|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Perceptions of welfare
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
They're not obviously shirkers. But why should they get a shorter commute than the man who isn't in receipt of HB?
We aren't starting from a blank sheet. The question is why would you additionally punish the time poor (most of these sorts of jobs have exceptionally long and/or antisocial hours) and cash poor now?
I mean if we are starting with a blank sheet perhaps we'd question why we are subsidising private enterprise with HB - it basically makes landlords wealthy and subsides businesses paying low wages in inner cities.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sighthound
Shipmate
# 15185
|
Posted
It could be argued that Housing Benefit distorts the market in that it enables rents to be (in some cases much) higher than they would otherwise be, and possibly wages to be lower.
HB is a massive portion of the so-called welfare budget, and objectively it is a government subsidy to landlords, some of whom are (very) wealthy.
The question is how do you change this situation without throwing numerous families (including children) onto the street or into even more expensive bed and breakfast.
In my view the only solution is to massively increase the supply of social housing - either council owned or more likely housing association owned - particularly in areas like London.
This means large capital expenditure - however the payback would come from much reduced revenue costs in the medium and longer term.
I also favour Land Value Tax, with the proviso that it should be phased in and should replace first Council Tax and then Income Tax. Among other useful impacts, it would discourage supermarkets and large developers from hoarding land that could be put to better use.
Of course there is little chance of this happening, as it would hit a number of very powerful vested interests.
--------------------
Supporter of Tia Greyhound and Lurcher Rescue.http://tiagreyhounds.org/
Posts: 168 | From: England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
They can take the night bus.
Depends where they live. This city used have night buses only at weekends and only on selected routes. They frequently ceased to run after incidents of violence or vandalism. So they were not reliable.
There are not night buses on some/few routes on weekdays but only up to 2am. They they start up again around 5.30am
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sighthound:
I also favour Land Value Tax, with the proviso that it should be phased in and should replace first Council Tax and then Income Tax.
Yes, this is sensible. You have to phase it in, in a clearly signposted and fairly adiabatic way, to avoid all kinds of nasty effects at the time of transition. And yes, Council Tax, which is a very bad imitation of a LVT goes first, followed by a transition from income tax to LVT over several years. Note, by the way, that NI counts as income tax - we have long since passed the point where NI became "just another tax" and so it's dishonest not to just own up and call it "tax".
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
Where I live there are no buses in after 21:53, and no buses out before 6:40.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by Albertus
And that, ISTM, is why we can't just say that we have to defer to the 'invisible hand' of a market which is in so many ways historically and socially contingent.
Not to mention idolatrous.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I was suggesting that heavy intervention is a bad thing, sorry if that didn't come across.
The market in land is almost entirely a legislative creation anyway. When you buy land, you're buying socially agreed legal rights over a pre-existing natural commodity. Without that body of legal rights there would be no market in land.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
originally posted by Albertus
And that, ISTM, is why we can't just say that we have to defer to the 'invisible hand' of a market which is in so many ways historically and socially contingent.
Not to mention idolatrous.
Absolutely. 'You shall have no other gods but me' did cross my mind when I was posting but I thought I'd leave it there for the moment.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
justlooking
Shipmate
# 12079
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sighthound:
....... HB is a massive portion of the so-called welfare budget, and objectively it is a government subsidy to landlords, some of whom are (very) wealthy.
The question is how do you change this situation without throwing numerous families (including children) onto the street or into even more expensive bed and breakfast.
In my view the only solution is to massively increase the supply of social housing - either council owned or more likely housing association owned - particularly in areas like London.......
This report from Shelter shows the impact of rising housing costs. Around 9 million people rent their homes from private landlords. At the end of 2012 76,790 children were living in temporary accommodation due to homelessness. Housing a family in emergency accommodation is expensive and the costs fall on local authorities. The only alternative is to split families up and take children into local authority care which costs even more.
Massively increasing social housing is probably the only way forward but it will take time and in the meantime more families will need urgent help. Over 2 million homes were lost from the social housing stock under the right-to-buy scheme. There are now around 5 million people on waiting lists for social housing. These will include 'home-owners' whose mortgage interest is being paid under the Mortgage Protection Scheme which is now limited to two years. Perhaps it will be when a significant number of these so-called aspirational families are made homeless that the message will finally get through.
Posts: 2319 | From: thither and yon | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
I wanted to link to this report which I mentioned a month ago on the Hell thread:Truth and Lies about Poverty - a report from the Baptist Union of Great Britain, the Methodist Church, the Church of Scotland and the United Reformed Church
I think that's a very important - and very under-reported - report.
Since this thread got resuscitated, I think we've been ignoring the grey, wrinkly elephant in the welfare room - pensions. The over-65s currently "consume" over 40% of the entire welfare budget, more than three times as much as housing benefit, and sixteen times as much as unemployment benefit.
And yet, of those deemed to be in poverty, 40% are of working age but out of work; 47% are in work; and only 13% are pensioners.
These figures would seem to suggest that, on average, it's pensioners who are paid more and need less.
Obviously, that "on average" is very important. There are many retired people who are very poor, and living costs (such as heating and social care) are higher in old age. But there's a growing number of people who are very nicely provided for in terms of non-welfare pensions. For instance, if I continued working till I'm 67 my various pensions (including welfare) would be about 60% of what I earn now. And by then I won't have a mortgage, so my housing costs will be as near zero as makes no difference. And although I will be paying income tax, I don't think you continue to pay National Insurance once you reach state pension age.
So why do we continue to pay about Ł5500 a year to people over 65, regardless of whether they need it or not?
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
justlooking
Shipmate
# 12079
|
Posted
The state pension is a pension and not welfare. As leo says it's been paid for through national insurance contributions and each pension will be proportionate to the contributions paid. There is or used to be an additional earnings-related state pension (SERPS) that people could pay into. If someone has only the basic state pension and nothing else they will get a Pension Credit to top up their income to a guaranteed minimum. This is the welfare element. Many pensioners with SERPS or with other work-related pensions will still have less than the guaranteed minimum and will receive a small Pension Credit payment. There's another Pension Credit for people who have a private pension in addition to the state pension and SERPS which rewards those who've made extra provision.
Posts: 2319 | From: thither and yon | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
There's also the thorny issue of costs -v- savings of introducing means testing to the whole state pension, winter fuel allowance, etc payments.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
So why do we continue to pay about Ł5500 a year to people over 65, regardless of whether they need it or not?
Bevause they paid national insurance every week for 40 years. It's not payment. it's giving back their investment.
Or more accurately- becausse the retirement pension is pay-as-you-go, rather than funded (bad call from Attlee & Jim Griffiths back in '48, that) - it's keeping the intergenerational bargain: when they were in work, they paid for the pensions of those who were retired, on the understanding that when they in turn retired the workers of the day would do the same thing for them.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
...which of course takes no account of demographic and life expectancy changes in the meantime. Mind the gap...
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
The state pension is welfare, insofar as it's part of what the government defines as the "welfare budget": it accounts for about Ł85billion out of the total Ł200billion.
Of course, this suits the government because it wants shrieking headlines about the size of the welfare budget. But if that's the deal, then state pension shouldn't be protected any more than any other part of the budget. You can't say the pension isn't welfare, and still keep your shrieking headlines: you can't have it both ways.
As for national insurance, it's a fiction. As Albertus pointed out, the state pension isn't funded, so it's not an "insurance" at all. It's an extra income tax on working-age people, and an employee tax on their employers. If we were to abolish it, add it to income tax (while keeping the "emplyee tax" part of it), and carry on applying it to wealthy pensioners (as we currently do with income tax), it would be what I believe is called "a nice little earner".
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
As for national insurance, it's a fiction. As Albertus pointed out, the state pension isn't funded, so it's not an "insurance" at all.
National insurance is initally meant to fund sickness and unemployment benefits - rather than pensions. Though yes, the link between benefits received and contributions paid has long disappeared.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
It was inevitable, I suppose. George Osborne was asked a question about Mick and Mairead Philpott, who were sentenced today for the manslaughter of six of their children in a house fire.
Part of his response was to ask whether the welfare state should be paying for "lifestyles like that". Story here. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Well, the benefit contribution link is still there, in a way, in that you are only entitled to the non-means-tested elements of Jobseekers Allowance and ESA (Incapacity Benefit as was) if you have paid a certain number of NI contributions in a certain period. However, these benefits are pretty marginal nowadays, and are increasingly anomalous in a system which will be, once Universal Credit comes in, pretty much officially based on means testing. You do get your entitlement to retirement pension (again, not means tested, as opposed to means-tesetd pensioner credits) from having a full contribution record, and that's worth having- it's why when I went back to full-time study for a few years I registered as self-employed to pay, I think, about Ł2 a week in NI- though your contributions are actually funding the pensions of the generation ahead of you.
As for the George Osborne/ Daily Heil take on the Philpotts, it's as low as you'd expect from them. Of course, quite a lot of welfare money is now paying for the lifestyles of the rich- the landlords whose exorbitant rents and property profiteering are funded through HB, the owners and shareholders of businesses which don't have to pay a proper wage because the Tax Credit system tops up the otherwise inadequate earnings of their employees. But when they misbehave, somehow it's none of our business.
[ 04. April 2013, 16:34: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
justlooking
Shipmate
# 12079
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
As for national insurance, it's a fiction. As Albertus pointed out, the state pension isn't funded, so it's not an "insurance" at all.
National insurance is initally meant to fund sickness and unemployment benefits - rather than pensions. Though yes, the link between benefits received and contributions paid has long disappeared.
The amount of state pension anyone receives is linked to the number of qualifying years in which they paid national insurance contributions. So there is a direct link between contributions and state pension. If someone works and pays contributions for only a few years they'll get a percentage of the full pension.
Posts: 2319 | From: thither and yon | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
I am so appalled by the reaction of so-called Christians like the Mail and Osbourne to the Philpott trial. Children died.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
justlooking
Shipmate
# 12079
|
Posted
Double-posting to add this:
quote:
You pay National Insurance contributions to build up your entitlement to certain state benefits, including the State Pension. The contributions you pay depend on how much you earn and whether you're employed or self-employed. You stop paying National Insurance contributions when you reach State Pension age.
from HMRC
Posts: 2319 | From: thither and yon | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I am so appalled by the reaction of so-called Christians like the Mail and Osbourne to the Philpott trial. Children died.
Genuine question- has Osbourne ever claimed to be a Christian, except perhaps in the most nominal sense?
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I am so appalled by the reaction of so-called Christians like the Mail and Osbourne to the Philpott trial. Children died.
Genuine question- has Osbourne ever claimed to be a Christian, except perhaps in the most nominal sense?
Even claiming to be a nominal Christian (as I believe he does) and doing this (not to mention his actions of Chancellor) is pretty awful.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
If someone works and pays contributions for only a few years they'll get a percentage of the full pension.
Well, yes, except that the thing which has variously been called income support, minimum income guarantee, guaranteed income top-up and pension credit will top this up, so that assuming he has no savings, someone with no NI contributions will get close to the same amount of income as someone with just the full basic state pension. The big difference is that the income support things penalize you heavily for having modest savings, whereas the pension does not.
Adeodatus suggests that rolling NI into income tax (and so applying it to all income rather than wages) would be a "nice little earner." I suggest that this is the wrong approach. I agree that NI (and employers' NI) should be a general tax rather than a tax on work. I'd prefer to trade them for a land value tax, but I could cope with rolling them into income tax - but this should be done in a fiscally neutral way.
Don't look at it as a "nice little earner" - look at is at distributing the burden of government in a more equitable way. You'd need to increase the income tax exemption for pensioners to hold pensioners of relatively modest means unharmed in this transition.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Adeodatus suggests that rolling NI into income tax (and so applying it to all income rather than wages) would be a "nice little earner." I suggest that this is the wrong approach. I agree that NI (and employers' NI) should be a general tax rather than a tax on work. I'd prefer to trade them for a land value tax, but I could cope with rolling them into income tax - but this should be done in a fiscally neutral way.
Spoilsport! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I am so appalled by the reaction of so-called Christians like the Mail
So am I. But I've never thought of the Mail as a Christian newspaper. The one that supported Hitler?
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I am so appalled by the reaction of so-called Christians like the Mail
So am I. But I've never thought of the Mail as a Christian newspaper. The one that supported Hitler?
Neither do I, but they would consider themselves to be Christian.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nanny Ogg
Ship's cushion
# 1176
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
They can take the night bus.
What's a night bus? They certainly don't exist in rural Britain, nor in many towns and cities. Our main bus service starts about 7am and finishes about 9pm. Some other buses start around 10am and finish at 4pm! There are few taxis and people on low wages or benefits cannot afford them. this puts people out of range of many jobs if they can't afford to run a car.
The bus fares went up recently so it now costs Ł7.40 to get to Lincoln and return which you need to find out of your benefit so you can sign on every 2 weeks as they closed the job seekers office here some time ago. That money could be better used for food or electricity.
--------------------
Buy me a beer and I'm you friend forever
Posts: 4137 | From: Away with the fairies | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Mind you, if it is done to any great scale it would depress rents and house prices, which would annoy landlords and housebuilders, even if it was the effect of a free market.
The housing market is in such a distorted state basically because successive governments (of all political stripes) have not wanted to annoy housebuilders and homeowners.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nanny Ogg:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
They can take the night bus.
What's a night bus? They certainly don't exist in rural Britain, nor in many towns and cities.
The example being discussed concerned a hypothetical cleaner living in a very expensive part of London to do his or her job. Night buses are common in London. They're not common in rural Britain but rural Britain isn't as expensive as Mayfair to rent a flat.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
justlooking
Shipmate
# 12079
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Well, yes, except that the thing which has variously been called income support, minimum income guarantee, guaranteed income top-up and pension credit will top this up, so that assuming he has no savings, someone with no NI contributions will get close to the same amount of income as someone with just the full basic state pension. The big difference is that the income support things penalize you heavily for having modest savings, whereas the pension does not...
There are two types of Pension Credit, one which guarantees a minimum income and one which pays extra to those who have saved towards retirement. GOV.UK Pesnion Credit
quote:
Guarantee Credit tops up your weekly income if it’s below Ł142.70 (single people) or Ł217.90 (couples).
Savings Credit is an extra payment for people who have saved some money towards their retirement, eg a pension.
Going back to this from Adeodatus:
quote:
Since this thread got resuscitated, I think we've been ignoring the grey, wrinkly elephant in the welfare room - pensions. The over-65s currently "consume" over 40% of the entire welfare budget, more than three times as much as housing benefit, and sixteen times as much as unemployment benefit.
And yet, of those deemed to be in poverty, 40% are of working age but out of work; 47% are in work; and only 13% are pensioners.
These figures would seem to suggest that, on average, it's pensioners who are paid more and need less.
I don't understand how the fact that fewer pensioners are living in poverty means that they are 'paid more and need less'. There is a guaranteed minimum income for pensioners which is meant to ensure they do not fall into poverty. Very many pensioners have income above this minimum because they have paid into pension schemes throughout their working lives in addition to making NI contributions. Where working families are living in poverty it can be due to a combination of low wages, high cost of housing, high cost of providing for children, personal debt and even the costs of getting to and from work.
Posts: 2319 | From: thither and yon | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sighthound
Shipmate
# 15185
|
Posted
The question of pensioners is complex. Many people talk about 'wealthy pensioners' but what exactly does this mean in context? I suspect that there are not that many millionaire pensioners out there, and that few of them bother to claim their bus passes. On the other hand, some pensioners with 'large' incomes are still paying a mortgage.
It seems to me that if you start taking state pensions from people who are deemed 'wealthy' - which I suspect would be judged differently from how we judge 'wealthy' people in general - you discourage thrift, and certainly you discourage anyone from taking out a private pension. Why bother, if it means that you end up losing part or all of your state pension? This is the very opposite of the attitude we should be encouraging.
On the other hand, I don't think making fuel allowance and bus passes taxable - like the state pension itself - would be unreasonable. Arguably these payments should be monetarised and added to the state pension anyway. It would save some admin costs.
--------------------
Supporter of Tia Greyhound and Lurcher Rescue.http://tiagreyhounds.org/
Posts: 168 | From: England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
The amount of state pension anyone receives is linked to the number of qualifying years in which they paid national insurance contributions. So there is a direct link between contributions and state pension. If someone works and pays contributions for only a few years they'll get a percentage of the full pension.
Yeah, but the benefit you receive is unrelated to the premiums you pay (discounting the very low paid) - just to whether or not you paid the premiums.
[ 05. April 2013, 08:58: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
The trouble with reforming the whole housing market is that not just big business but pretty much the whole of our economy is intimately geared to it - every time the housing market crashes it produces a recession in the wider economy. Making some of the changes suggested here to housing without buggering up the wider economy will take at least a generation and will make fair reform of the welfare system look like child's play in comparison...
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
The trouble with reforming the whole housing market is that not just big business but pretty much the whole of our economy is intimately geared to it - every time the housing market crashes it produces a recession in the wider economy. Making some of the changes suggested here to housing without buggering up the wider economy will take at least a generation and will make fair reform of the welfare system look like child's play in comparison...
That's interesting, because it can be argued that increasingly speculative and highly leveraged lending to fund activity in the housing market got us into the mess we are in now, and that brought about the need/pretext for "welfare reform" and much more besides.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
justlooking
Shipmate
# 12079
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
The amount of state pension anyone receives is linked to the number of qualifying years in which they paid national insurance contributions. So there is a direct link between contributions and state pension. If someone works and pays contributions for only a few years they'll get a percentage of the full pension.
Yeah, but the benefit you receive is unrelated to the premiums you pay (discounting the very low paid) - just to whether or not you paid the premiums.
Yes, the state pension is a standard sum and NI contributions are proportionate to wages so those who earn more pay more, just as they pay more income tax. The SERPS element was intended to provide a higher pension based on earnings-related contributions. I don't know if SERPS still operates - I paid it and it's increased my state pension by about 40%.
Posts: 2319 | From: thither and yon | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
The trouble with reforming the whole housing market is that not just big business but pretty much the whole of our economy is intimately geared to it - every time the housing market crashes it produces a recession in the wider economy. Making some of the changes suggested here to housing without buggering up the wider economy will take at least a generation and will make fair reform of the welfare system look like child's play in comparison...
That's interesting, because it can be argued that increasingly speculative and highly leveraged lending to fund activity in the housing market got us into the mess we are in now, and that brought about the need/pretext for "welfare reform" and much more besides.
Quite. And even if Matt's analysis is correct the answer surely is not to put reform in the too hard basket and forget about it, but to start thinking very seriously about how we get ourselves onto a surer and more sustainable footing.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
The trouble with reforming the whole housing market is that not just big business but pretty much the whole of our economy is intimately geared to it - every time the housing market crashes it produces a recession in the wider economy. Making some of the changes suggested here to housing without buggering up the wider economy will take at least a generation and will make fair reform of the welfare system look like child's play in comparison...
That's interesting, because it can be argued that increasingly speculative and highly leveraged lending to fund activity in the housing market got us into the mess we are in now, and that brought about the need/pretext for "welfare reform" and much more besides.
...and produced the recession(s)
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Well, quite. All the more reason to try to do something about it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
But how to do that whilst simultaneously disentangling the housing market from the rest of the economy to the extent needed?
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Off the top of my head, I don't know. But complexity is no reason not to try to find a way. The first step is to identify where we want to get to, and to acknowledge that something has to change. Then we can start thinking about how to get there.
[ 05. April 2013, 12:38: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
But how to do that whilst simultaneously disentangling the housing market from the rest of the economy to the extent needed?
I don't think it difficult. We simply don't have enough houses. Build enough and the
housing market will stabilise. I don't think there would be a shock / price collapse because from where we are now, it would take a decade to get to where we need to be. that's enough time for the market to adjust.
Other things like land value tax and rent control should be considered as well. And I say that as a private landlord.
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
justlooking
Shipmate
# 12079
|
Posted
And in the meantime, while we wait for this programme of housebuilding to take effect homelessness continues to rise and the rhetoric about welfare dependency gets ever more strident.
Posts: 2319 | From: thither and yon | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eigon
Shipmate
# 4917
|
Posted
I saw a programme a year or so ago where a reporter went round looking at the housing market, from speculation on flats in Outer Mongolia to empty houses in this country. It was presented in quite a light-hearted way, but there were moments when he seemed truly horrified by what he was finding out - when he interviewed a family in an overcrowded flat, and when he tried to find out how long he would be on a council waiting list after filling in the form with the worst case scenario he could imagine (and it still came up with a wait of over five years).
One of his conclusions were that there are plenty of empty houses in this country that could be used to solve the housing crisis. Many of them already belong to councils.
--------------------
Laugh hard. Run fast. Be kind.
Posts: 3710 | From: Hay-on-Wye, town of books | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
And a lot are privately owned. One of the first things that Eric Pickles did when he became Communities Secretary was to change the (already not terribly effective) rules allowing councils to take empty private properties into management, to make it harder for them to do so- this, of course, in the name of protecting private property rights.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
And in the meantime, while we wait for this programme of housebuilding to take effect homelessness continues to rise and the rhetoric about welfare dependency gets ever more strident.
Precisely.
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
The example being discussed concerned a hypothetical cleaner living in a very expensive part of London to do his or her job. Night buses are common in London. They're not common in rural Britain but rural Britain isn't as expensive as Mayfair to rent a flat.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) The number of cleaners - hypothetical or otherwise - who live in Mayfair will be miniscule.
In most cases, we are talking about people living in fairly over crowded premises in not so nice areas of London, who currently already travel for an hour or so to work, who have another hour added onto their commute with the expense that entails. The effective cut in their income, will be on average greater than that faced by you or I. In many cases, they'll live in former council property that - through the magic of buy to let - have become an tool to funnel money from local councils into the pockets of private landlords.
If you think the HB caps will only affect the hypothetical immigrant with five children living in a mansion in the middle of Mayfair, then you are at best uninformed.
Finally, if you want to complain about pigs with their snouts in the trough, then it makes sense to concentrate on the biggest pigs. Or is the 'politics of envy' only acceptable as a tool to make the pressured middle class hate the emiserated poor?
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
I've been thinking a lot about the huge gap between welfare perceptions and reality;
Mostly because of this
In the wake of this story the Mail has been running wonderful editorials claiming that they are being shouted down because their position is not liked by the 'chattering classes.' As an example from an editorial this week:
quote:
Daily Mail Editorial
And on the reform of welfare, which every reasonable Briton concedes is being rampantly abused across the country, Mr Miliband has no strategy at all.
What all of these pieces have in common is that (with one interesting exception) they are fact-free zones. Phrases like 'exponentially growing welfare budget' 'rampant abuse' etc. are common but no evidence to support these. Mostly because there isn't any.
The interesting exception is that they do refer to opinion polls on Welfare. Yes it is true that many people believe that spending is too high, many people believe that fraud is the hallmark of benefits and many believe that thousands fake disability in order to play the system. Which very much begs the question as to why people believe this? Especially when it isn't actually supported by the facts.
Let's begin with this one; the official government figure on the amount of the Welfare budget lost to fraud: 0.8%
In today's Observer is this wonderful piece:
Benefits in Britain: separating the facts from the fiction - produced with the Joseph Rowntree Trust and Fullfact, this is a useful codification of the facts. For example:
quote:
There is a lot of movement in and out of work, so many Job Seekers Allowance claims are very short. More than 80% of claimants never go near the work programme because they aren't on the benefit for long enough
quote:
18% of working-age households were workless; in only 2% had no one ever worked. More than half of adults in households where no one has ever worked were under 25. So although the proportion of households where no one has ever worked has increased recently, it is likely to be a manifestation of high and rising young adult unemployment.
quote:
If unemployment benefits are reduced, do more claimants find work?
They may stop claiming – but not necessarily go to work.
<snip>
European studies show that the use of sanctions is likely to lead to worse employment outcomes (lower pay and more likely to be back on benefits)
And this needs to be on bill-boards across the country:
quote:
To the extent there has been an upward trend, it's been driven by increasing numbers of pensioners, rather than more generous benefits. Meanwhile, spending on those below pension age – working age and children – has been flat overall, rising in recessions and falling outside them.
My contention is this: There is a huge 'perception gap' in the public's view of the Welfare state.
It is entirely reasonable to believe benefits are too generous. However such a position is only supportable if you actually know how much they are. Let me put it this way; I think Ship-of-fools hosts are paid far too much for the shoddy job that they do. It's outrageous, I want to complain to someone! Of course my opinion is ridiculous as 1)They are all volunteers who give freely and generously of their time and 2) A quick trip to Styx will show ample evidence that they do a difficult job very well.
It is really easy for the newspapers to find examples of individuals who abuse the system but that is not remotely representative of whole sections of the country. There is no doubt that anecdotes capture our thinking far better than statistics but this is the problem. Our politicians and media are seeking (and currently succeeding) to demonize the poor and disabled. Because if you demonize them successfully, then they don't deserve anything. The Welfare budget is too high because we are in a depression; fix the economy and the bill will come down. Stop landlords from charging exorbitant rents and the bill will come down. Then we need to talk seriously about pensioner benefits (40% of total budget).
I would also recommend Owen Jones' Independent Column from yesterday:
quote:
Owen Jones, Independent:
I pointed out that, given most of the benefits money he received were tax credits – that is in-work benefits – from the women he abused, the case said nothing about “welfare dependency”; that the welfare state is made up of millions of pensioners, parents who receive child benefit, low-paid workers who receive tax credits, disabled people and those thrown out of work. And the response was overwhelmingly positive.
Tragedies like this have to be removed from public debate. And the separate discussion over the welfare state can be turned around. Let’s talk about reducing welfare spending by stopping subsidising landlords and badly paying bosses.
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Excellent post, AFZ- thank you.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
