When are New Labour going to give pensioners more money? Meanstesting  and an annual rise of 2% mean starvatio
464331
Haven't you heard, there is a 'pension crisis', which will grow exponentially every year. Be glad for what you have got because there is only one way pensions are going and it ain't up.
958300
of course you pay better wages.. is the pound not stronger than the euro? but mostly, it's because they know the politicians are far too spineless to kick them out or tell them they can't come in. You see if they did, someone might criticize them.
377644
No not really.  A few years ago they raised the stamp duty threshold from £30,000 to £60,000 claiming it was to help first time buyers but where can you get a house under £60,000?\n\nI've not heard of them releasing £12 million but with a million first time buyers entering the market each year that's really going to go a long way!  It could provide 2 or 3 bottles of wine for each buyer for them to drown their sorrows when they realise there's no way they can afford a house.\n\nWhat the government are planning on doing is spending billions of pounds of tax-payers money to build houses in areas that don't really need them at the expense of areas that do need them.  For example, where I am in Leeds the city is rapidly expanding due to an economic boom (apparently) with over a 50% population increase between the last two censuses.  At this rate Leeds will be the UK's 2nd city by the time of the next census.  As far as I'm aware there hasn't been a single government incentive anywhere near Leeds but they're insisting on pumping billions into London and the surrounding area which has a declining population.  From my point of view it's been very good as I bought the house I'm now in back in 1997 since when it's increased in value by 600% and my monthly mortgage repayment is equal to two days pay.\n\nRaising interest rates by any significant amount will have a disasteous effect as many people have stretched themselves to the limit in order to buy a house.  A lot of lenders have acted very irresponsibly by knowlingly lending to people that can't really afford the repayments.  A 1% rise in interest rates will add more than £100 a month onto the average mortgage payment.  Many people wouldn't be able to afford this and we'd see huge numbers of repossessions and people forced into nagative equity situations just like we did in the early 90's.\n\nWhat the government is proposing to do is to provide low cost housing for key workers such as teachers, nurses and police officers.  This doesn't do much to help people in other professions and amounts to little more than a bribe to draw people into professions where government policies have created a working environment that's so bad there's a chronic shortage of people to fill vacancies.  We're already having to recruit large numbers of teaching and medical staff from overseas and when you look at the state of schools and the health service is it any wonder?  I dare say it won't be long before we're draining the resources of other countries in order to staff the police force.\n\nUltimately house prices are determined by demand and in many ways a false demand is being created by the government's refusal to renovate the one million or so delapidated and derelict poperties.  These could be renovated at far less cost then building new homes and would provide affordable accommodation in many areas of the country where there is a shortage of decent housing.\n\nAnother problem lies with the banks and financial institutions themsleves.  Their primary concern is to look after their share-holders interests which means making as much money as possible and so they're keen to maintain high house prices and to lend the maximum possible amounts.  As you're undoubtedly aware these institutions have a powerful role in government policies.\n\nAt the end of the day house prices and interest rates are determined by market forces and more than anything, market forces are determined by big business.
908407
In some states that had a referendum on it...It will go up nationally in January with The democrats take over the house and senate...They tried to raise it last year but the Republicans blocked it from coming to a vote/....
866603
Never mind. North Sea oil is running out. Public pensions and the NHS and education are going to break the bank.\n\nCouncil tax will, in 2 years' time, turn into an American-style property tax: 1% per year of actual market value of your home.\n\nIncome tax -- stealth taxes -- shall rise. Get ready to be poor.
933224
Many in the middle class have very little money for investment purposes as they are living from paycheck to paycheck. It is mostly the rich that are benefiting from the rise in oil prices. I personally am invested in drug company's and new medicines as I believe that is more important. I have doubled my money also but have not received any dividends as yet. However there are two new diabetic drugs on the market that are doing quite well and I expect an improvement in the next couple of years.
845880
It sounds normal for an average UK company to do that. Some will have policies in place to provide additional income but this is unlikely to kick in after just 6 months.
670062
The morning after the release of the interim report of Senator Jocelyn Newman's Reference Group on Welfare Reform (2000 [a]) Prime Minister Howard said "People want the needy looked after but they don't want an explosion in welfare spending." (P&NB 29/3/2000. 9 am News). Patrick McClure, CEO of Mission Australia and the head of the Reference Group, in an interview on Life Matters a few minutes later was asked about sanctions that might apply to income support applicants if they did not 'participate' in the Government's plans to extend mutual obligations provisions applying to unemployed people to single parents and disability pensioners claimed that there was only one reference to sanctions in the 75 page report. This comment was presumably made in an attempt to assure a frightened recipient population they were not about to lose their benefits. Those Life Matters listeners who had watched the 7.30 Report two days previously would have put McClure's comments alongside the fact that in the previous 12 months Centrelink had issued 200,000 notices of breach to social security recipients in the previous year. Anyone who bothered to read the Reference Group's interim report would have found scattered throughout pages 51-61 references to "compelled participation", "requirements to participate", "sanctions...to ensure compliance", "explicit direction", ruling out "open choice" in relation to how people participated and to "mutual obligation".\n\nMcClure claimed the idea of extending mutual obligation through participation arose from the Reform Group's review of New Zealand's income support system and of Tony Blair's labour market initiatives. This ignores the fact that in New Zealand the Clarke Labour Alliance Government, supported by the Greens, announced shortly after gaining office its intention to revisit in 2000 the entire National Party Government 'compelled activity' programs for income support recipients. On the 9th. March the relevant New Zealand Minister, Steve Maharey ended\n\nwork-testing for people on invalids benefits. He says the evaluation of the trial held last year showed the policy was 'completely useless'. He says that people with disabilities want to work and he prefers to put money into positive programmes that remove barriers to their employment.\n\nThe Blair Government acknowledged its indebtedness to the Keating Government's Working Nation document (1994), in relation to unemployed beneficiaries there has, since the 1947 Social Security legislation, been a work testing eligibility requirement, and work relief programs (the Susso) during the 1930's demanded actual work for sustenance prior to the supply of unemployment relief. The Howard Government's 'work for the dole' program is a latter day Susso scheme.
663284
Interesting topic.  Who is going to pay for the increase?
761691
when it involves new or the raising of taxes!
1096810
Well wait for the next one on the Republic, this will get through.\n\nHopefully we can have one on the new industrial relations law.\n\n (former Howard supporter)
462173
An amount equal or higher than your retirement check.
218484
I don't know. But I think it's rising. more and more, people can't afford to retire. Plus some try to retire, and end up getting depression and stuff, and get a job again.
520409
Protecting defined benefit pensions when the rest of the world is converting to defined contribution (401-K).\n\nIt's also getting harder to defend "fat" staff levels when the business world is going lean to the extreme. Public sector is all about beurocracy and protecting jobs.
930672
I'll trade with you.  You guys in the UK can go back to the Tories, and I'll trade in my Howard govt for Labor.... I've been waiting a long time, we need them back to fix the country.
829458
You have a very good point.  I will have to throw a wrench in the works of your sarcasm though.  If the supply of workers who would submit to such cuts was lower, the frequency of this occurring would also be much lower.  \n\nI'll play devil's advocate for a second.  My response is a little tongue in cheek.\n\nAre these things you mentioned constitutional rights?  Should a company be forced to provide me with a bonus above and beyond what they have agreed to pay me?  Anything we agree upon is the only thing they should be bound by law to give me.  If I agree to continue to work for a company that engages in such practices then I am indirectly submitting to the change.  I become one more worker in the labor supply that will accept such practices.  Thus raising the equilibrium quantity and allowing the process to continue.  In many other countries the government forces companies to do many of the things you said.  Unemployment is much higher in those countries.  \n\nWhat if, because of the new cuts, the company is able to hire new labor that may have otherwise remained unemployed?  Does that not give a benefit to society?  What if the increase in this practice raises the GDP and because of that the government becomes more profitable and does not raise taxes or even lowers taxes (Gasp lol which they rarely do). \n\nThe real question we need to start asking ourselves is: “What is the goal of a healthy economy?”  If it is to grow like a blob and become a Juggernaut at the expense of labor then we are well on our way  :D  OR is the point of a good economy to provide a better standard of living (not just higher pay) for the people who live in that country.
276589
There was an article about this yesterday.  It's because the government are withdrawing the funding so those adults who wish to continue to study are losing a lot of the courses, and those that will still have courses will have to pay double what they are paying now.\n\nThis is so that the government, who have failed the youngsters in school - so that when they leave they are not educated enough - can pump more money into laying on courses for 19 to 25 yr olds to try to make them more employable.\n\nI will see if I can find the link....\n\nhttp://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2106703,00.html\n\nThe link may not stay active for very long so I have copied the info if you can't access it...let me know.