Now then...lower benefits for the Northerners ??

[Deleted User]

ringo_24601 wrote: »

Completely agree on this one... benefits should be altered dependent on where you live - in the same way jobs have 'london weighting'

thats a good argument for raising benefits in the s.east
lowering benefits in the north is another sign that osborne has run out of ideas

Graham_Devon

I've lived North & South.

I don't honestly recal anything being cheaper in the North (living costs wise) than in the South.

I remember the take aways being pretty cheap in the North, but that, I would think, was due to the abundance of them. Where I am now, you may have one takeaway catering for a particular food. Therefore, prices are high, no competition. Move into a working town, with more take aways and you can knock a good £1-2 off the same meals.

GeorgeHowell

grizzly1911 wrote: »

If they don't vary (ex property) why go to the expense?

If property is the single biggest factor then by all means uprate London/SE but that shouldn't be at the expense of the rest of the country. If that causes an issue sort that out don't penalise everyone else.

People keep saying that it's only property, but are there official facts and figures to support that notion ? Even if it is mainly property that's a pretty big item.

Putting benefits up in London/SE and keeping them the same everywhere else is the sort of Blair/Brown think that got us so far in the s**t. More money wanted ? Just draw some more out and spend it then. National bank balance too low for that ? Just borrow some more then. Savings have to be made somewhere and this looks like a sensible way to find some.

[Deleted User]

N1AK wrote: »

Fuel (Petrol/Diesel) averages 1-2 pence cheaper. Standard cinema tickets, bowling etc are about £1 a film/game cheaper. Beer is considerably cheaper in pubs (normally over £0.50 cheaper per drink).

It's not like going to eastern Europe or anything but the difference is noticeable enough. Most of my more recent observations are from visiting Derbyshire and Manchester. I'm normally at one or other every 2-3 weeks.

If I had to guess I'd say living in Sale (pretty well off Manc suburb) would save you £3-5 a week vs the South East. I couldn't guess vs an ok London suburb as I've never lived there.

most Sale is a dump,a friend of ours has recently rented a bedsit there for £400 a month,personally i wouldnt let the dog live in it

grizzly1911

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

People keep saying that it's only property, but are there official facts and figures to support that notion ? Even if it is mainly property that's a pretty big item.

Putting benefits up in London/SE and keeping them the same everywhere else is the sort of Blair/Brown think that got us so far in the s**t. More money wanted ? Just draw some more out and spend it then. National bank balance too low for that ? Just borrow some more then. Savings have to be made somewhere and this looks like a sensible way to find some.

Ignoring property. If costs are roughly the same in the N and S for essentials then why should the northerners be penalised?

I very much doubt the benefits police add in a big fat wodge of wonga for lots of discretionary spend because they are feeling generous. (I don't doubt that some abuse what they do get but that is a different issue.)

If high property prices in the SE are causing the problem then that is the problem that should be resolved not simply pass the problem somewhere else.

kabayiri

Things can vary just as much within the regions.

Move out of Manchester only a dozen or so miles, and the house prices will be significantly higher than closer in to the city. In my part of South Manchester it's a lot more expensive than North Manchester.

This housing cost difference will be reflected in rents.
So perhaps people in North Manchester should get less benefit income than those South of the city?

I'm sure we can drill it down even more. I reckon those people at the Northern end of my village are getting more tax credits 'n stuff - they always seem to be in the takeaways

Zero_Sum

princeofpounds wrote: »

There are lots of reasons why council tax varies, but quite often the most 'socialist' councils tend to have higher council tax rates because they are providing more services, typically to a less employed population.

The rates also tend to be a result of the management of the councils over many years, not just the last few, as councils build up debts or, in some cases, surpluses.

For instance in Inner London the cheapest council tax is in places like Kensington and Chelsea, Westminster, Wandsworth (which is not so rich but has a high proportion of employed people).

Higher council tax in places like Lewisham, Camden (which is not universally poor), Hackney.

That's not a universal rule or anything, the point I'm making is that similar reasons probably drive the relatively high levels of council tax in many northern areas.

The sad thing is that council tax is one of the most punishing taxes to working low earners because once you cross a certain threshold you have to pay the whole lot from your net earnings. A good number of pretty socialist councils make life much harder for their 'working poor' by providing all the nice support services for the unemployed.

As for lower benefits in the north... for basic things like JSA I don't think there is much point. Stuff like housing benefit is much more important, but that is regionally differentiated (in a very poor way in my opinion, but that's another topic)

Do you know how much money Westminster make in car parking?

The other thing to factor is the house bandings.
If you have 2 councils with say 100,000 house holds, who both require £100m from council tax. (just to keep the numbers simple)

Council A has 90% band A houses, which means its Band D price is going to be just under £1,500

Council B has 90% of its house are greater than band C. Its band D price is going to be under £1,000

Council A is more likely to be Labour, Council is more likely to be Tory.

Zero_Sum

GlynD wrote: »

My point is that it's all pro rata.

More people down south leads to more tax being paid down south which pays for a bigger infrastructure.

Less people up north so there are less people to pay for a smaller infrastructure.

It's as simple as that.

Really?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-16235349

Zero_Sum

N1AK wrote: »

Fuel (Petrol/Diesel) averages 1-2 pence cheaper. Standard cinema tickets, bowling etc are about £1 a film/game cheaper. Beer is considerably cheaper in pubs (normally over £0.50 cheaper per drink).

It's not like going to eastern Europe or anything but the difference is noticeable enough. Most of my more recent observations are from visiting Derbyshire and Manchester. I'm normally at one or other every 2-3 weeks.

If I had to guess I'd say living in Sale (pretty well off Manc suburb) would save you £3-5 a week vs the South East. I couldn't guess vs an ok London suburb as I've never lived there.

None of which are essentials, so should have no bearing of benefits. Also Public transport is much cheaper in London than the NE

chewmylegoff

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I don't see the point really. Are benefits not already adjusted to your local area when it comes to council tax and housing benefits?

Taking those out of the quation, I don't see food, transport, and clothing behind cheaper in the North than it is in the South.

If they actually do this, then I'm happy to suggest the tories are looking towards class warfare, and protecting their own area at the cost of others.

And I hope they don't extend the school day 3 hours.....imagine the nightmare rush hour traffic that would cause!!!

Isn't it just an option to cost up and think about? In any case, southerners on benefits don't vote Tory any more than Northeners on benefits do.

Frankly paying larger benefits in the SE seems a crazy idea to me. There are already too many people here, the last thing we need is people with no jobs moving here because they think they will get more money for doing so.

Furthermore the cost of trying to administer location-dependent benefits from central government would probably wipe out any cost saving.