Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryM1BYT
At least those being paid a pension have earned it and paid into the system - Too be honest, I don't really know what arrangements are made for those who have never paid into it.
|
Not everyone who is getting a state pension has earned it, in as much as many haven't made the full contributions and some none at all. The number who have made no, or very little, contributions is also going to increase a lot as those that have been constantly or mostly unemployed are switched into the pension system. It's also the case that some people, because of higher earnings, will be in the State Earnings Related Pension Scheme. At the moment they get a higher pension than the basic state pension. People who haven't made enough contributions get pension credits to lift them up. This isn't just to the basic level, as that is judged not to be enough to live on. The actual figure ends up about £145 a week. Some people on SERPS are getting more than this but they have contributed more. The present government are changing all this though in 2016 (if they stay on their schedule) to do away with the pension credits and make the basic rate £143 (in today's money). This sounds like a good idea, streamlining the system and making it more simple, but there is a fly in the ointment. The extra SERPS part is being done away with, so those who have contributed more won't actually benefit from doing so. There is an exception to that where people who diverted their SERPS contributions to a private pension scheme will still have that extra money to buy a pension.
What starts out as seemingly a sensible way of streamlining the pension system at no increased cost ends up being a money saver at the expense of those who paid more in. This will not be a vote winner amongst some which, to my cynical mind, is why they aren't bringing it in till after the next election. Then they do it as quickly as they can, the start of the following tax year, and hope that people have forgotten or got used to it before the next election in 2020.
Quote:
|
During the depression, the US implemented big schemes like the Hoover Dam to give people something to do. We maybe have no need for similar, but there are plenty of minor jobs locally which could occupy some of those claiming for at least a few hours a week, without putting anyone out of a full time job. Sitting about doing nothing isn't good for anyone.
|
I would suggest a comprehensive house building program. The cost of owning or renting property is very high. It consumes far to high a percentage of income (earned or given as benefits). It drives down living standards and/or drives up wages. It takes money out of other sectors of commerce and industry.
The government have used quantitive easing to give money to the finance industry to get them into a healthier financial state and I see no reason why they can't do that in the housing sector. We need significantly more housing stock in the country (whether we have immigrants coming in or not, so don't anybody go there clouding the issue). Money to the construction industry would help finance a building program. At significant levels of building, such as we really need, this would cause a drop in property values. This, of course, would be disastrous, effectively trapping many, many, people in negative equity and having a detrimental affect on the economy. This is, effectively, the bad debt that was such a contribution to the poor state of the economy now. If this bad debt was bought up as necessary by the government with further easing I believe the problem would be nullified. The alternative would be to remain as we are now where the state pays an awful lot of tax-payers money to the private sector to rent largely uncontrolled housing stock.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryM1BYT
The problem with that at the moment, is the minimum wage. I served a proper apprenticeship in the early 1960's. I was paid little more than pocket money when I started and whilst I learned to be useful - I could have got other jobs earning much more, but I chose an apprenticeship. Modern kids would not do it, few understand investing in their future.
|
The minimum wage, as I've said before, isn't the same for everyone. Apprenticeships/training schemes don't have to be full-time. Unemployment benefits would be part of the figure paid, so any increased costs wouldn't be a totally new figure. That's all a bit overly simplified but I do believe if there was a will there could be a way found. If nothing else it would address the issue of unemployed people not doing anything at all.