Areas of North-East worse off than parts of Romania, Bulgaria and Poland,

Bulgaria: parts better off than North-East

Bulgaria: parts better off than North-East

First published in News The Northern Echo: Photograph of the Author by , Parliamentary Correspondent

PARTS of the North-East are poorer than many areas in former communist countries in Eastern Europe, new figures show.

People living in County Durham and Tees Valley have a lower income than places in Romania, Bulgaria and Poland, according to the Brussels statistics.

Large chunks of Greece also boast higher living standards than the North-East’s poorest sub-region – despite that country’s recent economic catastrophe.

And the figures also lay bare the extraordinary wealth of central London, where incomes are 4.5 times those in Tees Valley and County Durham.

Phil Wilson, the Sedgefield Labour MP, said the analysis was a stark reminder of just how far the region had to go to catch up, saying: “These are poor figures.

“There is a lot to do to raise the standard of living in the North-East. People face a cost of living crisis, which has only got worse over the last two or three years.

“However, we should remain part of the EU, because the North-East has benefited from a lot of inward investment, including from multinational companies like Nissan and Hitachi.”

The statistics, produced by Eurostat, an arm of the European Union, compare wealth across the EU using a measure known as “purchasing power standards” (PPS).

It takes into account the effect of prices on the cost of living, rather than simply measuring gross domestic product (GDP), or output per person.

They show that, in 2011, Tees Valley and County Durham, GDP per head on the PPS measure was £14,700 – or just 71 per cent of the EU average.

That was significantly lower than Northumberland Tyne and Wear (83) and North Yorkshire (89) and the third lowest figure in the UK, after Cornwall and West Wales (both 64).

But it was also lower than the Yugozapaden sub-region of Bulgaria (78) and two areas in Poland – Mazowieckie (107) and Dolnośląskie (74).

Four sub-regions of Greece enjoy a higher income and Bucureşti-Ilfov (122) – which takes in the capital of Romania – is far, far wealthier.

Meanwhile, two other sub-regions of the UK - North Eastern Scotland (159) and Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire (143) – are among the EU’s richest.

Separate figures, yesterday, also threw fresh doubt, on the Government’s claims that the region has enjoyed a jobs recovery, despite the flatlining economy, until recently.

Since the start of the recession five years ago, the number of self-employed people has leapt by 23,000 in the North-East and by 37,000 in Yorkshire.

Meanwhile, the number of traditional employee jobs has dropped by far more – by 91,000 in the North-East and by 64,000 in Yorkshire.

Worryingly, the average weekly income of someone in self-employment is 20 per cent lower than in 2008, earning them 40 per cent less than a typical employee.

Gavin Kelly, chief executive of the Resolution Foundation, which carried out the study, said: “Self-employment is often a highly precarious existence.”

Comments (32)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:56am Wed 7 May 14

stevegg says...

So why are they all flooding in here and making this their destination of choice then?? Ahh, its the something for nothing society with lavish benefits, free housing & free healthcare paid for by us hardworking taxpayers who are now in a minority group! This system doesnt exist in most other countries and, unlike this country, in those that it does access is strictly controlled.
So why are they all flooding in here and making this their destination of choice then?? Ahh, its the something for nothing society with lavish benefits, free housing & free healthcare paid for by us hardworking taxpayers who are now in a minority group! This system doesnt exist in most other countries and, unlike this country, in those that it does access is strictly controlled. stevegg
  • Score: 9

8:38am Wed 7 May 14

laboursfoe says...

Very interesting selection of areas here Robert. Only half the story with the usual bias!!

This is straight from Wikipedia, the last paragraph says it all!!!:
"Yugozapaden Planning Region (South-West Planning Region) is a planning region in Bulgaria. The capital, also the national capital, is Sofia. It includes: Blagoevgrad Province, Sofia city, Sofia Province, Pernik Province and Kyustendil Province.

The region is Bulgaria's richest. The capital's economic sector are diversified, including services and industries. The region produces approximately half of the national GDP."
Very interesting selection of areas here Robert. Only half the story with the usual bias!! This is straight from Wikipedia, the last paragraph says it all!!!: "Yugozapaden Planning Region (South-West Planning Region) is a planning region in Bulgaria. The capital, also the national capital, is Sofia. It includes: Blagoevgrad Province, Sofia city, Sofia Province, Pernik Province and Kyustendil Province. The region is Bulgaria's richest. The capital's economic sector are diversified, including services and industries. The region produces approximately half of the national GDP." laboursfoe
  • Score: 4

9:56am Wed 7 May 14

David Lacey says...

Two things that Rob Merrick's column always includes. Labour bias and a pack of lies.
Two things that Rob Merrick's column always includes. Labour bias and a pack of lies. David Lacey
  • Score: 8

10:07am Wed 7 May 14

John Durham says...

What this data shows is what we already know about the UK. That austerity has not been felt by everyone in the country equally - its effects have been felt worse in areas like the North East and so far the recent growth in the economy has not stretched beyond the South East.
Tory philosophy of free markets always maintains that the growth in the South East will filter outward to the rest of the country naturally. However, that did not happen in the past and is not happening today.
Without greater support the North East will, like other poorer regions, continue to lag even further behind. But the support needed has been taken away by this government chunk by chunk.
But that's no worry for Cameron - as long as his friends in the leafy shires around London are happy he still has a remote chance of holding on to power. No need to look out further than that is there?
What this data shows is what we already know about the UK. That austerity has not been felt by everyone in the country equally - its effects have been felt worse in areas like the North East and so far the recent growth in the economy has not stretched beyond the South East. Tory philosophy of free markets always maintains that the growth in the South East will filter outward to the rest of the country naturally. However, that did not happen in the past and is not happening today. Without greater support the North East will, like other poorer regions, continue to lag even further behind. But the support needed has been taken away by this government chunk by chunk. But that's no worry for Cameron - as long as his friends in the leafy shires around London are happy he still has a remote chance of holding on to power. No need to look out further than that is there? John Durham
  • Score: 0

10:37am Wed 7 May 14

behonest says...

Perhaps another Labour con trick to convince us not to object to immigrants flooding in from Eastern Europe?

One thing is certain though. "Phil Wilson, the Sedgefield Labour MP, said "People face a cost of living crisis, which has only got worse over the last two or three years." That's right Phil. Because Labour councils like Darlington have been increasing council tax by the maximum permitted (whilst cutting services), and these tax hikes clearly make our cost of living worse. And Labour Leaders like Bill Dixon complain about the 2% cap - an obvious sign that he would increase council tax by even more, and make our cost of living crisis worse still, if he could!
Perhaps another Labour con trick to convince us not to object to immigrants flooding in from Eastern Europe? One thing is certain though. "Phil Wilson, the Sedgefield Labour MP, said "People face a cost of living crisis, which has only got worse over the last two or three years." That's right Phil. Because Labour councils like Darlington have been increasing council tax by the maximum permitted (whilst cutting services), and these tax hikes clearly make our cost of living worse. And Labour Leaders like Bill Dixon complain about the 2% cap - an obvious sign that he would increase council tax by even more, and make our cost of living crisis worse still, if he could! behonest
  • Score: 17

11:06am Wed 7 May 14

studio says...

Nissan and Htacvhi, once again appear to be the only employer in the north east.

We cant keep singing their praises.
Nissan and Htacvhi, once again appear to be the only employer in the north east. We cant keep singing their praises. studio
  • Score: -1

11:44am Wed 7 May 14

John Durham says...

behonest wrote:
Perhaps another Labour con trick to convince us not to object to immigrants flooding in from Eastern Europe?

One thing is certain though. "Phil Wilson, the Sedgefield Labour MP, said "People face a cost of living crisis, which has only got worse over the last two or three years." That's right Phil. Because Labour councils like Darlington have been increasing council tax by the maximum permitted (whilst cutting services), and these tax hikes clearly make our cost of living worse. And Labour Leaders like Bill Dixon complain about the 2% cap - an obvious sign that he would increase council tax by even more, and make our cost of living crisis worse still, if he could!
Disingenuous Behonest when councils are being squeezed in the North by the government which favours those in the South East at the expense of Northern councils - which is why Tory North Yorkshire has also been forced to raise council tax by the maximum allowed.
So who do people in N Yorks blame - a Tory council or the government?
[quote][p][bold]behonest[/bold] wrote: Perhaps another Labour con trick to convince us not to object to immigrants flooding in from Eastern Europe? One thing is certain though. "Phil Wilson, the Sedgefield Labour MP, said "People face a cost of living crisis, which has only got worse over the last two or three years." That's right Phil. Because Labour councils like Darlington have been increasing council tax by the maximum permitted (whilst cutting services), and these tax hikes clearly make our cost of living worse. And Labour Leaders like Bill Dixon complain about the 2% cap - an obvious sign that he would increase council tax by even more, and make our cost of living crisis worse still, if he could![/p][/quote]Disingenuous Behonest when councils are being squeezed in the North by the government which favours those in the South East at the expense of Northern councils - which is why Tory North Yorkshire has also been forced to raise council tax by the maximum allowed. So who do people in N Yorks blame - a Tory council or the government? John Durham
  • Score: -8

12:00pm Wed 7 May 14

oliviaden6 says...

what i cannot understand is the fact that where we allow a open door policy for the EU why do the rest of the EU just kick out the immigrants One never hears about this from Germany, France etc they shove them all over the channel and allow them to camp out at the ports and lorry parks. It has to stop this country is on its knees because of mass immigration. The NHS despite cost cutting is broken the Benefits system is broken beyond repair, what did we all work for what did our ancestors fight and die for. Government in this country needs to start listening and acting on peoples concerns instead of cowtowing to every tom dick and harry that has a personnel axe to grind, The worst things that have happened to England over the last 20 years have been Labours open door policies on immigration and the Coalition of present Government are governing with one hand behind its back and yes i mean the looney Liberals Clegg, Vince Cable and the such like are damaging this country still further. I am not politically bias one way or the other but successive governments have seen fit to wreck this country we need strong government to listen to the people and act on their wishes.
what i cannot understand is the fact that where we allow a open door policy for the EU why do the rest of the EU just kick out the immigrants One never hears about this from Germany, France etc they shove them all over the channel and allow them to camp out at the ports and lorry parks. It has to stop this country is on its knees because of mass immigration. The NHS despite cost cutting is broken the Benefits system is broken beyond repair, what did we all work for what did our ancestors fight and die for. Government in this country needs to start listening and acting on peoples concerns instead of cowtowing to every tom dick and harry that has a personnel axe to grind, The worst things that have happened to England over the last 20 years have been Labours open door policies on immigration and the Coalition of present Government are governing with one hand behind its back and yes i mean the looney Liberals Clegg, Vince Cable and the such like are damaging this country still further. I am not politically bias one way or the other but successive governments have seen fit to wreck this country we need strong government to listen to the people and act on their wishes. oliviaden6
  • Score: 3

12:06pm Wed 7 May 14

behonest says...

You miss my point, John. It's the hypocrisy of Labour to whine about a 'cost of living crisis' and then raise everyone's tax by the most they can, making our cost of living crisis even worse. And Labour's Bill Dixon wanted to make it even worse still. Labourites in glass houses...
You miss my point, John. It's the hypocrisy of Labour to whine about a 'cost of living crisis' and then raise everyone's tax by the most they can, making our cost of living crisis even worse. And Labour's Bill Dixon wanted to make it even worse still. Labourites in glass houses... behonest
  • Score: 6

12:54pm Wed 7 May 14

John Durham says...

behonest wrote:
You miss my point, John. It's the hypocrisy of Labour to whine about a 'cost of living crisis' and then raise everyone's tax by the most they can, making our cost of living crisis even worse. And Labour's Bill Dixon wanted to make it even worse still. Labourites in glass houses...
On that I agree to some extent - and certainly councils everywhere could do something about councillor expenses and the salaries of those at the top which are far too high. Darlington's Chief Exec being a case in point.
Councils generally have management boards with staff who get over-paid whilst the great majority of council workers are low paid. It does them no favours when trying to argue in favour of increasing council taxes.
But the government did also change the way councils are financed in a way which tended to favour those in the Tory shires against those in areas like the North. And so many services are imposed by central government on local councils so there is often little room to manoevre when it comes to making savings.
[quote][p][bold]behonest[/bold] wrote: You miss my point, John. It's the hypocrisy of Labour to whine about a 'cost of living crisis' and then raise everyone's tax by the most they can, making our cost of living crisis even worse. And Labour's Bill Dixon wanted to make it even worse still. Labourites in glass houses...[/p][/quote]On that I agree to some extent - and certainly councils everywhere could do something about councillor expenses and the salaries of those at the top which are far too high. Darlington's Chief Exec being a case in point. Councils generally have management boards with staff who get over-paid whilst the great majority of council workers are low paid. It does them no favours when trying to argue in favour of increasing council taxes. But the government did also change the way councils are financed in a way which tended to favour those in the Tory shires against those in areas like the North. And so many services are imposed by central government on local councils so there is often little room to manoevre when it comes to making savings. John Durham
  • Score: 5

2:17pm Wed 7 May 14

gramps427 says...

What the figures in the article shows is simply the result of many years of mismanagement, both National & Local, that has seen the decline of manufacturing in this country and the failure of previous Conservative & Labour Governments to spread the love fairly to the regions. That has been made worse by the local Labour politicians favouring Newcastle over the rest of the region through the One North East unofficial regional government. The current problems faced by the Tees Valley being one such example where Newcastle Airport was given favour over Teesside Airport by 70/30; then Teesside was sold off to a Labour friend in the Peel Group who was buying up regional airports in Liverpool,Sheffield,
Doncaster & Teesside for literally pennies and used up European funding to make profit for themselves before turning airports into housing estates following Gordon Browns plans to use up so called brown field land! Now Sheffield is closed, Doncaster has houses being built close to the runway, Liverpool like Teesside has just been bought back from a Canadian venture and Tees sorry Durham Tees Valley depending which road you approach on is now being gradually shut down with plans to build houses next to the terminal! At a time when great investment is being made in airports by companies Peel are depriving the Tees Valley of its airport at a time we need more contact not less with the Global Economy. Meanwhile Newcastle taxpayers are paying millions every year to a loss making airport thanks to your local politicians. Thats why this region is in trouble & compared to the rest of the country we have very few immigrants in this region.
What the figures in the article shows is simply the result of many years of mismanagement, both National & Local, that has seen the decline of manufacturing in this country and the failure of previous Conservative & Labour Governments to spread the love fairly to the regions. That has been made worse by the local Labour politicians favouring Newcastle over the rest of the region through the One North East unofficial regional government. The current problems faced by the Tees Valley being one such example where Newcastle Airport was given favour over Teesside Airport by 70/30; then Teesside was sold off to a Labour friend in the Peel Group who was buying up regional airports in Liverpool,Sheffield, Doncaster & Teesside for literally pennies and used up European funding to make profit for themselves before turning airports into housing estates following Gordon Browns plans to use up so called brown field land! Now Sheffield is closed, Doncaster has houses being built close to the runway, Liverpool like Teesside has just been bought back from a Canadian venture and Tees sorry Durham Tees Valley depending which road you approach on is now being gradually shut down with plans to build houses next to the terminal! At a time when great investment is being made in airports by companies Peel are depriving the Tees Valley of its airport at a time we need more contact not less with the Global Economy. Meanwhile Newcastle taxpayers are paying millions every year to a loss making airport thanks to your local politicians. Thats why this region is in trouble & compared to the rest of the country we have very few immigrants in this region. gramps427
  • Score: 5

4:40pm Wed 7 May 14

spragger says...

As RedRob often points out, not only are Labour area's bad for your health, they also have the highest incidence of obesity.
Now they are bad for your wellbeing and income as well
You would have to be really foolish to want to live in a Labour area
As RedRob often points out, not only are Labour area's bad for your health, they also have the highest incidence of obesity. Now they are bad for your wellbeing and income as well You would have to be really foolish to want to live in a Labour area spragger
  • Score: 3

11:22am Sun 11 May 14

Red rose lad says...

This may not be a popular point but at least the Poles and Romanians have the drive to get off their butts and look for somewher better for their families. They don't seem to be sitting moaning in their squalor like helpless victims blaming the world for their misfortunes. Great left wing spin by Rob again.
This may not be a popular point but at least the Poles and Romanians have the drive to get off their butts and look for somewher better for their families. They don't seem to be sitting moaning in their squalor like helpless victims blaming the world for their misfortunes. Great left wing spin by Rob again. Red rose lad
  • Score: 1

1:53pm Sun 11 May 14

bambara says...

stevegg wrote:
So why are they all flooding in here and making this their destination of choice then?? Ahh, its the something for nothing society with lavish benefits, free housing & free healthcare paid for by us hardworking taxpayers who are now in a minority group! This system doesnt exist in most other countries and, unlike this country, in those that it does access is strictly controlled.
Answer -
They are not "flooding in here" or indeed making this their "destination of choice"
We do not have a society with "lavish benefits, & free housing"

Those statements are based on pure propaganda and not on fact.

As for "something for nothing" the people who are in receipt of the "something for nothing" are the rich.
As I have highlighted previously the rich own by far more of the assets of this country than the level of tax they pay.

Top 10% have assets of 850 times the value of the assets of the bottom 50%
Per person the ordinary hard working person has less than 1/8th of a percent of the wealth of the top 10%

Now there are 5 x as many in the bottom 50% compared to the top 10% (50% to 10%) so in total the top 10% owns 850/5 = 170 x as much of the country as the combined total owned by everyone in the bottom 50% added together.

I will repeat that because it is a startling fact. The bottom 50% own approximately 0.6% of the assets that the top 10% have!

Yet the top 10% pay only 5 x as much tax.
On a share of the ownership of UK PLC per £1 of assets the poor average sod is paying 34 x as much tax.

Think of it this way, you and your neighbour share a fence. The shared portion of that fence is 3% of the entire length of the fence, the remainder sits entirely within land owned by your neighbour. That fence is broken and needs to be repaired. Your neighbour who owns 97% of the fence belives as a you both own part of it you should split the bill equally.

Anyone still think the rich are overburdened with taxes?
[quote][p][bold]stevegg[/bold] wrote: So why are they all flooding in here and making this their destination of choice then?? Ahh, its the something for nothing society with lavish benefits, free housing & free healthcare paid for by us hardworking taxpayers who are now in a minority group! This system doesnt exist in most other countries and, unlike this country, in those that it does access is strictly controlled.[/p][/quote]Answer - They are not "flooding in here" or indeed making this their "destination of choice" We do not have a society with "lavish benefits, & free housing" Those statements are based on pure propaganda and not on fact. As for "something for nothing" the people who are in receipt of the "something for nothing" are the rich. As I have highlighted previously the rich own by far more of the assets of this country than the level of tax they pay. Top 10% have assets of 850 times the value of the assets of the bottom 50% Per person the ordinary hard working person has less than 1/8th of a percent of the wealth of the top 10% Now there are 5 x as many in the bottom 50% compared to the top 10% (50% to 10%) so in total the top 10% owns 850/5 = 170 x as much of the country as the combined total owned by everyone in the bottom 50% added together. I will repeat that because it is a startling fact. The bottom 50% own approximately 0.6% of the assets that the top 10% have! Yet the top 10% pay only 5 x as much tax. On a share of the ownership of UK PLC per £1 of assets the poor average sod is paying 34 x as much tax. Think of it this way, you and your neighbour share a fence. The shared portion of that fence is 3% of the entire length of the fence, the remainder sits entirely within land owned by your neighbour. That fence is broken and needs to be repaired. Your neighbour who owns 97% of the fence belives as a you both own part of it you should split the bill equally. Anyone still think the rich are overburdened with taxes? bambara
  • Score: -5

2:00pm Sun 11 May 14

bambara says...

spragger wrote:
As RedRob often points out, not only are Labour area's bad for your health, they also have the highest incidence of obesity. Now they are bad for your wellbeing and income as well You would have to be really foolish to want to live in a Labour area
Poor people live in poor areas.
Poor people can not afford gym memberships.

People who are ill and unable to work have low incomes.
People on low incomes are "poor".
Poor people live in poor areas.
There are more ill people in poor areas.
Life expectency in poor areas is therefore lower.

Tories lie, and misuse statistics.
[quote][p][bold]spragger[/bold] wrote: As RedRob often points out, not only are Labour area's bad for your health, they also have the highest incidence of obesity. Now they are bad for your wellbeing and income as well You would have to be really foolish to want to live in a Labour area[/p][/quote]Poor people live in poor areas. Poor people can not afford gym memberships. People who are ill and unable to work have low incomes. People on low incomes are "poor". Poor people live in poor areas. There are more ill people in poor areas. Life expectency in poor areas is therefore lower. Tories lie, and misuse statistics. bambara
  • Score: -4

2:27pm Sun 11 May 14

bambara says...

David Lacey wrote:
Two things that Rob Merrick's column always includes. Labour bias and a pack of lies.
Two things that comments by David Lacey always includes. Tory bias and a pack of lies... - (Rather a sweeping statement, and not one I am keen on, but at the very least no less accurate than that made by yourself David.)

So David unless you have any actual facts to counter the actual facts and figures used, all you are contributing is more Tory propaganda with no substance. Simply by repeatedly stating your opinion does not mean that it can be taken as fact. If you have an issue with what Rob Merrick is saying, perhaps you should provide facts and figures to counter his argument, or to substantiate your comments?
[quote][p][bold]David Lacey[/bold] wrote: Two things that Rob Merrick's column always includes. Labour bias and a pack of lies.[/p][/quote]Two things that comments by David Lacey always includes. Tory bias and a pack of lies... - (Rather a sweeping statement, and not one I am keen on, but at the very least no less accurate than that made by yourself David.) So David unless you have any actual facts to counter the actual facts and figures used, all you are contributing is more Tory propaganda with no substance. Simply by repeatedly stating your opinion does not mean that it can be taken as fact. If you have an issue with what Rob Merrick is saying, perhaps you should provide facts and figures to counter his argument, or to substantiate your comments? bambara
  • Score: -3

2:41pm Sun 11 May 14

bambara says...

John Durham wrote:
behonest wrote: Perhaps another Labour con trick to convince us not to object to immigrants flooding in from Eastern Europe? One thing is certain though. "Phil Wilson, the Sedgefield Labour MP, said "People face a cost of living crisis, which has only got worse over the last two or three years." That's right Phil. Because Labour councils like Darlington have been increasing council tax by the maximum permitted (whilst cutting services), and these tax hikes clearly make our cost of living worse. And Labour Leaders like Bill Dixon complain about the 2% cap - an obvious sign that he would increase council tax by even more, and make our cost of living crisis worse still, if he could!
Disingenuous Behonest when councils are being squeezed in the North by the government which favours those in the South East at the expense of Northern councils - which is why Tory North Yorkshire has also been forced to raise council tax by the maximum allowed. So who do people in N Yorks blame - a Tory council or the government?
"Increasing council tax by the most possible" = 2% which is less than inflation
"whilst cutting services" = Less than inflation rise = Less money in real terms, and therefore a cut in real terms.

Tory government has imposed cuts unequally against those areas outside the Tory heartlands and placed a maximum on the amount the councils can raise the tax levels by. So people can vote for a labour council, but the government has placed restrictions in place to prevent people from getting the type of government they have voted for.

Your boss cuts your salary by 25% and give himself a bonus (5% cut from 50% to 45% on the higher tx rate) and give the remaining money to his cousin who works in the same department and as a result you can no longer afford to go on holiday. You have to tell the kids they won't be able to go away this year.
According to your analysis that is your fault for not having the money, and not your bosses fault for narcisism and general dishonesty.
[quote][p][bold]John Durham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]behonest[/bold] wrote: Perhaps another Labour con trick to convince us not to object to immigrants flooding in from Eastern Europe? One thing is certain though. "Phil Wilson, the Sedgefield Labour MP, said "People face a cost of living crisis, which has only got worse over the last two or three years." That's right Phil. Because Labour councils like Darlington have been increasing council tax by the maximum permitted (whilst cutting services), and these tax hikes clearly make our cost of living worse. And Labour Leaders like Bill Dixon complain about the 2% cap - an obvious sign that he would increase council tax by even more, and make our cost of living crisis worse still, if he could![/p][/quote]Disingenuous Behonest when councils are being squeezed in the North by the government which favours those in the South East at the expense of Northern councils - which is why Tory North Yorkshire has also been forced to raise council tax by the maximum allowed. So who do people in N Yorks blame - a Tory council or the government?[/p][/quote]"Increasing council tax by the most possible" = 2% which is less than inflation "whilst cutting services" = Less than inflation rise = Less money in real terms, and therefore a cut in real terms. Tory government has imposed cuts unequally against those areas outside the Tory heartlands and placed a maximum on the amount the councils can raise the tax levels by. So people can vote for a labour council, but the government has placed restrictions in place to prevent people from getting the type of government they have voted for. Your boss cuts your salary by 25% and give himself a bonus (5% cut from 50% to 45% on the higher tx rate) and give the remaining money to his cousin who works in the same department and as a result you can no longer afford to go on holiday. You have to tell the kids they won't be able to go away this year. According to your analysis that is your fault for not having the money, and not your bosses fault for narcisism and general dishonesty. bambara
  • Score: -2

2:54pm Sun 11 May 14

bambara says...

gramps427 wrote:
What the figures in the article shows is simply the result of many years of mismanagement, both National & Local, that has seen the decline of manufacturing in this country and the failure of previous Conservative & Labour Governments to spread the love fairly to the regions. That has been made worse by the local Labour politicians favouring Newcastle over the rest of the region through the One North East unofficial regional government. The current problems faced by the Tees Valley being one such example where Newcastle Airport was given favour over Teesside Airport by 70/30; then Teesside was sold off to a Labour friend in the Peel Group who was buying up regional airports in Liverpool,Sheffield, Doncaster & Teesside for literally pennies and used up European funding to make profit for themselves before turning airports into housing estates following Gordon Browns plans to use up so called brown field land! Now Sheffield is closed, Doncaster has houses being built close to the runway, Liverpool like Teesside has just been bought back from a Canadian venture and Tees sorry Durham Tees Valley depending which road you approach on is now being gradually shut down with plans to build houses next to the terminal! At a time when great investment is being made in airports by companies Peel are depriving the Tees Valley of its airport at a time we need more contact not less with the Global Economy. Meanwhile Newcastle taxpayers are paying millions every year to a loss making airport thanks to your local politicians. Thats why this region is in trouble & compared to the rest of the country we have very few immigrants in this region.
"Newcastle taxpayers are paying millions every year to a loss making airport thanks to your local politicians"

" Newcastle Airport was given favour over Teesside Airport by 70/30"

"Durham Tees Valley depending which road you approach on is now being gradually shut down with plans to build houses next to the terminal"

" Labour politicians favouring Newcastle over the rest of the region"

So even with the majority of funding focused on one airport, the region is unable to sustain that airport as a profitable and viable option.
That being the case, as even the favoured airport is making a loss it would appear that the region cannot support two airports.

Fair enough, up to now I had been dubious about the seeming intention to close Durham Tees Valley, but it appears that as the region cannot support 2 airports, it is the only sensible option.
[quote][p][bold]gramps427[/bold] wrote: What the figures in the article shows is simply the result of many years of mismanagement, both National & Local, that has seen the decline of manufacturing in this country and the failure of previous Conservative & Labour Governments to spread the love fairly to the regions. That has been made worse by the local Labour politicians favouring Newcastle over the rest of the region through the One North East unofficial regional government. The current problems faced by the Tees Valley being one such example where Newcastle Airport was given favour over Teesside Airport by 70/30; then Teesside was sold off to a Labour friend in the Peel Group who was buying up regional airports in Liverpool,Sheffield, Doncaster & Teesside for literally pennies and used up European funding to make profit for themselves before turning airports into housing estates following Gordon Browns plans to use up so called brown field land! Now Sheffield is closed, Doncaster has houses being built close to the runway, Liverpool like Teesside has just been bought back from a Canadian venture and Tees sorry Durham Tees Valley depending which road you approach on is now being gradually shut down with plans to build houses next to the terminal! At a time when great investment is being made in airports by companies Peel are depriving the Tees Valley of its airport at a time we need more contact not less with the Global Economy. Meanwhile Newcastle taxpayers are paying millions every year to a loss making airport thanks to your local politicians. Thats why this region is in trouble & compared to the rest of the country we have very few immigrants in this region.[/p][/quote]"Newcastle taxpayers are paying millions every year to a loss making airport thanks to your local politicians" " Newcastle Airport was given favour over Teesside Airport by 70/30" "Durham Tees Valley depending which road you approach on is now being gradually shut down with plans to build houses next to the terminal" " Labour politicians favouring Newcastle over the rest of the region" So even with the majority of funding focused on one airport, the region is unable to sustain that airport as a profitable and viable option. That being the case, as even the favoured airport is making a loss it would appear that the region cannot support two airports. Fair enough, up to now I had been dubious about the seeming intention to close Durham Tees Valley, but it appears that as the region cannot support 2 airports, it is the only sensible option. bambara
  • Score: -2

9:44am Mon 12 May 14

MartinMo says...

Bambara obviously has a lot to say but to answer your first question:

"Anyone still think the rich are overburdened with taxes?"

I am not rich, in fact, I would class myself as working poor, I earn above the thresh-hold so do not receive any top up benefits of any form but after taxation am left with an expendable income less than the average family on full benefits. Are the rich overbunded with taxes, yes they are, they may not feel the impact of taxes as much as the likes of myself but taxes are a burden to anyone forced to pay regardless of income, especially when we see what are tax £s are used for.

This countires financial problems will not be resolved by increasing the burden on the working class or wealthy through incremental taxation. Lower immigration, lower expense caused by the failing benefit system and increase personal allowance of earnings to a level which falls in line with the cost of living...(if the cost of living for an average is £26k pa of expendable income then household income should only be taxed on money over that threshold.
Bambara obviously has a lot to say but to answer your first question: "Anyone still think the rich are overburdened with taxes?" I am not rich, in fact, I would class myself as working poor, I earn above the thresh-hold so do not receive any top up benefits of any form but after taxation am left with an expendable income less than the average family on full benefits. Are the rich overbunded with taxes, yes they are, they may not feel the impact of taxes as much as the likes of myself but taxes are a burden to anyone forced to pay regardless of income, especially when we see what are tax £s are used for. This countires financial problems will not be resolved by increasing the burden on the working class or wealthy through incremental taxation. Lower immigration, lower expense caused by the failing benefit system and increase personal allowance of earnings to a level which falls in line with the cost of living...(if the cost of living for an average is £26k pa of expendable income then household income should only be taxed on money over that threshold. MartinMo
  • Score: 5

10:39am Mon 12 May 14

laboursfoe says...

Regardless of any politics, you can't compare the most productive areas of a country with the most unproductive of another and use those findings as a benchmark for dismissing the governments findings on the NATIONAL upturn.

Rob Merrick should (and probably does) know better.
Regardless of any politics, you can't compare the most productive areas of a country with the most unproductive of another and use those findings as a benchmark for dismissing the governments findings on the NATIONAL upturn. Rob Merrick should (and probably does) know better. laboursfoe
  • Score: 2

2:19pm Mon 12 May 14

David Lacey says...

His objective is to rubbish the government and smarm up to Labour. He gets the tag Red Rob because of it. And what makes it all so sick is the fact he's a champagne socialist living in London and writing the same tripe for various regional papers.
His objective is to rubbish the government and smarm up to Labour. He gets the tag Red Rob because of it. And what makes it all so sick is the fact he's a champagne socialist living in London and writing the same tripe for various regional papers. David Lacey
  • Score: 0

9:13pm Mon 12 May 14

theWorkerScum says...

Its amazing how most comments are political, have you not realised yet politicians are all the same and use propaganda to try and get votes. Whoever made the comment "poor people can't afford the gym" needs to go out more. Most people i know who are on benefits go to the gym, cheaper off peak rates and special deals..

As for the topic, its sounds so political its scary. Did you know some cities in America are worst off than areas in India and Brazil.
Its amazing how most comments are political, have you not realised yet politicians are all the same and use propaganda to try and get votes. Whoever made the comment "poor people can't afford the gym" needs to go out more. Most people i know who are on benefits go to the gym, cheaper off peak rates and special deals.. As for the topic, its sounds so political its scary. Did you know some cities in America are worst off than areas in India and Brazil. theWorkerScum
  • Score: -1

7:52am Tue 13 May 14

Jonn says...

MartinMo wrote:
Bambara obviously has a lot to say but to answer your first question:

"Anyone still think the rich are overburdened with taxes?"

I am not rich, in fact, I would class myself as working poor, I earn above the thresh-hold so do not receive any top up benefits of any form but after taxation am left with an expendable income less than the average family on full benefits. Are the rich overbunded with taxes, yes they are, they may not feel the impact of taxes as much as the likes of myself but taxes are a burden to anyone forced to pay regardless of income, especially when we see what are tax £s are used for.

This countires financial problems will not be resolved by increasing the burden on the working class or wealthy through incremental taxation. Lower immigration, lower expense caused by the failing benefit system and increase personal allowance of earnings to a level which falls in line with the cost of living...(if the cost of living for an average is £26k pa of expendable income then household income should only be taxed on money over that threshold.
So, you do not receive any 'top up' benefits do you MartinMo? Then why in a comment on another article recently did you state you received working tax credits, which is a 'top up' benefit?
[quote][p][bold]MartinMo[/bold] wrote: Bambara obviously has a lot to say but to answer your first question: "Anyone still think the rich are overburdened with taxes?" I am not rich, in fact, I would class myself as working poor, I earn above the thresh-hold so do not receive any top up benefits of any form but after taxation am left with an expendable income less than the average family on full benefits. Are the rich overbunded with taxes, yes they are, they may not feel the impact of taxes as much as the likes of myself but taxes are a burden to anyone forced to pay regardless of income, especially when we see what are tax £s are used for. This countires financial problems will not be resolved by increasing the burden on the working class or wealthy through incremental taxation. Lower immigration, lower expense caused by the failing benefit system and increase personal allowance of earnings to a level which falls in line with the cost of living...(if the cost of living for an average is £26k pa of expendable income then household income should only be taxed on money over that threshold.[/p][/quote]So, you do not receive any 'top up' benefits do you MartinMo? Then why in a comment on another article recently did you state you received working tax credits, which is a 'top up' benefit? Jonn
  • Score: 2

8:15am Tue 13 May 14

MartinMo says...

Jonn wrote:
MartinMo wrote:
Bambara obviously has a lot to say but to answer your first question:

"Anyone still think the rich are overburdened with taxes?"

I am not rich, in fact, I would class myself as working poor, I earn above the thresh-hold so do not receive any top up benefits of any form but after taxation am left with an expendable income less than the average family on full benefits. Are the rich overbunded with taxes, yes they are, they may not feel the impact of taxes as much as the likes of myself but taxes are a burden to anyone forced to pay regardless of income, especially when we see what are tax £s are used for.

This countires financial problems will not be resolved by increasing the burden on the working class or wealthy through incremental taxation. Lower immigration, lower expense caused by the failing benefit system and increase personal allowance of earnings to a level which falls in line with the cost of living...(if the cost of living for an average is £26k pa of expendable income then household income should only be taxed on money over that threshold.
So, you do not receive any 'top up' benefits do you MartinMo? Then why in a comment on another article recently did you state you received working tax credits, which is a 'top up' benefit?
You are far from mistaken there John, how can it be classed as a top up benefit when they took it from me (plus more) in the first place.

Here is some simple maths to get your head round:

John earns £500 through hard labour, I take £100 from John calling it tax at 20%. I then return £10 to John as tax credits.

Question: Have I topped up Johns wage by £10 or left him worse off by £90?

I pay well over £300 per month in tax and NI but only get £40 back as tax credit, far from getting a top up.
[quote][p][bold]Jonn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MartinMo[/bold] wrote: Bambara obviously has a lot to say but to answer your first question: "Anyone still think the rich are overburdened with taxes?" I am not rich, in fact, I would class myself as working poor, I earn above the thresh-hold so do not receive any top up benefits of any form but after taxation am left with an expendable income less than the average family on full benefits. Are the rich overbunded with taxes, yes they are, they may not feel the impact of taxes as much as the likes of myself but taxes are a burden to anyone forced to pay regardless of income, especially when we see what are tax £s are used for. This countires financial problems will not be resolved by increasing the burden on the working class or wealthy through incremental taxation. Lower immigration, lower expense caused by the failing benefit system and increase personal allowance of earnings to a level which falls in line with the cost of living...(if the cost of living for an average is £26k pa of expendable income then household income should only be taxed on money over that threshold.[/p][/quote]So, you do not receive any 'top up' benefits do you MartinMo? Then why in a comment on another article recently did you state you received working tax credits, which is a 'top up' benefit?[/p][/quote]You are far from mistaken there John, how can it be classed as a top up benefit when they took it from me (plus more) in the first place. Here is some simple maths to get your head round: John earns £500 through hard labour, I take £100 from John calling it tax at 20%. I then return £10 to John as tax credits. Question: Have I topped up Johns wage by £10 or left him worse off by £90? I pay well over £300 per month in tax and NI but only get £40 back as tax credit, far from getting a top up. MartinMo
  • Score: 1

8:18am Tue 13 May 14

MartinMo says...

How about John, you send me £200 a month and I will in return top up your earnings by £20 a month.

At least I am not forcing you to pay so the choice is all yours, unlike taxation being forced onto those willing to earning their living.
How about John, you send me £200 a month and I will in return top up your earnings by £20 a month. At least I am not forcing you to pay so the choice is all yours, unlike taxation being forced onto those willing to earning their living. MartinMo
  • Score: 0

9:21am Tue 13 May 14

Jonn says...

It's still a benefit, whichever way you want to dress it up.
This Government clearly insinuates, through their relentless propaganda campaign that people claiming benefits are scroungers, they don't appear to be making a distinction between 'good' and 'bad' benefit claimants.
You compare yourself against 'the average family on full benefits'! Who are these families? I don't suppose they are the families living in the south where most of the benefits go directly to landlords because the property market is so rediculously inflated. There are many wealthy property owners receiving huge sums of taxpayers money in the form of housing benefit.
It's the Government you should be attacking, not your fellow benefit claimants.
It's still a benefit, whichever way you want to dress it up. This Government clearly insinuates, through their relentless propaganda campaign that people claiming benefits are scroungers, they don't appear to be making a distinction between 'good' and 'bad' benefit claimants. You compare yourself against 'the average family on full benefits'! Who are these families? I don't suppose they are the families living in the south where most of the benefits go directly to landlords because the property market is so rediculously inflated. There are many wealthy property owners receiving huge sums of taxpayers money in the form of housing benefit. It's the Government you should be attacking, not your fellow benefit claimants. Jonn
  • Score: 2

11:01am Tue 13 May 14

MartinMo says...

Jonn wrote:
It's still a benefit, whichever way you want to dress it up.
This Government clearly insinuates, through their relentless propaganda campaign that people claiming benefits are scroungers, they don't appear to be making a distinction between 'good' and 'bad' benefit claimants.
You compare yourself against 'the average family on full benefits'! Who are these families? I don't suppose they are the families living in the south where most of the benefits go directly to landlords because the property market is so rediculously inflated. There are many wealthy property owners receiving huge sums of taxpayers money in the form of housing benefit.
It's the Government you should be attacking, not your fellow benefit claimants.
There are many tax/pension/benefit calculators available through the direct gov. web sites.

I used my own family as an average (2 adults/2 kids). I completed the questionaire for claiming benefits as though I had nothing and the result was I could claim £16.355 pa in benefits as expendadle income, then there are all the other services, housing benefit, no council tax, free prescriptions, school meals ect ect.

My actual circumstances leaves me with £15,600pa expendable income from my salary after tax and NI. From that I still have to pay for housing (mortgage), prescriptions, council tax, school meals and so on.

I would glady refuse being paid any form of governmental monetary handout (non of the payments benfits me as they are a small % of what was taken from in the first place) in exchange for a drastic lowering of taxation and NI charges and massive increase of personal allowance on salary earnt.

I am attacking the government as they are the ones over many years which have let the benefits system get to the state its in at present. We need a party which will stand up and change things drastically, will actually put more money into the hands of those whom work whilst taking it away from those who don't. We can still look after those in genuine need whilst those who currently believe that having kids is a prefereable choice to working have their benefits cut.

Benefits are anything but beneficial to the low paid working class as we are worse off monthly, monetary wise, because of them.

I would love to have more benefits cut or even abolished if it would put more money into the pockets of those whom work for it.

People on benefits are not scroungers, people on benefits whom moan they are not getting enough or complain about projected cuts which sees them receiving less are scroungers. Benefits should pay for basic requirements and not much else, I would not send money to a starving ethiopian kid if it was getting used to buy them a gaming console.

Yes it is wrong that taxpayers money is being used to house those claiming social housing benefit in properties owned by private landlords charging above the market rental rate. This needs stopped immediately, that money would be better spent building communial social housing accommodation rather that seperate housing.
[quote][p][bold]Jonn[/bold] wrote: It's still a benefit, whichever way you want to dress it up. This Government clearly insinuates, through their relentless propaganda campaign that people claiming benefits are scroungers, they don't appear to be making a distinction between 'good' and 'bad' benefit claimants. You compare yourself against 'the average family on full benefits'! Who are these families? I don't suppose they are the families living in the south where most of the benefits go directly to landlords because the property market is so rediculously inflated. There are many wealthy property owners receiving huge sums of taxpayers money in the form of housing benefit. It's the Government you should be attacking, not your fellow benefit claimants.[/p][/quote]There are many tax/pension/benefit calculators available through the direct gov. web sites. I used my own family as an average (2 adults/2 kids). I completed the questionaire for claiming benefits as though I had nothing and the result was I could claim £16.355 pa in benefits as expendadle income, then there are all the other services, housing benefit, no council tax, free prescriptions, school meals ect ect. My actual circumstances leaves me with £15,600pa expendable income from my salary after tax and NI. From that I still have to pay for housing (mortgage), prescriptions, council tax, school meals and so on. I would glady refuse being paid any form of governmental monetary handout (non of the payments benfits me as they are a small % of what was taken from in the first place) in exchange for a drastic lowering of taxation and NI charges and massive increase of personal allowance on salary earnt. I am attacking the government as they are the ones over many years which have let the benefits system get to the state its in at present. We need a party which will stand up and change things drastically, will actually put more money into the hands of those whom work whilst taking it away from those who don't. We can still look after those in genuine need whilst those who currently believe that having kids is a prefereable choice to working have their benefits cut. Benefits are anything but beneficial to the low paid working class as we are worse off monthly, monetary wise, because of them. I would love to have more benefits cut or even abolished if it would put more money into the pockets of those whom work for it. People on benefits are not scroungers, people on benefits whom moan they are not getting enough or complain about projected cuts which sees them receiving less are scroungers. Benefits should pay for basic requirements and not much else, I would not send money to a starving ethiopian kid if it was getting used to buy them a gaming console. Yes it is wrong that taxpayers money is being used to house those claiming social housing benefit in properties owned by private landlords charging above the market rental rate. This needs stopped immediately, that money would be better spent building communial social housing accommodation rather that seperate housing. MartinMo
  • Score: 2

3:33pm Tue 13 May 14

bambara says...

Congratulations MartinMo, from your figures you are one of the average poor sods who are paying 34 times as much tax on the share of the UK that you own when compared to the rich people in the top 10%

Labour introduced working family tax credits to help make it financially worthwhile for the working poor to work.
The Torys cut working families tax credits and made it more difficult for the working poor to be able to manage in low wage work.
According to information published by the House of Commons Library the new rules on working tax credits from the start of the 2012/13 tax year hit around 212,000 low income families, This reduced their income on average by £2,600 each year.

Given your figures an extra £2,600 would see you on £18,200 which would be £1845 a year above the benefits level.

The idea of the Working Family Tax Credit was that it should always make it financially beneficial to work rather than to claim benefits.
From what you are saying the Tories have changed the system so it is now possible to be better off on benefits than you would be if you were working for a living.
Congratulations MartinMo, from your figures you are one of the average poor sods who are paying 34 times as much tax on the share of the UK that you own when compared to the rich people in the top 10% Labour introduced working family tax credits to help make it financially worthwhile for the working poor to work. The Torys cut working families tax credits and made it more difficult for the working poor to be able to manage in low wage work. According to information published by the House of Commons Library the new rules on working tax credits from the start of the 2012/13 tax year hit around 212,000 low income families, This reduced their income on average by £2,600 each year. Given your figures an extra £2,600 would see you on £18,200 which would be £1845 a year above the benefits level. The idea of the Working Family Tax Credit was that it should always make it financially beneficial to work rather than to claim benefits. From what you are saying the Tories have changed the system so it is now possible to be better off on benefits than you would be if you were working for a living. bambara
  • Score: 0

3:38pm Tue 13 May 14

bambara says...

The State of the Nation report published in 2010 by the Government of David Cameron estimated the total benefit fraud in the United Kingdom in 2009/10 to be approximately £1 billion.
Figures from the Department for Work and Pensions show that benefit fraud is thought to have cost taxpayers £1.2 billion during 2012-13, up 9 per cent on the year before.

Of course when you compare this or indeed the total £7Billion bill for the unemployed to the £70Bn in tax avoided by the rich and by big business it again rather shows that it is the rich and not the poor who are the problem.
The State of the Nation report published in 2010 by the Government of David Cameron estimated the total benefit fraud in the United Kingdom in 2009/10 to be approximately £1 billion. Figures from the Department for Work and Pensions show that benefit fraud is thought to have cost taxpayers £1.2 billion during 2012-13, up 9 per cent on the year before. Of course when you compare this or indeed the total £7Billion bill for the unemployed to the £70Bn in tax avoided by the rich and by big business it again rather shows that it is the rich and not the poor who are the problem. bambara
  • Score: 0

3:52pm Tue 13 May 14

bambara says...

Some more facts and figures for the Xenophobes to consider.

Total % Foreign born people in the UK 11.3% (7 million people)

Of those only 2.25 Million (3.6% of the population were born in the EU)
The remaining 4.75 Million (7.7% are from outside of the EU)

4 of the top 5 (and both the top 2) countries in the world for immigrants to the UK are outside of the EU.

For Comparison a few other EU countries:
Germany foreign born 12% (EU 4.2%)
France 11.1% (EU 3.3%)
Spain 14% (EU 5.1%) (what % are brits I wonder?)
Sweden 14.3% (EU 5.1%)
Austria 15.2% (EU 6.1%)
Belgium 12.9% (EU 6.5%)

So much for usbeing flooded by EU migrants and being the destination of choice.
Some more facts and figures for the Xenophobes to consider. Total % Foreign born people in the UK 11.3% (7 million people) Of those only 2.25 Million (3.6% of the population were born in the EU) The remaining 4.75 Million (7.7% are from outside of the EU) 4 of the top 5 (and both the top 2) countries in the world for immigrants to the UK are outside of the EU. For Comparison a few other EU countries: Germany foreign born 12% (EU 4.2%) France 11.1% (EU 3.3%) Spain 14% (EU 5.1%) (what % are brits I wonder?) Sweden 14.3% (EU 5.1%) Austria 15.2% (EU 6.1%) Belgium 12.9% (EU 6.5%) So much for usbeing flooded by EU migrants and being the destination of choice. bambara
  • Score: 1

4:19pm Tue 13 May 14

laboursfoe says...

bambara wrote:
Congratulations MartinMo, from your figures you are one of the average poor sods who are paying 34 times as much tax on the share of the UK that you own when compared to the rich people in the top 10%

Labour introduced working family tax credits to help make it financially worthwhile for the working poor to work.
The Torys cut working families tax credits and made it more difficult for the working poor to be able to manage in low wage work.
According to information published by the House of Commons Library the new rules on working tax credits from the start of the 2012/13 tax year hit around 212,000 low income families, This reduced their income on average by £2,600 each year.

Given your figures an extra £2,600 would see you on £18,200 which would be £1845 a year above the benefits level.

The idea of the Working Family Tax Credit was that it should always make it financially beneficial to work rather than to claim benefits.
From what you are saying the Tories have changed the system so it is now possible to be better off on benefits than you would be if you were working for a living.
Do I have to spell it out to you every week??

Income and Assets are two completely things, trying to compare them is futile. MartinMo's figures are from his earnings not assets.
[quote][p][bold]bambara[/bold] wrote: Congratulations MartinMo, from your figures you are one of the average poor sods who are paying 34 times as much tax on the share of the UK that you own when compared to the rich people in the top 10% Labour introduced working family tax credits to help make it financially worthwhile for the working poor to work. The Torys cut working families tax credits and made it more difficult for the working poor to be able to manage in low wage work. According to information published by the House of Commons Library the new rules on working tax credits from the start of the 2012/13 tax year hit around 212,000 low income families, This reduced their income on average by £2,600 each year. Given your figures an extra £2,600 would see you on £18,200 which would be £1845 a year above the benefits level. The idea of the Working Family Tax Credit was that it should always make it financially beneficial to work rather than to claim benefits. From what you are saying the Tories have changed the system so it is now possible to be better off on benefits than you would be if you were working for a living.[/p][/quote]Do I have to spell it out to you every week?? Income and Assets are two completely things, trying to compare them is futile. MartinMo's figures are from his earnings not assets. laboursfoe
  • Score: 0

5:57pm Tue 13 May 14

Jonn says...

MartinMo wrote:
Jonn wrote:
It's still a benefit, whichever way you want to dress it up.
This Government clearly insinuates, through their relentless propaganda campaign that people claiming benefits are scroungers, they don't appear to be making a distinction between 'good' and 'bad' benefit claimants.
You compare yourself against 'the average family on full benefits'! Who are these families? I don't suppose they are the families living in the south where most of the benefits go directly to landlords because the property market is so rediculously inflated. There are many wealthy property owners receiving huge sums of taxpayers money in the form of housing benefit.
It's the Government you should be attacking, not your fellow benefit claimants.
There are many tax/pension/benefit calculators available through the direct gov. web sites.

I used my own family as an average (2 adults/2 kids). I completed the questionaire for claiming benefits as though I had nothing and the result was I could claim £16.355 pa in benefits as expendadle income, then there are all the other services, housing benefit, no council tax, free prescriptions, school meals ect ect.

My actual circumstances leaves me with £15,600pa expendable income from my salary after tax and NI. From that I still have to pay for housing (mortgage), prescriptions, council tax, school meals and so on.

I would glady refuse being paid any form of governmental monetary handout (non of the payments benfits me as they are a small % of what was taken from in the first place) in exchange for a drastic lowering of taxation and NI charges and massive increase of personal allowance on salary earnt.

I am attacking the government as they are the ones over many years which have let the benefits system get to the state its in at present. We need a party which will stand up and change things drastically, will actually put more money into the hands of those whom work whilst taking it away from those who don't. We can still look after those in genuine need whilst those who currently believe that having kids is a prefereable choice to working have their benefits cut.

Benefits are anything but beneficial to the low paid working class as we are worse off monthly, monetary wise, because of them.

I would love to have more benefits cut or even abolished if it would put more money into the pockets of those whom work for it.

People on benefits are not scroungers, people on benefits whom moan they are not getting enough or complain about projected cuts which sees them receiving less are scroungers. Benefits should pay for basic requirements and not much else, I would not send money to a starving ethiopian kid if it was getting used to buy them a gaming console.

Yes it is wrong that taxpayers money is being used to house those claiming social housing benefit in properties owned by private landlords charging above the market rental rate. This needs stopped immediately, that money would be better spent building communial social housing accommodation rather that seperate housing.
Are you saying a couple who do not work and have 2 children get £16,355 a year in their hands? Then HB, Council tax benefit etc ontop?
A couple claiming JSA is just over £113 pw, Child benefit for 2 kids is £33 pw, that's £146 pw or £7592 per year so child tax credits would have to be approx £9000 a year to bring it up to the £16,355 you claim is possible.
I think you've got a little confused with the calculator.
[quote][p][bold]MartinMo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jonn[/bold] wrote: It's still a benefit, whichever way you want to dress it up. This Government clearly insinuates, through their relentless propaganda campaign that people claiming benefits are scroungers, they don't appear to be making a distinction between 'good' and 'bad' benefit claimants. You compare yourself against 'the average family on full benefits'! Who are these families? I don't suppose they are the families living in the south where most of the benefits go directly to landlords because the property market is so rediculously inflated. There are many wealthy property owners receiving huge sums of taxpayers money in the form of housing benefit. It's the Government you should be attacking, not your fellow benefit claimants.[/p][/quote]There are many tax/pension/benefit calculators available through the direct gov. web sites. I used my own family as an average (2 adults/2 kids). I completed the questionaire for claiming benefits as though I had nothing and the result was I could claim £16.355 pa in benefits as expendadle income, then there are all the other services, housing benefit, no council tax, free prescriptions, school meals ect ect. My actual circumstances leaves me with £15,600pa expendable income from my salary after tax and NI. From that I still have to pay for housing (mortgage), prescriptions, council tax, school meals and so on. I would glady refuse being paid any form of governmental monetary handout (non of the payments benfits me as they are a small % of what was taken from in the first place) in exchange for a drastic lowering of taxation and NI charges and massive increase of personal allowance on salary earnt. I am attacking the government as they are the ones over many years which have let the benefits system get to the state its in at present. We need a party which will stand up and change things drastically, will actually put more money into the hands of those whom work whilst taking it away from those who don't. We can still look after those in genuine need whilst those who currently believe that having kids is a prefereable choice to working have their benefits cut. Benefits are anything but beneficial to the low paid working class as we are worse off monthly, monetary wise, because of them. I would love to have more benefits cut or even abolished if it would put more money into the pockets of those whom work for it. People on benefits are not scroungers, people on benefits whom moan they are not getting enough or complain about projected cuts which sees them receiving less are scroungers. Benefits should pay for basic requirements and not much else, I would not send money to a starving ethiopian kid if it was getting used to buy them a gaming console. Yes it is wrong that taxpayers money is being used to house those claiming social housing benefit in properties owned by private landlords charging above the market rental rate. This needs stopped immediately, that money would be better spent building communial social housing accommodation rather that seperate housing.[/p][/quote]Are you saying a couple who do not work and have 2 children get £16,355 a year in their hands? Then HB, Council tax benefit etc ontop? A couple claiming JSA is just over £113 pw, Child benefit for 2 kids is £33 pw, that's £146 pw or £7592 per year so child tax credits would have to be approx £9000 a year to bring it up to the £16,355 you claim is possible. I think you've got a little confused with the calculator. Jonn
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree