories.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    You are talking about expenses on the order of £100. Someone on the minimum wage would only have to save 10% of their after tax income to add £100 to their savings every month. After two or three years of being employed these "crisis" expenses would be essentially irrelevant.


    Yes, granted, dependants make it hard and perhaps don't permit a 10% savings rate. But who is living on the minimum wage in their own property alone with kids and not receiving a whole host of benefits? Without a partner? In the first place,is having a child you can't support really an unlucky circumstance, or is it a lifestyle choice?


    I am a PhD student living alone without dependants in a (high income European) foreign country with a stipend about 20% above the UK minimum wage; I have a lot of luxuries, a high savings rate, and never feel myself at risk.

    If I spent all my money as soon as I earned it - and I can certainly think of ways to do it - and then took out supplemental loans things would be very different. Many people live like that. But that is not an external imposition, it's their choice.
    Well exactly. If people on the minimum wage were able to save £100 a month they would be able to have some cushion after say 5 years or so.( As long as they didn't have periods of illness or unemployment). If they were able to save £200 or £500 they would have a bigger one. However £100 a month won't provide a cushion, plus unexpected expenses, plus provision for retirement, plus provision for illness etc etc.

    But they can't save precisely because unlike you they don't have that extra 20% income you have. They do have or have had dependants maybe, they have worked for years on the minimum wage or below ( it has only come in relatively recently ) they may well have had children when they were in better circumstance younger and able to earn more in jobs that required physical fitness, unlike you their situation is not a temporary one expecting to earn more in the future. It's the cumulation of years of low pay.

    Taking the moral high ground when speaking of poor people as if their low pay is their fault is to deny the fact that many essential jobs pay too little yet we expect people to live on them. As long as we turn a blind eye to low pay and ( despicably) pretend that it is their own fault rather than the fault of all of us, not insisting on decent pay, we shall have increasing depression and desperation in the population.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pickup)
    Well exactly. If people on the minimum wage were able to save £100 a month they would be able to have some cushion after say 5 years or so.
    By the standard you set, they'd have a sufficient cushion after 1 month. After 2-3 years (the time period I stated) they would have so much saved that not only would there be money to cover such expenses, those expenses would not even much dent the savings.

    However £100 a month won't provide a cushion, plus unexpected expenses, plus provision for retirement, plus provision for illness etc etc.
    It'll provide all those things except the pension.

    But they can't save precisely because unlike you they don't have that extra 20% income you have.
    Indeed, it's magic how everyone's expenses seem to be exactly as high as their income. Only people who earn [more than me] can afford to save.

    The actual problem is not lack of resources but poor prioritisation.

    They do have or have had dependants maybe, they have worked for years on the minimum wage or below ( it has only come in relatively recently ) they may well have had children when they were in better circumstance younger and able to earn more in jobs that required physical fitness, unlike you their situation is not a temporary one expecting to earn more in the future. It's the cumulation of years of low pay.
    Dependants attract additional benefits, and are often discretionary.

    Taking the moral high ground when speaking of poor people as if their low pay is their fault is to deny the fact that many essential jobs pay too little yet we expect people to live on them. As long as we turn a blind eye to low pay and ( despicably) pretend that it is their own fault rather than the fault of all of us, not insisting on decent pay, we shall have increasing depression and desperation in the population.
    Again, I am a "poor person" on low pay. My argument is not that people can easily increase their incomes or that low paid jobs are unimportant. My argument is that if one plans carefully and manages one's expectations, it is possible to live well on a low income. Academia is full of such people.

    The real problem is that people who perform poorly in the job market are disproportionately likely to be poor at managing money as well. Academia is one of the few low pay professions that is full of high aptitude people; I would guess most people on the minimum wage could not even explain what compound interest is. Indeed, most of these people would probably manage their money very poorly if they were on high pay too and end up little better off. Extreme examples like Michael Carroll spring to mind, who frittered away a lottery win and ended up back on the minimum wage after less than ten years.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    By the standard you set, they'd hav

    Again, I am a "poor person" on low pay. My argument is not that people can easily increase their incomes or that low paid jobs are unimportant. My argument is that if one plans carefully and manages one's expectations, it is possible to live well on a low income. Academia is full of such people.

    The real problem is that people who perform poorly in the job market are disproportionately likely to be poor at managing money as well. Academia is one of the few low pay professions that is full of high aptitude people; I would guess most people on the minimum wage could not even explain what compound interest is. Indeed, most of these people would probably manage their money very poorly if they were on high pay too and end up little better off. Extreme examples like Michael Carroll spring to mind, who frittered away a lottery win and ended up back on the minimum wage after less than ten years.
    So why do people want to earn more? Why do we pay people more? On what grounds do we decide that some people should earn more?

    I would argue because people know you can't manage on the minimum wage. You can't feel at ease and live a normal worry free life let alone have the luxuries of life or make provision for pensions etc ( as you acknowledge). Or send your children to Eton or support your children through expensive post graduate education, or wageless internships, or wageless mini pupillages or buy the expensive clothes that interviews demand or pay for private tuition to get your children through competitive exams.

    Do we pay people more because of demand ? ie because few people want to do the job or because few people can do the job. Arguably not. Plenty of people want to become doctors, barristers etc / plenty of people could do the job , judging by their excellent A levels etc. yet they earn well above the minimum wage.

    Do we pay people more because we value the work they do more? Well, no again. I think most people value care workers, people who look after severely handicapped children or adults, cleaners etc. yet they earn the minimum wage ( or below ) considerably less than lots of less worthy occupations.

    What about qualifications then? is this why we pay people more? Well no again. As you agree academics have the qualifications yet don't exactly earn a fortune.

    I take issue with your idea that because you earn the minimum wage you are more likely to be bad at handling money and this is the real reason why people on the minimum wage can't cope. People on the minimum wage can't cope because they are on the minimum wage .

    Arguably they are often very good at managing their money but still the question of fairness remains. If we think jobs are worth doing then we should ensure that they are done for a living wage. Otherwise we are allocating money on a random basis with no justice at all.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.