"It's apparently the most popular proposal ever"Source?
To be fair he doesn't specify. He might have meant it is the most popular proposal ever at his local Conservative Association.
The sooner we can get all these scroungers into minimum wage, zero-hours contract jobs, the better.
Except the vast majority of the housing benefit bill is already being paid to exactly those people, not to ****less single mothers with huge tellies who are out on the razz every night. Still... capitalism dictates that as a society we need to subsidise both companies like Tesco not to pay a living wage, and those who own property. As a reward for owning property. Hurray for you. Well done!! 🙄
IanW - MemberIt's apparently the most popular proposal ever,
Yes... with utter morons! Who like to be foaming-at-the-mouth with moral outrage at something that has absolutely no basis in fact
I think peoples attitudes may change somewhat when they see the actual reality of it, as opposed by the Shock Horror, politically motivated, tabloid fairy stories.
I think many people don't realise just how wealthy the super rich are. The 1,000 wealthiest people in Britain, according to the Sunday Times Rich List, are now worth a combined £395.8 billion, equivalent to more than a third of the national debt.
And...? Who cares and what difference does it make? It has zero impact on the rest of us. Well OK not exactly zero since a lot of those wealth creators are creating jobs.
But other than that, I really couldn't care less, it's never stopped me from being happy or prosperous.
As for advocating cuts and then worrying about having to sign on, been there, seen it done it, twice now and the second time three months before the birth of my first child.
I'd still advocate limiting benefits.
I never for one moment saw JSA as anything other than a bonus. I have always made provision for the eventuality of being made redundant because it can happen to anyone. When you consider that the cost of that insurance was only the price of a monthly Sky subscription or a couple of hundred fags I wonder why more people don't have it.
rebel12 - MemberCan't see why this is a problem. People whining that there's no work in their area? Bloody well move somewhere there is work then
Yup, because it's dead easy to sell a house just now too. That's the best thing about recessions.
When you consider that the cost of that insurance was only the price of a monthly Sky subscription or a couple of hundred fags I wonder why more people don't have it.
So, do you think that earning minimum wage (£6.31 per hour, £5.03 per hour for the under 21's) would offer you ample opportunity to put something aside for a rainy day? Once you've paid all your bills?
I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess you were earning a little bit more than that
Plus you can't get insurance if you're self employed or cover for existing medical conditions.....
You've fallen for the Conservatives strategy: Turn the middle classes against the poor so they don't notice that they're being ripped off subsidising the rich.
The cap is a good idea. Affording a tiny bedsit in many parts of central London is eye-watering for many workers. For multiple-bed rental on housing benefits the cost can be extortinate due to market forces etc.
Can these councils with high social costs really afford to subsidise big families?
They say it'll affect 600 families. Might not seem alot but I imagine in housing benefits alone (before the other benefits) the cost will be massive. We struggle to afford bills/mortgage/etc etc with ONE child. Not a chance we could even afford to live in central London.
As a society (and government) we have become too appeasing/willing to be seen to help/do the right thing when in reality there should be a balance. There isn't something for nothing. You have to work for it.
Thats my only post on the subject.
Of course, had Thatcher not sold off all the council houses, there wouldn't be this problem in the first place......
Thats my only post on the subject.
Do you promise?
[img] 
[/img]
£350/week?
Can someone please explain why it's even that high?
I worked for 24-25 years constantly yet when I was made redundant all I was entitled to was £71/wk for 6 months.
Northwind - Memberrebel12 - Member
Can't see why this is a problem. People whining that there's no work in their area? Bloody well move somewhere there is work then
Yup, because it's dead easy to sell a house just now too. That's the best thing about recessions.
The vast majority of people who claim this sort of benefit are in rental accommodation so your argument is not really valid is it?
Can someone please explain why it's even that high?
There are lots of different allowances, allocated based on need eg number of dependant children etc. So the amount varies case by case....
The vast majority of people who claim this sort of benefit are in rental accommodation so your argument is not really valid is it?
Yet, somewhat ironically, the housing benefit cap is forcing people out of London which - feel free to correct me if I'm wrong - the vast majority of the jobs are. The benefits bill, as has been repeatedly stated here, is not going to the unemployed. It is going to make up the living costs of the low paid through tax credits and housing benefit. Why are you failing to grasp this?
This is a complex problem, for which the government is offering populist, simplistic, ideologically motivated tabloid-headline solutions. The other irony is that in conjunction with the bedroom tax, this is actually going to increase the housing benefit bill, by driving people out of (relatively cheap) council housing and into the far more expensive private rented sector. Which still has to be paid for by housing benefit
Landlords are going to make a killing though. And it'll re-inflate the buy-to-let market. Which is where the real motivation for these policies lies
[img] 
[/img]
The title:
More trauma for the non working classes
Ironic. The hardworking, honest grafter wouldn't be living willingly on benefits with a large family.
Binners are you saying you'd happily support a non-working family on benefits longterm to the tunes of thousands a month whilst you scrape by working fulltime? Would you be happy if your own council tax went up due to the extra burden on your councils finances?
Now... what did you say? You promised, now!
[img] 
[/img]
Binners are you saying you'd happily support a non-working family on benefits longterm to the tunes of thousands a month whilst you scrape by working fulltime? Would you be happy if your own council tax went up due to the extra burden on your councils finances?
Thats where the government wants you to think the benefits bill is going. And the tabloids have convinced the terminally incurious and gullible that this is the case. Its isn't. The benefits bill is going to the low paid (through housing benefit and tax credits) so they can then pay their rents to private landlords. Its basically a subsidy to property owners. Make no mistake. It is not the ****less unemployed that will be hit by this policy. Its the low paid. Who will be forced further into poverty. While saving us eff all money at all. But as stated... some people are about to make a killing
after a quick google PP it seems the majority of it is housing benefit and youd only get that if you and your parner are out of work and renting, i think you may get help paying the interest on your mortgage
*
so yup most of it seems to go to the landlords created by the thatcherite sell off and housing boom
* Im also currently out of work for the 1st time in 20 years and just getting my 70 quid a week
[i]Can someone please explain why it's even that high?
I worked for 24-25 years constantly yet when I was made redundant all I was entitled to was £71/wk for 6 months. [/i]
I'd stab a guess that your OH works.
Don't confuse these (headline) numbers, and now imagine that your OH didn't work and you lost your job. How much would you need to pay the basic bills (mortgage/rent, council tax, utilities, food etc) - this is where the £500/350 comes from (and includes CHB).
at the end of the day the labour party cabinet minister best summed it up.. we have no money.
savings have to made everywhere costs have to rise.
some difficult bullets have to be bitten.. benifits is one and introducing a cap is reasonable.. equally the bedroom tax isnt unreasonable.. for sure there will be much publicised pain at the start as we re adjust our expectations. council housing was never intended to be for life and as the new system becomes part of the norm the way social housing is used will change to make it more accesable for those in need rather than union leaders and labour mps 'bed blocking'
as a tory voter im a little let down by call me dave. its shameful that the top rate of income tax has been put down, its bull that the opportunity to reduce mp numbers was fudged / ignored, and criminal that a fairer system of council tax based on the value at the most recent sale price was not implemented.
[i]at the end of the day the labour party cabinet minister best summed it up.. we have no money.[/i]
Hmm, a bit like where my wife works - they have no money but spend billions...
Until I see them really hitting the problem - ie housing costs, its all fiddling with the margins.
at the end of the day the labour party cabinet minister best summed it up.. we have no money.
We can afford £10 million for a funeral though 😉
osbornes last budgets only discernable measure for growth was gambling on another housing boom, by offering state backed mortgages!!!!!! not excluding 2nd homes was a clear sign that they just want house sales regardless of the implications
edit
oh yeah he also cut corp. tax too
it worked well for ireland............
There's no actual economic growth, so Gideon is using taxpayers money to re-inflate the housing bubble to make it look like there is. When what the housing market desperately needs is a massive re-adjustment to what property is [i]actually [/i] worth
Hmmmmmmm.... making cheap credit readily available for [s]people who can't afford mortgages[/s] potential homeowners to buy property at the top of an overheated market? I'm not sure where, but I'm sure something similar has been done before. Was it in America? Does anyone know how it went?
Binners - you are correct to warn of the dangers of the tabloid press. But I would also extend this to the broadsheets. So on 1 April the Guardian leads with
[b]The day Britain changes[/b]: welfare reforms and coalition cuts take effect
A new world heaves into view this week with [b]sweeping changes in the fields of welfare, justice, health and tax[/b]
Now I assume that this was not an April Fool's joke as the subject is too serious. So Britain changed? Sweeping changes introduced? Hmmmm...
At least The Economist reported the same events with a little less drama and hyperbole ("Welfare Reform- [b]Chipping Away[/b]")
But its efforts are less revolutionary than billed. [b]They neither change the principles by which the welfare state operates nor the means by which it is funded. [/b]In many ways, Britain’s welfare system will carry on much the same, just with some nips and tucks....And the gains from the overhaul may be more modest than the hard-hearted rhetoric about prodding people off the sofa implies. Ministers are quietly edging away from the claim that their reforms will save money. Iain Duncan Smith, the welfare secretary, has conceded that the aim is merely to manage the rate of increase.
Honestly, those bl**dy Tories are evil. How dare they [s]cut[/s], sorry slow down the rate of increase in welfare. Good job they are not really radical like the Danes and the Germans.
binners - Member
When what the housing market desperately needs is a massive re-adjustment to what property is actually worth
Do you think the Tories should introduce a free-market solution? 😉
Per couple + offspring, not per person. And remember that includes benefits which working people could also be entitled to- child benefit, housing support, etc.
Housing support (never heard of it by that name) on £35k a year? When did this come in and how to I apply?
They know the current bubble house prices are the enormous elephant in the room but don't want to touch the subject as they know that falling house prices or even intimating that you think it would be beneficial, is guaranteed electoral poison.
As I read elsewhere, this government's housing policy can be best described as 'attempting to bring down the cost of housing, without affecting house prices'
Agreed thm. There's no real cost savings being made here. They know that. Witness the continuing revisions of the expected 'savings'. Down to zero eventually. I think its a safe bet that housing benefit bill will sky-rocket as a result of these policies
In the end, its just more of what the Tories always do. The redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich. We're basically paying a subsidy to property owners
The shrewd investor would presently be buying really poor quality housing in the very worst areas, for peanuts. Ready for all these people driven out of the (now unaffordable) cities or any desirable area, and those looking for smaller properties because of the bedroom tax
We're about to see the re-emergence of the Slum Landlord in grand style. I'm sure the industrial-scale ones will show their gratitude with a suitable donation to party funds 😉
there will be a huge crash soon-- the quantative easing trick is coming home to roost-- inflation will take off-- leaving millions unable to pay their mortgage-- oh fun times ahead...
And when those people can't afford to pay the mortgages any longer, thanks to Gideons latest wheeze, the taxpayer will be directly on the hook for the losses, as [s]they[/s] [i]we[/i] will have funded the deposits
Once again, as with the banking crisis, the profits will remain in private hands, while the debt risk has been socialised and made the responsibility of the taxpayer
What could possibly go wrong?
binners - Member
And when those people can't afford to pay the mortgages any longer, thanks to Gideons latest wheeze, the taxpayer will be directly on the hook for the losses, as they we will have funded the depositsOnce again, as with the banking crisis, the profits will remain in private hands, while the debt risk has been socialised and made the responsibility of the taxpayer
What could possibly go wrong?
[Dave&George]Who cares, by then we'll be out and into the bank roles in the city that are waiting for us and it'll be somebody else's problem![/Dave&George]
Rudebwoy - dont you like QE? What does it do? It takes money away from those who have it (savers) and gives it to those who do not (debtors). It just hides the fact nicely, to make better headlines. And binners, surely this is taking money out of private hands (the savers) to pay down the debtors (mainly the government). Thats the whole point of financial repression.
So setting aside pensions for the moment - Which CMD and Gideon won't touch - the two biggest benefit cost are tax credits and housing benefits.
Tax Credits are basically a subsidy to the profits of businesses who can't or won't pay a living wage.
Housing Benefit is basically a subsidy to private landlords which actually makes the problem worse by artificially inflating the rental market and pushing up property prices for everyone.
So rather than deal with any of this the government would rather just attack the poor some more. Politically its a pretty shrewd move, the people they are targeting are hardly natural tory voters anyway and the Daily Mail brigade love a good attack on anybody weaker than themselves.
Morally its completely reprehensible, but I've not come to expect anything else form this government.
I dunno really thm. But sinking £120 billion of taxpayers money into something that looks dangerously similar to the whole Sub-prime debacle?
The government intends to lend to people whom the banks won't? Which will then drive property prices up again? In a market that still hasn't had a much needed readjustment? Should that not be setting alarm bells off all over the place? Have we really learned absolutely nothing?
thnm- printing money is going to do what exactly-- give an illusion of wealth-- you are right in the effect, but its only going to add to the pain that all those who can't liquidise their assets are going to suffer-- it will be presented as a worldwide problem , therefore absolving the govt of blame--
Good post richmtb.
richmtb - MemberTax Credits are basically a subsidy to the profits of businesses who can't or won't pay a living wage.
And if we break it down further... 'living wage' is usually dictated by most people's largest expense - housing costs.
The root cause once again being sky high house prices.
It amuses me how people are demanding a living wage etc on here, try running a small business and then see how tough it really is.
you are getting shat on from all angles from council tax to rent, to phone and electric, NI, tax etc, imports from overseas, european non vat imports, etc, then factor in wages and you will find its not that easy. what actually happens is that companies will not employ people at all the higher the wages are demanded, companies are not a social charity, if you want that then look at the hight street and the only growth industry is charity shops. but they arent paying anything as they are full of volunteers.
It amuses you that people want a living wage?
You would prefer an economy that forces employees into poverty so you can play at being a businessman.
yes, if I am going to employ someone and i cant afford to pay living wage then I wont employ someone.
but would you rather I paid less than living wage and employed someone or not employ anyone, let the other staff take up the demand with overtime etc.
it's a big committment to employ someone, and I dont take it lightly.
If wages are constantly driven down, and people have ever lower disposable incomes, then how is a society based on selling each other lattes going to function?
play?
you cheeky ****, it's my livelihood.
Or how about just a full-time 40hr properly contracted minimum wage job even!
Go to the job centre and try n find one...
and MSP I dont mind anyone wanting a living wage, or more than living wage, but not all jobs warrant it, so what amuses me are people on this site insisting that these jobs are just given out to people, the jobs arent there and are even less likely to be there with wage limits, I dont want people living in poverty, but jobs in factories making things in a low skilled environment arent going to happen as they are all in the far east.
so unless someone can dream up a new industry in the uk which pays a living wage to low skilled workers then we are going to have high levels of unemployment for ever.
i agree with kevevs-- a full lime job should pay a wage that should not need topping up from the state in order to provide a 'living income'-- in truth £9 hour would be a living minimum--
rebel12 - MemberThe vast majority of people who claim this sort of benefit are in rental accommodation so your argument is not really valid is it?
Got numbers?
