Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Recommended Posts

I have seen numerous ministers recently being quizzed about the upcoming benefit reforms. All are asked the obvious question. None have an adequate response. They just use the time honoured ruse of all politicians who do not want to or cannot find a realistic answer, and waffle on about something totally unrelated to the original question until time runs out. The government claim no-one will lose out on benefits if they find paid employment. So logically then,if someone is getting £300 per week in benefits, then find a job paying the same, does that mean they will be picking up £600 per week? No wonder the politicians will not answer it. Truth is, nothing will change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once you have a large enough fraction of your population living off the public pork trough, it simply cannot be reformed; only a catastrophic failure where the troughers finally realise that the free meal has gone for good allows for the necessary changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have seen numerous ministers recently being quizzed about the upcoming benefit reforms. All are asked the obvious question. None have an adequate response. They just use the time honoured ruse of all politicians who do not want to or cannot find a realistic answer, and waffle on about something totally unrelated to the original question until time runs out. The government claim no-one will lose out on benefits if they find paid employment. So logically then,if someone is getting £300 per week in benefits, then find a job paying the same, does that mean they will be picking up £600 per week? No wonder the politicians will not answer it. Truth is, nothing will change.

It took us 40 + years to get into the situation that we now have in this country and there is no easy fix . The only way we are going to sort things and make work pay is the same way we got here , which is slowly slowly bit by bit.

Many people are better off on benefits due to very high house prices and other essential living cost's like travel to work and energy , and very low wages. This has been compounded massivley over the last 10-15 years , wages have been pushed down for many while the huge cost of housing has rocketed. We need to build more houses in many arears or make those that are empty lived in other wise housing costs will not drop. Wages must go up that is going to be very hard as there is more demand for jobs than there are jobs and mass immigration has led to an even bigger army of people fighting for jobs.

Bit by bit they must cut the tax at the bottom end of earnings they need to get income tax very low for low paid and average paid workers , but they can not afford to do it over night . They must ensure there are enough homes at reasonable cost's.

Will they do it ? who knows .

But i think you are right nothing much is going to change we will always have masses of people now dependent on benefits . The only other way is to make them starve and homeless and that is not the right thing to do either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have seen numerous ministers recently being quizzed about the upcoming benefit reforms. All are asked the obvious question. None have an adequate response. They just use the time honoured ruse of all politicians who do not want to or cannot find a realistic answer, and waffle on about something totally unrelated to the original question until time runs out. The government claim no-one will lose out on benefits if they find paid employment. So logically then,if someone is getting £300 per week in benefits, then find a job paying the same, does that mean they will be picking up £600 per week? No wonder the politicians will not answer it. Truth is, nothing will change.

No, they don't mean that! It is an attempt to remove the 'poverty trap' whereby after taking a job, the loss of benefits can mean you are worse off, even if still entitled to

some help. So, on your example, you had £300pw benefits, but take a job on take home of £250pw. You will get topped up to £300pw equivalent in entitlements. Having one benefit makes this process so much easier, if they can work out how to make the change.

If we didn't have such stupid property prices, then wages and benefits would be much cheaper too. The USA is far ahead of us on that and will soon find it's actually good for them. You can buy a new 5 bed detached home with swimming pool in Florida now, down from £222k about 2.5 years ago.

Edited by plummet expert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those that are maxed out on benefits now are very likely to lose out in the future. Surely no one believes these politicos?

Just a question of getting ahead of the herd as the devil will take the hindmost, sadly many live their lives without considering the possibility of major change.

It may be a total pig's ear but it's going to happen....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those that are maxed out on benefits now are very likely to lose out in the future. Surely no one believes these politicos?

Just a question of getting ahead of the herd as the devil will take the hindmost, sadly many live their lives without considering the possibility of major change.

It may be a total pig's ear but it's going to happen....

So true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, on your example, you had £300pw benefits, but take a job on take home of £250pw. You will get topped up to £300pw equivalent in entitlements. Having one benefit makes this process so much easier, if they can work out how to make the change.

Why would Joe Sixpack work 40 hours a week for 300 pounds if they could sit at home and get 300 pounds for doing nothing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, they don't mean that! It is an attempt to remove the 'poverty trap' whereby after taking a job, the loss of benefits can mean you are worse off, even if still entitled to

some help. So, on your example, you had £300pw benefits, but take a job on take home of £250pw. You will get topped up to £300pw equivalent in entitlements. Having one benefit makes this process so much easier, if they can work out how to make the change.

If we didn't have such stupid property prices, then wages and benefits would be much cheaper too. The USA is far ahead of us on that and will soon find it's actually good for them. You can buy a new 5 bed detached home with swimming pool in Florida now, down from £222k about 2.5 years ago.

But your not better off in work in this example. By doing a job you have less free time. There are also direct costs of going to work such as clothing, travel and food.

I am waiting to see how it pans out because they can either do something radical that addresses the problem or just reduce what those at the bottom get. I know where I am betting my money.

The problem is if you attack people at the bottom too harshly they have nothing too lose by participating in civil unrest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But your not better off in work in this example. By doing a job you have less free time. There are also direct costs of going to work such as clothing, travel and food.

I am waiting to see how it pans out because they can either do something radical that addresses the problem or just reduce what those at the bottom get. I know where I am betting my money.

The problem is if you attack people at the bottom too harshly they have nothing too lose by participating in civil unrest.

Yes very Radical and I don't think they have the guts, the resources, or the know how.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is an attempt to remove the 'poverty trap' whereby after taking a job, the loss of benefits can mean you are worse off, even if still entitled to

some help. So, on your example, you had £300pw benefits, but take a job on take home of £250pw. You will get topped up to £300pw equivalent in entitlements.

No, or working wouldn't help you: you'd still have £300.

What they would do is presumably something similar to pension credit, i.e. every £1 you earn reduces your benefits by - say 50p.

So in your example the person gets £250 wages plus £150 benefits for £400 - better than his original £300 and cheaper for the government as his benefit cheque has halved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would Joe Sixpack work 40 hours a week for 300 pounds if they could sit at home and get 300 pounds for doing nothing?

No, that doesn't seem right to me either.

Won't they just give a set amount which will gradually disappear as incomes rise? Could it be 125 pounds per person? If a couple work one day a week between them they'd be on 300.....3 days per week (betweem them) and they might get 400?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No other time in history would it be conceivable that a person not working and not of any worth should get paid more than a worker. Not that I know of. It certainly isn't sustainable. It's a bribe, basically. We pay you, you vote Labour. Now Labour are history, the need for the bribe has deceased. People who can't afford to live in a house move back in with their parents, it's not a question of harshness, but reason (and historically precidented). We're in a Big Society now after all. If you're not adult enough to take part, you drop out, but no-one pays you for the pleasure - let's see this through.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those that are maxed out on benefits now are very likely to lose out in the future. Surely no one believes these politicos?

Just a question of getting ahead of the herd as the devil will take the hindmost, sadly many live their lives without considering the possibility of major change.

It may be a total pig's ear but it's going to happen....

You're being to shallow and only looking at the financial aspect. Although, the maxed out benefits scrounger will receive less in handouts, they will have a more fulfilling lives because they are encouraged to do some work.

Even those unlucky enough not to find work will surely rejoice at being less of a burden on their fellow man?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw an interview with Chris Grayling today who was being pressed about the details of the upcoming reform.. He deflected most queries with "Mr Cameron has guaranteed that people going into work will not be worse off".

What that suggests by omission is that those NOT going into work will be worse off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're being to shallow and only looking at the financial aspect. Although, the maxed out benefits scrounger will receive less in handouts, they will have a more fulfilling lives because they are encouraged to do some work.

Even those unlucky enough not to find work will surely rejoice at being less of a burden on their fellow man?

Of deeply resentful that basic autonomy of the cheapskate lifestyle has been replaced with being ordered around all day at a job they don't want.

People on benefits get from everyone else -

Food.

Some light entertainment so they won't be too much trouble.

The rest of the "benefit" goes towards cancelling taxes and rents. - i.e. they don't actually get the benefit, someone else does.

Pissing about with welfare without restructuring the ability to work for oneself without getting locked up for disobeying a million and one arbitary rules and also reducing the tax burden isn't going to work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No other time in history would it be conceivable that a person not working and not of any worth should get paid more than a worker. Not that I know of. It certainly isn't sustainable. It's a bribe, basically. We pay you, you vote Labour. Now Labour are history, the need for the bribe has deceased. People who can't afford to live in a house move back in with their parents, it's not a question of harshness, but reason (and historically precidented). We're in a Big Society now after all. If you're not adult enough to take part, you drop out, but no-one pays you for the pleasure - let's see this through.

Praying on the gullible, more like.

"You'll work even though it doesn't pay? Sucker. Apply here."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw an interview with Chris Grayling today who was being pressed about the details of the upcoming reform.. He deflected most queries with "Mr Cameron has guaranteed that people going into work will not be worse off".

What that suggests by omission is that those NOT going into work will be worse off.

Yep, that's it.

Imagine the scramble to get any kind of work to bring your income back up to the level which you had pre-reform.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Successive government since that last war have created our welfare system. Morally the right are forced to talk tough but then do little so that over time the left have forced the nation into dependency on the state, by doing so they have manufacture support. Destroying employment has been in the left’s interest and high housing costs have been like the cream on the cake for them because whilst increasing their support base it has been unwittingly supported by the right. Its going to be might hard to restore some sanity if the left just revert to form.

I was shocked at how NuLabour managed to subvert efficiency in HMRC and DWP by creating the muddle of tax credits and LHA. Now the DWP should concentrate on support of those that are entitled and the HMRC to tax those that can. No one should logically covered by both.

I heard Lord Young mention that he wanted to fine councils for applying Health and Safety laws excessively, so he’ll take tax revenue from them and give it to the treasury. Why not force the council officials who made the mistake to apologize in person, bet that’d make them think twice before throwing their weight around. No inefficiently shuffling of tax funds, just getting those that make the mistake face up to their errors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imagine the scramble to get any kind of work to bring your income back up to the level which you had pre-reform.....

But how are you going to force unskilled layabouts to work if the unskilled, low-paid jobs have all been given to Eastern European immigrants?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a bribe, basically. We pay you, you vote Labour. Now Labour are history, the need for the bribe has deceased.

Three flaws with that.

People on benefit are not more inclined to vote Labour.

Those that do do not see it as some kind of bribe.

Benefits have remained largely unchanged under all past Tory governments. Does that make it a bribe from them too?

If you want to talk bribes talk about council house 'right to buy' and selling shares in publicly owned companies at well below market value. <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It may be a total pig's ear but it's going to happen....

Probably not in the near future though.

I can't be the only one who has noticed a recurring "In 5 to 10 years" being tacked on to every thing they say. It's that or "will take more than 5 years".

They are already laying the groundwork for two big lies. One is that we shouldn't blame them for their failure next time we vote because they haven't had enough time and the other is that we should give them another term and then they will deliver on all their promises.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of deeply resentful that basic autonomy of the cheapskate lifestyle has been replaced with being ordered around all day at a job they don't want.

Pissing about with welfare without restructuring the ability to work for oneself without getting locked up for disobeying a million and one arbitary rules and also reducing the tax burden isn't going to work.

Maybe but....

Have you seen info on the pilot that was tried in Namibia? It seems that a good number were able to give up crap jobs and make more money by becoming self-employed. Why? Because they had the security of Universal Credit to cover their basic costs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, or working wouldn't help you: you'd still have £300.

What they would do is presumably something similar to pension credit, i.e. every £1 you earn reduces your benefits by - say 50p.

So in your example the person gets £250 wages plus £150 benefits for £400 - better than his original £300 and cheaper for the government as his benefit cheque has halved.

Permanently?

And how do the co-workers, who haven't just come off benefits and are therefore on £250pw, feel about the fact that they're earning less than the new guy?

I guess we have to wait for the detail (as in "the devil is in...")

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, they don't mean that! It is an attempt to remove the 'poverty trap' whereby after taking a job, the loss of benefits can mean you are worse off, even if still entitled to

some help. So, on your example, you had £300pw benefits, but take a job on take home of £250pw. You will get topped up to £300pw equivalent in entitlements. Having one benefit makes this process so much easier, if they can work out how to make the change.

I don't think that they mean that either. In fact, that is precisely what they are trying to avoid.

More like 300pw benefits, get a job for 250pw and your net position will be something like 425pw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No other time in history would it be conceivable that a person not working and not of any worth should get paid more than a worker. Not that I know of. It certainly isn't sustainable. It's a bribe, basically. We pay you, you vote Labour. Now Labour are history, the need for the bribe has deceased. People who can't afford to live in a house move back in with their parents, it's not a question of harshness, but reason (and historically precidented). We're in a Big Society now after all. If you're not adult enough to take part, you drop out, but no-one pays you for the pleasure - let's see this through.

It wasnt a bribe with respect to voting since the non-workers you are referring to generally don't vote. Rather it was a bribe to keep them docile, and out the governments hair.

The traditional industries these individuals would have worked in are now either gone, dont need as many workers (efficiency), or staffed by cheap immigrant labour. Thus the need to pay them off. If they hadn't these non-workers would have caused severe (much more than they already do) disruption.

Think massively increased crime, severe social strife, toxleth riots, etc.

Thats what it was all about.

Edited by alexw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 261 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.