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

Max_Headroom_3

So basically you want previously employed people chucked out of their houses ASAP in order that in the avalanche of distressed sales you might pick up a bargain?

The_White_Horse

This is what I have been saying for years. The current system, encouraged by idiotic left wingers is just an invitation for scum to breed like chav rabbits whilst decent people can't afford to eat.

It also encourages people not to save for the future. Why should I hold back now, and not enjoy myself to the max, when my chavvy pals spend all their money on booze and fags and then, when we need help, they get it, whilst I am then forced to use the money they have already wasted and I have diligently saved.

They should scrap all benefits. You should get a smallish amount of JSA for a limited period. The rest of what you get back should be based solely on what you have paid in, unless you have been assessed as unable to work by three independent doctors.

The benefits system is the biggest ponzi schem going and the idiots in charge of it should be jailed like all other con artists.

The system is NOT there to help people who need it because it CAN'T help them. It is designed to keep loads of labour voters beholden to their paymasters forever.

It should all be cancelled. as should this filthy corrupt incompetent government you cling on to power because of the vain barnacle at the helm.

dopester

Max_Headroom wrote: »

So basically you want previously employed people chucked out of their houses ASAP in order that in the avalanche of distressed sales you might pick up a bargain?

I deleted that post you refer to as I thought you might take it personally - which is not intended.

Look at it another way. You want the state to pay more in JSA so unemployed home-owners have less incentive to sell and lower their asking prices in order to do so?

You don't think JSA being boosted to unemployed home-owners would help keep market values higher than they would otherwise be?

You think that is fair to FTBs? Or other buyers who want to trade up? That they would have to put more of their own savings or take on bigger debt to buy.

Max_Headroom_3

I think you're missing the point Dopester.

I've no vested interest here in market values or whatever, unlike yourself. I own a house, I'm not trying to claim anything whatsoever toward somewhere to live therefore.

All I'm suggesting is that the lowest rung of benefits (to which I'm entitled) should allow basic survival (food and bills).

You're "get them all out their houses, poxy home owners" vendetta is starting to wear a little thin to be honest. I don't think the idea of benefits is to try and lower house prices so you can get a cheaper house.

There is no logic at all in trying to move me from someone with zero home occupation expense to someone with lots of it, we've been over all of that above.

I understand your frustration with house prices and I agree with it, and if you want to start a thread on it I'll happily join in and agree that house prices are too much.

But trying to chuck home owners out of their homes because they've lost their job and should therefore sell their abode to support themselves (immediately landing them with more expense, moving, buying, renting, whatever) is deeply flawed and very much driven by your own interests.

Max_Headroom_3

The_White_Horse wrote: »

This is what I have been saying for years. The current system, encouraged by idiotic left wingers is just an invitation for scum to breed like chav rabbits whilst decent people can't afford to eat.

It also encourages people not to save for the future. Why should I hold back now, and not enjoy myself to the max, when my chavvy pals spend all their money on booze and fags and then, when we need help, they get it, whilst I am then forced to use the money they have already wasted and I have diligently saved.

They should scrap all benefits. You should get a smallish amount of JSA for a limited period. The rest of what you get back should be based solely on what you have paid in, unless you have been assessed as unable to work by three independent doctors.

The benefits system is the biggest ponzi schem going and the idiots in charge of it should be jailed like all other con artists.

The system is NOT there to help people who need it because it CAN'T help them. It is designed to keep loads of labour voters beholden to their paymasters forever.

It should all be cancelled. as should this filthy corrupt incompetent government you cling on to power because of the vain barnacle at the helm.

Oh good grief. :rolleyes:

PasturesNew

One middle road solution might be to have a similar system to student loans (the software/system's already set up), where somebody who has been contributing for 20+ years can borrow up to £2000/year to live on, for up to 3 years, to be repaid out of salary when they do end up getting another job. So, for those who are looking for work and really expect to get back into work.

£40/week extra as a loan would hit the spot.

Even borrowing up to £1000/year would be helpful. After all, this is about saving the productive people who are motivated to get a job soonest - and probably will.

ceridwen

Couldnt agree with that Pastures New. It would discourage people from trying to get jobs - as they would instantly mentally deduct that £2,000 from the salary apparently payable for the job - to see how much they would "really" earn - I certainly would.

Also - just how long would it be before the Govt started trying to charge interest on the "loan"?

There IS only possible solution - to ensure that those perfectly employable people who are currently being thrown onto the dole queue have enough to at least manage on - and that is up a single persons rate of benefit by at least 50% instantly. As a single person who has been on benefit before - years and years ago - I can assure you that even a 50% rise wouldnt "actually" BE a rise - it would just be putting things back to the way they were before all the numerous cuts in benefit single people have suffered over the last couple of decades (and not allowing for the fact of non means-tested benefit being payable for the first YEAR - instead of the 6 months it now is). Nor would it allow for the extra income-related benefit that used to be payable initially for some months. So I reckon even a 50% rise for us would still represent somewhat of a cut from the amounts that used to be payable (which, having been on them, I can assure everyone were far from luxurious and I only managed reasonably on the previous levels of benefit because I was living in rented accommodation at that time).

One thing that concerns me is that many people (not just chavs) have always had the little "safety net" thought in their head - "Oh well...if I end up kicked onto the dole - then I can always earn a little bit extra somehow on the side to ensure I have enough to live on until I get a job again". I never had to do that myself back when I was on benefits - but it was a very reassuring "safety net" thought that stopped me having total hysterics about the low (at that point!) benefit money. These days - I strongly suspect that a lot of the little "jobs on the side" are no longer there either - or, if they are, that the "employer" has cut the pay available from them too. Hence many people will really/seriously have no option whatsoever but to try to survive on benefit only (at the much lower level its set at these days too!!!!) - and I honestly cant see it as a feasible proposition for the Govt to expect employable/intelligent/articulate people to even try to manage on that level of income for long - as, one way or another, it just wont happen (be it through honest people joining the ranks of the shoplifters temporarily or the more politically aware protesting forcibly or whatever). I certainly know JUST how angry I would be if the current low levels of benefit forced me into shoplifting to survive - part of the whole way I see myself is as an honest/decent/normal person and if that got taken away from me by some Govt policy or other that single people werent given enough benefit to survive on - then I wouldnt like to be held answerable for my actions..(even whilst I was making it quite plain all round that it hadnt been MY choice to go out shoplifting...)

.....and these days we have access to the Internet (as Max has demonstrated) to make it quite plain what is happening....

dopester

ceridwen wrote: »

and I honestly cant see it as a feasible proposition for the Govt to expect employable/intelligent/articulate people to even try to manage on that level of income for long - as, one way or another, it just wont happen (be it through honest people joining the ranks of the shoplifters temporarily or the more politically aware protesting forcibly or whatever). I certainly know JUST how angry I would be if the current low levels of benefit forced me into shoplifting to survive -

What a load of rubbish. And you suggest JSA isn't enough for food and energy and clothing - you risk getting caught if you think it isn't and feel that gives you justification for stealing from private business.

I'm sorry, but house values have trebled in many areas over 10 years. Trebled in value.

It is a ridiculous argument that people expect JSA should now pays lots more to keep unemployed people who own their houses without any mortgage, and in near the same lifestyle they are used to.

Part of the much needed adjustment in house prices is from sellers who find circumstances mean they have to sell, and sell at lower prices in order to find a buyer.

I half-sympathise with some long-term benefit claimers. House prices at the stupid levels they have been for many years, do not give people the aspiration to try and better themselves - especially if there are easier solutions to choose from. It is a deterrent for many to take on crazy levels of debt in a mortgage, for a basic property in so many areas. There hasn't been much anger at benefit culture as too many homeowners have been glorying in the values of their homes rocketing upwards for years.

mewbie_2

I haven't got time, or the will to live to read all of this. So can I ask what the conclusion was? Is Max a git or not?

btw - I think not.

lostinrates

mewbie wrote: »

I haven't got time, or the will to live to read all of this. So can I ask what the conclusion was? Is Max a git or not?

btw - I think not.

No he's not a git, we like him, but he's overdressed and need to learn not to expect caviar everyday for breakfast.

(joke Max)