|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Please remind me why the taxpayers should stump up your rent
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
No rent round my way for anything much less than twice a mortgage on a similar flat. There is something weird going on when rental costs less than mortgage - even if the landlords have no debt on the house themselves they are taking a paper loss on the opportunity cost.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
But we would be talking about downgrading to a semi or terrace rather than detached.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
It might not be your point but it is Stoker's point.
quote:
If I was redundant, I would not expect the state to stump up my accommodation costs.
Stoker favours a system where if he had a wife and three children and was made redundant there would be no benefit available to house his family.
I do have a child. The state is not responsible for raising her, my wife and I are.
Agree with you there, but does that mean that you return your child benefit each month?
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
I'd like to know why so many people get hot under the collar about welfare expenditure when the economy is in shit order. That gives an inflated amount: if you want an objective answer to the problem look at the number of totally welfare-dependent households when the economy is doing well. In addition to there being more work to be done, the pay will typically be better so there will be incentives to get into work.
In circumstances like that stoker and his pals would be able to make a far better case.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
Trouble is, in circumstances like that the country can afford a little excess generosity. Whereas in circumstances where important services are being cut because there's no money left (quote attr: the last Labour Chancellor) such largesse needs to be questioned.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
justlooking
Shipmate
# 12079
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
Just looking, I feel you are misrepresenting my position. From my OP:
“The welfare state is there to give strugglers a leg up, not a blanket bloody free for all.”
From your second post: quote:
If I was redundant, I would not expect the state to stump up my accommodation costs.
From what you are now saying you would expect the state to stump up your accommodation costs and indeed have claimed state benefits when out of work. You've modified your expectations to justify your own claims for 'intermediate help'.
quote:
Getting back to the Stoker redundancy scenario, I might expect some intermediate help, while I recalibrated my family’s circumstances, but I would not make long term plans and expectations based on an ongoing contribution from the government.
If you were not able to find work, despite making every effort, then your family would need benefits to survive. It's not just about what adults want, it's about what children need.
quote:
This not the case however for many people who are institutionalised benefits recipients. Is it right that people choose to receive money from taxpayers instead of going to work? :
"Institutionalised benefit recipients" = scroungers presumably.
Yes, it is right for some people to choose to receive benefits instead of going to work. Children, people taking care of young children and people too ill or disabled to work. Also, the many pensioners with only the basic state pension, for which they paid NI contributions, plus perhaps a small work pension giving them a total income too small to live on without additional support.
quote:
2.) A young relative of mine in a rural area who despite having a degree does not expect a high paid job, he works as a minimum wage caring job for adults with learning difficulties. It is shifts and is disruptive to his personal and social life.
A single person would be expected to take any available job if they could not find what suited their qualifications within a reasonable time. Such a person would not be allowed to choose to be on benefits rather than work. Benefits can be cut and even withdrawn completely from a single person who is deemed to be wilfully avoiding work. If no work is available a single person can be obliged to occupy themselves with a succession of training schemes and work placements.
quote:
3.) A mum with 2 kids actively looking for work and doing courses to get on and try and find a job as she doesn’t want to be unemployed.
If this is a single mother then depending on the age of the children she may be fully employed looking after them. Single parents whose youngest child is seven are now expected to look for work of at least 16 hours a week. The kind of jobs that fit around child-care can be hard to come by. Also, the in-work benefits, including taxpayer-funded childcare, can amount to more than the benefits paid to a full-time parent.
There are some families where the parents could be classed as scroungers if neither of them is prepared to take a paying job, assuming one is available. The problem is that penalising such parents by cutting benefits is also penalising the children. However I don't think there are as many such parents as the right-wing press makes out. Even assuming a parent in every such family could be persuaded into work it wouldn't make much difference to the national benefit bill.
Posts: 2319 | From: thither and yon | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Trouble is, in circumstances like that the country can afford a little excess generosity. Whereas in circumstances where important services are being cut because there's no money left (quote attr: the last Labour Chancellor) such largesse needs to be questioned.
Only too true. Those who say that it's wrong to cut the deficit in a downturn have a strong point, but they rarely stand up to suggest that when things are going well the country should raise taxes. I think that's called political suicide, even if that is the time when one should do so.
FWIW, I reckon the deficit cutting is about 50/50 between economic need and political ideology. There is a lot of talk about it, but it isn't happening, let alone working!
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stoker
Shipmate
# 11939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
It might not be your point but it is Stoker's point.
quote:
If I was redundant, I would not expect the state to stump up my accommodation costs.
Stoker favours a system where if he had a wife and three children and was made redundant there would be no benefit available to house his family.
I do have a child. The state is not responsible for raising her, my wife and I are.
Agree with you there, but does that mean that you return your child benefit each month?
No, I use it to fund my sky subscription and buy fags and cheap lager with the leftovers!
Posts: 428 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stoker
Shipmate
# 11939
|
Posted
Just looking
I haven't modified anything. I laid out my position in the OP and am filling in the details.
Yes I do expect the state to give strugglers a leg up, but at the risk of tediously repeating myself, I object to the fact that some people expect this as their life long God given right.
And don't fucking patronise me about disabled people, my daughter has a well mocked learning disability. I am quite happy for the taxpayer to support her and others in less fortunate positions when she reaches adulthood.
[ 01. May 2012, 21:57: Message edited by: Stoker ]
--------------------
Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
Posts: 428 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
justlooking
Shipmate
# 12079
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
Just looking
I haven't modified anything. I laid out my position in the OP and am filling in the details.
After your opening rant about "scroungers" this was in your second post If I was redundant, I would not expect the state to stump up my accommodation costs. Your further posts have modified your position to expecting the state to pay accommodation costs for yourself and your family as an "intermediate" measure during times of unemployment. This isn't filling in the background. This is changing from not expecting the state to stump up your accommodation costs to expecting the state to stump up said costs.
quote:
And don't fucking patronise me about disabled people, my daughter has a well mocked learning disability.
And you expect everyone to know your personal circumstances? You asked "Is it right that people choose to receive money from taxpayers instead of going to work? " and I've included disabled people among those for whom it is right. Which is something even a knob-end like you ought to know.
The issues in the article linked in the OP have nothing to do with so-called scroungers but are about the consequences of the benefit cap. Families in high-rent areas are now moving into lower-rent areas and this is causing problems for some local authorities.
Posts: 2319 | From: thither and yon | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Only too true. Those who say that it's wrong to cut the deficit in a downturn have a strong point, but they rarely stand up to suggest that when things are going well the country should raise taxes. I think that's called political suicide, even if that is the time when one should do so.
There shouldn't be a need to raise taxes in the good times, because if more transactions are happening and more people are being employed there's going to be more tax making its way into the coffers anyway.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Indeed. What went wrong during the boom times is that Brown splurged his much vaunted 'war chest' on a massive round of public spending that ran up a deficit even before the downturn and then bailed out the banks.
--------------------
"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
Nice to hear a good Keynesian argument from Matt and Marvin, here
--------------------
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
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
"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
|
|
redderfreak
Shipmate
# 15191
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
Scroungers moaning about having benefits cut.
Please could someone explain why some people in our society expect the government to fund their lifestyle choices. I don't think I actually know anybody who spends £21,000 on accomodation per year. I know lots of people who spend significantly less but have to work hard, scrimp and sacrifice stable family time and life to pay rent and mortgages.
The welfare state is there to give strugglers a leg up, not a blanket bloody free for all.
Too many fuckers know their rights, not enough know their responsibilities.
I know I don't deserve it, I'm just grateful to you for bailing me out. I'll move to Stoke or wherever else you want me to go. Thanks.
--------------------
You know I just couldn't make it by myself, I'm a little too blind to see
Posts: 287 | From: Exeter | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sighthound
Shipmate
# 15185
|
Posted
I'll have a small bet that the great majority of 'excessive' benefit payments go to people who a) live in London and b) have large families.
The problem is London rents are sky high. This is partly due to landlords profiteering at public expense. But it also highlights a chronic lack of affordable accommodation in the very place where it is most needed. All those incredibly rich bankers need servants, waiters, cleaners and so on. Sadly there are not enough places for these low-paid people to live.
One answer is to try to move some activity out of London to reduce demand. Personally I should move the political capital to say Scunthorpe or Skelmersdale, and leave London to the economic and banking sector. Ain't going to happen though.
Another answer would be to build lots of cheap (i.e. subsidised) Council flats in the capital. Ain't going to happen though.
So you are left with moving the claimants to cheaper areas, say Stoke. Problem with this is there are (almost by definition) less jobs in such areas. So, apart from anything else, your claimants are less likely to find work. In addition, your pool of unskilled labour in London (where there are uses for it) is much reduced. I would question whether this is strategically desirable.
Any road, where there are big families of children no conceivable government is going to throw them out to sleep on park benches. There are going to be housed, and it is going to cost. (Probably cheaper than bunging the kids in orphanages though!)
Bottom line, capitalism needs a certain level of unemployment to work at all. At certain phases in the economic cycle it does, by its very nature, throw large numbers of people out of work. Given that there is not enough work for everyone, it is rather pointless to moan and gripe about supporting those without jobs. It's part of the price we pay for a 'system' that we generally seem to like.
If you want *everyone* to work *all the time* the way forward is Socialism. People may not be as productive under that system, but they'll certainly be found work.
[ 18. June 2012, 10:50: Message edited by: Sighthound ]
--------------------
Supporter of Tia Greyhound and Lurcher Rescue.http://tiagreyhounds.org/
Posts: 168 | From: England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sighthound:
I'll have a small bet that the great majority of 'excessive' benefit payments go to people who a) live in London and b) have large families.
The problem is London rents are sky high. This is partly due to landlords profiteering at public expense. But it also highlights a chronic lack of affordable accommodation in the very place where it is most needed. All those incredibly rich bankers need servants, waiters, cleaners and so on. Sadly there are not enough places for these low-paid people to live.
One answer is to try to move some activity out of London to reduce demand. Personally I should move the political capital to say Scunthorpe or Skelmersdale, and leave London to the economic and banking sector. Ain't going to happen though.
Another answer would be to build lots of cheap (i.e. subsidised) Council flats in the capital. Ain't going to happen though.
Every time anything remotely resembling this subject is raised I point out that there are hundreds of thousands of empty homes in Britain, in various stages of (dis)repair. Many hundreds of thousands are not holiday homes or the like and about 75,000 are in the London area. Nothing personal at all, it's my pet cause and I'll not let go of it.
quote:
So you are left with moving the claimants to cheaper areas, say Stoke. Problem with this is there are (almost by definition) less jobs in such areas. So, apart from anything else, your claimants are less likely to find work. In addition, your pool of unskilled labour in London (where there are uses for it) is much reduced. I would question whether this is strategically desirable.
Those who are currently unemployed or underemployed could repair, refurbish and redecorate these homes. They would also have wages with which to rent or buy them. They wouldn't be receiving benefits any more and they would pay taxes too, all of which would reduce the deficit. Hello? Mr Osborne? quote:
Any road, where there are big families of children no conceivable government is going to throw them out to sleep on park benches. There are going to be housed, and it is going to cost. (Probably cheaper than bunging the kids in orphanages though!)
Bottom line, capitalism needs a certain level of unemployment to work at all. At certain phases in the economic cycle it does, by its very nature, throw large numbers of people out of work. Given that there is not enough work for everyone, it is rather pointless to moan and gripe about supporting those without jobs. It's part of the price we pay for a 'system' that we generally seem to like.
I doubt the resources exist to do all that needs to be done, but if all the available labour was employed the supply and demand in that market would of itself make capitalism untenable. What happens now with housing costs, with the approval of those in power within government and elsewhere, would then happen to wages, and those in power would whinge like a banker denied his bonus!
quote:
If you want *everyone* to work *all the time* the way forward is Socialism. People may not be as productive under that system, but they'll certainly be found work.
I suppose people like capitalism for the same reason others like Creflo Dollar: they see something in it for them. 99% of both groups will be disappointed.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pulsator Organorum Ineptus
Shipmate
# 2515
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sighthound:
The problem is London rents are sky high. This is partly due to landlords profiteering at public expense.
No - the reason rents are so high is that people are willing to pay them rather than go live and work somewhere else.
Expecting landlords to charge less than they can get is little different from expecting employees to ask for a lower salary.
Posts: 695 | From: Bronteland | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Two points:
(i) Housing isn't like beans or bread: it's not a matter of simply going to another shop if you don't like the prices your current one is charging. People usually have jobs and families and all sorts of connections which they can't just up and leave. As previous posters have pointed out, there's an overconcentration of activity in London and around, and until and unless that changes a lot of people will need to be there. Housing in the capital, meanwhile, is scarce in comparison to demand, even if this is, as Sioni Sais has suggested, somewhat artificial. In housing, as in so many other contexts, the self-clearing market is largely a theoretical construction of the economists rather than a reflection of the real world.
(ii) Landlords shouldn't charge as high a rent as they can get, regardless of all else. Workers shouldn't demand as high a wage as they can get, regardless of all else. Producers and sellers shouldn't charge as high a price as they can get, regardless of all else. Employers shouldn't pay as low a wage as they can get away with, regardless of all else. Purchasers shouldn't pay as low a price as they can get, regardless of all else. The interests of all parties have to be considered.
The doctrine of the fair price is an important part of Christian social teaching. How it is achieved is a difficult question, but it is where we should start from and where we should seek to arrive at.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Let me add, by the way, that I do not expect any small player in the property market- the homeowner renting out her flat while she is working abroad for a year, or the person selling his home to move to another- to try to buck the market individually. That would be to expect such a person to incur an heroic level of comparative disdavantage while making no real difference. This is why we need to look at the market as a whole.
--------------------
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
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Rampant profiteering is a choice, and some businesses choose not to.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Indeed. Businesses and organisations are more likely to be able to opt out than individuals are - and so they can be more readily and rightly criticised for not doing so.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pulsator Organorum Ineptus
Shipmate
# 2515
|
Posted
There seems to be part of the law of supply and demand that doesn't work when it comes to housing.
When scarcity of supply starts pushing prices up, new suppliers ought to move in to cash in on the rising prices, which increases the supply and thus stops prices rising too far.
This doesn't happen with housing. It's not because nobody wants to build new housing - it seems to be largely because politicians won't give planning permission.
I don't entirely agree with the poster who said housing is not like beans. People with perfectly good jobs in Leeds are choosing to get different jobs in London and choosing to pay £1500 a month for a one-bedroom flat rather than £700 for quite nice a 3-bedroom semi. An ex-colleague of mine has just done precisely this.
Posts: 695 | From: Bronteland | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
The law of supply and demand, as you describe it, doesn't work in lots of settings. It is as I say essentially a heuristic device for academic economists, not a description of what actually happens in the real world, where things are a lot more 'sticky', irrational (or rather variously-rational) and resource constrained.
--------------------
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
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
If you go along with Maslow's hierarchy of needs, housing, or in its basic form, shelter, is part of the most basic set of needs. While one can cut costs on clothing, food and drink, shelter is second only to breathing in the list of essentials. So far air is free, but truly cheap accomodation just doesn't exist anymore. It is possible to get a tent but have you seen the price of campsite pitches!
Seriously, housing is just too important to be left to the marketplace, and that's why we must make the best possible use of our existing housing stock, which will of course act against the interest of builders, homeowners, mortgagors and mortgagees as the extra supply will depress prices somewhat.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
