So you chose a couple who met some of the circumstances that would entitle them to the most benefits, then you invented a very modestly low wage to conveniently prove that it was possible for a couple to be working, with children, on the minimum wage (albeit, they would be on an hourly wage, so they would be paid extra for the extra hours worked) would pay about the same in contributions as they receive in benefits?
Sponsored Links
No.
I chose a couple of whom I have personal experience.
You gave the minimum wage figures.
There is no guarantee of higher rate pay for overtime.
According to one of the job sites, and warehouse work in B'ham attracts an average hourly rate of £7.96, and £14 p/h for o/t. Which works out as less than £24000 p.a., with ten hours p/w of o/t paid at that rate.
If you think I have the inclination to play with figures to "get the right result", you're very wrong.
I was merely curious as to what level of benefits is plausible.
Follow the link yourself, post up your hypothetical circumstances, and see what comes out. I'm genuinely interested.
I chose a couple of whom I have personal experience.
You gave the minimum wage figures.
There is no guarantee of higher rate pay for overtime.
According to one of the job sites, and warehouse work in B'ham attracts an average hourly rate of £7.96, and £14 p/h for o/t. Which works out as less than £24000 p.a., with ten hours p/w of o/t paid at that rate.
If you think I have the inclination to play with figures to "get the right result", you're very wrong.
I was merely curious as to what level of benefits is plausible.
Follow the link yourself, post up your hypothetical circumstances, and see what comes out. I'm genuinely interested.
Last edited:
You clearly did play with figures. You openly admitted that you were not privy to their salaries. You adopted the circumstances of some people you know and you overlaid the figures that you acquired from a different source to suit your illustration.
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2016
- Messages
- 13,424
- Reaction score
- 540
- Country
I don't understand what Brig did wrong - I thought as long as you meet some thresholds if both work then you can claim for childcare costs? I don't know the ins and outs of the benefit system.
Sponsored Links
Cognitive bias, Himmy?
The day I take honesty lessons from the likes of you Himmy / Rogue / Herring 1-2-3-4-....... will be a cold day in Hell
Resort to abuse, false allegations, Brigadier?Cognitive bias, Himmy?
The day I take honesty lessons from the likes of you Himmy / Rogue / Herring 1-2-3-4-....... will be a cold day in Hell
He didn't do anything wrong, in the real sense of the word.
But if you selectively choose a set of circumstances to suit your hypothetical example, which you then introduce further invented circumstances, you clearly are manipulating the figures.
He used a real example of a family, then introduced figures for their earnings, which he openly admitted he was not privy to, and he acquired those figures from a different source.
It wasn't wrong, it was manipulating the figures to suit your narrative.
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2016
- Messages
- 13,424
- Reaction score
- 540
- Country
I am not sure what everyone is talking about. You cannot link your taxes directly to services provided by the state that you consume as over time what you consume will change. If you want to make that link then you should encourage single foreign workers to come to the UK as we have not paid for their education but they will through their taxes pay for the education of the local born populace.
Now the argument then is - how much money do they send back home and is the leakage more than what they contribute in taxes and spend in the UK.
Now the argument then is - how much money do they send back home and is the leakage more than what they contribute in taxes and spend in the UK.
As we've already agreed, some net "gain", some don't.
Although why a full-time job needs topping up.....sad state of affairs.
Liar.
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2016
- Messages
- 13,424
- Reaction score
- 540
- Country
Long and short is that though we are a developed nation and capitalist economy we have a quirk in that we don't have high labour productivity and are more labour intensive and part of that is due to the flexible labour market which makes the decision of capital vs labour decision on investment skewed slightly towards labour. Also as we are more a serviced sector based economy which tends to have lower capital utilisation we are in a situation of low unemployment, lower productivity and benefit top ups.
It's to subsidise the employers.
I've made my point. I'm not going to enter into multiple rounds of suffering from your abuse.
I had sufficient of that yesterday, which you also joined in.
Sponsored Links
