Impact Of Housing Benefit Changes 'worse Than Feared'

[porca misèria]

So when the government attacks "shirkers" and those people "with their blinds closed" whilst "hard working people" go to work, who do you think is being targeted?

Is this drivel really worth an answer? OK, I'll bite.

If someone attacks shirkers, that'll be shirkers they're attacking. How much taxpayers' money they're getting is an entirely different question, but it'll generally be a lot more than the seventy squid a week paid to someone with savings for a maximum of six months after losing a job.

[Liquid Goldfish]

Is this drivel really worth an answer? OK, I'll bite.

If someone attacks shirkers, that'll be shirkers they're attacking. How much taxpayers' money they're getting is an entirely different question, but it'll generally be a lot more than the seventy squid a week paid to someone with savings for a maximum of six months after losing a job.

I don't know why you're concentrating on that small subset of claimants.

The government has lumped together all claimants of out of work benefits for attack - the unemployed, sick, lone parents and carers - essentially anyone who isn't in a "hard working family".

I was simply pointing out that I thought it was bizarre to attack these people when they are the only group of benefit claimants where benefit spending has actually fallen - whereas the other areas of benefits spending have seen doubling or even greater increases.

[porca misèria]

Is this drivel really worth an answer? OK, I'll bite.

If someone attacks shirkers, that'll be shirkers they're attacking. How much taxpayers' money they're getting is an entirely different question, but it'll generally be a lot more than the seventy squid a week paid to someone with savings for a maximum of six months after losing a job.

Damn. Trolled into posting a very stupid answer[1]

What I see being attacked in statements like that[2] is not an attack on individuals of any kind, but on a system which presents most people with a choice of working or scrounging and where for many, the scrounging option may offer substantially better rewards than working.

[1] I have a lurgy, and I'm not thinking clearly.

[2] As opposed to Daily-Mail-Style stories of unemployed people getting packages worth £100k/year.

[iamnumerate]

For every single mum there is a single dad......it takes two to make a baby.

True and if anyone should pay for a single mum's house it should be the person who got her pregnant or no-one. I don't mind which of the two it is.

[durhamborn]

Absolutely. Housing benefit had doubled in real terms since 1992, from £12 billion to almost £25 billion.

Payments to pensioners have also more than doubled in real terms.

Payments to those in work have gone up 600%!

The only part of the benefits bill that has actually fallen are the out of work benefits - but bizarrely this is where all the anger is being targeted.

+1

Tax credits are the big problem due to their design.They become huge the more children you have and the less you do.HB is the same.

The 3rd problem is the add ons for disability like DLA/PIP/Carer/tax credit uplifts etc.

If you have 3 children and can get 1 or 2 or all registered with some form of disability ADHD or similar and get 16 hours work the income is like winning the lottery.

I know many people whos incomes are way over £50k a year and have never worked more than 16 hours.One dates a vet and her income is much higher than his.He works 50+ hours she works 16 hours.

Another family have 1 member not on benefits.He buys terrace houses and then all the other family members claim HB for them.They don't live there.He rents them out instead cheap to people working who don't put down they are there.That family of 7 are pulling around £100k a year from the DWP.

The scale is incredible.Then again 90%+ of the jobs around here pay far less than benefits so unless they really do start to reform and cut back the bill isn't going down.

JSA is the one part of welfare that doesn't really need any reform as it isn't a problem yet the parties seem to like to divert to the easy targets while avoiding the real problems.

[wonderpup]

The only reason this is even an issue is because of high house prices. Would any of us really care otherwise?

Exactly.

It's quite funny to read all this angst about spare bedrooms in social housing- when I first joined this site not that long ago social housing tenants were barely on the radar- if they were mentioned at all it was in the context of their breeding habits or other unsavoury qualities.

The idea that this unloved group would ever become the target of envy and that their living spaces could ever be regarded as a subject for outrage would have seemed bizzare to me at that time.

This is about high house prices and the inability of the middle class to afford a decent home for their families- and raging at the inhabitants of social housing- while it might feel good- will do nothing to alter this reality.

This is what you are being asked to swallow;

"Having trouble affording a decent home for your family- well look no further than your local council housing estate- because behind some of those lace curtains there are bedrooms not being used.

But fear not- we-your government- will ensure that this great social evil will be stopped and those involved forced to pay more from their meagre incomes for the space they do not use.

Why do we do this? Because we know that when you see their pain it will somehow reduce your pain- it will, won't it?

What's that you say? How will all this help you afford a home for your family?

It won't- in fact we are going to be spending some of your taxes making sure that houses stay as unaffordable as they are now via the Help to buy scheme. And if this upsets you just imagine how those social housing tenants are feeling and you will feel better- at least you have the comfort of knowing that they are just as screwed as you are- and that's got to be worth something-right?

Have a nice day."

[@contradevian]

It won't- in fact we are going to be spending some of your taxes making sure that houses stay as unaffordable as they are now via the Help to buy scheme. And if this upsets you just imagine how those social housing tenants are feeling and you will feel better- at least you have the comfort of knowing that they are just as screwed as you are- and that's got to be worth something-right?

Have a nice day."

Just been chatting on Facebook to a social worker in the Kirklees area. The bedroom tax has had the most impact with many of her clients and has actually made some ill, many unable to afford to come to appointments now.

[winkie]

Just been chatting on Facebook to a social worker in the Kirklees area. The bedroom tax has had the most impact with many of her clients and has actually made some ill, many unable to afford to come to appointments now.

...is there any worthwhile rent paying jobs work in the area that these people could do?

[winkie]

True and if anyone should pay for a single mum's house it should be the person who got her pregnant or no-one. I don't mind which of the two it is.

Fine....but life in a developed relatively wealthy country is not exactly like that.......or else put the kids in a children's home, however you look at it, children cost if the parents don't pay we all chip in to help pay.......kids soon grow up and quickly suss things out.

[SarahBell]

And the other side of the coin is a couple can get a tax payer funded interest free deposit loan to buy a 5 or 6 bed 600k house.

And another side is that someone in work can only afford to rent a room in a shared house...

[iamnumerate]

Fine....but life in a developed relatively wealthy country is not exactly like that........or else put the kids in a children's home

So Japan, Spain, Italy, Switzerland and other countries which don't give so much money to single mums are not relatively wealthy countries. Interesting.

Have you got any evidence that countries that don't give as much to single mums as us have more children homes? If you don't then why do you think giving money to single mums is needed.

Fine....but life in a developed relatively wealthy country is not exactly like that.......or else put the kids in a children's home, however you look at it, children cost if the parents don't pay we all chip in to help pay.......kids soon grow up and quickly suss things out.

Actually some grow up to do the same.

[winkie]

So Japan, Spain, Italy, Switzerland and other countries which don't give so much money to single mums are not relatively wealthy countries. Interesting.

Have you got any evidence that countries that don't give as much to single mums as us have more children homes? If you don't then why do you think giving money to single mums is needed.

Actually some grow up to do the same.

There has to be a balance.....we have created a culture whereby having children is one possible way to escape to financial independence, knowing your needs will be catered for partner, father or not......true, things have gone overboard, it is only the government polices that have created the behaviours.......feckless fathers leave it to the state to pick up the bill, irresponsible mothers know they can have their kids and have the bills and roof covered for them.....think of the children, the innocent people in all this..........kids grow up, child benefit is lost, child tax credits disappear, everything eventually catches up in the end eventually.

[Si1]

Just been chatting on Facebook to a social worker in the Kirklees area. The bedroom tax their lack of basic forward planning has had the most impact with many of her clients and has actually made some ill, many unable to afford to come to appointments now.

Corrected

[iamnumerate]

There has to be a balance.....we have created a culture whereby having children is one possible way to escape to financial independence, knowing your needs will be catered for partner, father or not......true, things have gone overboard, it is only the government polices that have created the behaviours.......feckless fathers leave it to the state to pick up the bill, irresponsible mothers know they can have their kids and have the bills and roof covered for them.....think of the children, the innocent people in all this..........kids grow up, child benefit is lost, child tax credits disappear, everything eventually catches up in the end eventually.

It is not just government policies that have created the problem. It is people who defend them

everything eventually catches up in the end eventually.

Until recently it didn't until the changes came in people like Heather Frost would have kept their council mansion for life.

[Si1]

+1

Tax credits are the big problem due to their design.They become huge the more children you have and the less you do.HB is the same.

The 3rd problem is the add ons for disability like DLA/PIP/Carer/tax credit uplifts etc.

.

Another family have 1 member not on benefits.He buys terrace houses and then all the other family members claim HB for them.They don't live there.He rents them out instead cheap to people working who don't put down they are there.That family of 7 are pulling around £100k a year from the DWP.

.

.

Have you considered reporting this anonymously?

[winkie]

It is not just government policies that have created the problem. It is people who defend them

Until recently it didn't until the changes came in people like Heather Frost would have kept their council mansion for life.

So in a democracy the people who defend it have some say in what the policies are......in that case you are in the minority......children have to be protected and cared for.....it is a case of how easy it is made and seen to be to get there.

Whoever that is...single parents do not live in mansions unless you read the DM in that case they all do....and to add insult to injury they are laughing at you to make you feel really good about yourself......If men could have kids I am sure quite a few would knock out a few to enable them to have an excellent quality of life....not, or maybe possibly not.

[iamnumerate]

..single parents do not live in mansions unless you read the DM in that case they all do....and to add insult to injury they are laughing at you to make you feel really good about yourself......If men could have kids I am sure quite a few would knock out a few to enable them to have an excellent quality of life....not, or maybe possibly not.

Please read my signature. I put this there because of remarks like that.

"I and many others do not think the benefits system should be changed because of the Daily Mail. We think it because we see the system being abused by people we know. The single mums we know who have a nicer house than we can afford, the martial arts student we know who is too ill to work but can train martial arts to a very high standard twice a week etc."

.....If men could have kids I am sure quite a few would knock out a few to enable them to have an excellent quality of life....not, or maybe possibly not.

I am sorry what is the relevance of that remark? I am sure you are right if men could easily abuse the benefits system by having children some would. Have what has that got to do with anything.

The thing is that things could change other countries Spain, Switzerland etc don't give single parents so much money and they don't starve to death. One reason why we don't is that everytime someone suggests a change like that people start talking about the Daily Mail, Bankers, men giving birth, unicorns or anything else that can possibly change the subject from the topic. Which is we give too much money to single mums and it is indefensible. If it were defensible you would do so rather than

changing the subject.

[Bloo Loo]

So in a democracy the people who defend it have some say in what the policies are......snip

yes, two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for dinner...

[winkie]

Please read my signature. I put this there because of remarks like that.

"I and many others do not think the benefits system should be changed because of the Daily Mail. We think it because we see the system being abused by people we know. The single mums we know who have a nicer house than we can afford, the martial arts student we know who is too ill to work but can train martial arts to a very high standard twice a week etc."

I am sorry what is the relevance of that remark? I am sure you are right if men could easily abuse the benefits system by having children some would. Have what has that got to do with anything.

The thing is that things could change other countries Spain, Switzerland etc don't give single parents so much money and they don't starve to death. One reason why we don't is that everytime someone suggests a change like that people start talking about the Daily Mail, Bankers, men giving birth, unicorns or anything else that can possibly change the subject from the topic. Which is we give too much money to single mums and it is indefensible. If it were defensible you would do so rather than

changing the subject.

Not defending anything....I agree it has all got out of hand, I agree people abuse the system, I agree it has all been made so easy and acceptable........so what do you suggest? I think immediate families should be held partly responsible for caring for their grand children like they always used to.....but the government have seen to it that the high cost of living nowadays means that many of them who would have helped with childcare, finance and accommodation have to work themselves to pay the growing bills and taxes.

[EUBanana]

So when the government attacks "shirkers" and those people "with their blinds closed" whilst "hard working people" go to work, who do you think is being targeted?

Jesus Christ, the bottom line is I don't have a spare room, can't afford one, and yet am paying for that of other people. If that is "social justice" I want no part of it, as it seems like a massive injustice to me.

The people being targeted are working stiffs, like me, by the thieving tax man and the socialist ideologue behind him.

Edited July 4, 2013 by EUBanana

[EUBanana]

And I note it's not about working or shirking. It's about who is in receipt of those benefits and why. Most benefits are claimed by those in work, I'm well aware of that, and I don't begrudge the meagre JSA.

But we're not talking about unemployment benefits here anyway so the shirker label is wholly irrelevant.

[Liquid Goldfish]

Jesus Christ, the bottom line is I don't have a spare room, can't afford one, and yet am paying for that of other people. If that is "social justice" I want no part of it, as it seems like a massive injustice to me.

The people being targeted are working stiffs, like me, by the thieving tax man and the socialist ideologue behind him.

And that's exactly how Lynton Crosby wanted you to react. Can't you see this is a non-issue? There's nowhere for these people to go. Only 1 in 10 can be offered somewhere smaller. It's just politics.

[@contradevian]

Jesus Christ, the bottom line is I don't have a spare room, can't afford one, and yet am paying for that of other people. If that is "social justice" I want no part of it, as it seems like a massive injustice to me.

Fair enough.

I don't like paying for other people to buy houses, that I can't afford. (Help To Buy and numerous local Council schemes).

[SHERWICK]

And that's exactly how Lynton Crosby wanted you to react. Can't you see this is a non-issue? There's nowhere for these people to go. Only 1 in 10 can be offered somewhere smaller. It's just politics.

Can't they share or let out that spare room? I had to share while working until I turned 40.

[Liquid Goldfish]

Can't they share or let out that spare room? I had to share while working until I turned 40.

I think even scrounging scum are entitled to a little privacy.