Credit Crunch Return ???

Reverbe

ceridwen wrote: »

- I believe peeps used to be paid sufficient housing benefit to cover their rent level - WITHOUT querying whether they had accommodation that was "too big" for them and forced to move to smaller accommodation if they became unemployed

.

when I was unemployed after Uni I got Housing Benefit in full but it was deliberate that it never quite covered ALL your rent. Eg if it was 95 I would get 85 or similar..:undecided

GreyQueen

Hmmm, very-though provoking thread, this one.

scottishminnie ((hugs)) that business at yoour workplace sounds vile and disgusting and I sincerely hope that you never have to experience the like again. One of my mates is a tax inspector but he rapidly learned to keep schtumm about that when out socially. He'd say that people would either produce a P.60 from a pocket and demand that he explain their tax code or berate him about national tax policy.

My home city has a large migrant EU worker population, predominantly Polish but with a smattering of Lituanians and other, mainly Eastern European workers. My work brings me into contact with a lot of people who have come as adults to live and work in the UK (some as colleagues and some as clients) and overall, I find them impressive in their ethos of hard work and the gumption to get off their aspidistras and set forth into an unknown country.

From my volunteering at the CAB, we would see a lot of E.U. migrants who were doing field-ork and being shockingly-treated by employers; paid below minimum wage, illegal deductions from wages, packed 30 to a small house in unsanitary and expensive employer-owned accomodation. There are several people who have made millions off the sweat of migrant labour in this region, and migrants who have had to return to their own countries after ending up destitute in the U.K. when they couldn't find work and had nowhere to live.

Nearby to my flat, squalid camps of destitute migrants are regularly cleared from shrubberies and waste ground in a so-called affluent and civilised country. It makes me feel ashamed of Britian's reputation overseas when these people go home and talk about us.:(

However, I don't think any politician had a clue about what would happen if you allow the free movement of labour across the E.U.; my hometown's population increased by 27% in just 4 years. The primary healthcare (G.P. practices) buckled under the strain and the GPs in that town had to close their lists.

I talk to colleagues in the education dept and they admit that the schools around here are chronically over-subscribed and that many indigenous British people cannot get their children into the schools they want because of the life-choices of other Europeans in coming to settle here.

I'm not a Little Englander, nor a member of any political party, and I wouldn't give the time of day to the rightwingers but I honestly have very serious concerns for social harmony.

It's one thing to share resources when resources are plentiful but, when people start to struggle and feel scared, it's a sorry fact of human nature that some people will pick on the outsiders in the community and blame them for their woes. We're seeing it already; low level harrassment which is nonetheless distressing for the victims.

In my job (customers services for a council) we are trained not to allow customers to be racially-abusive unchallenged but we always have people coming out with tripe like; "If I was black/ if I had a turban...." etc etc ad nauseum. I called one gentleman on this only last week on the phone and pointed out that a) it's untrue and b) I'd terminate the call if he carried on in that vein. He back-pedalled p.d.q and ended up being very apologetic but it happens to me and my colleagues a lot. A couple of my immediate colleagues are from Eastern Europe and speak fluent but accented English and it's not a all unusual for them to be verbally-abused by the public.

I also see a great deal of bone-idleness among the citizenry of this place and have neighbours who haven't done a day's paid employment since the last century (no physical or mental health problems to account of it, either) and come across people who have child tax credit awards of £11k !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Our council's benefits assessors earn about £14k gross if f/t (and many are p/t to fit around their childcare and have the joyful experience of calculating benefit entitlements for people who are better off on the social than they are in work.

I regard that as morally-wrong.

Slightly more on-topic, this hyper-inflation of the necessities of food and fuel is getting both frigtening and ridiculous. I haven't seen a pay-rise in years and feel blessed to have a job but the spending power of my wages is being progressively-eroded and it does make a body fearful of the future.

Still, there's always the tinned tomato stash under the bed to fall back on......hopefully not literally!

ceridwen

Reverbe wrote: »

when I was unemployed after Uni I got Housing Benefit in full but it was deliberate that it never quite covered ALL your rent. Eg if it was 95 I would get 85 or similar..:undecided

I have a feeling that you are a fair bit younger than me Reverbe - not hard (as at my age - one heck of a lot of peeps are younger than me by now:(). With that - maybes you came out of University a few years after I personally experienced unemployment? From t'best of my memory it used to be the case that all the rent was covered once upon a time (but refusing to pay all due rent is something that came along as one of the cuts in benefit subsequent to that time). The DHSS (as it was at the time) might have put a cap on rents they called particularly expensive? Dont know on that? But I dont think any rents that the "ordinary reasonable person in the street thinks are fair" were capped all those years back.

One thing that seems to have been the same throughout is a certain level of "overlooking" some of the benefit due to a claimant. Back when benefit was comprised of all those various separate bits (which, together, came to a lot more than nowadays) this was not infrequent certainly. I know they informed me at one point of what benefit I would be due - and I had to promptly turn round and put the woman saying this right:mad:. Funny that she didnt seem at all surprised or apologetic when she got told "Actually - you've forgotten this/that/such and such".....:cool:;). I probably had an advantage over her - I had a copy of a book laying out all claimants rights and benefit rates...:D:rotfl::D

*************************

GREYQUEEN
Echo everything you said lass. I must admit that, back all those years back when the idea of free movement of labour between EEC countries was mooted that I thought it was a jolly good idea. In my naivety - I assumed that we would all shift to and fro between all the countries equally and it would all be a bit "share and share alike" and get to know the "neighbours" so to say. But it hasnt worked out that way and I think anyway our fellow Europeans are the least of our worries - at least none of them try and change our society for the worse - and many do have a better work ethic than some of the British. I am astonished at reading just how poorly-qualified many British people are when they come out of school - and having given up expressing shock when even those that say "Oh..me...I'm intelligent...I have A levels and/or degree" and biting back "Then why cant you spell? (except those who have genuine reasons for not being able to do so, eg dyslexia)" Back at the lower ages (ie those going to school for the first time) - I have had teachers telling me personally that many children are turning up at school at age 5 way behind already (as their parents havent even bothered to teach them to feed themselves properly/dress themselves properly/talk properly and even occasionally havent even bothered to potty train them forgawdsake). Grrrr...why DO all these peeps who dont want children have them? Dont all answer "money" at once....

I do think the time has come now to break all contact - urgently - at a political/financial level with the rest of Europe - as its dragged our finances down on the one hand and been part of the reason for our increasing overpopulation on the other hand. I have certainly read too about parts of Britain that are being absolutely overwhelmed with demand on Welfare State (schools/health care/etc) - and those parts that dont experince this I feel may be being overwhelmed in other ways (ie as British people are even more likely to decide to move to them) and get over-development/building on countryside and peoples gardens etc as a result.

Going4TheDream

The benefits system overhaul is long over from the point of view it is over complicated with too many types of benefits and is complicated for staff (many on not more than minimum wage) trying to administer, leading to mistakes being made. It is open to fraud and abuse which we read about so often in the papers. We also see a number of people (not all) see it as a career option as they refuse to work for low wages as they will be worse off, lots of girls/woman have used the system to avoid work by having lots of children on benefits when hard working families struggle to afford one or two children and don't have them because they cant afford them. I am sorry but I could never get my head round the idea that a family earning up to £60k could be entitled to tax credits. That someone could be paid £400 a week housing benefit to live in certain areas that they certainly wouldn't be able to afford to if they worked, seems like madness to me and definatley time for a change?

ceridwen

I certainly wouldnt dispute that the benefits system is indeed due for an overhaul - just what parts of it need rehauling (ie the part that has allowed women to have children as a career option). My worry is that childless people/couples are being affected as well. Obviously too people arent entitled to some huge rent level (ie much higher than they could afford IN work) - as per some Central London rents. But I do feel peeps should be covered for whatever level of rent they are already paying (assuming they can afford it normally whilst in work).

That was another thing back in my days of unemployment career options for women were basically seen as nursing, office work or shopwork or "That one is a career woman". These days it probably boils down to whatever job one can get/children as a career option (at the States - ie everyone elses - expense)/being a yummy mummy (ie finding a man who can provide financial support for living in the style to which one would like to become accustomed).

blackandwhitebunny

For a long time I've thought that one way to overhaul the benefits system would be to only pay benefits for two (or three) children per mother. Obviously it couldn't be retro-active, but why couldn't they just set a date say 12 months away and apply it from then. So everyone would get child benefit but only for two children, the maximum child tax credits would be set at two children and if you have more you have to fund them yourself. Housing benefit could be set the same way - the maximum always being for a three bed house. I would go so far as too say that Mum's should only get benefits if non-working until the second child is seven, if they have more they should have to be able to afford them.
I know that for some people this probably sounds quite radical but why should people have children that they can't afford to care for.
Its also good environmental sense as it would encourage fewer children and that is probably the greenest thing we could do.
Okay off the soap box now:p

Going4TheDream

ceridwen wrote: »

I certainly wouldnt dispute that the benefits system is indeed due for an overhaul - just what parts of it need rehauling (ie the part that has allowed women to have children as a career option). My worry is that childless people/couples are being affected as well. Obviously too people arent entitled to some huge rent level (ie much higher than they could afford IN work) - as per some Central London rents. But I do feel peeps should be covered for whatever level of rent they are already paying (assuming they can afford it normally whilst in work).

That was another thing back in my days of unemployment career options for women were basically seen as nursing, office work or shopwork or "That one is a career woman". These days it probably boils down to whatever job one can get/children as a career option (at the States - ie everyone elses - expense)/being a yummy mummy (ie finding a man who can provide financial support for living in the style to which one would like to become accustomed).

this may sound harsh but claimants should only be able to claim for the number of children they have at the start of the claim. It is not the taxpayers responsibility to pay for their lifestyle choice when they have more children and clearly have no means to support them.

I would prefer my tax £'s to be given to the real vulnerable people like an increase in the pension for the elderly and the DLA for those who genuinely need it.

With regard to the housing benefit it is hard to say what is best to do, BTL landlords are making £1000's on the back of the taxpayer funding housing benefit, and if benefits were capped then maybe rents would come down? I don't think anyone making a new claim should be allowed to live in accommodation that over meets their needs in both size and cost and again if someone is living in a rented place and loses their job it would be unfair not to pay their rent however the question I would ask would be for how long would you pay the high rent? a year... two years?? people who have mortgages that they can no longer afford dont get government help and have to move when their circumstances change, why should this be any different for people in rented accommodation....??????

dandy-candy

blackandwhitebunny wrote: »

For a long time I've thought that one way to overhaul the benefits system would be to only pay benefits for two (or three) children per mother. Obviously it couldn't be retro-active, but why couldn't they just set a date say 12 months away and apply it from then. So everyone would get child benefit but only for two children, the maximum child tax credits would be set at two children and if you have more you have to fund them yourself. Housing benefit could be set the same way - the maximum always being for a three bed house. I would go so far as too say that Mum's should only get benefits if non-working until the second child is seven, if they have more they should have to be able to afford them.
I know that for some people this probably sounds quite radical but why should people have children that they can't afford to care for.
Its also good environmental sense as it would encourage fewer children and that is probably the greenest thing we could do.
Okay off the soap box now:p

But the problem is it wouldn't work. There will always be people intentionally having large families, often on religious reasons. I live in a very Jewish area and the orthodox Jews locally have 5 children plus per family as the norm. I have no idea if they claim benefits but either way they would keep having lots of kids. Now some might say that its their job to pay for them, but seriously I don't ever want to live in a country where you see malnourished kids dressed in rags because the benefit systems says "Tough luck - you shouldn't have had so many kids"

Reverbe

ceridwen wrote: »

I have a feeling that you are a fair bit younger than me Reverbe - not hard (as at my age - one heck of a lot of peeps are younger than me by now:(). With that - maybes you came out of University a few years after I personally experienced unemployment? From t'best of my memory it used to be the case that all the rent was covered once upon a time (but refusing to pay all due rent is something that came along as one of the cuts in benefit subsequent to that time). The DHSS (as it was at the time) might have put a cap on rents they called particularly expensive? Dont know on that? But I dont think any rents that the "ordinary reasonable person in the street thinks are fair" were capped all those years back.
.

Left Uni in the early 90s.. so maybe - tho am old myself but at that stage 95 or 85 a month was not an expensive rent for the area of Leeds I lived in???

ceridwen

blackandwhitebunny wrote: »

For a long time I've thought that one way to overhaul the benefits system would be to only pay benefits for two (or three) children per mother. Obviously it couldn't be retro-active, but why couldn't they just set a date say 12 months away and apply it from then. So everyone would get child benefit but only for two children, the maximum child tax credits would be set at two children and if you have more you have to fund them yourself. Housing benefit could be set the same way - the maximum always being for a three bed house. I would go so far as too say that Mum's should only get benefits if non-working until the second child is seven, if they have more they should have to be able to afford them.
I know that for some people this probably sounds quite radical but why should people have children that they can't afford to care for.
Its also good environmental sense as it would encourage fewer children and that is probably the greenest thing we could do.
Okay off the soap box now:p

Just having a little grin to myself - as if you think you sound radical on this - you should meet me:rotfl::rotfl:. I agree with no further children being paid for in future (with 10 months notice that any born from here on in will have their costs covered by their parents) and dont actually agree with child no 1 or child no 2 being paid towards by the State either.

As for the parents of children that are already being paid this - then means-testing should be applied and not just being handed money automatically for having children regardless.

Back many years back - then child tax allowances recognised that having children was (at that point in history) not under peoples control in the pre-effective contraception era. It was felt that children shouldnt suffer because of their parents' circumstances.
We've now had effective contraception etc for many years and what we HAVE seen is some children suffering because they have been born not because they were wanted for themselves but because there are women who decided to have children just for the sake of the money the State would give them for doing so BUT didnt make the corresponding decision to bring them up properly and with love. Sorta defeated the object to pay those unwilling mothers to have children they wouldnt otherwise have...:(