[Mr. Piddle]

So basically this couple would be far better off claiming benefits and living in a council house.

[Game_Over]

billfunk, on 18 March 2012 - 05:28 PM, said:

And...they are actually showing a surplus of around £300 a month so they should have no worries. Ha. I have lived on a budget like theirs and the £300 a month surplus is always pssed against the wall pretty easily. The Grauniad probably omitted these costs as it seeks to paint them as responsible people.

10 fags a day = £100
12 beers a week = £50

Multipy by two and you would have reached your budget. As a singleton I used to do frivalous things like go for meals with friends, dates and have barbecues.

Personally my own view on the subject of the working poor (including me) is to allow them to be peasants again. The drive to promote sustainable living combined with the high and rising price of fuel makes it increasingly unviable for most people to work these marginal jobs. The government should allow people 2 acres on which to build a celtic style semi-sub-terranean "eco-house" (like that Hobbit house that was on here a few weeks ago) and grow their own food. Granted they would not be generating any tax income necessary for high level amenities (health and law+order) but they would be less of a drain on the taxpayer. There are 3 million unemployed and many millions working part-time and in non-jobs. These people should head back to the fields and work for living. They would be happier; the country would be richer.

Just have to get it past the planners first. Ha. I am sure they would rather people live as spoon-fed slaves.

Well they wouldn't need any healthcare because they would be eating organic home grown food so would never get ill

And they wouldn't need any education either

plus they would have nothing anyone would want to steal and humans are naturally kind, benevolent and co-operative creatures anyway

[billfunk]

Game_Over, on 18 March 2012 - 05:38 PM, said:

Well they wouldn't need any healthcare because they would be eating organic home grown food so would never get ill

And they wouldn't need any education either

plus they would have nothing anyone would want to steal and humans are naturally kind, benevolent and co-operative creatures anyway

They would likely need healthcare and it would be beneficial to educate their children. They would have less for other people to steal but in any case there are already laws in place on theft. The other solution seems to be to keep them in hutches working pointless jobs and taxing them then handing them back the same money. Absurd.

[richc]

Quote

Every weekday, Richard Rowley leaves the family's three-bedroom house at 7am and drives their £650 Honda, which is 12 years old, to work. Richard would like a permanent job but five applicants for every vacancy in Braintree means that he has had to become technically self-employed, working through an agency as a construction labourer. He returns from work just before 5pm.

Leaves the house at 7, back before 5 pm. Seriously, we're supposed to feel sorry for this guy? Sure, they're not rich, but BFD, he's clearly not working that hard and their parents seem to have plenty of spare cash to help them out. What's the problem?

Not to knock these people, but the Guardian's entire approach to this is pure nonsense. They're working class people, with jobs, and a house, and plenty of time to spend with their kids. If only we could all be so lucky. Government intervention to try to turn them into middle-class wannabees is only going to create distortions in the market making life difficult for everyone. On an individual level, it would be nice if they had a higher income, but creating systemic distortions through handouts only increases house prices and/or creates marginal tax rates that trap people in poverty.

[Errol]

mfs1959, on 18 March 2012 - 04:23 PM, said:

Sadly, not quite the case - both started degrees and she betrays elements of financial wisdom. Perhaps they believed houses always rise in price. For which we can blame the press and TV.

When we have a Bank of England that failed to even see the blatently obvious financial crisis coming, one can hardly blame the citizenry for a lack of understanding.

[plummet expert]

long time lurking, on 18 March 2012 - 02:49 PM, said:

With a 10x joint earnings mortgage

The elephant in the room that all politicians refuse to acknowledge

It looks like more than a 10 x income mortgage to me. But either way, the cost of living is being driven by the balmy cost of housing. The home should be half that quoted or even less possibly. Poor , loose, profligate lending policy over many years is to blame and was kind to almost no one now you look at this sort of couple. They do the right thing and live on less than people who do nothing on benefits.

[The Ayatollah Buggeri]

plummet expert, on 18 March 2012 - 06:08 PM, said:

It looks like more than a 10 x income mortgage to me. But either way, the cost of living is being driven by the balmy cost of housing.

Which of course (like the fags and booze, if they exist) The Guardian doesn't want to mention.

[interestrateripoff]

winkie, on 18 March 2012 - 04:05 PM, said:

Very few on IO have a repayment vehicle or one that would repay anything near what will be required......They have no intention of repaying, they will borrow as much as they can lay their hands on...it is only the interest costs they are concerned with, ask the government they know.

We started out with a IO mortgage, but did have a endowment policy, after two years I realised it was a complete waste of time and switched to a repayment mortgage as I didn't want a shortfall at the end.

However it appears that banks will quite happily give people a mortgage even if they have no repayment vehicle. Is the trick to take one out at the start of the mortgage and then stop paying into it after 2 or 3 months and then the banks never check? Or don't banks even care about that illusion?

[Secure Tenant]

billfunk, on 18 March 2012 - 05:28 PM, said:

And...they are actually showing a surplus of around £300 a month so they should have no worries. Ha. I have lived on a budget like theirs and the £300 a month surplus is always pssed against the wall pretty easily. The Grauniad probably omitted these costs as it seeks to paint them as responsible people.

10 fags a day = £100
12 beers a week = £50

Multipy by two and you would have reached your budget. As a singleton I used to do frivalous things like go for meals with friends, dates and have barbecues.

Personally my own view on the subject of the working poor (including me) is to allow them to be peasants again. The drive to promote sustainable living combined with the high and rising price of fuel makes it increasingly unviable for most people to work these marginal jobs. The government should allow people 2 acres on which to build a celtic style semi-sub-terranean "eco-house" (like that Hobbit house that was on here a few weeks ago) and grow their own food. Granted they would not be generating any tax income necessary for high level amenities (health and law+order) but they would be less of a drain on the taxpayer. There are 3 million unemployed and many millions working part-time and in non-jobs. These people should head back to the fields and work for living. They would be happier; the country would be richer.

Just have to get it past the planners first. Ha. I am sure they would rather people live as spoon-fed slaves.

Good post IMO

[plummet expert]

cashinmattress, on 18 March 2012 - 04:53 PM, said:

He: Unfinished degree in leisure management???

She: A foundation degree in animal management???

Sadly, your post is not quite the case.

As I said, a NON-apprenticed builder/carpenter (soon to be highlighted on cowboy builders no doubt).

And she has an NVQ in petting cats and dogs.

Numpties, exactly what they are. And now in serious tick to the banks.

Meh.

They have been swindled if anyone wants to call a leisure management course a degree - oit's just this kind of thinking that has led so many to low paid jobs with Uni debts when they should never have gone and never been told it was even necessary. Course like that shouild be day release when on the job and some sort of NVQ. Same for her foundation course. A course such as that cannot possibly be called a degree. We are leading people up the garden god damned path. So pathetic I feel sorry for them.

[erranta]

cashinmattress, on 18 March 2012 - 02:47 PM, said:

A wannabe, non-apprenticeshipped carpenter and a vet receptionist?

I suppose its fair to say that the banks have preyed upon their tiny intellects, and that their politicians have failed them in regulating said banks.

Fvcking morons though. Chav numpties.

This IS Britain folks.

If they are such numpties - how come their taxes keep The City/The bankers in the luxury 'bonus' style they are accustomed to?

There will be a general strike soon once these sleeping fekkers wake up

[Traktion]

billfunk, on 18 March 2012 - 05:28 PM, said:

And...they are actually showing a surplus of around £300 a month so they should have no worries. Ha. I have lived on a budget like theirs and the £300 a month surplus is always pssed against the wall pretty easily. The Grauniad probably omitted these costs as it seeks to paint them as responsible people.

10 fags a day = £100
12 beers a week = £50

Multipy by two and you would have reached your budget. As a singleton I used to do frivalous things like go for meals with friends, dates and have barbecues.

Personally my own view on the subject of the working poor (including me) is to allow them to be peasants again. The drive to promote sustainable living combined with the high and rising price of fuel makes it increasingly unviable for most people to work these marginal jobs. The government should allow people 2 acres on which to build a celtic style semi-sub-terranean "eco-house" (like that Hobbit house that was on here a few weeks ago) and grow their own food. Granted they would not be generating any tax income necessary for high level amenities (health and law+order) but they would be less of a drain on the taxpayer. There are 3 million unemployed and many millions working part-time and in non-jobs. These people should head back to the fields and work for living. They would be happier; the country would be richer.

Just have to get it past the planners first. Ha. I am sure they would rather people live as spoon-fed slaves.

Do you really think the state wants to give people the freedom to do that? They want obedient tax slaves to work hard and boost growth. If that means paying for a few to do nothing, in order to keep the rest working hard, then so be it, in their eyes.

If this wasn't the case, they wouldn't have forced people from the land and into the cities through the enclosures act in the first place. They also wouldn't have restricted planning to keep people from living off the land, even if they were able to afford it.

The state is essentially a big corporation, with people being its assets. Those with large shareholdings in the corporation (bond holders), want the maximum profit extracted from their investment (people). It is the job of the directors (the government) to make this happen, which is why they are obsessed with GDP.

The whole system is set up to make the maximum number of people, work as hard as possible, from cradle to grave. Leaving the system, to seek freedom working the land, is not an option which the state wants to leave available.

[erranta]

Traktion, on 18 March 2012 - 07:29 PM, said:

Do you really think the state wants to give people the freedom to do that? They want obedient tax slaves to work hard and boost growth. If that means paying for a few to do nothing, in order to keep the rest working hard, then so be it, in their eyes.

If this wasn't the case, they wouldn't have forced people from the land and into the cities through the enclosures act in the first place. They also wouldn't have restricted planning to keep people from living off the land, even if they were able to afford it.

The state is essentially a big corporation, with people being its assets. Those with large shareholdings in the corporation (bond holders), want the maximum profit extracted from their investment (people). It is the job of the directors (the government) to make this happen, which is why they are obsessed with GDP.

The whole system is set up to make the maximum number of people, work as hard as possible, from cradle to grave. Leaving the system, to seek freedom working the land, is not an option which the state wants to leave available.

Thats the reason the uber-wealthy suddenly began installing City-Town sewage and clean water systems after industrial Rev kicked in

Cos their most experienced workers were all dying off around 30-35 of illness in their slums.

By upgrading the systems they kept their noses to the grindstone 10-15 yrs longer for maximum profits

[billfunk]

Traktion, on 18 March 2012 - 07:29 PM, said:

Do you really think the state wants to give people the freedom to do that? They want obedient tax slaves to work hard and boost growth. If that means paying for a few to do nothing, in order to keep the rest working hard, then so be it, in their eyes.

If this wasn't the case, they wouldn't have forced people from the land and into the cities through the enclosures act in the first place. They also wouldn't have restricted planning to keep people from living off the land, even if they were able to afford it.

The state is essentially a big corporation, with people being its assets. Those with large shareholdings in the corporation (bond holders), want the maximum profit extracted from their investment (people). It is the job of the directors (the government) to make this happen, which is why they are obsessed with GDP.

The whole system is set up to make the maximum number of people, work as hard as possible, from cradle to grave. Leaving the system, to seek freedom working the land, is not an option which the state wants to leave available.

Good points. I'm relying on one of two things:

1. There will be some kind of economic breakdown where the status quo will be smashed and the welfare state in its present form will be unviable. This will necessitate sustainable living.
2. That the establishment will be defeated by their own propaganda. For some reason local councils have, en masse, created planning documents with the word "sustainability" written all over them. If someone was to ask for planning permission for an off-grid fully sustainable house this would blow the lie out of the water or force change. They would have to outline what is it about the subterranean, natural, small, sustainable, off-grid house that they object to.

This post has been edited by billfunk: 18 March 2012 - 07:44 PM

[Traktion]

billfunk, on 18 March 2012 - 05:45 PM, said:

They would likely need healthcare and it would be beneficial to educate their children. They would have less for other people to steal but in any case there are already laws in place on theft. The other solution seems to be to keep them in hutches working pointless jobs and taxing them then handing them back the same money. Absurd.

State policing of London is only about 180 years old. State fire services in London are only about 70 years old. This is worth considering whenever people claim policing and fire services can only be supplied by the state, via taxation.

Arguably, the amount of policing required has increased with the amount of legislation passed. Basic common laws don't require much policing, but endless arbitrary state laws do.

Educating your own children is probably a better option in many cases (less exposure to bullies, less imposed hierarchies, more free thinking etc). The Internet provides a library at our fingertips and the Kahn Academy (link in sig) is a good example of what teaching material can be provided for free.

This post has been edited by Traktion: 18 March 2012 - 07:47 PM