Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
kjw

Labour Unveil Plan For Regional Cap On Welfare.. But Critics Hit Out At 'disturbing' Plan

Recommended Posts

THE Shadow Chancellor suggested that places with lower housing costs could face a lower welfare cap than the current £25,000 a year per household

SCOTS could get welfare benefits at lower rates than people in wealthy parts of England under plans being worked on by Labour.

Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls yesterday raised the idea of a regional cap on welfare, opening the door to variations in a range of social security benefits.

In a major speech outlining where Labour might make savings, Balls said his party would cut £200 winter fuel payments to wealthy pensioners.

But he also revealed that he was considering regional variations on the Coalition Government’s controversial welfare cap.

Balls said the welfare cap of £25,000 a year per household should be higher in London but could be lower in parts of the UK where housing is cheaper.

Balls said Labour wanted a system that “takes account of housing costs in different parts of the country”.

He added that an independent body, like the Low Pay Commission, would advise on whether the cap should be higher in high-cost housing areas like London, but potentially lower in other parts of the country.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/labour-unveil-plan-regional-cap-1930107#.U7wJHA4kUq8.twitter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was a Labour voter. This is one of the stupidest idea's I have heard. More benefits in cheap housing areas would make more sense. That would help to boost the poorer areas in Britain and encourage unemployed to move to cheaper housing stock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no welfare cap.Work/claim to be self employed 16 hours your not capped.Get 1 member of household on DLA no cap.Most of the claims involving 3+ children include DLA.

If Balls introduced one in other areas of the country people would just claim seperate.It doesnt happen so much now that tax credits are so generous but in the past on some council estates 20%+ of houses had nobody living there.The mothers just used them as "benefit drops" while living with their partner elsewhere.

Balls like IDS has no idea how welfare works,what drives it or how to reform it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was a Labour voter. This is one of the stupidest idea's I have heard. More benefits in cheap housing areas would make more sense. That would help to boost the poorer areas in Britain and encourage unemployed to move to cheaper housing stock.

I was a Labour voter. This is one of the stupidest idea's I have heard. More benefits in cheap housing areas would make more sense. That would help to boost the poorer areas in Britain and encourage unemployed to move to cheaper housing stock.

not necessarily.

could be done through median salary per region/median houseprice per region.(like london weighting)

but what you also need is lower corporation tax/commercial rents in those places to get people there working agai,that would boost the poorer areas of britain far faster than handing out more benefits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think all three of us are in agreement that giving the rich areas more than the poor doesn't make sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm if you are going down this road it's clear there needs to regional interest rates as well. That will well and truly feck London over.

How could you have regional interest rates?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no welfare cap.Work/claim to be self employed 16 hours your not capped.Get 1 member of household on DLA no cap.Most of the claims involving 3+ children include DLA.

If Balls introduced one in other areas of the country people would just claim seperate.It doesnt happen so much now that tax credits are so generous but in the past on some council estates 20%+ of houses had nobody living there.The mothers just used them as "benefit drops" while living with their partner elsewhere.

Balls like IDS has no idea how welfare works,what drives it or how to reform it.

Exactly.

When the "bash the scroungers" policies come out they hit the people who aren't actually scroungers because they can't claim even fringe membership of a "vulnerable" group. JSA for example is a real breadline income and you have to evidence that you're looking for work to get it, it should be increased.

When the spare room allowance / bedroom tax was first mooted I thought "great". There is a big problem in council housing stock (in the SW anyway) where people get a three bed because they have a family and thirty years later are living in that same house by themselves and can't be made to move into a one bed so the three bed can go to a family in need of housing (as they once were). Then the legislation exempted pensioners (as a "vulnerable" group) which made it all pretty pointless as 80% of these cases are pensioners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think all three of us are in agreement that giving the rich areas more than the poor doesn't make sense.

But I can't see someone on JSA at less than sixty quid a week moving home just tho get three quid extra a hundred miles away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was a Labour voter. This is one of the stupidest idea's I have heard. More benefits in cheap housing areas would make more sense. That would help to boost the poorer areas in Britain and encourage unemployed to move to cheaper housing stock.

Yes, it's like a lot of the coalition policies. Nibble around the edges, make the system more complicated and therefore put in more ways to game it. Hit a few people disproportionately hard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great, so more money in London to rich landlords and big business. Why not reduce the cap elsewhere and leave the cap as it is in London. Why should those that don't get benefits have to compete with those that do. The cap should be lowered each year not raised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was a Labour voter. This is one of the stupidest idea's I have heard. More benefits in cheap housing areas would make more sense. That would help to boost the poorer areas in Britain and encourage unemployed to move to cheaper housing stock.

An interesting idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An interesting idea.

Were you an English teacher Sarah? That was what I got told when I wildly misinterpreted a poem, they can't say you're actually wrong, it's a poem and about perosnal interpretation, but I soon realised "interesting" meant "wrong".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Were you an English teacher Sarah? That was what I got told when I wildly misinterpreted a poem, they can't say you're actually wrong, it's a poem and about perosnal interpretation, but I soon realised "interesting" meant "wrong".

Interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This, like London weighting, will end up being a binary system with one higher value for London ('cos it's special) and one lower value for everywhere else. A binary system is utterly ridiculous when you consider places like Oxford but that's what it'll be.

Of course, there will be massive loopholes as Durhamborn points out, and regional weighting of benefits is dubious in general (LHA, step forward) for the reasons others have stated.

Problem - house/land prices are massively inflated particularly in the SE of England

Current 'solution' - pump more benefit money into the higher priced areas. Result - prices are supported at ever higher levels.

Correct solution - enact policies to reduce house/land prices.

It's not rocket science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Were you an English teacher Sarah? That was what I got told when I wildly misinterpreted a poem, they can't say you're actually wrong, it's a poem and about perosnal interpretation, but I soon realised "interesting" meant "wrong".

No. That's an interesting idea too.

Seriously, interesting does mean interesting. Probably my use of it above was to indicate that it'd actually cause many other problems but will not actually ever see the light of day and so is irrelevant.

There's no such thing as misinterpreting a poem. If it makes something clear to you, then that's what it is.

--

Dark sooth the beast that lays within

A hollowed space in the soil

Tranquillity coming as the daylight ends

Soil thrown down into hell.

The pounding fills their heads

The crying, sobbing, bleating sound

Of those left behind fades to nought.

--

What's that about then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How could you have regional interest rates?

By getting rid of the pound, and having local currencies.

The next logical step would be to get rid of Westminster, and have local governments, if you must have government.

Big, centralized government is an industrial-era invention, and an absurd anachronism in the 21st century.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By getting rid of the pound, and having local currencies.

The next logical step would be to get rid of Westminster, and have local governments, if you must have government.

Big, centralized government is an industrial-era invention, and an absurd anachronism in the 21st century.

Federalism anyone? If it looks more like Germany it cant be bad. For the laissez-faire proponents it could also be dressed up as "regional competition".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By getting rid of the pound, and having local currencies.

The next logical step would be to get rid of Westminster, and have local governments, if you must have government.

Big, centralized government is an industrial-era invention, and an absurd anachronism in the 21st century.

I am not sure that would be a brilliant idea. However I do like the idea of more localism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's that about then?

Is it about beating central bankers and politicians to death with a spade, and burying them in a quiet place in the woods? Bliss. Peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it about beating central bankers and politicians to death with a spade, and burying them in a quiet place in the woods? Bliss. Peace.

Close enough. Very good 9/10 and some house points :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   208 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

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.