Welfare Reform

Depth_Charge

Hi

Heres what George had to say (with IDS getting a mentiion too)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21998784

Im not getting into the politics of it all but I would think that IDS now wishes he did not say what he said about living on 50 odd quid a week.

It could be one of those infamous type of statements that will come back to haunt him forever and perhaps some would say that it is a 'laid back at a distance slip of the tongue proof' that just maybe he hasnt really got a clue what he is talking about.

Maybe he will put the proof in the pudding and try it:)

As always time will tell

Just my take

Growurown

Depth_Charge wrote: »

Hi

Heres what George had to say (with IDS getting a mentiion too)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21998784

In this article Mr. Osborne said "There's nothing 'kind' about parking people who could work on benefits." I know plenty of people who could work, who desperately want to work who are currently 'parked on benefits'. There are no jobs. In some of the Welsh valleys areas there are 10 people chasing every vacancy. Even in the cities such as Cardiff there are 3 people chasing one vacancy. If there was work available I'm sure that a lot of people 'parked' would drive off!

ifstar

There are plenty people who choose not to work. As for there being no work, sorry but that's nonsense. There might be jobs that people feel they aren't suitable for or that it may be beneath them however to say there are no jobs is just not true.

https://jobsearch.direct.gov.uk/JobSearch/PowerSearch.aspx?where=cardiff&rad=5&rad_units=miles&pp=25&sort=rv.dt.di&vw=b&re=134&setype=2

That link shows 40 pages of jobs within 5 miles of Cardiff across a wide range of occupations.

It's far better for a person to be working in some sort of capacity than sitting in the house doing nothing all day. Even if you aren't making much more than you would do on benefits, it means you are getting up and following a routine rather than getting in a rut. It's also far easier to get a job when already in employment.

tpl

Growurown wrote: »

Sorry have to disagree. Low paid working people do have more choices about where they live than those on benefits. For a start they aren't excluded from renting a property simply because they are benefit claimants. I do know how difficult it is to find somewhere to live when you are on a low wage and my own adult children are living in rooms in shared houses because that is all they can afford. I work in the voluntary sector and earn less than the average national wage, pay tax and also live in rented accommodation, so I do live in the real world.

Yes you could say living in social housing is a luxury, and I am not saying that it is fair that the tax payer bears the cost to house people in properties too big for their needs. The point I am making is that it isn't fair either to penalise people living in social housing when they have no choice about where they live. There simply aren't enough one bedroomed properties in the social housing sector for people to move into, and renting privately is not an option for many people either. A single person on JSA gets around £70 a week. Tell me how on that amount of money do you get a deposit/bond and the first months rental together, plus pay the fees to the agent advertising the property? and that's only if you can find a landlord who will take someone on benefits - because a lot won't. In my County it takes three months when you claim housing benefit to receiving a payment. Not many landlords will wait that long for their rent.

There must be a better way of doing this that is fair to tax payers and fair to the people it is going to affect.

Yes, a fairer system for all would be the way to go. That would mean housing costs for everyone to match their means. How is this going to happen???

More social housing for everyone?! The very people who social housing was meant to help, made a profit by privately buying them!!! Absolutely disgusting - that this happens and continues to happen. I never understood how it could happen - how have many people in council houses (and 1 bedroom flats!) bought them? - if money is so tight and they needed to be housed - where did they get the money from? It's a really serious point, as this policy, as well as the people who took (and currently take) advantage of it, has created a terrible situation for current and future generations (including the current situation).

More social housing is one way of having a more equitable system ..I'm not sure there is any other way?.... Maybe stop giving any sort of benefit to someone with a high income....sort out the tax credit system, which has basically taught people how not to live within their means; tax people on higher incomes more....stop businesses who are not paying their tax....get rid of the current banking system. Stop people from abusing and 'maximising' the benefits system - which welfare reforms are attempting to address. Stop infantilising people with the current benefit system, so people start taking responsibility for themselves.

re: Choice: in private rental - people have a severe lack of choice in different ways. . You rarely can have children or pets (ie. not having a life). You have a lack of choice about location, size and condition due to astronomical rental prices. You do not have security or stability. If you are working hard - how is this fair in comparison to someone who can have their children with them (and pets in many cases) and have low rental and security and a bigger house - with much of it paid by the people who are struggling. This isn't fair...and it makes me furious when I hear people moaning about a reduction in their housing benefit to accomodate a larger property....this is what everyone else has to do in all other housing matters....you pay for what you get. If this means people are being penalised, then they are just joining the rest of us, who have been penalised for years (eg. paying for what you get).

- how does someone on a low income save a deposit, fees etc...debt perhaps....how does someone in private rental accommodate rises in rent...if there income does not increase?

- I think there is a serious gap in considering how people living in private rentals meet their needs....(that many in social housing and claiming benefits do not have a clue about). I'm fed up with this really annoying relentless focus on reduction in HB for people with larger houses. They will have to find ways of meeting those costs if there aren't enough 1 bedroom flats, like we all do (or join the rest of us who are in debt). Someone on JSA can work part time. If someone has a disability or children, they have other quite generous benefits - so this isn't the issue.

- how is it fair that someone who is working can only afford a room in a shared house, whilst someone in social housing who doesn't work gets a whole house with more bedrooms than they need?

Growurown

ifstar wrote: »

There are plenty people who choose not to work. As for there being no work, sorry but that's nonsense. There might be jobs that people feel they aren't suitable for or that it may be beneath them however to say there are no jobs is just not true.

https://jobsearch.direct.gov.uk/JobSearch/PowerSearch.aspx?where=cardiff&rad=5&rad_units=miles&pp=25&sort=rv.dt.di&vw=b&re=134&setype=2

That link shows 40 pages of jobs within 5 miles of Cardiff across a wide range of occupations.

It's far better for a person to be working in some sort of capacity than sitting in the house doing nothing all day. Even if you aren't making much more than you would do on benefits, it means you are getting up and following a routine rather than getting in a rut. It's also far easier to get a job when already in employment.

There may be 40 pages worth of jobs but do you know how many people are unemployed and chasing those jobs? Plus many of those jobs are very specific such as wind turbine engineer or tower crane operator, there isn't going to be many people who could go for those jobs.

http://www.cardiff.gov.uk/content.asp?nav=2872%2C3256%2C3301%2C5217&parent_directory_id=2865&id=12607

I agree people should work. I don't think it is acceptable to make a life on benefits a lifestyle choice. I work and pay tax too and don't like the fact that my money pays for people who choose not to work. I'm not against welfare reform either as I believe benefits do trap people. If UC works as it should then a lot of people will be more prepared to take part time or temporary work because the fear of having no money for weeks on end whilst the powers that be sort out their claim will have been removed.

ifstar

My point was that people often say that there are no jobs, but that is not the case. Some of the jobs won't be suitable but probably quite a lot could be. It might mean taking a change of career direction but working and doing something is better than doing nothing.

I have no issues with people genuinely wanting to find work and being on benefits but the system is totally messed up when people can choose not to work and survive with more than the bare minimum.

I would be happy to see benefits increased for a period of time to allow people a bit more breathing space to get into work but for them to drop considerably after 6 months or so.

I know it has been mentioned on previous pages about people not knowing how to cook/budget/run a house so it would be a good idea for classes to be run where people can go for free and learn.

As for the bedroom tax, I think people shouldn't be hit unless the refuse to downsize. If they offer to but there is no suitable accommodation then they should not be penalised for this.

Growurown

tpl wrote: »

- how is it fair that someone who is working can only afford a room in a shared house, whilst someone in social housing who doesn't work gets a whole house with more bedrooms than they need?

I do understand how this seems very unfair to those who work and in a way it is. Unfortunately a lot of this is historical and since the sell off of council houses there are a lot less properties to go around.

There are a lot more people living on their own now too. When council houses were built after the war to rehouse families living in slums they built family homes, not single bed flats. Many people living in under occupied homes have been there for years, their children have grown up and left home leaving them with empty rooms.

What about people working who live in social housing and have spare rooms? Should they move out because they can afford private rents? Social housing rents are cheaper than private rents so maybe these rents should go up to be more equitable with the private sector. My friend lives in social housing and pays just over £400 per month for her small three bed house. My daughter pays £500 pm for a grotty room in a grotty flat which she shares with another person. No that isn't fair but as I said in my previous post there must be a better way to sort this mess out rather than take money from the poorest.

dktreesea

ifstar wrote: »

There are plenty people who choose not to work. As for there being no work, sorry but that's nonsense. There might be jobs that people feel they aren't suitable for or that it may be beneath them however to say there are no jobs is just not true.

https://jobsearch.direct.gov.uk/JobSearch/PowerSearch.aspx?where=cardiff&rad=5&rad_units=miles&pp=25&sort=rv.dt.di&vw=b&re=134&setype=2

That link shows 40 pages of jobs within 5 miles of Cardiff across a wide range of occupations.

It's far better for a person to be working in some sort of capacity than sitting in the house doing nothing all day. Even if you aren't making much more than you would do on benefits, it means you are getting up and following a routine rather than getting in a rut. It's also far easier to get a job when already in employment.

Yes, within Cardiff. Try finding a job within 5 miles of Merthyr. There's a factory about to close down up there. Over 200 will be out of work. Some of them will never work again. Getting from Merthyr to Cardiff isn't like travelling across, say, the central belt of Scotland, with two train lines to choose from, firing off trains every ten minutes at rush hour in both directions, stopping at any number of points in between, many of them stations within 10 to 20 minutes walk of major industrial parks.

I couldn't believe the state of the public transport network in Scotland compared to the poor excuse for the same in Wales when we first came up here. You can't even get from Merthyr to Cardiff in time for an 8.30 am start during the week. As for relocating to Cardiff, pigs might fly as well. Who has the money for that?!

dktreesea

sfm82 wrote: »

Do you think that putting the onus on the tenant to pay the rent will reduce rents to guarantee payments every month? Might be interesting to hear from ll's on this point.

NO, but tenants who get LHA but don't pay their rent and get evicted will be treated as having made themselves intentionally homeless and the council won't have to rehouse them.

dktreesea

eyeopener2 wrote: »

Rent controls would help immensely.

I don't think they would. BTL landlords would sell up and take their profits/capital gains. The stock of housing available for rent to people on low incomes would shrink dramatically.