Welfare Reform

Growurown

tpl wrote: »

People can 'take' jobs, and the jobs do pay; they just choose not to 'take' them, because the benefits pay more - which is exactly the point! Ridiculous. And why not 'take' a job over 30 hours per week - particularly if you are single and on JSA - full time hours are usually 37 hours

Yes some people don't take jobs. There are many reasons why they don't take them though. The hours are an issue and maybe I didn't make myself clear but people don't want jobs between 16 and 30 hours per week because it is these jobs that don't pay enough to cover the rent and council tax that you have to start paying when you work over 16 hours.

tpl wrote: »

I'm not sure what point this is trying to make (apart from the system isn't working very well) - people need to pay their rent (or be in arrears or evicted) regardless of where they live.

Well I guess that was my point. If the system worked well and was efficient it would make finding somewhere to live a lot easier and maybe take some of the pressure off social housing.

tpl wrote: »

I think you can work 16hrs/wk and still claim JSA, so income can be increased. JSA is a temporary solution, not a permanent one, and if you are single and looking for work there are other housing options (eg. renting rooms in the private sector) - you don't need a 2 or more bedroom house, if you can't afford the extra money per week. It is still subsidised. In the private sector, if you can't afford a 2+bed house, you can't rent or buy it.

Yes JSA should be a temporary solution however when there aren't a lot of jobs around (and there aren't in my area) people can be on JSA for some time. You can't rent in the private sector when you can't get together the deposit and months rent in advance and pay the admin fees to the agent. As I posted previously the long wait to receive housing benefit means a private landlord wouldn't consider you. Some people, living in social housing, through changes in their family find themselves living in a property larger than they need. They can't rent privately (for the above reasons) and they can't move to a smaller house within the social housing sector because there simply aren't enough smaller properties for them to go to.

tpl wrote: »

Are you sure the majority of people claiming housing benefit are poor already, compared to people working below average or average wage jobs and renting in the private sector? I don't know the statistics, or even if there has been any research into this. There are a lot of other people in a range of situations claiming various benefits that add up to more than someone working full-time (on an average and above average wage). This, unsurprisingly, breeds resentment. The welfare state was not created for people to 'earn' more money through benefits than being in a full time job. It was created to help people in need.

Yes, the system is flawed (well the whole economic system is flawed!) but a lot of people (from all socioeconomic backgrounds) take advantage of those flaws, instead of taking responsibility and being guided by their own ethical reasoning and thinking about what would be of benefit to everyone, including themselves.

Housing benefit is means tested so you aren't going to be well off on it if you are on JSA. Your disposable income for a week to pay for gas, electric, water rates, TV license and food is £70 which isn't a lot. I don't know how that compares to people who are working in low wage jobs renting in the private sector. The only people I know that get benefits that match a wage are those on disability and I think that in a civilised society disabled people should be supported.

Growurown

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

I think the idea is that they use part of the substantial allowance they get for fostering to pay the extra for the child's bedroom.

I think you may be under the assumption that foster parents are well paid. They aren't and they shouldn't have what income they do get taken from them in a bedroom tax. A foster parent cares for their foster child 24 hours a day as they would their own child and saves our government a lot of money compared to care in a children's home scenario. Your own children count when allocating bedrooms so why not a foster child?

tpl

Well, I think while this money saving expert forum is amazing, with some amazing people who offer their wise help and advice. I've also been astounded at the general attitude to benefits that seems to be prevalant. Perhaps its my own naivety, through lack of experience of using the benefit system. I have made a few comments just through genuine shock. I have since had a look at the benefits forum , and have been even more astounded at the way a lot of people just seem to be intent of finding out how they can 'maximise' their benefits (and work as little as possible). It's quite incredibly sad that this is representative of society as a whole. I have also read Martin's 'stickies' about judging and just helping people get what they are entitled to, etc...well I don't agree, I think he is wrong, promoting such an attitude. Yes, people need benefits if they 'need' them, but they are not there to support someone's lifestyle choices (and yes, having children is also a lifestyle choice). I don't want or expect any comments back - i've highjacked this thread enough, but then it was about the welfare system.
Very disllusioned with a lot of people's seemingly lack of capacity to think outside themselves. Or that people feel so helpless or have been conditioned to such an extent, that a healthy, young man just tries to find out how to 'maximise' his benefits first, before realising that he might actually have to support himself with a full time job.
Yours truly...dismayed and disilluisioned.

tpl

Growurown...sorry didn't see your reply before I last posted.
re: benefits matching a wage....I've only been aware of that because of this forum...I've seen a lot of posts from people (mostly those with children) who's benefits in fact, match an extremely good wage. People appear to be conditioned to rely on a benefits systems that is finite and should be used for the most vulnerable. I work with people with disabilities, and have for a long time, I have long been a supporter of social model of disability, equality of opportunity and meeting needs of the most vulnerable. I still do, but I'm not impressed with people who take advantage of a failing system; or use the excuse - well, it's there, so I can use it. It is disheartening and devaluing. And it won't be there for long, there is not an never ending supply of public money or social housing (especially not now, when many people have bought up council houses). Unpalatable view perhaps. These are the times we live in unfortunately and people to need wake up and respond. Thanks though, and I will read through the rest of your message properly...(I've said enough now!).

JayC1987

I've read a bit on the Bedroom tax. I cannot really comment upon the situation I don't fully understand it.

As for chances for people with learning disabilites and mental health issues. I know a bit about the changes, I work on the front line supporting these people to try and live an active and healthy lifestyle, I've been doing the job for four and half years now.

Currently one problem with support workers and care assistants, is the wages for staff. I'm not saying this because I am a support worker, its fact that shelf stackers in supermarkets earn as much as I do. What needs to happen is for staff who support these people to earn a wage and have the respect as a teacher or nurse. We work as hard as they do. It's the main reason people leave this kind of work there's no continuity with staff which distresses the people we support.


Secondly we take the brunt of David Shamerons and his Eton chums cuts. At the moment we're expected to deliver a service with our hands tied behind our backs with a constant threat of losing our jobs. Due to these public school boys who have no idea of what it is like to live in the real world.

As for the benefits cuts for residents its awful, my thought when i support someone is 'They've been dealt a bad hand at birth and have a lifetime of this, so it's upto me to help' I understand that most people I support will never, get drunk, get laid, get a partner, go to gigs, get to vote, cook meals, ect... so with the benefits, when I take them shopping I get the best of the best. why? Its nice it maybe a bit expensive however the money is being recycled back into the system.

The stress with residents at the moment is through the roof, I think with 'independent living' which isn't great will fold within a few years maybe 8-15yrs and the big holding hospitals will be reopened.

tpl

Currently one problem with support workers and care assistants, is the wages for staff. I'm not saying this because I am a support worker, its fact that shelf stackers in supermarkets earn as much as I do. What needs to happen is for staff who support these people to earn a wage and have the respect as a teacher or nurse. We work as hard as they do. It's the main reason people leave this kind of work there's no continuity with staff which distresses the people we support.

Unfortunately it's only going to get worse, as social care is increasingly privatised, with many knock on effects. Though people with severe mental health problems, learning disabilities and physical disabilities, are generally supported quite generously by the benefits system.

The stress with residents at the moment is through the roof, I think with 'independent living' which isn't great will fold within a few years maybe 8-15yrs and the big holding hospitals will be reopened.

Quite possibly, it would be a shame to go backwards though. Independent living was a great concept - to get people integrated into the community, (stop segregation etc) but sadly we don't as a society, have much of a sense of community for people to be integrated into!, and so there is a big risk of isolation (for both service users and staff) with further potential risks for things going seriously wrong (abuse/neglect) - especially with an under valued, potentially untrained, and less supported workforce.

I understand that most people I support will never, get drunk, get laid, get a partner, go to gigs, get to vote, cook meals, ect...
This is something that people who work in social care, should be currently supporting people to do, and advocating on their behalf, if that's what they choices are -as that's the job. I've known many people with learning disabilities who have had partners, go to gigs etc,, and are supported to become independent (or more independent) in their everyday activities (eg. cooking). Voting is an interesting one though.

Growurown

tpl wrote: »

re: benefits matching a wage....I've only been aware of that because of this forum...I've seen a lot of posts from people (mostly those with children) who's benefits in fact, match an extremely good wage.

I understand how frustrating this is for people who work. I work and pay tax and I get frustrated by it too. There are people who make a lifestyle choice to live on benefits, however I think these are few and far between compared to the people on benefits who would like to work but for whatever reason haven't been able to get a job. Personally I think people without children on JSA get very little money to live on. People with children get more because the child needs supporting. The child didn't ask to be born and is it fair to make the child live in poverty? It is a well documented fact that children brought up in the benefit system fare less well than those who aren't. There are no easy answers here. We could like America stop paying for children after the first child, but this would make child poverty worse as there are irresponsible people who would carry on having children regardless.

tpl wrote: »

people appear to be conditioned to rely on a benefits systems that is finite and should be used for the most vulnerable.

I agree some people are conditioned to rely on benefits. A lot of the time it is because they don't know any other way to live. They have no skills, no education, probably a prison record and not much hope of getting a job. Benefits are their only source of paying their way and so they make the most of it. Again we could take a leaf out of other countries books. America don't pay any benefits after someone has been out of work for two years, and Germany gives vouchers and not cash. I am sure options like these are being considered by our government.

The problem of the benefits system is one of fairness. How do you distinguish between the people who really need help and those abusing the system? If you have worked all your life and paid into the system is it fair to be made redundant in your late fifties and then be expected to live on JSA the same as someone who has never worked? I don't think so.

tpl

Thanks Growuown, lots of interesting comments there, and has definitely given me food for thought.

Growurown wrote: »

How do you distinguish between the people who really need help and those abusing the system? .

I guess this is the root of the point I've been trying to make (maybe, idealistically), that we, or the 'system'- of which we are all part, shouldn't need to distinguish between the people who really need help and those abusing it (monitoring or 'policing' it like a parent/child type relationship!). As the system is probably always going to be fraught with difficulties, its up to all of us as individuals to guide our own behaviour, so we don't abuse or take advantage of it, in the first place. This is relevant to everyone (inc. those on high incomes and financial institutions) who abuse or take advantage of related systems. Maybe it's an education thing, I'm not sure it is entirely - maybe takes courage though.

Depth_Charge

Hi guys

A good balanced debate and interesting points on this thread

Things hotting up in the house of commons too!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/mar/06/disabled-people-bedroom-tax-miliband

I was at a face to face advice agency today where the place became almost overwhelmed with people coming in with enquires about the bedroom tax and discretionary payments. It appears that the Local Authority have contacted residents potentially affected.

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

People requesting Financial Statements amongst other things.

This could all be worse than I first thought and is certain to run and run

A little frightening to be honest especially as it hasnt really even started yet.

My views or take

seven-day-weekend

Growurown wrote: »

I think you may be under the assumption that foster parents are well paid. They aren't and they shouldn't have what income they do get taken from them in a bedroom tax. A foster parent cares for their foster child 24 hours a day as they would their own child and saves our government a lot of money compared to care in a children's home scenario. Your own children count when allocating bedrooms so why not a foster child?

Fostering Allowance 2012:

Outside London
Ages
0-4: £131.47
5-10: £149.76
11-15: £186.43
16+: £226.74

In London
Ages
0-4: £154.30
5-10: £175.90
11-15: £219.05
16+: £266.01

In addition to the fostering allowance other payments may be made to foster carers, depending on their experience and qualifications. These payments are often between £50 and £200 per week. Generally, Local Authorities pay their fostering allowances directly into the foster carer's bank account every two weeks. Local Authorities tend to have different allowances for short break foster carers.

So someone can't afford £14 a week out of that?

Link: http://www.simplyfostering.co.uk/how-can-i-become-a-carer/fostering-allowance.html

I'm not saying foster parents don't do a marvellous job. They do. But they are also well paid for doing it.