why i believe that an untargeted slashing of the welfare budget is a false economy.

[Tangled up in Blue]

Apart from prospective Big Brother contestants what sort of knobend would send a video CV?

You'd be suprised.VCV's (to use the jargon) are getting quite popular.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12194581

 

[applelover]

After you calculate the maximum benefit entitlement for each group and take away basic essential expenditure (rent, water, electricity and gas) you are left with the following figures for monthly expendable income.

Single person 18 -35 - Expendable income = 18-25 £48.76 25+ £112.68
Single person 35+ - Expendable income = £5.66
Singe person, one child - Expendable income £137.60
Couple one child - Expendable income £211.96
Couple 6 children - Expendable income - £1212.05

With the exemption of the bottom one does anyone believe that any of the other figures are so high that there is a compelling case for reducing benefits based solely on the levels of payment being too high?

Remember that these figures do not include (i) travel (ii) tv license (iii) telephone (iv) contents insurance (v) leisure activities (vi) chidren's actvities (vii) educational costs (viii) clothing etc etc

I believe that all but the lunatic fringe would accept that the first four examples show that benefit levels barely cover the subsistence of those claiming them. They merely do what they are designed to do, provide a safety net in times of unemployment.

 

[C'mon you Shrimpers]

Some of the parents may be shiftless but why should children suffer because of this?

If benefits are to be cut then the government should look hard at state pensions, winter fuel allowances etc. There are huge numbers of very comfortably off old people who simply don't need state benefits and the money should be diverted to those who need it.

I agree with the pensions comment. However I believe there are good social policy reasons for capping child benefits at 2/3 children. Clearly there would need to be transitional systems which would be difficult but there has to be a disincentive for those that cannot afford to have large families without state funding from doing so. Cue Barna having apoplexy.

 

[applelover]

The things i'd scrap from the benefit reforms:

The benefit cap - This is a great idea to disincentivise having large families when you can't afford them. We just need to set up transitional arrangements for existing families over this cap. You could say that this is continuing exisiting free ride that these parents enjoy. You'd be right however we can't simply punish the children for the sins of their parents. However we can force a stricter contract on these parents that forces them to work. As the benefit calculation shows it's not like they can't afford the childcare and if need be we should subsidise it. If we allow them to continue exactly as they are then 6 children will continue to see their major role model get the free ride. If we simply pull the rug away these children are far more likely to end up in care or be afflicted by the social ills of poverty. This will cost us more in the long run than it saves in the short term.

The council tax benefit reforms - from April many residents who are currently exempt from paying council tax entirely will have to pay up to 25% of their council tax. Using the previous examples this will reduce these households expendable income to breaking point.

Single person 18 -35 - Expendable income = 18-25 £48.76 25+ £112.68 minus £13.54 = 18-25 £35.22 25+ £99.14
Single person 35+ - Expendable income = £5.66 minus 25.16 = -£19.50
Singe person, one child - Expendable income £137.60 minus £29.75 = £107.85
Couple one child - Expendable income £211.96 -£39.64 = £172.32

Council's up and down the country all believe that this policy is lunacy. Firstly it is not affordable and will lead to real poverty (not relative poverty). All it takes is for an exemptional expenditure to crop up and families are left having to choose whether to heat the house or feed themselves. Secondly people simply won't pay it and the cost of recovery for both debtor and creditor will negate much of the savings that are made.

The bedroom tax????? - Surely one of the worst thought out policies since the poll tax. This tax (reduction in subsidy - for Napster xxx) will only effect council tennants and has been put in place to deal with the fact that private tennants are penalised for under occupation of a property but council tennants are not.

For instance a single person 35 years plus will only receive housing benefit for a one bedroom property even if they live in a two bedroom property. This is becuase of the Local Housing Allowance restrictions. However becuase rent on two bed council property is less than the LHA one bed rate a single person living in a two bed council property still receives full housing benefit. The tax reduces the tenants housing benefit by up to 25% depending on how many rooms they have free. The government would have us believe that this change is being done in the name of fairness and isn't just a brazen attempt to reduce spending on the poor. Indeed in theory it sounds fair however (i) residents do not have the money and will simply fall into rent arrears. They will then be denied assistance downsizing because housing rules prevent people with rent arrears transferring to another property (ii) there is already a mechanism to move people from properties which are under occupied. Therefore there is no need to starve and freeze them out.

 

[Napster]

The bedroom tax????? - Surely one of the worst thought out policies since the poll tax. This tax will only effect council tennants and has been put in place to deal with the fact that private tennants are penalised for under occupation of a property but council tennants are not.
.

It's not a tax. It's a reduction of subsidy.

 

[applelover]

Your lot are so sensitive about this point at the moment. Cameron got so angry the other day about this.

Unfortuantely the horse has bolted on this one and pubilc discourse has forged the 'bedroom tax' so you are just going to have to put up with it i'm afraid.

Your line is pretty much the only argument the tories can push on this horror show policy.

 

[applelover]

It's not a tax. It's a reduction of subsidy.

Just for you

The bedroom tax????? - Surely one of the worst thought out policies since the poll tax. This tax (reduction in subsidy - for Napster xxx) will only effect council tennants and has been put in place to deal with the fact that private tennants are penalised for under occupation of a property but council tennants are not.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

I agree with the pensions comment. However I believe there are good social policy reasons for capping child benefits at 2/3 children. Clearly there would need to be transitional systems which would be difficult but there has to be a disincentive for those that cannot afford to have large families without state funding from doing so. Cue Barna having apoplexy.

So would I(up to a point).Butthe problem is you'd have to means test people.Otherwise I imagine quite a few (rich) old codgers would be reluctant to give up their winter fuel allowance,free bus passes etc

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

It's not a tax. It's a reduction of subsidy.

Doesn't quite have that tabloid ring to it I'm afraid.:winking:

 

[Pubey]

You can tell we're in a recession because most of the threads in the Pub are about economics, and not about filthy birds and DtS's Friday Threads.

Bad times.

 

[A Century United]

It's not a tax. It's a reduction of subsidy.

That only holds true if the householder has a realistic opportunity to avoid the "reduction of subsidy" by moving to what the government deem to be an appropriately sized house. The reality is that there are simply not enough one and two bedroom homes for all the people who will be affected - there is no way for most to avoid this "reduction in subsidy" so for all intents and purposes it is a tax. And no, I'm not a trendy lefty, I am somewhat to the right of the Tory party these days, though I think it's thems as moved.

 

[callan]

Agree with most of that, but must take you up on the highlighted one, which is Disability Living Allowance presumably. Why would you end that? I work with children that have ADHD and it can be very damaging to family life, I know of a child with severe ADHD where the mother has had to fight tooth and nail to get his disability recognised so the child can get the help he needs - by taking him out of mainstream where he was constantly labelled as "naughty and disobedient", and putting him into specialist schooling. I don't know if it's classified as such, but to me, it's like a mental disorder and as such I don't begrudge DLA for them at all.

I also work with a lot of children who have been diagnosed with adhd, which is a condition rather than a disability.
In most cases I come across the money rarely ends up being spent on making the child's life easier.
Sadly a lot of parents even see it as a cash cow from the state, and put undue pressure on professionals to diagnose as they see it as an excuse for poor behaviour with the child living behind the badge of that as an excuse of what they do.
In the genuine cases many parents have admitted that they would rather see the money spent elsewhere on training (parental) to deal with the condition.

 

[callan]

Just for you

The bedroom tax????? - Surely one of the worst thought out policies since the poll tax. This tax (reduction in subsidy - for Napster xxx) will only effect council tennants and has been put in place to deal with the fact that private tennants are penalised for under occupation of a property but council tennants are not.

Wrong the tax/subsidy affects both council and private tennants.

 

[applelover]

Wrong the tax/subsidy affects both council and private tennants.

It effects social tenants and not private tenants because the LHA already does the same job

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21321113

Who will be affected?

This change affects council tenants, and those who rent from housing associations. It does not affect private sector tenants.

 

[callan]

It effects social tenants and not private tenants because the LHA already does the same job

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21321113

Who will be affected?

This change affects council tenants, and those who rent from housing associations. It does not affect private sector tenants.

5. On 1 April 2013 it is intended to introduce size criteria for new and existing
working age Housing Benefit claimants living in the social rented sector. The size
criteria will replicate the size criteria that apply to Housing Benefit claimants in the
private rented sector and whose claims are assessed using the local housing
allowance rules. The applicable maximum rent will be reduced by a national
percentage rate depending on the number of spare bedrooms in the household
.
This direct from the dwp

 

[applelover]

5. On 1 April 2013 it is intended to introduce size criteria for new and existing
working age Housing Benefit claimants living in the social rented sector. The size
criteria will replicate the size criteria that apply to Housing Benefit claimants in the
private rented sector and whose claims are assessed using the local housing
allowance rules. The applicable maximum rent will be reduced by a national
percentage rate depending on the number of spare bedrooms in the household
.
This direct from the dwp

This is talking about the LHA. This is a similar policy which provoked the 'bedroom tax' but is a different system entirely.

If you want info on the LHA type 'LHA direct' it wills how you how it works.

LHA is for private sector housing

Bedroom tax is for social housing

This is how the bedroom tax works

Changes to housing benefit for tenants in Social Housing (Housing Association Property)

From April 2013, for those renting in the Social Rented Sector (Housing Associations), the amount of housing benefit that can be paid to you will be limited depending on the size of your family and the number of bedrooms you are considered to need. You may have heard this described as ‘a bedroom tax’ by the media.

What are the new rules?

- Under the Government’s new rules you will receive housing benefit based on one bedroom for each person or couple living as part of the household. There are some exceptions.
-The rules only apply to people of working age claiming housing benefit. They do not apply to pensioners (aged 61 and above).
- Children under-16 of the same gender are expected to share a bedroom.
- Children under-10 are expected to share a bedroom regardless of their gender.
- A disabled tenant or their partner who needs a non-resident overnight carer will be allowed an extra room.
Examples

- A couple with two girls aged five and 15 will be treated as needing two bedrooms. From April 2013, if they live in a three bedroom home their housing benefit will be reduced.
- A single parent with a seven year old boy and nine year old girl will be treated as needing two bedrooms. From April 2013, if they live in a three-bedroom home their housing benefit will be reduced.

Will it affect you?

It will affect you if you are of working age and are treated as having at least one spare bedroom. This includes the following.

- Separated parents who share the care of their children and who may have been allocated an extra bedroom for this. Under benefit rules there must be just one ‘main carer’ for children – if you are not the main carer your benefit will be reduced.
- Couples who don’t share the same bedroom – the second bedroom will be treated as a spare bedroom.
- Foster carers – the bedroom they use for any foster children will be treated as a spare bedroom. This is because foster children are not counted as part of the household for benefit purposes.

How much housing benefit might you lose from April 2013?
- If you have one ‘spare’ bedroom the rent we use to calculate your housing benefit will reduce by 14%. This could be about £12 a week (£624 a year).
- If you have two or more ‘spare’ bedrooms the rent we use to calculate your housing benefit will reduce by 25%. This could be about £22 a week (£1,144 a year).

Basically is a XXXXing horror show. If heaven and hell exist and you feel that you can morally justify this policy then you are on your way to hell :)

 

[callan]

My biggest concern with all of this, is that the benefits will now go straight to the claimant rather than direct to social landlords, that is a real recipe for disaster.

 

[applelover]

My biggest concern with all of this, is that the benefits will now go straight to the claimant rather than direct to social landlords, that is a real recipe for disaster.

It is insane! IDS is pumping the same ideological nonsense that all individual are essentially rational, capable of objective reasoning and fully responsible for their actions. However those that actually leave Westminster realise that the current system churns out a sizeable minority who do not meet these criteria.

It is ideology over 'what works'. We have an 'underclass'of people who would require intensive life coaching at a level that we will never provide if they are to actually become fully functional members of society.

All the pilots of this policy have resulted in increases in arrears. This leads to landlords not being able to pay mortgages and so on, and so on... Just like the council tax reforms everybody on the ground knows what is about to happen. It is like watching an impending car crash in slow motion.

Another horror show policy

 

[applelover]

There's is no dignity in being single.

The calculations show that being single and falling out of work is an absolute disaster. The below shows the expendable income of a 35+ JSA claimant living in a one bed flat in Southend. It includes expenditure on just rent, council tax (including may reform) water, electricity, gas and housekeeping.

Single person 35+ - Expendable income = £5.66 minus 25.16 = -£19.50

This shows that if you lose your job then you essentially lose you home. You may think that this is justifiable, however tenancy agreements don't work like this. You may also face legal action for the rent arrears that accrue, a CCJ that stops you from taking out credit, bailiffs at your door etc. All this for being so irresponsible as to believe that at the age of 35+ you were entitled to have your own place.

Imagine that you are 45, single, have worked your whole life, never claimed benefits, earn a decent living but not enough to save money and have no debts. You have moved job in the last few months however suddenly you are made redundant. You go to the job centre to find out that you have £71/week to run your household. Luckily you were prudent in picking a flat and chose one at the lower end of the rental market and the LHA means that you housing benefit covers your rent. However despite this you cannot meet your bills and you have nine months left on your assured shorthold tenancy.

You come to the realisation that you can't pay all of your rent, heating, water, housekeeping and council tax. Which one do you pay? Do you abandon your tenancy and stitch up your landlord?

My point is why does an individual like the one above deserve the indignity described above? This is Britain for gods for gods sake not some tinpot shanty town ridden hell hole.

The answer to this is to significantly increase payments to those who have paid NI contributions to give them time to get back on their feet. The current contribution based JSA pays out for six months but at the same rate as means tested JSA. This is ok if you are part of a couple and your partner works as you will still receive the £71 for six months regardless of your partners earnings. However this doesn't apply to our example.

I would like to see a six month period where you receive perhaps 70% of the national average wage. This is the same system that is adopted in most European states. If I pay into a XXXXing insurance system and have never claimed benefits in my life then I expect to be able to maintain my bottom of the market one bedroom flat for a few months without out facing legal action from a governemt department, utility company or landlord of my choosing.

How do you pay for this? Yawn

Choose one or more from

- stop bombing muslims
- stop baby factories turning a profit (tick - credit where credit is due IDS)
- Stop multinationals avoiding tax
- have a progressive and targeted tax system (although tax extravagance and avoidance not industriousness)
- reduce the aid budget
- cut defence spending

etc etc

 

[OldBlueLady]

Choose one or more from

- stop bombing muslims
- stop baby factories turning a profit (tick - credit where credit is due IDS)
- Stop multinationals avoiding tax
- have a progressive and targeted tax system (although tax extravagance and avoidance not industriousness)
- reduce the aid budget
- cut defence spending

etc etc

Easy, you stop dishing out benefits and state pensions to people that have never contributed to our country. You stop the NHS treating people who've never contributed to the state in their lives, hey, here's an idea, you charge people for treatment if they've made no contribution!