Ids: Welfare System 'close To Breaking'

[Potwalloper]

Can we both despise the 'chavs' and at the same time demand that they embody all the values of hard work and sacrifice that the idea of a work ethic entails?

I don't see why not. All we have to do is stop feeding them quite so many chips.

[wonderpup]

I don't see why not. All we have to do is stop feeding them quite so many chips.

But if they sacrificed themselves and had a good work ethic would they not have earned those chips?

Don't you believe that virtue should be rewarded?

[MarkG]

Of course they did they scrapped the tax .

They scrapped the tax because of a few smelly commies rioting in the streets?

Again, why would the Tories scrap a tax just because of some smelly students and dolies when they'd destroyed the mining unions who had repeatedly brought the country to its knees over the previous decades? Did they all suddenly wimp out when faced by a few students shouting 'it's all Thatcher's fault!'?

Which part of 'they scrapped it because people could trivially avoid paying' is so hard to understand? The poll tax was unenforceable on a population who didn't want to pay, and the smelly commies were just a sideshow.

[miko]

Which part of 'they scrapped it because people could trivially avoid paying' is so hard to understand? The poll tax was unenforceable on a population who didn't want to pay, and the smelly commies were just a sideshow.

Really thanks for sharing that with me.

[billybong]

IDS: Welfare system 'close to breaking'

and by implication so must the banking system be.

[Ben from Dover]

It means your full of Sh*t. Look it up if you don't believe me. What paper do you read bye the way. I guess you didn't get the humour in "are you related to Phil McCavity" Let me explain....Ben Dover and Phil McCavity. Sounds like a firm of Estate agents, does it not? I await your abusive reply.

Why are you expecting my reply to be abusive?

(By the way the name has a bit of HPC history to it and I keep it for that reason, not just to be rude. It wasn't made up by me but by the BBC radio4 dj who introduced me as such on a housing discussion as few years ago)

[PopGun]

*Sigh* i get really really tired of posts that seem to say the unemployed are lazy. The fact is, everyone is, its why we all require a wage to work.

For the poles (as posted sooo many times here) its due to currency arbitrage. Average wage in poland in 2006 ~£350 per month. Minimum wage for a 40h week in the uk in 2006 ~£910 per month.

Tell a long term dolee that if he goes and works in poland he will earn the equivalent of 2.5+ times the average uk wage (~60k) and i'm sure he'd be glad to go for a few years.

If you want uk citizens to do these jobs in the uk, cut off the supply of cheap labour and allow wages to naturally rise to the point where the economic incentive is great enough to attract the workers needed. We apply this principle to our skilled labour markets, so why exactly do we need to treat our unskilled labour so differently?

Indeed. It's like banging your head against a wall daily.

It's simple mathematics: The cost of land/housing/shelter effectively prices out most of the long term unemployed from working. The Polish etc can afford to accept the wages, Thanks to rent & tax costs the UK citizen can't. Should the Polish etc want to settle here with their families on MW, they’d soon end up in the same situation. It isn’t about hard working foreigners and lazy Brits, it’s basic economics. Why on earth would anyone lower their standard of living by going to work? Is it really that hard for people to comprehend?

Unless a big stick is taken to the cost of housing/land, and the tax threshold raised to >= £10k nothing will change. And as wonderpup mentioned on this or another thread, one family on benefits is cheaper than keeping ONE person in prison. Something to think about.

[PopGun]

Its interesting how many people used to be in work in the U.K. and are now unemployed, 4,000 in the factory that I worked in alone in the last few years.

The mith that U.K. people did not want to work is a lie and has been used to bring in millions of cheaper workers , now we have a massive unemployment problem on our hands caused by to much immigration , and the collapse of the credit bubble, the top brass and the bankers who caused the bubble and collapse now sit there and blame the people who have lost their jobs and find themselves unemployed ,

Its interesting how unfair that is isn't it !!!

There's two underlying flaws with Immigration:

One, how can you stop the tide coming in before the ponzi jobs run out?

Two, how do you stop them from leaving for greener pastures when you need them to stay?!

By it's very nature, freedom of movement is a two way street. Can't have it both ways (sic)

[PopGun]

It is pretty dumb economic thinking to assume that there is a limited number of jobs out there and a natural rate of unemployment. Not the case at all. If you were hungry you would find a way to earn some money.

Elastic fantastic!! Give me a break.

[PopGun]

They got a tax stopped that was actually cheaper for most people, meant households contributed to services proportionally to their useage of said services. Id punch anyone who told me they were a poll tax rioter.

Only if they're smaller than you I'm guessing!?

[leicestersq]

Indeed. It's like banging your head against a wall daily.

It's simple mathematics: The cost of land/housing/shelter effectively prices out most of the long term unemployed from working. The Polish etc can afford to accept the wages, Thanks to rent & tax costs the UK citizen can't. Should the Polish etc want to settle here with their families on MW, they’d soon end up in the same situation. It isn’t about hard working foreigners and lazy Brits, it’s basic economics. Why on earth would anyone lower their standard of living by going to work? Is it really that hard for people to comprehend?

Unless a big stick is taken to the cost of housing/land, and the tax threshold raised to >= £10k nothing will change. And as wonderpup mentioned on this or another thread, one family on benefits is cheaper than keeping ONE person in prison. Something to think about.

What big stick are you going to use to reduce the cost of housing?

The iron laws of supply and demand, always keeps the two in balance, only the price changes. To bring the price down, you need to either increase supply, or reduce demand.

Increasing supply in our crowded land isnt easy or quick, no matter what you do.

The only way out is to reduce demand, make people accept that they have to live in less housing somehow. The only way to do that is in the benefits sector, to cut housing benefit, so that claimants cannot purchase as much. And in the private sector, to put up interest rates and restrict finance.

Leaving things as they are appears not to be an option. If the system is close to breaking point, as IDS suggests, we either change, or it breaks.

[Stars]

The iron laws of supply and demand, always keeps the two in balance, only the price changes. To bring the price down, you need to either increase supply, or reduce demand.

The supply of land is fixed, but you can significantly reduce demand for land by making the owner pay the (presently) externalised cost of its ownership. Land is often taken not to use it, but to press a cost on to others for usage. If you make the owner pay this cost, this parasitic activity becomes pointless and the price (and total cost) of land (and housing) falls.

Edited August 2, 2010 by Stars

[Traktion]

The supply of land is fixed, but you can significantly reduce demand for land by making the owner pay the (presently) externalised cost of its ownership. Land is often taken not to use it, but to press a cost on to others for usage. If you make the owner pay this cost, this parasitic activity becomes pointless and the porice of land (and housing) falls.

Yes - keep repeating this and people will eventually get it, Stars!

In addition, we've only built on a little over 10% of the land in the UK. Even if you built 50% more houses, the amount of land used for houses would still be relatively small. Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland would likely have well under 5% used for urban developments.

With all the ranting like 'paving over the countryside' and such, you would be lead to believe this number is much higher. In reality, any 'shortage' of houses is down to poor planning permission and inappropriate taxation.

I agree with Stars, that a LVT should be used for urban areas. For rural areas, easing planning would help a lot, without spoiling the countryside either.

[papag]

The government could save millions if they just stopped paying housing allowance to all the bimbos with kids who tell them they have no bread winner and checked their claim out.

I would estimate that around 30+ % have a man or the children's father living with them unknown to the authority, well known to the landlords who actively advise them on how to claim more housing allowance .

[PopGun]

What big stick are you going to use to reduce the cost of housing?

Stars has already beaten me to that one.

The iron laws of supply and demand, always keeps the two in balance, only the price changes. To bring the price down, you need to either increase supply, or reduce demand..

Most supply and 'demand' is bogus. The thousands of empty newly built homes in Ireland is an example testimony of that. Thanks to the current lending environment, supply vastly outstrips bona-fide demand (i.e. those who are actually in a position to buy). Yet strangely, prices are still hugely overvalued.

[leicestersq]

The supply of land is fixed, but you can significantly reduce demand for land by making the owner pay the (presently) externalised cost of its ownership. Land is often taken not to use it, but to press a cost on to others for usage. If you make the owner pay this cost, this parasitic activity becomes pointless and the price (and total cost) of land (and housing) falls.

So you are proposing a 'land tax'?

How would that work. Different rates for farm land and land used for housing? How do you set the level of tax and administer it?

[Stars]

So you are proposing a 'land tax'?

How would that work. Different rates for farm land and land used for housing? How do you set the level of tax and administer it?

The level is set by the price that can be charged for land by the landlord

http://www.landvaluetax.org/what-is-lvt/

[crash2006]

Interestrateripoff,

It is interesting just how many eastern Europeans have come here, and found jobs. Must be millions of them. It put paid to the lie that there were no jobs for our 3 million unemployed to do. Instead their arrival exposed that the benefits system was at fault for discouraging people from working.

As for where future jobs will come, who knows? Most people do jobs today that no one would have heard of 300 years ago. New types of jobs appear 'out of the ether' sometimes. The invention of a computer created jobs for millions, who knows what will happen next.

I am confident that there will be some work. I wish I was as confident that we could get UK people to do it.

The difference is those immigrants can live 10 to a room make their money and buy back home, and can base this on a fact, as i know a few that are doing that.

[leicestersq]

The level is set by the price that can be charged for land by the landlord

http://www.landvaluetax.org/what-is-lvt/

So if you use the land yourself, and therefore charge no rent, then what do you tax at then?

[crash2006]

Indeed. It's like banging your head against a wall daily.

It's simple mathematics: The cost of land/housing/shelter effectively prices out most of the long term unemployed from working. The Polish etc can afford to accept the wages, Thanks to rent & tax costs the UK citizen can't. Should the Polish etc want to settle here with their families on MW, they'd soon end up in the same situation. It isn't about hard working foreigners and lazy Brits, it's basic economics. Why on earth would anyone lower their standard of living by going to work? Is it really that hard for people to comprehend?

Unless a big stick is taken to the cost of housing/land, and the tax threshold raised to >= £10k nothing will change. And as wonderpup mentioned on this or another thread, one family on benefits is cheaper than keeping ONE person in prison. Something to think about.

Taking tax up to 10K will as you say do nothing, as a year or 2 down the line it'll push up prices making the tax relief a very short term fix, and we'll be in the same boat. What really needs to be done to fix and make britain competitive is Social housing its the only way. If they carry on like this the whole welfair sysem will collapse all because of the housing system. They are all complaining about xyz yet the real problem and they know it is housing, but to many interests in that area to make a proper change.

[Stars]

So if you use the land yourself, and therefore charge no rent, then what do you tax at then?

The charge is for the externality of your ownership, not for your use

[Injin]

The charge is for the externality of your ownership, not for your use

Land ownership is where you can't go onto land, right?

because you are forced off.

And theres the problem - the force.

if land ownership was "paid to stay off" instead.......

[Stars]

Land ownership is where you can't go onto land, right?

because you are forced off.

And theres the problem - the force.

if land ownership was "paid to stay off" instead.......

Agreed

If the land use arrangment were 'pay to stay off', there would be no ownership as such, only the aggregate effect of deals entered into freely by individual human beings. As these a free deals, there is nothing abusive about it.

This has some big problems though

Within such an arrangment, I can hound you if i wish by insisting that wherever you go, i go. You try to pay me off, but i refuse. You want some privacy, but i wont give it to you. What if i say i will leave you in peace to enjoy your life if you give me 50% of what you have built? is this fair?

[leicestersq]

The charge is for the externality of your ownership, not for your use

Stars,

the question was "So if you use the land yourself, and therefore charge no rent, then what do you tax at then?".

You replied with the above.

But you didnt even try and answer the question. What you did say seems to me to contradict you earlier answer.

If your idea has any merit, it has to be put into something that can be operated and worked.

So, how do you decide what the level of tax is going to be? What organisation operates it, and how do they go about collecting the tax?

[Traktion]

Taking tax up to 10K will as you say do nothing, as a year or 2 down the line it'll push up prices making the tax relief a very short term fix, and we'll be in the same boat. What really needs to be done to fix and make britain competitive is Social housing its the only way. If they carry on like this the whole welfair sysem will collapse all because of the housing system. They are all complaining about xyz yet the real problem and they know it is housing, but to many interests in that area to make a proper change.

Would you like to live on a council estate? I know it wouldn't be my first choice.

I can see your POV, but I think many people would rather be able to afford a house (roughly/somewhere) where they wanted it, rather than having to rely on the government for shelter. I think it's easy to provide a sort of 'catch all' for the poor, but I'm not sure it is conducive to social cohesion; there are some pretty bad sink estates out there, which many (more well off) folk would avoid going near at all costs. There has to be a better way.