The recession, benefits, the safety net, and the learning curve

dopester

I know you've been paying off your mortgage Max.... but you, and many other homeowners, have had the glory of seeing their homes appreciate incredibly in value over the last 10 years. A lot more if you've owned some years before that... except for those who've upsized along the way and added a lot of further debt to do so. A bear market can really hurt them.

You seem very worked-up about the unfairness of those who don't own but receive higher benefits, and seemingly have more disposable income.

I've got contact in a major sportswear factory, and we get really cheap gear from the staff shop, in the warehouse. Hugely discounted prices. Also previously I've bought £100 Nike Air trainers from ebay for £27. Maybe this woman got some deal as well?

Having trainers and a car, and housing benefit taking care of you --- you got to balance that up from your HPI. Why didn't you complain about it before the recession/depression?

Admittedly the HPI glory is less so for owners who've only bought in the last few years and have already seen up to 20% of their gains wiped away.

pipkin71

Max_Headroom wrote: »

I'd suggest that that depends very much on your circumstances. Certainly (as I said in my initial posts) someone I know who's been on benefits as long as I've known her lives in a nice little house, drives around in a nice little car and seems to be able to fund a nice little lifestyle.

£130 Nikes for her sons birthday recently doesn't exactly smack of a very grim existence...

And do you know exactly how she funded those trainers?

Did she get a loan from the provident? Did she get a loan off the DSS? Did she save some of her money each week?

I agree, it does depend on circumstances. The more children you have or the level of disability can mean you have a comfortable lifestyle with regards money coming in. I would also say though that I think the majority would rather have their health than the extra benefits being disabled allows.

Graham_Devon

pipkin71 wrote: »

And do you know exactly how she funded those trainers?

I went to work, she made some money out of me going to work, and then spent in on trainers.

lostinrates

pipkin71 wrote: »

And do you know exactly how she funded those trainers?

Did she get a loan from the provident? Did she get a loan off the DSS? Did she save some of her money each week?

I agree, it does depend on circumstances. The more children you have or the level of disability can mean you have a comfortable lifestyle with regards money coming in. I would also say though that I think the majority would rather have their health than the extra benefits being disabled allows.

Recently I was trying to help someone who came to me to help them.This person lives entirely on benefits and credit cards and now has significant, credit card debt.

As well as benefits they get a chatible grant for contribution to fuel for car and telephone bills. HB pays for a beautiful cottage on a country estate, children are paid for by other people (family) to go to private school. Adults and children dress in ''good'' clothes. You'd think they were every rich.

I wasn't clear whether the extra items were declared/needed to be declared when assessing this persons need.

Despite helping the person quantify there indebtedness to go for help to someone able to help them vi CAB they do not seem to have got a grip on spending.

I guess a lot of the ''wealth'' we see is actually debt, regardless of whther it is a benefit or work income.

JayScottGreenspan

To those apologists of the system, how would these changes strike you:
1) A higher rate of JSA for the first six months, linked to the number of years NI contributions. People who have worked often have commitments to meet. People who have never worked do not, they need less, and should get less to encourage them to find work.
2) Workless couples with kids getting benefits equivalent to £30k gross pay is an incentive to not work and to breed. Free childcare, guaranteed full-time minimum wage job opportunities, benefits contingent on working.
3) There is not enough council housing, and people with kids get priority. Another incentive to breed. Build more council housing. Reverse some of the damage Thatcher inflicted on our society. Build nice modest terraced houses where the community has a chance. Quit with the Le Corbusier slums.
4) People on minimum wage pay tax and have benefits withdrawn to the extent that they are approximately sod all better off then those who don't work. Over a period of years the nil rate tax band should be gradually increased towards the level of the minimum wage. The basic and top bands can increase to compensate.

I'm not saying all these ideas are pefect. But they at least merit discussion.

Will such ideas ever be seriously discussed by parliament? No, of course not. Because it's not popular. And it's not popular because your average student or guardian or independent reader has a very precious little ego. Some issues they prefer not to discuss. They prefer to dismiss them out of hand: "it's not a perfect system, but it's good enough", "why focus on benefits when we lose more in tax evasion". Whatever rationalisation allows them to forget the issue fits the bill. Whatever system they happened to inherit they would argue shoud not be fine-tuned or improved.

Never mind that they are abandoning communities in the thrall of the poverty trap - how does that fit with their precious little egos? Never mind that Max has paid tax all his life and can't afford to eat whilst paying the bills that he, as a working man, committed to.

pipkin71

lostinrates wrote: »

I guess a lot of the ''wealth'' we see is actually debt, regardless of whther it is a benefit or work income.

I can believe that lostinrates.

dopester

JayScottGreenspan wrote: »

Will such ideas ever be seriously discussed by parliament? No, of course not. Because it's not popular. And it's not popular because your average student or guardian or independent reader has a very precious little ego. Some issues they prefer not to discuss. They prefer to dismiss them out of hand: "it's not a perfect system, but it's good enough", "why focus on benefits when we lose more in tax evasion". Whatever rationalisation allows them to forget the issue fits the bill. Whatever system they happened to inherit they would argue shoud not be fine-tuned or improved.

Hard to argue now. Client state isn't likely to welcome or vote for any party who wants to bring in cuts and reform. Should imagine they are very used to the benefits they've been entitled to. Have we also had a coarsening of the mob.. in values and ethics, along with easy benefits? All the benefit culture has at least kept them from uprising.

The tribune Publius Clodius launched one of history's first welfare programs by arming some of Rome's poor in the fifties B.C. This significantly increased the threat of urban violence. It therefore obliged the government to buy-off the potentially more violent mob by offering free food - the first instalment of the infamous "bread and circuses."

The urban mob became increasingly menacing from that point forward because its military power had been decisively enhanced. Even so, the power of the poor was that of an incendiary device.

Once the dole was introduced, the size of the bribe it entailed naturally tended to escalate over time. The availability of free food made opportunities in the workplace even less attractive to large numbers of the Roman poor. So they stopped working. As the size of the mob rose, it became more important. And greater efforts were extended by factions of the leadership to manipulate it.

There also seems to have been a coarsening of the mob itself, which became less self-sufficient and more prone to violence as time passed. Remember the grim logic of the bread and circuses. It could be replayed.

In any event, the great majority of the poor never had a voice in the Roman system, except in later times as a mob. The poor could be ignored while they were militarily insignificant. Although weaponry was primitive by today's standards, its relative costs were high. Effective arms were hard to come by, all the more so because manufacture was monopolised in state factories. Later, when uproar in the streets because a major factor in the power equation, Rome had ceased to be a republic.

lostinrates

dopester wrote: »

Hard to argue now. Client state isn't likely to welcome or vote for any party who wants to bring in cuts and reform. Should imagine they are very used to the benefits they've been entitled to. Have we also had a coarsening of the mob.. in values and ethics, along with easy benefits? All the benefit culture - along with so much chav TV, has at least kept them from uprising.

Its a problem IMO, a huge problem of our mindset that limits us in so many ways in this country. I'd love to see the lower taxband raised and the system simplified so that people on ''decent''incomes are not recieving money back, but living same standard of living by paying less tax.

I think its very hard for people to vote against money in their pockets in the form of tax credits etc etc (apologies if I have the name wrong). I don't blame people for that. But we would, INMO, benefit from a change in attitude, not just financially, but in state of mind, desire to acheive and work.

Max_Headroom_3

dopester wrote: »

I know you've been paying off your mortgage Max.... but you, and many other homeowners, have had the glory of seeing their homes appreciate incredibly in value over the last 10 years.

So what?? What on earth difference does that make?

Hello Mr. Butcher I'd like some pork chops please.

Certainly sir that'll be £3 please.

Err, I have'nt got any actual money Mr. Butcher, but hey, my house has gone up loads!!

You can't spend HPI you know, not without selling your house. You can only borrow against it which, as many are suddenly finding, has to be paid back.

A lot more if you've owned some years before that... except for those who've upsized along the way and added a lot of further debt to do so. A bear market can really hurt them.

You seem very worked-up about the unfairness of those who don't own but receive higher benefits, and seemingly have more disposable income.

And you seem very worked up about what my house is worth!

It shines through in most of your posts.

I've got contact in a major sportswear factory, and we get really cheap gear from the staff shop, in the warehouse. Hugely discounted prices. Also previously I've bought £100 Nike Air trainers from ebay for £27. Maybe this woman got some deal as well?

Nope, went to a shop and bought them.

Having trainers and a car, and housing benefit taking care of you --- you got to balance that up from your HPI. Why didn't you complain about it before the recession/depression?

Admittedly the HPI glory is less so for owners who've only bought in the last few years and have already seen up to 20% of their gains wiped away.

Here we go again. Look, I'm really really sorry that I own a house (And I'm guessing from the tone of your posts that you don't, presumably due to dreaded HPI, and I'm really sorry about that too) ok?

But whether it's worth a pound or a million pounds right now is completely irrelevent. Honestly, I just live in it.

Please read my first post again, my point is that the injustice in the system that supports many workshy people completely yet will not support those who have worked but believed we have a safety net in this country, and that supporting the workshy culture was a necessary corollary of the supposed safety net, is about to be brought home to many. I'm just one example of this.

dopester

Max_Headroom wrote: »

> You can't spend HPI you know, not without selling your house. You can only borrow against it which, as many are suddenly finding, has to be paid back.

> And you seem very worked up about what my house is worth!

> It shines through in most of your posts.

> Here we go again. Look, I'm really really sorry that I own a house (And I'm guessing from the tone of your posts that you don't, presumably due to dreaded HPI, and I'm really sorry about that too) ok?

> But whether it's worth a pound or a million pounds right now is completely irrelevent. Honestly, I just live in it.

Please read my first post again, my point is that the injustice in the system that supports many workshy people completely yet will not support those who have worked but believed we have a safety net in this country, and that supporting the workshy culture was a necessary corollary of the supposed safety net, is about to be brought home to many. I'm just one example of this.

I think it is very relevant.

If you had a house, with no debt secured on it, value of £250,000... £500,000, or £1 million You have an asset of value. You have the choice to sell it, go rent somewhere else with the money release, or downsize to a house of lower value, in perhaps a less affluent area. By selling and renting or downsizing... you could get off benefits immediately and perhaps even start your own business with some of the money released.

Instead you expect the benefits system to support you with higher benefits, when you have such an asset of significant value.... because it is just a house? Whilst also complaining the benefits are not enough to comfortably get by on...

By my way of thinking the system leaves people in your situation with the choice to make... and it is part of the process. I know it sounds harsh, and it isn't personal but just addressing the issue, but others can come in who can afford the home and to run it, without just scraping by on JSA. It is all part of market readjustment. You have a few options, and the JSA is not much higher else it would hinder with market readjustments.

I know the other stuff is injustice... but I can't help but see it as would-be injustice if people who own homes valued at say £500,000... but little by way of savings and income.... got big increases in benefit, allowing them to comfortably keep those homes, without being forced to make adjustments or even liquidate. Even for home owners with homes valued at £70,000 or £100,000. If they can't make good from it, they can get housing benefit in the future.