MSE News: Prime Minister David Cameron plans welfare crackdown

ani_26

I personally invite David Cameron to live with me for a month, and then see what he has to say on welfare crackdowns. Any more cracks, and the ground will swallow me up.

skintmacflint

business_man wrote: »

I never said China, tax havens like Seychelles are more than happy to accommodate the billionaire's you want out.

High earners use tax avoidance because no living soul should have to pay 50% +NI on top of their hard earned income. Simple as.

If your priority becomes to close the loop holes and raise taxes then I am afraid like of Jim Moore will be common place.

I know JM as he was in my trade.

But the problem is they don't even pay 40% tax, more like less than 10%. Which is why we have the crazy situation of a billionaire admitting he pays less tax than his domestic staff. Because they can get away with it, and feel entitled. Which isn't much different from all the benfit scroungers is it?

Let's not forget fat cat greed for profits costs UK 28 billion to top up all the part time NMW jobs out there, a further 10 billion toward Housing costs for poorly paid each year. Financial sector meltdown cost us over 100 billion.

Last year the top 5% on UK's wealth list increased their wealth by 120 billion.

People are fed up with fat cats, tax avoiders and benefit scroungers. Don't keep singling out 1 group of society only for the UK's problems. Last man who did that ended up shooting himself in a bunker I seem to remember.

CKhalvashi

Lifes_Grand_Plan wrote: »

I'm not sure where you have repeated yourself the first time, but hey-ho, you are a Councillor so must be superior to me...

If you had read the finer detail of what DC was suggesting, you'd know that there is no battle to get people onto the streets, merely to make people live within their means... i.e. if you live at home (i.e. with parents) then you stay at home until such a time you can AFFORD to move out...

It may be a novel concept, not doing something until you can afford it, rather than quoting how its your "uman rites" to have your own place and so someone else should pay for it.....

Of course there will be exceptions, and of course there will be exceptions to the rules to allow for circumstances, so I think we agree on that.

I'm not superior to anyone, and I'm by no means perfect.

Over the last 6 years, I've worked with about 100 young people that were pushed onto the streets by their family as they weren't/didn't want to be able to cope with a teenager at home.

As a general rule, of course I agree with the proposals, but I'm comparing the two scenarios below;

1) One YP wants to leave home at 18 with no work, parents are happy with this, therefore write a letter rendering YP at risk of homelessness to the council. Person gets council property provided from taxpayers funds, with no incentive to look for work.

2) One YP is forced onto the streets by family at 18, having been passed between family members since the age of 15 due to parents' relationship breakdown, and thus is made homeless. After a year on the streets, YP is given a 1 bedroom property, although has no work. YP is unemployable at this time due to the psychological strain of the past 3 years. This person does want to work.

In scenario (1), the proposals should work with little problem.

Scenario (2) however, (and this is based on someone I've just managed to get into a 1 bed property) presents a completely different scenario, of which it would be impractical for the YP in question to return home, and definitely difficult. YP in question is on full LHA, full ESA and in the process of receiving emotional support from outside agencies.

Please enlighten me to whether you think it's fair to put YP2 in the position that they are faced with homelessness for a second time.

CK

rogerblack

(found at http://b3ta.com/board/10795855 - _not_ mine)

Lifes_Grand_Plan

CKhalvashi wrote: »

As a general rule, of course I agree with the proposals, but I'm comparing the two scenarios below;

1) One YP wants to leave home at 18 with no work, parents are happy with this, therefore write a letter rendering YP at risk of homelessness to the council. Person gets council property provided from taxpayers funds, with no incentive to look for work.

2) One YP is forced onto the streets by family at 18, having been passed between family members since the age of 15 due to parents' relationship breakdown, and thus is made homeless. After a year on the streets, YP is given a 1 bedroom property, although has no work. YP is unemployable at this time due to the psychological strain of the past 3 years. This person does want to work.

CK, on the basis of your two examples above and sound reasoning, I think we are in agreement and hopefully the gov't are too.

There will obviously be exceptions and measures should be in place to ensure that people who really NEED a place to live have one, its the people who just WANT their own place that should be forced to save for it.

The problem is when cunning families play the system and get mum/dad to write a letter to say they are kicking out child... child then goes to council and says "i'm homeless" and gets accommodated.... The genuine cases of need will get tainted by the people who play the system.

Soapn

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

The bottom line is that the "entitled to" class won't like these changes and those who are forced to pay for the entitled to class, will.

exactly right.

enabledebra

So how about we look at it a different way? I don't like the idea that my tax is used to prop up others BUT why is this needed? I don't buy into the claim that it's needed because others can't be bothered. My taxes are going to prop up other families because the goverment hasn't kept their side of the bargain to provide jobs PLUS most of my taxes go to people WHO ARE WORKING because wages are too low to meet the needs of ordinary working class families. Most of this need is due to unavoidable housing costs and our tax money goes into landlords pockets not family coffers. So stop believing the politicians spin (left and right). To stop work being a poor option and to stop the ridiculous welfare bill we need proper living wage rates. Employers need to be told they can't take all the wealth workers create for them and stick it in their profit accounts whilst relying on the welfare state to make up the shortfall between the wages and living costs of their employees.

Anubis_2

rogerblack wrote: »

(found at http://b3ta.com/board/10795855 - _not_ mine)

Yes, certainly feels like that may come to pass. I reckon those claiming will, at some stage, have it marked on some form of identification sometime in the future. Probably the initials UC will be stamped somewhere.

Given the plans it would be foolish of me to downsize like we were intending to do, I guess others may be put off downsizing too. I can see this causing even more housing issues. If under 25's who have children are going to be exempt, I can see pregnancies increasing too.

I think this proposal needs careful consideration and the wider implications need to be taken on board.

minx66

Both my husband and myself work full time, we have 2 children I went back to work when they were 5 months old, not because I wanted to but because I had to financially, we would have loved a third child but simply couldn't afford it. I am in favour of a welfare reform, the system should help the NEEDY not the GREEDY.
What about, instead of all the different benefits it should be replaced by one simple benefit in line with the minimum wage. Give one benefit equal to a 39 hour working week on minimum wage, then let these people receiving it pay their own rent, council tax and other bills like the rest of us have to. A person working 39 hours a week on a minimum wage should NOT be worse off than a person on benefits. That is the only way I can see work paying, If you want a better quality of life then get a job, any job they are out there if you look hard enough. Take the first job offered then better your self as time goes by, thats what I did. And YES I'm proud to say 'what I've got I've paid for myself'.

Isis_Black

If they say there is a maximum of approx £26k anyone can get on benefits then those not getting that much through wages and tax credits should get a top up to bring thm in line with those on benefits!
You can't have that those on benefits are able to claim a hell of a lot more than a working family it's seriously screwed up!!
But of course those who do work and do things the right way are the ones who get screwed on a daily basis