dhpcza

It is you who have no clue, especially about the "working poor." What a condescending cu*t, typical of this site. If you live in the Norwich area, I'd happliy meet you and help straighten out your world view.

Good stuff.

Could be that. It could also be that when you are skint, shagging is a low cost way to spend your time. A lot of people who are poor aren't too good with forward planning either, I guess, hence more kids. Even when there was no benefit system to speak of, poorer classes still had large families. Going way back, a lot of that was to do with sending kids out to work and/or the fact that some of the kids would die young. Another factor is that poorer people might often have kids younger in life -- no, not just to "get a free council house" (although there are a few filth-hounds who think like that). No, rather that they have no real career or aspirational aims so having kids brings a bit of purpose into life. That or they were just more wreckless in their youth. And, I'll stop being an a**hole for a second and say this (as a general message to anyone): don't put off having kids due to your finances, if you want them, have them. You are only here once and it would be a huge regret to not have children due to money. There's more to life, you can find a way.

If people who define themselves as 'middle class' can't afford children, this is because they don't place a high enough priority on having kids, nothing to do with people on benefits. Or they want to have kids, but have to send little Tarquin to private school etc -- not being able to afford that aint the same as not being able to afford kids. It's the same thinking that gets people on here moaning that they are 'poor' when they are earning £30k a year. Awwwww. What these people should say is "I can't afford kids if it means making any kind of sacrifice." It's not just the benefit underclass that's having babies, what a load of sh*te. Honestly, I think the Tories are beyond reproach on this site. Middle class bubble-heads preaching to the choir. "Oh, you just love Labour I suppose blah blah" -- no, I don't. "Yes but I know a woman who doesn't work, she has 17 children and lives at 13 Downing Street, paid for by housing benefit. I only earn £75k a year, I don't go out, I eat beans every day and save to live in a Cornflake box." or "Well my girlfriend and I are both graduates in professional jobs. How can we afford kids compared to benefit cheats on council estates? Surely you don't expect me to only go snowboarding 3 times per year?" etc. Yawn. Just kill yourselves, please.

So cheaper rents for all -- is this why social housing rents for new tenants is going up? Something the government really does have control over, they are putting the price up. No doubt this will be defended to death by "The Tory's will save us all" fan-boys on here. Note: I'm not a supporter of Labour either. Oh yes, and "you can't cap rent, because price fixing leads to shortgages" -- unless you build enough houses of course, because, last time I checked, a house doesn't get consumed like a loaf of bread. There's going to be various soundbites that can be translated as the poor (general populace) paying for the mistakes of the rich (the corporate big-wig world). Less jobs. Less benefit if you find yourself out of work. If you're lucky enough to get a council house, you'll have to pay MORE for it. Oh, there might be some forced labour thrown in for your dole money. Still, as long as we are all in it together, all these policies are obviously wonderful and there is no alternative. This is all done for our own good...

I am off to bed, so I'd have to carry the chat on another time. Goodnight gents.

I don't care about Labout/Tory, I can't stand any of them. Did the last Labour government* invent the dole or "long term unemployed"? No. And if someone chooses, they can get JSA for doing nothing. Most will look for work and hopefully find some eventually, but those who don't want to wont. And you can;t stop that unless you punish legit claimants too, because it's impossible to prove that someone isn't trying. If you've been on the dole or any benefits, then you'll know this. and if you haven't, then you prob wont have a clue. *as in, the one who came in 13 years ago.

Well obviously, because I did it. Though of course, I'd rather get paid more for it, but it was a crap job and that's the going rate for crap jobs. If there's a job there that needs doing, employ someone to do it and pay them the going rate.

What the f**ck are you on about? You can get JSA for doing nothing -- any attempt to make people work for it, especially "long-term unemployed" will result in most people doing what they can to circumvent this. If you want a job done, pay a wage for it. If it's min wage work, then pay that. If you're gonna be a smart-**** then don't bother trying to discuss this with me, it's a waste of both our time.

And the best part is, it's only Christmas temp stuff, so virtually no chance of a job at the end of it even if they worked their nuts off! The name they used wasn't new deal either, I just can't remember the abbreviation -- began with an 'N' though, I think.

£3 an hour for soul destroying work. or 50-60 quid for doing nothing -- I know what I'd wanna be doing in their shoes.

I did it for an agency, I wanted the money so did the work at the time. The year before, they got some lads in on a new deal placement. They didn't get paid for it, they got their dole (this is what I understand from the people I was working with at this place). So we were paying god knows who for some lads to do some meaningless work for a business. And please don't try and tell me that kinda of work has meaning, it has none unless you get some dough for it. Anyway, those lads did a shitty job, did the minimum, phoned in sick -- and I don't blame them one bit, coz I certainly wouldn't do it for nothing (and I class keeping job seekers allowance as "nothing" even if others don't).

g) what's the minimum I can get away with to keep the dole money and get out of doing this shite. That's what I'd think anyway, but I'm not on the dole right now. Same as the lads on the new deal who get work placements, they do a shit job for a couple of weeks (whatever the minimum is) then ring in sick for the rest. No skills to be learnt tying tags on to over-priced Christmas decs for some poncey shop (a job I was doing via an agency, hence I learnt about the New Deal chaps doing the same job for sod all). Work should pay or shouldn't exist, unless it's voluntary.

What some don't seem to grasp is that people who want to not work and live a life on benefits will find a way to do so, whatever changes to rules you make -- unless you make changes that actually punish legit claimants too. This isn't anything new, it's not a Labour or Tory policy -- remember, the Tories started the big shift to being "on the sick." If there are benefits, there are benefit fiddles and they will never be stopped. As much as ardent right-wingers would like benefits abolished, that isn;t going to happen, we all know that. It's a vote loser, because too many people need them now (legitimately) How are they going to check whether someone has applied for a job or not? Ring the employer? Employer says no, claimant says yes, but there's no proof. "Application got lost in the post" etc. And they wont ring every single employer for every supposedly applied for job because they can't, they don't have the man power or the time -- too busy signing people on every 4 minutes or whatever it is. There's an option to abolish benefits, but this comes at a time when people need them the most (when more people are losing their jobs). Not politically viable. So it's gonna be the same old -- a few tweaks to a system that the "long-term unemployed" can get around if they so wish and the usual bleating from both ends of the political spectrum. Here's a fact for you Mr Duncan Smith...many people aren't "trapped" they just know that the hum-drum jobs that they could do are shit, so they choose another option that is open to them (and I don't blame them). You can't close the option without hurting legit claimants, this number has risen sharply because of recession. You hurt all those people (legit ones) you create civil unrest and get voted out. So you'll cut around the edges, those "trapped" will choose to stay there, those looking for work will continue to look and claim in the meantime. It's such a non-issue: if you want to change the benefits system, you need to change our economic system as a whole.

Build enough housing, then there is no lottery. That is the idea. There is surely enough land to house people on? If there isn't then we may have our priorities wrong somewhere. As for the money, as I said, if there was the will then it would be found. They will find money to replace Trident as an example. Governments will always find money for the things they really want to do. IMO, a massive social-housing building program would be a fantastic investment for the majority of society (ie, the low wage earners).

Not if more social housing is built. The demand for it is obviously there. and before you toffs start screeching about "sink-estates" not all council housing is like that, they used to build decent quality council houses -- I know, I grew up in one. Build plenty more of those and there will be no shortage, simple as that. If there was a will, there would be a way, but there is no will because politicians don't care about making housing affordable.

But the problem would be solved, so what difference does it make to Joe Average? The ever long social housing waiting list shows the demand for social housing, lower rents and secure tenancies. If rents were capped and enough, good quality social housing (and yes, it's been built before and could be again) was built, then problem solved. I'm not rabidly anti-free market. But I don't see a problem with a massive amount of secure, rented accommodation for people. Houses aren't like food, they aren't consumed quickly and gone forever. Once built, they can stand for decades. Build enough of them, there is no shortage. As for financing it, make it a priority and the money will be found (just like it will be for Trident or whatever else is deemed a priority). The majority of this country are low-wage earners and providing them with the option of decent social housing at fair rents would be a great thing imo. And, any housing benefit required by those out of work is also lower (because the rents are lower). Those in work would not require it, because the rent would now be affordable.

Can a shortage be countered with social housing? (I don't mean sink estates, I mean a decent council house -- the sort I grew up in).

Why not?

Totally agree -- this way, if HB is required, the amount needed will be lower. Cutting housing benefit and helping out the rest of the tenants in one hit. Capping rents makes good sense, although landlords and banks wouldn't like it, so that wont happen.

According to those figures, the average HB recipient (2-3 bed homes) will be worse off by £10-£15 pounds per week. Whilst unpleasant, that's not impossible to deal with. I say this because I live in an area where the calculation for HB was changed some time ago -- it was a trial (we were a trial area). This affected some people I know by about the same sort of amount. They didn't become homeless and their rents didn't decrease either. If you are looking for a miracle to stop the subsidy of landlords, it will only be delivered in areas where the cap is far below the top-end rents ie Prime London. (Hence all the fuss is over that area). Simply put, if it's a case of finding a tenner a week or losing your home, you will find a tenner a week (there will be exceptions, but mainly this will hold). And I say this as a paid up member of the poor! In the case of the working poor, those tax credits and other working benefits will be needed that much extra to bridge the gap (because it's a small one, the rents are not going to decrease for most people). And once the dust has settled, there will again be no more talk of wages being too low and businesses subsidised.

And if anybody is kind enough to reply to any of my posts, then apologies, I'm off to bed now. But as always, it's been a pleasure gents.

I stand corrected, it is only NEW council tenants that are to be shafted. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11570923 "The private rented sector would also be expected to take up more of the burden of housing the poor, although campaigners have questioned whether this will happen." That's how I read it: less money spent on social housing; higher rents for new social housing tenants; more people expected to rent in the private sector. I cannot fathom how this is spun as lowering rents for the poorer classes. Nearly everybody that I know who is poor and rents wishes that they had a council tenancy instead of a private one. Now, if they are lucky enough to get a council place (which is going to be harder, what with the budget for social housing being halved) then they will have to pay a higher rent than they used to. Great.

What makes you think that they want to lower shelter costs? The HB reform, as far as I can see, affects mainly prime London real estate. Landlords and tenants in such areas will be affected. In other proposals, the government plan to raise the cost of council rents up to 90% of the "market rate" for a given area. That is an inflationary rent pressure and more to the point, it increases the cost of shelter for poor people (who are the one who tend to live in council housing). There is going to be less social housing built and what there is is going to become more expensive to rent. It would seem that this government could not care less about reducing housing costs. Therefore, there will still be a need for low-wage subsidies and again, this will not be debated by them; they will not have a pop at Tesco when they announce their record profits while their low-wage workers claim millions in wage subsidy. Tesco can't out-source the warehouse staff, they can automate some checkouts perhaps.

There is no argument to re-cast: one thing (housing benefit) enters the spectrum of mainstream debate. Another thing (business subsidy via benefits to low wage earners) does not. Why not? But, to more directly address your post: The cost of shelter has certainly risen more than most things, but for those on a low wage, everything is expensive (bar something like Primark). I'm talking more of utilities. Reduce the cost of shelter by 50%, great, I think we are all for that. That isn't what is being discussed here or in proposals by the coalition. They plan to reduce the very top end of housing benefit to stop poor people living in prime London (or, as most of us look at it, to stop subsidising landlords in those areas). Their proposals to raise the rents of many other council tenants far outstrip their "top-end" housing benefit removal, imo. That is an inflationary pressure on rents, surely? From that, I'd assume that reducing the cost of shelter is not a great concern to this government. That being said, there is still no talk, by them, of businesses paying their workers more so as to remove the need for low-wage subsidy. No talk of this at all.