Benefits payments

Stevo_666

Interestingly enough the UK does not tax income that arises purely out of luck - like the pools, lotteries etc. So if we accept Ricks fascinating theory that successful people are where they are due to luck, then some of us may be due a big tax refund

pinno

morstar wrote:

Unless you want to know all about Arsenal.

What?! Unlike West Brom, we aren't inches away from claiming incapacity benefit.

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

Interestingly enough the UK does not tax income that arises purely out of luck - like the pools, lotteries etc. So if we accept Ricks fascinating theory that successful people are where they are due to luck, then some of us may be due a big tax refund

It's not Rick's theory. There is academic research and statistical data behind the idea as previously posted. It's not all luck - that was never the claim - but luck has more of an influence than people like to think.

By the way, underpayment of benefits due to administrative error exceeds the amount of benefits fraud.

rick_chasey

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/be ... -realized/

Explains it all quite clearly.

FishFish

The concept of luck is in effect an assumption derived from observing success.

There are three factors - success in its varying degrees, luck and the person involved.

S= integral(L*P) where * is the mathematical convolution.

To derive L is an inverse problem. You can see S - measured by value say and you can measure P - for example wealth, IQ, social class and so on so the missing variable is L.

Most integral equations are very difficult to solve and in fact are insensitive to the missing variable L which could be linear, exponential or logarithmic.

Integral equations are used in Astrophysics for example you cam measure voltage on a spectrometer - V which is a function integrated over the frequency curve of the Stars inherent properties convoluted with the telescope / spectorometer frequency response.

You get the integral equation - V = integral (Spect*Star)

From that you resolve the inverse problem to find Star = Star(frequency)

Random walks were first developed by Einstein who described the movement of pollen grains (Brownian motion) using Statistical Mechanics (Bose Einstein Stats) rather than luck.

But hey - believe in luck and witchcraft!

rick_chasey

FishFish wrote:

The concept of luck is in effect an assumption derived from observing success.

There are three factors - success in its varying degrees, luck and the person involved.

S= integral(L*P) where * is the mathematical convolution.

You'd make a crap economist.

You have no idea S does equal integral luck times the person. It's not THE mathematical convolution, it's something you've pulled out of your own arse.

rjsterry

Here's the original study:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.07068

Here's another related study.

http://www.terpconnect.umd.edu/~nesliha ... _Spain.pdf

There are also interesting studies into the relative impact of CEOs input to a business's performance.

https://www.inc.com/will-yakowicz/study ... e-ceo.html

To answer FishFish's point (although it has been covered before), luck in this context is the occurrence of events and opportunities outside the subject's ability to influence them, and which have an unavoidable positive or negative impact on the subject's success. It's not the folklore idea of luck as a kind of fate that can be influenced by collecting unusual leaves and avoiding ladders.The fact that the occurrence of such events can be mathematically modelled doesn't really change anything for the subject beyond making sensible precautions for the most likely risks, and trying to spot opportunities when they arise.

coopster_the_1st

morstar wrote:

]

Ballysmate wrote:

morstar wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

So carry on blame failures of genetics, events, social or economic barriers. The cream will always rise to the top.

All well and good for the cream! Now what about people who work equally hard but, through either choice or circumstance pursue a path that is low paid.
Why does claiming benefits make them a lesser person?

Haven't gone through all 9 pages but has anyone actually claimed that?

As it is an internet forum and not a court of law I am not beholden to build a file of evidence. I think the sentiment is quite evident in some posts referring to 'my taxes' and spongers, scroungers + whatever other negative words are used to refer to benefits claimants.
No different to tax planning. If the rules say you're entitled to benefits, you're entitled to them. If you pay tax, it goes into the pot, it's no longer your money.
I'm not for one second saying the benefits system isn't taken advantage of. But so is the tax system. Zero difference. The right manage to ignore one of these issues, the left the other.
Edited to add. You only need to read the first page. Unless you want to know all about Arsenal.

There is a huge difference to 'my taxes' and 'my benefits'.

Simply put, one is what you earn and is taken away from you while the other is given to you out of someone else's earnings.

slowbike

mr_eddy wrote:

The wife and I are planning on starting a family as we are both closer to 40 than 30 so really need to get moving.

I earn £19k and wife £23k, we are both in full time work with no dependents and not disabled or in receipt of any other benefits.

I struggle sometimes with only £150 left a month after mortgage etc as I have £230 loan payment each month for a load of stupid credit card debt I consolidated last year, big mistake spending in the first place but at least the loan is at a fairly low Apr (4%).

According to the gov tac calc if we had a kid based on combined income of £42k we would get literally nothing, I though everyone gets at least £20 odd quid a week child benefit ?

Bear in mind we would have to shell probably £200 a week (corrected as per your second post) for nursery.

My sister and her husband both work ft but have a combined of £60k and they got some credit so how come the calc site says we would get squat ?

Any thoughts ?

yup - £230/month isn't forever and £150+month isn't a lot to start saving with - but I would put away as much as possible now - perhaps a static amount (say £100/month) then sweep the balance at the end of the month.

you need to look at your maternity leave entitlements - both of yours - and work out how you'd best split it - bear in mind that your wife may get strong emotions about leaving any tot.

£200/week childcare is a huge amount - but you won't need to spend anything until after the maternity period is over - once you're both "back at work" even with a joint takehome of £2.8k - spending a 5th of this on childcare is too much (IMHO). We're lucky in that both sets of Grandparents are still around, local and able to look after their Grandson a day each each week - that with one day of care leaves us dropping our working hours to cover the other 2 days - we worked out what we could do so did that, you may decide other splits, depending on family assistance.

It may be worth renegotiating the mortgage - extend it out back to 25years - or negotiate a payment "holiday".
Look at your other costs too - those overheads that you can afford now, but don't really need - like sky package - mobile contract etc etc - cut them back and put away any money you save.

As for benefits - you'll get the basic £20/week child benefit at least.

Lastly - you don't say what point of your career you're at - which is fair enough - but if you can get a promotion or change jobs to earn more then that would make a good difference - kids or not!

Jez mon

Coopster the 1st wrote:

morstar wrote:

]

Ballysmate wrote:

morstar wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

So carry on blame failures of genetics, events, social or economic barriers. The cream will always rise to the top.

All well and good for the cream! Now what about people who work equally hard but, through either choice or circumstance pursue a path that is low paid.
Why does claiming benefits make them a lesser person?

Haven't gone through all 9 pages but has anyone actually claimed that?

As it is an internet forum and not a court of law I am not beholden to build a file of evidence. I think the sentiment is quite evident in some posts referring to 'my taxes' and spongers, scroungers + whatever other negative words are used to refer to benefits claimants.
No different to tax planning. If the rules say you're entitled to benefits, you're entitled to them. If you pay tax, it goes into the pot, it's no longer your money.
I'm not for one second saying the benefits system isn't taken advantage of. But so is the tax system. Zero difference. The right manage to ignore one of these issues, the left the other.
Edited to add. You only need to read the first page. Unless you want to know all about Arsenal.

There is a huge difference to 'my taxes' and 'my benefits'.

Simply put, one is what you earn and is taken away from you while the other is given to you out of someone else's earnings.

One is what you pay to live in Britain. Feel free to pee off to somewhere with lower taxes anytime you want.

coopster_the_1st

Jez mon wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

morstar wrote:

]

Ballysmate wrote:

morstar wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

So carry on blame failures of genetics, events, social or economic barriers. The cream will always rise to the top.

All well and good for the cream! Now what about people who work equally hard but, through either choice or circumstance pursue a path that is low paid.
Why does claiming benefits make them a lesser person?

Haven't gone through all 9 pages but has anyone actually claimed that?

As it is an internet forum and not a court of law I am not beholden to build a file of evidence. I think the sentiment is quite evident in some posts referring to 'my taxes' and spongers, scroungers + whatever other negative words are used to refer to benefits claimants.
No different to tax planning. If the rules say you're entitled to benefits, you're entitled to them. If you pay tax, it goes into the pot, it's no longer your money.
I'm not for one second saying the benefits system isn't taken advantage of. But so is the tax system. Zero difference. The right manage to ignore one of these issues, the left the other.
Edited to add. You only need to read the first page. Unless you want to know all about Arsenal.

There is a huge difference to 'my taxes' and 'my benefits'.

Simply put, one is what you earn and is taken away from you while the other is given to you out of someone else's earnings.

One is what you pay to live in Britain. Feel free to pee off to somewhere with lower taxes anytime you want.

Happy to pay to live in the UK if everyone of working age pays the same. I can see a huge flaw in your argument!

FishFish

You'd make a crap economist.

You have no idea S does equal integral luck times the person. It's not THE mathematical convolution, it's something you've pulled out of your own ars*.[/quote]


Well if you remove the convolution then you integrate a number - what do you integrate it with respect to?

You'd make a crap mathematician.

..and a crap economist too.

Stevo_666

Jez mon wrote:

One is what you pay to live in Britain.

Unless you are net recipient.

slowmart

rjsterry wrote:

Here's the original study:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.07068

Here's another related study.

http://www.terpconnect.umd.edu/~nesliha ... _Spain.pdf

There are also interesting studies into the relative impact of CEOs input to a business's performance.

https://www.inc.com/will-yakowicz/study ... e-ceo.html

You do realise that a CEO executes the company or group strategy agreed at board level? While some external KPI's such as share price are taken into account this is one data point amongst a diverse target set?

So the likes of CEO's, military leaders, leading academics, senior faith leaders, Premiership managers are all serial lucky people?

ok the last of my examples was tongue in cheek but Napoleon subscribed to your view as he wanted to know if his officers were lucky before promoting them

And look what happened to him, talent against luck....

Stevo_666

Slowmart wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Here's the original study:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.07068

Here's another related study.

http://www.terpconnect.umd.edu/~nesliha ... _Spain.pdf

There are also interesting studies into the relative impact of CEOs input to a business's performance.

https://www.inc.com/will-yakowicz/study ... e-ceo.html

You do realise that a CEO executes the company or group strategy agreed at board level? While some external KPI's such as share price are taken into account this is one data point amongst a diverse target set?

So the likes of CEO's, military leaders, leading academics, senior faith leaders, Premiership managers are all serial lucky people?

ok the last of my examples was tongue in cheek but Napoleon subscribed to your view as he wanted to know if his officers were lucky before promoting them

And look what happened to him, talent against luck....

Academic studies are all very well but they are usually done by people who know **** all about how businesses are run in reality. Add a dash of jealousy - et voila!

rick_chasey

Alright Michael Gove, calm down.

Can see you're right on the cusp of a real moneyball moment there.

rick_chasey

FishFish wrote:

You'd make a crap economist.

You have no idea S does equal integral luck times the person. It's not THE mathematical convolution, it's something you've pulled out of your own ars*.

Well if you remove the convolution then you integrate a number - what do you integrate it with respect to?

You'd make a crap mathematician.

..and a crap economist too.[/quote]


I don't see what you're trying to achieve here. You just pull an equation out thin air - I can't see anything to suggest the equation reflects any reality at all. You don't start with the equation and work backwards to find the evidence, do you?

The article I listed above has a good description of the various studies and their implications. There's a model that works quite effectively in there.

haydenm

Interesting argument about 'luck' vs hard work. Working hard at the right things gets you rich, knowing what they are and having the opportunities to find them are other variables which need a certain element of 'luck'. Does anyone actually think it is 100% hard work or 100% luck? Surely not.

Do I work 35% harder than the average full time employed male in the region where I live? Obviously not. I had better opportunities and inspiration, worked hard then moved here for work. My friend who works as a carer for disabled people works and cares a lot more than I do, if some arrogant tw*t said she didn't deserve to have kids because she doesn't work hard enough I would feel dreadful.

We aren't taxed on hard work, we are taxed on income. I'm happy to pay tax on my earnings so people with different opportunities can afford kids, luckily I don't have the chance to decide if I agree with their life choices or not. The tax rates as they stand still allow me to benefit from my hard work. I don't see many people turning down pay rises to avoid paying tax.

From the OP's point of view, as others have said, try to hold off and sort your debts from a practical point of view but you'll regret it if you wait too long. I don't have kids so I couldn't say how much they cost

Ben6899

HaydenM wrote:

Interesting argument about 'luck' vs hard work. Working hard at the right things gets you rich, knowing what they are and having the opportunities to find them are other variables which need a certain element of 'luck'. Does anyone actually think it is 100% hard work or 100% luck? Surely not.

Do I work 35% harder than the average full time employed male in the region where I live? Obviously not. I had better opportunities and inspiration, worked hard then moved here for work. My friend who works as a carer for disabled people works and cares a lot more than I do, if some arrogant tw*t said she didn't deserve to have kids because she doesn't work hard enough I would feel dreadful.

We aren't taxed on hard work, we are taxed on income. I'm happy to pay tax on my earnings so people with different opportunities can afford kids, luckily I don't have the chance to decide if I agree with their life choices or not. The tax rates as they stand still allow me to benefit from my hard work. I don't see many people turning down pay rises to avoid paying tax.

From the OP's point of view, as others have said, try to hold off and sort your debts from a practical point of view but you'll regret it if you wait too long. I don't have kids so I couldn't say how much they cost

Great post, Hayden.

Oh and they cost a fuck1ng fortune.

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Here's the original study:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.07068

Here's another related study.

http://www.terpconnect.umd.edu/~nesliha ... _Spain.pdf

There are also interesting studies into the relative impact of CEOs input to a business's performance.

https://www.inc.com/will-yakowicz/study ... e-ceo.html

You do realise that a CEO executes the company or group strategy agreed at board level? While some external KPI's such as share price are taken into account this is one data point amongst a diverse target set?

So the likes of CEO's, military leaders, leading academics, senior faith leaders, Premiership managers are all serial lucky people?

ok the last of my examples was tongue in cheek but Napoleon subscribed to your view as he wanted to know if his officers were lucky before promoting them

And look what happened to him, talent against luck....

Academic studies are all very well but they are usually done by people who know **** all about how businesses are run in reality. Add a dash of jealousy - et voila!

Keep sticking your fingers in your ears, by all means. I don't see any jealousy in any of those articles. To use one of your favourites, what evidence have you got that luck doesn't have a significant impact?

haydenm

Ben6899 wrote:

HaydenM wrote:

Interesting argument about 'luck' vs hard work. Working hard at the right things gets you rich, knowing what they are and having the opportunities to find them are other variables which need a certain element of 'luck'. Does anyone actually think it is 100% hard work or 100% luck? Surely not.

Do I work 35% harder than the average full time employed male in the region where I live? Obviously not. I had better opportunities and inspiration, worked hard then moved here for work. My friend who works as a carer for disabled people works and cares a lot more than I do, if some arrogant tw*t said she didn't deserve to have kids because she doesn't work hard enough I would feel dreadful.

We aren't taxed on hard work, we are taxed on income. I'm happy to pay tax on my earnings so people with different opportunities can afford kids, luckily I don't have the chance to decide if I agree with their life choices or not. The tax rates as they stand still allow me to benefit from my hard work. I don't see many people turning down pay rises to avoid paying tax.

From the OP's point of view, as others have said, try to hold off and sort your debts from a practical point of view but you'll regret it if you wait too long. I don't have kids so I couldn't say how much they cost

Great post, Hayden.

Oh and they cost a fuck1ng fortune.

Balls! I have a few years before the GF will start popping it into conversations... I hope :shock:

dinyull

HaydenM wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

HaydenM wrote:

Interesting argument about 'luck' vs hard work. Working hard at the right things gets you rich, knowing what they are and having the opportunities to find them are other variables which need a certain element of 'luck'. Does anyone actually think it is 100% hard work or 100% luck? Surely not.

Do I work 35% harder than the average full time employed male in the region where I live? Obviously not. I had better opportunities and inspiration, worked hard then moved here for work. My friend who works as a carer for disabled people works and cares a lot more than I do, if some arrogant tw*t said she didn't deserve to have kids because she doesn't work hard enough I would feel dreadful.

We aren't taxed on hard work, we are taxed on income. I'm happy to pay tax on my earnings so people with different opportunities can afford kids, luckily I don't have the chance to decide if I agree with their life choices or not. The tax rates as they stand still allow me to benefit from my hard work. I don't see many people turning down pay rises to avoid paying tax.

From the OP's point of view, as others have said, try to hold off and sort your debts from a practical point of view but you'll regret it if you wait too long. I don't have kids so I couldn't say how much they cost

Great post, Hayden.

Oh and they cost a fuck1ng fortune.

Balls! I have a few years before the GF will start popping it into conversations... I hope :shock:

And a cat or dog will buy a few years on top of that.

haydenm

Already got the dog. Maybe another might help?

daniel_b

HaydenM wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

HaydenM wrote:

Interesting argument about 'luck' vs hard work. Working hard at the right things gets you rich, knowing what they are and having the opportunities to find them are other variables which need a certain element of 'luck'. Does anyone actually think it is 100% hard work or 100% luck? Surely not.

Do I work 35% harder than the average full time employed male in the region where I live? Obviously not. I had better opportunities and inspiration, worked hard then moved here for work. My friend who works as a carer for disabled people works and cares a lot more than I do, if some arrogant tw*t said she didn't deserve to have kids because she doesn't work hard enough I would feel dreadful.

We aren't taxed on hard work, we are taxed on income. I'm happy to pay tax on my earnings so people with different opportunities can afford kids, luckily I don't have the chance to decide if I agree with their life choices or not. The tax rates as they stand still allow me to benefit from my hard work. I don't see many people turning down pay rises to avoid paying tax.

From the OP's point of view, as others have said, try to hold off and sort your debts from a practical point of view but you'll regret it if you wait too long. I don't have kids so I couldn't say how much they cost

Great post, Hayden.

Oh and they cost a fuck1ng fortune.

Balls! I have a few years before the GF will start popping it into conversations... I hope :shock:

slowbike

HaydenM wrote:

From the OP's point of view, as others have said, try to hold off and sort your debts from a practical point of view but you'll regret it if you wait too long. I don't have kids so I couldn't say how much they cost

Waiting too long - from a male perspective there's not a lot to worry about - we can continue until we're well past it - but from a female perspective there's a greater issue with leaving it longer. Not to say it's not possible (obviously beyond a point it isn't).
I'm "getting on a bit" - I think I should've had that motorbike by now ... and have a little toddler (which may help avoid the MLC). It's great in that we've already done a lot of things that we wouldn't have had a chance to do had he come along earlier - it's not so great in that we're not as fit (stamina wise) as we once were (remember those all-nighters we used to get away with in our youth?) and ultimately - our time together is limited because by the time he's my age I probably won't be - so I'll see less of any grandchildren he may produce (if that's the path he takes) - may seem a bit selfish from my point of view, but there you go...

Cost wise - that's easy - everything you have, plus a bit ...
They're not expensive - but they do become your #1 priority - and you don't want them to miss out.

haydenm

Slowbike wrote:

HaydenM wrote:

From the OP's point of view, as others have said, try to hold off and sort your debts from a practical point of view but you'll regret it if you wait too long. I don't have kids so I couldn't say how much they cost

Waiting too long - from a male perspective there's not a lot to worry about - we can continue until we're well past it - but from a female perspective there's a greater issue with leaving it longer. Not to say it's not possible (obviously beyond a point it isn't).
I'm "getting on a bit" - I think I should've had that motorbike by now ... and have a little toddler (which may help avoid the MLC). It's great in that we've already done a lot of things that we wouldn't have had a chance to do had he come along earlier - it's not so great in that we're not as fit (stamina wise) as we once were (remember those all-nighters we used to get away with in our youth?) and ultimately - our time together is limited because by the time he's my age I probably won't be - so I'll see less of any grandchildren he may produce (if that's the path he takes) - may seem a bit selfish from my point of view, but there you go...

Cost wise - that's easy - everything you have, plus a bit ...
They're not expensive - but they do become your #1 priority - and you don't want them to miss out.

Doesn't sound selfish at all. From my point of view pushing it later sounds like a tempting idea, although a guy at work had 2 kids by the time he was 27/28 so I guess he is going down the other route of getting them to fly the nest as early as possible and hope he can enjoy the freedom! I am 27 in October so I may need two women for that, the current GF might not be keen...

slowbike

HaydenM wrote:

I am 27 in October so I may need two women for that, the current GF might not be keen...

you've got plenty of time - look at Dick Strawbridge - in his late 50's and 2 young kids ... his (current) wife is a bit younger though

It's certainly a balancing act - I'll just drop this link
https://library.down-syndrome.org/en-gb ... -syndrome/

Then there's the you don't know it's not possible until you try - and if you leave it later to try then your options for assistance become more limited.

Having them young may be great from an energy point of view - but there's the financial constraints to consider - plus the main one is the constraint of being responsible for a child 24/7/365

haydenm

Slowbike wrote:

HaydenM wrote:

I am 27 in October so I may need two women for that, the current GF might not be keen...

you've got plenty of time - look at Dick Strawbridge - in his late 50's and 2 young kids ... his (current) wife is a bit younger though

He's known as "Colonel Dick", of course he has a younger wife!

My GF is 2 years younger than me so I'll definitely have a Colnago before kids...

slowbike

just get your N+1 sorted before any kids come along .... otherwise your +1 may be a bit smaller than you'd like

Pituophis

HaydenM wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

HaydenM wrote:

From the OP's point of view, as others have said, try to hold off and sort your debts from a practical point of view but you'll regret it if you wait too long. I don't have kids so I couldn't say how much they cost

Waiting too long - from a male perspective there's not a lot to worry about - we can continue until we're well past it - but from a female perspective there's a greater issue with leaving it longer. Not to say it's not possible (obviously beyond a point it isn't).
I'm "getting on a bit" - I think I should've had that motorbike by now ... and have a little toddler (which may help avoid the MLC). It's great in that we've already done a lot of things that we wouldn't have had a chance to do had he come along earlier - it's not so great in that we're not as fit (stamina wise) as we once were (remember those all-nighters we used to get away with in our youth?) and ultimately - our time together is limited because by the time he's my age I probably won't be - so I'll see less of any grandchildren he may produce (if that's the path he takes) - may seem a bit selfish from my point of view, but there you go...

Cost wise - that's easy - everything you have, plus a bit ...
They're not expensive - but they do become your #1 priority - and you don't want them to miss out.

Doesn't sound selfish at all. From my point of view pushing it later sounds like a tempting idea, although a guy at work had 2 kids by the time he was 27/28 so I guess he is going down the other route of getting them to fly the nest as early as possible and hope he can enjoy the freedom! I am 27 in October so I may need two women for that, the current GF might not be keen...

They don't fly the nest any more any way, they can't afford to!
Actually, that's not true, they just get into far more debt than we ever did, so you keep "paying" long after they do leave. (Grand kids are a total win- win though. All the fun, hardly any of the disciplin, then send them home for a couple of days once they've worn you out. )