Taxpayer funds familys £1,600 per week rent - The Times

the_ash_and_the_oak

Lets just say you have an island with 100 working age people on it and 95 of them work. And then another island is discovered 1500 miles away where people will work for half the price, but 60 of the jobs on our island have to be done right here but we could shift 35 jobs to the other island and make things a lot cheaper and save ourselves some money

We're quite a bit better off now but we do have only 60 of the 100 working age people actually working.

What do we think of the 40 people that don't and what would we like to become of them?

lostinrates

the_ash_and_the_oak wrote: »

Lets just say you have an island with 100 working age people on it and 95 of them work. And then another island is discovered 1500 miles away where people will work for half the price, but 60 of the jobs on our island have to be done right here but we could shift 35 jobs to the other island and make things a lot cheaper and save ourselves some money

We're quite a bit better off now but we do have only 60 of the 100 working age people actually working.

What do we think of the 40 people that don't and what would we like to become of them?

I got lost...fantasy islands , fantasy people. maybe the 40 peeple can be stay at home parents. Or artists. Or create new oppertunities for themselves. Or,noe the other island is involved, be liguists that weren't needed before, and administrators not needed before. Or chat bout economics on websites.

ILW

elaina79 wrote: »

So if a family of 5 were living in private rented 3 bedroom house. They were happily working until 1 of them became ill. The other partner then had to give up work to look after the family. They are now totally reliant on benefits but couldn't afford to live in their home without the aid of LHA.
Once the person gets better then they will both go back to work and come off the benefits. Are you saying then that in the time that they cannot work through no fault of their own they should either be homeless or live in a 1 bedroom flat.

If the LHA is limited to say 6 months and then they need to move to something more modest. This would save benefits becoming a lifestyle option.

MrsE_2

carolt wrote: »

The argument, I believe, is that the children's education would be interrupted - they'd have to move school. But given they've already moved from Maida Vale to Edgware Road, that obviously doesn't apply. Personally, if that was an issue, I'd offer them the choice of a small council place - or a couple, if they can't find a 4/5 bed, say, given they've already agreed to be split up as a family - in the current area, or if they didn't like that, a cheap but bigger place out in rural Wales or somewhere cheap.

After all, it's not as though they need to be near to their place of work. :rolleyes:

I thought there was supposed to be a ceiling on housing allowance or whatever it's called now? Surely £1600/week must be above any ceiling? If not - then clearly the madmen who invented the ceiling need to be locked up for all our sakes.

I think council/social housing & rent benefit supported housing should be capped at three bedrooms, if you want a big family FUND IT YOURSELF.

I also disagree with the DSS lining landlords pockets with tax payers money. Rent should be capped at the equalivent for a studio/one/two/three bedroom council propery in that area.

elaina79

tripled wrote: »

I don't understand why housing/jobseekers/income support benefit isn't simply capped at minimum wage x 37.5 hours per week. Taxes and non-means tested benefits (e.g child support) can then be given on top.

The two adults would then receive a maximum of £28,464.80 per year before tax and including child benefits (assuming the kids are all under 16). Those are the means working people have to be able to live within Simples.

Even if the whole lot (10 of them) were over 18, benefit would be capped at a maximum of £113,100 per year before tax - high yes, but at least there would be a limit.

Thats good coz that is what my housing/income support equals per month.:j On top of that I get my child related benefits and carers benefit. BTW my carers benefit equals about £1.52 per hour, its this that needs to change.
While I was working I was in receipt of LHA plus the child related benefits. Since I have stopped working the only extra help I get is income support and carers allowance which is about £500 short of what my monthly wage was. My main gripe is the face that my carers allowance is classed as a taxable income and is deducted from my income support. I can't wait for us to go back to work as we will be a little over £800 per month better off.

moggylover

lostinrates wrote: »

AHA, an animal analogy! And I agree. So, why are rich/acheiving dogs different to poor ones?

Simples folks! The rich/achieving dog has been raised well and not kicked in the teeth by the owner or those around it:D

The dog learns simply by reward! I can take you to people ALL around the Country for whom "reward" does not and has never existed! Where years of hard work came to nothing at all in the last recession (although the fault for that failure rested once again with the super rich and their need for boom and bust and a labour surplus). Their children, often well enough raised within their own homes, were at risk from their good behaviour on the mean streets in which they lived and learnt "street smarts" in order to survive and whole communities that had once been proud and hard working (the Welsh valleys for instance) fell into a despair that NO-ONE in Government at that time cared about.

Attempts since have been half-hearted at best! TBH, it is something that I have worked on and I find myself ending up sleepless and beaten because we had simply left it too long before anyone wanted to do anything about it and thus the clean up cost will be immense and quite terrifying!

For those that prospered well under the Thatcher government I am sure that they do not feel a single iota of guilt that she took these people to the cleaners and then could not even manage to be magnanimous in victory! Not only had they been beaten and lost the livelihoods that they had worked damned hard in for many years - but they were to be further punished by being ignored from there on in because they had no power to argue with her!

Had she immediately turned around and pushed for there to be proper inward investment to this area at that time then her actions would have spoken of a decent intent in the entire matter.

That she first broke them and then ignored what the long-term cost to them AND the Country would be in leaving them high and dry speaks only to a vast well of cruelty and a seriously sick degree of megalomania!


If I teach, for example,sit I shape the movement and reward. One of the skills of a fair animal trainer is to accept some dogs are not cut out for advanced obediane, and some are not cut out for non working roles. In forcing all dogs to show, obedience train and be family pets we place incredible pressure on those that can't do one role well....it suits those who are all purpose dogs, but not those who excell at one thing. Even if that thing is being a pet.The lives, the roles, and the rewards are different for each role, but as valuable to society. But the method of training, in my world is mainly positive reinforcment, whether thats getting my families rather obtuse dog to sit, or my own dog to passage..positve reinforcement, all the way!

(sadly dogs have little choice. _

Positive reinforcment just SO seldom exists at the bottom of the heap. Those families that try hard to raise their kids right are up against such huge social deprivation problems that it is like climbing Everest in bare feet!

There is MANY a rich pooch out there whose life (despite its lack of personal choice) is far kinder and more treasured than the human lives at the bottom of the pile. Furthermore, we ARE more likely to accept and respect the differences in different breeds of dogs than we are in human beings instead expecting absolutely everyone to live by our own tennents or condemning them as "scum".

elaina79

ILW wrote: »

If the LHA is limited to say 6 months and then they need to move to something more modest. This would save benefits becoming a lifestyle option.

Having a partner with a disability isn't really a lifestyle option though is it. I can see how people will become used to living off benefits, but for many they have no choice.
I feel that during discussions like this people seem to merge the 'won't works' with the 'can't works'. I just wish that people could live a day in the life of a carer and what they go through. I know there are a few people on here who's next response will be that I have chosen to become a carer. Well yes I did, 8 years ago when I stood in a room full of people and made my vowes. I vowed to stand by my husband in sickness and in health, at the time neither of us realised how applicable that was going to become.

lostinrates

moggylover wrote: »

Positive reinforcment just SO seldom exists at the bottom of the heap. Those families that try hard to raise their kids right are up against such huge social deprivation problems that it is like climbing Everest in bare feet!

There is MANY a rich pooch out there whose life (despite its lack of personal choice) is far kinder and more treasured than the human lives at the bottom of the pile. Furthermore, we ARE more likely to accept and respect the differences in different breeds of dogs than we are in human beings instead expecting absolutely everyone to live by our own tennents or condemning them as "scum".

Moggy lover, reward does exist. For one, Education is a treasure available to EVERY child in this country, the child has to attend and work. that is reward. It may be undervalued, but it is reward. There are others...parental pride, pride in onesself, cheivement (you and others have taken pride from the rewards gained by your hard work). These are not insignificant, they are undervalued.

I'm not going to enter into the Thatcherism argument today, for one...I really am too young to comment much on first hand knowledge and second, I'm having a grotty head/brain day....I probably thought too hard yesterday :rotfl:, but we allow freedom of movement in this country. Industries like mining seem to be not as black and white as political groupies on both side like to proclaim.

ETA: actually...just want to add the scum thing...again something suggested a lot of right of centre people think (and they o, one sees it here, but I find the implication this classification is applied by all of us to be quite offensive). But I AGREE we acknowledge the different ''apptitudes of dogs far more easily than in people (perhaps because we are too reliant on eyes and shallow judgement?). This IMO, is a confused and garbled interpretation of equality, whih equalaity of servie centrally only compounds, and why we need MORE diversity of private investment, more engagement by people from outside the system with different vantages of how they can pay back into a less...controlling...governance.

moggylover

zygurat789 wrote: »

Yes if you are not paying benefit then the money is there for wages for these jobs.
BUT when a recession ends and the wealth creating sector picks up there has to be a mechanism to move them from the public to the private sector ie a low wage.
It all comes down to the balance between the public and private sectors,
this is actually very difficult to control once it has been decided where the balance is, as a result we vere from one side to the other.

BTW you two girls are having a fine debate.

I would agree to some extent zygurat. However, we need to ask ourselves whether that "low wage" is a liveable amount that grants that working person a "life"!

If it does not, then the public in general need to face the fact that once again they want things: but they do not want to pay for them!

NO-ONE imo, should be asked to be productive if they simply cannot afford to live reasonably well in the Country they are working in.

There are many on here that consider that benefit levels are too high because one CAN end up better off than in work! For myself, I believe that in the majority of cases that simply means that the wage levels are incorrectly low in view of the cost of living and that either the consumer will just have to suck up higher costs, or the tax payer will have to pick up the slack with higher taxes, OR (my favourite) we plug the loopholes in the tax system that allows a millionaire to be paying less tax per annum than the guy on £40/£50K.

We do also, however, need to shut down the loopholes that allow people to keep breeding like rabbits and claiming for the resultant progeny I agree.

ILW

elaina79 wrote: »

Having a partner with a disability isn't really a lifestyle option though is it. I can see how people will become used to living off benefits, but for many they have no choice.
I feel that during discussions like this people seem to merge the 'won't works' with the 'can't works'. I just wish that people could live a day in the life of a carer and what they go through. I know there are a few people on here who's next response will be that I have chosen to become a carer. Well yes I did, 8 years ago when I stood in a room full of people and made my vowes. I vowed to stand by my husband in sickness and in health, at the time neither of us realised how applicable that was going to become.

But are you living in a luxury house that 99% of working people could not afford, being paid for by them very people?