|
Not the current incumbents but The Government as a whole. I understand that there is a 13 year backlog of illegal immigrants, awaiting deportation, but the whereabouts of many of whom is unknown to the Home Office. I read today that the Student Loans scheme has a backlog of repayments amounting to £46 billion and this is expected to rise to £200 billion over the next 30 years. Additionally, £5 billion of the debt is owed by about 368,000 students whose whereabouts are unknown and 50% of those who owe money are unlikely to ever get jobs earning enough to reach the threshold at which they even have to make any repayments at all, ever. Terrific news! Of course this is additional to billions wasted in Defence Procurement and non-performing IT schemes!
|
They've just sold £900m of student loans for £150m, and there's about £40bn left as far as I know.
Of the £900m, 46% is in arrears, 40% is owed by people who earn less than the wage that obliges them to make any payments, and 14% are off the radar.
Student loans were a wheeze to spend money without it leaving the balance sheet, no doubt cooked up in some force fit creative session to translate PFI into new areas of expenditure.
We really are in a mess if we can't keep the plates spinning. We are so up to our backsides in alligators that the prospect of ever draining the swamp is hard to contemplate.
I've just had a great idea - let's commit £50bn or so to a new railway.
|
|
we need some experts from the private sector. I here Paul Flowers is looking for a job
|
|
I don't know Manatee.Brother rang up about half hr ago.Continental call, there recieving the news that we are doing fine in the UK.I suppose it all depends which side of the fence you'r on.
|
>>Of the £900m, 46% is in arrears, 40% is owed by people who earn less than the wage that obliges them to make any payments, and 14% are off the radar.
Sorry. "46% are earning below the repayment threshold, 14% of borrowers are still repaying and 40% are not repaying their loans in accordance with their terms."
Should have checked.
|
>> Not the current incumbents but The Government as a whole.
Large organisations tend to not spend everything perfectly. Goverments, big business, banks etc.
|
I didn't like seeing a disabled women crying on one of the television programs, not knowing how she could pay the extra money for the bedroom tax.
I don't know every time I see Cameron and Osborne they make ma cringe.Tony Blair had a similar effect sneaky people.
|
>>I didn't like seeing a disabled women crying on one of the television programs, not knowing
>> how she could pay the extra money for the bedroom tax.
Clearly good television involves filming her distress rather than helping and just telling her the answer.
|
>> Clearly good television involves filming her distress rather than helping and just telling her the
>> answer.
So what is the answer? Few sub 3 bed houses in Social Housing stock. Some are available in private sector but a greater cost. Accepting them though may remove people from family support networks and increase dependency.
www.theguardian.com/society/2013/nov/27/bedroom-tax-benefits-claimants-smaller-homes
|
The so-called "bedroom tax" is a nonsense,
How can you withdraw a benefit, the cessation or reduction of which is based on "under-occupation", without establishing that there are sufficient smaller properties to enable those affected to inhabit them?
|
You have just hit the nail on the head Roger.
In the last 3 months our charity has prevented two people being evicted because of the bedroom tax, but despite reassurance that they would be rehoused immediately into a smaller property, they are both still there.
The local authority say they have nothing smaller available.
Three months ago they said they couldn't re-house them because they had rent arrears.
Pat
|
>> The so-called "bedroom tax" is a nonsense,
>> How can you withdraw a benefit, the cessation or reduction of which is based on
>> "under-occupation", without establishing that there are sufficient smaller properties to enable those affected to inhabit
>> them?
I'm concerned that there will be unintended consequences. Maybe the market will create some one and two bedroomed dwellings that the 'victims' can move into even if the rents, paid by housing benefits, are higher than those for the houses they have moved out of?
I suppose the affected people could do what the rest of us have to do and find somewhere to live that meets their needs, or pay for something bigger. Or maybe share with somebody else in the same boat?
The problem for most of them is where they start from, which is an attitude of dependency.
We have created a society where people can make choices in the knowledge that somebody else picks up the bill.
Should we tax more or spend less? If we spend less, where do the savings come from? It was always going to be difficult to cut welfare spending, which is a bottomless pit.
IDS, the holder of the poisoned chalice, presumably thinks it is better to withdraw subsidies for things that the recipients don't need rather make across the board reductions in benefits.
Of course there are hard cases, and deserving poor. But there are exemptions for pensioners and the disabled and genuine problems need to be addressed not ignored.
Ultimately the workhouse needs reinventing. It would be far more efficient to house communally those who can't support themselves long term. Then they could look after each other's children while some of them go out to work.
I chuck that out for discussion. Worse things happen at sea.
|
>> I suppose the affected people could do what the rest of us have to do
>> and find somewhere to live that meets their needs, or pay for something bigger. Or
>> maybe share with somebody else in the same boat?
>>
>> The problem for most of them is where they start from, which is an attitude
>> of dependency.
>>
>> We have created a society where people can make choices in the knowledge that somebody
>> else picks up the bill.
Have you read the Amelia Gentleman article form the Guardian I linked too upthread? The 'what the rest of us do' argument doesn't hold water when the next stop is a tent.
Most victims seemed to be ordinary people, in at least one case in (albeit low paid) work. There's nowhere cheaper than social housing in Bushbury. It's almost wholly 3 bed houses because for years that was deemed the most efficient size for council houses.
While there's an exemption for pensioners those for the disabled are inconsistently applied and create far too many hard cases.
|
|
Thank Labour for giving birth to the policy, Bromp.
|
>>
>> Have you read the Amelia Gentleman article form the Guardian I linked too upthread? The
>> 'what the rest of us do' argument doesn't hold water when the next stop is
>> a tent.
>>
>> Most victims seemed to be ordinary people, in at least one case in (albeit low
>> paid) work. There's nowhere cheaper than social housing in Bushbury. It's almost wholly 3 bed
>> houses because for years that was deemed the most efficient size for council houses.
>>
>> While there's an exemption for pensioners those for the disabled are inconsistently applied and create
>> far too many hard cases.
Mr Scriven sounds like a decent chap. Not simple is it? From the same article -
When we visited the estate in March, just before the policy began, housing officers expected a large number to find ways to move elsewhere, but so far only five people have been helped to find new homes as a result of the policy. The rest want to stay in an area to which they feel very attached. Since there is no prospect of swapping to smaller properties, most have no option but to respond to the introduction of the policy by radically restricting their spending.
So the housing officers thought the tenants would move, but most don't want to. Some for good reason no doubt - schools, relatives or whatever.
Linked from that article - the unintended consequence I speculated on, people moving into more expensive property for which they qualify, resulting in an increase in their housing benefit -
www.theguardian.com/society/2013/mar/08/human-cost-of-bedroom-tax
The article doesn't acknowledge that it does at least free up a 3 bed council house for which there is still presumably demand.
Perhaps the onus should be pushed to the councils in some cases - they would not be allowed to collect the rent from the tenant unless the tenant has turned down a suitable property.
I don't think the problems are a reason to abandon the idea, but if it's causing great hardship it should be revisited.
|
>>How can you withdraw a benefit, the cessation or reduction of which is based on "under-occupation", without establishing that there are sufficient smaller properties to enable those affected to inhabit them?<<
I quite agree, I was having this very discussion at a meeting the other evening. To me it amounts to half a policy - they kepts the revenue raising tax bit but forgot to build the houses needed to make it viable if indeed the aim is to put people in suitably sized housing.
If there was a clause such as if you refused three different downsizing options offered, then you paid the extra then fair enough, but people seem to be hit with the extra charges even if they cant move.
|
>> bit but forgot to build the houses needed to make it viable if indeed the
>> aim is to put people in suitably sized housing.
There would be plenty if we get overpaid people like Bob Crowe out of his.
|
>>There would be plenty if we get overpaid people like Bob Crowe out of his <<
How many? Got a link to the stats?
|
Bob Crowe? There is only one
Link?
www.rmt.org.uk/home/
|
>>Bob Crowe? There is only one <<
You said there are "plenty" of houses - how many council houses does Bob Crow have? How many overpaid union officials are there? Enough to solve the housing needs of the country? Where are these thousands of houses?
|
>> >>Bob Crowe? There is only one <<
>>
>> You said there are "plenty" of houses - how many council houses does Bob Crow
>> have? How many overpaid union officials are there? Enough to solve the housing needs of
>> the country? Where are these thousands of houses?
>>
Get real, you only have to visit any council estate and see the expensive cars littering the parking spaces to know there are many very well paid, or company owning (legal or not) residents. I think council housing should be means tested.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Thu 28 Nov 13 at 18:27
|
>> >>Bob Crowe? There is only one <<
>>
>> You said there are "plenty" of houses - how many council houses does Bob Crow
>> have?
As there is only one bob crowe, he only has one.
How many overpaid union officials are there?
All of them.
Enough to solve the housing needs of
>> the country? Where are these thousands of houses?
The point I was making, as you well know,is that I was using Bob Crowe as an example of council house dweller intransigence like this
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/bob-crow-i-have-no-moral-duty-to-move-out-of-council-house-despite-receiving-sixfigure-salary-as-rmt-boss-8964238.html
If you ask me if he is unique, the answer will be NO. Numbers of them? I don't know and nor do you. But he does not provide a good example for fighting this legislation.
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 28 Nov 13 at 18:28
|
>>If you ask me if he is unique, the answer will be NO. Numbers of them? I don't know and nor do you <<
I asked because if you dont know who they are, it is rather difficult to chuck them out.
I dont disagree with the sentiment, Crow is a vile creature for blocking a family from getting the house he is squatting in, no morals at all.
|
SWMBO has 'joined the job market'
she needs to sign on if we are to benefit from an insurance policy
ring jobcentre, a recorded message tells you to register via some .gov website
quarter of an hour on clunky website determines as we are under the fiefdom of Ian Duncan Smith and should could be eligilble for 'universal credit' so should ring the local jobcentre and ignore the recorded message referring you back to this website
then 15 minutes on the phone listening to that recorded message before getting a 9am appointment - thats why theres a morning rush hour, it's everybody going signing on
Of course there is no such thing as a 'jobcentre' these days, but part of the deal is she has you be seen to be looking fro work (not that she isn't) and has to set up an account with .gov's 'universal jobsearch' website
but she can't do that because, even though she has never had any electronic dealings with them before, they swear blind her email account is already in use by somebody else. Official 'help' on the matter is to clear your cache and cookies (I do wonder what percentage of the jobseeker market would understand that) and lord knows how long it is going to take to resolve if that doesn't fix the issue
|
|
I am guessing that things have changed in the 8 years since I last looked for a job! I went to a Job Centre, pushed some buttons on a touch screen and put in some details relating to the work I was looking for, got about 6 results, printed off the two that interested me and started work about 2 weeks later, pending a CRB check. Is there no similar self-help system in place still?
|
I was redundo in mid 2012. I could in theory have claimed IIRC £60 pw for 6 months on a non-means-tested basis, subject of course to fortnightly humiliation. As I declared myself self employed it became far too complicated so I never bothered.
Might she be better to set up a new email account?
|
>> I was redundo in mid 2012. I could in theory have claimed IIRC £60 pw
>> for 6 months on a non-means-tested basis, subject of course to fortnightly humiliation.
In practise, you can't. Job seekers allowance is in effect means tested. No-one tells you this till after you have tried to claim it.
|
>> In practise, you can't.
Saved some time then!
|
|
Too many privileged members of the cabinet for my liking, too divorced from reality.
|
>> Additionally, £5 billion of the debt is
>> owed by about 368,000 students whose whereabouts are unknown and 50% of those who owe money are unlikely to ever get jobs earning enough to reach the threshold at which
>> they even have to make any repayments at all, ever.
>>
WTF are we doing providing university places for people who won't earn the meagre salary required to repay their loans over a whole lifetime? This "education" for education's sake is just plain ridiculous.
And we're importing foreign labour because we don't have enough plumbers or electricians.
Last edited by: Robin O'Reliant on Thu 28 Nov 13 at 18:24
|
|
Student Loans offer incredibly poor value for money - the amount it costs to administer and get back the loans probably makes it as well to simply give the money as a grant and not bother trying to recoup it.....
|
|
....or stop sending thickos to university.
|
>> ....or stop sending thickos to university.
>>
I didn't... ;-)
Maybe we should build more Council houses, the money can come from HS2.
|
"Student Loans offer incredibly poor value for money - the amount it costs to administer and get back the loans probably makes it as well to simply give the money as a grant and not bother trying to recoup it....."
I read today in The Metro (OK, it's a free DM but my excuse is I picked it up on a train!) that it has cost the Gov more in admin, lost student loans, trying to collect them and in selling them off to other collection agencies than it would have cost to have paid the loans as "free grants" in the first place.
That despite my son and daughter paying theirs back in full!!
Since it was in Metro, can't say how true that is!!
|
>> WTF are we doing providing university places for people who won't earn the meagre salary
>> required to repay their loans over a whole lifetime? This "education" for education's sake is
>> just plain ridiculous.
>>
>> And we're importing foreign labour because we don't have enough plumbers or electricians.
Tis true. The mass of degree educated job applicants has deflated the market pricing for thos with degrees and increased the market pricing for skilled time served workers.
Long answer to say you could earn more as a self employed qualified plumber or sparks than in some admin job as a grad.
And have a better chance of work.
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 28 Nov 13 at 19:18
|
£37billion spent on the war in Afghanistan as of 2013
£4.5billion spent on the war in Iraq as of 2006
Shameful waste of our money.
Who's gonna vote for the 3 cheeks in 2015??
|
>> £37billion spent on the war in Afghanistan as of 2013
>>
>> £4.5billion spent on the war in Iraq as of 2006
>>
>> Shameful waste of our money.
>>
>
A considerable proportion of those figures are fixed costs which would have been incurred anyway. Soldiers are paid whether they're fighting or peeling spuds, aircraft would still fly and ammunition is used during training excercises.
It's undoubtedly cheaper not to have a war than to have one, but the headline figures people quote are misleading.
|
|
Tell me about the lives, Robin, and the limbs.
|
>> Tell me about the lives, Robin, and the limbs.
>>
I'm no supporter of the war Dog, just putting the point about the quoted cost. Mainly because no-one ever challenges these guesswork figures, smoking kills so many and costs so much, road accidents cost this and alcohol costs that, etc etc.
It allows any pressure group or government department to cost things in whichever way it suits them at the time and no-one ever asks for an audit on the figures which then become accepted as fact by the media.
Last edited by: Robin O'Reliant on Thu 28 Nov 13 at 19:58
|
|
Dead guys don't need pensions and healthcare.
|
>> Dead guys don't need pensions and healthcare.
>>
Cutting the NHS budget could be a double saving, convincing the voters might be difficult. I am sure many government policies are not made public, that's why they are terrified of whistle blowers and have an Official Secrets Act which covers just about everything.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Thu 28 Nov 13 at 20:16
|
|
No but their wives get a pension. The numbers that will need help for the rest of the lives in terms of healthcare will be large. Then you've all those that will find they have ptsd in the years to come. Mucho dollar.
|
|
Same thoughts apply to police costs in policing footie matches and demos. Some overtime, which the Forces don't get, some transport costs and suddenly it is tens of thousands to police a non-violent march in Leeds, say. They'd be paid for being at work so where is the extra?
|
|
Theory being no football they could be out doing other things.
|
Government Incompetence - Manatee
