| Non-motoring > Spending Cuts Volume 3 | Miscellaneous |
Thread Author: VxFan |
Replies: 79 |
|
New Thu 28 Oct 10 10:18
Spending Cuts Volume 3 - VxFan
|
|
One stop shop to discuss the recent spending cuts. Previous Volumes. Volume 1 Volume 2 Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 28 Oct 10 at 10:19
|
|
New Wed 27 Oct 10 19:04
Spending Cuts Volume 2 - John H
|
|
>> The current social housing waiting list is running at around a 5-10 year wait..so what >> are new families on low wages meant to do? >> Do what the rest of the working population do. Move to where they can afford the rent or mortgage, and stop relying on state handouts. Would you not love to live somewhere the state pays over £20k towards your housing cost? How about if the taxpayer gives you £5000 towards your housing? Is that too little? This country has cultivated a dependency culture which needs to be smashed. There are millions of hard working taxpayers who make do on gross earnings of less than £20k per year. Last edited by: John H on Wed 27 Oct 10 at 19:06
|
|
New Wed 27 Oct 10 19:20
Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Iffy
|
|
...This country has cultivated a dependency culture which needs to be smashed... John H, On this occasion the forum pedant is in full agreement. |
|
New Wed 27 Oct 10 19:43
Spending Cuts Volume 2 - swiss tony
|
|
>> ...This country has cultivated a dependency culture which needs to be smashed... >> >> John H, >> >> On this occasion the forum pedant is in full agreement. >> I'm in full agreement there..... But..... >>Move to where they can afford the rent or mortgage, and stop relying on state handouts. That is over simplistic... To move house involves a not insignificant amount of money, if renting then deposits need to be found (admitted the deposit on the 1st house will be refunded, but the 2nd deposit is needed first) Once Mr and Mrs Skint move, they either have to find new jobs, that aren't lower paid that their current jobs, or, their travelling costs rise, in some cases they would be worse off, both in financial, but also in their living standards (lower rent = not such a nice area etc) |
|
New Wed 27 Oct 10 19:51
Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Zero
|
|
This "don't breed till you can afford it" is offensive. Many worthy and respectable families would never get started. Most young families struggle for money, and for most it gives them the value of such. Humphs "don't breed" message probably means most of you would have never been conceived or probably terminated if you were. . |
|
New Wed 27 Oct 10 19:59
Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Runfer D'Hills
|
|
Well while we're all being offended, I'm offended by having pay for idle spongers who won't get off their lazy backsides and fend for themselves and use their ability to produce progeny as a ticket to more handouts. No help was available to me when I needed it most. We lived on less than nothing for an extended period of time when I was starting my business but because I was "working" they wouldn't give us a dime. That fact that I couldn't pay myself anything for over a year was irrelevant of course. But anyway, sulk away. I really couldn't care less. |
|
New Wed 27 Oct 10 20:01
Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Zero
|
| Not sulking, merely remarking that under your utopian rules the Humph family would not exist. |
|
New Wed 27 Oct 10 19:59
Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Iffy
|
|
...Most young families struggle for money... There's a big difference between a young family struggling for money and young people who live a feckless life of petty crime and produce babies on a 'couldn't care the state will provide' basis. |
|
New Wed 27 Oct 10 19:59
Spending Cuts Volume 2 - -
|
|
>> Humphs "don't breed" message probably means most of you would have never been conceived or >> probably terminated if you were. . >> Ah yes, modern parents should do the same as seemingly everything else modern...accept no responsibility. Lets be perfectly honest i was a mistake...yes go on enjoy that one..;)...my parents were well into their 40's and my Mother in particular devout Catholics, so i was as loved as any boy could be, termination was abhorrent to them and rightly so. We were a financially poor family, but never did they get handouts my Father whom i miss dreadfully would have died before accepting such, his duty was to provide for his family and that's what he did, come hell or high water he'd have a good scrub in the Belfast sink and he'd go to work, whether he was ill and regardless of everything else. Just like the vast majority of decent working class people of their generation. Your post is so wrong Z. |
|
New Wed 27 Oct 10 20:03
Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Zero
|
| No its not, I was merely commenting about Humphs original post, which if followed means you would not be here - accident or not. |
|
New Wed 27 Oct 10 20:17
Spending Cuts Volume 2 - John H
|
|
>> No its not, I was merely commenting about Humphs original post, which if followed means >> you would not be here - accident or not. >> No, that would be so only for those who asked the state for handouts to bring up their children, children they could not afford to feed and house themselves, yet they go on to have more of them knowing that the taxpayers like Zero's teenage son earning £20k, and Zero paying tax on his pension, and Nicole working as a Nurse, will happily continue to pay. |
|
New Wed 27 Oct 10 20:25
Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Robin O'Reliant
|
|
>> This "don't breed till you can afford it" is offensive. >> Who cares if it's "offensive"? We spend too much time worrying about whether we "offend" people or not, but bringing kids you have no hope of supporting into the world is irresponsible and in itself offensive to the rest of us who have to support them. You only have to watch Jeremy Kyle in the morning to see how many idle shiftless wastes of space are queuing up to get on the show to prove or dispute the fatherhood of one or several offspring when they are not only unemployed but unemployable because they have made the lifestyle choice of drugs or alcohol over work. And of course every 16 year old who can't be bothered to take note of the highest level of sex education ever provided to school children and pick up a years supply of free condoms from the clinic is allocated a council house - creating a shortage and forcing hardworking families into private accomodation where their rents need to be subsidised. |
|
New Wed 27 Oct 10 20:31
Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Zero
|
|
So whats your answer? State Sterilisations? State decreed abortions? how about state adoption - Last edited by: Zero on Wed 27 Oct 10 at 20:32
|
|
New Wed 27 Oct 10 20:37
Spending Cuts Volume 2 - John H
|
|
>> State Sterilisations? State decreed abortions? how about state adoption - >> Send them off to the colonies. There are empty vast states in Australia and Canada that are desperate for indigenous people to emigrate there from the motherland to balance out the flood of orientals. |
|
New Wed 27 Oct 10 20:41
Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Robin O'Reliant
|
|
>> So whats your answer? >> >> State Sterilisations? State decreed abortions? how about state adoption - >> No automatic right to a council house would be a good start. As any girl from a working class background and she will be able to tell you of at least one school mate whom took that route as a career option. If you want them when you know you or your family won't be able to support them give them up for adoption. The state wouldn't subsidise me if I bought a Ferrari I couldn't make the payments on no matter how desperately I wanted one, we should stop thinking people have a right to breed no matter what the consequences. |
|
New Wed 27 Oct 10 22:15
Spending Cuts Volume 2 - FotheringtonTomas
|
|
>> >> This "don't breed till you can afford it" is offensive. >> >> >> Who cares if it's "offensive"? I do. It's directly offensive to me, and many others - although I am not in the position alluded to, it is still a repulsive and shallow viewpoint. >> You only have to watch Jeremy Kyle in the morning QED. I had to look him up. Do you often watch and believe such guano? Please treat that as a rhetorical question[1]. [1] www.usingenglish.com/glossary/rhetorical-question.html etc., if you need it. |
|
New Wed 27 Oct 10 22:10
Spending Cuts Volume 2 - FotheringtonTomas
|
| Crikey. I agree with Mr. X. |
|
New Wed 27 Oct 10 20:07
Spending Cuts Volume 2 - MD
|
|
.******* Mods. Do what you like. BTW........How is 'Dog'? |
|
New Wed 27 Oct 10 20:11
Spending Cuts Volume 2 - MD
|
| In realistic terms it is bordering on the impossible to move a family to where work MIGHT be. Even if a job is promised or indeed a contract has been formed that contract will have so many riders that the move will be unlikely to provide any benefit whatsoever, certainly in terms of longevity. Upheaval of Children etc. is not to be undertaken lightly. We are in different times now. No longer a Country hungry to manufacture, sell, export, lead (from the front). We are mere wimps in the huge scheme already stuffed by all of the people and races that we took the **** out of for decades. We are now the Architects of our own destiny and are reaping the rewards for being nothing more than a cocky bunch of lazy *****. These difficult times have been created by the impossible Capitalism scenario created by successive governments and their hangers on. 'Tickle' the poor, give them a bit then cut their legs off. Don't give a ***** stuff now for this country........MY country. Mods. Do what you like. BTW........How is 'Dog'? |
|
New Wed 27 Oct 10 20:11
Spending Cuts Volume 2 - John H
|
|
>> Once Mr and Mrs Skint move, they either have to find new jobs, that aren't >> lower paid that their current jobs, or, their travelling costs rise, in some cases they >> would be worse off, both in financial, but also in their living standards (lower rent >> = not such a nice area etc) >> >> No sympathy from me. There are Polish immigrant families I know who make do on minimum wages, less than £13k a year without asking for any handouts from the "Social". Learn to live within your means, and stop expecting state handouts. I have no problem with short term help, up to one year, for people who have lost jobs, or the main breadwinner is no longer there (dead or alive), but that one year should be enough for them to find alternatives to survive. For a start cut down on booze, ciggies, hash, mobile phones, playstations, takeaway pizzas, etc. Learn to live a simple life, learn to cook at home using simple ingredients. Our grandparents survived the 2nd world war without all this socialist housing benefit nonsense. |
|
New Wed 27 Oct 10 20:19
Spending Cuts Volume 2 - rtj70
|
|
I have no problem with accommodation costs being covered for those less fortunate. But come on £1600 a month is a high figure. And that is what's being suggested. At the moment, paying up to £8000pm in some instances is just wrong. There are those that are earning a lot of money who could not afford to live where some of these houses are. Perhaps we all ought to ask if we can quit are jobs and move to a mansion in Kensington? Then we'd not be complaining as we'd have joined in the 'scam'. |
|
New Wed 27 Oct 10 20:39
Spending Cuts Volume 2 - RattleandSmoke
|
|
I think that is the point and I do find it quite shocking. Looking on Rightmove there is are plenty of decent homes for less than £600 per month. Why does anybody need to live in Kensington? Battersea is only the other side of the river and is a lot cheaper. As for moving costs will maybe the government can help with these as part of the deal. The cuts are not going to be making anybody homeless. |
|
New Wed 27 Oct 10 20:25
Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Fullchat
|
| 'If you can't feed em don't breed em.' |
|
New Wed 27 Oct 10 20:43
Spending Cuts Volume 2 - MD
|
|
>> 'If you can't feed em don't breed em.' >> Concur, but it isn't just that is it. Me 53. bad Back, knees etc. still have to work. Joe don't know baseball cap, shruggy shoulders, has a wart and he has to have a weak (sic) off. To coin a popular and hated phrase, Does my ****** head in. Those that take the **** get Nowt as far as I am concerned. This is NOT going to get any better until.................... Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 28 Oct 10 at 00:41
|
|
New Wed 27 Oct 10 21:00
Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Bromptonaut
|
|
Fine discussion going on here but perhaps a re visit to the facts is needed. The conditions for payment of HB are on the Direct Gov website tinyurl.com/47jtyl . It's not just paid to those without feck, it also helps pay rent for those in employment but on low pay. Also, although we talk about it going to the claimant it's actually destined for the landlord. Now up until thirty years ago we had Council houses which at least in part were meant to house the less well off. The government then sold them off to those who happened to be living there at the time for far less than they were actually worth. The sale proceeds could not be reinvested in new social housing; the market would provide in future. As we sow so shall we reap. |
|
New Wed 27 Oct 10 22:21
Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Stuu
|
|
Maybe Im missing something, but surely if you are not in work, you can be moved fairly cheaply to an area with cheaper rents. There seems no sense in having people remain in places like central London and the tax payer pays their huge rents when for a few thosand outlay, you can relocate them somewhere with more reasonable rents. If someone was paying my rent, id go where I was told. Claimants should do the same. We would all like to live in a nice area, but those who fund it themselves earn it. |
|
New Wed 27 Oct 10 22:43
Spending Cuts Volume 2 - swiss tony
|
|
>> Maybe Im missing something, but surely if you are not in work, you can be >> moved fairly cheaply to an area with cheaper rents. >> There seems no sense in having people remain in places like central London and the >> tax payer pays their huge rents when for a few thosand outlay, you can relocate >> them somewhere with more reasonable rents. >> If someone was paying my rent, id go where I was told. Claimants should do >> the same. >> We would all like to live in a nice area, but those who fund it >> themselves earn it. >> I think you are missing something. may I suggest you find out how much a removal company will charge for a house move? even hiring a van, or a man with a van will cost a fair old sum, and the Mr and Mrs Skint I'm talking about, don't have any spare cash, or they wouldn't have to move. I totally agree that in an ideal world relocation is the best (only?) answer, but this is not an ideal world. In many cases, the only reason people are in expensive houses, paid for by the tax payer, is because the council had to sell off their houses, due to Thatchers law.... many other people are housed in B&B's that also is a stupid waste of money. As I see it, the problem will only get worse - laying off people like our own Bromptonaut (good luck in keeping your job BTW) will result in more unemployed people claiming dole, and HB......... |
|
New Wed 27 Oct 10 22:49
Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Zero
|
|
The problem with moving people from high rents areas has a fundamental issue. Places with full employment, Like London and the South East, Bristol, Etc. have high housing costs. Even the "cheaper areas" like the east end have a housing shortage - so rents are high. Move the people on housing benefits to the cheaper £400 month type places, and you have no chance of getting them to work, as there isn't any. |
|
New Wed 27 Oct 10 22:51
Spending Cuts Volume 2 - RattleandSmoke
|
|
But the cap is at £400 a week isn't it? I am sure most cities/areas have plenty of good properties at £400 a week. I am sorry but I cannot see a single reason why somebody on benefits should be able to afford to live in a mansion in Prestbury or a luxery flat in Chelsea.
Last edited by: RattleandSmoke on Wed 27 Oct 10 at 22:53
|
|
New Wed 27 Oct 10 23:00
Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Zero
|
| Im not talking about the cap, the cap is too high and helps inflate rents. I am talking about the actual cost. |
|
New Wed 27 Oct 10 23:02
Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Bromptonaut
|
|
Thanks ST. In reality, compared with my compatriots 'up north' in the seventies or the miners in the communities my mother grew up in I'm OK. The uncertainty is disturbing but I've no entitlement to serve 40yrs. If not re-deployed I'm probably old enough to get early access to a pension which, while a lot less than my current income, is not going to leave me on the breadline But on the wider issue it's not just the cash costs of moving. Kids have to change schools. Not just once but maybe bi-annually as the 'market' directs them to the cheapest areas. In stable communities children benefit hugely from keeping in the same cohort from playgroup to sixth form Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 27 Oct 10 at 23:03
|
|
New Wed 27 Oct 10 23:04
Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Kevin
|
|
>may I suggest you find out how much a removal company will charge for a house move? May I suggest that councils would be overwhelmed if they asked for volunteers to help move to cheaper areas the HB claimants who are not actively and seriously looking for suitable employment? Kevin... |
|
New Wed 27 Oct 10 23:15
Spending Cuts Volume 2 - RattleandSmoke
|
|
There would be so many circumstances which effect it. For example I live close to an area called Chorlton Green, property prices here are very high (3 bed terraces go over £300k and many four beds go for over £450-£500k) and rents are also very high. I live 3/4 of a mile away from this are and the same house would cost £240k and just 1 mile north of Chorlton Green you can buy a 3 bed ex council house on a fairly decent estate for just £160k or rent it for £700 a month. Why should somebody in Chorlton Green get all their rent paid when they can move less than 1 mile down the road for a much cheaper price. Removal costs do cost a fortune but in the long run even if the council paid it would save money. In many cases you do not need to move towns to get a much cheaper rental property, sometimes its just a matter of moving a few streets away especialy in the big cities. I am not saying move people in Chelsea to some where like Gainsborough that would be just silly but the council/government should look to see if there is cheaper property near by where the kids could remain in school etc. Maybe there could be a credit system too, so if you work near by you gain points which means you are more likely to be allowed to stay in your current home. Last edited by: RattleandSmoke on Wed 27 Oct 10 at 23:15
|
|
New Wed 27 Oct 10 23:16
Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Stuu
|
|
>>I think you are missing something. may I suggest you find out how much a removal company will charge for a house move? even hiring a van, or a man with a van will cost a fair old sum, and the Mr and Mrs Skint I'm talking about, don't have any spare cash, or they wouldn't have to move.<< Why on earth would you think id be suggesting the tenant pays ?- its cheaper for the state to pay removals than continue to pay several thousand quid a month in rent. You can get a reasonable 3 bed house here for around £700 a month here. If someone is on a £2k a month rent, you would soon make up the removal costs. If they arent working, better they sit on their backsides somewhere cheaper. |
|
New Thu 28 Oct 10 06:09
Spending Cuts Volume 2 - swiss tony
|
|
>> Why on earth would you think id be suggesting the tenant pays ?- its cheaper >> for the state to pay removals than continue to pay several thousand quid a month >> in rent. Very true. But it wouldn't happen. |
|
New Thu 28 Oct 10 11:43
Spending Cuts Volume 2 - John H
|
|
>> In many cases, the only reason people are in expensive houses, paid for by the >> tax payer, is because the council had to sell off their houses, due to Thatchers >> law.... many other people are housed in B&B's that also is a stupid waste of >> money. >> Ah, blame Thatcher when all else fails. The reason there is a huge demand for housing is because of the unrestricted immigration in the last 13 years under Labour. See the two graphs here to get an overview of the problem: www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article21565.html Rents are high because the landlords know that the "Social" will pay for them. Once there the threat of these tenants leaving to find cheaper homes becomes a reality, the landlords left with empty houses will soon reduce the rents to a level of the "Social" benefit. UK plc is bust. Former Treasury chief secretary Liam Byrne left a note for his successor, David Laws, saying: 'I'm afraid to tell you there's no money left.' We need to get real. We just cannot afford these extravagant social benefits any more. |
|
New Thu 28 Oct 10 12:02
Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> Former Treasury chief secretary Liam Byrne left a note for his >> successor, David Laws, saying: 'I'm afraid to tell you there's no money left.' >> We need to get real. We just cannot afford these extravagant social benefits any more. Byrne's note was a joke shared between outgoing and incoming minsters. Reggie Maudling's parting shot to his replecement in 1964, Jim Callaghan was along the lines of 'sorry to leave things in sich a mess old cock' |
|
New Wed 27 Oct 10 22:24
Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Perky Penguin
|
|
It seems that single Polish men can maange on £13k a year but they are able to send UK child benefit back to their families in Poland. tinyurl.com/letoq8 |
|
New Thu 28 Oct 10 06:01
Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Pat
|
|
Sometimes I get up and read these forums and I’m shocked at the general opinion of something that has developed overnight. We all know of someone who claims huge amounts of HB and other benefits and will never work, but we should remember the others as well. These sweeping cuts and rules are so black and white, the work shy will circumvent them as they always do. The genuine needy will be affected badly by them. Remember that for every bad case we hear of there are a hundred genuine people out there who are claiming benefit through absolutely no fault of their own. There is also another group who have far too much pride and prefer to live well below the breadline sooner that claim ‘handouts’ as they see them. Sad to see that only MartinD, Bromptonaut and Swiss Tony seem to have remembered this and considered the affects on those who find themselves in a position where they need help. It’s so easy to tar everyone with the same brush when employed and able to pay the rent or mortgage, when healthy and able to maintain an income. One of the more common requests we have, as a charity, is to fund a long term sick person’s first couple of weeks back in employment. Money to tax the car (that has been SORN) because start times are between 2am & 5am, and no other transport is available. Benefits stop immediately but wages are often paid a week in hand or even monthly, how does that person feed his family for that time? The safer option is to stay on benefit. Surely a more practical view in the benefits system, to fund people back to work could be an option? Children need stability and security, they don’t want to change schools, and friends simply because their parents are living in a reasonable area when hard times befall them. No-one expects life changing events, but they happen, so often through no fault of the person who ends up suffering the most. The media will always highlight the work-shy, the scroungers and those who stick two fingers up to the rest of us, but a ‘one solution fits all’ is no answer, and will leave far more falling by the wayside who do genuinely deserve help. I know it must be extremely hard for those on here who have never been in that position to understand just how soul destroying it is, but it can happen to anyone. Pat |
|
New Thu 28 Oct 10 06:29
Spending Cuts Volume 2 - swiss tony
|
|
>> I know it must be extremely hard for those on here who have never been >> in that position to understand just how soul destroying it is, but it can happen >> to anyone. >> >> Pat >> Thanks Pat, you have pointed out a few other issues, that are huge problems, that people with savings will not see. When on the breadline, any savings quickly get used up, trying to keep ones head above water, then small things like taxing the car, bus fares etc, become impossible to fund. also, people are likely to get hit by bank charges, that eat into the already tight budget. All very easy to sit back and say people shouldn't get themselves into positions like that, but it is, in fact all to easy to be thrown into that state, by no fault of ones own. losing ones job, family issues, losing a relative and having to fund burial costs etc, being involved in a life changing incident (car accident, or terrorist attack etc) could place anyone of us in a position where outgoings exceed income. Not everyone on benefit or on the poverty line is a scrounger - many more are in fact, trying to do the best they can to sort their lives out. |
|
New Thu 28 Oct 10 09:07
Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Iffy
|
|
...Not everyone on benefit or on the poverty line is a scrounger - many more are in fact, trying to do the best they can to sort their lives out... I accept that, and I suspect most of the militant tendency on this one do as well. But I am still attracted by the idea of a cap on benefits. It just cannot be right to encourage someone with no means of support to have ever more children, which the current system seems to do. |
|
New Thu 28 Oct 10 09:49
Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Stuu
|
|
>>It just cannot be right to encourage someone with no means of support to have ever more children, which the current system seems to do.<< Quite. My wife and I want to have a baby but we are waiting because we dont think its financially viable just yet - we are both working, I have two jobs now. With my wifes ever worsening heart condition and her being the wrong side of 30, its not like there isnt a certain amount of pressure on us to get it done, but we are being sensible. Its not fashionable to be sensible though is it. |
|
New Thu 28 Oct 10 10:14
Spending Cuts Volume 2 - hobby
|
| I think thats the crux of it, why do they have to have so many kids... I do wonder if the answer to that is that being able to get benefit money so easily encourages it... just as it does for the single (often underage) mother (and father) as well... perhaps if benefits were harder to get these people would be more careful... I'm not saying they all would, but it would certainly make some think twice... |
|
New Thu 28 Oct 10 11:10
Spending Cuts Volume 2 - John H
|
|
>> It’s so easy to tar everyone with the same brush when employed and able to >> pay the rent or mortgage, when healthy and able to maintain an income. £20 billion paid on housing benefits! Absolutely bonkers. See the chart here to understand the scale of the problem. www.dwp.gov.uk/local-authority-staff/housing-benefit/claims-processing/local-housing-allowance/impact-of-changes.shtml >> Children need stability and security, they don’t want to change schools, and friends simply because >> Tough. Why should I pay my taxes so that these children can keep the same friends and schools? No one has the right to assume that the taxpayer will fund their remaining in the town they were born in. As I said, the benefit culture of this country has got too far ingrained in our minds to question the validity of some of these outrageous assumptions on "entitlements and rights to benefit". Genuine needy people are few and far between, many just get used to the idea that the taxpayer will continue to fund their drug/drink/smoking/fat/lazy lifestyle. >> I know it must be extremely hard for those on here who have never been >> in that position to understand just how soul destroying it is, but it can happen >> to anyone. >> I speak from personal experience, and can tell you that my family has lived through much worse times than the people you think are having a difficult time. Sure, give people a helping hand for a limited time, give them time/money/guidance/moral-support/whatever if they show willingness to change their life to suit new circumstances, and support them to get them back on their feet, but stop giving them never ending benefits if they want to do nothing in return to improve their situation. |
|
New Thu 28 Oct 10 11:42
Spending Cuts Volume 2 - madf
|
|
I have read all the arguments for and against HB and cutting it.. The situation in the SE of England is simple. Housing is in short supply and expensive. We subsidise housing for people who can never afford to live there if working. We subsidise it too for immigrants who have no jobs. As a result there is no cheap housing as supply exceeds demand - and demand fueled by HB is always going to exceed supply. Why work when the state will feed and house you? It's simple. If you are unlikely to get well paid work , you are a fool to take low paid work. Communities have always moved to where the work was in the past. HB stopped that. And we wonder why social mobility is nil and families never work. People can have a many children as they like as long as they don't expect me to pay taxes to support them. Period. That's MY human right.. People can agree never to work: as long as I don't have to support then for ever. That's MY right. And if people have to move to find cheaper houses.. well that's just life.. and has been for centuries. See the Scots. If you want to breed a race of idle state dependents actively discouraged from working, you could not invent a better system than the current one.. |
|
New Thu 28 Oct 10 12:14
Spending Cuts Volume 2 - RattleandSmoke
|
|
I think some of this has been taken out of context. I have no problem at all with housing benefits, my gripe is the purely the fact that in some cases so much is being paid for home in nice post codes when it is not needed. I am technically poor myself, I can't afford my own place or even comfortable to rent. I still have problems with the massive amount being paid in benefits. There is a big difference between somebody on housing benefits etc who have just lost their job to somebody who has never worked or dosn't have any intention of doing. |
|
New Thu 28 Oct 10 12:33
Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Bromptonaut
|
|
For the benefit of madf and others. The public debate has focussed on the usual suspects of illegal immigrants, baby factory single mums and the feckless workshy. Ministers on the radio this morning repeated the same mantra about what the those in work could afford. Can I repeat again what I said above and point out that Housing benefit is also paid to the working low paid. Any enforced removals from Inner London (and that's the main problem area) will also affect people like office cleaners, nhs ancilliaries etc etc. |
|
New Thu 28 Oct 10 12:50
Spending Cuts Volume 2 - madf
|
|
"Can I repeat again what I said above and point out that Housing benefit is also paid to the working low paid. Any enforced removals from Inner London (and that's the main problem area) will also affect people like office cleaners, nhs ancilliaries etc etc. " Thank you. I can read and process information. If Inner London has a deficit of lower paid people, that's Inner London's problem.## Or are you suggesting we set national policy based on Inner London needs? Most city centres bring in lower paid employees by bus from outside the centre. It makes no economic sense nor is there any need for low paid workers to live in any city centre.. And using that as an argument to defend your case is a very weak argument... ## One answer might be to pay them more.. After all, if you cannot get people to work for you, pay them more. Oh I forgot. The benefits system makes it uneconomic for them to work if they are on benefits. As for immigration, it is a FACT that immigration has put pressure on both housing availability and cost.. The refusal to recognise that the the past branding by supporters of the benefits system (by denition as mainly Labour and LD supporters) of anyone who dared raise it as "racist" says it all. Last edited by: madf on Thu 28 Oct 10 at 12:54
|
|
New Thu 28 Oct 10 12:58
Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Bromptonaut
|
|
Madf I was responding to your post at 11:42 which seemed focussed on the non working and feckless. Obviuosly people working in inner london also travel in by bus but even outside the desirable postcodes London rents far exceed those in say Warrington or Scunthorpe, I'm not suggesting national policy being determined by London. However there are plenty of other examples of policies being adapated to refelct local circumstances. A flat national limit makes no sense when housing costs vary so much. |
|
New Thu 28 Oct 10 13:03
Spending Cuts Volume 2 - RattleandSmoke
|
|
But would you not agree that even for most central places (e.g Battersea, Lambeth etc - not the swanky post codes) £1600 a month is enough for a four bedroom house? I do agree though a national limit dosn't make sense but I am sure there is already restrictions depending on a band the council is in. So you wouldn't be able to claim £400 a week for a four bedroom house in Scunthorpe even if you wanted to. I personally I am still a great believer in social housing, it is such a shame the stigma of council houses and some of the tennants in them have ruined their reputation and the better ones like my grandma lives in are now all private. Having said that my Grandma owns her house now but more than half are still social housing but they have a waiting list of decades. |
|
New Thu 28 Oct 10 13:07
Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Bromptonaut
|
|
A rare occasion, aside from bike related matters, where I agree with BoJo. tinyurl.com/34kahhu |
|
New Thu 28 Oct 10 13:20
Spending Cuts Volume 2 - madf
|
| All those who agree with BOJO can pay the taxes required to fund it. |
|
New Thu 28 Oct 10 23:35
Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> But would you not agree that even for most central places (e.g Battersea, Lambeth etc >> - not the swanky post codes) £1600 a month is enough for a four bedroom >> house? I don't know the answer to that though, if the opportunity presents i could ask one of the youngsters at work. A sense check based on ads in the standard suggests that you'd be lucky. So does the fact that when I shared in 1980 a 3bed @ £365pcm in Stanmore was cheap. Battersea, Lambeth and a fair chunk of the rest of zones 2/3 are exactly the sort of places that young lawyers and the like will compete for and drive up rentals. Round here, Northampton/Daventry £800 a month seems to be the going rate now. The problem with what's propsed is that its a vast experiment in social policy. Now I've a little bit of experience of develpong and implementing policy albeit on a much smaller stage. car4playeres have mullled over a few possible outcomes above and I've no doubt the Gov will have some very bright people working through the consequences. I can guarantee see Child Support (or Dangerous Dogs!) that they've missed the thing that wil really bite the Minister's backside!!! Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 28 Oct 10 at 23:39
|
|
New Thu 28 Oct 10 12:51
Spending Cuts Volume 2 - RattleandSmoke
|
|
Again I think the left media is twisting it. If you work as a low paid office cleaner in central London I very much doubt they will be getting anything like £400 a week in housing benefits anyway. The people this seems to effect really is the people with no jobs living in expensive areas. I am sure the government have no plans to move most working people out of their homes unless it really is a special circumstances like a poor family living in rented housing on the Kings Road. |
|
New Thu 28 Oct 10 23:20
Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Kevin
|
|
>One of the more common requests we have, as a charity, is to fund a long term sick person’s first couple of weeks Pat, How would you feel if your charity funds were being used to support someone who had absolutely no intention of getting a job, never mind getting back behind the wheel? Kevin... |
|
New Thu 28 Oct 10 23:38
Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> How would you feel if your charity funds were being used to support someone who >> had absolutely no intention of getting a job, never mind getting back behind the wheel? >> >> >> Kevin... Hopefully you filter them out but the proportion thinking that way is far lower than either the posts above or the Government's dog whistle suggests. |
|
New Fri 29 Oct 10 04:38
Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Pat
|
|
We have a very firm vetting procedure, and many requests are refused if there is any doubt. Most go on to make a donation back to the charity within a few weeks, although it certainly isn't compulsory. Pat |
|
New Fri 29 Oct 10 10:45
Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Bromptonaut
|
|
And from another perspective this is what the Residential Landlords Association has to say on the subject. Obviously comes with a big vested interest caution but seems measured and sensible to me. tinyurl.com/3xxt8ja Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 29 Oct 10 at 10:46
|
|
New Fri 29 Oct 10 11:40
Spending Cuts Volume 2 - madf
|
|
If the Residential landlords Association meant what it says, it would offer a discount to those out of work. They don't. Benefit payments are used effectively to push up housing prices by supporting private landlords. Any sensible policy would build social housing with restrictions on how long people in work/on benefit can rent at subsidised prices. But then the prior Government stopped 99.99% of all public housing new builds.... |
|
New Fri 29 Oct 10 12:31
Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Mapmaker
|
|
Another huge problem is the rent control/security of tenure of council housing. In my world all council tenants would be put onto ordinary ASTs at market rates. Anybody unable to pay would receive HB. If HB were in excess of 400pw, they'd have to move. If they're paying a market rent then the council can afford to rent in the private sector. |
|
New Fri 29 Oct 10 12:19
Spending Cuts Volume 2 - John H
|
|
>> And from another perspective this is what the Residential Landlords Association Yes, I am surprised that some of the left-wing Socialist leaning commentators in this discussion here and in the wider Media have not realised that housing benefit in fact goes straight to the pockets of landlords. It seems these lefties are happy to see £20k plus paid in effect to fatten the wallets of greedy landlords. |
|
New Fri 29 Oct 10 13:10
Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Bromptonaut
|
|
John I think the left, with which group I'm proud to identify, understand that. I'm enraged by the press reporting benefit claimants on £outrageous pa without making clear that most of it goes to the Landlord!! |
|
New Fri 29 Oct 10 13:22
Spending Cuts Volume 2 - madf
|
|
The figure for new home builds suggest over 50% are purchased for Buy to Let Landlords. The biggest landlord is effectively Social Services Benefits. Anyone with half a brain can see that a sensible Government could easily set up a JV - independently run BTL new houses for benefit recipients and cut out the middle man.. Instead they funded a number of multi properties BTL millionaires. But hey that's socialism: keep the poor poor. And make your friends richer. See Tony Blair as a classic example. And the Milibands. And Tony Benn. And Michael Meacher. And Geoff Hoon. All multi property millionaires. " Socialists love the poor so much that when leaving Government they ensure there are lots more of them than when they gained power.". Berlusconi - paraphrased. So far he's been 100% correct post WW2 in the UK. Edit Bramptonaut Remember It's a scoialist Government doing it... Making themselves millionaires. And the poor poorer.. Last edited by: madf on Fri 29 Oct 10 at 13:23
|
|
New Fri 29 Oct 10 13:42
Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Bromptonaut
|
|
I shouldn't, but I'm going to bite: BTL is a scandal though not for the reason you suggest. Meacher & Hoon (albeit for diferent reasons) I'll buy as champagne socialists. Blair is below contempt. To be fair to Miliband he's (a) young (b) inherited and (c) his partner is a high flying lawyer - so he's certainly not 'working class'. But Benn?? I appreciate he's not a horny handed son of toil but I do firmly believe him to be a man of priciple. He brought his family up in a home in Holland Park so will have benefitted from it's appreciation. IIRC his wife may have had some wealth & perhaps, I genuineley don't know, there was money in the Stansfield title. But an 'investor' in the Blair/Booth mould? Evidence??? And if you want a laugh about politicians, and a insight into how long current trends have really been around, try and find a copy of Alex Glasgow's song 'The Candidate'. Dates from the early seventies but could have been written yesterday. Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 29 Oct 10 at 13:44
|
|
New Fri 29 Oct 10 15:08
Spending Cuts Volume 2 - madf
|
|
I apologise for Tony Benn - although a multi millionaire. House was worth £4 million at last count... I meant of course his son, Hilary.. who at last count owned 7 houses... Pity the socialists and their supporters in the UK don't like to criticise these hypocrites - nor does the BBC (although it loves hours on Osboourne's yacht saga and Ashcroft).. Also a pity that the Guardian criticises tax avoidance schemes and then uses one to shelter its £300m profits on its part sale of the Autotrader Group. At least with the Conservatives, you KNOW they are either rich or corrupt or both... The Lib Dems of course are like Clegg on smoking: "don't do as I do, do as I say". |
|
New Fri 29 Oct 10 16:02
Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Robin O'Reliant
|
|
It isn't just those on the left who are politicians who are hypocritical when it comes to personal wealth. Bono, who is forever urging us all to pay more taxes and make charitable contributions to feed the world's poor avoids paying millions in tax to the Irish government by moving his business interests to foreign tax havens. This is the same Irish government who have been forced to cut welfare to the bone because the country is skint. Still, I suppose a middle aged man who gives himself the sort of name a particularly thick fourteen year old might adopt should never be taken seriously anyway. |
|
New Fri 29 Oct 10 16:24
Spending Cuts Volume 2 - John H
|
|
I think Boris Johnson's protestations are more to do with saving his vote for the next Mayoral election. It is a double whammy win-win situation for him - he gets the support of the poor tenants who get to continue to live in expensive houses, and he gets the support of the rich landlords whose income gets protected. |
|
New Fri 29 Oct 10 17:15
Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Stuu
|
|
I think it gets harder and harder to find politicians who are pretty much what they say they are. They have become just too polished for them to be credible to the average person on the street. Boris is most likely mayor because, despite being a blithering, posh, adulterous but somehow also rather smart man, he at no point pretends otherwise. Whether you like him or loath him ( few are in the middle ), he is, in terms of politics, a real, visually fallible person. We all know that politicians make mistakes, but with him, it seems unlikely he will be able to successfully cover it up. It was interesting last night that Michael Portillo hinted that Boris was more of a threat to Cameron than is often given credit. I think that rests mainly with his visable human failings which Cameron wouldnt dare allude to in himself ( Clegg does that for the both of them ). Boris is I guess, the Jeremy Clarkson of politics. But Clarkson is well liked for his talent for speaking his mind, saying how he sees something, even if he knows people will disagree with him. With Blair and Brown, it always seemed a whole lot of smoke and mirrors, perhaps why all out honesty and bravery of opinion may make a comeback yet in politics. People are just fed up of not really knowing if anything a politician says is real. |
|
New Sat 30 Oct 10 11:03
Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Bromptonaut
|
|
Been trying to find a you tube rendition of the song I referred madf to above. No trace unfortunately. But I did find this reflection on sixties politics. You need to listen to the end for the punchline!! www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqfz4-sMgak Alex Glasgow; The Socialist ABC. For the record it contains the odd mild swearword. As well as being bourgeois, the boss is also illegitimate! |
|
New Tue 2 Nov 10 17:30
Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Bromptonaut
|
|
Not just the public services affected. Had a morning out today and visited one of London's professional foundations that also does conferences and events. Most of their (considerable) government bookings have cancelled, some after charges have been incurred. Don't think they can make up the lost income on weddings and barmitzvahs; at best staff leaving will not be replaced. Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 2 Nov 10 at 17:31
|
|
New Tue 2 Nov 10 17:34
Spending Cuts Volume 2 - R.P.
|
| I was thinking about this element as well - this was a huge industry (I was involved a few years back) - what public authority in its right mind would pay 400 quid plus for delegates plus travelling and accommodation, the answer in those heady days was quite a lot....an easy chop now. |
|
New Tue 2 Nov 10 19:08
Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Iffy
|
|
...an easy chop now... While I don't like to see anyone losing their jobs, I will take some convincing that 99 per cent of conferences attended by those in the public sector are anything other than worthless. To me, they are worse than worthless because they waste public money. |
|
New Tue 2 Nov 10 19:21
Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Runfer D'Hills
|
|
Mind you, it's not just the public sector you know. I remember years ago getting to know a guy who "worked" in the office next to mine in a very large ( still existing ) private company. at that time more than 2000 people worked on the head office site and a further 18000 worked in the satellite units. Anyway this guy had been with them for decades and was about due to retire. When I noticed that he seemed to spend a lot of time reading the papers I asked him what he actually did. A personable enough bloke he admitted to me that for the past fifteen years or so he hadn't done very much. His department which analysed forecasts and suchlike had been gradually reduced to one member ( him ) over the years as IT took over such things and managers did their own forecasting etc. In the midst of all this his dept. lost its direct management line and pretty much disappeared exept for an entry on the payroll. Reporting to no-one and managed by no-one he simply got the annual cost of living pay rise awarded across the company and carried on turning up every day to read a book or the daily press. |
|
New Tue 2 Nov 10 19:36
Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Iffy
|
|
...Mind you, it's not just the public sector you know... Fair point, but waste in the private sector is a matter for the directors and shareholders of the company, so it doesn't offend me in the same way as the profligacy of public bodies. |
|
New Tue 2 Nov 10 19:29
Spending Cuts Volume 2 - R.P.
|
| I went to a conference in central London back in February 2007 - it was quite an "important" one in respect it dealt with new legislation. There was a fair attendance around 50 souls in all from LAs, Police with a smattering of private companies.By the afternoon session the audience had dwindled down to around 20 and most of these disappeared after the PM break - not an unique experience... |
|
New Tue 2 Nov 10 19:34
Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Perky Penguin
|
| A bit like the House of Lords the PU! Turn up mid-morning to justify daily allowance of about £150, early subsidised lunch and away by 2pm, until the next day. |
|
New Tue 2 Nov 10 19:52
Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Bromptonaut
|
|
As somebody who organises these things occasionally the post lunch drift is both rude and dispiriting. Bet they stayed long enough to collect the CPD points!! |
|
New Tue 2 Nov 10 19:58
Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Iffy
|
|
...As somebody who organises these things occasionally the post lunch drift is both rude and dispiriting... You need to put the strippers on in the afternoon, not the morning. :) |
|
New Tue 2 Nov 10 20:03
Spending Cuts Volume 2 - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> You need to put the strippers on in the afternoon, not the morning. :) We've tried that. It improves matters but does not solve the problem entirely!! |
|
New Tue 2 Nov 10 19:59
Spending Cuts Volume 2 - R.P.
|
| I think it's very rue as well - I recall as I was crossing London following another conference I saw one of the very early darters appear from a well known store - obviously she was just skiving. |
Forum Version 3.0 - By Khoosys
Car4play Forum
