Boards
did you know that benefits were inflation linked?
I didn't
that seems crazy to me. My pay isn't inflation linked so I don't really see why this should be. Maybe it should raise in line with the average that pay rises. That would make more sense I think.
yeah?
glad we agree
i agree with this
Haha. Good one.
well isn't it because benefits are calculated to provide a minimum standard of living?
so if the price of the stuff you need for that minimum standard of living goes up, then benefits need to go up.
Be stupid otherwise.
Yeah I understand that
but it seems pretty wrong
does minimum wage inflation linked?
I don't think it is ( i don't know this tho so feel free to correct me)
just looked it up
it doesn't
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13000171
that's stupid
why is it wrong?
it seems silly to get upset about people on benefits getting a bigger increase than you. Being on benefits isn't that much fun.
I agree
do you want to become a Situationist with me?.
Ne travaillez jamais!
so...
capitalism isn't working?..
If your wage doesn't increase with the rate of inflation
Then you're taking a pay cut. Go you!
the linking of your wages and inflation is an issue between you and your employer
public sector wages used to be inflation linked, don't think they have been for the last few years though.
what's yr point?
?
that your wages being linked to inflation and benefits being linked to inflation are totally separate matters
i'm not sure they are totally
I think it's very much linked if the minimum wage rises at a slower rate than benefits.
are you on minimum wage?
I don't know what that has to do with anything
guntrip: "...your wages..."
chris-budget: "...the minimum wage..."
so to clarify
it seems a bit mental that benefits rise at inflation rates but minimum wage does not.
I would agree with you on this
it was a struggle and they have only recently
managed to introduce a minimum wage (relatively speaking) they were more concerned about getting it in rather than thinking about it properly and the yhavnt had enough time to tailor it........apparently mps have such a hard schedule (ask daisy flower).
I suppose the thing is that if earnign the minimum wage then you fall below a threshold then you will start to become eligible for benefits........look the people at the bottom end don't really concern parliament (other than making sure that it doesnt seem as if they are being too harshly kicked).....you cant expect multi residenced london based high flyers to spend their time quibbling over the odd few pennies ;D
oh yeah
ha ha
my op is pretty badly phrased.
i didn't really mean it to come across as
OMG I AM BEING FUCKED OVER BY THE BENEFIT PEOPLE.
just more like I'm not sure that makes sense as a policy not to have it linked to general wage increases
Of course it does
as those above say, it's calculated to ensure a minimum standard of living. Inflation pushes that cost of living up, so the benefits have to increase at the same rate.
Whether wages should be pegged to inflation or not is an entirely different matter.
^this
plus, it probably only becomes an issue when wages are failing to rise more quickly than inflation (i.e. Bad Times).
So, in good times, it's not actually that great a deal for people on benefits (as wages rise more quickly than their benefits), but in bad times it protects them. So,ething like that.
,=m
Doesn't do much to really encourage long-term unemployed
to go and seek work though. They'll be used to what they can buy on their benefits income, and increasing it by the rate of inflation just maintains that standard.
I on the other hand, have seen my life squeezed and squeezed with more and more non-staple purchases being omitted as inflation far exceeds my last payrise.
My standard of living is diminishing (regardless of how it actually compared to an unemployed person) whilst theirs remains static.
But theirs is already at the minimum, so it has to remain static
You have room to move.
What is minimum though?
Are you talking minimum wage, or benefits? I fully agree that minimum wage should move with inflation, as you're at least in employment. Keeping benefits static with inflation maintains a status quo and does nothing to encourage the unemployed to go get a job.
Yeah, there are one million unemployed under-25s because they're all fucking lazy
Let's cut their benefits. That'll definitely help.
lol
If people's benefits don't cover their living costs
they'll turn to fraud, cash-in-hand work and/or petty crime. Is that what you'd prefer?
lol
I am interested in how this minimum is calculated
Anyone know?
You're arguing for a Government that blackmails its electorate
It's just a question of picking sides. I've picked mine.
blackmailed like the way corporation taxes have to be cut to keep companies in the UK, you mean?
plenty o' ^this
lol
so we should let them blackmail the government?
lol
hey dan, you missed that one ^
but you would call desparate people doing whatever they could to keep their heads above water blackmail.
IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT?
COZ THAT'S WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN
where have I said anything about laziness?
I maintain my point about not encouraging the long-term unemployed off the sofa.
Your implication is clear.
If you'd like to pursue a different avenue, you could explain what you think a real-terms cut in benefits would achieve.
lol
I think your sums are wrong
lol
which is an issue you should take up with your employer
and it has squat to do with benefits
ok
my moan about my life being squeezed was just a bit of a moan, but I maintain my point about not encouraging the long-term unemployed off the sofa.
... is the kind of stereotypical moan of those who know nothing of unemployment or economically depressed areas
what
cos I'm saying that maintaining exactly the same income/outgoing ratio will do little to encourage long-term unemployed to actively seek work? That marks me as a Daily Mail reader does it? Sheesh.
And if minimum wage
rose with inflation too, that would also be a driver to work as well?
I didn't say anything about the Daily Mail
maybe if jobs were better, more secure, then that would be a driver to work?
I'm not sure it is an entirely different matter
it doesn't seem very right to me that real terms minimum wage goes down and real terms benefits remain static.
I think those two matters are pretty obviously linked
The minimum wage doesn't always go down in real terms
It went down this year.
wages - agreed/accepted remuneration for your service
Benefit - agreed minimum for living in absence of wages.
There are arguments to linking lower wages to inflation I guess, but there aren't for not linking benefits to it.
then you crazy
What's the minimum?
What's the minimum?
lol
and this one dan, you're getting sloppy
good for the economy
generates consumer demand
lol
nah, you gotta have demand at all levels of society to ensure a stable and mixed economy
can't be all bentleys and port, you know
Quite
No-one seems to have stuck their neck out so far and say that folk on benefits don't exactly seem to be on the breadline in this country.
LOL
we got two o' them, guys :D
Nah
I'm not like that. Just remarking that everyone is getting splinters from the fence so far.
I've think you've made a typo with the address for the Daily Mail website
Nowhere near the fence here.
Yeah, and I'll tell you what else, right,
being in prison is like being in a holiday camp. A holiday camp! They literally send rapists to Alton Towers while I have to sit in this office and read people talking bollocks on the internet!
i know it's easy to come across a bit jeremy kyle in this sort of discussion
but our benefits system is obviously a little bit messed up. In my limited experience of the long term unemployed, all the people I have known have been perfectly capable individuals who choose to be unemployed as a lifestyle and seemed to be living far beyond what I would consider a minimum standard of living.
it's obviously massively important to have a benefits system but it does need a bit of tidying up
I had to look up who that is
Going to the pub now
bye!
Don't spend too much
this is always looked at as being a 'failure' of the benefits system
how is not also a 'failure' of a runaway private sector? we talk about how people 'used' to do these sorts of jobs, but they were completely different. my grandad worked for BT for pretty much his entire working life, usually doing manual labour, never climbed the ranks, but he got a decent wage, a pension and job security out of it.
now pretty much all un/semi skilled labour is outsourced to the hilt and done through recruitment agencies, and has zero job security, few prospects and no long term gain.
i'm not saying that people should be allowed to just sit on benefits, but perhaps we could stop taking a kneejerk DEY TURK URRRR TAXES reaction to this and just look at why people don't see it as being in their interests to take these shitpiece jobs?
I don't see why it can't be a failure of both
but, oddly, one is never ever mentioned
well that's not true at all
the most business-friendly government ever
Was expecting a thread about lilos and air beds.
You should change your username
..yeah and rightly so.
On a more middle-class dilemma does one fill ones, inflation-linked (cpi) therefore up from £5,340 to £5,640(£11,280 incl equities), cash-isa on day one of tax year 12/13.
Everyone's a winner!
Don't bother with cash ISA's...
Interest rates are crap, get a stocks and shares ISA instead.
agreed they are about 2% lower than you need to be getting real returns right now. But you need to think about the future.
By may 12 you could have a pot of almost 26k, that is non taxable savings.
Whilst the rates currently are below inflation they've certainly not been since '99.
out of interest, how's your portfolio looking right now? even the 'defensives' aren't performing as they should.
stick it in the mortgage offset.
get that roof over the head secured, then take it from there.
Yo here's the CPI list for 2010
https://spreadsheets.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?key=0AonYZs4MzlZbdE1RR21NclpMTGZkNHlwMzFva0pUOXc&f=true&noheader=false&gid=2
couldn't find 2011
there's a great deal of things on there that I would classify as going beyond the minimum reqiuirments of people to have a resonable standard of living.
Would you guys concede that it's silly to have benefits inflation linked when the basket of goods that inflation is based on includes things like air travel costs?
Would it not make more sense to have a seperate index of essential items that the raise of benefits was based on? I don't know if this would be more of less than 5 ish percent, but it would make more sense yeah?
i have some sympathy with this.
but i suspect that, relatively speaking, it might be a side issue to the bigger issue.
It's kind of pointless what you are arguing here, they are simply comparatives.
The aim is to have a wide range of products from a number of input materials than skew it toward the price of nme, a copy of In the Aeroplane Over the Sea and a bag of pistachios.
Use the RPI instead if you want but i believe that excludes the very bottom incomes too. Either way it can be manipulated a little but in year variances are reliable.
ps Don't know where you got that spreadsheet from but it might be worth checking out the office of national statistics website.
It's not pointless at all
If benefits are based on the minimum amount that people need to survive, but it's yearly raise is based on a basket of goods that isn't tailored to the first requirment, then the results are going to be out if synch yeah?
BENEFITSMASH
I highly doubt Britain is anywhere close to frictional unemployment levels.
I think that's the term for that level of unemployment that naturally exists in the economy due to people seeking better jobs, tossing in bad jobs yada yada. About 1-2%. So you should all be thanking the listless, shiftless layabouts who aren't out there taking jobs off those who genuinely want one.
As someone pointed out there's no point in allowing benefit levels to sink to a point where in real terms they are not enough to live on, since this only incentivises people to look for sources of income that don't require a qualification or even to look halfway presentable, ie crime and the cash economy.
And you better allow for their fags and booze, because addictive drugs, unsurprisingly, have a low (or is it high?) elasticity of demand, ie people will give up a lot of other shit and go to a lot of lengths to ensure they get their daily nicotine hit. In Australia we tax the fuck out of tobacco, but the effect it has on demand is nowhere near proportionate to the increased cost (wooh, government windfall!).
There are plenty of social reasons to get people off the couch and into employment, but as far as being an economic drain on society, that is more based in "I don't like the fact that my taxes are supporting those lazy bludgers" kind of thinking than any actual reality.
Come back to that kind of argument when you almost have full employment.
alcohol, tobacco are inelastic goods
ie a rise in price won't lead to a proportionate drop in demand
That's what I thought, needn't have doubted myself
Also, you can't peg pay rises to inflation as some people have suggested otherwise it just creates a vicious cycle (feedback loop they probably call it these days) and inflation gets out of control. It's probably not ideal to peg unemployment benefits to inflation either, but you do need some sort of system to keep them in line with cost of living increases.
they get an inflation based rise
BECAUSE the benefits are calculated to be the minimum that is needed to LIVE in thei country (on average) therefore if the cost of living goes up but the benefits do not then it should not be possible to live on benefits.
It is assumed that people who are working will be being paid more than the ammount needed to live (on average) in this country.
THE RATIONAL BEHIND THIS IS PRETTY BLOODY OBVIOUS
why are all you (obviously intelligent people) pretending to act so stupid?
now if you want to discuss whether you are happy about certain people being able to get benefits, then that is an entirely different question
all
good effort
obviously i wasnt talking about all in a literal sense, it was a turn of phrase
I was actually suprised that there was more than zero people (who are in this thread) that would actually not realise the rational behind it. The fact that there was more than one made the number look like a horde
sorry ......Im in a really really really bristly mood today
(I've been listening to the news reporting on the radio) John Humphries is 'meant' to be being the reasonable voice questioning......yet to my ears he is letting the side down and being pathetically underestimated..........my mind is screaming whilst he is dealing politely and not managing to get to the nub of matters....I hope I dont go over the top on dis today :D
john humphries has just allowed bob diamond to
have a platform to do a little humbe self puff piece at the end of the interview ....the fucker......because some of that 'declaration of what his 'first thoughts were everyday' were obviously not sincere or even credible....ARRRGGGGHHHHHHHHHHH
From what I heard of it, yup, it was a sensationally shit interview.
Humphries just kept repeating the same question and went nowhere.
There was an interesting interviewee on C4 News last night. I would've liked to hear more from him.
But they wasted time making Jon Snow let us all know that GTA V will be released one day (we don't even know when, but it'll be soon - I presume they were clean out of stories about Apple or Facebook to fit the tech news remit that they think makes them relevant).
yeah but........
so you have your benefits calculated to be the minimum needed to live.
and that gets raised by the inflation rate which is calculated by a completely different set of standards.
So the result is something that is not calculated to be the minimum needed to live yeah?
um
i'm not sure you know what inflation is
I'm not sure you do
essentials like food and energy bills and fuel
Are some of the main drivers of inflation, wouldnt be surprised if they are underestimated in measures of inflation that include non essentials
as in all those things are going up, some higher than the overall inflation rate
But because other things go down (consumer goods) the overall inflation level is probably lower than the actual increased cost of living for those who spend most of their income on essentials
So why not have an index that reflects that?
They already have the data, you just have to remove the luxery items from the basket of goods.
they probably should
But have you gone from arguing its unfair benefits are linked to inflation to saying they should be linked to an even higher measure of inflation
I don't think I ever specifically said it was unfair
tho I can see why it was interpreted like that.
anyway people can change their minds if they are given new information, and I do still think that the minimum wage remaining static as benefits rise seems pretty wrong.
I would guess that the difference is (largely) political
remember, we have a "business friendly" government right now
because it's not worth doing
you'd be saving an insignificant amount of money to make the life of the unemployed much more miserable for the sake of a poorly actioned ideal.
Nor would i
I'm not arguing from a position of OMG GET RID OF THOSE PESKY BENEFITS
I'm arguing from a position of trying to find out what makes the most sense.
nor would you what?
if it was you wouldnt be surprised if inflation actually underestimates increases cost of essentials
Surely linking benefits to inflation would be the bare minimum required
It was to that yes
And possibly it would be the minimum. But it also might not be. I don't know, I haven't worked it out.
so what you are objecting to is he particular index of cost of living that the
benefits increase is linked to?
You dont object to the benefits increasing as the cost of living increases....you just object to that which is being used to measure the increase in the cost of living?.......I think that is something that is argued about ad infinitum, down to the such granularity that it becomes nebulous due to the variation in humans needs (with the subtle non measured variations) and localised variations, overiding the degree of specific granuality over items that you have gone down to......thus making the argument a waste of time if you want to get too specific.....it merely ends up being an exercise in people expressing 'how their idea of essentials differs from others'.....the thing is, what annoys you in having fags and booze on the list you mentioned.....is almost certainly outweighed elsewhere by some other factors that are not measured.....poorer people are not likely to be getting the best rates for stuff.
yo!
essentially yeah I object to the incorrect index being used to calculate the benefits increase.
I object to the minimum wage raising at a slower rate than benefits, I don't think that this is a good thing.
And I object to people putting words in my mouth ie --- having fags and booze on the list ----. The example I bought up was AIR TRAVEL COSTS.
And yeah - I don't think there is actually that much variation in what people think of as essential really. I guess that there is a relatively small margin of disagreement
I wasnt meaning to put words in your mouth
I was mentioning that it is an extant argument, and I said 'people' before the 'fags and booze' bit.......i mentioned that cos that because it is not just 'YOU' that that post is addressed to.........this is a personal thing for ME actually, because I looked at the list and I would say that it is difficult to try to suggest that benefits should be increased if there were say, 'just an increase in fag and booze prices'
my post was saying that this (and your air travel costs) and whatever else sounds unreasonable, will probably be cancelled out by other stuff that isnt factored in elsewhere......it is so difficult to be specific, and therefore this is an approximate, which whilst not being exact IS probably monitored most rigourously....probably (I dont know)
I don't want to get all WZA on yr ass and go copy pate mental but...
that post is totally directed towards me.
I am skeptical that it is being monitored rigorously.
anyway - gonna do some work now
brap
yes I see whats happened here
at first the post was directed to you. Up until the first '........'s, and from then on in that post I was referring to the general arguments and discussions that go on about the cost of living indexing.......the 'fags and booze' was meant to refer to this in argument in general, because this is the way in which 'non essentials' are normally couched.
I apologise for not making that clear
no worries blud!
:)
you're lucky we aint in the street cuz!
;)
I do think that when things are tighter then people would argue suprisingly strongly about what is essential
when I mentioned the 'arguments' that people would have, that is exactly what I meant, people would look at that which is most contentious.....for instance fags and booze and air flights....now perhaps if you wanted to have another index for benefits payments let us consider what to take out of the list and only leave essentials.......well are parmesan and prawns essential? no
is anything specific beyond being the required amount of protein, carbohydrates, sugars, essential oils, fats, vitamins and ,minerals in a form that is consumable by particular individuals essential?....NO
however each individual varies and will require the essentials in a different way
what do you consider that the benefit system should pander too
should the protein and fat come from only the cheapest source?
should vegetarians, muslims, vegans, jews, hindus and gays just be treated as fussy eaters? and only have their allowance based on the cheapest forms of proteins that are available in the supermarkets i.e. the worst chicken
if you are lucky then you might live somewhere you can get dried tvp cheap....which is cheaper......should all meat eaters in these areas only be able to get benefit for this price?
should ethical condumerism be an essential consideration?
should people who have a high metabolism be catered for?
by having other things in that are not essential, it means that the average can be taken with some degree of confidence that you have not had to account for those with high metabolisms or people with extra wide footed children, or people with wheat intolerance, or people who need to get a bus everyday to be able to get to shops, dole office, school.
yeah but you are going to extremes there
----------- well are parmesan and prawns essential? no
is anything specific beyond being the required amount of protein, carbohydrates, sugars, essential oils, fats, vitamins and ,minerals in a form that is consumable by particular individuals essential?....NO -----------
i think MOST people would agree that Parmesan and prawns are not essential, but that the second example is too extreme. Maybe I am wrong, maybe there are some people would think that the barest of essentials for the human body to survive is all that should be taken into account.
--------people would look at that which is most contentious---------
you might be right there, but that's totally stupid, it makes for more sense to look at the things that are not contentious as your more likely to reach an agreement
what i was trying to get to is that people do not always want to get
to an agreement.
Yes I am going to extremes in that post, which is why I want to leave it at a higher level of granularity, one which allows for variations in the other more sensible variations in peoples actual specific needs (tall men, broad footed children, people with increased essential travel etc).
By the way as resource becomes tighter and tighter the extremes that I am going to might be considered more.
I mean if i were the authorities and didnt do anything sensible to avoid the crisis (which seems to be the way they are going) then I would have to think about issuing everyone with rations of quick cook pasta and tins of vitamin and mineral fortified baked beans. instead of allowances for food in the benefit payments (because this would force efficiency on the poor)
It would also be better for the gov to regulate private landlords and make certain quality of accomodation have a maximum rental (which would be probably lower) if they have the rent paid by benefit. ....yes this is horrible, but there is little choice....unless we think that instead we should reduce those on benefits by other means.
everything, every choice from now on is going to look like a negative choice, peoples mindsets will need to change, to distinguish the 'wisest' choices.
Of course there might still be time for the rulers to take steps to avoid having to make the choices in this way, but there doesnt seem to even be dialogue in the right direction to indicate that they are thinking of this.
I do agree that it would be sensible to increase the minimum wage similarly
but i doubt if they will
the definition of the minimum needed to live is very questionable
and I reckon almost everyone will have a different ammount (and Im not even taking into account the issues people will love to argue about here.....like bingo/lotto/smoking/alcahol.....but also down to location and bus fares needed (to travel to sign on if nothing else).....there are so many variables that all people can come up with is an AVERAGE with is always going to be approximate................If one were to be absolutely utilitarian about things one would do this.
a) work out what the average human requires nutritionally
b) work out how each individuals requirements vary from this (health wise not taste wise)
c) factor in if you want to take into account whether the person is allergic to certain foodstuffs, or whether they are vegetarian or whather they are muslim or hindu or jewish or gay (;D)
d) calculate the minimum price to obtain those nutritional requirements are according to the locality of the individual.....if the shops are expensive but the cost of travel to cheaper shops prohibits remoter shopping trips
e) factor in the prices of the retail outlets available due to the health and ability of the individual to transport the foodstuffs needed.
f) assess the individuals needs for clothing, this will vary......
g) very tall people or children with very wide feet will need to spend more money on clothing........
h) assess what a reasonable amount of wear and tear should be to calculate the munber of clothes that will need to be brought......
i)calculate the most cost effective type of clothing (re long lastingness, not needing to be washed as frequently and suitably sub-serviant looking) and issue national guidelines.
j) special allowances should be calculated for those people who are medically proven to be hyperactive (to allow them to have a faster rate of wear and tarage in their clothing allowance.
k) people who live in dirtier areas should have their clothing needs assessed to have darker coloured clothing to reduce the need for more washing of clothing
l) an allowance for 'Statutary OptimAl Personal cleanliness' or SOAP should be included.
m - ad infinitum
probably just repeating but
It all comes down to proportion of income spent on essentials vs luxuries
People on benefit the vast majority will be spent on essentials, people on minimum wage a slightly smaller majority, after that the proportion declining as wages rise.
Certainly wages should be linkied with inflation during good times, and most are if negotiations with employers are good, but during bad times it would be a disaster because forcing companies that are doing badly to pay more would lead to redundancies and even collapse so can see why its not linked in any official way, minimum wage being linked would also have the same problem there should be benefits that supplement minimum wage that are linked (is this what tax credits are?).
The argument that because some people by cigarettes and alcohol with benefit doesnt mean that the vast majority of it doesnt go on essentials, but if they have a little left over for luxaries then good on them. I remember being unemployed it can be really soul destroying and demotivating and you can lose self worth, the odd night down the pub can keep you going, im sure most people cutback on these things when they are claiming. the argument that a constant declining quality of life would motivate people to find work isnt really true, countries with the most generous benefits have less problem with long term unemployed than we do
*buy
The weightings of all the items that make up the CPI (e.g. air travel is only 0.9% of the total)
are on Table 3 of this spreadsheet:
http://tinyurl.com/3ojtx4g
It might be useful, if you think that the CPI includes too many luxuries, to identify for yourself what proportion of the CPI figure is made up of those luxuries.
we could even then recalculate what the 'essential' CPI figure would be
just for a larf
I'm happy to do the maths
just post yr lists
I can't be bothered to click the link (apethetic, no drive, no passion etc etc)
but if you could do some maths right here and now in this thread then that might be cool.
I've been waiting for someone to say that
y = (r^3)/3
dy = 3r²/3 dr
dy = r²dr
RDRR
<
vishnu lying on her side?
" Smarta followers of Adi Shankara, among others, venerate Vishnu as one of the five primary forms of God."
Hindu can do, but Smarta is...forget it
I have many regrets
This is a really interesting document
I am going to choose to believe that you are sincere
and agree with you
I'm being totally sincere
Though I'm finding it a bit frustrating, I want to know what they mean by package holidays, other financial services and social protection are. I'm to the ONS website for more information on my lunch break. I work with these sorts of numbers a lot and have never looked at the build up in any detail.
i'd take these off
07.1.1A New cars
07.3.3 Passenger transport by air
09.1.1 Reception and reproduction of sound and pictures
09.1.2 Photographic, cinematographic and optical equipment
09.1.3 Data processing equipment
09.1.4 Recording media
09.1.5 Repair of audio-visual equipment & related products
11.1.1 Restaurants & cafes
11.1.2 Canteens
12.1.1 Hairdressing and personal grooming establishments
12.1.2/3 Appliances and products for personal care
12.3.1 Jewellery, clocks and watches
Is there not a more specific table with all 600 items or whatever in it?
I took all those out
except repair of audio-visual. Also took out Alcohol/Tobacco and a couple of others. Made near as no difference to the calculated annual increase by my (potentially poor) calculations.
I did my caculation for August again and also took out alcohol/tobacco (in addition to the above excluded items)
and it came out as 4.7% (0.2% higher than the real figure)
so at the moment, it's proving pretty difficult to come up with an 'essential' CPI that's not higher than the real CPI.
Heh.
If I get my Tory on, and say they should only buy food
it is 6.2%. Which is interesting.
global food prices have been rising above most other things for the last few years
tell me about it
you should see my hummus bill
an essential if there ever was one
I hope there is a full list somewhere, that would be useful
I'll have a look
I think your altered CPI would come to 4.97% for August (slightly higher than the official figure of 4.5%).
If someone could check this that'd be good.
But it would be more useful to know how your CPI would differ from the real CPI over many years. I might do this.
I had a quick look
couldn't find it anywhere
I'm quite tempted to do this
but fear it would take AGES!
no idea
Seems reasonable enough.
Being on benefits is pretty rubbish so anything to make it marginally less so is alright with me.
Benefits are linked to inflation....thats an 'as is' so there is no new argument that the government has to go though
However, the minimum wage is not linked similarly, therefore to do this would mean the gov and houses to argue it and have businesses saying that this will cause businesses to go out of businesses not all having the appropriate revenue figures go up in line with inflation.....then the gov might risk being accused of causeing even more busines failures and thus creating more unemployment and more benefit claiments