Hang on, am I reading this right - a partner with a maximum yearly income of £6600 disqualifies you from income-based JSA?
Britian -Sweeping changes to "the dole" take effect
- Thread starter Liberty4all
- Start date
- Status
Hang on, am I reading this right - a partner with a maximum yearly income of £6600 disqualifies you from income-based JSA?
Miles Quaritch
Member
They know how I feel about it and while I do find it distasteful, I can't really blame them for doing it. They saw an opportunity and grabbed it with both hands.
It's kitch. The economy is fine, we're just talking ourselves into low growth, less disposable income, lower exports and more borrowing!!!! Damn media! I wish they'd shut up. Lousy bastards tanking the economy when they feel like it.
CyclopsRock
Member
Does anyone think that? It certainly hasn't been claimed as the justification from IDS or the Tories. I don't know anyone that thinks that is the reason.
CyclopsRock
Member
It would still disincentivise the government from paying for more employees, in just the same way it does for private companies.
radioheadrule83
Banned
We've talked about it before but the 'bedroom tax' thing baffles me... I always thought conservatism was about small government, the government staying out of your life, but here we have a Conservative government telling the poorest people exactly how to live their lives - micro-managing it even. Your kids can sleep in your bedroom until such and such an age. Your little boys and girls can share a room until this arbitrary age. Grown children away temporarily, bettering their lives through work or university, and could come back? Sorry, we're gonna apply the punitive measure on your benefits anyway.. Its almost an encouragement for having the kids kept at home under the glass ceiling.
What's worse is the inequality in the way it affects people. A couple claiming benefits already receive more than a single claimant, and now the room occupancy tax punishes loner singledons and smaller groups of people even more. Some are hurt more than others.
If they want more space for people to live, build more council housing. I think private landlords should be charged the tax if all their tenants are housing benefit claimants tbh. Tax exploitation itself.
What's worse is the inequality in the way it affects people. A couple claiming benefits already receive more than a single claimant, and now the room occupancy tax punishes loner singledons and smaller groups of people even more. Some are hurt more than others.
If they want more space for people to live, build more council housing. I think private landlords should be charged the tax if all their tenants are housing benefit claimants tbh. Tax exploitation itself.
Except you don't pay for benefits, the money ceases to be yours once you pay your tax. You also sound like you've been reading the Daily Mail articles on the subject. If people on benefits decide to get Sky, they forfeit something else.
It's quite easy to genrealize when you haven't been on that side of the pond. I was on the dole for a year before finding employment again, to do that I had to move half way across the country and leave my friends/family in the process. Because there simply isn' enough jobs for everyone, employers can afford to be picky for even NMW jobs. Looking for people who are overqualified, they expect you to have qualifications + years of experience to go with it.
Which means lots of school leaves will be hard pressed finding employment even with the nessesary qualifications. Trust me, it's not rosy living on benefits. On-top of dealing with ignoramuses like yourself, you have to forfeit something like healthy eating, petrol for your car, some of your bills.
20 people all on welfare living in one government town house. All working, getting both checks, driving around in nice cars nobody else can afford.
Any developed country needs a way to help the poor and needy. I just wish governments would crack down on it.
travisbickle
Member
What evidence does he have that there are parents who can't afford to look after their adult children? WTF!! Don't let the overrepresentation of millionaires in the current government blind you from the fact that large portions of parents can't afford to look after themselves. As evidenced by the current economic situation.
Yeah, I can never understand why we don't give all the unemployed people jobs without paying them a wage either?
This whole thing has nothing to do with cutting costs, if anything the reforms are going to cost a fortune, it's all about sticking it to the poor. Now some people will say "Oh that old leftie clap trap" but lets look at the facts. If you want to get people off the dole and onto work then you need there to be jobs to fill. Due to this governments sheer idiocy we have unemployment running at about 2.45 million. That's about 1 million more than when Labour were in power. So that's one million more people claiming benefits, people who used to work for a living and pay taxes. This shows that if work is avalible it will be filled, these people aren't work shy. They want jobs.
This government had no plan for growth. None at all. It's all been about cut's. Now do there need to be cuts, well yes there did. However cuts have to be balanced with a plan for growth. Some will say "Well if you do one then you cannot do another" but really that's a poor excuse for economic mismanagement. There's a lot of money out there that could have been used on high employment, skilled projects. Britians power system for example needs a through overhaul and would employ possibly tens of thousands of people across a high range of industry sections. Instead all we have seen is money being poured into banks in the desperate hope that you will chuck out loans and mortgages which will create a property bubble that will burst. This money could have been used to invest in things that generate growth.
Today's changes have nothing to do with making things fairer. How is it fairer to give people less money and force them into contemptible schemes that make them work for nothing while companies like Tesco's get rich of their work? Then again of course if you want to take people to task for things like treatment in the work place etc then the chances of that happening have been reduced to zero after Legal aid was gutted "To save money". This at a time where MP's have quietly shelved plans to limit expenses and gave themselves a nice pay rise.
Even worse is that IDS calls himself a christian. Yes that's wonderful Mr Smith! I mean when Jesus saw the widow putting two copper coins into the temple treasury he didn't run over and punch her in the stomach and take her money. The very person he claims to follow was a champion of the poor, he disliked the powerful and corrupt. Iain Duncan Smith what a hypocritical you are.
This government had no plan for growth. None at all. It's all been about cut's. Now do there need to be cuts, well yes there did. However cuts have to be balanced with a plan for growth. Some will say "Well if you do one then you cannot do another" but really that's a poor excuse for economic mismanagement. There's a lot of money out there that could have been used on high employment, skilled projects. Britians power system for example needs a through overhaul and would employ possibly tens of thousands of people across a high range of industry sections. Instead all we have seen is money being poured into banks in the desperate hope that you will chuck out loans and mortgages which will create a property bubble that will burst. This money could have been used to invest in things that generate growth.
Today's changes have nothing to do with making things fairer. How is it fairer to give people less money and force them into contemptible schemes that make them work for nothing while companies like Tesco's get rich of their work? Then again of course if you want to take people to task for things like treatment in the work place etc then the chances of that happening have been reduced to zero after Legal aid was gutted "To save money". This at a time where MP's have quietly shelved plans to limit expenses and gave themselves a nice pay rise.
Even worse is that IDS calls himself a christian. Yes that's wonderful Mr Smith! I mean when Jesus saw the widow putting two copper coins into the temple treasury he didn't run over and punch her in the stomach and take her money. The very person he claims to follow was a champion of the poor, he disliked the powerful and corrupt. Iain Duncan Smith what a hypocritical you are.
Im not declaring one position over another, but if you can't back up your position with facts or evidence other than "common sense" then you can't forgive me for being skeptical.
There are people who are claiming benefits living on their own because their parents can't afford to support their grown up children.
There are people who are claiming benefits and living with their parents even though their parents can comfortably afford to pay for their adult children, regardless of the child's employment status.
Im sure we can find anecdotal evidence for each case but that isnt enough to begin formulating the national policy towards it.
Yeah, but it isn't.
As recessions go this one is pretty tame. We haven't even got double digit interest rates or mega inflation.
The media just paint a picture of doom because we haven't got explosive growth. I've been through a miners strike and a proper recession.... This one is nowt.
They are simply saying they will no longer pay people to have unused rooms. Sensible when you consider there's thousands who could use them.
Surely the problem is that there aren't houses with the smaller number of rooms for the affected households to move in to? Are the government expecting everyone to start (potentially illegally) subletting their "spare" rooms?
travisbickle
Member
Deaf Spacker
Memb
As I've previously posted I do agree with the bedroom tax but not if households are getting punished if their children go to university for two thirds of the year etc. My neighbour will not move out of his two bedroom property unless we pay him to swap and he has admitted that if he stays in his two bedroom property he will be struggling.
I don't really see this as a bad thing. It's not like these people will be occupying skilled positions. Just the very lowest rung of government work. Most of which is usually contracted out (at least in America) to private companies.
I'm not following you here. I know it's sarcasm, but I don't get the point you are making.
CyclopsRock
Member
A lot of it is here, too. But whether the pay check comes from a private company or the government directly, those people currently getting paid for that work will soon find themselves competing with people being paid nothing.
radioheadrule83
Banned
Thousands who have their own families and can't or won't live with another one. So the pressure then becomes move them out and possibly sever all sorts of ties they had to other people, or just enforce this downward pressure on their benefits because they *can't* move.
If there were ample places for people to be juggled around in, places for people to go, I'd be with you 100%... People get what they need, everyone's happy -- but it doesn't work like that and it won't. This will just hurt lots of people who can't be more mobile, people who don't know how to move on or can't move on, and who can't fill their house. Food banks will do ever better business.
The fact that there are no provisions for people with kids away in education or training is a problem. The suggestion that they will levy it on people who have recently experienced a bereavement is just bad politics too... Where are there caveats and timed exemptions for this thing? The appeals process?
I work for a community social housing company, I think the idea is benign but that the implementation will be terrible, and have terrible effects on people. We'll see.
As I said before, I think there'll be riots again soon.
Phoenician_Viking
Banned
That´s how it´s done in Denmark. You work 25 hours a week and to raise it to 37 hours one should look for 12 hours you look online or just physically applying for a job. After a while if the employer can partially hire you where you work for 31 hours and the government pays 75-80% of ones salary up to a year.
travisbickle
Member
I guess you could start by looking at the numbers of young adult homeless, and assume that their parents can't help them. Maybe statistics of young adults without parents, dead parents can't help you. I don't understand your question really because there are so many reasons why someone's parents couldn't help I don't think there's a catch all Daily Mail style statistic?
You might want to look into more detail about the current coalition governments policies and what evidence they are based on.
CyclopsRock
Member
If there was ample room for people to move around in, this wouldn't be needed. It is needed because having people with NO home is worse than having some people cut their (geographic) ties with their friends. There is no choice here that results in everyone being really happy, but it's patently absurd to have a bunch of people in entirely inadequate (or at time, wholly absent) housing whilst others have more space than they need on the grounds that they don't want to have to move. Again, if you want that flexibility, you'll need to stop having the government pay your rent for you (sort of - even at its worse, this new removal only takes away 25% of e money they're given for rent).
Why doesn't it shock me that Denmark already has a sensible program in place? It would seem like the world would be a better place if governments started looking towards that country on how to go about things.
velociraptor
Junior Member
I'm a 22 year old graduate who has no job. Have also applied to 50 jobs. Not on JSA, but I have no fucking money.
How does JSA work? I'm coming to the point where I'm getting desperate.
Seems like kind of a crappy situation where some people are being caught in the crossfire of some needed reform. Maybe all of the reform is not sensible.
I do know that some reform is needed in the US. Entire generations of people go through getting disability pay for bogus reasons. There are definitely people that are incapable of working, and they should be taken care of, but there are many that could be working and contributing to society instead of just consuming other people's money.
The most recent This American Life was pretty interesting and delved into that situation in the US, to a decent extent. Seems like there's no real definition of what constitutes somebody as being disabled, and you really just need a doctor to sign off on it.
I do know that some reform is needed in the US. Entire generations of people go through getting disability pay for bogus reasons. There are definitely people that are incapable of working, and they should be taken care of, but there are many that could be working and contributing to society instead of just consuming other people's money.
The most recent This American Life was pretty interesting and delved into that situation in the US, to a decent extent. Seems like there's no real definition of what constitutes somebody as being disabled, and you really just need a doctor to sign off on it.
Don't know how it works now but back when I was on it about 5 years ago there was a quota of number of jobs you had to apply for each week and numbers of CVs you had to send out and whatnot. If you didn't meet your quota, you didn't get your JSA that week, and so actually the net effect was that you didn't apply for as many jobs as you might have, otherwise you wouldn't have any left for next week's quota.
I was on JSA last year and that is pretty much how it works but after awhile they'll stick you on the work program as well.
Captain_Spanky
Member
Not really how houses work though is it. You can't add 4 "unused" rooms from different families together and create a new house.
Why would I need to be 50 years old?
No but you can put pressure on the couples who are hanging on to their cheap 3 bedroom council house like their lives depended on it.
Wrestlemania
Banned
Should he have given them away or had them put down when he became unemployed?
Napoleonthechimp
Member
We don't live in a democratic system, not in the way we like to think.
I'm a part of a long-time conservative constituency that will stay that way for a very long time. How I vote is completely irrelevant so I don't have much choice in anything.
We also don't vote for specific policies.
travisbickle
Member
Liberty4all
Banned
Are these council houses free to live in assuming you have no job? Or subsidized by the government?
ChimpanzeeThat
Member
The thing that baffles me about these changes is the so-called "bedroom tax".
They want people who have young children to force them into sharing bedrooms and then charge them extra rent for the room they don't need. The idea being that they would force them into moving to a smaller house and someone else could take the larger house.
Picking on the benefit system is hilarious though, they really aren't doing much saving by doing these things. It seems bizarre that you would target the poorest in the country whilst giving another tax break for people who earn over £100k per year.
They want people who have young children to force them into sharing bedrooms and then charge them extra rent for the room they don't need. The idea being that they would force them into moving to a smaller house and someone else could take the larger house.
Picking on the benefit system is hilarious though, they really aren't doing much saving by doing these things. It seems bizarre that you would target the poorest in the country whilst giving another tax break for people who earn over £100k per year.
ChimpanzeeThat
Member
A mixture. They're built by the government and the local Council's (which are basically local government) rent them out to whoever needs them most. Generally speaking, people on benefits get extra help in the form of "housing benefit" which pays part of their rent and council tax for them, but other than that they are essentially on their own.
I should point out however that the majority of people who live in council property here in the UK are people who work.
Moral Panic
Member
Same thought here. Go back to the the JSA office or call one of those helplines because this doesn't sound right at all.
Phoenician_Viking
Banned
The system is not ideal though and a lot of exploitation happen, and the commune has a lot of bureaucracy and is severely under staffed. When i was unemployed i felt like i was a ping pong ball being sent from place to place without results and getting a lot of stress. Commune employers are so severely under staffed that they barely interact with the unemployed. The unemployed get sent to internship at both public and private institutions (the commune has a deal with certain companies) just so the staff does not have to deal with or deal with you as little as possible because of the severe shortage of people working in that division.
The only work I've been able to find is on a temp basis. I finished 3 months at Asda the Christmas just past and I've just got a 4 week temp contract working for Next. 4 weeks that's it, such a piss take.
It's fucking insane how tough it is.
Edit. Realistically I know I need to be moving, preferably abroad, but heh it's easier said then done.
It's fucking insane how tough it is.
Edit. Realistically I know I need to be moving, preferably abroad, but heh it's easier said then done.
sans_pants
avec_pénis
cant agree with you there. a lot of the jobs lost were higher wage jobs and they are being replaced with lower pay/part-time jobs
1984 the last big one. I was at school in Doncaster when it was on.
Kids with holes in their clothes which smelt bad and shoes with no laces became the norm in class. Kids were encouraged to shower at school as there was no hot water or heating at home. Nobodys parents in my area had or could work.
Shit was tough, what we have today is nothing. We've had smallish dip in gdp and a couple of extra % are unemployed, so what? Only real problem we have is the trillion quid+ debt we've amassed by kicking the can down the road.
Got anything to back that statement up?
They tend to be both... People on benefits with families get priority to get them hence we had a a culture of young women deliberately getting pregnant at one bit so they could get pushed up the list.
If you get work you pay rent but it's cheap hence due to the current system people cling onto them like grim death.
*Edit* Oops apologies for multiple posts.
sans_pants
avec_pénis
from zerohedge so take it with a grain of salt
its also pretty crazy that it doesn't look like most of those jobs are ever coming back and the world governments are slashing benefits leading up to the big drop
CyclopsRock
Member
I don't think the point is really to save money, at least not in the short term.
TheLegendOfMart
Banned
I lost my job just before christmas, I was made redundant. Been applying for at least 5 jobs a week in my small town (I know it doesn't sound like a lot but new jobs are few and far between here) and I barely even get replies let alone interviews, I can't drive and the public transport links between my town and the nearest large town start too late in the morning which rules out 99% of jobs I can apply for.
These benefit cuts are ridiculous, not only do my benefits not rise with inflation, I have a bedroom tax to pay which is 14% and I have to make up the difference in council tax benefit which was reduced by 20%.
I am being told by the government that I should give up the council house I am in because I have one empty bedroom, the waiting list for social housing in this town and the closest town has a 3-5 year waiting list, because I'm not married, I don't have kids, I'm not of a minority, I'm just a single, 30 year old, white guy I am not a priority and thus pretty much just sit at the bottom of the list.
So basically if I don't get a job soon I have to find an extra £12 to cover the rent and £6 to cover the council tax, £18 out of the £71 a week I get and that's even before I buy food, put gas and electric on my pre-payment meter. I was struggling before these changes came into effect, pretty soon I will be homeless, and before anyone starts having a go at me about how I should stop paying for internet, I am sharing a neighbours connection just so I can do job search.
These benefit cuts are ridiculous, not only do my benefits not rise with inflation, I have a bedroom tax to pay which is 14% and I have to make up the difference in council tax benefit which was reduced by 20%.
I am being told by the government that I should give up the council house I am in because I have one empty bedroom, the waiting list for social housing in this town and the closest town has a 3-5 year waiting list, because I'm not married, I don't have kids, I'm not of a minority, I'm just a single, 30 year old, white guy I am not a priority and thus pretty much just sit at the bottom of the list.
So basically if I don't get a job soon I have to find an extra £12 to cover the rent and £6 to cover the council tax, £18 out of the £71 a week I get and that's even before I buy food, put gas and electric on my pre-payment meter. I was struggling before these changes came into effect, pretty soon I will be homeless, and before anyone starts having a go at me about how I should stop paying for internet, I am sharing a neighbours connection just so I can do job search.
It's just standard issue economic downturn stuff by the looks. I'll say it again this downturn by comparison is pretty tame.
I know the media would have you believe otherwise, but they've got papers to sell.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll