The community of pensioners living off-grid on Britain's canals 'forgotten' by authorities

[nicknorman]

1 hour ago, sueb said:

I wasn't self employed. I worked for the Health service; local government and city publishing houses amongst others. I assume it was the joy of being a woman. I was expected to marry and have a husband to look after me.

 

What, you mean you didn't?!!!

[Arthur Marshall]

50 minutes ago, Barneyp said:

It is and was possible to have your own pension scheme if you're employed, or to increase your contributions to an employers scheme ( depending on the rules of the scheme).

 

Most low end employees (ie the majority) are now in zero hours, minimum wage and insecure contracts that usually mean they are relying on benefits to survive. They may find it hard to fund a pension, though this may surprise you.

And low end employees include teachers. My friend is one, thirty years experience, now has to work via an agency, never knows his hours from one week to the next or where he'll be working. No chance of a permanent full time job.

Those of my age were lucky, jobs were easy to get, paid properly and relatively secure. I always thought the rot really set in when the benefit and tax systems were conflated, though of course it started with the abolition of wages councils. Tax credits subsidised low wages (and companies got used to shovelling dividends out instead of investing in training and wages), housing benefit subsidised landlords and wrecked the housing market in the process. It's hard to get the genie back into the bottle, both businesses and landlords are too used to the easy money.

When two adults are in a family, both working full time, and they are still entitled to claim benefits in order to survive, there's something wrong.

[nicknorman]

8 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Most low end employees (ie the majority) are now in zero hours, minimum wage and insecure contracts that usually mean they are relying on benefits to survive. They may find it hard to fund a pension, though this may surprise you.

And low end employees include teachers. My friend is one, thirty years experience, now has to work via an agency, never knows his hours from one week to the next or where he'll be working. No chance of a permanent full time job.

Those of my age were lucky, jobs were easy to get, paid properly and relatively secure. I always thought the rot really set in when the benefit and tax systems were conflated, though of course it started with the abolition of wages councils. Tax credits subsidised low wages (and companies got used to shovelling dividends out instead of investing in training and wages), housing benefit subsidised landlords and wrecked the housing market in the process. It's hard to get the genie back into the bottle, both businesses and landlords are too used to the easy money.

When two adults are in a family, both working full time, and they are still entitled to claim benefits in order to survive, there's something wrong.

it’s a pity you spoilt your post by dragging in those evil landlords. I know you want them all dead, but you should perhaps bear in mind that not all landlords are closely related to the devil. There are plenty of landlords out there whose tenants are not on benefits. They (the tenants) might even be quite well off but simply don’t want the hassle of buying a property for a relatively short stay in a particular location. So actually the landlords are providing a useful service that the state doesn’t provide. Interestingly in Scotland with its current authoritarian socialist government, there have been so many “anti landlord” bits of legislation that a significant number of landlords are selling up. Needless to say the ensuing shortage of rental properties isn’t being addressed by the government, presumably those people who used to be tenants of the exiting landlords can buy a tent from Go Outdoors. And of course due to supply and demand, rents for those remaining properties are increasing. Nice one Nicola!

[Laurie Booth]

On 29/12/2022 at 03:57, roland elsdon said:

Pardon?
Medicare . Open to all. Public hospital system, funded from taxation.

if you choose not to have private health insurance, you pay a levy on your taxes.

if you don’t earn enough you don’t pay the levy.

Working in public health my accountant did the maths and told us not to buy private healthcare.

Course with out insurance you can pay as you go.

Ive had various surgeries in Oz. I had to pay a gap fee difference between what surgeon charged and Medicare paid, but but but. It’s tax deductible.

 

None of my staff in Australia worked in the hospital paying of debts.

My wife did

 

[LadyG]

10 hours ago, Barneyp said:

It is and was possible to have your own pension scheme if you're employed, or to increase your contributions to an employers scheme ( depending on the rules of the scheme).

 

Local government and NHS employees would have paid in to a pension scheme, so there should be pensions payable, but at times in the past people were offered a cash out. It's very difficult to plan ahead when life for many is uncertain. 

I know I paid in to private pensions until the tax benefits stopped and the greedy pension companies competed for cash, the big private pension fiasco, where well known companies proved bad investments, and would not provide forecasts, so forward planning was never easy.

As a rule of thumb a decent pension  starts early with maybe ten percent of income to generate a pot, but that's a lot of money to forgo, and becomes impossible if anyone needs to save for a deposit on a house these days. A roof over one's head today is a priority, a private pension payment is for those who have established financial stability.

Edited December 30, 2022 by LadyG

[Alan de Enfield]

1 hour ago, LadyG said:

... when life for many is uncertain. 

 

I think there is no doubt that 'at the end of the day' the future for everyone is the same.

[MtB]

10 hours ago, nicknorman said:

it’s a pity you spoilt your post by dragging in those evil landlords. I know you want them all dead, but you should perhaps bear in mind that not all landlords are closely related to the devil. There are plenty of landlords out there whose tenants are not on benefits. They (the tenants) might even be quite well off but simply don’t want the hassle of buying a property for a relatively short stay in a particular location. So actually the landlords are providing a useful service that the state doesn’t provide. Interestingly in Scotland with its current authoritarian socialist government, there have been so many “anti landlord” bits of legislation that a significant number of landlords are selling up. Needless to say the ensuing shortage of rental properties isn’t being addressed by the government, presumably those people who used to be tenants of the exiting landlords can buy a tent from Go Outdoors. And of course due to supply and demand, rents for those remaining properties are increasing. Nice one Nicola!

 

 

Same is happened down here in Englandshire. Here, we are even partly taxed on income, not profit, as in the mortgage interest we pay is no longer all allowed to be set off against rents received. No longer is the buy-to-let sector expanding, I'd say it is shrinking due to this and the avalanche of trivial regulation being heaped on us. Landlords are selling up in droves and getting out. Just what the government wants to happen I imagine, to court the votes of landlord-haters such as Arthur. The side effect is rents for the diminishing number of properties available to rent are rocketting, which suits me just fine. 

Edited December 30, 2022 by MtB

[Arthur Marshall]

2 minutes ago, MtB said:

The side effect is rents for the diminishing number of properties available to rent are rocketting, which suits me just fine. 

I lived happily in rental properties (private and council) for many years, so I don't qualify as a landlord hater. I moved about a lot, so renting rather than buying was the obvious way to live. I admit I put the comment about rapacious landlords in as a joke, but I forgot that people who see themselves as such have no sense of humour and are a bit sensitive about it.

However, your last sentence as quoted above rather proves that my point wasn't a joke, after all. And explains perfectly why some landlords are regarded as rip-off artists par excellence and little better than thieves. Others, of course, are not.

P S my daughter's current landlord is a joy, looks after the properties and their inhabitants very well. And acts within both the spirit and letter of the law while making a reasonable profit, as indeed, from what he writes, does nicknorman.

As this is now way off topic and is veering towards the style and atmosphere of the politics ghetto, I shall collect my hat at the door and retire from the thread. I really don't want to encourage people to brag about their ability to screw others.

[MtB]

2 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

As this is now way off topic and is veering towards the style and atmosphere of the politics ghetto, I shall collect my hat at the door and retire from the thread.

 

 

And the rest of us on this thread breathe a collective sigh of relief! 

 

 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

 

And the rest of us on this thread breathe a collective sigh of relief! 

 

 

 

Do we?

 

I wasnt aware you had been appointed as our spokesperson.

[Laurie Booth]

12 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Most low end employees (ie the majority) are now in zero hours, minimum wage and insecure contracts that usually mean they are relying on benefits to survive. They may find it hard to fund a pension, though this may surprise you.

And low end employees include teachers. My friend is one, thirty years experience, now has to work via an agency, never knows his hours from one week to the next or where he'll be working. No chance of a permanent full time job.

Those of my age were lucky, jobs were easy to get, paid properly and relatively secure. I always thought the rot really set in when the benefit and tax systems were conflated, though of course it started with the abolition of wages councils. Tax credits subsidised low wages (and companies got used to shovelling dividends out instead of investing in training and wages), housing benefit subsidised landlords and wrecked the housing market in the process. It's hard to get the genie back into the bottle, both businesses and landlords are too used to the easy money.

When two adults are in a family, both working full time, and they are still entitled to claim benefits in order to survive, there's something wrong.

Housing benefit subsidised landlords, now discontinued years ago. Universal credits are now subsidising food outlets (Greedy supermarkets).

[Mike Todd]

6 hours ago, Laurie Booth said:

Housing benefit subsidised landlords, now discontinued years ago. Universal credits are now subsidising food outlets (Greedy supermarkets).

State subsidies, aka benefits, fulfil several purposes, notably to assist those whose income is below an acceptable level. The first assumption (probably widely accepted) is that there are properly differing levels of remuneration but that limits should be set on this (including perhaps an upper as well as a lower level).

 

The next assumption is that there are varying reasons why individuals (or families) whose income is below a minimum level. Let us look at three principal ones: inability, unequal power, unwillingness.

 

Let us also deal with the last one first. It is often asserted that some individuals take advantage of 'the system' to claim benefits to avoid having to work. Successive schemes have sought to reduce, if not eliminate, this group by either making it too difficult to claim (eg frequent job interviews) or unattractive (ie set the level below the minimum earning capacity, sort of related to Minimum Wage). As far as I am aware, this group is now quite small and really not worth the effort of reducing further or even bothering about. However, it would be necessary for commentators not to demonise the group, as has oft been done in the past usually to a degree not justified by the cost.

 

Returning to the first group - those inherently unable to provide for themselves and their dependents. In particular I am thinking of those with disabilities, sickness or other reasons why a civilised society would expect to support. It may also be possible to included those beyond working age in this group but that brings up the thorny question of responsibility for pensions. Despite attempts from Barbara Castle onwards to transfer as much of the responsibility from the state to individuals (through in-work pension schemes) there remains a significant group who do not have an adequate pension and can no longer do anything about it themselves. Hence the introduction of Pension Credit.

 

The final group focuses on the imbalance in power between workers and 'employers' (note that I put the quotes to indicate a broad definition here) This imbalance means that the market forces of supply and demand do not lead to everyone having the opportunity to earn a sufficient income to reach a minimum acceptable standard of living. In the public sector the public appetite for tax largely determines whether pay meets a level able to attract enough workers. Historically such workers have had little leverage. In other sectors the over-arching pressure to maximise the returns from a business (either privately owned or with shareholders) obstructs a free market in labour. (This difference can be seen Cleary in the changes in pay over the last 12 months as we emerge from Brexit and Covid)

 

In general, it seems that most attempts to ensure a universal minimum standard of living through 'direct' payments to workers have not been successful and, as said, end up subsidising the owners of capital, leaving the worker's standard of living no better. 

 

Two schemes stand out as different: statutory minimum wage and universal income - this latter only tried in a few places. However, it does seem that public money reaches where it is supposed to be better in either of these than the others.

 

Whatever, the real underlying difficulty seems to be that many electors do not really endorse the principles behind any state intervention in standards of living with the implicit assumption that poverty is the fault of the poor and no-one else. Until we can tackle that canard, all other schemes are unlikely to have much success.