What happens to state benefit in a recession

amcluesent

Of course, so far the cutbacks on social provision have fallen exclusively on the middle-classes such as no NHS dentists and no support for parents going into care etc.

Now the cake is getting a lot smaller, very, very quickly. Unless those who are 'taking' most share some of the pain, then the alternative of withholding tax etc. isn't far away. Charity begins at home, and feeding and clothing your own family comes a long way before handing over all your cash for 'seekers' of every hue and type to enjoy.

The white-collar unemployment tsunami is going to open a lot of people's eyes. After having paid ££ tens & tens of thousands in NI, they'll find they are entitled to £58/week JSA and after 13 weeks will be expected to take anything going from bouncer to shelf-stacker. These people will be asking how it's been OK for millions to make a lifestyle choice of living off the state; social cohesion is very fragile....

PasturesNew

beingjdc wrote: »

That's not a rule! The rule (as far as I recall) is that kids over 13 of opposite sexes can't share bedrooms. A 14 year old boy can be expected to share with his 16 year old brother, and a 10 year old girl with her 3 year old brother.

OK, family of:
- one couple
- one 14 year old boy
- one 16 year old boy
- one 10 year old girl

Key that in here: https://lha-direct.therentservice.gov.uk/Secure/Calc.aspx

You get a 4 bedroom house. When in reality most families would have the boys sharing, the girl in the box room and the parents sharing (3 beds). Each child 16 or over gets their own room.

Now, the LHA for a 4-bed house is more than a 3-bed house.

Try it if you have two 16-year old twins, two 17-year old twins. That's a 5 bedroom house for LHA payment.

PasturesNew

amcluesent wrote: »

Of course, so far the cutbacks on social provision have fallen exclusively on the middle-classes such as no NHS dentists and no support for parents going into care etc.

How come no NHS dentists is for middle classes only? I've not had an NHS dentist for 10 years or more. I'm most definitely working class and have counted as under the poverty line on a number of occasions in recent years.

NHS dentists just don't exist for 40-50 miles in a lot of areas.

Kez100

Looks like the cut off is 10 years old.

We have a 10 and a 12 year old (girl and boy) and are entitled to a 3 bed.

!!!!!!? is all this entitled too. Surely I'd be happy to have a roof over our heads?

All entitled to does is serve to increase expectations rather than feeling happy to get whats allocated. Surely these places don't exist anyway so people end up in carpy waiting list accommodation fed up because their expectations haven't been met.

beingjdc

PasturesNew wrote: »

OK, family of:
- one couple
- one 14 year old boy
- one 16 year old boy
- one 10 year old girl

Key that in here: https://lha-direct.therentservice.gov.uk/Secure/Calc.aspx

You get a 4 bedroom house. When in reality most families would have the boys sharing, the girl in the box room and the parents sharing (3 beds). Each child 16 or over gets their own room.

Now, the LHA for a 4-bed house is more than a 3-bed house.

Try it if you have two 16-year old twins, two 17-year old twins. That's a 5 bedroom house for LHA payment.

OK, it's 10 for not sharing with opposite sex, and 16 for having your own room. I had slightly misremembered. I guess it's still more efficient in terms of the housing stock to have 16 year olds have their own room in a house with their family than to give them a bigger incentive to start looking for a way to get their own 1-bed place, isn't it?

I wouldn't have been impressed if I'd had to share a bedroom when I was 17, whether my father was a part-time streetsweeper or had contagious travelling pox.

Broken_hearted

SingleSue wrote: »

That is the problem though, the genuine vulnerable people will be the ones who will suffer real hardship while the career claimant will just find ways around any new rules.

It seems to pay to be dishonest........

Very true, those on the fiddle will always be able to find work as they mo where to look for cash in hand no tax from them. Those will real illness or disability who have WORKED as you can get IB unless you have worked will be the ones left suffering.
Funnily enough if my partner hadn't worked he would be healthy now as the accident happened on his way to work.

PasturesNew

beingjdc wrote: »

I wouldn't have been impressed if I'd had to share a bedroom when I was 17, whether my father was a part-time streetsweeper or had contagious travelling pox.

I had a 13 year old friend who had two sisters. Her sisters were about 17/18 and shared a room. My friend shared her parents' bedroom, she slept behind the wardrobes. In the summer she was allowed to sleep outside in the touring caravan on the front drive.

She lived.

Under these rules, that family would have been able to claim LHA and get a 4-bed house, not the 2-bed house they were actually in. They'd have been happy with a 3-bed house, but being eligible for a 4-bed would make them want/demand/get it. It just pushes up the costs to the taxpayer.

The children of owner occupiers put up with whatever cramped conditions they're stuck with.

huntersc

Depending on your economic persuasion it might make sense to increase benefit levels during a recession. It's one way of encouraging people to spend which could stimulate the economy etc etc. Those on benefits are more prone to spend extra money than those that are not. That's the problem we have now. Those with money aren't spending it, those without money can't get the credit that we need to get us out of the recession.

So rather than working on bringing back credit which is long term one suggestion would be to increase benefits by 30%. That would get the economy going again.

leveller2911

amcluesent wrote: »

Some fairness needs applied to restore balance between tax payers and benefits claimants (I mean non-contributory benefits, not pensions).

1) Declining child-benefits, 100%, 66%, 33% then nothing for 4th or greater child. Doing a 'Karen Mathews' isn't an acceptable option.
2) Non-contributory benefits paid in DSS vouchers than can only be used for food/clothes. Jetting off to Tenerife on benefits isn't acceptable.
3) A wee bit more radical, long term benefits claimants taken off electoral

roll.

I whole heartedly agree with you on all of the statement.

Stand for election!!! id vote for you...........

now wheres that 2nd bottle of St Hellier Pear cider..im feeling up-beat:beer:

leveller2911

ad9898 wrote: »

The welfare state cost £160 billion a year, time to weed through the 3 million or so, who stubbed their big toe years ago and have been claiming incapacity benefit ever since, also I think a voucher scheme for food and other essentials, to perhaps shame the 'long term scrounger' into looking for work instead of spending taxpayer money on booze, fags and lotto scratch cards, may also help.

There is alot that could be done to reform welfare that genuinely protects the vulnerable and weeds out the scroungers, Brown won't do it though as it's his block vote at a General Election.:rolleyes:

Agreed, but to be honest most of the scum on our estates dont even bother to vote, trouble is that [EMAIL="tw@t"]!!!!!![/EMAIL] in Downing St is so distant from the populous he hasnt got a clue..poor fellow....ps when I say Scum I mean the lazy,the world owes me a living benefit scum.............NOT the benefit recipients who are genuine..just wanted to point that out....