and then put an article in the Daily Mail complaining that you plead poverty and yet they give you tens of thousands of pounds every year
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:I think you've just identified the human condition.
Originally posted by Alwyn:
..... those who know the least ... are the most hostile. ...
Most of us believe in fairness, so the mere idea that someone is getting something for nothing, or something we're not, never mind the facts, tends to set us off. quote:Wait a minute, I thought we were talking about MY evil government!
Originally posted by leo:
Thanks for this thread - the more people who get to know how this evil government is attacking the vulnerable, the better.
quote:This is my experience too, along with the 'othering' of those on welfare.
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
The problem is that those who are convinced that welfare recipients are cheats or slouches who live the good life on "our" dime is that even when presented with evidence to the contrary, they deny it. You can present good facts and statistics like in the OP, but they'll say they saw a recipient with a iPhone or flat screen TV which proves that none of those stats are true.
It's a bit like trying to convince skeptics that climate change is real. One cold winter trumps 100 years of statistics and countless hours of analysis.
quote:I object to this term too, but on different grounds (at least where I live in the US). I object because the programs do almost nothing for people's actual welfare and indeed undermine it. The USDA which runs SNAP (food stamps) advises that the Thrifty Food Plan, on which benefits are figured, is nutritionally inadequate for long-term use.
Originally posted by chive:
I object to the term 'welfare', it has an implication of nastiness.
quote:It may be -- and I fervently hope it is -- different where you are. Where I live, these benefit programs tend to anti-social and result in nothing remotely resembling security.
Originally posted by chive:
Why don't we use the term 'social security' which is what it is - society providing security to it's most vulnerable.
quote:Italics mine.
Originally posted by chive:
I think part of the problem is the government's evil attitude that all people on benefit are scroungers and work dodging bastards. This is seen in all to many of their pronouncements. It is an attempt to turn the country against the most vulnerable. The atos assessment of people with disabilities is a good example of this.
quote:I'm not sure why a word with a very long existing meaning of faring, or doing, well should imply nastiness. People used to be able to be concerned for someone's welfare without any such meaning being attached their attitude. It seems to have been first used in 1904 or thereabouts in a social context. The welfare state, which was not seen in the circles I move in as nasty, came later.
Originally posted by chive:
I object to the term 'welfare', it has an implication of nastiness. Why don't we use the term 'social security' which is what it is - society providing security to it's most vulnerable.
quote:Ignorant as I am of the UK systems, the US ones make it almost impossible not to "get into trouble." I suspect the same may be true over the pond.
Originally posted by Alisdair:
----well I did 'get into trouble' with the system. All I can say is that, God willing, hopefully, 'Never again!'
quote:As a member of the Labour party, I can't but agree, but also regret that Labour too are playing the divide and rule card and parroting the 'workers and shirkers' rubbish. The best the poor can hope for from either party is the Lady Bountiful approach of handouts for the deserving: maybe- probably, I hope - Labour will be more bountiful than the Tories but neither appears to be willing to tackle the root causes.
Originally posted by leo:
Thanks for this thread - the more people who get to know how this evil government is attacking the vulnerable, the better.
quote:The problem is that there is this supposed divide between 'those in society who are working hard' and 'those on benefits' when in reality many people in work and who work very hard for very little pay are on benefits. Many people who are disabled and work hard just to survive day to day are on benefits. You would not receive a car just for a 'bad back' - you would be sent to an Atos agent who would decide if you were disabled enough to qualify. And then you could be declared fit to work even if terminally ill.
Originally posted by Sleepwalker:
First of all I would just like to state that I have been in and out of employment over the last two years, working hard to get work whenever possible, so I am speaking as someone who has had to claim benefits but who has also managed to find work for most of the last two years albeit in fits and starts.
I think when discussing the benefits system in the UK it is useful to remember the original aims of Beveridge when he wrote his report (which, interestingly, was accepted at the time in its original form by the Tories and the Liberals but not the Labour Party). The three proposals which made it different to the piecemeal welfare provision of the period were that it would be universal (ie for the disabled, the elderly AND the unemployed), indefinite and an insurance policy (ie people to pay into a system after which they can draw on it).
However, he also put forward a caveat. He stated that those who claimed benefits 'should be required, as a condition of continued benefit to attend a work or training centre, such attendance being designed as a means of preventing habituation idleness and as a means of improving capacity for earnings.'(26)
He clearly recognised the risk involved in a universal welfare provision without limit of time, because he also suggested that 'Most men who have once gained the habit of work would rather work – in ways to which they are used – than be idle ... But getting work ... may involve a change of habits, doing something that is unfamiliar or leaving one’s friends or making a painful effort of some other kind. The danger of providing benefits which are both adequate in amount and indefinite in duration, is that men as creatures who adapt themselves to circumstances, may settle down to them.' (25)
(Quotes from The Beveridge Report as cited by The Beveridge Report and the Post War Reforms by The Policy Studies Institute. The first 20 pages of the original Beveridge Report can be found here.)
Far from a condition of continued benefits being attendance at a work or training centre, a claimant is now given six months before they are even required to look for work outside their chosen field. There are no conditions at all to claiming benefits other than to sign on. I could claim for the rest of my life with impunity. And during that time I could have an endless supply of babies and be provided with a centrally heated, double glazed house, furniture, with new carpets and decoration supplied before I moved in. If I had a bad back I could claim for a car or alternatively my relatives could claim petrol expenses for driving me to places. And so on.
Yes, the system needs to be fair. But it needs to be fair to those who pay into it as well as those who take out. Beveridge wanted the 'rich' to help to pay for the poor, as well as to help the rich pay for themselves. Unfortunately, most of us paying in to the system are not rich; we are just getting by. Yet we are watching while others who haven't worked in 20 years but have no disability against working are better off than we are. That will be less applicable to a single person than to individuals with children but whichever way you look at it, it isn't fair to the working person who is contributing to the system.
I think Beveridge's concerns have been realised and what is happening at present is that those in society who are working hard and putting into the system want the imbalance addressed, and I don't see what the problem is with that.
quote:That there is one of the problems of the system that Gordon Brown created - take the money in tax, and then give back in benefits.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
... when in reality many people in work and who work very hard for very little pay are on benefits. ...
quote:This sounds good but it may be counter-productive. I'm all for lowering taxes on the poor and raising them on the rich - that makes perfect sense. But removing them altogether - I don't think so. I think it is important for every citizen to be a part of society and contribute, however little, both for their own feeling of being part of society, so that they have a financial and emotional investment in it, as well as the perceptions of others that they are not free-loading. No one should be in a class of society where they are takers only, and not givers also to society. At that point they stop being full members of that group but dependents of the group.
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
To start with, continue to raise the tax threashold (as this government is doing) thereby taking the poorest in our society out of the tax game altogether;
quote:This is a major part of the problem. We can argue over facts and figures and talk about statistically-calculated 'living wages', but when you talk to people who hold views critical of the welfare system they aren't convinced. My gran for instance knows many people who live comfortably on benefits while she struggles by on a meagre pension and is understandably put out by it. Arguing that her perceptions are wrong is a losing strategy (as is my usual approach many times!). As hard as the left tries, the right, the Daily Mail readers and the died-in-the-wool tories can't be convinced that the things they see day to day have been proven wrong by a few spreadsheets and a pie chart. First hand knowledge always trumps statistics for most people.
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
Apart from Sleepwalker, no-one else here seems to have spent anytime on JSA during unemployment and so I currently only hold Sleepwalkers, and my own, (having spent time unemployed on JSA), as authoritive, you can all pour over figures, but until you go through the system and live it you cannot say whether it is good or bad, and to be honest, you can live on JSA and the other benefits, enjoy a good level of life, want for very little (except the occassional night out) and gt away with spending your days pretending to look for jobs whilst doing bugger all.
quote:I think this government should definitely reform the system, and I hope they do a good job of it. The balance is skewed rather than broken though, and the system needs rational and measured reform, not a thorough overhaul. I am concerned with the government's rhetoric which whips up negative emotionalism instead of considered thought, and puts the blame on the poor themselves rather than the system. This is nasty politics, and should be strongly fought against.
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
The system is broken, and qudos to this government for looking at the unemployment support system and trying to make it work for all of society...
quote:Which is where - though I forgot to mention it, except in the double post, the reinstatement of the 10p tax rate would be a good idea. It is a small amount of tax to be paid by those at the bottom, though as I see it, this all has to happen against an absurd backdrop where the government takes taxes from me and then graciously gives me benefits back.
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:This sounds good but it may be counter-productive. I'm all for lowering taxes on the poor and raising them on the rich - that makes perfect sense. But removing them altogether - I don't think so. I think it is important for every citizen to be a part of society and contribute, however little, both for their own feeling of being part of society, so that they have a financial and emotional investment in it, as well as the perceptions of others that they are not free-loading. No one should be in a class of society where they are takers only, and not givers also to society. At that point they stop being full members of that group but dependents of the group.
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
To start with, continue to raise the tax threashold (as this government is doing) thereby taking the poorest in our society out of the tax game altogether;
quote:Which is why, thankfully, the one person who is trying to avoid the rhetoric is IDS, who is leading the charge of reform in this area. Regardless of what others are saying, IDS is not seeing it so starkly and has grasped the mess of a situation where the government taxes people and then hands money back, the other inconsistancies in the system, for all of people's desire to dislike him he is actually focussing on people rather than statistics, or measuring the success of welfare by the size of the cheque we write for it. I always like the anecdote he has of visiting a staunchly Labour council estate in Scotland and being told it is a Labour area... in fact the story is repeated in this article and should serve as a stark warning that problems are not solved by measuring the amount of money we throw at a problem, but by actually doing somethign constructive, making sure that work is the most effective and financially rewarding situation, but also that people get the support they need to get into work and are encouraged/pushed to do what they can, sooner rather than later.
Originally posted by Hawk:quote:I think this government should definitely reform the system, and I hope they do a good job of it. The balance is skewed rather than broken though, and the system needs rational and measured reform, not a thorough overhaul. I am concerned with the government's rhetoric which whips up negative emotionalism instead of considered thought, and puts the blame on the poor themselves rather than the system. This is nasty politics, and should be strongly fought against.
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
The system is broken, and qudos to this government for looking at the unemployment support system and trying to make it work for all of society...
quote:I don't know the figures but I was told in a conversation just this weekend of a family friend who is working after being on benefits and whose income is exactly the same as if she wasn't working. She chooses to work for the experience which is laudable, but for those who have children to look after or need to spend money travelling to work, they may quite understandably choose differently, it being a net loss to their lives to go to work every day rather than staying on benefits.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Also I'm puzzled by this idea of those on JSA [jobseeker's allowance to non-Brits] being better-off than those working - it's about £50 a week for under-25s, a bit more for those over 25. Less than £100 a week is hardly raking it in when you have to cover all your food, transport, bills etc with that (and Housing Benefit is paid to the landlord so you never see that, and it does not go towards bills). It's less than minimum wage.
quote:1. That only removes those people from one part of the tax game, they are still left with sales taxes and various other government levies. If you leave the income tax thresholds where they are and drop sales taxes like VAT you'll make a major net reduction in the cost of living for everyone regardless of whether they are below the threshold or above it.
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
To start with, continue to raise the tax threashold (as this government is doing) thereby taking the poorest in our society out of the tax game altogether; secondly, increase the minimum wage - it is evident that the minimum wage is too low (especially since the living wage is higher...) which has a dampening effect on wage levels; thirdly - never allow a Labour government near our economy again, the last two times they've been near it we've ended up broke...
quote:I was receiving Newstart (the Australian equivalent) and the attached Rent Assistance for a short time a few years ago. I would say that it's good for subsistence alone, it definitely doesn't give much room for discretionary spending without making significant sacrifices and no capacity for saving or investment. It's less than the minimum full-time wage, but still fit for purpose to keep most people going if they have the willpower to make the sacrifices (buying lower-priced store-brand food, clearing out a room for a student to board, etc) necessary to make it happen. In world terms it still sustains a good level of life, but in Australian terms it's pretty grim and still makes employment aspirational for all but the genuinely work-shy.
Apart from Sleepwalker, no-one else here seems to have spent anytime on JSA during unemployment and so I currently only hold Sleepwalkers, and my own, (having spent time unemployed on JSA), as authoritive, you can all pour over figures, but until you go through the system and live it you cannot say whether it is good or bad, and to be honest, you can live on JSA and the other benefits, enjoy a good level of life, want for very little (except the occassional night out) and gt away with spending your days pretending to look for jobs whilst doing bugger all.
The system is broken, and qudos to this government for looking at the unemployment support system and trying to make it work for all of society...
quote:I fully agree with what you are saying, VAT reduction would also be a major part to play (which would negate the raising of the minimum wage - yes I do know and understand the problems associated with wage inflation - the problem was that minimum wage was set at a lower than living wage rate by those that introduced it to the UK so the disparity between the cost of living and wages was already at friction and when coupled with the scrapping of the 10p tax rate, the constant increases in council taxes (another good thing proposed by the government at Westminster) it led to the situation where the government was taxing people and then giving them back the money in the form of tax credits and other benefits - it truly was, IMO, a 'successful' ideological war to enslave the population to the welfare state regardless of their pecetile).
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
I was receiving Newstart (the Australian equivalent) and the attached Rent Assistance for a short time a few years ago. I would say that it's good for subsistence alone, it definitely doesn't give much room for discretionary spending without making significant sacrifices and no capacity for saving or investment. It's less than the minimum full-time wage, but still fit for purpose to keep most people going if they have the willpower to make the sacrifices (buying lower-priced store-brand food, clearing out a room for a student to board, etc) necessary to make it happen. In world terms it still sustains a good level of life, but in Australian terms it's pretty grim and still makes employment aspirational for all but the genuinely work-shy.
What is most important, in my opinion, is to give those recipients who do genuinely want to work some meaningful opportunities to become more competitive as well as their benefits, primarily through subsidised access to training for White Cards, forklift driving licenses and so on. One way this can work is for the government to purchase slots in training courses which can be offered to benefit recipients for free. Another is "work for the dole" schemes where long-term recipients work for a period on a government construction project (returning the subsidy given to them by subsidising the cost of a new road in return) and receiving meaningful training along the way.
quote:I really don't understand why people think that is a relevant point. It's not like those of us who pay the rent or mortgage out of our salaries get to keep that money and spend it on other stuff as well. It goes straight to pay for our homes just like housing benefit does, so both cases should be counted as income.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
and Housing Benefit is paid to the landlord so you never see that
quote:Because if they were to admit that it isn't a relevant point then it would spoil the narrative that they try to peddle!
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:I really don't understand why people think that is a relevant point. It's not like those of us who pay the rent or mortgage out of our salaries get to keep that money and spend it on other stuff as well. It goes straight to pay for our homes just like housing benefit does, so both cases should be counted as income.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
and Housing Benefit is paid to the landlord so you never see that
Alternatively, in both cases it shouldn't be counted as income. I'd certainly be very happy if my mortgage payments were taken out of my salary before tax - it would nearly halve the amount of tax I pay!
quote:Really?
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
Which is why, thankfully, the one person who is trying to avoid the rhetoric is IDS, who is leading the charge of reform in this area.
quote:
The Rt Hon Iain Duncan-Smith MP, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, July 2011:
Welfare fraud costs the taxpayer £1.6billion every year — that’s £3,000 a minute. It’s a waste of cash that could be spent on schools and hospitals. But I’m pleased to say that fraudsters are now on borrowed time.
quote:
The Rt Hon Iain Duncan-Smith MP, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, February 2011:
Our reforms will end the absurdity of a system where people too often get rewarded for doing the wrong thing, and those who strive to do the best by their families get penalised.
quote:
The Rt Hon Iain Duncan-Smith MP, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, November 2010:
That is why we are developing a regime of sanctions for those who refuse to play by the rules as well as targeted work activity for those who need to get used to the habits of work
quote:That last one is my personal favourite. You can read the research here but to summarise... Of the 3.7m 'working-age-households' 18% have nobody with a job. Homes with two generations of worklessnes are less than 0.9%. The percentage of households where 2 generations have NEVER worked is less than 0.1%. There is no evidence at all of three-generation worklessness. There just isn't.
The Rt Hon Iain Duncan-Smith MP, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, November 2010:
...three generations of the same family have [often] never worked.
quote:You know, YOU really should vote Labour because if they really are powerful enough to be responsible for a world-wide financial crisis caused by the US sub-prime mortgage collapse, then they're pretty impressive. If you're bored sometime, look up the stats on how the Thatcher-Major governments ran an effective massive deficit across 18 years, paid for with the privatisation revenues. Whether or not privatisation is a good or bad thing, you can only do it once. It amazes me how an economic crisis caused by Friedman-esque neo-Liberal economic policies is somehow the ultimate justification for such policies...
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
...thirdly - never allow a Labour government near our economy again, the last two times they've been near it we've ended up broke...
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:No, no, no, no, no.
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
To start with, continue to raise the tax threashold (as this government is doing) thereby taking the poorest in our society out of the tax game altogether; secondly, increase the minimum wage - it is evident that the minimum wage is too low
quote:People who work needing to be on benefits is the fault of the employer not paying a living wage. And I've been on JSA, a lot, as I've repeatedly said, as have many other Shipmates so please don't discount our experiences. When I was on JSA I had barely enough to feed myself and pay my bills (£10 a week for food, £5 a week electricity and I was on a meter so it cost more, the rest went on rent since my Housing Benefit didn't cover it all and transport costs) so it most definitely was not a 'good level of life'.
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:That there is one of the problems of the system that Gordon Brown created - take the money in tax, and then give back in benefits.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
... when in reality many people in work and who work very hard for very little pay are on benefits. ...
People who are working shouldn't need benefits, the benefits system, as properly outlined above, is as a safety net for those that fall on hard times and need a little support (interestingly the TUC didn't factor in the gain of Housing Benefit, Council Tax Benefits, NI credits which might distort the figures a little from where the TUC presents them).
We are a civilised country, how have we got ourselves into a position where the state has to provide benefits to people in work?
To start with, continue to raise the tax threashold (as this government is doing) thereby taking the poorest in our society out of the tax game altogether; secondly, increase the minimum wage - it is evident that the minimum wage is too low (especially since the living wage is higher...) which has a dampening effect on wage levels; thirdly - never allow a Labour government near our economy again, the last two times they've been near it we've ended up broke...
But of course, everyone is going to want to have anice lefty rant about the current government where the facts of labour's incompetance and lack of vision, direction or leadership would just be an inconvenience...
Apart from Sleepwalker, no-one else here seems to have spent anytime on JSA during unemployment and so I currently only hold Sleepwalkers, and my own, (having spent time unemployed on JSA), as authoritive, you can all pour over figures, but until you go through the system and live it you cannot say whether it is good or bad, and to be honest, you can live on JSA and the other benefits, enjoy a good level of life, want for very little (except the occassional night out) and gt away with spending your days pretending to look for jobs whilst doing bugger all.
The system is broken, and qudos to this government for looking at the unemployment support system and trying to make it work for all of society...
quote:Fuck you and the classist Tory horse you rode in on - there is no narrative we're 'peddling', it's the truth. There is constant outrage in the Fail and other Tory newspapers over people claiming Housing Benefit as if it's money the recipient actually sees, hence it being important to point out that the recipient never sees it, and in many cases HB doesn't cover all the rent anyway.
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:Because if they were to admit that it isn't a relevant point then it would spoil the narrative that they try to peddle!
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:I really don't understand why people think that is a relevant point. It's not like those of us who pay the rent or mortgage out of our salaries get to keep that money and spend it on other stuff as well. It goes straight to pay for our homes just like housing benefit does, so both cases should be counted as income.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
and Housing Benefit is paid to the landlord so you never see that
Alternatively, in both cases it shouldn't be counted as income. I'd certainly be very happy if my mortgage payments were taken out of my salary before tax - it would nearly halve the amount of tax I pay!
quote:Presumably they do see it when they sit in their living room and look at the walls. The housing benefit has bought the roof over their head.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Fuck you and the classist Tory horse you rode in on - there is no narrative we're 'peddling', it's the truth. There is constant outrage in the Fail and other Tory newspapers over people claiming Housing Benefit as if it's money the recipient actually sees, hence it being important to point out that the recipient never sees it, and in many cases HB doesn't cover all the rent anyway.
quote:They are not able to spend it which is what many articles outraged about HB payments suggest - of course they are written by people with no actual experience of it. Even with the u-turn on denying HB to under-25s, many young people are still locked out of the housing market by landlords refusing to accept HB - rather mystifying as it is at least a steady source of rent. For those leaving care or have been homeless, Housing Benefit is the only thing that enables them to afford housing since they often take longer to complete their studies.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:Presumably they do see it when they sit in their living room and look at the walls. The housing benefit has bought the roof over their head.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Fuck you and the classist Tory horse you rode in on - there is no narrative we're 'peddling', it's the truth. There is constant outrage in the Fail and other Tory newspapers over people claiming Housing Benefit as if it's money the recipient actually sees, hence it being important to point out that the recipient never sees it, and in many cases HB doesn't cover all the rent anyway.
quote:This is a big pet-peeve of mine. Even if a welfare recipient has a flat screen TV, they might have gotten it before they were on welfare, it might have been a gift, or they might have needed a TV and found it on sale. In any case, it's a one-time expenditure that probably wouldn't make the difference in being able to pay the rent that month, and if they were to sell it or pawn it for money for food or whatever, they wouldn't get much for it. As for the phone, many programs exist to subsidize phone service for people in need, and a smart phone may be necessary as it probably is the person's only connection to the internet as well as their only phone line. Do we really want to say people in financial need shouldn't be able to access the internet? Particularly for people who have families and are busy (e.g., going to different agencies to satisfy terms of their receiving benefits, or wasting all day in a subsidized health care clinic that doesn't take appointments - U.S. only, of course). And, as with the TV, the phone itself was a one-time purchase, and may have been subsidized as well.
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
The problem is that those who are convinced that welfare recipients are cheats or slouches who live the good life on "our" dime is that even when presented with evidence to the contrary, they deny it. You can present good facts and statistics like in the OP, but they'll say they saw a recipient with a iPhone or flat screen TV which proves that none of those stats are true.
quote:Sad but true. And another pet-peeve of mine. Who is "deserving"? What does it take to make you "undeserving"? In general, the public requires a very high level of sanctity in those people who require the public's help - a sanctity the public never requires of itself. Let him or her who has never wasted a penny cast the first aspersion.
Originally posted by Angloid:
The best the poor can hope for from either party is the Lady Bountiful approach of handouts for the deserving:
quote:
Originally posted by Alisdair:
@sleepwalker -- In my experience the problems really start when your situation doesn't fit neatly into the prescribed box, which it doesn't the moment you stop being 'unemployed' and actually start working, but with an income that isn't enough to live on. Then the fight to stay legal but actually covering expenses really begins.
As for parasitic skivers: well they certainly exist, but to what extent. Ignorant prejudice says it's about 95% of all those on benefits. Objective research seems to suggest that the wilful hardcore is actually a very small number---and short of putting them in forced labour or killing them (or transporting them to Oz), they will always be around. If the 'objective research' is anywhere near accurate then the parasites aren't really worth bothering about, but they make a wonderful political tool to whip up fear and resentment.
It's the struggles of the rest---basically people who either have no choice but to depend on benefits (the chronically ill/disabled, etc.), and those who desperately want to get into/back into properly paid employment---that we (society) and the welfare system need to look after as constructively, flexibly, and fairly as we can.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
The OP makes clear what the percentage of actual cheaters looks like.quote:You are more-or-less correct, Alisdair but it's really not because the benefit administrators hate you, are prejudiced against you or wish to harm you - as far as we are concerned, we want your claim cleared, paid and on to the next one not only because all government departments these days are *target driven* but because, believe it or not, ime, the vast majority of DWP staff actually DO give a toss about the people represented by the paperwork in front of them and, indeed, empathize (I and many of my colleagues have first-hand experience of living on benefits).
Originally posted by Alisdair:
In my experience the problems really start when your situation doesn't fit neatly into the prescribed box
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:Small point, but not all landlords are allowed to accept tenants on HB. We are currently living abroad and rent our UK house out to tenants. Our mortgage provider specifically forbids rental to HB tenants, so it is not a decision we have a choice over.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
...many young people are still locked out of the housing market by landlords refusing to accept HB - rather mystifying as it is at least a steady source of rent.
quote:I'm not able to spend my mortgage money either, but that's what you appear to be suggesting.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
They are not able to spend it which is what many articles outraged about HB payments suggest
quote:The point is this - if you're only considering income that isn't going to pay for housing when talking about people on benefits but you're considering all income when talking about people in work, then it's a false comparison. One which is inevitably going to make those in work look far better off.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I think the point about HB is that its inclusion often makes the benefits a given recipient is technically in receipt of look quite generous.
quote:I'm not aware of anyone routinely making that comparison - it's more the other way round, at least at the Daily Heil end of opinion forming.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:The point is this - if you're only considering income that isn't going to pay for housing when talking about people on benefits but you're considering all income when talking about people in work, then it's a false comparison. One which is inevitably going to make those in work look far better off.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I think the point about HB is that its inclusion often makes the benefits a given recipient is technically in receipt of look quite generous.
The fair comparison would be to look at both people's income after housing costs are removed - their disposable income, as you put it - or to look at both people's income including that portion of it that goes straight back out again to pay the rent/mortgage.
I freely acknowledge that by either means of comparison I'm better off that the person on benefits. I just think that saying that money which goes straight back out on housing costs doesn't count when considering how much a person on benefits receives in a month, but that it does count when considering how much a person in work receives in a month, is pretty disingenuous.
quote:Bollocks. Do you actually know anyone on so-called "jobseeker's allowance"? They are forced to jump through a maze of demeaning hoops before they get anything. What you say wasn't even true when I last claimed any benefits, about thirty years ago, its far less true now. I know people who have gone for weeks with no income at all because of the difficulty of proving their claim. And they are required to start looking for work and accept jobs when offered, right from the begining.
Originally posted by Sleepwalker:
Far from a condition of continued benefits being attendance at a work or training centre, a claimant is now given six months before they are even required to look for work outside their chosen field.
quote:That's not true. Claimants have to go through various interviews and patronising talks that are based on the assumption that all unemployed are only unemployed because of personal inadequacy. They have to be able to present themselves for inspection at short notice, often at places quite some distance from where they live. And if they fail to, they are assumed to be unavailable for work, the benefit gets withdrawn, and getting back on the system can take weeks. I'm not talking about what I read in the papers, I'm talking about what friends neighbours and family members have been going through.
There are no conditions at all to claiming benefits other than to sign on.
quote:Well, aren't you lucky? That's not true about everyone else though.
I could claim for the rest of my life with impunity.
quote:Absolutely untrue. I'm sorry, but this nonsense is exactly the kind of anti-welfare propaganda the opening post was talking about. You've fallen for it and you are spreading the lies. You have been taken in.
And during that time I could have an endless supply of babies and be provided with a centrally heated, double glazed house, furniture, with new carpets and decoration supplied before I moved in.
quote:No. First, that would be disability living allowance, not any kind of unemployment benefit or social security or jobseeker's allowance. Second, the government has recently withdrawn those benefits from tens of thousands of people, many of them quite unfit for work. Third, you never got them for an ordinary "bad back" in the first place.
If I had a bad back I could claim for a car or alternatively my relatives could claim petrol expenses for driving me to places.
quote:But if you have a mortgage to pay, you own a house, which you could then sell. Your mortgage money is ultimately controlled by you - you have an obligation to pay your mortgage to keep your home, obviously, but you are still able to change your living conditions (in theory, making no comment on the practicalities of this!) and therefore how much you spend on your mortgage. Those in receipt of HB are not in control of how much is paid, or even where they live a lot of the time.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:I'm not able to spend my mortgage money either, but that's what you appear to be suggesting.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
They are not able to spend it which is what many articles outraged about HB payments suggest
Sauce for the goose, and all that.
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:That's not true. Claimants have to go through various interviews and patronising talks that are based on the assumption that all unemployed are only unemployed because of personal inadequacy. They have to be able to present themselves for inspection at short notice, often at places quite some distance from where they live. And if they fail to, they are assumed to be unavailable for work, the benefit gets withdrawn, and getting back on the system can take weeks. I'm not talking about what I read in the papers, I'm talking about what friends neighbours and family members have been going through.
There are no conditions at all to claiming benefits other than to sign on.
And God help you if they trick you into one of those fake "work experience" scams.
You are also making the assumption that all benefits are work related benefits. As I said above I claim DLA. To apply for that I had to fill in a sixty page form which was extremely distressing to complete. My specialists and GP were contacted and also had to complete forms.
quote:Well, aren't you lucky? That's not true about everyone else though.
I could claim for the rest of my life with impunity.
quote:Absolutely untrue. I'm sorry, but this nonsense is exactly the kind of anti-welfare propaganda the opening post was talking about. You've fallen for it and you are spreading the lies. You have been taken in.
And during that time I could have an endless supply of babies and be provided with a centrally heated, double glazed house, furniture, with new carpets and decoration supplied before I moved in.
quote:It was implicit in your initial comment about the inclusion of HB making benefits look quite generous. Surely that means you think that a fair comparison would be one that doesn't take HB into consideration?
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I'm not aware of anyone routinely making that comparison - it's more the other way round, at least at the Daily Heil end of opinion forming.
quote:I think the fairest comparison is disposable income. What I don't think is that there's some dispicable lefty plot to distort things by not taking HB into consideration when the person in question is unemployed, as some seemed to be implying.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:It was implicit in your initial comment about the inclusion of HB making benefits look quite generous. Surely that means you think that a fair comparison would be one that doesn't take HB into consideration?
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I'm not aware of anyone routinely making that comparison - it's more the other way round, at least at the Daily Heil end of opinion forming.
quote:Sure, if I wanted to be the richest person living on the street. I still need somewhere to live, and that still has to be paid for.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
But if you have a mortgage to pay, you own a house, which you could then sell.
quote:I'm only able to change my living conditions to the degree that I can afford to pay for them. If for whatever reason I had to ask someone else to pay my living expenses then I'd expect to have to abide by the living conditions the person who was giving me the money dictated. If, for example, I was unemployed and my wife was the sole contributor to our household then I'd expect her to have the final say when it came to how we spent her money. If I lived alone but dependent on my parents to pay my rent, I'd expect them to have the final say in where I lived. And if I was dependent on the government for my rent, I'd expect it to have the final say in where I lived. The one paying the piper gets to call the tune.
Your mortgage money is ultimately controlled by you - you have an obligation to pay your mortgage to keep your home, obviously, but you are still able to change your living conditions (in theory, making no comment on the practicalities of this!) and therefore how much you spend on your mortgage. Those in receipt of HB are not in control of how much is paid, or even where they live a lot of the time.
quote:A plot? No. I just don't like it when people say stuff like "those on benefits have to live on a tiny fraction of what you earn" when I know damn well that that fraction is significantly bigger once HB is taken into account.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I think the fairest comparison is disposable income. What I don't think is that there's some dispicable lefty plot to distort things by not taking HB into consideration when the person in question is unemployed, as some seemed to be implying.
quote:Yes, but you can downsize. You can cover the whole of your housing expenses (whether rent or mortgage) from your own income. When I was in hostels, my HB didn't cover the rent in full (which was around £90 a week) so I *still* had to pay rent on top of that. Someone not on HB has vastly more choice as to where they live and how much rent/mortgage they paid. Those on HB are for some reason held responsible by others (eg certain newspapers) for decisions made by the government as to where they live.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Sure, if I wanted to be the richest person living on the street. I still need somewhere to live, and that still has to be paid for.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
But if you have a mortgage to pay, you own a house, which you could then sell.
quote:I'm only able to change my living conditions to the degree that I can afford to pay for them. If for whatever reason I had to ask someone else to pay my living expenses then I'd expect to have to abide by the living conditions the person who was giving me the money dictated. If, for example, I was unemployed and my wife was the sole contributor to our household then I'd expect her to have the final say when it came to how we spent her money. If I lived alone but dependent on my parents to pay my rent, I'd expect them to have the final say in where I lived. And if I was dependent on the government for my rent, I'd expect it to have the final say in where I lived. The one paying the piper gets to call the tune.
Your mortgage money is ultimately controlled by you - you have an obligation to pay your mortgage to keep your home, obviously, but you are still able to change your living conditions (in theory, making no comment on the practicalities of this!) and therefore how much you spend on your mortgage. Those in receipt of HB are not in control of how much is paid, or even where they live a lot of the time.
quote:Well yes, that's because it's not their money that's being spent.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
The thing is that if you downsized to somewhere cheaper you would be able to keep the difference as disposable income. If unemployed people on HB downsize they don't get more disposable income, they just get less HB.
quote:I don't think anyone's suggesting that you should. I think the point is simply that your circumstances are subtly different.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Well yes, that's because it's not their money that's being spent.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
The thing is that if you downsized to somewhere cheaper you would be able to keep the difference as disposable income. If unemployed people on HB downsize they don't get more disposable income, they just get less HB.
To go back to my previous post, if someone was paying the rent for me to live in one part of town I wouldn't expect to be able to move to a cheaper area and keep the difference.
quote:Well, yes. And someone on £500k a year has vastly more choice than I do. And someone on a few million a year has vastly more choice than them.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Someone not on HB has vastly more choice as to where they live and how much rent/mortgage they paid.
quote:Actually I have signed on recently, twice in the past couple of years, most recently for a few weeks this last autumn.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:Bollocks. Do you actually know anyone on so-called "jobseeker's allowance"? They are forced to jump through a maze of demeaning hoops before they get anything. What you say wasn't even true when I last claimed any benefits, about thirty years ago, its far less true now. I know people who have gone for weeks with no income at all because of the difficulty of proving their claim. And they are required to start looking for work and accept jobs when offered, right from the begining.
Originally posted by Sleepwalker:
Far from a condition of continued benefits being attendance at a work or training centre, a claimant is now given six months before they are even required to look for work outside their chosen field.
quote:My point is that you, and those making more than you, can downsize. That is generally an option not open to those on HB - they cannot change their situation, they are on the bottom rung in terms of the housing market. Even if your wife (for example) was making your household's housing decisions, there would be a way of negotiating, of compromising. Those on HB have little to none personal agency in this area.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Well, yes. And someone on £500k a year has vastly more choice than I do. And someone on a few million a year has vastly more choice than them.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Someone not on HB has vastly more choice as to where they live and how much rent/mortgage they paid.
None of that is relevant to the point I was making.
quote:Indeed, but my point is that it's slightly fallacious to compare your disposable income with theirs, because yours is extensible in a way theirs isn't.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Well yes, that's because it's not their money that's being spent.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
The thing is that if you downsized to somewhere cheaper you would be able to keep the difference as disposable income. If unemployed people on HB downsize they don't get more disposable income, they just get less HB.
To go back to my previous post, if someone was paying the rent for me to live in one part of town I wouldn't expect to be able to move to a cheaper area and keep the difference.
quote:We hardly need to build more houses. There are hundreds of thousands of empty ones (which aren't second/holiday homes).
Originally posted by ken:
What Ricardus said. HOusing Benefit, as at present applied in the UK, is not primarily a way of ensuring that the virtuous poor don't freeze to death. There are cheaper ways to do that, including building council houses. Its main economic function is to sustain high land prices, its secondary one is to take taxpayer's money and hand it over to landlords.
quote:I don't begrudge it. I just dislike any attempt to claim that because it all goes to pay for the recipient's home rather than into his or her pocket it doesn't count as money they are receiving.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
If house prices and rent actually reflected the cost of production spread across the expected lifetime of the house, HB would be a fraction of its current size and people wouldn't begrudge it much more than JSA.
quote:Yes, but your parents wouldn't have paid over the odds because that was all that was available, and then put an article in the Daily Mail complaining that you plead poverty and yet they give you tens of thousands of pounds every year
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:I don't begrudge it. I just dislike any attempt to claim that because it all goes to pay for the recipient's home rather than into his or her pocket it doesn't count as money they are receiving.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
If house prices and rent actually reflected the cost of production spread across the expected lifetime of the house, HB would be a fraction of its current size and people wouldn't begrudge it much more than JSA.
It's like if I tried to claim that my parents never gave me a penny through my university years, when in fact they were paying my rent. But hey, they paid it directly to the landlord, so I never saw it, so that doesn't count as them giving me money, right?
quote:Oh yes they did. For exactly that reason (well, and because they didn't want me trying to get a degree while sleeping rough).
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Yes, but your parents wouldn't have paid over the odds because that was all that was available,
quote:They were pretty darn clear about me not getting any more out of them, mind. If I wanted any extra beer tokens I had to work for them (or, as it actually happened, max out a few overdrafts and pay them back over the next three years).
and then put an article in the Daily Mail complaining that you plead poverty and yet they give you tens of thousands of pounds every year
quote:And I'm not allowed to 'spend' my mortgage on anything other than the roof over my family's head, either.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:They are not able to spend it which is what many articles outraged about HB payments suggest
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:Presumably they do see it when they sit in their living room and look at the walls. The housing benefit has bought the roof over their head.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Fuck you and the classist Tory horse you rode in on - there is no narrative we're 'peddling', it's the truth. There is constant outrage in the Fail and other Tory newspapers over people claiming Housing Benefit as if it's money the recipient actually sees, hence it being important to point out that the recipient never sees it, and in many cases HB doesn't cover all the rent anyway.
quote:This. It describes so accurately what I see round here as well. It feels like a betrayal of my principles to say that, but it's true, exactly as Pyx_e says about love being met with infantile anger. I see it in school all the time as teachers are verbally and physically assaulted for trying to help people's children. And it is about the psychic and emotional effects of dependency and powerlessness - a darkness of the soul as he so rightly says.
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
I am and always will be in favour of welfare, if someone is unemployed, past pension age or ill then they should not lose their food, a roof over their head and an ability to pay basic bills.
In the area I serve in we have three of the top ten in the country wards of “social depravation.” In one neighbouring parish 70% of the people who live on it receive benefit of one kind or another. Three generations of welfare recipients is by no means unusual. There is a massive culture and awareness of how to maximise ones benefit income. A huge sense of “my Giro.” A sense of “entitlement” to benefit that bears greater resemblance to upper middle class thinking than any gratitude for living in a society that has a safety net. I could tell you a thousand stories.
Putting aside all the arguments about not enough jobs, culture, individual stories and circumstances as well as any idea of right and wrong I would like to make one point only.
My point is; dependency does dark things to the soul.
It is the horror of Love, I am called to give and not count the cost, to not let my right hand know what my left is doing and to give to all who ask of me, and in my weak ways I try.
But it seems sometimes my Love is taken and taken and taken. Until I am bereft and still the one I am loving is still unsatisfied and having been kept in a state of immaturity responds to my love in a childish and angry ways.
Putting aside the whole amount of benefit in Pounds, shillings and pence ploughed into this area the local council has spent £20 million in less than ten years and most indicators have got worse.
If you have an answer please let me know. For me at present only new life in Christ seems to draw close to a glimpse of Hope.
Fly Safe, Pyx_e.
quote:Thing is, you don't have the Daily Mail speaking as if you have that cash burning a hole in your pocket.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:And I'm not allowed to 'spend' my mortgage on anything other than the roof over my family's head, either.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:They are not able to spend it which is what many articles outraged about HB payments suggest
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:Presumably they do see it when they sit in their living room and look at the walls. The housing benefit has bought the roof over their head.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Fuck you and the classist Tory horse you rode in on - there is no narrative we're 'peddling', it's the truth. There is constant outrage in the Fail and other Tory newspapers over people claiming Housing Benefit as if it's money the recipient actually sees, hence it being important to point out that the recipient never sees it, and in many cases HB doesn't cover all the rent anyway.
quote:Personally, I see far more need to go after corporate tax cheats - far more moral and far more money to be had there.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
In this country, people also spend loads of their bile on welfare cheats etc. etc.
Personally, I saw far more wastage in the administration of the system.
quote:Is that really Matt Black speaking? Congratulations!
Originally posted by Matt Black:
True.
quote:Personally, I see far more need to go after corporate tax cheats - far more moral and far more money to be had there.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
In this country, people also spend loads of their bile on welfare cheats etc. etc.
Personally, I saw far more wastage in the administration of the system.
quote:I will get my cote.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I refuse to be pidgeonholed!
quote:As I wrote in my post, I have spent the last two years in and out of employment. Obviously I know someone who has been on jobseekers allowance - me. I have also been made redundant twice in my working life, followed by periods of unemployment (including having to make a claim for housing benefit). As a person without children and therefore no means of claiming extras I have had to make very tough choices between about what to eat or whether I can afford to replace the shoes with the holes in them. I've done all of that but I stand by what I said because what I have also done is been willing to work. That is, I have been willing to work, not just work at what I want to do or what I am trained to do, but work. That work has included cleaning bloody toilets among other things.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:Bollocks. Do you actually know anyone on so-called "jobseeker's allowance"?
Originally posted by Sleepwalker:
Far from a condition of continued benefits being attendance at a work or training centre, a claimant is now given six months before they are even required to look for work outside their chosen field.
quote:You are out of touch. Your first claim is by phone. It is completed within the hour during that initial phone call. You are then given an appointment with an advisor, in my town usually within the same day as the phone call. We then go through work experience, education, etc on the database, look for some jobs together, I get a print out of any available jobs, a little chat explaining the sign on situation and bobs your uncle, off I trot. If I sign off and then have to sign on again within a limited time (I think its 6 weeks but it may be more, I can't remember now) I can do a fast track signing, which is just over the phone.
quote:That's not true. Claimants have to go through various interviews and patronising talks that are based on the assumption that all unemployed are only unemployed because of personal inadequacy.
There are no conditions at all to claiming benefits other than to sign on.
quote:Through work I know of people who have been claiming for decades. Benefits are not time limited in the UK. Anyone could claim for the rest of their lives if they wanted to. All you do is play the system, as many do, and you're sorted. Now you or others on here may not WANT to do that but there are people who DO want to do that (usually enhancing their income through jobs on the side or whatever).
quote:Well, aren't you lucky? That's not true about everyone else though.
I could claim for the rest of my life with impunity.
quote:My job is working in children's services. I know what the situation is. The state is caught between a rock and a hard place in this area as nobody wants children to be put at risk but at the same time nobody wants mothers to keep on producing babies which the state funds ad infinitum.
quote:Absolutely untrue. I'm sorry, but this nonsense is exactly the kind of anti-welfare propaganda the opening post was talking about. You've fallen for it and you are spreading the lies. You have been taken in.
And during that time I could have an endless supply of babies and be provided with a centrally heated, double glazed house, furniture, with new carpets and decoration supplied before I moved in.
quote:Firstly, benefits are benefits. The OP referred to all benefits and I was doing likewise.
quote:No. First, that would be disability living allowance, not any kind of unemployment benefit or social security or jobseeker's allowance. Second, the government has recently withdrawn those benefits from tens of thousands of people, many of them quite unfit for work. Third, you never got them for an ordinary "bad back" in the first place.
If I had a bad back I could claim for a car or alternatively my relatives could claim petrol expenses for driving me to places.
quote:In an ideal world, our comprehensive education system would deliver a comprehensive education - which would mean the cycle would not necessarily be repeated.
Originally posted by Jahlove:
oh and saying the state needs children because they will be the ones paying for the pensions/taking care of *our* generation of elderly - hmm - I kind of doubt that the illiterate, innumerate offspring of welfare single-by-choice mothers are going to amount to anything other than another giro.
quote:I think suggesting I am fortunate not to have children is being a bit presumptuous.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Sleepwalker, you're fortunate not to have children. You don't have to choose between feeding them, clothing them or keeping them warm. You can take any damned job at any time of day or night without the bother and expense of arranging child care.
quote:Perspective is precisely what I am keeping. Living on benefits was never supposed to be easy, that is clear from the original report I referred to in my first post. It is supposed to be the barest minimum for survival, and so second hand, pound shops and coming to tough decisions is all part and parcel of it. I am a strong supporter of the welfare state but not as it stands at present. I am proud that my country has a safety net but I am not proud that it is a comfort zone for those who can work but who won't. That I acknowledge those people exist shows that I do have perspective; it is people who deny their existence, who would purport that everyone on benefits is unfortunate, who are the ones who have lost perspective.
As for living on JSA it's something I've done - with my wife and four children - and in the short-term, so long as you already have some clothes, bedding, towels and the rest it isn't bad. After a few months, or rather less if your children grow quickly, what is probably adequate for pure day-to-day subsistence is nowhere near enough for new shoes and new (even new-to-you) clothes.
So keep a bit of perspective pal.
quote:Good Luck with that Ideal World then.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
quote:In an ideal world, our comprehensive education system would deliver a comprehensive education - which would mean the cycle would not necessarily be repeated.
Originally posted by Jahlove:
oh and saying the state needs children because they will be the ones paying for the pensions/taking care of *our* generation of elderly - hmm - I kind of doubt that the illiterate, innumerate offspring of welfare single-by-choice mothers are going to amount to anything other than another giro.
quote:You say this as if benefit claimants don't pay taxes - they don't pay income tax but they pay plenty of other taxes such as VAT. Students also don't pay income tax or council taxes but they don't suffer nearly as much of the bile directed at those on benefits. It's just more of the same old 'those on JSA are lazy and don't pay their way as opposed to Hard Working Taxpayers' bullshit.
Originally posted by Sleepwalker:
quote:I think suggesting I am fortunate not to have children is being a bit presumptuous.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Sleepwalker, you're fortunate not to have children. You don't have to choose between feeding them, clothing them or keeping them warm. You can take any damned job at any time of day or night without the bother and expense of arranging child care.
quote:Perspective is precisely what I am keeping. Living on benefits was never supposed to be easy, that is clear from the original report I referred to in my first post. It is supposed to be the barest minimum for survival, and so second hand, pound shops and coming to tough decisions is all part and parcel of it. I am a strong supporter of the welfare state but not as it stands at present. I am proud that my country has a safety net but I am not proud that it is a comfort zone for those who can work but who won't. That I acknowledge those people exist shows that I do have perspective; it is people who deny their existence, who would purport that everyone on benefits is unfortunate, who are the ones who have lost perspective.
As for living on JSA it's something I've done - with my wife and four children - and in the short-term, so long as you already have some clothes, bedding, towels and the rest it isn't bad. After a few months, or rather less if your children grow quickly, what is probably adequate for pure day-to-day subsistence is nowhere near enough for new shoes and new (even new-to-you) clothes.
So keep a bit of perspective pal.
I would like a benefits system that is fair to the taxpayer as well as to the genuine claimant (genuine because they are genuinely looking for work and not looking to exploit the taxpayer).
quote:Is that necessarily an issue? In any case, by reroofing and double-glazing the council may actually have been saving themselves money in the long run...
Originally posted by Sleepwalker:
putting social housing (taxpayer funded) at a higher standard than a sizeable amount of the privately owned stock in the same town.
quote:If you want an answer to that piece of ignorant bullshit, repeat it in Hell you arrogant bastard.
Originally posted by Jahlove:
oh and saying the state needs children because they will be the ones paying for the pensions/taking care of *our* generation of elderly - hmm - I kind of doubt that the illiterate, innumerate offspring of welfare single-by-choice mothers are going to amount to anything other than another giro.
quote:I think you've won the prize for the most classism in one post. Aside from the fact that working class women are frequently employed to care for the elderly, you realise that what you've said is just totally false? My mum was a single teen mum in a council house when I was born - shock horror, I am neither illiterate or innumerate. As someone who lived with a lot of the kind of people you describe in hostels, none of them were illiterate or innumerate (and the educational problems they did have were due to dyslexia etc) and many did amazing things and some are now great parents themselves. But I am guessing such experiences are wasted on your prejudice. It's very sad.
Originally posted by Jahlove:
oh and saying the state needs children because they will be the ones paying for the pensions/taking care of *our* generation of elderly - hmm - I kind of doubt that the illiterate, innumerate offspring of welfare single-by-choice mothers are going to amount to anything other than another giro.
quote:Yes, in an ideal utopia the comprehensive system may work, however it has proven to have failed time and time again.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
quote:In an ideal world, our comprehensive education system would deliver a comprehensive education - which would mean the cycle would not necessarily be repeated.
Originally posted by Jahlove:
oh and saying the state needs children because they will be the ones paying for the pensions/taking care of *our* generation of elderly - hmm - I kind of doubt that the illiterate, innumerate offspring of welfare single-by-choice mothers are going to amount to anything other than another giro.
quote:The problem is, there's no school in the world that will be able to undo the effect of bad parenting.
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:Yes, in an ideal utopia the comprehensive system may work, however it has proven to have failed time and time again.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
In an ideal world, our comprehensive education system would deliver a comprehensive education - which would mean the cycle would not necessarily be repeated.
quote:VAT is not payable on common groceries, kids clothing, certain products if you are disabled and long-term ill:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
You say this as if benefit claimants don't pay taxes - they don't pay income tax but they pay plenty of other taxes such as VAT.
quote:The unions wouldn't like it because it's elitist and doesn't work. How has the current system failed? It constantly does well in international league tables, even with competition from systems that are like the grammar system, eg Germany.
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:Yes, in an ideal utopia the comprehensive system may work, however it has proven to have failed time and time again.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
quote:In an ideal world, our comprehensive education system would deliver a comprehensive education - which would mean the cycle would not necessarily be repeated.
Originally posted by Jahlove:
oh and saying the state needs children because they will be the ones paying for the pensions/taking care of *our* generation of elderly - hmm - I kind of doubt that the illiterate, innumerate offspring of welfare single-by-choice mothers are going to amount to anything other than another giro.
There is nothing wrong with streaming learners in schools (most schools now do stream or set for the core subjects if not all subjects) and it is no great leap to accept that maybe we do need an education system which is not in the solely 'comprehensive model', where-by I mean it is acceptable to have schools that cater for the G&T learners (call them grammar schools if you like but that has it's own connetations) and it is ok to have schools which focus on the cores of english, maths and science whilst being predominantely focussed on manual-trade employment.
Generations of learners and the wider country have been let down by the comprehensive system where the 'one-size-fits-all' belief is implemented and fails to stretch the top, challenge the middle adequately and to support the bottom percentiles.
As I say above, if it is acceptable to stream, to provide additional lessons for G&T, seperate learning areas for SEN, to differentiate etc. etc. within classroom and school, with all the additional planning, marking and stress that accompanies it, why can we not have an educational system where we have schoosl that focus on different things...
Once we have our education system sorted into a proper, workable model, then maybe the small percentage of problems we face in the benefits system, and the economic and industrial decline we are going through might at least be halted from droppign any further, and may, with all the hope in the world, just reverse our situation to something much more bright and optimistic.
But of course, the Unions wouldn't like it!
quote:This misses my point (which was that those on benefits do pay taxes), but I have to pay VAT on many 'common groceries' like fruit juice and sanitary products. When you're taxed for having a pre-menopausal uterus...
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:VAT is not payable on common groceries, kids clothing, certain products if you are disabled and long-term ill:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
You say this as if benefit claimants don't pay taxes - they don't pay income tax but they pay plenty of other taxes such as VAT.
Wiki. has a fairly accurate and comprehensive list (but SoF wont allow me the URL link to it) and I would have to link to about a dozen different government pages to show you how those on benefits, disability etc. can benefit from a reduced rate, or exemption from, VAT on certain goods and services.
I would also say that those claiming benefits get NI credits, effectively allowing them to maintain their entitlement to a full state pension (though I don't know how the recent pension changes affects this) without working, regardless of how long they are on benefits for (I understand for those who are severely disabled, on benefits for a couple of months why it is a good schmem, but for those small percentage who claim benefits for years are entitled...)
quote:Different ability levels isn't the problem - different attitudes to education is. A disruptive child who has been taught since birth by their parents that learning and education is a pointless waste of time isn't going to gain anything from the rest of the class, but the rest of the class may well see their own education suffer as a result of that child's disruptive behaviour and the consequent drain on their teacher's time.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
It's important that students mix with people of all abilities, and having schools totally divided by ability prevents this.
quote:How the idea is elitist I am not entirely sure... no one, even from within my own union, has given a convincing argument about why anything other than the comprehensive system is elitist, and why the primary focus of education, which should be enabling learners to achieve their best regardless of whether it is A* or D, is less important than being wedded to a system which fails learners. Not everyone has the capability to make it as Prime Mininster, Judge, Teacher, Car Mechanic, it is not elitist to acknowledge this and plan education around those facts of reality, it is common sense and reality! As a teacher I would go through with my lower level groups and set out what was a success with them, equating their C to the A* of the top-stream in the school, and we happily accepted this as reality, the kids knew that was what they were capable of, and were determined to make it as much as a success as possible whilst recognising the realities of life, they just weren't as clever as other people and that they would not be a Law Lord or Platinum Album singers. They amd I were not elitist in recognising our abilities and where our peak was and what we were capable of accomplishing (not that we didn';t all aspire to be other thigns and were determined to work at it even if only to prove to ourselves that maybe success can be made - but that came with a realisation that attitudes to learning and the amount of effort and time put in would have to change. None of that is elitist, it is reality and the education system should be quite relaxed in reflecting that reality and ensuring learners are in an environment where they can achieve to the best of thier abilities, something that the one-size-fits-all comprehensive system fails to do.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
The unions wouldn't like it because it's elitist and doesn't work. How has the current system failed? It constantly does well in international league tables, even with competition from systems that are like the grammar system, eg Germany.
For a start, most schools do not stream for all subjects - in my school (this was 2000-2005) there was only streaming in subjects with written exams. It's important that students mix with people of all abilities, and having schools totally divided by ability prevents this. Also, why does someone being suited to manual trade mean they can't learn from studying say, art and drama? And why couldn't someone wanting to enter academia also learn from studying design & technology? Everyone learns something from all subjects, even if it's just a small amount. Learning doesn't have to have economic consequences to be valuable. In any case, our own economic hardship has not been caused by the organisation of state schools and manufacturing is down everywhere in the West, not just the UK - the UK's core industries are simply changing, not declining. And change is not a negative thing.
quote:Nicely put.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Different ability levels isn't the problem - different attitudes to education is. A disruptive child who has been taught since birth by their parents that learning and education is a pointless waste of time isn't going to gain anything from the rest of the class, but the rest of the class may well see their own education suffer as a result of that child's disruptive behaviour and the consequent drain on their teacher's time.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
It's important that students mix with people of all abilities, and having schools totally divided by ability prevents this.
quote:Not true - the rest of the class can be a good example to them, and in any case it's not the child's fault so why should they be punished by being separated? They should get extra help but they shouldn't be excluded from mixing with everyone else. The social aspects of school are important too.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Different ability levels isn't the problem - different attitudes to education is. A disruptive child who has been taught since birth by their parents that learning and education is a pointless waste of time isn't going to gain anything from the rest of the class, but the rest of the class may well see their own education suffer as a result of that child's disruptive behaviour and the consequent drain on their teacher's time.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
It's important that students mix with people of all abilities, and having schools totally divided by ability prevents this.
quote:It is elitist because it sets out extremely limited parameters for what children are capable of - who knows at 11 what a child is capable of? It is not right to narrowly pigeonhole children into roles of either academic or vocational. Furthermore, as long as 'cleverness' is associated with academic pursuits, insisting that some children are not capable of academic studies at all is essentially going to label them as stupid. I know that isn't the aim of those who want separation by ability, but it's what happens. When I was doing my A Levels, my college's campus was split between the A Level building, the vocational buildings and the arts buildings (drama, music production, fine art etc). There was a distinct attitude that the A Level students were the cleverest, the arts students in the middle and the vocational students at the bottom in terms of intellect. When I lived in hostels, most of my hostel-mates were doing vocational studies while I was doing A levels and they were always pointing out that by this I was 'clever' - I felt uncomfortable with this since they were clever too.
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:How the idea is elitist I am not entirely sure... no one, even from within my own union, has given a convincing argument about why anything other than the comprehensive system is elitist, and why the primary focus of education, which should be enabling learners to achieve their best regardless of whether it is A* or D, is less important than being wedded to a system which fails learners. Not everyone has the capability to make it as Prime Mininster, Judge, Teacher, Car Mechanic, it is not elitist to acknowledge this and plan education around those facts of reality, it is common sense and reality! As a teacher I would go through with my lower level groups and set out what was a success with them, equating their C to the A* of the top-stream in the school, and we happily accepted this as reality, the kids knew that was what they were capable of, and were determined to make it as much as a success as possible whilst recognising the realities of life, they just weren't as clever as other people and that they would not be a Law Lord or Platinum Album singers. They amd I were not elitist in recognising our abilities and where our peak was and what we were capable of accomplishing (not that we didn';t all aspire to be other thigns and were determined to work at it even if only to prove to ourselves that maybe success can be made - but that came with a realisation that attitudes to learning and the amount of effort and time put in would have to change. None of that is elitist, it is reality and the education system should be quite relaxed in reflecting that reality and ensuring learners are in an environment where they can achieve to the best of thier abilities, something that the one-size-fits-all comprehensive system fails to do.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
The unions wouldn't like it because it's elitist and doesn't work. How has the current system failed? It constantly does well in international league tables, even with competition from systems that are like the grammar system, eg Germany.
For a start, most schools do not stream for all subjects - in my school (this was 2000-2005) there was only streaming in subjects with written exams. It's important that students mix with people of all abilities, and having schools totally divided by ability prevents this. Also, why does someone being suited to manual trade mean they can't learn from studying say, art and drama? And why couldn't someone wanting to enter academia also learn from studying design & technology? Everyone learns something from all subjects, even if it's just a small amount. Learning doesn't have to have economic consequences to be valuable. In any case, our own economic hardship has not been caused by the organisation of state schools and manufacturing is down everywhere in the West, not just the UK - the UK's core industries are simply changing, not declining. And change is not a negative thing.
Yet, the UK continues to slip, and certain parts of the UK inparticular continue to slip (I think of Wales since that is where I am.)
I did not say that most schools streamed for all subjects, just setting for some subjects, although certain schools do stream right across and right through, and those I know of are some of the most successful schools.
Nor did I say that schools in any of the categories should neglect D&T, arts etc. but the focus of those schools would be on allowing the learners to excel in what they are capable of.
I find it interesting to note that you make the statement about mixing, however most repuable educationalists would advocate to a certain degree that seperating the genders out in education is a good idea as it has positive effects on both genders in terms of their educational achievement - but of course that would be elitist, and probably sexist, to do that, undermining the comprehensive system which should, at all costs to the benefit of learners, be maintained.
You are quite right that industry is changing, but I would argue with you about education not having economic value... economic values are measured by the outcomes of certain things, everything has an economic value, even the natural environment has an economic value (expressed in ability to use resources, but also in terms of recreation, social well-being etc.) The problem our economy has is that hte monolithic comprehensive system is not adapatable enough, mainly because it is aiming to be 'comprehensive' when in fact we need an education system that can adapt quickly to ensure that hte skills and knowledge that the future generations will need to fit into, and continue to mold, the industrial and academic changes in the world - to do this the education ssytem needs ot be able to quickly and sucessfulyl adapt and pass on thos eadpatations, but under the one-size-fits-all comprhensive system it cannot happen quickly or very effectively as it is struggling to provide a basic education as it is let alone allowing for innovation or advancement.
quote:I take it that you are not, and never have been, anywhere near the teaching profession. This is utter b*ll*cks and is the mad, and unrealistic belief of people wedded t a system that does not work... No number of good children in a class will act as a model to badly behaved kids - all badly behaved kids do is disrupt... what they need is personal attention and seperation to actually get to know them and work on their issues, but you can get lost if I am doing it for every child I teach who requires this level of attention whilst I plan my lessons, try to support 30 other kids in the class in their work, differentiate one lesson into 12 different things for the multitude of different SEN and G&T needs that exist in the class... and I could go on, I dont not make this up but talk about his from real experience as a teacher having to do all these things!
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Not true - the rest of the class can be a good example to them, and in any case it's not the child's fault so why should they be punished by being separated? They should get extra help but they shouldn't be excluded from mixing with everyone else. The social aspects of school are important too.
quote:'SEN' as I understand it, stands for 'Special Educational Needs' (which used to be Special Needs when I were a lad). But what's 'G&T'? In my book that's gin and tonic, which I'm sure all teachers need after a day at the coalface but I'm not sure whether they're on the national curriculum for children yet.
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
...for the multitude of different SEN and G&T needs that exist in the class...
quote:Gifted & Talented - by the last governments reckoning the top 10% of students though itis arbitary and inflexible a guide for determining those that are genuinely gifted and talented in their respective disciplines.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:'SEN' as I understand it, stands for 'Special Educational Needs' (which used to be Special Needs when I were a lad). But what's 'G&T'? In my book that's gin and tonic, which I'm sure all teachers need after a day at the coalface but I'm not sure whether they're on the national curriculum for children yet.
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
...for the multitude of different SEN and G&T needs that exist in the class...
quote:But disruptive children have their own assistants with them in class to give them that extra attention (at least they were in my school) - and obviously they should have extra SEN help if necessary, but it still doesn't mean the disruptive child should be shoved off to the side to make the teacher's life easier. I empathise with the enormous workload teachers have, but then that's an issue with not having enough properly qualified teaching assistants and too-large class sizes, not a lack of separation due to ability.
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:I take it that you are not, and never have been, anywhere near the teaching profession. This is utter b*ll*cks and is the mad, and unrealistic belief of people wedded t a system that does not work... No number of good children in a class will act as a model to badly behaved kids - all badly behaved kids do is disrupt... what they need is personal attention and seperation to actually get to know them and work on their issues, but you can get lost if I am doing it for every child I teach who requires this level of attention whilst I plan my lessons, try to support 30 other kids in the class in their work, differentiate one lesson into 12 different things for the multitude of different SEN and G&T needs that exist in the class... and I could go on, I dont not make this up but talk about his from real experience as a teacher having to do all these things!
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Not true - the rest of the class can be a good example to them, and in any case it's not the child's fault so why should they be punished by being separated? They should get extra help but they shouldn't be excluded from mixing with everyone else. The social aspects of school are important too.
quote:This may be one for the concurrent political correctness thread, but I always thought special needs referred to children who were slow (e.g. the dyslexic) and therefore needed extra help, rather than those who were badly behaved. What does 'SEN' cover exactly these days?
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
But disruptive children have their own assistants with them in class to give them that extra attention (at least they were in my school) - and obviously they should have extra SEN help if necessary.
quote:In terms of disruption, I was thinking of children with ADHD, autism and other conditions that impair concentration. SM or another teacher can probably answer more comprehensively, but SEN certainly covers more than those who struggle academically (although dyslexia has no impact on intelligence and being dyslexic does not in any way make a person 'slow').
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:This may be one for the concurrent political correctness thread, but I always thought special needs referred to children who were slow (e.g. the dyslexic) and therefore needed extra help, rather than those who were badly behaved. What does 'SEN' cover exactly these days?
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
But disruptive children have their own assistants with them in class to give them that extra attention (at least they were in my school) - and obviously they should have extra SEN help if necessary.
quote:Since the advent and widespread use of medically accepted behavioural problems, those who are disruptive due to their medical problems are calssed as SEN.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:This may be one for the concurrent political correctness thread, but I always thought special needs referred to children who were slow (e.g. the dyslexic) and therefore needed extra help, rather than those who were badly behaved. What does 'SEN' cover exactly these days?
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
But disruptive children have their own assistants with them in class to give them that extra attention (at least they were in my school) - and obviously they should have extra SEN help if necessary.
quote:But why should the rest of the class by penalised by their behaviour?
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:Not true - the rest of the class can be a good example to them, and in any case it's not the child's fault so why should they be punished by being separated? They should get extra help but they shouldn't be excluded from mixing with everyone else. The social aspects of school are important too.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Different ability levels isn't the problem - different attitudes to education is. A disruptive child who has been taught since birth by their parents that learning and education is a pointless waste of time isn't going to gain anything from the rest of the class, but the rest of the class may well see their own education suffer as a result of that child's disruptive behaviour and the consequent drain on their teacher's time.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
It's important that students mix with people of all abilities, and having schools totally divided by ability prevents this.
quote:Yes, and once upon a time it was ok to have seperate schoosl for those who traditionally fall under the SEN category (although that is now much larger!)
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:In terms of disruption, I was thinking of children with ADHD, autism and other conditions that impair concentration. SM or another teacher can probably answer more comprehensively, but SEN certainly covers more than those who struggle academically (although dyslexia has no impact on intelligence and being dyslexic does not in any way make a person 'slow').
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:This may be one for the concurrent political correctness thread, but I always thought special needs referred to children who were slow (e.g. the dyslexic) and therefore needed extra help, rather than those who were badly behaved. What does 'SEN' cover exactly these days?
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
But disruptive children have their own assistants with them in class to give them that extra attention (at least they were in my school) - and obviously they should have extra SEN help if necessary.
quote:The child (assuming it is one child out of a class of 30 here) suffers more from separation than the rest of the class does. But I'm not suggesting the disruptive child should just be left to disrupt the class! Just not taken out and taught alone, the child should have extra help within the classroom. Of course the classroom should have some kind of 'quiet room' to help with this, and to help children who work best in short bursts. The problem isn't with the comprehensive system but with funding.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:But why should the rest of the class by penalised by their behaviour?
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:Not true - the rest of the class can be a good example to them, and in any case it's not the child's fault so why should they be punished by being separated? They should get extra help but they shouldn't be excluded from mixing with everyone else. The social aspects of school are important too.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Different ability levels isn't the problem - different attitudes to education is. A disruptive child who has been taught since birth by their parents that learning and education is a pointless waste of time isn't going to gain anything from the rest of the class, but the rest of the class may well see their own education suffer as a result of that child's disruptive behaviour and the consequent drain on their teacher's time.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
It's important that students mix with people of all abilities, and having schools totally divided by ability prevents this.
quote:Excuse me! This is Purgatory, and you know perfectly well that personal attacks are not appropriate here! Take it to hell, buddy.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:If you want an answer to that piece of ignorant bullshit, repeat it in Hell you arrogant bastard.
Originally posted by Jahlove:
oh and saying the state needs children because they will be the ones paying for the pensions/taking care of *our* generation of elderly - hmm - I kind of doubt that the illiterate, innumerate offspring of welfare single-by-choice mothers are going to amount to anything other than another giro.
quote:No, the child will continue to be disruptive. Any teacher will inform you of this well known fact. What needs to happen is that he child needs strong discipline and punishment (that old idea of carrot and stick fits in here somewhere, but punishment seemed to fall by the way side under the last government in adoration of the carrot only approach.) It is amazing that hte goal posts have somehow moved here to disruptive kids, which do need seperating, and the actual needs of learners in the education system.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:The child (assuming it is one child out of a class of 30 here) suffers more from separation than the rest of the class does. But I'm not suggesting the disruptive child should just be left to disrupt the class! Just not taken out and taught alone, the child should have extra help within the classroom. Of course the classroom should have some kind of 'quiet room' to help with this, and to help children who work best in short bursts. The problem isn't with the comprehensive system but with funding.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:But why should the rest of the class by penalised by their behaviour?
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:Not true - the rest of the class can be a good example to them, and in any case it's not the child's fault so why should they be punished by being separated? They should get extra help but they shouldn't be excluded from mixing with everyone else. The social aspects of school are important too.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Different ability levels isn't the problem - different attitudes to education is. A disruptive child who has been taught since birth by their parents that learning and education is a pointless waste of time isn't going to gain anything from the rest of the class, but the rest of the class may well see their own education suffer as a result of that child's disruptive behaviour and the consequent drain on their teacher's time.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
It's important that students mix with people of all abilities, and having schools totally divided by ability prevents this.
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:No, the child will continue to be disruptive. Any teacher will inform you of this well known fact. What needs to happen is that he child needs strong discipline and punishment (that old idea of carrot and stick fits in here somewhere, but punishment seemed to fall by the way side under the last government in adoration of the carrot only approach.) It is amazing that hte goal posts have somehow moved here to disruptive kids, which do need seperating, and the actual needs of learners in the education system.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:The child (assuming it is one child out of a class of 30 here) suffers more from separation than the rest of the class does. But I'm not suggesting the disruptive child should just be left to disrupt the class! Just not taken out and taught alone, the child should have extra help within the classroom. Of course the classroom should have some kind of 'quiet room' to help with this, and to help children who work best in short bursts. The problem isn't with the comprehensive system but with funding.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:But why should the rest of the class by penalised by their behaviour?
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:Not true - the rest of the class can be a good example to them, and in any case it's not the child's fault so why should they be punished by being separated? They should get extra help but they shouldn't be excluded from mixing with everyone else. The social aspects of school are important too.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Different ability levels isn't the problem - different attitudes to education is. A disruptive child who has been taught since birth by their parents that learning and education is a pointless waste of time isn't going to gain anything from the rest of the class, but the rest of the class may well see their own education suffer as a result of that child's disruptive behaviour and the consequent drain on their teacher's time.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
It's important that students mix with people of all abilities, and having schools totally divided by ability prevents this.
I challenge you to teach in a mixed ability (non-set or streamed) school in a socio-economically mixed part fo the country for a couple fo years and see if your political utopia survives... If I were a betting man I would bet hansomely that it wouldn't and the realities of the failed comprehensive system would come to the for and you would have to rethink this line of defense you are advocating. The lines you put forwards are all lines I have heard before from SM, politicians (interesting to note you are a politics student) union officials and others who have either had no real life experience of the teaching profession, or have been so long removed thath tey have forgotten what it iwas actually like. Into that I add to the mix these people will have tended to have had a non-comprehensive education or if they did it was in an area which was socio-economically homogenous and the ability, SEN and G&T levels were not so wide as tehy tend to be in many schools today.
karl, I appreciate that many schools do at least set some lesson these days, Jade did not, and I will advance that it is a realisation that different abilities need different attention and is infact at least some way towards recognising and affirming this fact of education and life and is a perfectly justifiable step into the creation of specialised schools for those different needs.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
quote:To which I say: What. A. Load. Of. Bull.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
As for not knowing anything about modern schools....
And of course the disruptive children should be the focus! They are the ones who are disadvantaged by their own disruptive nature...
...and their disruption doesn't happen in a vacuum - it happens because of a poor-quality home life, mental illness, medical conditions or even just malnutrition...
quote:No, the comprehensive system does not fail everybody, it just fails the majority.
Originally posted by North East Quine:
As someone who was educated in a comprehensive school (there weren't any non-comps where I grew up) and whose husband is likewise a product of the comprehensive system, and whose children are / were educated in a comprehensive, I'm astonished to learn that the system is a "failure." I hadn't noticed.
The system probably works best in areas where it really is a "comprehensive" - the only non-comprehensive in Aberdeenshire is the Montessori school, so pretty much everyone goes to a comprehensive, or commutes into Aberdeen.
quote:Almost everybody I know is the product of the comprehensive system, so I know people from a fair number of schools. I'm not getting the impression the system is failing many people here. There are 17 state comprehensives in Aberdeenshire, plus a small fee-paying Montesorri school. There are a few - perhaps 1% - who commute to a fee-paying school in Aberdeen. I'm guessing if the system wasn't working, someone would try to set up a non- comprehensive.
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:No, the comprehensive system does not fail everybody, it just fails the majority.
Originally posted by North East Quine:
As someone who was educated in a comprehensive school (there weren't any non-comps where I grew up) and whose husband is likewise a product of the comprehensive system, and whose children are / were educated in a comprehensive, I'm astonished to learn that the system is a "failure." I hadn't noticed.
The system probably works best in areas where it really is a "comprehensive" - the only non-comprehensive in Aberdeenshire is the Montessori school, so pretty much everyone goes to a comprehensive, or commutes into Aberdeen.
, and then it is dependent on the school as well.
I, likewise was educated in the comprehensive system and I got a good education from it, but that is more to do with the school itself rather than the comprehensive structure that it did not keep to.
quote:That would be a matter of economics and primary legislation (such as free-schools in England) which would allow for such a thing to occur. It maywell be nobody has done it because in the Public School system it would not be viable as your indication of 1% commuting seems to indicate.
Originally posted by North East Quine:
I'm guessing if the system wasn't working, someone would try to set up a non- comprehensive.
quote:Sorry to double post but your other post got in before mine.
Originally posted by North East Quine:
(missed edit button)
Aberdeen itself has 12 state comprehensives and 3 fee-paying schools. I deduce, therefore, that in the north-east of Scotland, a total of 29 comprehensives and 3 non-comprehensives means that most people are happy to have their children educated within a comprehensive.
quote:Only if they have the economic ability to do so...
Originally posted by North East Quine:
But if people felt that the comprehensive system "failed" the majority of children, more than 1% would be commuting and the number of children in Aberdeen itself opting-out of state education would be increasing, resulting in the private sector growing. AFAIK, it isn't - any expansion in population has resulted in an expansion in the comprehensive sector.
quote:Indeed. But Aberdeen has a healthy economy. There are plenty of people who buy expensive houses and cars, but still have their children state-educated.
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:Only if they have the economic ability to do so...
Originally posted by North East Quine:
But if people felt that the comprehensive system "failed" the majority of children, more than 1% would be commuting and the number of children in Aberdeen itself opting-out of state education would be increasing, resulting in the private sector growing. AFAIK, it isn't - any expansion in population has resulted in an expansion in the comprehensive sector.
If you do not have the ability to move your child out of the system then it is no indication that the system is working, only that you have too few choices for your childs education.
It falls under the same category as buying a car:
I know that a new Toyota is better than a two year old Toyota which is better than a four year old Toyota, but I do not have the ability to buy a new Toyota, and the only choice I have is a four year old Toyota - I am stuck buying the four year old car because ican't afford the new one and the two year old one is non-existant in my area.
quote:There are decades of research and evidence that demonstrate punishment is not a very effective strategy for behaviour change (well over half century's worth in fact). But that said, the way people use the terms 'reward' and 'punishment' in in everyday speech is often somewhat different from what they mean technically. I suspect the way that the way that the research has been translated into a policy for classroom provision may also reflect that confusion.
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:No, the child will continue to be disruptive. Any teacher will inform you of this well known fact. What needs to happen is that he child needs strong discipline and punishment (that old idea of carrot and stick fits in here somewhere, but punishment seemed to fall by the way side under the last government in adoration of the carrot only approach.)
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:The child (assuming it is one child out of a class of 30 here) suffers more from separation than the rest of the class does. But I'm not suggesting the disruptive child should just be left to disrupt the class! Just not taken out and taught alone, the child should have extra help within the classroom. Of course the classroom should have some kind of 'quiet room' to help with this, and to help children who work best in short bursts. The problem isn't with the comprehensive system but with funding.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:But why should the rest of the class by penalised by their behaviour?
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:Not true - the rest of the class can be a good example to them, and in any case it's not the child's fault so why should they be punished by being separated? They should get extra help but they shouldn't be excluded from mixing with everyone else. The social aspects of school are important too.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Different ability levels isn't the problem - different attitudes to education is. A disruptive child who has been taught since birth by their parents that learning and education is a pointless waste of time isn't going to gain anything from the rest of the class, but the rest of the class may well see their own education suffer as a result of that child's disruptive behaviour and the consequent drain on their teacher's time.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
It's important that students mix with people of all abilities, and having schools totally divided by ability prevents this.
quote:Of course, this is a very Leftie perspective, but it's so nice to hear the argument articulated for a change.
from the article:
Funny, too, that such high-ups as George Osborne bemoans "taxing people on low incomes to pay for the child benefit of those earning so much more" when, as he must know, a progressive taxation system ensures that this has never actually happened. Strange, also, that so much noise is being made about the supposed iniquity of millionaires getting relatively trifling universal benefits when the government has just given them such a big tax cut.
quote:Talking of rent etc. - Housing and Council Tax Benefits?
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
The amount that I 'earned' was in fact my Income Support and JSA
quote:The arguments are heard often, they just aren't very sound arguments, nor heard in the full context of the debate.
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
quote:Of course, this is a very Leftie perspective, but it's so nice to hear the argument articulated for a change.
from the article:
Funny, too, that such high-ups as George Osborne bemoans "taxing people on low incomes to pay for the child benefit of those earning so much more" when, as he must know, a progressive taxation system ensures that this has never actually happened. Strange, also, that so much noise is being made about the supposed iniquity of millionaires getting relatively trifling universal benefits when the government has just given them such a big tax cut.
quote:I didn't receive any Housing or Council Tax benefits because I was living with my parents/other homeowners before I lived with my parents, and I believe that they do not take Housing or Council Tax benefits into account anyway (this is what Student Finance England have told me).
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:Talking of rent etc. - Housing and Council Tax Benefits?
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
The amount that I 'earned' was in fact my Income Support and JSA
If you were enrolling full-time then you would not have been able to claim JSA anyhow so you would not be able to be self-supporting...
And on the basis that JSA works out at £3500 pa, when I was JSA adding in CT & H benefits I was receiving benefits in excess of £8,000 pa.
quote:That is simply not true. As OP the indicated there is a drowning out of the argument.
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
The arguments are heard often, they just aren't very sound arguments, nor heard in the full context of the debate.
quote:The thing is, this is just wrong. As you rightly point out hypothocating of taxes is something we basically don't do. But the thing is, as the recent Child benefit nonsense has shown, it can be (and I stress the 'can' because context is all) staggeringly more efficient to have universal benefits and then tax accordingly to pay for them. And remember Child benefit was introduced because of an effective national statement that raising children is important and something the nation values. Never mind the important arguments around how we view the welfare state being hugely influenced by universality.
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
so the argument is either, those at the bottom do contribute to those at the top, or those at the top might as well see their tax take reduced and the benefit not paid to them, which would then save even just a small amount of beaurocratic cost.
quote:Yeah, except George Osborne deliberately misrepresented the figures, and it is impossible to say whether this was true or not, but probably it wasn't.
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
To reduce the upper rate of tax from 50p to 45p still leaves it higher than at any point under the last Labour government except in the closing few months, and was based on an economic argument. If a rate of tax does not increase the take sufficiently there is not an economic, nor business, argument to keep it...
quote:No they don't. Anyone earning more than the personal allowance benefits in full, many of the lowest earners only just breach into paying incometax and hence it has little effect for them. IIRC to benefit the lowest earners by £1bn costs around £11bn. It's hard to imagine any less efficient way to try to help the poor.
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
The tax situation needs to consider the increases in personal allowance which affects those on the lowest incomes more than those in the upper-middle to top.
quote:I was just pointing out that all discussion in this area fails to account for the entirety of the situation, not making a case either way or the other.
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
It's hard to imagine any less efficient way to try to help the poor.
quote:Good question.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Have there been any calculations done at the cost of means-testing universal benefits versus the savings thus generated?
quote:For me the argument about Child Benefit goes as follows:
p21 of the report
While means testing can reduce public spending through targeting of support, 2.11 the costs per claim of delivering means-tested benefits tend to be higher than for contributory or universal benefits even where benefits have similar target groups. The Department for Work and Pensions estimates that maintaining existing claims for Pension Credit cost £47 per claim in 2010-11, compared to £14 per claim for the non-means-tested State Pension
quote:However, unfortunately, those children do not come into the world without their parents and because there are many children of benefit claimants whose parents have never worked (and possibly whose grandparents have never worked either), it is not simply a case of 'investing in the children'.
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
You may say as a single person why should you subsidise other people's children? Well, there are several answers to that one, but let's go with the selfish one. Investment in children saves money in the long term - makes them more productive adults paying more tax and less likely to be criminals. And hence their taxes will pay for your pension, healthcare costs etc. etc.
quote:Oh dear.
Originally posted by Sleepwalker:
However, unfortunately, those children do not come into the world without their parents and because there are many children of benefit claimants whose parents have never worked (and possibly whose grandparents have never worked either), it is not simply a case of 'investing in the children'.
quote:And ...?
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
Oh dear.
Please read the second half of this post and come back to me.
Thank you.
AFZ
quote:The dole is not comfortable and anyone who tells you otherwise is lying. Been there, done that, known enough young single mothers to know the actual truth - that many young women are very vulnerable when it comes to pleasing their boyfriends who provide a kind of family for them. Therefore they agree to not use contraception because their boyfriends don't like it. And then, because abortion is a taboo amongst many working class women even today (speaking from experience here), they have the baby and live in poverty, often as they are at college and on Income Support. And when they have a new boyfriend, they think it will be different but the cycle continues.
Originally posted by Sleepwalker:
quote:However, unfortunately, those children do not come into the world without their parents and because there are many children of benefit claimants whose parents have never worked (and possibly whose grandparents have never worked either), it is not simply a case of 'investing in the children'.
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
You may say as a single person why should you subsidise other people's children? Well, there are several answers to that one, but let's go with the selfish one. Investment in children saves money in the long term - makes them more productive adults paying more tax and less likely to be criminals. And hence their taxes will pay for your pension, healthcare costs etc. etc.
As a single person with no children and a low salary I do resent paying my taxes for the state to raise the children of those adults who have never worked; who continue to have children - often by multiple fathers - without any apparent intention of working. Unfortunately, children of those parents often go on to have lives which cost the tax payer huge amounts of money and bring about little if no return (to continue with your 'selfish' theme). That isn't always the case, of course, but it is very often the case. Universal benefits as they stand today - ie no longer a safety net but more like a comfort blanket - is unfair on the tax payer and not right. There needs to be a way of ensuring children are safeguarded without allowing those irresponsible parents to which I refer to take the tax payer for a ride.
And I would like it noted here that my own argument is not with adults who find themselves in awful situations having otherwise lived a productive life (insofar as contributing to the national pot is concerned). Losing your job, finding yourself having to be a fulltime carer, becoming disabled (or being so from birth), becoming so ill you cannot work, becoming old - these things are what the welfare state was created to support. It was not created to support those who produce children without any sense of responsibility or accountability to the people who are paying for those children to be brought up or who find life on the dole so comfortable (usually due to the extras they receive by producing children) that they don't seek work.
quote:The percentage of households where 2 generations have NEVER worked is less than 0.1%. There is no evidence at all of three-generation worklessness. There just isn't.
Originally posted by Sleepwalker:
However, unfortunately, those children do not come into the world without their parents and because there are many children of benefit claimants whose parents have never worked (and possibly whose grandparents have never worked either), it is not simply a case of 'investing in the children'.
quote:I'm afraid you are very wrong there. You need to visit my town and look at our records. There most certainly is evidence of three generation worklessness!
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
There is no evidence at all of three-generation worklessness. There just isn't.
quote:many young women are very vulnerable when it comes to pleasing their boyfriends who provide a kind of family for them. Therefore they agree to not use contraception because their boyfriends don't like it. And then, because abortion is a taboo amongst many working class women even today (speaking from experience here), they have the baby and live in poverty, often as they are at college and on Income Support. And when they have a new boyfriend, they think it will be different but the cycle continues. [/QUOTE]
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:Did you miss the part where AFZ said 'the percentage of households where 2 generations have NEVER worked is less than 0.1%'??
Originally posted by Sleepwalker:
quote:I'm afraid you are very wrong there. You need to visit my town and look at our records. There most certainly is evidence of three generation worklessness!
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
There is no evidence at all of three-generation worklessness. There just isn't.
quote:wow - there is just so much wrong with the seemingly-acceptable attitudes and behaviours exhibited in this post, it's hard to know where to start. It's like Women's Lib never happened.
Originally posted by Jahlove:
quote:many young women are very vulnerable when it comes to pleasing their boyfriends who provide a kind of family for them. Therefore they agree to not use contraception because their boyfriends don't like it. And then, because abortion is a taboo amongst many working class women even today (speaking from experience here), they have the baby and live in poverty, often as they are at college and on Income Support. And when they have a new boyfriend, they think it will be different but the cycle continues.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:That is so fucking offensive.
Originally posted by Jahlove:
If you can get them recognized as disabled then you get not only DLA (minimum £20.55 pw) but also another £2950 disabled chid tax credit).
quote:I missed that bit. Jahlove, do you know how difficult it is to get recognized as disabled even when you're quite obviously disabled? I mean, when terminally-ill people get classed as 'fit for work'....
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
quote:That is so fucking offensive.
Originally posted by Jahlove:
If you can get them recognized as disabled then you get not only DLA (minimum £20.55 pw) but also another £2950 disabled chid tax credit).
Why the hell do you think there is a Disability Living allowance for disabled children or an additional tax credit for disability? You don't think it might be because there are extra costs caused by a child having a disability?
Maybe?
And if you don't realise that, then you don't know anyone with a disabled child.
But, no, everyone who is claiming DLA for their child is playing the system and basically gets them 'recognised' disabled so they can have a little more money to be more comfortable...
Care to provide any evidence to support that?
AFZ
quote:Ok a large snip but your two comments together make no sense. The process of applying for DLA is very complex and involves filling in a form that makes little sense in the real world.
Originally posted by Jahlove:
Young people (and, believe me, this phrase is always used) are being totally failed by the educational system
SNIP
in order to get housing and an income is the best you can get out of life. The immediate figures I have to hand: (£71 pw personal allowance, child benefit £20.30 (£13.40 for additionals), child tax credit - family element £545 pa + £2690 pa per child (= £62.21 pw for one chid). If you can get them recognized as disabled then you get not only DLA (minimum £20.55 pw) but also another £2950 disabled chid tax credit).
quote:Oh I could show you plenty - enough maybe to make even the Right-On Wing pause for thought; however, I do not *care* to breach the Data Protection and Official Secrets Acts for the satisfaction of some anonymous bulletin boarders. Most cases don't become known - mainly because CBA indicates they are not worth prosecuting (tho' many end up with an *Administrative Penalty* i.e. repayment). Here's a doozy, tho, that DID make it into the public domain:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
quote:That is so fucking offensive.
Originally posted by Jahlove:
If you can get them recognized as disabled then you get not only DLA (minimum £20.55 pw) but also another £2950 disabled chid tax credit).
Why the hell do you think there is a Disability Living allowance for disabled children or an additional tax credit for disability? You don't think it might be because there are extra costs caused by a child having a disability?
Maybe?
And if you don't realise that, then you don't know anyone with a disabled child.
But, no, everyone who is claiming DLA for their child is playing the system and basically gets them 'recognised' disabled so they can have a little more money to be more comfortable...
Care to provide any evidence to support that?
AFZ
quote:This post doesn't make a great deal of sense.
Originally posted by Jahlove:
quote:Oh I could show you plenty - enough maybe to make even the Right-On Wing pause for thought; however, I do not *care* to breach the Data Protection and Official Secrets Acts for the satisfaction of some anonymous bulletin boarders. Most cases don't become known - mainly because CBA indicates they are not worth prosecuting (tho' many end up with an *Administrative Penalty* i.e. repayment). Here's a doozy, tho, that DID make it into the public domain:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
quote:That is so fucking offensive.
Originally posted by Jahlove:
If you can get them recognized as disabled then you get not only DLA (minimum £20.55 pw) but also another £2950 disabled chid tax credit).
Why the hell do you think there is a Disability Living allowance for disabled children or an additional tax credit for disability? You don't think it might be because there are extra costs caused by a child having a disability?
Maybe?
And if you don't realise that, then you don't know anyone with a disabled child.
But, no, everyone who is claiming DLA for their child is playing the system and basically gets them 'recognised' disabled so they can have a little more money to be more comfortable...
Care to provide any evidence to support that?
AFZ
BBC News
Oh, and by the way, yes, I have a severely disabled nephew whose mother has had to fight long and hard all his life to get the help and support he needs (and who, thankfully, has had everything he's entitled to for the last 10 years). Benefit regulations require that certain evidence is provided and certain conditions complied with.
quote:AFZ
John Harris, writing in Sunday's Observer
At which point, some polling numbers, just as crude and blunt as the changes themselves. According to ComRes, 64% of Britons believe the benefits system either does not work well or is "failing", and 40% of us think that at least half of all benefit recipients are "scroungers". Ipsos Mori reckons 84% of its respondents either agree or tend to agree with stricter work-capability tests for disabled people, and 78% are in accord with the idea that benefits should be docked if people turn down work that pays the same or less than they get in benefits.
quote:The Powers that Be do have a 'good' reason for doing this. It's called divide and rule. They want us isolated from each other and too scared to rock the boat.
As far as the bedroom tax goes, I think it's terrible - breaking up communities for no good reason whatever.
quote:It's not a tax.
Originally posted by Boogie:
As far as the bedroom tax goes, I think it's terrible...
quote:As I understand it, social housing isn't allocated in an efficient way: some people occupy houses that are larger than they require, others are on the waiting list. The reduction in what is in effect a subsidy for having a house larger than is required is an attempt to ensure a better distribution of resources. That's a good thing, isn't it? And is it right in principle for the state to provide to people benefits toeople that aren't required?
... - breaking up communities for no good reason whatever.
quote:I don't really get this. The changes to the benefits system have widespread support.
Originally posted by Jane R:
The Powers that Be do have a 'good' reason for doing this. It's called divide and rule.
quote:What could be more isolating than an inefficient, ineffective benefits system paid for by a hard-pressed workforce?
They want us isolated from each other
quote:When I moved to London to work a few years ago, I would've loved to have moved to Kensington & Chelsea or Mayfair but I didn't because I couldn't afford it. Why should someone who is in receipt of housing benefits live in a better area than me?
Plus, if all these 'welfare scroungers' are forced out of their houses in prime locations in central London, decent Tory millionaires who are suffering from the lack of affordable housing will be able to move in instead.
quote:I'm sure she did. Boogie is an intelligent and well-informed person.
Originally posted by Jane R:
Anglican't, I am sure Boogie is fully aware that the so-called 'bedroom tax' is in fact a benefit cut,
quote:You're not really selling the term here, in fact quite the opposite.
but since the Labour Party has seen fit to call it a bedroom tax
quote:Probably depends on the media you're watching / reading but I take your point.
and the media is using this term we all know what she's talking about.
quote:
Do you think it's fair that people all around the country are being forced into the trouble and expense of moving - if they can - or having to do without something else they need so they can pay the extra cost to stay where they are, just so the government can claim they are doing something about a shortage of social housing in London?
quote:Wasn't it in the news the other day that in cash terms benefits will not be cut?
I notice it's only working-age benefits that are being cut.
quote:This is textbook scaremongering from the left. Ooh, just you wait, folks, those big bad Tories have got lots of wicked plans up their sleeve that they can't discuss with you but will cause misery to all once they're unleashed. And, surprisingly, they don't seem to materialise.
For now. Rest assured that if the Tories get in again at the next election, pensioners' benefits will be next.
quote:What makes you think they're living in a better area than you? I wouldn't have thought there was much social housing in Mayfair unless benefits claimants are being put up at the Ritz, which seems unlikely. Even if there is, what about all the other people in receipt of housing benefit who are living in crummy areas - do you think they should be punished for the sins of the people in Mayfair?
Why should someone who is in receipt of housing benefits live in a better area than me?
quote:This is typical right-wing weaselling. In real terms it's a huge cut. Food and fuel prices are rising at a rate well above inflation. Even those of us who are not dependent on government benefits are feeling the pinch.
...in cash terms benefits will not be cut?
quote:I apologise for an inaccuracy here - they are discussing it. I'd forgotten that Liam Fox has suggested means-testing the Winter Fuel Allowance. Admittedly he is no longer in the government, but as he is still subject to the party Whip I find it difficult to believe that his views are completely unacceptable to the rest of the party.
This is textbook scaremongering from the left. Ooh, just you wait, folks, those big bad Tories have got lots of wicked plans up their sleeve that they can't discuss with you but will cause misery to all once they're unleashed.
quote:You talked about prime central London locations. I would have liked to live in a prime central London location but I don't because I can't afford it.
Originally posted by Jane R:
quote:What makes you think they're living in a better area than you?
Why should someone who is in receipt of housing benefits live in a better area than me?
quote:Probably not that many in Mayfair / K&C, but there are some. Those living in 'crummy' areas are still in receipt of HB. I don't see that anyone is being 'punished' for any 'sins'. But if you are going to use that language, I'd say that the people on the social housing waiting list are being punished because the current system can't free up available places for them.
I wouldn't have thought there was much social housing in Mayfair unless benefits claimants are being put up at the Ritz, which seems unlikely. Even if there is, what about all the other people in receipt of housing benefit who are living in crummy areas - do you think they should be punished for the sins of the people in Mayfair?
quote:I think most people with mortgages have insurance in case of unemployment, don't they? How many people in receipt of HB own their own home but are using it to pay off a mortgage?
Do you really think it's fair to demonise these people and cast them out from your community because they are temporarily out of work? It could be any one of us next month.
quote:Good idea. Why should the low paid subsidise the fuel bill of millionaire pensioners?
Originally posted by Jane R:
I'd forgotten that Liam Fox has suggested means-testing the Winter Fuel Allowance.
quote:If pensioners' benfits were cut- and specifically if they were subject to the 'bedroom tax'- it would at least give the policy some consistency: if you really want to get people who are genuinely under-occupying social housing to downsize and so free up larger accommodation for larger households, pensioners still living in the homes that they had when their families were at home would be the place to start. But pensioners (i) are not easy to demonise (ii) tend to vote.
Originally posted by Jane R:
I notice it's only working-age benefits that are being cut. For now. Rest assured that if the Tories get in again at the next election, pensioners' benefits will be next.
quote:Support based on lies and misleading statistics. Duncan Smith's figures have frequently been exposed as false and the newspapers have demonised people on benefits so now a large proportion of the general public support the cuts.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:I don't really get this. The changes to the benefits system have widespread support.
Originally posted by Jane R:
The Powers that Be do have a 'good' reason for doing this. It's called divide and rule.
quote:Perhaps because they have to work cleaning the luxury hotels of the super-rich, and need to be there at the crack of dawn before public transport from the (affordable?!) outer suburbs gets going.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
When I moved to London to work a few years ago, I would've loved to have moved to Kensington & Chelsea or Mayfair but I didn't because I couldn't afford it. Why should someone who is in receipt of housing benefits live in a better area than me?
quote:And the 'bedroom tax' is going to solve this problem how?
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I'd say that the people on the social housing waiting list are being punished because the current system can't free up available places for them.
quote:It won't solve any housing problems, nor will it save much money, but it will win votes. That is all that matters.
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:And the 'bedroom tax' is going to solve this problem how?
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I'd say that the people on the social housing waiting list are being punished because the current system can't free up available places for them.
quote:It may even cost money - one way to avoid it is to move into private rented accommodation with the requisite number of bedrooms - the rent for which is likely to be far higher than the social housing rent was.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:It won't solve any housing problems, nor will it save much money, but it will win votes. That is all that matters.
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:And the 'bedroom tax' is going to solve this problem how?
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I'd say that the people on the social housing waiting list are being punished because the current system can't free up available places for them.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
So, why not introduce rent control rather than benefits caps?
Oh, but of course, so very many of the Tories and their chums are private landlords ... silly me!
quote:Subject to overall benefits caps, I believe that's correct.
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Am I right in thinking that if someone moves out of, say, 3 bed social housing into 2 bed private rent with a higher rent than the social housing had, they will get housing benefit in full on the higher rent? Thus increasing the benefit bill and benefitting only the private landlord?
quote:I believe that's correct too.
Originally posted by North East Quine:
There is a potential massive shift towards more expensive private rentals.
quote:I can see that this is an issue. It will be interesting to see how badly people are affected once all the changes to the Benefits system have been introduced.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Anglican't - you still haven't addressed the fundamental problem that the small 1-2 bed properties you think people should be forced to move to don't actually exist - that's why singles and couples were put in three bed houses in the first place.
quote:When Iain Duncan Smith quit as Conservative Party Leader he set up the Centre for Social Justice to look at poverty and other issues and to formulate solutions to problems. It became his life work. Do you honestly believe that body of work (regardless of whether you agree with it) can be reduced to treating the poor as 'dole scum'?
The model the Tories appear to be working to, of nasty selfish dole-scum living in mansions next to little flats they could move to is so far from reality that their solution to it is bollocks.
quote:They can take the night bus.
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:Perhaps because they have to work cleaning the luxury hotels of the super-rich, and need to be there at the crack of dawn before public transport from the (affordable?!) outer suburbs gets going.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
When I moved to London to work a few years ago, I would've loved to have moved to Kensington & Chelsea or Mayfair but I didn't because I couldn't afford it. Why should someone who is in receipt of housing benefits live in a better area than me?
quote:I'm no expert on either these benefits changes or rent controls, but if one is trying to reduce the amount of government spending on welfare, or at least try to ensure that the welfare budget is spent sensibly, wouldn't it make sense to target spending rather than interfere with the operation of the housing market? What's the benefit of the latter?
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:Any of our tame Ship Tories got an answer to that one?
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
So, why not introduce rent control rather than benefits caps?
Oh, but of course, so very many of the Tories and their chums are private landlords ... silly me!
quote:I'm hardly one of the Ship's Tories but it's fair to say that the 1977 Rent Act, which consolidated a whole stack of legislation passed in the previous twenty years such as registered "fair rents", limits on rent increases and gave most tenants increased security of tenure, had the unintended consequence of reducing the availability of affordable private rented accomodation.
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
So, why not introduce rent control rather than benefits caps?
Oh, but of course, so very many of the Tories and their chums are private landlords ... silly me!
Any of our tame Ship Tories got an answer to that one?
quote:This is a very important point. Also many working families qualify for some kind of income-related benefit. This benefits calculator lets you check out what anyone could claim based on circumstances. For example, I input a family of one working adult earning £25,700 a year, one non-working adult and two children. They would get a state benefit (Tax Credit) of around £53 a week. At that level of income they might also qualify for some housing benefit, especially if they were in private rented accommodation.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
... many - most indeed - recipients on HB are in work.......
quote:There's also a Mortgage Rescue Scheme:
Here, the government steps in and makes the interest payments on the first £200,000 of your outstanding mortgage for the time you can’t afford them. Yet the level of interest is set by the government; your specific rate isn’t used.
From 1 Oct 2010 the rate's 3.63% (dropped from a fairly high 6.08%) and rather than staying at a fixed amount for the next few years it'll be changed each time the Bank of England average mortgage rate moves by at least 0.5%.
quote:In the latter case the family would presumably need housing benefit to pay the Registered Landlord.
Shared Equity
The Landlord provides a loan to pay off some of the mortgage, or other secured loans, via money given to it as a government grant. You then owe the Landlord for a portion of your home, but it is able to be more lenient with repayments.
This is intended for homeowners who have experienced ‘payment shocks’ (government-speak for harshly increasing mortgage & living costs), but can still afford to pay something each month. You’ll also need some equity in your home to be eligible.
Government Mortgage to Rent
In this instance, the Registered Landlord pays off the entire debt to the lender, then rents the property back to you, at an affordable rate. In other words you would no longer own the house.
quote:And they can eat cake.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
They can take the night bus.
quote:I thought the problem with Marie Antoinette's cake is that it didn't exist. Night buses do very much exist.
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:And they can eat cake.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
They can take the night bus.
quote:Drinking at a bar at 2am is more optional than having to work a minimum wage cleaning job to support ones family.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
If I roll out of a bar at 2 am, I'd love to take a cab home, but I can't afford it at the moment, so I catch the night bus.
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Drinking at a bar at 2am is more optional than having to work a minimum wage cleaning job to support ones family.
quote:They're not obviously shirkers. But why should they get a shorter commute than the man who isn't in receipt of HB?
But sure, lets hit hard working people with an extra long commute (we'll complain later on that they aren't parenting their children properly), after all they are obviously shirkers, not strivers.
quote:No, this isn't the solution. The actual problem is house prices - pretty much everything else follows from that, and the solution is a land value tax and a relaxation of planning controls.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
It's true that long-term rent control tends to depress availability, but you could use the short-term savings to implement the only real long-term solution: glut the market with affordable social housing, preferably including 1- and 2-bedroom houses or flats. Private rents would then naturally decrease because there would be less demand.
quote:I'm not sure shipping the homeless to Cornwall, Wales, the Lake District and the Scottish Highlands and Islands is an economically viable strategy. Now, charging double council tax on second homes? That's a much more sensible plan.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Another thing the government could do, if it was serious about the housing shortage and under-occupation of properties, would be to tax second homes out of existence, as recommended recently by Sir Andrew Motion.
There are about 165,000 "second homes" in Britain, many of them in rural areas where there's as much of a housing shortage as there is in many cities. Obviously, a person can only live in one place at a time, so why are second (and third, and fourth...) homes tolerated when so many people are homeless?
quote:I don't think that's true. Once you have "enough" houses built, it doesn't make economic sense to have a load of "expensive" houses standing empty and a load of poor people with no house. Take away the shortage, and the price points will adjust to meet the market.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Except that I don't think relaxing planning rules is sufficient: you have to be directive about the kind of housing that will be built, to force at least a certain proportion - a high proportion - of "affordable" homes.
quote:I've mentioned this before, but disregarding the 165,000 "second homes" still leaves well over half a million unused homes around the country. Repair these then rent them out or sell them and it will have the effect of giving tens of thousands of people work to do, preserve any amount of land that isn't yet built on and provide homes for something in the region of two million people.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:I don't think that's true. Once you have "enough" houses built, it doesn't make economic sense to have a load of "expensive" houses standing empty and a load of poor people with no house. Take away the shortage, and the price points will adjust to meet the market.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Except that I don't think relaxing planning rules is sufficient: you have to be directive about the kind of housing that will be built, to force at least a certain proportion - a high proportion - of "affordable" homes.
quote:I recall reading the Centre's report. As I remember, it had nothing to say about bedroom taxes, and quite a lot to say about tapering benefits as you enter work so that you don't have all your benefits suddenly withdrawn when you get a job and thus end up out of pocket. It ended with a rather otherworldly conclusion on the lines of 'maybe the Treasury will give us more money to do this once the economic situation improves'.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
When Iain Duncan Smith quit as Conservative Party Leader he set up the Centre for Social Justice to look at poverty and other issues and to formulate solutions to problems. It became his life work. Do you honestly believe that body of work (regardless of whether you agree with it) can be reduced to treating the poor as 'dole scum'?
quote:AFZ
The myths exposed in this report, reinforced by politicians and the media, are convenient because they allow the poor to be blamed for their poverty, and the rest of society to avoid taking any of the responsibility.
quote:Not quite a tame Ship Tory but it would reduce supply in areas where property prices are high. Another example of the Law of Unintended Consequences.
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
So, why not introduce rent control rather than benefits caps?
Oh, but of course, so very many of the Tories and their chums are private landlords ... silly me!
Any of our tame Ship Tories got an answer to that one?
quote:I accept that, and the description of the various areas of London that followed. But, for better or worse, change has occurred and I think it's very difficult if not impossible to justify placing housing benefits claimants in very expensive areas of the city - at taxpayers' expense - when they could be housed in cheaper areas.
Originally posted by Albertus:
This idea that there are quite large areas of cities in which only rich people can afford to live is quite a new thing.
quote:Your problem is that "use the bus" assumes that the fares don't suck up half of what someone makes on a few hours cleaning. The fare may be fairly insignificant to you after a few beers, but very significant to someone who's just made £20 doing three hours cleaning.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:I accept that, and the description of the various areas of London that followed. But, for better or worse, change has occurred and I think it's very difficult if not impossible to justify placing housing benefits claimants in very expensive areas of the city - at taxpayers' expense - when they could be housed in cheaper areas.
Originally posted by Albertus:
This idea that there are quite large areas of cities in which only rich people can afford to live is quite a new thing.
Also, if you do do this, you don't really maintain a 'social mix' at all: you have an area of poorer people on HB and very rich people who can afford to live their with their own money. Everyone else (probably the majority) who aren't super rich and aren't poor enough to receive HB are still frozen out.
quote:Travel costs would be no more than £4.40 which I appreciate is not a trivial sum for someone on a low income, but I don't see how the solution to this is to spend thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money on higher rents.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Your problem is that "use the bus" assumes that the fares don't suck up half of what someone makes on a few hours cleaning. The fare may be fairly insignificant to you after a few beers, but very significant to someone who's just made £20 doing three hours cleaning.
quote:I know the original point was about London, but where my parents live, the buses only run between 7am and 8pm. 9am and 6pm on Sundays and Bank Holidays (and low-pay workers will almost always work Sundays and Bank Holidays). No such thing as a night bus, and it's not even a rural area - it's just that EVERYONE in the area can afford to drive and so the bus route has been cut. Yes, only one bus route from this small town to the nearest town with work that's not to do with the military or government.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:Your problem is that "use the bus" assumes that the fares don't suck up half of what someone makes on a few hours cleaning. The fare may be fairly insignificant to you after a few beers, but very significant to someone who's just made £20 doing three hours cleaning.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:I accept that, and the description of the various areas of London that followed. But, for better or worse, change has occurred and I think it's very difficult if not impossible to justify placing housing benefits claimants in very expensive areas of the city - at taxpayers' expense - when they could be housed in cheaper areas.
Originally posted by Albertus:
This idea that there are quite large areas of cities in which only rich people can afford to live is quite a new thing.
Also, if you do do this, you don't really maintain a 'social mix' at all: you have an area of poorer people on HB and very rich people who can afford to live their with their own money. Everyone else (probably the majority) who aren't super rich and aren't poor enough to receive HB are still frozen out.
Having all the people doing low paid jobs miles from where some of those jobs are required is a major problem.
quote:What Albertus said just before you posted. This is all deck-chair rearrangement on a doomed 1912 ocean liner.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:Travel costs would be no more than £4.40 which I appreciate is not a trivial sum for someone on a low income, but I don't see how the solution to this is to spend thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money on higher rents.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Your problem is that "use the bus" assumes that the fares don't suck up half of what someone makes on a few hours cleaning. The fare may be fairly insignificant to you after a few beers, but very significant to someone who's just made £20 doing three hours cleaning.
quote:I think that probably hits the nail on the head. I'm no big fan of the free market but, like democracy, it's the least worst system out there at the moment and I think attempts to tie the invisible hand tend to have adverse consequences.
Originally posted by Albertus:
The fundamental difference between my view and say Anglican't's, I think, is that he seems to think that the market is a natural or at least uncontrollable phenomenon to which we have to adapt: I see it as a human creation which we can shape- if we have the will to take the trouble to do so.
quote:I agree, we do. I was going to say 'shackle' the invisible hand, then I wondered about 'bind' and then a few other words and it all started to get a bit 50 Shades of Grey on the screen, so I plumped for the rather more simple (but admittedly misleading) 'tie'. I was suggesting that heavy intervention is a bad thing, sorry if that didn't come across.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Thing is, we already tie it.
quote:If you want to raise cash benefits to fund £22+ a week in commuting then I'm all ears, I'm sure many low paid workers would be too. If you're saying keep cash benefits the same and force people to spend £22 a week from their already meagre income then that's a rather different matter.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:Travel costs would be no more than £4.40 which I appreciate is not a trivial sum for someone on a low income, but I don't see how the solution to this is to spend thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money on higher rents.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Your problem is that "use the bus" assumes that the fares don't suck up half of what someone makes on a few hours cleaning. The fare may be fairly insignificant to you after a few beers, but very significant to someone who's just made £20 doing three hours cleaning.
quote: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?
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?
quote: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.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
They can take the night bus.
quote: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".
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.
quote:Not to mention idolatrous.
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I was suggesting that heavy intervention is a bad thing, sorry if that didn't come across.
quote: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.
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:Not to mention idolatrous.
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.
quote: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.
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.......
quote:I think that's a very important - and very under-reported - report.
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
quote:Bevause they paid national insurance every week for 40 years. It's not payment. it's giving back their investment.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
So why do we continue to pay about £5500 a year to people over 65, regardless of whether they need it or not?
quote: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.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:Bevause they paid national insurance every week for 40 years. It's not payment. it's giving back their investment.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
So why do we continue to pay about £5500 a year to people over 65, regardless of whether they need it or not?
quote: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.
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.
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
quote: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.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote: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.
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.
quote:from HMRC
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.
quote:Genuine question- has Osbourne ever claimed to be a Christian, except perhaps in the most nominal sense?
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:Genuine question- has Osbourne ever claimed to be a Christian, except perhaps in the most nominal sense?
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by justlooking:
If someone works and pays contributions for only a few years they'll get a percentage of the full pension.
quote:Spoilsport!
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.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:So am I. But I've never thought of the Mail as a Christian newspaper. The one that supported Hitler?
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I am so appalled by the reaction of so-called Christians like the Mail
quote:Neither do I, but they would consider themselves to be Christian.
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:So am I. But I've never thought of the Mail as a Christian newspaper. The one that supported Hitler?
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I am so appalled by the reaction of so-called Christians like the Mail
quote: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.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
They can take the night bus.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by Nanny Ogg:
quote:What's a night bus? They certainly don't exist in rural Britain, nor in many towns and cities.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
They can take the night bus.
quote: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
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...
quote:Going back to this from Adeodatus:
Guarantee Credit tops up your weekly income if it’s below £142.70 (single people) or £217.90 (couples).
Savings Credit is an extra payment for people who have saved some money towards their retirement, eg a pension.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
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...
quote: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%.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote: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.
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...
quote:...and produced the recession(s)
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote: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.
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...
quote:I don't think it difficult. We simply don't have enough houses. Build enough and the
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?
quote:Precisely.
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.
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.
The number of cleaners - hypothetical or otherwise - who live in Mayfair will be miniscule. quote: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.
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.
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:And this needs to be on bill-boards across the country:
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)
quote:My contention is this: There is a huge 'perception gap' in the public's view of the Welfare state.
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.
quote:AFZ
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.
