British Workers Wanted - Channel 4

Fine by me, I assure you.

Thanks for the confirmation that a little bit of forethought and forward planning, of the sort that everyone should exercise, helps with money-management in the short term.

I don't quite see how having to pay back the amount borrowed equates to "being clobbered"

tim

Exactly.

And the charges won't break the bank either. A few weeks' borrowing of a few hundred quid will attract charges of (literally) a few quid.

Because pensions are hardly the core business of the likes of BT etc etc. Why, then, should they be running a pension scheme - for which they continue to have liability, whether or the company does well or not. What was the issue with Green and BHS? Pensions. What did Maxwell raid? The company pension pot. The main thing I seem to keep hearing about company pension schemes is whether they are solvent or not.

If each person has their own pension pot, into which they contribute, they can then decide at retirement how and when what to do with it. They can get a pensions cpy to manage it or a fund manager if they want to have it as a SIPP. Each employer they have during their working career can choose whether or not to contribute into the employee's pot

- perhaps as an incentive for the employee to work for that cpy instead of another.

Clearly some people might find it too hard to deal with - there'd have to be provision for them too.

It's the additional interest and charges.

True. But even given that pension schemes are not the core business of many companies making them illegal is a major change and not in keeping with financial competition. I believe that the legislation has been tightened up so that company pensions cannot be raided any more.

True. But with these it is much harder to predict how much pension you are likely to get.

Or not have enough spare income to contribute enough to the scheme, even assuming that they know how much is "enough".

I agree it couldn't be an overnight change.

Perhaps that is where the NI comes in: the gumment's NI "take" is divided equally and added to everyone's pot (not the NHS part, obviously).

Anyway, the above is more really in the guise of a serving suggestion: pensions are a problem and something needs to be done.

The means testing is the issue. It encourages many not to work. Many say they won't work for 50p per hour and I don't blame them.

They seem very similar to me. One seems to get a lot of stick and the other is pandered to. Everyone should get a wage and be damned, means testing discourages meaningful work.

I guess you being 'retired' will say ageism rules.

I might have thought there were personal economic reasons, but hey!

The other way round, surely? It's hard to see how a scheme which pays out up £20,000 a year (£384.62 pw net) for an indefinite period (outside London, more in London) provides less incentive to get a job than a scheme which pays about £72 a week for 26 weeks max.

Do they? They're nothing like the same thing.

Unemployment is supposed to be a misfortune which no-one seeks and which they will tell you they wish to be out of, asap.

Retirement is something for which everybody wishes (for themselves and everyone to whom they are related or with whom they are acquainted) and hopes it will go on for as long aspossible.

Ask yourself why that is (and whether "pandered to" is the correct way to think about retirement).

We should encourage unemployed people to find work. They will usually tell you they want work.

You can only get a wage for working. Wages are not appropriate for the retired OR for the unemployed, for that reason.

See above.

I'm not sure what you might mean by that. Ageism is very prevalent in society, but I don't intend to be a complainant.

There are plenty of reasons not to claim for damage to your car even though it is covered. Sometimes those reasons prevail; sometimes they don't. It has little or nothing to do with pensions, benefits, unemployment or retirement.

What?

It's very nice for those can get that much, but have you ever considered the figure associated with claw-back of tax-credits and reduction of other benefits?

I know many stick to working 16 hours at minimum wage as it maximises income / effort expended.

Lets take a family paying basic rate tax, quite possible at minimum wage for 35 hours a week.

Lets increase their income by £10 by working harder. They lose £2.00 from IT, and £1.20 NI. They lose £3.80 from reduction of tax credits.

With the £3 they have left they go to their local council, who reduce their HB by £1.80 and CTB by 75p.

If you can do simple arithmetic, you might start to understand why it's not 'the other way round'.

For many, not working is a life-style choice.

Of course, as long as the individual makes their own provision, I don't have any issue with that.

They are more likely to vote and are therefore treated differently. You only have to look at the application of the bedroom tax to see an example. Free TV license is another.

We should encourage everyone to work, I repeat encourage and not hit them with a stick when they do.

Wages are very appropriate for someone in their later stages of life and able to work without making any provision for retirement.

Quite

Sadly - yes, it advantages the elderly.

Good question. I think I missed out a crucial word, using its opposite instead. Well-spotted.

It should have read:

I wrote (or should have written):

The other way round, surely? It's hard to see how a scheme which pays out up £20,000 a year (£384.62 pw net) for an indefinite period (outside London, more in London) provides more incentive to get a job than a scheme which pays about £72 a week for 26 weeks max.

It does not impinge on what I wrote.

I was mainly describing the effect of out-of-work benefits.

That is a silly rule which has a perverse effect. Tax Credits for workers should only be available to those in full time work (let's say

Those in part-time work (for whatever reason) should have to sign on as being (mainly) unemployed.

I am not generally sympathetic to arguments which treat means-tested benefits as a basic right, to be clung to even when other income rises. I'm sure you know why.

Yes, I am well aware of it. The system needs to be tweaked so that it does not pay.

You don't agree with payment of pensions promised over five decades per working lifetime, then? I started making NI contributions (flat rate) when I was 15.

Of course pensioners are treated differently from non-pensioners. They get pensions. Non-pensioners don't.

That doesn't apply to me.

Neither does that. Is it supposed to? When did that start and why wasn't it advertised?

What form does your vsion of "encouragement" take?

That's too vague to have meaning.

You are 180 degrees wrong in that.

Not even to settle your monthly account? :p

If you mean a Freedom pass, it covers more than buses.

Do you ever read posts before replying?

You really think all poor have access to cheap credit in the same way as many of us do?

You really do need to get out more.

You want every company restricted to its core business by law? Have you even thought about the implications of this?

You think the reason BHS failed was its pension liability?

Moving pensions to an independant provider is a guarantee of solvency? After all, that would be a core business of the likes of RBS. ;-)

NI isn't hypothecated. It's just another tax.

Agreed.

It might have been 2001, now I think of it.

That money goes to the suppliers (to whom I would otherwise owe the money), not to Amex for anything they've done for me.

The relationship between the suppliers and Amex is not a matter of concern for me.

Annually, I also get ?1% of my Amex spend back, credited to my account in July (the anniversary of contracting for the card back in 2000 or

It isn't a Freedom Pass and only covers buses.

:-)

Have you realised the difference between a bus pass (issued by councils in England outside London) and a Freedom Pass yet?

How would the PP (living on the south coast) ever be entitled to a Freedom Pass?

This is not the opinion page of the Guardian and most of us are not seeking to use hypocrital virtue-signalling terms at every opportunity.

We were not discussing "the poor".

We were discussing people who (temporarily) claim Universal Credit because they are (temporarily) unemployed.

Have you ever thought of applying reason and logic to discussions?

Or do you prefer to apply your bull-in-china-shop tactics to everything?

Not everyone on benefits (temporarily) is or will remain poor.