MSE News: Government considers tougher benefit sanctions

wattdallas

RuthMarianna wrote: »

How is saying that we should protest in support of people less able to do so defeatest and condescending? Isn't helping those weaker or less able to do so part of being a civilised society. It is not saying they are unable to do it al all but should we all not care enough to want to do something about it.

And she's supposedly has a disabled husband :rotfl:

BigAunty

As far as I know, the state pension is one of the biggest costs to the public purse. Many of the benefit changes have ring-fenced and protected pensioners - such as the forthcoming changes in the council tax discounts, the so called 'bedroom tax' for social housing. They must have strong voting power to be protected from the big benefit cuts.

I do feel the ESA system is too harsh but a revamp is overdue (I am critical of IB because of how it infantilised some of my family members who were allowed to languish on it long-term as alcoholics when the focus should have been on treatment and a return to employment rather than just parking them on the sidelines).

I mean, in my city, 1 in 5 used to be on IB (that's excluding DLA by the way) - hopeless way to deal with 20 % of the working age population who may not be the most attractive to employers but doesn't mean they can't work in some capacity.

annie1975_2

Invalidation wrote: »

Oh really? would you have us addresing letters or knitting pullovers for the army?
What a bloody stupid remark

I am talking about the young unemployed not the disabled.
Not a stupid remark at all.
cant just keep giving money for nothing.
I suggest you quote all my comment and not just the little bit you want to nit pick at.

MissMoneypenny

anotherwindyday wrote: »

So it wasn't the bond traders who sliced and diced known dodgy lending and repackaged it with triple AAA lending so as to get themselves even higher bonuses after all?

Higher profits for the firms, not high bonuses, they were just an add on for some. People who work hard, repay their mortgages earlier, especially when the interest rate is low. The lender doesn't want their money back when interest rates are low, as they can only lend that again at the same low rate.

However, sub-prime, they don't repay early as they borow and spent without any thought how to pay debts (just like the last Labour government). Sub-prime was uncharted territory. But the lenders had never met people who just walked away from their debts as some subprimes do. Their debts became like pass the parcel - the loser was the one who held that debt when the music stopped.

anotherwindyday wrote: »

That would be the world wide financial crash affecting USA, Canada, All of the many countries of the EU, and numerous other countries?

All of them had their lending controls decided by labour?
I didn't know that party governed the whole world...
That Gordon Brown really did have a white cat being stroked on his lap!

Yes, because they were part of the pass the parcel game. Just look at Household in the US. Settled a class action suit out of court in 2002 of a $484 million fine distibuted to twelve states. The following year it sold itself and lartge portfolio of subprime loans, to a British financial congolmerate for $15.5 billion! The stops had been released and Gordon and Labour were in charge for a long time. They didn't have a clue what they were doing. Brown only has a History degree.

anotherwindyday wrote: »

In summary, your lack of knowledge typifies you as someone who didn't study hard enough at school and thus it is YOU who is responsible for the entire mess the country/world is in now.

It's fairly obvious that is it you who doesn't know what you are talking about and have never worked in the banking sector. Or if you did, you failed.

Of course, the ones who made the real money were those handful of people who realised the biggest credit bubble of all time was going to burst and bet against the banking system.

If you were as clever as you are trying to make out you are, then you should have known that and wouldn't have even bothered to mentioned the bond traders, who made a mere drop in the ocean compared to these people and those companies like Household.

MissMoneypenny

Pippin12 wrote: »

The next step (just before rounding us up to herd into 'camps' or 21st century workhouses) is to abolish benefits in favour of food stamps.

I'll bite. So what's wrong with food stamps/vouchers, instead of giving cash?

rogerblack

A fundamental problem is the way the groups of ESA are described - and policy is formed - does not match reality.

The simple caricature of the two groups of ESA is toxic.

The work-related group is _NOT_ as a whole 'the less disabled, for who it is reasonable to expect to look for work in the shorter term',
and the support group is not 'the more severely ill, who just need support.

As it is at the moment, someone in a wheelchair, who can move 50m slowly, several times throughout the day, who has difficulty talking to people for several hours a day, can manage just about work a washing machine and cannot understand more than simple phrases may struggle to get into the work-related group.

Whereas someone whos only disability is to be unable to place their arms into their upper shirt pockets would be in the support group.

The easy one-sentence descriptions are used to develop policy, and to explain it to MPs.

They fail to explain that yes, someone may have a 'prognosis' of a return to work within one year, but that they have a lifelong condition, and are never going to be able to work. The prognosis is simply made up for paperwork purposes.

The wheelchair-bound claimant above in the 'work related' group - if he is asked to do various 'work related activity' that's inappropriate for him, may not properly understand his right to question this.
He is likely to be sanctioned, for extended periods, without really understanding why.


(Clearly there are some for who the above short descriptions are correct)

(reposted from another thread)

Morlock

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

Sub-prime was uncharted territory. But the lenders had never met people who just walked away from their debts as some subprimes do.

You neglected to mention that a lot of borrowers were offered very low interest rate mortgages, but when interest rates rose, mortgage repayments became too expensive to repay.

banner188

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

I'll bite. So what's wrong with food stamps/vouchers, instead of giving cash?

In principle, nothing.
A number of problems though.

It costs a great deal to adminster, an extra cost that we don't have now.
People will sell them to people with money and make a loss and this transfers wealth from poorer to wealthier people.


The big problem this country has, is how to deal with non working parents. It is a fact that the state is extremely generous to people with children, the more children the more money. I know a number of individuals who have JSA sanctions against them but it doesn't really matter because they live off the £200 and odd they get for their 3 kids.
No-one wants to face this problem because they don't want to cause child poverty. The benefits cap they are proposing is still quite high really and will it apply to those who already have more than three kids?
A friend of my daughter once asked us, do you get paid for having a baby? She is 14 and already sniffing the chance for a life without work, it is so sad.

MissMoneypenny

Morlock wrote: »

You neglected to mention that a lot of borrowers were offered very low interest rate mortgages, but when interest rates rose, mortgage repayments became too expensive to repay.

The interest rates are low, much lower than the historic average. But I think you might mean about fixed rates? Which was nothing to do with the interest rates rising (or getting lower as they are now). Many subprimers were offered a low start interest rate and then went onto a higher fixed rate after a set time. That is what happened with subprime and what they signed up too. The main problem being that many also threw all their other debts onto the mortgage, which meant they paid back more interest in real terms if they paid it back over a 25 year mortgage; or borrowed against equity to finance their lifestyle.

If you are talking about hidden interest rates (which I don't think you were, but I'll mention it anyway) I did mention this as I mentioned the Household out of court settlement as one example.

I take it you don't know about Household? I'll wait to see posts suddenly appear on other forums now, about Household.:rotfl:

RuthMarianna

wattdallas wrote: »

And she's supposedly has a disabled husband :rotfl:

I must say that I fail to understand your remark.

My husband is well able to make his own protests as he has a physical disability and neither a mental health problem nor a learning difficulty and I am not claiming to fight his fight or speak on his behalf. But there are others who are not in a position to either fight or even understand the system they are fighting. Surely the rest of us should have enough compassion to want to fight injustice on their behalf. After all joining a protest group or going into politics should be about an ideology you believe in and not just to feather your own nest.