Welfare Reform

Growurown

dktreesea wrote: »

People will soon learn though, that the main priority as soon as they get their payment, will be to pay the rent first, no matter what else is outstanding. If they don't and end up being evicted, the local council may not help them, because they will be ajudged to have made themselves homeless intentionally.

Yes a lot of people will learn the hard way. My concern is the small group whom for whatever reason just can't seem to cope with life. They aren't technically disabled, or have learning difficulties as far as the DWP are concerned there is no reason why they can't work, but I know they will never get a job without an awful lot of help and support which isn't there.

Some people seem to be in a cycle of dependence where if something goes wrong they rely on someone else will sort it out for them. For example I have had people coming into my organisation for help because they are being evicted. Then you ask them the date they have been given and they say 'this afternoon'. They have known for months about it but just seem to bury their heads in the sand and only seek help when they are in crisis.

seven-day-weekend

dktreesea wrote: »

I agree gambling is a problem, even within the wider community and not just for benefits recipients. When it comes to UC though, there is no doubt in my mind that the government is trying to make being on benefits a much less comfortable option than it currently is. The problem is, giving DWP staff targets to sanction "x" percentage of their clients is quite perverse. Stories abound on the internet of, for example, the guy up in Cavendish who pushes his clients to apply for jobs they don't have the correct qualifications or experience for, then tells them they are not trying hard enough to get a job and sanctions them, even though the town he is based in is dead when it comes to work. There doesn't seem to be any push to make the DWP staff accountable for how they behave. They seem to be laws unto themselves.

And maybe that's what the government wants, for benefit clients to realise that it's next to impossible to rely on benefits for any length of time. A minimum of 4 weeks for a sanction, up from one week, and, as you say, Growurown, the whole of the UC payment sanctioned, not just the jsa portion! Wow! That is going to cause some people serious hardship. Not everyone has friends and family to fall back on. Being on benefits is quite isolating anyway, because you don't have any extra money to do anything with. It's just existence/survival living, especially if you are single or a couple without children.

People will soon learn though, that the main priority as soon as they get their payment, will be to pay the rent first, no matter what else is outstanding. If they don't and end up being evicted, the local council may not help them, because they will be ajudged to have made themselves homeless intentionally.

Very relevant insights in the whole of this post.

Surely the bit I've underlined though, is a good thing? I was horrified when someone on this forum thought they had no rent to pay on their house, i.e. it was rent-free!:eek: Hopefully UC will help people like this to understand more about budgeting, although I'm not sure that just sanctioning the lot is the right way to do it. It would be good if more Community Groups could do courses in budgeting, as CAP already does. It would be good if there was one of these in every town and that people who find themselves in difficulty could be sent on one,on a compulsory basis, rather than having all their money taken away.

https://capuk.org/i-want-help/cap-money-course

hohum

dktreesea wrote: »

Things like replacing DLA with PIP, regular assessments of the person's disability, and in particular a focus on whether someone's disability should excuse them from working for a living, is part of a wider debate within society about just what, exactly, should we be paying welfare for. While having a physical or mental impairment usually doesn't preclude a person from doing some kind of work - after all plenty of disabled people hold down full time jobs and never apply for any benefits - why should being impaired in some way entitle you to more money from the taxpayer than an non-disabled person is entitled to?

Hi I just wanted to comment on this, from the point of view of being involved with a small charity that supports people with learning disabilities to do creative projects.

A lot of the people who come to our groups want to work. They have skills to offer. It is more difficult for them to find employment however.

One of the reasons I think we pay support is that having a disability is a health condition with additional costs. This might be having to rely on public transport, or if living rurally/ mobility issues it's taxis. Transport is one of the biggest issues for our groups. The other might be the additional support to effectively include a person in the workplace, for example some of the support a deaf person receives at work comes from public money.

I suppose what underpins this for me is that everyone who is able should not be prevented from working. However the practical aspect of that is to include people in a system which doesn't always accommodate their disability, they need more money. I am ok with public money going to people who have greater needs, because I think we all benefit long term. I appreciate this isn't everyone's view, but volunteering with this charity has made me more aware of the issues for people with disabilities (particularly hidden disabilities) to access work.

I am concerned about the impact benefit changes will have on our members.

Depth_Charge

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Very relevant insights in the whole of this post.

Surely the bit I've underlined though, is a good thing? I was horrified when someone on this forum thought they had no rent to pay on their house, i.e. it was rent-free!:eek: Hopefully UC will help people like this to understand more about budgeting, although I'm not sure that just sanctioning the lot is the right way to do it. It would be good if more Community Groups could do courses in budgeting, as CAP already does. It would be good if there was one of these in every town and that people who find themselves in difficulty could be sent on one,on a compulsory basis, rather than having all their money taken away.

https://capuk.org/i-want-help/cap-money-course

Hi

I think that the budgeting aspect is going to be at the forefront combined with organisations like credit unions.

There are number of voluntary groups in our area that are concentrating on budgeting, credit unions, basic banking and finance, financial education and exclusion really.

For a few years now agencies such as the CAB have been involved in budgeting and basic finance the only problem is maybe this was all too early given what is happening now and nothing was really achieved, but maybe it looked good though:)

Getting people to attend and take budgeting courses is not that easy (bums on seats if you like) as they may feel like children back at school and it did not really work.

People usually only get or think about advice with their debts and finances when they are in trouble and at that stage they just want their problems solved rather than sitting in on budgeting lessons, life is fast moving and they just want to get on with it.

The situation we are facing with welfare reform is different because even if the debt problem is solved or under control if you like the struggle will still be there as finances will be so tight. If you throw in the odd payday loan and a flutter on the mobile phone or internet bingo and people could again be in serious trouble and very quickly.

People and families at risk of losing their homes, bailffs knocking for council tax arrears with charges and costs added.

You see people are going to struggle with their priorities, the rise in the cost of living is already having an effect and looks like getting worse.

Pressure on health and relationships have to increase, there is no doubt about it.

The cost of it all could be severe in a number of ways with advice agencies and GP surgeries feeling the pressure like never before.

Lets not forget that children will be affected and they are innocent whichever side of the welfare reform debate you are on and all these issues will have to addressed.

The more I look at the welfare reforms the more Im convinced that the people making the rules and their repeater spokes persons have not got a clue about some of the implications especially those with millions or on cushy numbers who have never been in these type of situations or lived this style of life.

The answer will have to budgeting, cutting back or the consequences will be as already mentioned in this thread.

The cost could get too high and people might just give up and say we cant pay so do your worst, if this does happen then the situation could get interesting.

The ongoing impact of welfare reform will be monitered and the brake may be applied here and there and maybe money put into advice and support if the situation looks like sliding out of control.

Whatever happend budgeting will play a huge part in all this and the food banks will continue to expand and get very busy, maybe to the extent to where it becomes the norm to do the 'weekly shop' there.

Interesting and very tough times ahead

My take as always

dktreesea

hohum wrote: »

Hi I just wanted to comment on this, from the point of view of being involved with a small charity that supports people with learning disabilities to do creative projects.

A lot of the people who come to our groups want to work. They have skills to offer. It is more difficult for them to find employment however.

One of the reasons I think we pay support is that having a disability is a health condition with additional costs. This might be having to rely on public transport, or if living rurally/ mobility issues it's taxis. Transport is one of the biggest issues for our groups. The other might be the additional support to effectively include a person in the workplace, for example some of the support a deaf person receives at work comes from public money.

I suppose what underpins this for me is that everyone who is able should not be prevented from working. However the practical aspect of that is to include people in a system which doesn't always accommodate their disability, they need more money. I am ok with public money going to people who have greater needs, because I think we all benefit long term. I appreciate this isn't everyone's view, but volunteering with this charity has made me more aware of the issues for people with disabilities (particularly hidden disabilities) to access work.

I am concerned about the impact benefit changes will have on our members.

On the other hand I have seen people who are classified as disabled taking taxis left, right and centre, just because there is funding for them to do this, when they are quite capable of taking a bus like the rest of us. The financial incentive to become classified as disabled in our benefits system is huge. Young girls getting disability just because they have IBS or are depressed. Yes, I appreciate both are less than optimal conditions, but should the taxpayer be paying a premium just because a person has some kind of impairment?

It's one thing to pay for the extra items a specific person needs. As you said, a deaf person may need extra assistance at work. Someone on dialysis for instance, who needs to get to a hospital every day, has to be able to get there. But in a lot of cases, a family member can take them. If not, they could get vouchers for the taxi. Paying them that extra money directly is not necessary.

When did we get to the stage that families are not expected to provide mutual support for each other without recourse to the taxpayer?

dktreesea

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Very relevant insights in the whole of this post.

Surely the bit I've underlined though, is a good thing? I was horrified when someone on this forum thought they had no rent to pay on their house, i.e. it was rent-free!:eek: Hopefully UC will help people like this to understand more about budgeting, although I'm not sure that just sanctioning the lot is the right way to do it. It would be good if more Community Groups could do courses in budgeting, as CAP already does. It would be good if there was one of these in every town and that people who find themselves in difficulty could be sent on one,on a compulsory basis, rather than having all their money taken away.

https://capuk.org/i-want-help/cap-money-course

Yes, I do think it's a good idea if everyone realises there is rent to pay and they have to make paying it a priority. I just don't think we are ready for the consequences when people don't do this, get evicted, get no help from the council becuase they are deemed to have intentionally made themselves homeless.

Cameron seems to think his Big Society will take over and fill the gaps. I think he is dreaming. People are way to squeezed as it is with having to care about their own extended families without having to pick up even more of the tab for other people.

I just don't think we are ready for this:
http://www.france24.com/en/20080515-canada-real-galiana-slum-shame-caring-spain

I hope teachers have deep pockets, because they are going to start to see a lot of hungry children arriving at school towards the end of the month. Are schools expected to provide breakfast if families run out of money?

So much of UC, the extended sanctions from one week to a minimum of 4 weeks, paying it monthly instead of weekly, making people pay for their housing themselves rather than paying the housing for them (i.e. not giving them access to that money), seems designed to not just get people ready for the world of work and monthly payments (the offical line), but to make being on benefits and not working increasingly unviable.

We seem to be in the midst of an ideological change to create the kind of Britain the American Republicans would approve of; heavily restrict access to social security, keep the payments as low as possible and let those who fall through the cracks land where they will.

Depth_Charge

Hi

A really good cross section debate guys with some fair and sensible points and issues being made and discussed.

Heres what IDS has to say about another peice of the welfare reform - 'The Benefit Cap'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22121323

Note the figure of households losing on average of £93 per week, yes thats what is says £93 per week which equates to £403 per month if my calculations are correct.

Now this is a huge drop in income by any standard and has to have a staggering effect on finances including where people are in debt management arrangements, IVAs & perhaps even bankruptcy.

Citizens Advice information link on the 'Benefit Cap' below for those not familiar or likely to be affected.

http://welfarereform.nedcab.org.uk/benefitscap.shtml

Just my take as always

[Deleted User]

Desperate people do desperate things and I reckon the crime rate will also go up , especially theft , and the shop security guards and police are going to be kept busy I reckon

People will also take in lodgers and not declare it just to be able to survive , so subletting will go up just to keep their homes , but then eviction looms either way

It is a lose / lose situation many are in and never before in my lifetime has the poverty trap been this deep now where people can't even afford to eat even basic food or keep warm etc and I do worry about the children as well!! x

By the way is it true that Maggie Thatchers funeral cost 8 million??? If so it is scandalous I reckon , but once again , got their priorities right , not!!!

I predict real chaos ahead unfortunately.....

seven-day-weekend

Council Tenants are allowed to have lodgers, that is not subletting, and are indeed encouraged to under the new rules. Also in October 2013 the rules on Benefit in this matter are hopefully changing and they will be able to keep all of their lodger's rent on top of benefits, more than enough to pay any extra rent and expenses.

http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/tenancies/lodger-rules-to-ease-impact-of-bedroom-tax/6522846.article

Growurown

Depth_Charge wrote: »

Getting people to attend and take budgeting courses is not that easy (bums on seats if you like) as they may feel like children back at school and it did not really work.

People usually only get or think about advice with their debts and finances when they are in trouble and at that stage they just want their problems solved rather than sitting in on budgeting lessons, life is fast moving and they just want to get on with it.

Our organisation found this too. Budgeting courses weren't at all well attended, and some people only sought help when they were in crisis when it was usually too late to do much about the situation. Some people and families live such a chaotic lives I can't see them getting their act together at all. Perhaps this is the intention of these changes - to force people into a more responsible attitude towards their lives.