homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Purgatory: Perceptions of welfare (Page 4)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Purgatory: Perceptions of welfare
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
quote:
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).

That is so fucking offensive.

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

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'....

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
claret10

Ship's Paranoid Android
# 16341

 - Posted      Profile for claret10   Email claret10   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
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).

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.

I would know, i've done it. I am highly educated and even with support found the form unecessarily complex. On top of that you need to have evidence from medical personnel. You clearly believe that people have been failed by the education system but are capable of completing complex forms to defraud the tax payer.

--------------------
Just when you think life can't possibly get any worse it suddenly does

Posts: 137 | From: Somewhere, nowhere, anywhere | Registered: Apr 2011  |  IP: Logged
Jahlove
Tied to the mast
# 10290

 - Posted      Profile for Jahlove   Email Jahlove   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
quote:
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).

That is so fucking offensive.

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

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:


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. A significant minority don't think any such rules should apply to them and believe that screaming and shouting obscenities and threats will result in payments being forthcoming; <irony font> it works in the rest of their lives, in works in soap operas, surely the fucking stupid social should give them what they want?

Unfortunately, it is this significant minority who are chancers that make it necessary to have fairly stringent rules which, again sadly, many less-clued up and vulnerable people can fall foul of. Believe it or not, not all benefit officers are as compassionate, empathic and as willing to go the extra mile as I am - oh, and before you laugh in your Right-On sophisticated way, yes I do; what I write here is the truth as I see it - the Bigger Picture - but every single person I deal with gets every possible assistance I can give in order to have their claim succeed.

Oh - and Jade Constable - when you have got a first-class degree in a discipline such as, hmm, let's think - Theology - which does require close, in-depth textual analysis - THEN you can tell me I need to learn to read for comprehension. Also, all your stuff about why some people can't use some types of contraceptive is reasonably insulting - I'm about twice your age and been there, done that - we didn't even HAVE sex-ed in my school (it was something to do with rabbits as far as the Biology Mistress gave us to understand) but we damn well knew how NOT to get up the duff if we could figure out how to phone the Marie Stopes phone number. The so-called *Hollywood* movies (actually, I don't think any of the films I mentioned were, in fact, made in America), reflect, as a lot of *realism* movies tend to, actual facts - albeit condensed and fictionalized.

Also, yes, I understand the difference between what *is* and what *ought* to be. I just don't think we should be privileging those who make an *is* out of what *ought* not to be. Do these youngsters who can't take the Pill because they smoke (which, in any case, would place them in the non-person category according the the Right-Onners taxonomy), consider giving up the fags at all d'you know? Do these young women who have a taboo against *killing the baby* give up the tabs and booze while pregnant? Or are they ok with the possibilities of low-birth weight and other associated conditions and even foetal alcohol syndrome? Jus' askin'. And, in particular, why on earth should other people have to pay to support the progency of diddums who doesn't *like* wearing a raincoat?

I find that Ismism often blinds folk to the reality that there ARE bad guys out there who will work anyone over soon as look at them.

--------------------
“Sing like no one's listening, love like you've never been hurt, dance like nobody's watching, and live like its heaven on earth.” - Mark Twain

Posts: 6477 | From: Alice's Restaurant (UK Franchise) | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Benefit fraud, across ALL benefits is less than 1%.

Aside from the fact that I'm going to ignore the Hellishly personal tones in your reply, you're just missing the point. Do you really think that it's the girls themselves that are somehow these traitors to feminism or whatever you want to accuse teenagers of being, and not the fact that society delights on shitting on the vulnerable from a great height? That yeah, we should be paying for babies born to young girls because the alternative is babies dying, which you know, decent human beings shouldn't want? Or that it's because of the patriarchy that the girls are in thrall to their boyfriends and mostly against abortion? Because in terms of power, teenage girls aren't exactly known for having huge amounts of it, so I don't see why you're blaming them alone just because they're a nice familiar target. My point isn't the ins and outs of contraception but the principle of protecting the vulnerable. I'm sure the Blessed Virgin Mary aka the teenage mother of our Lord had her fair share of the Judean Taxpayer's Alliance, but that doesn't mean they were right.

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
alienfromzog

Ship's Alien
# 5327

 - Posted      Profile for alienfromzog   Email alienfromzog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jahlove:
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
quote:
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).

That is so fucking offensive.

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

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:


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.

This post doesn't make a great deal of sense.

You asserted that teenage girls deliberately get pregnant to the live of benefits. In the middle of this you added the line about having a child 'recognised as disabled' being another way to get easy money.

Of course you shouldn't be disclosing individual cases but you want to make such a point, show me some statistics.

Interestingly, if there are all these cases that you know about who are made to pay the money back - how is it that you the lowly taxpayer are out-of-pocket?

Oh and that major case? Kinda extreme example don't you think? Representative? Oh, and she faces prison... so it's a bit unrealistic to suggest people get away with playing the system on that basis.

You then say that from your nephew you've seen how much extra is needed and how hard it can be to get such benefits.

So you state that a minority play the system. You tell us how they often have to pay it back. You then agree with me about the importance of extra help for disabled children and the difficulty in getting such help.

And yet, you still want to stigmatise and demonise everyone on benefits... or am I missing something?

AFZ

--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]

An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)

Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
alienfromzog

Ship's Alien
# 5327

 - Posted      Profile for alienfromzog   Email alienfromzog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Today is April Fools Day. It is also the day that begins major Welfare reform in the UK.

quote:
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.

AFZ

[ 01. April 2013, 07:23: Message edited by: alienfromzog ]

--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]

An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)

Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
My son is on benefits - in Germany. He is brushing up his written German ready to begin a nursing course in October.

Like many migrants, he has worked up from chambermaid, when he had no German, to waiter then English teacher. Then until recently he was a carer for disabled adults.

I am very proud of him and nobody he knows calls him a scrounger.

I would like to think that we, in the UK, treat our migrants just as well when they need a step up.

As far as the bedroom tax goes, I think it's terrible - breaking up communities for no good reason whatever.

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331

 - Posted      Profile for Jane R   Email Jane R   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Boogie:
quote:
As far as the bedroom tax goes, I think it's terrible - breaking up communities for no good reason whatever.
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.

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.

Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican't   Email Anglican't   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
As far as the bedroom tax goes, I think it's terrible...

It's not a tax.

quote:
... - breaking up communities for no good reason whatever.
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?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Anglican't - if people were required to pay the bedroom tax if they are offered a more suitable property and decline to move I would have no problem with it. That is not the situation; the vast majority of social housing stock is family accommodation with 3 bedrooms; the reason people have been put in "too large" houses in the first place is that is all that was available. There is no large stock of 1 bedroom accommodation to move people into.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican't   Email Anglican't   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
The Powers that Be do have a 'good' reason for doing this. It's called divide and rule.

I don't really get this. The changes to the benefits system have widespread support.

quote:
They want us isolated from each other
What could be more isolating than an inefficient, ineffective benefits system paid for by a hard-pressed workforce?

quote:
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.
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?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I suppose it's possible that the posh areas are where the one and two bed flats are, whereas the scummy areas are full of three bed council houses, and as we've established 'tis a terrible thing to put a single person or couple in a three bed house.

[Biased]

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331

 - Posted      Profile for Jane R   Email Jane R   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Anglican't, I am sure Boogie is fully aware that the so-called 'bedroom tax' is in fact a benefit cut, but since the Labour Party has seen fit to call it a bedroom tax and the media is using this term we all know what she's talking about.

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?

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.

Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican't   Email Anglican't   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
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,

I'm sure she did. Boogie is an intelligent and well-informed person.

quote:
but since the Labour Party has seen fit to call it a bedroom tax
You're not really selling the term here, in fact quite the opposite.

quote:
and the media is using this term we all know what she's talking about.
Probably depends on the media you're watching / reading but I take your point.

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?


That suggests that this is just some kind of PR exercise. I don't think it is.

If you live in social housing, you don't live in 'your' house, it's a property that has been provided to you based on your needs. If those needs change then so should the property that has been allocated to you. I don't see how that is unfair.

quote:
I notice it's only working-age benefits that are being cut.
Wasn't it in the news the other day that in cash terms benefits will not be cut?

quote:
For now. Rest assured that if the Tories get in again at the next election, pensioners' benefits will be next.
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.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331

 - Posted      Profile for Jane R   Email Jane R   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Why should someone who is in receipt of housing benefits live in a better area than me?
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?

And why should someone who has worked and saved to get a house in a nice area have to leave it because they are temporarily in receipt of housing benefit? Most people on benefits are not long-term unemployed (though you'd never guess it from the media and the government rhetoric). Most of them are frantically looking for jobs - in whatever time they can spare from their 'work experience' placements at Poundstretcher - and will probably find something else within a year. A lot of them have families who will have to be uprooted if they move.

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.

Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331

 - Posted      Profile for Jane R   Email Jane R   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Anglican't:
quote:
...in cash terms benefits will not be cut?
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.

And furthermore:
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.
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.

On their track record so far I do not think it is unreasonable to suggest that they will cut pensioners' benefits if they are reelected.

Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican't   Email Anglican't   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
quote:
Why should someone who is in receipt of housing benefits live in a better area than me?
What makes you think they're living in a better area than you?
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.

quote:
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?
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.

quote:
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.
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?

Again, this isn't about 'demonising' people or 'casting them out', it's trying to spend taxpayers' money wisely and trying to ensure a fair allocation of scarce resources.

Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican't   Email Anglican't   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
I'd forgotten that Liam Fox has suggested means-testing the Winter Fuel Allowance.

Good idea. Why should the low paid subsidise the fuel bill of millionaire pensioners?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

Of course, you also seem to forget that many - most indeed - recipients on HB are in work. Are you advocating that they be required to move miles away to a smaller property, and then be unable to get to their place of work because it's now miles away?

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.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
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.

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.

--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.

Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The difference is:

a) pensioners worked and saved for the homes we now live in (OH some inherited)

b) it would discourage people to save money for their old age if they thought it would be taken off them

3) when I accepted an offer of early retirement, I did plenty of arithmetic to ascertain whether I could afford it. That took into account the buss pass, fuel allowance and state pension. I could use part of my lump sum in the knowledge that more money would be forthcoming at later dates.

4) Pensioners cannot make more money by earning through work (it is a condition of my pension that i don't do paid work - one day's worth alone would result in my mention being stopped)

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
The Powers that Be do have a 'good' reason for doing this. It's called divide and rule.

I don't really get this. The changes to the benefits system have widespread support.
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.

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159

 - Posted      Profile for Angloid     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
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?

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.

--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!

Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
But, leo, it depends on what the aim of the policy is, doesn't it? The justification that the government frequently gives (and remember, BTW, that the 'bedroom tax' refers to tenants of social housing- not to owner-occupiers, so arguments about having saved up for a home don't apply, and not to private sector tenants, whose Housing Benefit entitlements arte more tightly circumscribed anyway) relates to making a better use of social housing stock by getting people who are living in properties which are deemed to be too big for their needs to move out. If you were really trying to do that, you'd apply the bedroom tax to pensioners.

--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.

Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159

 - Posted      Profile for Angloid     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
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.

And the 'bedroom tax' is going to solve this problem how?

--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!

Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713

 - Posted      Profile for Sioni Sais   Email Sioni Sais   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
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.

And the 'bedroom tax' is going to solve this problem how?
It won't solve any housing problems, nor will it save much money, but it will win votes. That is all that matters.

--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"

(Paul Sinha, BBC)

Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
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.

And the 'bedroom tax' is going to solve this problem how?
It won't solve any housing problems, nor will it save much money, but it will win votes. That is all that matters.
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.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Matt Black

Shipmate
# 2210

 - Posted      Profile for Matt Black   Email Matt Black   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
In principle, I'm in favour of the extra room subsidy (it's not a frickin' tax!) being withdrawn; it is clearly not just that people who work and can't afford spare rooms should subsidise those who don't work to have a spare room. The reality of course is more complex than that: (a) smaller accommodation may not be available; (b) those who are being thus subsidised and those who are working hard are not mutually exclusive groups...and I'm sure there's at least a (c)....

[ 02. April 2013, 14:47: Message edited by: Matt Black ]

--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)

Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
And I think that's exactly it: like you, I see no reason why in princple people should have their rent paid for larger accommodation than they need. But you put your finger on the two big drawbacks: I'd also add that the definition of the space that you need has been changed (e.g. I think the ages up to which children should share a room) so there will be people who weren't considered to be underoccupying who now are. The whole thinbg is sloppy and ill-prepared, and it's from that sloppiness and lack of preparation that the suffering will arise.

--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.

Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159

 - Posted      Profile for Angloid     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
(c) there are plenty of well-documented examples of people needing a spare room for such things as medical equipment, or for relatives such as those serving in HM Forces to stay, or for resident carers etc. These people have been told they are not exempt from the withdrawal of subsidy (which is a tax by any other name).

--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!

Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Foster children's rooms are being counted as 'spare' rooms (and legally foster children must each have their own rooms).

http://www.channel4.com/news/the-bedroom-tax-the-key-questions

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
No, people with adult children in HM Forces have been told that they are exempt: although AIUI those with adult children at University are not. So it seems that if you're killing people (and in a job which provides accommodation) you are OK but if you are learning how to live (and likely needing somewhere to live outside of term time) you are not. Hey-ho, the joys of cheap populist politics.

--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.

Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
North East Quine

Curious beastie
# 13049

 - Posted      Profile for North East Quine   Email North East Quine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I live in a village which has quite a large number of social houses, over 100. With the exception of 12 which are for elderly people only, and have grab rails, emergency buzzers etc fitted, and are not suitable for families, they are all 3 bed family properties. Anyone wanting to downsize would have to move some distance, probably into a different local authority area. The logistics would be horrendous.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007  |  IP: Logged
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992

 - Posted      Profile for Adeodatus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Obviously, the quick 'n' easy way to reduce the housing benefit bill would be to introduce rent control legislation.

A couple of years ago, when I heard on the news that the government would be capping housing benefit at £400, I thought, "£400 a month? That's a bit rough." But then when they said £400 a week - [Eek!]

Here in t'North you can rent a good 2-bedroom flat in a nice part of town for £600 a month. The fact is, in t'South, and especially in t'London, private landlords will overcharge when they know it's being paid for by housing benefit. 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!

--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."

Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159

 - Posted      Profile for Angloid     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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!

[Overused]
Any of our tame Ship Tories got an answer to that one?

--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!

Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
North East Quine

Curious beastie
# 13049

 - Posted      Profile for North East Quine   Email North East Quine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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?
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007  |  IP: Logged
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992

 - Posted      Profile for Adeodatus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
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?

Subject to overall benefits caps, I believe that's correct.

--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."

Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
North East Quine

Curious beastie
# 13049

 - Posted      Profile for North East Quine   Email North East Quine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I don't know about other areas, but here social housing is exclusively 3 or 4 bed family housing. The whole point of social housing here focuses on children. So those facing a loss of benefit are those who have had a child move out. There is a potential massive shift towards more expensive private rentals.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007  |  IP: Logged
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992

 - Posted      Profile for Adeodatus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
There is a potential massive shift towards more expensive private rentals.

I believe that's correct too.

Most of what we used to call "council housing" is run now by not-for-profit housing associations, who have a contract with the local authority. They take somewhat subsidised rents which the local authority can spend on services. (They used to be able to reinvest the whole lot on more social housing, but Thatcher put a stop to that.) Result: reasonably good quality housing at a fair price for people who need it. And I mean need - such is the demand these days that it's quite difficult to get somewhere. A single male friend of mine, in full but low-paid employment, was on the waiting list for 2 years before he got somewhere, and was sleeping on friends' sofas because he couldn't afford private rents.

The private sector, by contrast, is high on price, low on regulation, low on quality and benefits no-one but the landlord. Hence the pre-2008 boom in "buy-to-let" purchases which inflated both house prices and private rents.

House prices and rents need to fall. But no government will ever dare say so, because so many people in this country treat a house not as somewhere to live but as an investment.

--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."

Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
North East Quine

Curious beastie
# 13049

 - Posted      Profile for North East Quine   Email North East Quine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
My gut feeling is that in this area, the housing benefit bill will go up.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007  |  IP: Logged
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican't   Email Anglican't   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
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.

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.

quote:
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.
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:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
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?

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.
They can take the night bus.

quote:
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?
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?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713

 - Posted      Profile for Sioni Sais   Email Sioni Sais   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
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!

[Overused]
Any of our tame Ship Tories got an answer to that one?

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.

--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"

(Paul Sinha, BBC)

Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992

 - Posted      Profile for Adeodatus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Rent control would be, as I said, a quick (and probably temporary) fix. The benefits would be:

  • The people who "feel" the effect are the relatively rich, not the relatively poor
  • People aren't forced out of the homes they've enjoyed for possibly many years
  • You avoid the injustices of penalising foster carers and the disabled
  • You preserve communities where they exist

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.

Simples. But also Unpopulars.

--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."

Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well, there is a theory that there was an opportunity to do way this back in the early 70s, when the (generally rather good) council housing which had been built before and just after the war was having its costs paid off. The argument goes that had the government of the day wished, rents on these properties could have been drastically reduced (because all that they would have needed to cover would have been day to day management and maintenance) and this could in turn have started bringing rent levels down in the private sector. But property interests wouldn't have this, and their views prevailed.
As mentioned upthread, part of the problem in the private sector (which is where the real rent problems and big HB spending are)is the property-as-investment mentality that we have here. This was encouraged by successive governments because it allowed high levels of private debt to be raised on the back of it, in order to finance the consumer economy- what has been described as privatised Keynesianism, in fact. Banks of course liked (and like) investing in property as opposed to in businesses because it it usually pretty risk-free: if the morgagee can't pay, the bank gets a nice saleable property or at least site, whereas if a business goes bust there might not be much left for the creditors. So again the property boom harmed our economy by diverting funds from business investment.
We have to get round to thinking of housing as the means of supplying a basic need rather than as an investment: otherwise we will continue to be stuffed. As I always say, if the price of butter goes up, no-one rubs their hands in glee and says that the packet in their fridge is now worth 12p more than they paid for it.

Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
justlooking
Shipmate
# 12079

 - Posted      Profile for justlooking   Author's homepage   Email justlooking   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
... many - most indeed - recipients on HB are in work.......

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.

The link lists all the benefits and government-funded help available, including help for those paying a mortgage if they become unemployed Support for Mortgage Interest
quote:
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%.

There's also a Mortgage Rescue Scheme:
quote:
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.


In the latter case the family would presumably need housing benefit to pay the Registered Landlord.

There was some publicity last year about proposed changes in the help available to those with mortgages, including a suggestion that the government should put a charge on the house to recoup some of the benefit paid when the house was sold. Apparently when the standard rate of interest was higher than that actually paid some families found their capital payments were covered too. Also, some families were receiving this benefit for many years - effectively having their home bought for them by the taxpayer. The scheme is now limited to two years but won't affect those claiming from before 2009.

I wouldn't be surprised if most working families are claiming some form of income-related benefit. We have a benefit culture not because some people are workshy but because many/most don't earn enough to support a family and buy or rent a family home.

Posts: 2319 | From: thither and yon | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
Amika
Shipmate
# 15785

 - Posted      Profile for Amika   Email Amika   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I have to say it's very disheartening to read some of the comments on here - obviously coming from those sitting on very dry land right now.

I receive housing benefit (private tenant) and working tax credit. My income from self employment is very low (and I can't get a job to bolster this income, despite strenuous efforts). I'm already struggling - much of this winter I haven't been able to afford to heat my house and most of the rooms have been in the 40s Fahrenheit - and have now been landed with a £26 per month council tax bill, having been exempt for the past three years. I can't afford to pay it but there's no redress, nowhere to turn, apparently no one anywhere who gives a toss.

I was a taxpayer for 33 years and I'm working hard to earn enough money to get out from under the government's jackboot. Life is just lived in constant fear of the next 'whammy' and how one will cope with it.

Posts: 147 | From: Ingerland | Registered: Aug 2010  |  IP: Logged
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159

 - Posted      Profile for Angloid     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
They can take the night bus.

And they can eat cake.

--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!

Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican't   Email Anglican't   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
They can take the night bus.

And they can eat cake.
I thought the problem with Marie Antoinette's cake is that it didn't exist. Night buses do very much exist.

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.

Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641

 - Posted      Profile for chris stiles   Email chris stiles   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
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.

Drinking at a bar at 2am is more optional than having to work a minimum wage cleaning job to support ones family.

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.

Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992

 - Posted      Profile for Adeodatus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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?

--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."

Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools