Benefits to be replaced by loans!

Mersey_2

venison wrote: »

Sorry OP but this rubbish would be a step too far for even a Tory govt.



What is likely/possible to happen in the future is a universal income i.e everybody will get an income of £x and all benefits inc pensions will be abolished as will all tax allowances, its already happening in a couple of countries and mp's seem keen on the idea. Just imagine all the DWP and HMRC staff they could cull and all the fraud that could be stopped It would be a win win situation.

Without being too cynical, that's probably why it won't happen. The Civil Service - in particular the modern day Sir Humphreys who are Permanent Secretaries - tend not to approve abolishing themselves or their departments' large payrolls.


Sergeantsalt is also incorrect to state, "a line has been crossed" - or rather he's about 20 years too late in pointing it out. As Annadale points out, there have been DWP loans for years which claimants have to repay (indeed they can be deducted at source from future benefits).


Students also repay loans via HMRC (although I realise that's now different as they pay fees, whereas as I mean pre-1998 students who received SLC loans for living costs had to repay these).

annandale

I live in a poor area and I can honestly say that there are few people who meet that stereotype.

One family that lived near me were exactly like that. I know of few others.

There are many people struggling on uc. I admin a uc group on Facebook and some of the stories are horrendous. People waiting months for money. Being short paid. I follow someone on twitter who got his claim messed up and he got a fiver. His bus fare to see a work coach was 7 and he got a months sanction.

I have a mobile phone and I've seen comments on this forum saying that people on benefits shouldn't have one.

I think sometimes people forget that some people on benefits have spent decades paying tax. It's the suggestion that you are freeloading and living the high life on other peoples money I object to.

There was a recent comment on these boards that said workhouses should be brought back and that people should litter pick for their benefit.

As I said above, people don't get that you are expected to look for and evidence that you are doing a 35 hours a week job search.

It's not just turning up and signing your name and doing nothing in between.

annandale

If people think that some benefits are too generous. They aren't living on basic universal credit with no in work allowance.

We have the lowest benefits in the EU and the lowest pensions.

Papers like the daily mail like to portray everyone on benefits as rolling in it. Huge families. Having loads of kids to get benefits.

If someone is on benefits and living a luxurious lifestyle they are either working on the side. Living with a partner. Or earning income criminally. Because there is no way someone on basic jsa or uc has the means to run a home and have luxuries on 250-320 a month

Particularly as if people aren't getting their full rent paid and are having to top up rent from their personal element.

I know far more people struggling than living an affluent lifestyle.

tomtom256

annandale wrote: »

If people think that some benefits are too generous. They aren't living on basic universal credit with no in work allowance.

We have the lowest benefits in the EU and the lowest pensions.

Papers like the daily mail like to portray everyone on benefits as rolling in it. Huge families. Having loads of kids to get benefits.

If someone is on benefits and living a luxurious lifestyle they are either working on the side. Living with a partner. Or earning income criminally. Because there is no way someone on basic jsa or uc has the means to run a home and have luxuries on 250-320 a month

Particularly as if people aren't getting their full rent paid and are having to top up rent from their personal element.

I know far more people struggling than living an affluent lifestyle.

But it's not just 250 - 320 a month though is it.

You also have Housing Element or Housing Benefit, CTRS, free prescriptions, free school meals etc that tops up this income.

People always forget to factor some of the potential extra's in.

I am not saying people shouldn't get help, but that some people need to start helping themselves first i.e. those that have never worked and have never had any intention of working.

Most stories are based on past benefits and not UC which is a shambles.

Mersey_2

annandale wrote: »

I live in a poor area and I can honestly say that there are few people who meet that stereotype.

One family that lived near me were exactly like that. I know of few others.

I have a mobile phone and I've seen comments on this forum saying that people on benefits shouldn't have one.

That's the sad change that I was referring to, so glad to hear that you recognise it.


Unfortunately, full employment used to mean just that whereas today it appears that 4% is the lowest 'floor' it can reach for various reasons, but it must includes perhaps the 1 or 2% who are just criminals etc.

Yes, almost by definition the refuseniks will not be on UC as they'll still be on the legacy benefits (if they've been claiming for years).


PS I agree a mobile is needed - plus it's cheaper than having a landline and of course you can receive and make calls whilst you're out (which makes sense for interviews and agencies etc).

Mersey_2

annandale wrote: »

If people think that some benefits are too generous. They aren't living on basic universal credit with no in work allowance.

We have the lowest benefits in the EU and the lowest pensions.

To be fair though, it depends what you compare it to.


After all, it annoys me when eg people talk of overcrowding and a housing shortage (when for example in cities such as Manc and Lpool the population has halved and thousands of properties are void). People in their 80s remember overcrowding as they often had 6 or 7 siblings. Yes, we have the wrong housing mix, but there is no shortage per se. It's just that the tenure of outer council estates were built as 98% x 3 bed houses and so there's a lack of 1 and 2 bed flats and a lack of suitable housing for the elderly. In fact, by complaining about the 'Bedroom tax' that shows the problem isn't overcrowding: but the direct opposite.



Or child poverty - again, there was no Child Benefit 60 years ago, so yes, you did see kids with no shoes in old footage. But not today. So it's relative poverty.


Re Duration of benefits v the Europe, we in fact have the most generous provision. In Spain it's time limited (a bit like our conts-based JSA only lasts 6 months). When people speak of long-term claimants they mean those who have claimed for over 2 or 3 years. [I realise the DWP often says long-term is over 6 or 12 months for W2W purposes but I and the ONS disagrees]


In some countries such as Serbia there's no provision at all - I understand you have to take out insurance for unemployment. As a Ch4 docu (which tried to compare the 1948 Welfare State with today's) showed, back then there were 5 benefits, today we have 29.

Mersey_2

Plus remember, for all of the talk of 'welfare cuts', the expenditure on benefits by the DWP, HMRC and Councils has increased each and every year.


It's merely that the rise has been slowed.


No single benefit was actually 'cut' - although I concede they were in real times when GO decided to limit increases to 1% post 2013. [Remember though eg in 2012 from memory, benefits increased by 5.2% due to RPI, whereas those in work saw only 1 or 2% wage growth. I happen to agree with RPI uprating, as IDS did, but it's important to point out why many feel benefit recipients do well. Pensioners of course were protected by the triple lock too]


Even where benefits were effectively abolished, it was either for new claimants, or where HB was reduced from eg 2 to 1 bed allowance, a transitionary period of 9 - 12 months was provided.


As a supporter of social security, I take the view that in order for the Welfare State provision to continue in say 2050, we do need a concerted effort to remember what the original intention was (a safety net, not a way of life). As for those couple of posters who claimed fraudsters don't exist, in fact thousands are prosecuted each year for benefit fraud. My only regret is that more are not jailed - many simply repay the £ as if fraud was somehow an interest-free loan from the rest of us. Yes, perhaps only 5% are fraudsters but we shouldn't let them hide. As annadale notes, I suspect many of us can all think of a Jim Royle or Onslow type character we either knew personally or have come across. As with crime, it's sadly just 1 or 2% who commit disproportionate number of offences and whilst I recognise that the Ch5 depiction of eg a family with a dozen kids isn't widespread, such families have cost £ms and both the Benefit Cap of £26k pa and the limit to 2 children for Child Benefit were both supported by over 80% of the public in polls.

Mersey_2

annandale wrote: »

I live in a poor area and I can honestly say that there are few people who meet that stereotype.

One family that lived near me were exactly like that. I know of few others.

There are many people struggling on uc. I admin a uc group on Facebook and some of the stories are horrendous. People waiting months for money. Being short paid.

Incidentally, Annadale I neglected to say that I applaud what you're doing. Whilst I'm a lawyer, I grew up on a council estate which is perhaps why I recognise more than most both the failings of the DWP (from professional pro bono help I have provided claimants appealing decisions) and that personally growing up I sadly witnessed that fraud has increased over the years.


Feel free to private message me if there's something I may be able to assist with, although unfortunately I tend to only have time to handle 5 or 6 First or Upper Tribunal Appeals per year due to the amount of paperwork in the bundles. More often that not an email to the COO of the DWP @ HQ can work wonders though in giving a local JCP Office the proverbial 'kick up the backside' when they either lose paperwork or simply fail to reply to claimants' complaints.

seven-day-weekend

nannytone wrote: »

it is clear that the loan is only repayable when the property is sold.

social housing tenants do not gain an asset by having their rent paid

Neither do they lose their home if through no fault of their own they cannot afford to pay.

epm-84

xylophone wrote: »

https://www.gov.uk/support-for-mortgage-interest

SMI as a benefit is ending on 5 April 2018, and will be replaced by a loan. If you get SMI as a benefit, you’ll get a letter by February 2018 telling you about the loan and other options available to you.

So we have an income based benefit system which discriminates against those saving up for a deposit for a house. (Someone with £10,000 in savings can't get the full amount of Universal Credit but someone with a £200,000 house and mortgage paid off can if they have less than £6,000 in savings.)

Now to add to that we're going to have a system which discriminates against those with a mortgage.