Jobless with large families could lose benefits

[pap]

That's what parents are for. This is the must have everything now society, both my parents worked, rented a house, we had no car and no tv, The last Labour government destroyed pensions, jobs through stupidity (unlimited immigration), the economy through stupidity (ridiculous borrowing), unlimited welfare through stupidity. I will probably vote them in next time because I'm voting UKIP unless Mr Slippery is ousted or has to back an in/out referendum. In which case the Conservatives will get in by a landslide.

 

Get out of Europe, get out of ECHR, restrict foreigner's jobs to work permits, then those that have no citizenship have no choice/money but leave. That should free up a few jobs.

 

Either way if parents are working and paying in that should cover dependents. Nobody ever working in maybe three generations living in paid for housing is a scandal that needs sorting now.

 

derry, I suspect that you are a bit older than me, sir - which would put your parents even further back into the land of historical opportunity. It sounds as if they did a good job of providing for you, but I'd argue that your mum was probably unusually industrious for her times if she was in full-time work.

 

The point is that bridge too far is right. Massively different times. Actually lost count of all the old fogies moaning about the youth and saying "in my day...." I talked to this weekend. I've had enough people of a certain age tell me stories about walking out of a job on a Friday and into another on Monday to start giving those accounts a bit of credence. There was a lot of work about back then. There isn't now.

 

The influx of keen Eastern European workers is a factor, certainly - but their impact was surely in the skilled trades. A bigger problem, and one successive governments have failed to tackle, is that certain jobs have just disappeared forever. I'm not exclusively talking about the shift of manufacturing to the Far East. Even in our internal market, the massive rise of computing and communications has killed many entry-level positions. Efficiency, isn't it?

 

It's a safe bet that humanity is going to get better at stuff, is going to refine and make things, positions and people obsolete. Barring some massive technological paradigm shift that pushes everyone into work ( think railways ), jobs shortages in the West will become more acute. We won't compete on the basis of cost and don't enjoy the technical advantage we once had over our competitors. The days of near full employment are gone, even if the Eastern Europeans do the offs. You can't really address the problem of the long-term unemployed without addressing the structural problems in our economy.

[pap]

If you stopped paying them benefits they'd soon start working.

 

They might try, but it's actually more likely that crime, substance abuse and prostitution will go up.

[derry]

derry, I suspect that you are a bit older than me, sir - which would put your parents even further back into the land of historical opportunity. It sounds as if they did a good job of providing for you, but I'd argue that your mum was probably unusually industrious for her times if she was in full-time work.

 

The point is that bridge too far is right. Massively different times. Actually lost count of all the old fogies moaning about the youth and saying "in my day...." I talked to this weekend. I've had enough people of a certain age tell me stories about walking out of a job on a Friday and into another on Monday to start giving those accounts a bit of credence. There was a lot of work about back then. There isn't now.

 

The influx of keen Eastern European workers is a factor, certainly - but their impact was surely in the skilled trades. A bigger problem, and one successive governments have failed to tackle, is that certain jobs have just disappeared forever. I'm not exclusively talking about the shift of manufacturing to the Far East. Even in our internal market, the massive rise of computing and communications has killed many entry-level positions. Efficiency, isn't it?

 

It's a safe bet that humanity is going to get better at stuff, is going to refine and make things, positions and people obsolete. Barring some massive technological paradigm shift that pushes everyone into work ( think railways ), jobs shortages in the West will become more acute. We won't compete on the basis of cost and don't enjoy the technical advantage we once had over our competitors. The days of near full employment are gone, even if the Eastern Europeans do the offs. You can't really address the problem of the long-term unemployed without addressing the structural problems in our economy.

 

There appears to be plenty of jobs, even apprenticeships are coming back. We have to clear out the competition and make a job better than no benefits. To that end we have to get out of the EU. Even parents presented with the problem of a workshy child will also apply the pressure. The welfare solutions don't work, now it's time to ditch the bleeding heart, look after the real victims and make the rest work. It will also free up NHS treatment if non contributors have to be insured or pay up front. My mother was a nurse she paid for a private education for my sister and rode a bike, I won a scholarship. It was a case of priorities rather than must have luxuries that others pay for.

Edited 9 October, 2012 by derry

[Whitey Grandad]

They might try, but it's actually more likely that crime, substance abuse and prostitution will go up.

 

Careful! What you're saying is 'give us the money or we'll steal it from you anyway, spend some on drugs and turn your daughters into whores' :-)

[Hockey_saint]

You are wrong about Labour and pensions Derry.

 

I assume you are aware of the surpless levels of pension money when the conservatives came in and (you probably know this already) Maragret Thatcher decided that it would be a smart idea to allow most larger companies to have a "pension break" therefor lowering or indeed stopping their pension payments.

 

That caused the pension problem and after they were kicked our for being useless (kids these days before the current government forget this) and hated so much they lost so badly, giving labour such a lead it took over a decade to overcome....and to allow people to put rose-tinted glasses on about the previous government, but after such a long "pension break" it would have cost the incoming labour government a fortune.

 

I agree though, the Thatcher government were a least a tiny bit caring, unlike these out of touch millionaires led by an Astor.

Edited 9 October, 2012 by Hockey_saint

[pap]

There appears to be plenty of jobs, even apprenticeships are coming back. We have to clear out the competition and make a job better than no benefits. To that end we have to get out of the EU. Even parents presented with the problem of a workshy child will also apply the pressure. The welfare solutions don't work, now it's time to ditch the bleeding heart, look after the real victims and make the rest work. It will also free up NHS treatment if non contributors have to be insured or pay up front. My mother was a nurse she paid for a private education for my sister and rode a bike, I won a scholarship. It was a case of priorities rather than must have luxuries that others pay for.

 

I'd dispute this plentiful bounty of jobs business. There are shortages in certain sectors, but we're in the midst of a double-dip recession, youth unemployment is a massive problem and there are numerous accounts of people applying for hundreds of jobs without success. You yourself mention the influx of the Eastern Europeans, constituting more competition in the labour market for anyone seeking employment. Even the government admit that employment is stagnant; many of their schemes unveiled at conference are about removing the "red tape" for employers ( and not, most definitely not, a small step to the removal of all our employment rights with the eventual plan turning us into serfs ).

 

I don't think welfare as practiced is the answer either, but then "Plan A", the endless churn of cyclical production and consumption to satisfy manufactured consumer lust, where the poorest can pull 40 hour shifts and still not have enough to live on, is pretty sh!t too.

[Hockey_saint]

I found this little beauty a while ago and wondered when it would be best to throw it on here.....JFK was indeed a smart man (not really surprising they killed him then) Note his example of what "rich men in straw hats" had to say to him, he was surprisinly progressive....

 

[derry]

You are wrong about Labour and pensions Derry.

 

I assume you are aware of the surpless levels of pension money when the conservatives came in and (you probably know this already) Maragret Thatcher decided that it would be a smart idea to allow most larger companies to have a "pension break" therefor lowering or indeed stopping their pension payments.

 

That caused the pension problem and after they were kicked our for being useless (kids these days before the current government forget this) and hated so much they lost so badly, giving labour such a lead it took over a decade to overcome....and to allow people to put rose-tinted glasses on about the previous government, but after such a long "pension break" it would have cost the incoming labour government a fortune.

 

I agree though, the Thatcher government were a least a tiny bit caring, unlike these out of touch millionaires led by an Astor.

 

What I remember was our company took a contribution holiday and we negotiated improvements to the scheme. Better inflation proofing and the calculator was increased from 1/80 per year to 1/50 per year which was a cracking increase. The company then contributed when the fund went out of surplus.

 

What did destroy the pension funds was Gordon Brown removing the tax relief on pension funds which damaged them beyond repair, causing companies to ditch the final salary pensions that most had and replacing them with money purchase schemes initially for new entrants but eventually many final salary schemes were closed to everybody. It was a criminal act to knowingly destroy the pension system just so he could waste the money on the public sector which retained it's pension system.

 

The Labour government from 1997 to 2010 was a disaster that this country will probably never recover from. This coalition isn't doing much to make things better.

[Lord Duckhunter]

 

What did destroy the pension funds was Gordon Brown removing the tax relief on pension funds which damaged them beyond repair, causing companies to ditch the final salary pensions that most had and replacing them with money purchase schemes initially for new entrants but eventually many final salary schemes were closed to everybody. It was a criminal act to knowingly destroy the pension system just so he could waste the money on the public sector which retained it's pension system.

 

 

Correct, that was the final nail in the coffin for Private Companies FSS.

 

Would Gordon have acted in the same way, if the consequences were the same for public sector pensions?

 

The Times got a FOE ruling to allow treasury advice given to Brown in 1997-The confidential papers revealed advisers had forewarned him it could leave a "big hole" in pension funds.

 

Ed Balls said at the time that it was "the best thing for long-term investment in the economy."

[derry]

Correct, that was the final nail in the coffin for Private Companies FSS.

 

Would Gordon have acted in the same way, if the consequences were the same for public sector pensions?

 

The Times got a FOE ruling to allow treasury advice given to Brown in 1997-The confidential papers revealed advisers had forewarned him it could leave a "big hole" in pension funds.

 

Ed Balls said at the time that it was "the best thing for long-term investment in the economy."

He wants to be chancellor.

[Chez]

Not sure why anyone gets child benefit. If you can't afford kids don't have them. Put this money saved into state supported child care. Workers needs are then looked after paid for from money previously handed out liberally.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Not sure why anyone gets child benefit. If you can't afford kids don't have them. Put this money saved into state supported child care. Workers needs are then looked after paid for from money previously handed out liberally.

 

Look at the fuss the lefties made when it was withdrawn from millionaires, so it's always going to remain.

 

You make a good point though. Child benefit is a handout, the less people that rely on government handouts the better, in my opinion.

[Whitey Grandad]

It used to be given as a tax allowance. Then people were complaining that the money was going to the husband who spent it in the pub rather than to the mother so they combined it as child benefit. You can argue separately whether society should subsidise children.

[rshephard3]

I remember watching a telly programme were they gave workshy brits the chance to do the low paid work imigrants do ....the brits weren't interested they'd rather sponge of the state than do poor paid menial work. Chances are we'd boot out the econmic migrants and then struggle to find brits who wanted to do their jobs.

 

Absolutely this. People need to get with the times and realise that the culture created by excessively large handouts, and a huge state that the country can't afford (created by the previous government) is the problem of British people. Implemented and caused by British people. Immigration was not under control under New Labour and is now being closely scrutinised by the Tories, and that is good enough for me. I don't think radical policy changes are actually needed there. What is needed, IMO, is a crack down on the culture that British people are too good for hospital/McDonalds/cleaning jobs. The working class of this country is badly let down by a growing minority of people who consider it acceptable to allow the state to support them and their families, in some cases for generations, while the rest of us go off to work to pay for them. We are in the EU and rightly so, unless you're a British bulldog kind of UKIP nutter, so these people can be from other countries but legally reside here. But there is rightly a growing sense of discontent at this.

[Hockey_saint]

What I remember was our company took a contribution holiday and we negotiated improvements to the scheme. Better inflation proofing and the calculator was increased from 1/80 per year to 1/50 per year which was a cracking increase. The company then contributed when the fund went out of surplus.

 

What did destroy the pension funds was Gordon Brown removing the tax relief on pension funds which damaged them beyond repair, causing companies to ditch the final salary pensions that most had and replacing them with money purchase schemes initially for new entrants but eventually many final salary schemes were closed to everybody. It was a criminal act to knowingly destroy the pension system just so he could waste the money on the public sector which retained it's pension system.

 

The Labour government from 1997 to 2010 was a disaster that this country will probably never recover from. This coalition isn't doing much to make things better.

 

 

A lot of companies never bothered to re-negotiate though and left a gaping huge hole which was impossible to fill...I assume you forget why the 1997 General Election was such a landslide then?

[bridge too far]

Back to the main thrust of the thread (sort of)

 

This is worrying

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20023113

 

The NHF cites Department for Work and Pensions figures that show 903,440 people in work claimed housing benefit in May 2012 compared with 485,610 three years earlier.

It said that figure was rising with an additional 10,000 working people each month claiming housing benefit to help to pay their rent.

NHF chief executive David Orr said the housing market was "at the point of no return".

"These people are the strivers the government wants to help, yet their future is looking bleak," he said.

[Thedelldays]

Looking bleak in respect to what?

 

Go without food for days on end, living on the streets... Finding their clothes in other people's rubbish?

[pap]

Looking bleak in respect to what?

 

Go without food for days on end, living on the streets... Finding their clothes in other people's rubbish?

 

I think most people can put up with a bit of temporary hardship, TDD. The very fact that we're paying HB to those in work should tell you that earnings are not inline with the cost of living. There is no light at the end of the tunnel for many people stuck on HB. Go to work every week, and still be unable to fully support yourself? Still have no disposable income?

 

I'd say that justifies bleak.

[pap]

Absolutely this. People need to get with the times and realise that the culture created by excessively large handouts, and a huge state that the country can't afford (created by the previous government) is the problem of British people. Implemented and caused by British people. Immigration was not under control under New Labour and is now being closely scrutinised by the Tories, and that is good enough for me. I don't think radical policy changes are actually needed there. What is needed, IMO, is a crack down on the culture that British people are too good for hospital/McDonalds/cleaning jobs. The working class of this country is badly let down by a growing minority of people who consider it acceptable to allow the state to support them and their families, in some cases for generations, while the rest of us go off to work to pay for them. We are in the EU and rightly so, unless you're a British bulldog kind of UKIP nutter, so these people can be from other countries but legally reside here. But there is rightly a growing sense of discontent at this.

 

Nice, but this doesn't cover the millions of working people who get HB.

[Lord Duckhunter]

I think most people can put up with a bit of temporary hardship, TDD. The very fact that we're paying HB to those in work should tell you that earnings are not inline with the cost of living. There is no light at the end of the tunnel for many people stuck on HB. Go to work every week, and still be unable to fully support yourself? Still have no disposable income?

 

I'd say that justifies bleak.

 

Did Labour set the minimum wage too low?

 

How do you propose we keep wages in line with the cost of living, impose a price's or a wages policy?

[pap]

Did Labour set the minimum wage too low?

 

How do you propose we keep wages in line with the cost of living, impose a price's or a wages policy?

 

Same things as I always propose. Build loads of new houses, flood the market with property - supply and demand will take care of the rest.

 

I do realise this'll upset people who see their home as a casino chip.

[Big Bad Bob]

Same things as I always propose. Build loads of new houses, flood the market with property - supply and demand will take care of the rest.

 

I do realise this'll upset people who see their home as a casino chip.

 

But will it, the housing market isn't going to drop enough so that those on low incomes can afford them, even with social housing and/or shared purchases.

 

The only ones who will be able to buy are landlords and second home owners, so guess the cost of rent isn't going to go down is it??

 

And can someone explain to me how, with interest rates at their lowest, rents are still going up?

[Thedelldays]

Same things as I always propose. Build loads of new houses, flood the market with property - supply and demand will take care of the rest.

 

I do realise this'll upset people who see their home as a casino chip.

what we should have done...it not got into the open door immigration policy..then maybe homes may not have been in such short supply and cost as much now....

that would have cost very little compared to building new towns and cities at the scale needed

[Big Bad Bob]

Same things as I always propose. Build loads of new houses, flood the market with property - supply and demand will take care of the rest.

 

I do realise this'll upset people who see their home as a casino chip.

 

Oh, and where are you going to put all these new homes??

[bridge too far]

But will it, the housing market isn't going to drop enough so that those on low incomes can afford them, even with social housing and/or shared purchases.

 

The only ones who will be able to buy are landlords and second home owners, so guess the cost of rent isn't going to go down is it??

 

And can someone explain to me how, with interest rates at their lowest, rents are still going up?

 

Market forces / supply and demand. All the time a lot of people can't afford to buy houses, they'll need to rent them. If there's a shortage of property to rent, that that is available will become more expensive.

 

Easy really

[Thedelldays]

Market forces / supply and demand. All the time a lot of people can't afford to buy houses, they'll need to rent them. If there's a shortage of property to rent, that that is available will become more expensive.

 

Easy really

which could have been helped by not opening the doors to anyone....

[pap]

But will it, the housing market isn't going to drop enough so that those on low incomes can afford them, even with social housing and/or shared purchases.

 

The only ones who will be able to buy are landlords and second home owners, so guess the cost of rent isn't going to go down is it??

 

And can someone explain to me how, with interest rates at their lowest, rents are still going up?

 

How have you come to the conclusion that prices won't go down if supply is massively increased?

 

I don't share it. Granted, I'm not an economist, but the scarcity and availability of a commodity have a huge part to play in its price. It's part of why prices are where they're at now. People want quality accommodation, there isn't much of it about. If limited supply helps to create high prices, it's not a stretch to suggest that a lot of supply will bring them down.

 

Oh, and where are you going to put all these new homes??

 

If this question is predicated on the assumption that the whole of the UK has been concreted over, think again. 77% of UK citizens live on 6% of the land. There is plenty of space.

[bridge too far]

Perhaps if some of the large developers released banked land for development, there would be less pressure on house prices.

 

But of course they'll hold onto their land for that very reason, to drive the prices up.

[Thedelldays]

Perhaps if some of the large developers released banked land for development, there would be less pressure on house prices.

 

But of course they'll hold onto their land for that very reason, to drive the prices up.

or, we could have not let anyone and everyone come here...we could also still stop this...no..?