pap Posted 25 June, 2012 Share Posted 25 June, 2012 All over the Guardian this morning. David Cameron is to slash benefit entitlements. Under his plans, no-one under the age of 25 will be entitled to Housing Benefit. Families with more than three children may also lose benefits. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/jun/25/cameron-tories-slash-benefits Apparently, the former Bullingdon club PM is sick of a culture of entitlement I can see that this is going to be a very popular policy with those that believe that the poor are responsible for all of society's ills. On a purely abstract level, I can even agree with the principle. I've worked pretty much continuously since 17. I know a couple of people on benefits who will brazenly milk the system, and it does irk me. That said, I worry about the implementation, which is likely to be scatter-gun, and will likely affect people that fall well outside this "culture of entitlement". I've got a friend who has recently split up with her husband after she found out he was playing away. Crapload of kids, which she brought into this world in "good faith". She's the sort of person that would get caught by this legislation. I also worry about whether there are actually enough jobs out there to cover those who lose their entitlements. Are we going to end up putting people on the streets? To put this into some kind of perspective, the amount of money this will save ( 1Bn ) is about an eighth of the tax bill that Vodafone got away with. Most of these proposals are likely to be moot. The Lib Dems are unlikely to agree to many of them. It'll need a Conservative majority government to pass, so earliest time this could be implemented is 2015. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 25 June, 2012 Share Posted 25 June, 2012 5 years ago I was trying to fill posts just above the minimum wage. All I got applying was Polish and timewasters. Timewasters who applying for the jobs, just to satisfy the autherites that they were looking for work and therefore could keep their benefits. They barely made any attempt to conceal the fact, and did not really want the jobs. It is these people that I think of when reforming the benefit system is discussed. How was it that half a million Polish came over here and found work, yet their are people who have been unemployed 10 years? Welfare should be a safety net for people, not a way of life. You say you worry about "the implementation, which is likely to be scatter-gun, and will likely affect people that fall well outside this culture of entitlement" , but the people to blame for this are not the ones trying to clamp down on abuse, but the ones that milk the system to end up with more disposable income than the average working man.As you say it will not be done until after the next election, so let's hope the Torys put it in their manifesto, and then nobody can complain they haven't got a mandate for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 25 June, 2012 Share Posted 25 June, 2012 I'm all for it. Perhaps it will discourage all these single mothers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 25 June, 2012 Share Posted 25 June, 2012 5 years ago I was trying to fill posts just above the minimum wage. All I got applying was Polish and timewasters. Timewasters who applying for the jobs, just to satisfy the autherites that they were looking for work and therefore could keep their benefits. They barely made any attempt to conceal the fact, and did not really want the jobs. It is these people that I think of when reforming the benefit system is discussed. How was it that half a million Polish came over here and found work, yet their are people who have been unemployed 10 years? Welfare should be a safety net for people, not a way of life. You say you worry about "the implementation, which is likely to be scatter-gun, and will likely affect people that fall well outside this culture of entitlement" , but the people to blame for this are not the ones trying to clamp down on abuse, but the ones that milk the system to end up with more disposable income than the average working man.As you say it will not be done until after the next election, so let's hope the Torys put it in their manifesto, and then nobody can complain they haven't got a mandate for it. A bit like tax avoiders then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 25 June, 2012 Share Posted 25 June, 2012 I'm all for it. Perhaps it will discourage all these single mothers. Funny, I thought it took two to make a baby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 25 June, 2012 Share Posted 25 June, 2012 A bit like tax avoiders then Exactly. No doubt Red Ken will be one of the first lefties squealing about welfare clampdown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 25 June, 2012 Share Posted 25 June, 2012 5 years ago I was trying to fill posts just above the minimum wage. All I got applying was Polish and timewasters. Timewasters who applying for the jobs, just to satisfy the autherites that they were looking for work and therefore could keep their benefits. They barely made any attempt to conceal the fact, and did not really want the jobs. It is these people that I think of when reforming the benefit system is discussed. How was it that half a million Polish came over here and found work, yet their are people who have been unemployed 10 years? Welfare should be a safety net for people, not a way of life. You say you worry about "the implementation, which is likely to be scatter-gun, and will likely affect people that fall well outside this culture of entitlement" , but the people to blame for this are not the ones trying to clamp down on abuse, but the ones that milk the system to end up with more disposable income than the average working man.As you say it will not be done until after the next election, so let's hope the Torys put it in their manifesto, and then nobody can complain they haven't got a mandate for it. There clearly is abuse and for some people not working and being on benefits is a way of life. The real problem though is how to carrot / stick people into working and not having children they cant support whilst ensuring that children they already have are decently fed, educated and grow up filled with aspirations so that the cycle of dependency is broken and not perpetuated. Thats the bit no-one has ever really found an answer to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 25 June, 2012 Share Posted 25 June, 2012 There clearly is abuse and for some people not working and being on benefits is a way of life. The real problem though is how to carrot / stick people into working and not having children they cant support whilst ensuring that children they already have are decently fed, educated and grow up filled with aspirations so that the cycle of dependency is broken and not perpetuated. Thats the bit no-one has ever really found an answer to. The feeding part is easy, some sort of pre paid card which can be used in supermarkets to buy food. The unpalatable truth is that the only way we can break the cycle in some cases is to take the children away from the destructive family life they have. In 2012 that is not going to happen, so we end up with generations and generations left behind. It's not the kids fault and if there was an easier answer someone would have found it by now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 25 June, 2012 Share Posted 25 June, 2012 All over the Guardian this morning. David Cameron is to slash benefit entitlements.. Yeah, but what about Labour? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 25 June, 2012 Share Posted 25 June, 2012 The feeding part is easy, some sort of pre paid card which can be used in supermarkets to buy food. The unpalatable truth is that the only way we can break the cycle in some cases is to take the children away from the destructive family life they have. In 2012 that is not going to happen, so we end up with generations and generations left behind. It's not the kids fault and if there was an easier answer someone would have found it by now. Yes, cos the care system has been proven to deliver fantastic results right?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 25 June, 2012 Author Share Posted 25 June, 2012 The feeding part is easy, some sort of pre paid card which can be used in supermarkets to buy food. The unpalatable truth is that the only way we can break the cycle in some cases is to take the children away from the destructive family life they have. In 2012 that is not going to happen, so we end up with generations and generations left behind. It's not the kids fault and if there was an easier answer someone would have found it by now. Are you suggesting that the introduction of food stamps would be a good idea? What about other essentials, such as utility bills, etc? Or the fact that food stamp fraud is rife in the US, the seeming origin of any Conservative idea. It's not a solution - just a crap alternative which isn't as handy as money. Government thinking on this whole issue is naive and inept. There seems to be an underlying belief that by removing benefits, you push people into work. Not really the case at all. People will just spend more of their time in the black market economy, whether that's theft, dealing or whatever. One of the truest things I've ever heard is "you'd be amazed at how much you can buy with a teenth of weed". On your last point about removing kids from destructive families. Where would you see them going, and what criteria would you see them going for? I ask because we already have social services, foster carers and state care. We're already trying to remove the kids that are most at-risk from harm. How would you widen your criteria to re-house those children that aren't already in the system? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 25 June, 2012 Share Posted 25 June, 2012 A bit like tax avoiders then They are just as bad as the benefits slobs. I'm all for the government trying to tackle the bone idle spongers (often 2nd and 3rd generation slob families) who make a career out of sitting on their fat arses milking the system. I think most people agree with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 25 June, 2012 Author Share Posted 25 June, 2012 They are just as bad as the benefits slobs. I'm all for the government trying to tackle the bone idle spongers (often 2nd and 3rd generation slob families) who make a career out of sitting on their fat arses milking the system. I think most people agree with me. Please add "buy-to-let private landlords farming housing benefits" to that list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 25 June, 2012 Share Posted 25 June, 2012 Be careful Dune, appraently only 'lefties' dissapprove of tax avoidance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 25 June, 2012 Share Posted 25 June, 2012 Please add "buy-to-let private landlords farming housing benefits" to that list. We must all remember why we are in this mess... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 25 June, 2012 Share Posted 25 June, 2012 We must all remember why we are in this mess... Its one big long slogan though Dune. Lots of motherhood and apple stuff but zero content or proposals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 25 June, 2012 Author Share Posted 25 June, 2012 We must all remember why we are in this mess... I wonder how many of the 2.6 million are having their rent paid for at market rate in a former council property. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 25 June, 2012 Share Posted 25 June, 2012 Please add "buy-to-let private landlords farming housing benefits" to that list. are you saying they should not rent to the potential homeless..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 25 June, 2012 Share Posted 25 June, 2012 Be careful Dune, appraently only 'lefties' dissapprove of tax avoidance. When you've got odious creatures like Tom Watson sponging on his expenses the left can hardly take the moral high ground now can they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 25 June, 2012 Author Share Posted 25 June, 2012 are you saying they should not rent to the potential homeless..? I'm saying anyone who buys houses specifically for renting to people on DSS are bigger scroungers than the people living in their sh*thole houses. If it were down to me, I'd review every single buy-to-let mortgage held by a state-owned bank. Where it can be proved that someone is aggressively targeting DSS applicants, I'd probably say something like "Nah, not having that. Not going to let the British tax-payer fund your property portfolio. We'll have them houses back, ta". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 25 June, 2012 Share Posted 25 June, 2012 I'm saying anyone who buys houses specifically for renting to people on DSS are bigger scroungers than the people living in their sh*thole houses. If it were down to me, I'd review every single buy-to-let mortgage held by a state-owned bank. Where it can be proved that someone is aggressively targeting DSS applicants, I'd probably say something like "Nah, not having that. Not going to let the British tax-payer fund your property portfolio. We'll have them houses back, ta". If it was down to me i'd re-introduce rent controls. Problem solved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 25 June, 2012 Share Posted 25 June, 2012 I'm saying anyone who buys houses specifically for renting to people on DSS are bigger scroungers than the people living in their sh*thole houses. If it were down to me, I'd review every single buy-to-let mortgage held by a state-owned bank. Where it can be proved that someone is aggressively targeting DSS applicants, I'd probably say something like "Nah, not having that. Not going to let the British tax-payer fund your property portfolio. We'll have them houses back, ta". what would happen to these people if they stopped renting to housing association? what would happen to the homeless then..? where would they go? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 25 June, 2012 Author Share Posted 25 June, 2012 If it was down to me i'd re-introduce rent controls. Problem solved. Works for me too. And/or land tax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 25 June, 2012 Author Share Posted 25 June, 2012 what would happen to these people if they stopped renting to housing association? what would happen to the homeless then..? where would they go? I think you're responding to a different point than the one I made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 25 June, 2012 Share Posted 25 June, 2012 I think you're responding to a different point than the one I made. but if landlords are put off by being hammered for Tax etc...then what about the potential homeless lets not pretend that the private rental market is great at the mo as it is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 25 June, 2012 Share Posted 25 June, 2012 but if landlords are put off by being hammered for Tax etc...then what about the potential homeless lets not pretend that the private rental market is great at the mo as it is On the contrary, rent controls would see less people homeless and less people requiring benefits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 25 June, 2012 Share Posted 25 June, 2012 If it was down to me i'd re-introduce rent controls. Problem solved. Works for me too. And/or land tax. The problem is one of supply. Build more houses and rents / purchase prices will fall. Everyone will benefit except property speculators. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 25 June, 2012 Author Share Posted 25 June, 2012 but if landlords are put off by being hammered for Tax etc...then what about the potential homeless lets not pretend that the private rental market is great at the mo as it is I might be being a bit thick here, but I'm not sure I see the link between making examples of the worst slum landlords and more people being homeless. Could you explain the chain of events? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 25 June, 2012 Share Posted 25 June, 2012 On the contrary, rent controls would see less people homeless and less people requiring benefits. I wonder if (the now admittedly failed) open door policy by labour has had an impact on the housing shortage..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 25 June, 2012 Share Posted 25 June, 2012 The problem is one of supply. Build more houses and rents / purchase prices will fall. Everyone will benefit except property speculators. That is a part of the problem, which has arisen due to us being flooded with immigrants, but the market is artificially inflated because landlords price fix in the knowledge that councils have to cough up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 25 June, 2012 Share Posted 25 June, 2012 I wonder if (the now admittedly failed) open door policy by labour has had an impact on the housing shortage..? Of course it has. it's also suppressed wages and put millions of British workers on the dole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 25 June, 2012 Share Posted 25 June, 2012 There seems to be an underlying belief that by removing benefits, you push people into work. Not really the case at all. People will just spend more of their time in the black market economy, whether that's theft, dealing or whatever. So we can't cut the benefits of people refusing to join proper society, because if we do they'll just do illigal things? Welfare should be a safety net for people who are struggling at any given time. Provided they want to get into work, are willing to do any work and are honest law abiding citizens (or is it subjects), then I see no reason why the state shouldn't help them through a difficult period. What I cant get my head round is why our money should be used to fund someone's lifestyle choice. If half a million Poles can find work at the drop of a hat, why are there English people in their 20's & 30's who have never worked? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 25 June, 2012 Share Posted 25 June, 2012 It is a tough one, I hate scroungers but there also people in genuine need. The best way has to be to focus on making lower paid jobs worthwhile. The universal benefits and lowering tax for the low paid is a good start. There should also be help with child care/travel subsidies etc for those in work as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 25 June, 2012 Share Posted 25 June, 2012 Of course it has. it's also suppressed wages and put millions of British workers on the dole. Importation of cheap labour has been a policy of governments of all shades for the past 50 years, driven by business lobbying and threats to relocate somewhere cheaper. We would have been much better off going down the high investment, high tech, high wage route ala Germany, Switzerland and Japan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 25 June, 2012 Share Posted 25 June, 2012 It is a tough one, I hate scroungers but there also people in genuine need. The best way has to be to focus on making lower paid jobs worthwhile. The universal benefits and lowering tax for the low paid is a good start. There should also be help with child care/travel subsidies etc for those in work as well. Thats the crux. It should always be worthwhile to work instead of draw benefits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 25 June, 2012 Share Posted 25 June, 2012 So we can't cut the benefits of people refusing to join proper society, because if we do they'll just do illigal things? Welfare should be a safety net for people who are struggling at any given time. Provided they want to get into work, are willing to do any work and are honest law abiding citizens (or is it subjects), then I see no reason why the state shouldn't help them through a difficult period. What I cant get my head round is why our money should be used to fund someone's lifestyle choice. If half a million Poles can find work at the drop of a hat, why are there English people in their 20's & 30's who have never worked? The idea that the Polish are in some way better workers is nonsense, their unemployment rate is higher than ours. I expect it's safe to say people who travel hundreds of miles from extreme poverty tend to work harder, that's obvious. I expect someone somwhere in the World could do you job better for a fraction of the wage as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 25 June, 2012 Share Posted 25 June, 2012 So we can't cut the benefits of people refusing to join proper society, because if we do they'll just do illigal things? Welfare should be a safety net for people who are struggling at any given time. Provided they want to get into work, are willing to do any work and are honest law abiding citizens (or is it subjects), then I see no reason why the state shouldn't help them through a difficult period. What I cant get my head round is why our money should be used to fund someone's lifestyle choice. If half a million Poles can find work at the drop of a hat, why are there English people in their 20's & 30's who have never worked? My philosophy is that the people I manage are a reflection of me. If employers were worth their salt they'd get English people to work - they are better workers than foreigners if managed properly because you can make yourself understood to them much easier. Of course there are those who don't want work because it pays not to work and that needs to change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 25 June, 2012 Author Share Posted 25 June, 2012 The problem is one of supply. Build more houses and rents / purchase prices will fall. Everyone will benefit except property speculators. A big part of the supply conundrum is down to right-to-buy. I've already written about this at length, and have a Freedom of Information request pending with a view to a future article ( y'know, backed up with figures and everything ). Rents were lower when council housing stock was high. Had to be. Private landlords were competing with some very decent rates. They still are, but the number of competitors has dwindled massively, and there seems to be no appetite for massive council house rebuilding. Shame really, as they're kinda the ideal place for a young family to stay while saving for their own house. At least, that's how it used to work. Need to build more council housing, and remember what it's there for. It isn't for people to live in forever, nor should it have been a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for free money. The effective death of council housing put anyone of limited means into the domain of property speculators, who as you say, love to see prices go up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 25 June, 2012 Share Posted 25 June, 2012 My philosophy is that the people I manage are a reflection of me. If employers were worth their salt they'd get English people to work - they are better workers than foreigners if managed properly because you can make yourself understood to them much easier. Of course there are those who don't want work because it pays not to work and that needs to change. What do you actually do Dune? (in broad terms, I dont want to stalk you) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 25 June, 2012 Share Posted 25 June, 2012 see pap...the right to buy...my family were staunch labour voters...but the right to buy in the early 90s took my mum out of living off the state and into private ownership and has never looked back. surely, that is a good thing.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 25 June, 2012 Share Posted 25 June, 2012 What do you actually do Dune? (in broad terms, I dont want to stalk you) I provide a pleasurable experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 25 June, 2012 Author Share Posted 25 June, 2012 So we can't cut the benefits of people refusing to join proper society, because if we do they'll just do illigal things? Welfare should be a safety net for people who are struggling at any given time. Provided they want to get into work, are willing to do any work and are honest law abiding citizens (or is it subjects), then I see no reason why the state shouldn't help them through a difficult period. What I cant get my head round is why our money should be used to fund someone's lifestyle choice. If half a million Poles can find work at the drop of a hat, why are there English people in their 20's & 30's who have never worked? I'm not saying that. Saying it just won't work. How many people do you know who have been on long-term benefits, Lord D? I know quite a few, and trust me - I wouldn't fancy their lifestyle, paid for the state or not. You have a very limited view of what constitutes a scrounger. It isn't "takes money from the state", as it should be. It's "has no money and takes money from the state". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 25 June, 2012 Share Posted 25 June, 2012 I'm not saying that. Saying it just won't work. How many people do you know who have been on long-term benefits, Lord D? I know quite a few Living in Liverpool this comes as no surprise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 25 June, 2012 Share Posted 25 June, 2012 My philosophy is that the people I manage are a reflection of me. If employers were worth their salt they'd get English people to work - they are better workers than foreigners if managed properly because you can make yourself understood to them much easier. Of course there are those who don't want work because it pays not to work and that needs to change. I have had English people turn down promotions because it effects their WFTC. I have had Englsih people turn down overtime for the same reason, or they claim it's not worth it because the tax man takes a lot of it. I have yet to have a Pole turn down overtime, in fact I had to tell them to take time off because they were overdoing it. I cant speak for all Poles, but the ones that worked for me, were hard working, respectful and would do any job asked of them without complaining. I wish the same could be said of all my English workers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 25 June, 2012 Author Share Posted 25 June, 2012 see pap...the right to buy...my family were staunch labour voters...but the right to buy in the early 90s took my mum out of living off the state and into private ownership and has never looked back. surely, that is a good thing.... Great thing for your mum, TDD. Free money always is. Would she have been able to afford her own house without the free money though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 25 June, 2012 Share Posted 25 June, 2012 Great thing for your mum, TDD. Free money always is. Would she have been able to afford her own house without the free money though? well, saved the last 20 years of benefits though... as for being able to afford her own house...absolutely not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 25 June, 2012 Author Share Posted 25 June, 2012 Living in Liverpool this comes as no surprise. Big lol. All the people I was referring to are actually Sotonians! I commend you for the speed of your quick quip, tho' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 25 June, 2012 Share Posted 25 June, 2012 A big part of the supply conundrum is down to right-to-buy. I've already written about this at length, and have a Freedom of Information request pending with a view to a future article ( y'know, backed up with figures and everything ). Rents were lower when council housing stock was high. Had to be. Private landlords were competing with some very decent rates. They still are, but the number of competitors has dwindled massively, and there seems to be no appetite for massive council house rebuilding. Shame really, as they're kinda the ideal place for a young family to stay while saving for their own house. At least, that's how it used to work. Need to build more council housing, and remember what it's there for. It isn't for people to live in forever, nor should it have been a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for free money. The effective death of council housing put anyone of limited means into the domain of property speculators, who as you say, love to see prices go up. Id actually like to see far more top end of the market homes built - four and five bed homes of good size in large plots. The rationale is that we dont have enough houses and the ones we do have are overpriced, generally too small and of poor standard. Building lots of small, box like 2 bed flats is not the answer, they are slums of tomorrow. The answer to that is to increase supply at the top end, bringing down prices and making it possible for a whole chain of people to trade up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 25 June, 2012 Share Posted 25 June, 2012 I provide a pleasurable experience. something to do with fags? .....or Horton Heath? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 25 June, 2012 Author Share Posted 25 June, 2012 well, saved the last 20 years of benefits though... Sorta. Your mum might not be claiming any housing benefit, but we now pay several times more in housing benefit for properties like hers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now