Just been on a course about new benefit system

(541 Posts)
buggyRunner Sun 08-Jul-12 21:33:28

Christ it's a big shake up.

I say this as someone who won't be personally affected- it is harsh.

Basically if you claim any benefits other than child benefit you're probably going to have a loss.

buggyRunner Sun 08-Jul-12 21:36:47

Housing benefit will drop if you have a spare room- no exception. Spare room defined as children under 16 same sex need to share or different sex under 9 need to share.
Irrespective of the siZe of spare room.

Dla will be changed and all will need reassessing- no exceptions. Of working age - even if they have a life time award.

It goes on and on.

I know the system was floored and needed to change but this is a major shift

HaitchJay Sun 08-Jul-12 21:39:24

I'd heard of the bedroom tax. Not sure if it's national rates but was told 16% of benefit will be lost for each room.

buggyRunner Sun 08-Jul-12 21:43:54

Yes that's correct but on top of the other cuts like if you have a adult living with you- another cut.
Council tax benefit is going to end and it will be up to individual councils (who have no idea at this stage)

Community care grant, crisis loans and budgeting loans all going.

Housing benefit paid not to landlord but individual which will lead to an increase of LLs saying no dss, high deposit etc

buggyRunner Sun 08-Jul-12 21:44:42

Nothing benefit wise for 4th children + so no benefit, tax credit, hb etc

buggyRunner Sun 08-Jul-12 21:46:41

I'm just in shock that all dla claimants will need to reapply- regardless of their disability. It will make my job really hard as the stress it will cause my clients.

NiceViper Sun 08-Jul-12 21:50:39

Who ran the course, and who was it aimed at?

I find it very strange that items can be promulgated as fact when eg Councils (as mentioned) and Parliament have not yet been informed.

HaitchJay Sun 08-Jul-12 21:51:20

No cb for fourth or just ctc etf

SerialKipper Sun 08-Jul-12 21:52:03

They're planning to cut the total DLA payout by 20%.

That decision was made a while back - it's not based on what they will find when they re-assess people. It's purely a financial decision.

The govt estimate DLA fraud at about 0.5%, so this cannot but remove mobility and care assistance from an enormous number of disabled people who do need it.

NicholasTeakozy Sun 08-Jul-12 21:52:49

I can't understand why the people aren't up in arms about this. These twats are ruining this country. angry

sunshine401 Sun 08-Jul-12 22:00:04

Well maybe the Mps should not get such a big fat wage from the state in the first place Im sure that will saved LOADS of money hey smile

sunshine401 Sun 08-Jul-12 22:02:02

I also think I should point out its the third child not fourth child ben , Ct and LHA stops after 2nd child.

sunshine401 Sun 08-Jul-12 22:02:48

However they do not stop for non working families on the breadline

pancakeboobies Sun 08-Jul-12 22:03:19

Hi Buggy, they are more far reaching than I expected. I work in Benefits for my local authority and we have known about the changes to Council Tax Benefit for quite a while - the Head of Department has sent a rough draft around to us on how it will be assessed.
Seems the national government are trying to make the state as a whole unaccountable for anything that will negatively effect people - then the local council can be blamed rather than them, same with academies, NHS, etc.

What exactly can the poor and dispossessed do exactly?

gallicgirl Sun 08-Jul-12 22:06:56

I think the spare room reduction will only apply to registered social landlords initially.

Some councils are starting to consult over the new council tax benefit schemes but it will be late autumn before concrete decisions are made. It will be counted as a discount rather than benefit so appeals will go to the valuation tribunal who won't know what's hit them.

Housing benefit is already paid to the individual where I live. I asked for mine to be paid straight to the landlord and the council refused. hmm

niceguy2 Sun 08-Jul-12 22:13:22

Correct me if I am wrong but I thought the spare bedroom rule was coming into housing benefit regardless of universal credit? For me it makes sense that in current times that we are not paying housing benefit to people whom have a place bigger than they 'need'. l

And wasn't there a big shift already to pay the tenant directly rather than the landlord? I know many landlords won't touch DSS anymore because all too often tenants fail to pay their rent from housing benefit. And if the council pay direct then they can claw back the money paid to the LL at a later date if it turns out the tenant wasn't entitled to part/all of it. Again this seems to happen fairly often.

I'm sure there will be a huge outcry once all the details are nailed down and the press start writing about it. If the IT system underpinning it is shite then the effects will probably give the coalition their 'poll tax' moment.

In principle I think the idea of having a Universal Credit is far better than a hodge podge of different benefits. But it is an ambitious move for the government. One I hope pays off.

SerialKipper Sun 08-Jul-12 22:22:09

There is definitely an element of shoving stuff off onto local councils.

I was reading an impact assessment of the cuts to Incapacity Benefit/ESA the other day, and it basically says, "We're removing National Insurance contribution-based ESA after 12 months. But that's OK, because although up to 490,000 disabled people will be made poorer by this, local councils will have to pick up part of the tab through HB."

Rachel130690 Sun 08-Jul-12 22:23:46

Okay so I'm a little confused. I'm due to move start of August, due my first child start of September. House I'm renting is bigger than I need but I was told id receive housing benefit on my circumstances not the house I'm moving into. That they would only pay what I'm entitled to regardless of how much the rent is and it's up to me to pay the rest.

Because I'm moving in start of August I'd only be entitled to single person rate plus rates, and then when baby born I'd receive a bigger amount for single and one child, I've saved for this so I'm not stressing about extra rent if have to pay.

The house is a 3 bedroom house, so how would that work? I'd get less money because I've a spare room?

I'm from northern Ireland (not sure it makes any difference). If you could just explain it again I'm not the brightest lol x

sunshine401 Sun 08-Jul-12 22:50:41

You will not lose money it is the same, you will get the Local housing rate of a two bed house in your area . It is like that now in most places anyway.
However if you are under 25 it is changing but not yet. However even then if your already getting your hb it will not effect you.

sunshine401 Sun 08-Jul-12 22:51:02

affect rather smile

Lougle Sun 08-Jul-12 22:51:56

Rachel, you are 'entitled' to help with 2 bedrooms. That is one for you, and one for the baby. Therefore they will only give you rent for a 2 bed house, and you'd have to make up the difference.

MirandaWest Sun 08-Jul-12 22:56:49

I rent a three bedroom house but am entitled to a two bedroom one, so make up the difference. Can't see how that is changing. Am sure I will be screwed anyway but at least that part won't change.

buggyRunner Mon 09-Jul-12 05:27:11

I was under the impression that having a spare room creates a penalty of loosing a % of hb you're entitled to/ in receipt of

buggyRunner Mon 09-Jul-12 05:27:45

Oh and it's coming in in April- regardless

me23 Mon 09-Jul-12 06:36:40

What I don't get is have they can say 2 children have to share regardless of size of the room? I don't receive hb but hypothetically if I did it wouldn't be possible for 2 people to fit into my 2nd bedroom which is a box room not even 6ft wide with slanted ceilings so cannot fit bunk beds it is physically impossible. What about people in the same situation?

buggyRunner Mon 09-Jul-12 07:22:47

Doesn't matter- if it's classed as a bedroom they have to share.

HaitchJay Mon 09-Jul-12 07:23:07

I was told the same as buggy regarding losing part of HB so you'd be making up more.

me I'm working with a family in a house like yours at the moment. Housing class it as a half room yet expect two to share.

buggyRunner Mon 09-Jul-12 07:28:35

I work in supported accommodation for a housing association (hence the training) btw

Also all claims have to be submitted over the Internet, without exception.

I would say ok use the library- but aren't a lot of them closing confused

Scarredbutnotbroken Mon 09-Jul-12 07:30:04

Any idea about CTC? I don't get anything else apart from CB but CTC for me is £600 a month and pays mu child are etc. I am a lone parent.

Scarredbutnotbroken Mon 09-Jul-12 07:32:24

I work with young homeless people - I knew about the claims changing and the bedroom
Thing. It's making it do difficult for our young mums to get social housing because now they are the same need as a family with 2 kids up to 16!! Plus LHA has dropped off.

I can see where they're coming from with the spare room thing- we have had threads on here where people can't get a 3 bed because none are available, but they are occupied by one person ( only applies to council/ social housing I suppose). But the dla thing is awful, why waste all that money reassessing when the rate of fraud is so low? Mind you I think it costs more to administer the cut in cb for high earners than it saves, so where was the logic in that?

There are so many changes coming from so many different directions. It must be useful to get an overview. Can you point us at any useful resources, buggyRunner?

CuriousMama Mon 09-Jul-12 08:12:40

When I was on IT and HB I couldn't have a spare room. Also HB paid into bank acc.

SerialKipper Mon 09-Jul-12 08:15:36

All claims over the internet? Surely that breaches the Equality Act because there will be people who can't access it because of disability?

Not that the DWP would care mind, they've been in breach of the Equality Act for years, summoning disabled people to mandatory interviews, under threat of removing benefits, at Jobcentres that aren't wheelchair accessible...

niceguy2 Mon 09-Jul-12 08:29:10

But the dla thing is awful, why waste all that money reassessing when the rate of fraud is so low?

The unspoken truth (and I wish the govt would have the balls to just admit it) is that DLA is available to too many people and in the current climate needs to be cut. Ditto with IB

I have a friend who receives DLA for her daughter who has an nut allergy. Now of course I understand that she will have extra expenses etc as a result and it is a real shame that she has this. But at the same time we have to ask ourselves if we can still afford to give money to people for such conditions (and many more). The pot of money isn't endless and tough choices have to be made. I'm just glad I don't have to be the one to draw the line.

Similarly I have a friend who until recently was claiming IB and is now being moved to ESA. A young guy with back problems. Medically he does have back problems so him claiming would not be classed as fraud. But at the same time it doesn't stop him from volunteering at schools full days, having sex, paintballing and he even did a 8 mile walk with me. In my book he can and should be looking for work. Suitable work nonetheless but he can & should be working. At the age of 24 we shouldn't be saying to him "Here's some money....don't bother working anymore"

Oh and that's before another guy I know (not really a friend) who had a work accident resulting in him having to claim IB. Again back problems as well as now reckons he has photosensitive epilepsy yet happily uses flash on his camera all day and has even bought himself a professional flash system. Again I doubt he'd be classed as fraud even though in my mind it almost certainly is.

My point is that the fraud rate is so low because the reasons for claiming are so wide. It's right that the government are tightening up the rules. The hard part is coming up with a fair system to separate the genuine from the workshy. Because I bet each of those examples above would be unequivocally sure that their claim was 'genuine'.

SerialKipper Mon 09-Jul-12 08:35:19

"I have a friend who receives DLA for her daughter who has an nut allergy."

Sorry, don't believe you.

I know the tests for DLA. Unless she has an awful lot more than that going on, she simply won't get it. And she may indeed have a lot more going on, and you just don't know about it.

Scarredbutnotbroken Mon 09-Jul-12 09:29:39

I work with kids who have a disability who are on care orders. They qualify for a specialist carer who has to be available full time and costs the LA thousands. These young people are also entitled to DLA. I don't begrudge them anything but DLA is either for cars or mobility or both - these needs are met by the highly paid carer already - why double up?

I also have families where one partner cars for the other but does not make the threshold for carers allowance - then they need to look for work sad in my opinion. I don't know when I became such a Tory. Sorry

CuriousMama Mon 09-Jul-12 09:37:19

I thought DLA was for living and mobility for cars etc..?

Scarredbutnotbroken Mon 09-Jul-12 09:44:59

DLA has 2 elements; card and mobility. Each has 3 tiers depending on assessed need.

SerialKipper Mon 09-Jul-12 09:45:57

DLA is indeed for living care and mobility.

The first thing the local council said to me when I asked about social care was, "Have you applied for DLA?"

I was told to apply for DLA first, then if I still had needs that weren't being met to ask the council again and I'd be assessed separately by their team.

This "two agencies" thing is where both gaps and overlaps can happen, and is one of the very few places where there is a genuine need to reform DLA. But even then the "reform" just consists of getting the agencies to co-ordinate. I'm not sure, but iiuc some councils already charge service users the amount of the care DLA; others iiuc don't.

helpyourself Mon 09-Jul-12 09:49:50

buggyRunner what course did you go on? The changes have big implications for my work (employment advisor for a charity) and I'm applying for a new job within the organisation. Without wanting to sound cynical I could do with a heads up. Thank you!

GossipWitch Mon 09-Jul-12 09:56:46

back to the housing thing, do they expect you to put 3 children of the same sex in one bedroom too? i have a 10 year old ds a 6yr old sds at weekends and a 3 year old ds but we would eventually like to move in together but lack the room for a third bed in bedroom

ASillyPhaseIAmGoingThrough Mon 09-Jul-12 09:58:15

What an interesting thread. I get cb, ctc and dla, so won't be badly effected.

niceguy2 Mon 09-Jul-12 09:59:49

@Serialkipper. Well that's what she tells me. I couldn't really believe it either but apparently so. Not sure what she's actually told them. She could of course be embellishing the truth a bit?

garlicbutter Mon 09-Jul-12 10:04:31

These changes were announced last year. I can't believe the extent to which they've been totally ignored by the mainstream media.

This is what we were all frothing about - our blog's fallen into disuse now, but the info and rants are still there.

I received advice about the 'bedroom tax' from my LA in February. My HB has already been cut and will go down again next April. I have one spare room and a private landlord.

SerialKipper Mon 09-Jul-12 10:05:16

ASilly you may lose your DLA.

The intention is to rename it PIP and cut the bill by 20%. They plan to do this by changing the thresholds for qualifying - eg one mooted change, again iirc, was that people who go 200 m in a powerchair didn't need PIP because they clearly no longer have mobility difficulties...

(I think that one may have been dropped after it was pointed out that the DLA often pays for the frigging powerchair...)

SerialKipper Mon 09-Jul-12 10:15:20

niceguy, maybe she just doesn't discuss the full medical situation with you? Given the attitudes you're not at all shy about displaying on MN, you wouldn't be my first choice for a confidant.

I mean, "now reckons he has photosensitive epilepsy"? Yes, because that'll be something he's self-diagnosed, won't it? Not been told by his neurologist. And how great that he can do some photography on days when he's well - which presumably doesn't involve looking at the flash as it goes off and certainly not multiple repeated flashes. But actually I don't know what his condition-management strategy is - and neither do you.

ASillyPhaseIAmGoingThrough Mon 09-Jul-12 10:17:22

I know, I warned my friend recently, as her whole life relies on benefits. Her Dh is dla for life, she on goodness knows what since she gave up work and sold her house, no equity left. Her kids over income support level, she seemed to think she won't be effected.

garlicbutter Mon 09-Jul-12 10:19:33

Niceguy, of course she hasn't got DLA for a nut allergy! She may have a nut allergy but, if she's got an allowance, she also has a more serious condition.
Have a look at the DLA Child application form.

Here's the eligibility checklist and the
adult application form
... and for the people who tell me I get "loads of money" for a lower-rate mobility condition, here are the current rates.

The PIP criteria will be narrower, and the DWP has been open from the start that its objective is to reduce the disability budget by 20%.

JuliaScurr Mon 09-Jul-12 10:20:36

unitethresistance

don't agonise - organise!

STOP THE CUTS!

Iggly Mon 09-Jul-12 10:28:00

I'm sure there's a lot of money wasted by having millions of different benefits. In some ways, a more streamlined approach will work.

However cutting people's money in such a drastic fashion just smacks of madness. It really does. It's all very well talking about spongers and the like but if all benefit claimants were spongers, then we wouldn't have "shock" stories in the DM paper because it would be around us all the time.

I dread to think what this country will look like in 2-3 years time.

Minimal outcry for bankers fiddling the system so we pay more mortgage interest and they get bailed out by the state. Maximum outcry when someone in need gets state help.

This country is fucked.

niceguy2 Mon 09-Jul-12 10:43:54

My attitude? What attitude is that then? The one which believes that we cannot go on borrowing money and that as a result we have tough choices to make. It's not about what we 'should' be spending money on but more what we can actually 'afford' to spend money on.

All I'm arguing is that we cannot do everything and so we need to choose. It's simple mathematics but because of this, some people mistakenly think I'm some sort of uncaring, capitalistic bastard.

garlicbutter Mon 09-Jul-12 10:48:08

Your post about the girl with a nut allergy didn't seem focused on the national balance sheet, niceguy.

Scarredbutnotbroken Mon 09-Jul-12 11:12:14

Nice guy - this is the issue though the cuts are disproportionate to how much the benefits cost the country in the first place. Benefit fraud is a tiny bill every yet and yet tax evasion is vast, billions. What the guts are really about is surely pleasing voters.

flatpackhamster Mon 09-Jul-12 12:16:02

Scarredbutnotbroken

Nice guy - this is the issue though the cuts are disproportionate to how much the benefits cost the country in the first place. Benefit fraud is a tiny bill every yet and yet tax evasion is vast, billions. What the guts are really about is surely pleasing voters.

Benefit fraud might (might) be small, but the cost of welfare in the UK is immense. The total cost of the welfare state, including healthcare and education, is something like £400 Billion a year.

SerialKipper Mon 09-Jul-12 12:44:17

hamster, it's likely that for you, as for most people, your biggest single cost is housing. You may even have a mortgage.

You could in all likelihood save a lot of money, and dig yourself out of debt, by taking your entire family and living under a bridge.

Perhaps you might even splash out on the luxury of a single room, with access to shared kitchen and bathroom, for you and your entire family.

You would then not be spending lots of money on housing.

But why the fuck would you do that?

You spend your money - even decide to go into debt - to achieve the things that are important to you. The money is simply a means to this end.

So it is with national spending. We spend on what we think is important as a nation. It all has to be calculated, and just like a mortgage done with a good eye to the future, to investment and also to the costs of not spending.

You may think education isn't important for the nation. Fine. I beg to differ. But the size of the education bill (or health, or housing) shouldn't be the key factor in deciding that this is the thing that must be cut; the importance of education and impact of the contemplated cut should loom rather larger in the decision-making process.

violathing Mon 09-Jul-12 12:55:31

If your child leaves home for Uni at 18 can you still keep HB for a 2 bed property ? For when your child returns home in the hols? I am asking on behalf of my friend who asked yesterday. She is a lone parent on IS and her DS is going to uni in the Autumn

JuliaScurr Mon 09-Jul-12 13:03:29

bank bail out £850 billion
total debt £1 trillion (ish)

and this debt was caused by too many teaching assistants, was it?

hmm

niceguy2 Mon 09-Jul-12 14:14:58

Like I said earlier, I don't believe the current focus on fraud is a good idea. Outright fraud is low, I'm not disputing that. What I am saying is that we cannot afford our welfare system as it is so we must draw the line somewhere. It's where we draw the line which is the hard part because like I was trying to explain, each claimant will genuinely believe that he/she deserves it. But obviously we cannot just hand out money to everyone because we don't have the money.

The fact is that we take in around £400billion in taxes each year and we spend over £300 billion in health/education & welfare. It wouldn't be so bad if the other departments could get by on the remaining £100 billion but we are actually spending > £600 billion each year.

It really isn't about oh the rich are screwing the poor and we're cutting based on some right wing unsympathetic agenda. It really boils down to simple maths. There isn't enough money to go around.......which bits do you want to keep paying for and which bits must we live without.

SundaeGirl Mon 09-Jul-12 14:30:00

I don't want to be paying for someone's spare room when there are families waiting for bigger houses. Why should I pay?

flatpackhamster Mon 09-Jul-12 14:33:10

SerialKipper

hamster, it's likely that for you, as for most people, your biggest single cost is housing. You may even have a mortgage.

You could in all likelihood save a lot of money, and dig yourself out of debt, by taking your entire family and living under a bridge.

Perhaps you might even splash out on the luxury of a single room, with access to shared kitchen and bathroom, for you and your entire family.

You would then not be spending lots of money on housing.

But why the fuck would you do that?

To cut my living costs to match my earnings.

You spend your money - even decide to go into debt - to achieve the things that are important to you. The money is simply a means to this end.

So it is with national spending. We spend on what we think is important as a nation. It all has to be calculated, and just like a mortgage done with a good eye to the future, to investment and also to the costs of not spending.

What happens in reality, though, is that politicians say to us "Hey, you can have all this great stuff and pay for it later", and lefties go "Yay, let's have it all" and then, when it comes to pay for it later, lefties shout "No, it's unfair." And so the debt grows, and grows, and grows until it eats the heart out of the economy. Did you know that we're spending £40Billion a year just paying the interest on our debts? That's half the education budget.

JuliaScurr

bank bail out £850 billion
total debt £1 trillion (ish) £1.6 Trillion

Extra cost from PFI which is hidden off the books - £300Billion.

and this debt was caused by too many teaching assistants, was it?

I fixed your figures for you.

SerialKipper Mon 09-Jul-12 14:36:18

So hamster, do you in fact live under a bridge?

If not, why not?

I mean, you could be spending all that money on something more important to you than housing.

garlicbutter Mon 09-Jul-12 14:42:22

Sundae, when I moved here there was a fixed rate of HB for single people. With that, I could get a nice 1-bed flat with central heating, double glazing, etc or a ramshackle 2-bed house with neither. If I move out so somebody with children can have the 2 bedrooms, the landlords will renovate the house. It's not been touched since the early 70s. After they've repaired & decorated it, they will put the rent up.

Meanwhile, I'll have to pay the deposit for a one-bed flat - which I can't do - and get my stuff moved with no car and no money.

Have you got any good ideas? If my landlords change their minds about reducing my rent (in exchange for renovations) I'm going to need your suggestions.

garlicbutter Mon 09-Jul-12 14:44:06

we're spending £40Billion a year just paying the interest on our debts

which we incurred by collectively paying the banks' debts.

So why are you blaming us (and making us pay)?

garlicbutter Mon 09-Jul-12 14:50:58

Oh, Sundae, and I won't even get HB if I leave this place voluntarily! The landlord will have to evict me. To do that, they'll need a valid reason such as trashing the house or not paying my rent. Therefore, even if I could afford to vacate my home in favour of a smaller property, I still have to shaft them in order to be housed.

SundaeGirl Mon 09-Jul-12 15:00:50

Sorry, garlic, that sounds shit. Lots of people have trouble with their housing. Like a lot of mothers and children living in B&Bs waiting for two bedroom places to come up.

garlicbutter Mon 09-Jul-12 16:05:17

Yep, they do, Sundae. I was trying to demonstrate that arbitrary rules cause more problems than they solve.

I'm one of those who did move to an area with cheaper housing. There was nothing affordable in London, even before these new cuts. I'm too old, and too ill, to live 2 floors away from a shared toilet. Obviously moving's not an option for the majority - and would be utterly stupid if they were hoping to get back to work in the near future. There's a reason why cheap places are cheap.

I just can't believe any of these policies were put together by grown-ups!

FrothyOM Mon 09-Jul-12 16:15:46

People really don't know what's about to hit them... sad

niceguy2 Mon 09-Jul-12 17:23:06

Garlic et al. The interest on debts are not just because of the bankers. Sure of course they share some of the blame but even without the bailouts the recession would have exposed a ruddy great big hole in our finances. The total debt of £1 trillion excludes the financial interventions. It's scarily more if you include them but these are one off events.

I'm much more concerned with our ability to sort out our structural deficit. We're barely scratching the surface with what is needed to be done and listen to everyone moan as though it was the end of the world. I don't think most people even realise we're nowhere close to even breaking even and we're looking at at least another 5-8 years of austerity & more cuts.

garlicbutter Mon 09-Jul-12 17:37:28

I realise it, all right. Even if I weren't among the frightened masses making sure we have our suicide plans in place, I'd be bloody angry. It's extremely clear we're being governed by inexperienced idiots (I include Gordon in that, btw - he knows his money, but not enough of government) and I violently resent being practised on.

MetalliMa Mon 09-Jul-12 17:49:28

tis great isn't it.
my dd who is disabled and has been since birth, will have to go through all the DLA stuff again, even though she has an indefinite award.
of course she will still get it(or what ever the new name for it is)
but what a waste of money and time,
doing this won't cure her and make her not disabled.
you have ot love D scam, could he have more hatred.

buggyRunner Mon 09-Jul-12 18:39:32

Ctc being abolished and replaced with universal credit- you'll need to agree to additional commitments- look for better paid work/ more hours etc

All payments are monthly in arrears

SundaeGirl Mon 09-Jul-12 18:41:05

The thing is it really should not be up to the public purse to pay for people's spare rooms. It should be a matter of public policy to pay for NEED not want.

Of course, there are personal stories of this not being dealt with efficiently. But we live in a time of housing crisis. if you want a spare room you'll need to pay for it. We shouldn't support guest rooms when we can't even house desperate families.

JuliaScurr Mon 09-Jul-12 18:42:12

debt % of gdp 1945 - 250% - set up NHS
2010 - 60% - sell off entire Welfare State

EdithWeston Mon 09-Jul-12 18:57:53

You really cannot compare the war debt of 1945 with a debt after one of the longest spells of peace the nation has ever known without exceptionally heavy caveats.

flatpackhamster Mon 09-Jul-12 19:11:27

EdithWeston

You really cannot compare the war debt of 1945 with a debt after one of the longest spells of peace the nation has ever known without exceptionally heavy caveats.

Of course you can't. But, to the Left, the fact that the UK's debt was higher when we'd just mortgaged our country and our Empire to defeat Nazi Germany is an argument as to why unlimited debt is harmless.

ophelia275 Mon 09-Jul-12 20:44:41

Where have you heard about benefits only being paid up to 3 children? Not read anything official about that yet?

Scarredbutnotbroken Mon 09-Jul-12 21:07:29

Julia - best post!!

YoYoYoItsTillyMinto Mon 09-Jul-12 21:12:00

the current national debt is £32k per working house hold.

& posters think we should borrow more money? how muchj should we each take on £40k, £50k.... because at some point we need to balance the books.

then what?

sunshine401 Mon 09-Jul-12 21:19:51

Sorry but alot of you do not know what your talking about if you want advice about the new rules coming in you should go onto the DWP website or go into your local job centre. PLEASE do not worry about some of the things being said on here most are NOT true most are coming out of a newspaper/website article which are simply wrong.
.

NicholasTeakozy Mon 09-Jul-12 21:25:29

Julia they're not selling off the Welfare State. They're giving it away. To their corporate buddies.

Apparently we can't afford not to have these cuts. But we can afford to be involved in illegal wars.

ophelia275 Mon 09-Jul-12 21:39:54

Sorry but this is bullshit. Unless OP can provide a link to where it says that 4th and subsequent hildren will not receive benefits I would think all this is just heresay or scaremongering. Yes, there are cuts happening but this just sounds very exaggerated.

mercibucket Mon 09-Jul-12 21:47:54

What happens if your 2 bed house is converted to a one bed plus large bathroom? Genuine question btw. Do you think you can get house re-assessed as a one bed?

sunshine401 Mon 09-Jul-12 21:54:30

The benifit sytem is changing. Its changing as in the payments are all being put together housing ben, child ben , child tax etc into one universal credit one monthly payment like a salary this is becoming available to everyone not just non-working families.
Yes some things are being put down a bit however more working people will see more (YEAH!) this is because right now people are getting more money by not working than they would if they worked.
Most accounts will be online however if needed do NOT have to be .
The amount of credit you get will be effected by lots of different factors but the money you claim now it will still be around the same.
If unemployed your online account will help you get in to work and give you bonuses for doing so etc
The online service will also be full of helpful links , numbers and online chat people to help when needed.

People are not going to be forced into poverty nothing like it. The papers just want to sell a paper really .

sunshine401 Mon 09-Jul-12 21:58:56

You will get the local rate of whatever area you live in for example if you are entitled to a one bed and the rate for a one bed in your area is £80 p/w you will get anything upto £80 p/w but nothing over. Even if you are in a one bed that is £100 p/w you will not get over the rate of your local area of £80 and so on.

Hope that helps but thats not new in most places thats how it is now. smile

KarlosKKrinkelbeim Mon 09-Jul-12 22:02:09

It is very difficult to get one's head round the changes, unless one has the tiome to research it thoroughly. There is a lot of inaccuracy and misinformaiton in the press. I read one report by a Guardian journalist about the chnages to SN provision which said that the type of therapy we currently have part-funded for our ds would be stopped; thankfully this was a total whopper. I can't help but think that opponents of this government do not help themselves by telling outright lies.
That said, I agree that the approach to DLA is wrong. It is not a fertile source of fraud or dubious claims. And I have little faith in the abilities of the authorities to assess people properly. Given the fact that 99% of NHS doctors have no clue about my ds's not-very-rare-at-all condition (ASD), I cannot see how they are going to assess people who may have mkuch rare conditions competently.

sunshine401 Mon 09-Jul-12 22:05:25

Best way is just not worry about it what will happen will happen . smile

You will receive a lovely letter one day stating what you will be getting so until then meh.... grin

mercibucket Mon 09-Jul-12 22:17:51

Thanks sunshine
Yes, that's how it is already. So that's not changing then? No extra penalty for choosing to live in a bigger house etc?

buggyRunner Mon 09-Jul-12 22:39:26

Promise it's not bullshit- I am long term poster (who has limited Internet as just moved house and no reception)
I went on a course and we had a benefits refresher/ update.

Obviously the biggest concern is how to ensure rents get paid and clients can budget. The move to monthly payments is huge and will be very detrimental to a lot of vulnerable people.

SerialKipper Mon 09-Jul-12 22:44:01

Yeah, I was just getting my info from DWP publications and Hansard.

But now sunshine401 has told me not to worry my pretty little head about it I'll stop campaigning. hmm

SerialKipper Mon 09-Jul-12 22:46:10

Btw sunshine, if

people who are not working and currently receive a subsistence amount will not be "forced into poverty"

and

people who are working will see more

then

where are the CUTS coming from?

Dahlen Mon 09-Jul-12 22:52:13

It's terrifying. Today I heard of a 59-year-old woman with a major heart condition (requiring open heart surgery later this year) and learning difficulties being told that her latest claim for DLA has been refused and she has to go a tribunal if she wishes to appeal it because they consider her fit for work. They did the same thing 12 months ago and it was thrown out and her benefits reinstated immediately. But not before she'd had no payments whatsoever for 9 months. If she hadn't had family to help...

KarlosKKrinkelbeim Mon 09-Jul-12 22:55:38

I think that sort of thing is starting to happen a lot. The authority makes a completely outrageous decision to cut funding which they know will be indefensible in Tribunal, but hey, the person affected might not bother to take them there, and even if they do, there will still be a period of time where they're not paying, which will make this year's figures look better.
this sort of thing has been going on forever in the arena of SN provision of course - it's not new. LEAs are thoroughly cyncal in this regard, and always have been.

Dahlen Mon 09-Jul-12 23:00:15

sad It's so dismissive of people's basic humanity.

If you're old, young, disabled, unwell, or disadvantaged in any way, this is a hard, hard world to be in. It has always been that way of course, but it just feels so wrong when you see the obscene levels of wealth held by so few of the population and often for no better reason than inheritance, playing monopoly games with other people's money, or raking in huge profits from businesses that pay their staff minimum wage or worse still outsource it to foreign sweatshops.

JosephineCD Mon 09-Jul-12 23:00:55

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

MetalliMa Mon 09-Jul-12 23:01:58

bollocks, most decent people do not support disabled people being forced into poverty

JosephineCD Mon 09-Jul-12 23:03:20

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

KarlosKKrinkelbeim Mon 09-Jul-12 23:04:42

My own view as a result of watching how LEAs work is that these tactics do not, in the long run, save money. Public sector objectives are essentially short term. the tactics the authorities pursue will probably cost more, over a person's life, than spending money upfront to ensure proper provision at an early stage. but all the authority cares about is that year's budget, and keeping the expenditure out of that budget.

Tortington Mon 09-Jul-12 23:04:45

IME the people who are under occupying are old people and this wont affect them anyway.

with the shortage of social housing esp in the SE it would be unlikley that someone would be eligible to underoccupy on application.

crazynanna Mon 09-Jul-12 23:05:15

So you think they should be forced into a worse lifestyle then,JCD?

MetalliMa Mon 09-Jul-12 23:06:03

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

KarlosKKrinkelbeim Mon 09-Jul-12 23:07:05

What a disgusting remark, Josephine. People do not ask to have disabilities. Most decent people agree that those who cannot work, through no fault of their own, are entitled to dignity and proper living standards.
you may well encounter a situation in the future where you cannot support yourself through illness or infirmity. i assume you will take yourself off to the gutter the instant that happens, and make no claim on the state?

JosephineCD Mon 09-Jul-12 23:07:44

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

KarlosKKrinkelbeim Mon 09-Jul-12 23:10:37

Josephine, I am one of many parents of children with disabilities here. unfortunately I am all too aware that there many people out there who are, to be blunt, as helplessly stupid as you who would condemn people with disabilities for their inability, through no fault of their own, to be economically productive. but by and large such people are not found here on MN, and certainly not welcome here. So I have reported your post. And I hope you are banned.

crazynanna Mon 09-Jul-12 23:13:27

So someone who has the misfortune to be disabled and incapable of work must be and stay in a worse situation than a healthy,able employed individual...that is sick

JosephineCD Mon 09-Jul-12 23:15:17

So should someone that works all week stay in a worse situation than someone that is unable to work? If you said that to people in most countries in the world, or in this country 20 or more years ago, they'd say you were crazy, and rightfully so.

cormsilkye Mon 09-Jul-12 23:15:20

Josephine you are disgustingly ignorant..

JosephineCD Mon 09-Jul-12 23:17:36

No, I have a different opinion. Do you really think what I have said is so off-base to what the general opinion of the average working British person thinks?

usualsuspect Mon 09-Jul-12 23:19:21

I'd shut up if I were you Josephine

usualsuspect Mon 09-Jul-12 23:20:18

Your posts are some of the worst I've ever seen on MN.

I hope you get banned.

crazynanna Mon 09-Jul-12 23:20:52

I am an average working British person, and no...i do not believe disabled people should be worse off than me.

So there you have it.

JosephineCD Mon 09-Jul-12 23:20:55

Sorry if I have upset anyone but these are my beliefs. I will say no more on the subject.

Dahlen Mon 09-Jul-12 23:23:13

josephine, you cannot compare a national heritage benefitting an entire nation to personal inheritance. That's just ridiculous!

Some will always be more fortunate than others. It's the way of the world, but IMO it behoves anyone with a shred of decency to contribute willingly to the welfare of society's most vulnerable.

OliviaLMumsnet (MNHQ) Mon 09-Jul-12 23:23:55

Hi Josephine
We don't allow disablist posts on Mumsnet so we have deleted your posts.
Do have a quick look at the guidelines.
Thanks ever so
MNHQ

Tortington Mon 09-Jul-12 23:24:22

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

ASillyPhaseIAmGoingThrough Mon 09-Jul-12 23:25:41

Nice, I am worth less than someone working, I worked for years, been a Wagner for years and volunteered for years... nice

crazynanna Mon 09-Jul-12 23:26:08

Good call OliviaMN. I was starting to feel a bit nauseous and was about to hide my very first thread since joining.

ASillyPhaseIAmGoingThrough Mon 09-Jul-12 23:27:26

Nice, I am worth less than someone working, I worked for years, been a sahm for years and volunteered for years... well that tells me.

usualsuspect Mon 09-Jul-12 23:29:52

Thank you Olivia.

carernotasaint Mon 09-Jul-12 23:30:41

Josephine you better tell your mates at Tory HQ that the thread derailing didnt go quite as planned.
Oh and to Mumsnet ......thankyou. Bout fucking time!

ASillyPhaseIAmGoingThrough Mon 09-Jul-12 23:31:24

Olivia, nice and swift, thanks.

SundaeGirl Mon 09-Jul-12 23:32:58

Josephine is not a Tory.

ASillyPhaseIAmGoingThrough Mon 09-Jul-12 23:33:11

I wonder if Josephine when ill later in life will then hang her head in shame.

OliviaLMumsnet (MNHQ) Mon 09-Jul-12 23:33:11

No worries and sorry about that custy.

crazynanna Mon 09-Jul-12 23:34:01

That is the first time I have been on a thread with disablist comments here. I have read threads with them on...but never been on one when it happened.

God i feel sick. I didn't think I would angry actually feel physically ill.

noddyholder Mon 09-Jul-12 23:34:36

Disability and I'll health are not things to punish for what is wrong with some people?

Viviennemary Mon 09-Jul-12 23:36:31

Sorry, but I feel it is more than a bit irresponsible saying all this is coming into effect and sending people into a panic. I am reading on here that child benefit is to be paid for only up to three children and no subsequent children get benefit. Is this true?

carernotasaint Mon 09-Jul-12 23:36:33

What i meant by "bout fucking time" is because i have seen disabilist comments by that particular poster before but the response from OliviaLMumsnet was bloody swift so thanks again MN HQ

ASillyPhaseIAmGoingThrough Mon 09-Jul-12 23:36:43

Josephine has disappeared?

carernotasaint Mon 09-Jul-12 23:37:51

Josephine has disappeared.
EXACTLY. I still stand by my Tory HQ comment.

Tortington Mon 09-Jul-12 23:39:26

that's ok olivia t'was expected grin

edam Mon 09-Jul-12 23:39:28

the spare rooms thing might, at first glance, seem reasonable. But actually it will force foster carers to give up fostering. They MUST have a separate bedroom available for a foster child - that's an essential requirement. Yet as soon as a foster child leaves, a foster family waiting for another child will be penalised if they live in social housing. This glaring problem was not only pointed out to the government but the House of Lords corrected it - yet the government put it back in again. Pure spite. And that's just typical of this government's spiteful self-defeating 'reforms' that will end up costing us even more money in the long run - just on different budget lines and from different departments. Still, what does it matter if even more children in care are dumped in children's homes, as long as a bunch of wealthy Tories get to grandstand about how they've slashed disability benefits because disabled people are all scroungers?

AmberLeaf Mon 09-Jul-12 23:59:35

The unspoken truth (and I wish the govt would have the balls to just admit it) is that DLA is available to too many people and in the current climate needs to be cut. Ditto with IB

That's bollocks.

Luckily for you that you haven't had to claim it for your child so you wouldn't know the first thing about it other than 'my mates uncles dog gets it for an ingrown toenail' type anecdote.

Why do you think you know so much about it all anyway? It wasn't so long ago that I had to correct you in your thinking that DLA is an out of work benefit. You didn't realise that getting it enables some disabled people to work.

You had better hope that you and yours never need it.

carernotasaint Tue 10-Jul-12 00:01:03

<claps for what Amberleaf just said>

rshipstuff Tue 10-Jul-12 00:05:43

There is a lot of propaganda being spread by all sides. I wouldn't treat it all as gospel truth, much of the time they are painting worst-case scenarios in order to stir up opposition.

AmberLeaf Tue 10-Jul-12 00:06:17

Thank you smile

buggyRunner Tue 10-Jul-12 05:13:47

Oh the shocking thing about it is that apparently foster children aren't included so you don't get a room for them

EdithWeston Tue 10-Jul-12 06:20:48

Sorry if this is mentioned up thread (I saw similar question but not answer):

Who ran this course? Who were the speakers on it? What was its aim?

Who was on the course?

Were any political parties, or other particular organisations involved, and if so, which ones?

niceguy2 Tue 10-Jul-12 08:18:50

I think we just have different opinions Amber. We simply cannot afford the status quo. That is absolute fact which no-one aside from the economic flat-earther's can deny. So the question is where do you make the cuts? You have to draw the line somewhere. The pot is not unlimited and we cannot make the pot big enough by merely shouting 'tax the rich'

The examples I have given are known to myself so it's up to others to decide if either I am lying or my friends have lied to me.

I'm sure we all know people who have questionable claims. There simply is a MASSIVE amount of people who receive a lot of benefits and as a result have little incentive to better themselves or work. In fact often they find themselves trapped.

My main points are that the current system is very inefficient, can be improved and in it's current form is unaffordable.

We can all find examples which we feel are unjust but that doesn't prove that the system is perfect. Quite simply it isn't.

Whether or not you believe Universal Credit is the answer I guess will largely depend on your politics. Personally I feel that whilst not perfect, it's a step in the right direction and better/fairer than the current system. But given the majority automatically assume anything the Tories do must be bad, i accept I am possibly in the minority.

ophelia275 Tue 10-Jul-12 09:51:23

Can someone please post a link to the official document which outlines all these changes? Otherwise it just sounds like chinese whispers.

buggyRunner Tue 10-Jul-12 10:58:38

The course/ session was created by the company I work for's benefits advisor (it was an overview to get us ready as it will massively affect our work)

She explained all the info was available (I will ask for sources when I'm next at work) and I work for a housing association. The biggest focus if the session wad how we can help our clients budget and prepare for this. And also how to ensure they pay their rent as hb payment will go to them (and we deal with v vulnerable people some of who recording large amounts of money monthly is going to be disasterous)

Viviennemary Tue 10-Jul-12 12:17:26

If these are proposals would the information given on this course be confidential.

SerialKipper Tue 10-Jul-12 12:47:47

DWP impact report on making contribution-based ESA one year only. States that it expects people will be thrown onto Housing Benefit to make up part of the shortfall.
www.parliament.uk/documents/impact-assessments/IA11-022BN.pdf

Hansard, written answer by Maria Miller, Minister for the Disabled, 18 Oct 2010:
"One factor being considered in developing options for the new assessment is the need for reform of disability living allowance to deliver savings of 20% of working age expenditure."
www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm101018/text/101018w0002.htm

garlicbutter Tue 10-Jul-12 13:23:48

Benefit Changes Overview: www.turn2us.org.uk/information__resources/benefits/news_and_changes.aspx

Benefit Changes Timetable: www.turn2us.org.uk/information__resources/benefits/news_and_changes/benefit_changes.aspx

Benefit Cap: www.turn2us.org.uk/information__resources/benefits/benefits_news_and_changes/benefit_cap.aspx

On housing benefit:

"In April 2011, maximum local housing allowance (LHA) rates in all areas were reduced – only three out of ten properties for rent in any area are now affordable for people making a new claim. Unless your rent is already one of the lowest 30 per cent in your area, the maximum LHA you can be paid will be less than your rent."

"From January 2012, the ‘shared accommodation rate’ will apply to people aged up to 35 years. If you are aged under 35, you are likely to see a cut to your LHA payment and may no longer be able to afford your current property as a result."

"Local housing allowance (LHA) rates for larger households used to include a maximum payment for up to five bedroom properties. From 1 April 2011, the rates are limited to a maximum of four bedrooms."

england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/paying_for_a_home/housing_benefit_and_local_housing_allowance/changes_to_local_housing_allowance

"Size criteria will apply in the social rented sector (eg council and housing association properties) replicating the size criteria that applies to Housing Benefit claimants in the private rented sector under the Local Housing Allowance rules. This means that people living in houses larger than they need (under-occupiers) will have to move to somewhere smaller or make up the difference in rent because their Housing Benefit will be reduced:
14% cut in Housing Benefit if you under-occupy by one bedroom
25% cut in Housing Benefit if you under-occupy by two or more bedrooms

"This is only for working-age people but it is expected to affect 670,000 social sector tenants.

"LHA rates will be increased in line with the Consumer Price Index instead of the market rents in each area. The connection with actual rents will be lost."

www.turn2us.org.uk/information__resources/benefits/news_and_changes/benefit_changes.aspx?page=16619

garlicbutter Tue 10-Jul-12 13:26:35

Vivienne - No. Proposals are made public and usually published as PDF files. I found the relevant ones while researching for TooManyCuts. Anyone can do the same.

garlicbutter Tue 10-Jul-12 13:28:08

(Remember they work for us, not t'otherway round! Govt is not free to make 'confidential' policies that affect us all.)

ophelia275 Tue 10-Jul-12 13:34:39

garlic butter, thanks for those. Where does it state that child benefits/tax credits are being capped at 3 children as buggyRunner has said?

BuggyRunner, on your course did they specifically state the child benefit cap to 3 kids is coming in? This is going to be massive if that is true but I have not read anything online about this. It will affect a lot of my friends who have more than 3 kids and are receiving those allowances but I cannot believe it would be true.

ASillyPhaseIAmGoingThrough Tue 10-Jul-12 13:51:11

I would guess cb for existing dc 4 would stand, just no more cb from certain date

HaitchJay Tue 10-Jul-12 13:52:53

I'm more concerned about CB being in universal credit as I claim CB but not CTC despite being entitled and I don't want to have to claim it.

sunshine401 Tue 10-Jul-12 13:54:16

lol some comments are just plain stupid. I was mearly pointing out there is not much point fretting about it. Whats going to happen will happen sitting on the internet and moaning is not going to change it.

If you want to know what is changing look it up smile

SerialKipper Tue 10-Jul-12 14:17:38

"Whats going to happen will happen sitting on the internet and moaning is not going to change it."

Yeah, I mean, phone hacking. No one moaning on the internet could change that, could they?

And after all, rules are made by god, aren't they? No connection to that big building in London and all those MP people - what are they for, anyway?

SerialKipper Tue 10-Jul-12 14:21:37

But I agree, one doesn't have to limit one's activism to the internet. And I don't.smile

garlicbutter Tue 10-Jul-12 14:23:21

Moaning on the internet does change things, sunshine!
You can petition, tweet, lobby your MP and other representatives, contact the media.

They work for us.

SerialKipper Tue 10-Jul-12 14:27:06

<whispers> I don't think sunshine wants the proles to realise that, garlic. I have a feeling she likes us docile...

Jupiterscock Tue 10-Jul-12 14:33:33

I'm relieved that teh question of unlimited CB and TC for unlimitesd number sof children is finally being addressed.

Up to three children sounds fair to me.

It is NOT fair to expect tax payers, many of whom limit their family size according to income, to bankroll those who pay littl eor no tax at all to have as many children as they fancy.

As for everything else, I agree 100% with Niceguy! grin

HaitchJay Tue 10-Jul-12 14:45:15

I do agree on that Jupiter and the idea of one benefit instead of loads. Just wish it was more thought out and not being used to shaft people.

Dahlen Tue 10-Jul-12 14:49:47

What about those who have more than three children who were working when they had those children but later fall on hard times?

And is it ever right to punish children for the 'sins' of their parents? Because who do you think will suffer most in households where benefits are reduced?

Jupiterscock Tue 10-Jul-12 14:52:57

Easy -you pay for all children already in existance but not for any born more than a year, say after you implement the changes.

CharlieUniformNovemberTango Tue 10-Jul-12 15:04:56

What a lovely idea Jupiter.

How much extra funding will the Social services, adoption departments, foster carers etc get then?

Because those services will get even more stretched aw a result won't they?

Not to mention the NHS who will be dealing with more sick children due to bad diets as parents won't be able to afford decent food.

But then I guess the gov. Can pump more money into healthy eating schemes and parenting classes thus laying the blame completely at the parents feet...

garlicbutter Tue 10-Jul-12 15:07:02

grin Kipper. I'll just get me sackcloth coat ...

carernotasaint Tue 10-Jul-12 15:07:14

than the current system. But given the majority automatically assume anything the Tories do must be bad, i accept I am possibly in the minority

Why dont you ask the families of the 32 people who have died after being found fit for work, whether they think the Tories are bad.
You could ask these recipients themselves IF THEY WERNT DEAD!

Jupiterscock Tue 10-Jul-12 15:51:11

charlie what part of my post did you not read?

Children already here will continue to receive benefit, only unborn children will not.

Every child is a choice. No one, NO ONE has to go ahead with having a child if they don't want to or can't afford to.

The left always get so hysterical in these discussions with talk of starving and workhouses and orphanages. Beacsue, of course, actually limiting your family to the number of mouths you can actually feed ( even at the taxpayers expense) is such a radical and rightwing idea, isn't it? confused.

CharlieUniformNovemberTango Tue 10-Jul-12 16:01:14

Jupiter - its very easy to say "stop having children at three"

Do you honestly think that will stop accidents or children born from assault or whatever? Do you honestly think its fair to say " nope, we won't support that fourth child. We warned you!"

And suppose I have two children and decide to have a third. But whoops, my DH has been made redundant. And Oh Dear, it's triplets! Then what? I know it's not a very likely scenario but it will happen.

And once that year is up, when people are supposed to be used to the new rules, are you saying its ok then to stop supporting fourth and subsequent children regardless of when they were born?

I don't think it's a case of lefts being hysterical.

I honestly think this policy would impact on the services I mentioned. And I'm genuinely interested in how they would be supported.

The fact is, some families will go onto have more children. Those families will then be plunged further into poverty won't they? You can't say it won't happen because it shouldn't.

YoYoYoItsTillyMinto Tue 10-Jul-12 16:32:56

but most people already limit their family size already to fit what they can afford. isnt this just levelling the playing field?

CharlieUniformNovemberTango Tue 10-Jul-12 16:51:21

I agree that people need to start living within their means.

I just don't think it's going to happen like this. And children will suffer as a result.

I don't know how to fix it or break the cycle but putting more children into poverty will make it worse. It will put more strain on allready stretched services. And it's not in any way going to be fair us it?

flatpackhamster Tue 10-Jul-12 17:08:43

CharlieUniformNovemberTango

I agree that people need to start living within their means.

I just don't think it's going to happen like this. And children will suffer as a result.

There is no 'nice' solution here. There's no magic spell that can stop bad things happening, and no amount of money either.

I don't know how to fix it or break the cycle but putting more children into poverty will make it worse. It will put more strain on allready stretched services. And it's not in any way going to be fair us it?

What's fair? That people who live within their means have to pay for people who don't? OH and I are in our mid/late 30s, with a single baby on the way. That's all we can afford and we've scrimped and saved. Could've had six, seven kids, free housing, free education, free healthcare, and be on grandkids by now if we'd played the system, and never worked a day.

And the Left sit around and tell me it's "unfair" to limit benefits. I spit on their "fairness".

Vagaceratops Tue 10-Jul-12 17:15:42

The people who slam DLA as being too easy to claim have (99.99% of the time) never had to claim it themselves.

They are also normally mixing it up with IB/ESA

MetalliMa Tue 10-Jul-12 17:29:20

"I'm sure we all know people who have questionable claims. There simply is a MASSIVE amount of people who receive a lot of benefits and as a result have little incentive to better themselves or work. In fact often they find themselves trapped."
niceguy
terrible isn't it that the state has to help people who are disabled. often unable to work due to being disabled.
terrible that when you are too disabled to work you are trapped. yes trapped by your disability.
I assume you know nothing about what you are talking about.

AmberLeaf Tue 10-Jul-12 17:31:29

Agree Vagaceratops.

AmberLeaf Tue 10-Jul-12 17:33:10

...And Metallima!

Orwellian Tue 10-Jul-12 17:47:02

Dahlen - "And is it ever right to punish children for the 'sins' of their parents? Because who do you think will suffer most in households where benefits are reduced?"

Funny, nobody seems to have a problem with child benefits being removed from the children of middle class or wealthy families. Why should they be punished because their parents have worked hard and got a good job?

AmberLeaf Tue 10-Jul-12 17:53:48

Ha ha ha ha ha! Good one Orwellian!

Hang on...you weren't serious were you?

JuliaScurr Tue 10-Jul-12 17:57:25

flatpack those things aren't free - we already paid for them. Orwellian I don't support taking universal benefits from middle classes - means test what we pay in, tax, not what we take out.

Bob Diamond didn't take his £20 million, poor sod only got £2 million sad

garlicbutter Tue 10-Jul-12 17:58:00

What's fair? That people who live within their means have to pay for people who don't?

I imagine you think it quite fair that you received your education, your mother got CB, you got your medical & dental treatment, the nice policeman brought you home and so on while I was paying for it? While you were at school I was paying around £20,000 a year in tax + NI, using virtually no public services at all. I never resented it; thought I was contributing to a kitty system that pays up according to need.

Funny how you don't see it the same way now you're paying and I'm claiming.

YoYoYoItsTillyMinto Tue 10-Jul-12 18:11:44

garlic pays up according to need but what is need and when does it become want?

no one needs to have say 4 children.
a typical 23 yo does not need to leave home if they cannot afford it.

i want better service for people how have no choice e.g. ill, disabled, children. but adults who are well need to be responsible for their own lives most of the time.

Orwellian Tue 10-Jul-12 18:22:36

Amber Leaf. Yes, I am serious.

Why is there such an issue with removing child benefits from workless families but no issue in removing child benefits from working families? Are middle class kids less deserving of child benefit (a benefit for the child, not the parents) than the children of workless families? Why should someone earning £60k be paying tax to provide for someone else's children when their own kids have been deprived of it? They are only responsible for their own kids, not other peoples!

CharlieUniformNovemberTango Tue 10-Jul-12 18:25:21

So that's it flatpack? That's the answer. Cut the benefits. Make the people already reliant on them even poorer?

So then their children are brought up in even worse conditions. Which often breeds a cycle of them alao being poor. And the children that do grow up to be inspired to get out of that cycle? Well, they can go to university nice and cheaply can't they? Oh wait, no they can't.

You can spit on fairness all you like. It's ok. You pay the street cleaners to clear it up after all.

YoYoYoItsTillyMinto Tue 10-Jul-12 18:36:20

but you cannot give someone money out of proverty. my take is you need to put more pressure on adults (excluding disabled) and more provision for children in workless households.

so if you are born in a workless household, you get breakfast lunch & dinner at school, homework clubs, holiday clubs etc. others can pay to use the same facilities.

Jupiterscock Tue 10-Jul-12 18:37:38

Many children in benefit families are being brought up in conditions considerably better than their working peers.

Which is precisely what this Govt has the guts to address.

And how incredibly patronising to suggest that because you are poor and on benefits you can't control your fertility! If the working and middle classes can manage to control their family size, why on earth can't those who don't work?

And you know what, if working people on a fixed salary get pregnant unexpectedly they either put up and shut up and tighten their belts or they choose not to go ahead. They DON'T expect the rest of us to pay for their slip up!

SerialKipper Tue 10-Jul-12 18:39:29

"benefit families"?!

Like yours then?

Unless you don't claim child benefit, child tax credits...

CharlieUniformNovemberTango Tue 10-Jul-12 18:44:31

I never suggested that people can't control their fertility because they were poor.

I said that people don't. That's fairly obvious. And nothing to do with income etc.

YoYoYoItsTillyMinto Tue 10-Jul-12 18:52:54

but if you are not entitled to benefits, you are incentivised into controlling your fertility as your income will not increase with birthrate.

if you are entitled to benefits, you are not incentivised into controlling your fertility as your income will increase with birthrate.

Orwellian Tue 10-Jul-12 18:56:20

Ok, just an example. Take a 3 child family in London where neither parent is working,living in a private rental in an average London suburb. They would get the following per year according to Turn2Us;

child benefit x 3 = £8,617
child tax credits x 3 = £2,455
Income support/jobseekers for a couple = £5,811
Housing benefit/Local Housing allowance = £17,728 (calculated for a 3 bed in *Outer North London)
Council tax benefit = £1,400

Total benefits per year = £36,011.

This is not including any of the satellite benefits (i.e. Free school meals, free prescriptions, healthy start vouchers, capped water cost).

That is more than someone on an income of £50k earns per year after tax and NI!

A family getting £36,011 per year to live in London when neither parent is working is not poor! I imagine many families with a parent earning £50k per year would love to get the same amount of money without having to work at all. Crazy!

Jupiterscock Tue 10-Jul-12 19:13:59

I don;t get any benefits, no. My CB will be stopped. And we pay, between us many , many tens of thousands in tax.

To which I expect your response to be along the lines of , " Oh, well you can clearly afford it yadda yadda ".

Tilly, every post of yours here is spot on and ysome peopel still Don't Get It. So let's make it simple.

For every child a working perosn has, generally they get a bit poorer. for every child a non working person has, generally they get a bit richer. See??

stephrick Tue 10-Jul-12 19:18:49

What this government does not understand is that most single mothers and fathers do work, we rely on help with housing benefit, the majority have to private rent because there is no social housing, I live in a private rent house, my 2 boys 14 and 19 share, my daughter 17 studying for A levels in the box room. My eldest works full time but cannot afford to move out due to high rent in this area. By the way we live in the west country, so not London. What hope for the future of those that want to try!!!!! Please give me a council house, Who would have thought that it would become a dream.

Viviennemary Tue 10-Jul-12 19:27:28

There is no social housing??? There is social housing but it's not being used properly. Why are very well off people still in social housing. Or single people occupying three bedroomed houses. My DS can't afford to move out of here either. He would like to though.

sunshine401 Tue 10-Jul-12 19:30:52

Very nice comments thanks smile

stephrick Tue 10-Jul-12 19:32:35

Orwellian, not planet earth, Child benefit for 3 children is £188 pounds a month, wherever yo live, so no more than £2200 per year, I cannot say for the other amounts but get facts right.

SerialKipper Tue 10-Jul-12 19:35:29

So you've been claiming CB, jupitercock? So you're a benefit family.

A working benefit family.

And that's the problem. We're in the middle of a concerted attempt to rebrand the welfare state as charity for the poorest, instead of the something-for-everything system it was set up to be.

Our welfare state has been about redistribution to people of their own money across their lifetime as well as from the richest to the poor. Education and childhood health taken care of. A bit of help in the younger child-rearing years when families are typically at their poorest. Then taxation as the parents gain promotion and earn more and the children leave home. Then retirement and pensions and personal care for those who need it. And all along the way, support for those who become ill sooner than 60/65 or who are made redundant and need to survive.

That's why child benefit was universal. And the state pension. Winter Fuel Payments. It's why prescriptions are free for pensioners - something Nick Boles MP has just suggested dropping.

Now maybe we want a welfare state and NHS that's only for the poorest and anyone above that limit should put in and never see a penny back.

But if we're going to have that change, shouldn't we at least debate it? Or even, acknowledge it?

I've seen time and again the assertion from politicians and some on here that benefits "should only be for the very poorest". And yet those very posters are themselves merrily receiving benefits. It was a helluva shock to a lot of higher rate taxpayers to discover that they were receiving a benefit like CB and it could be cut. Because like you, jupiterscock, they had divided the world into "benefit families" and "People Like Us". And completely failed to realise their part in the big picture.

CharlieUniformNovemberTango Tue 10-Jul-12 19:35:31

Can I just say I agree social housing isn't being used properly.

My mum is disabled. She is in a three bedroomed social house. She only needs two bedrooms as one if my brothers has moved out.

The LA have put her on the exchange list but have told her the have no budget left for the adaptations needed. She can only move into something which is disabled ready. Meanwhile so many people would live to have her three bed.

The changes in the housing benefit are creating a HUGE surge in homelessness. They have not thought this through.

Yes, it's brave for them to admit they want these cuts so they can try and 'fix' society but they are stupid if the keep ignoring just how much worse they are making it.

stephrick Tue 10-Jul-12 19:38:28

I know someone who is living in a 3 bed property, and is on their own.

stephrick Tue 10-Jul-12 19:44:04

rock on serialkipper, I have written countless letters to the government, have had reply, towing the the party line, housing, tutition fees, EMA. they do not care. they think the lower working don't matter.

stephrick Tue 10-Jul-12 19:58:37

you are thinking that all people on benefits do not work, we do not sit on our arses, I work 38 hours a week, OK some do, but i am trying hard to send my daughter to uni, but the coalition have made this difficult.

Viviennemary Tue 10-Jul-12 20:03:58

I think the income tax limit should be raised to £15,000 a year. Sorry if this is unpopular. But why should somebody on a low wage pay tax so multi millionaires can get child benefit. I think it's right that child benefit should be stopped for well off people. But it should be combined salaries and a higher threshold. This would be fairer.

OhDoAdmitMrsDeVere Tue 10-Jul-12 20:09:18

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

HaitchJay Tue 10-Jul-12 20:11:42

grin mrsDeVere

OhDoAdmitMrsDeVere Tue 10-Jul-12 20:15:32

What a daft thing to say.
The amount of money a non working person gets when they have another child doesnt make them richer.
They get more money to feed, clothe etc the child.
You may nto agree with that but that is a seperate issue.

If working people have a child they have to spend more money on feeding, clothing said child.
If non working people have a child they have to spend more money on feeding, clothing said child.

AND as these cuts are going to affect everyone, not just the non workers, why do these threads always start bapping on about the single mothers with twenty kids who live in a mansion?

What about the rest of us? The ones that have worked since we were 16, subsidizing the education of a lot of the benefit bashers on MN? The ones that are now doing our best to keep going despite illness and disability?

How nice that my husband will have to be reassessed for his uncurable and progressive disease. The threat of losing his car should do wonders for his health.
I cant wait for my little boy to be poked and prodded by non medical assessors. He will love that, it wont freak him out at all, nuh huh.

Jupiterscock Tue 10-Jul-12 20:21:11

How do you propose people are assessed for disability benefits then Mrs De Vere?

OhDoAdmitMrsDeVere Tue 10-Jul-12 20:29:49

Why do you think someone with Multiple Sclerosis who has already been diagnosed and assessed and awarded DLA needs to be assessed Jupiter

Just to check in case he has been cured?

And as you ask - how about using qualified medical practitioners who are not paid to fail applicants.
And how about NOT using no medically trained administrators to make the decisions?

How about NOT assessing people without physical conditions using a tick list designed to assess people WITH physical conditions?

That would be a start.

Vagaceratops Tue 10-Jul-12 20:31:31

Well by people who are qualified for a start!

HaitchJay Tue 10-Jul-12 20:32:48

There's probably a few conditions that shouldn't need reassessing unless there's an additional complication.

YoYoYoItsTillyMinto Tue 10-Jul-12 20:38:07

OhDo - but people do work with very serious conditions. as we have discussed in the past my dad had a type of brain cancer that resulted in loss of muscle control. he worked until it was not possible.

a friends mum runs her own business. she carried on working with the kidney failure and started work again a few days after the operation to attach the port.

another friend is on sickness benefits due to HIV but is physically well.

so it is not as simple as having a condition.

OhDoAdmitMrsDeVere Tue 10-Jul-12 20:44:58

DLA IS NOT AN OUT OF WORK BENEFIT
Do you understand that?

YOu are on all of these threads. Yet you seem to 'forget' that very important little detail.
MY OH DOES WORK. He had done since he was 16, including fighting in a war and 6 years as a paramedic.

What is your point?

YoYoYoItsTillyMinto Tue 10-Jul-12 20:45:01

oh & the NHS care for my Dad was nil. State help for all those years of paying taxes didnt exist. so you can pay in and get nothing back & TBh i think thats far from normal.....

my friends mum carried on working because she despriately needed the money.

there isnt enough money to go around.

YoYoYoItsTillyMinto Tue 10-Jul-12 20:45:41

ohdo - do you mean me?

YoYoYoItsTillyMinto Tue 10-Jul-12 20:46:45

TBh i think thats far from normal..... = TBh i think thats completely normal.....

ironman Tue 10-Jul-12 20:48:17

Get a job.

OhDoAdmitMrsDeVere Tue 10-Jul-12 20:48:30

Yes.
I do not understand what your point is.
We are talking about DLA yes?
So why are you telling me about disabled people who work?

It is irrelevant.
DLA is going to be reassessed regardless of if people are in work or not.

So why are you talking about the people you know who work despite being disabled?

crazynanna Tue 10-Jul-12 20:51:42

I do have a job ironman. what's your point?

YoYoYoItsTillyMinto Tue 10-Jul-12 20:53:36

wires crossed. I was not commenting on your DH not working - i know he works.

(1) i meant taxation a pot you pay into and you benefit from roads, the basic NHS, police force, rubbish collection etc. basic services but thats about it.

i think its normal to contribute and not get anything back (except basic services).

(2) you need to assess someones capability to work, not their condition.

SerialKipper Tue 10-Jul-12 20:58:21

TillyMinto you know perfectly well that DLA is awarded on the level of incapacity, not the name of a condition (and even automatic awards for people in the middle of intravenous chemo are being stopped). So your protest is disingenuous, as it always is.

Further, your father worked "until it was not possible".

Once it was no longer possible, would you like him to have been reassessed at 6 month intervals to see if his brain tumour had gone away? Money for old rope for the private company hauling in taxpayers' cash for the assessment. Not so nice for you having to take time off work to accompany your father as he got worse and worse. Heartbreaking for him. And completely pointless for everyone.

OhDoAdmitMrsDeVere Tue 10-Jul-12 21:01:47

I dont really understand what you are getting at TBH Tilly.
Its not just about my OH.
It is about DLA as a benefit that enables people with disabilities to stay in work.
It isnt normal to pay into the system and not get anything back.
You might go through life with a few ups and downs, the usual medical costs but BAM you get cancer - how much do you think it costs to treat that?

It cost more in few months than some illness take in years and years.

Therefore some people are going to get more out than others.

Taxes are not just for basic NHS and police etc. They are for social care. That is what we pay for.
Social care is the basics.

I dont know what you think the alternative is.

Some people are lucky enough not to need more than the basics, others are not.

SerialKipper Tue 10-Jul-12 21:05:59

So your father never saw an NHS doctor in his life and died before the introduction of National Insurance in 1911, did he? Jolly good.

YoYoYoItsTillyMinto Tue 10-Jul-12 21:18:14

SK - would you like him to have been reassessed at 6 month intervals to see if his brain tumour had gone away?

we have relatives who are on the fiddle which he hated. so yes.

national insurance is just a name for a type of taxation. its not insurance.

joanofarchitrave Tue 10-Jul-12 21:19:41

Re balancing the books, I wish the government would make ATOS pay for the appeals system, as currently it's the taxpayer who pay for ESA appeals, not the private company.

The system might suddenly alter if ATOS actually had a financial incentive to get it right first time.

SerialKipper Tue 10-Jul-12 21:26:21

Ha, well I win my bet-with-self about when you would brag about your criminal relatives - in whose crime, by the way, you are colluding by not reporting.

But other than that, you haven't really answered the question.

Why would you want your father reassessed at 6 month intervals to see if his incurable brain cancer had gone away?

If he was lying, he would have been found out at the first assessment. Scans and all that.

And if he wasn't lying, and the cancer was progressive, what was the gain to anyone of repeated assessments?

YoYoYoItsTillyMinto Tue 10-Jul-12 21:28:41

OhDo - Social care is the basics. i agree this is how it should be but i have not seen anyone friends/family, including people on low incomes, cared for by the state to a signifiant level. so its not my experience of how it works.

i think we have been sold an idea, work, pay tax and the state will look after you. i dont know if it ever really worked like that or if we just thought it did. but i dont think it does work like that now.

YoYoYoItsTillyMinto Tue 10-Jul-12 21:31:48

another family member has. because it could have gone away. because we need to have systems. because he could have had an improvement.

YoYoYoItsTillyMinto Tue 10-Jul-12 21:32:40

because diagnosis arent a fixed as you see them.

OhDoAdmitMrsDeVere Tue 10-Jul-12 21:33:11

What on earth can you mean?
Are you saying that your father was denied care by the NHS?

What do you think we pay tax for? Having the rubbish you create with your consumerism removed by the state is less of a luxury than being cared for when you are unable to work?

really? Cant you get your stuff to the dump? My OH is disabled and we manage it when we have to.

You know that your posts dont make any real sense dont you?

OhDoAdmitMrsDeVere Tue 10-Jul-12 21:34:45

You can have an improvement from incurable brain cancer?

Have you informed the BMJ?

Orwellian Tue 10-Jul-12 21:35:30

Stephrick - I got child benefit and child tax credits mixed up.

Child benefit x 3 would be = £2,455
Child tax credits x 3 would be = £8,617. But the figures would still be the same and all the benefits together do add up to £36,011.

Check on Turn2Us if you don't believe me or I can do a screen grab, no problem.

YoYoYoItsTillyMinto Tue 10-Jul-12 21:36:14

there wasnt any treatment, except 1 course of steriods.

YoYoYoItsTillyMinto Tue 10-Jul-12 21:41:31

it was a defused tumor in the brain stem. not like a lump, more like feathery through the brain stem.

Orwellian Tue 10-Jul-12 21:42:17

Lots of people correctly state that many people on benefits are in work.

Well, if people in work still need to rely on benefits because the cost of living is too high, surely it means employers are not paying enough?

Labour brought in tax credits and housing benefit which have only acted as a sticking plaster so that employers do not have to pay a living wage as they know a low wage will be subsidised by the taxpayer via tax credits. Likewise, landlords are being subsidised by housing benefit. This is not what tax should be used for --> to funnel taxpayers money into the pockets of large, rich employers or to help BTL landlords pay their mortgage.

If large companies can no longer find people to work because they are no longer being subsidised by tax credits then they will have to pay more. Likewise, if landlords can no longer demand a certain guaranteed taxpayer funded rent and have to accept what the market can support then rents will slowly fall as there are only a certain amount of people who can realistically support high rents.

Tax credits and unlimited housing benefits keep wages low and housing costs high and the taxpayer gets a rotten deal.

OhDoAdmitMrsDeVere Tue 10-Jul-12 21:46:37

If there was treatment available your dad would have got it.
If the treatment had worked but left him disabled (unfortunately a common side affect of treatment for brain cancers), your dad would have had access to support and DLA.

You seem to be basing your views on how social care should work on the case of your poor dad and some relatives whom you claim are commiting fraud (whilst you collude with them).

OhDoAdmitMrsDeVere Tue 10-Jul-12 21:50:10

Orwellian
I agree with much of what you say.
But the solution is not to punish the workers by withdrawing benefits.

Do you not remember the howls of protest when the minimum wage was bought in? It took years of campaining. Held back by businesses wailing that they would go bust if they were forced to pay a minimum wage (not a living one, a minimum one).

Talk about landlords profiting from HB on MN and you will be accused of unfairness towards honest, hardworking people just trying to make a living.

Cut the benefits and people will suffer because not enough people give a toss about what will happen to them.

YoYoYoItsTillyMinto Tue 10-Jul-12 21:51:58

You seem to be basing your views on how social care should work on the case of your poor dad and some relatives whom you claim are commiting fraud (whilst you collude with them).

yes and DPs mum, etc. etc

you are talking about how it should work, i am talking about how it does.

any what is wrong with basing my view on my experiences? isnt that how yours are formed?

AmberLeaf Tue 10-Jul-12 21:55:02

Labour brought in tax credits and housing benefit which have only acted as a sticking plaster so that employers do not have to pay a living wage as they know a low wage will be subsidised by the taxpayer via tax credits. Likewise, landlords are being subsidised by housing benefit

Labour did not bring in housing benefit! Its been around for years! But yes employers should be paying better wages.

OhDoAdmitMrsDeVere Tue 10-Jul-12 21:58:10

When your experiences are so limited.
Yes.
When are you going to report all of the fruadsters?
Its been going on for ages yet you do nothing about it.

Its people like you that are costing the state so much money.

BTW
'yes and DP's mum etc etc'
DP's mum IS a relative and etc etcs dont count because they are not real people.

So as I said, you are basing you views on some relatives.
You do this for pages and pages and pages on thread after thread.
You are informed, you are given valid, up to date information, linked to statistics yet you still insist your view is correct because your dad didnt get DLA and the rest of your family are claiming it fraudulently.
Whilst you look on and do nothing.

Orwellian Tue 10-Jul-12 21:58:45

AmberLeaf - Labour brought in LHA (housing benefit for private rentals) on 7th April 2008. They could have used all that taxpayer money to build thousands more social homes but decided instead to keep funnelling it to rich landlords.

Viviennemary Tue 10-Jul-12 22:02:35

Huge housing benefit subsidies have benefited nobody except greedy landlords. I agree that this money should have been used to build more social housing.

AmberLeaf Tue 10-Jul-12 22:03:59

Orwellian-they just gave it a new name.

Housing benefit just became local housing allowance.

Dawndonna Tue 10-Jul-12 22:04:19

Tilly
You can't just base this on your experience. Yes your relatives fiddle, it doesn't mean others do.
You also said further up that those that can work should. The problem is, the idiot french firm doing the assessments aren't actually capable of judging, so people who are dying are being declared fit for work.
I have just re-done dhs dla forms. It took me three weeks. So far the dwp have had them for ten weeks. I've had a letter stating that they are seeking futher information from the GP and consultants. He couldn't fiddle it if he tried, and this is the case in the majority of claims.
We have resigned ourselves to the fact that we'll probably have to appeal, the stress of which will probably put dh in a unit for six weeks, but hey ho.

ItsAllGoingToBeFine Tue 10-Jul-12 22:05:15

How much money is all this reassessing all the claims all the time going to cost?

I'm probably being cynical but it seems to me that this whole exercise is going to end up costing the taxpayer more the same, but less money will go to those who need it, and more money into the pockets of the private companies who will be badly administering the whole thing.

Orwellian Tue 10-Jul-12 22:18:52

AmberLeaf - yes, they gave it a new name instead of making a radical change and using the money to build more social homes. The caps on LHA were needed and perhaps some of the savings will eventually be used to build social homes, rather than paying rich landlords.

AmberLeaf Tue 10-Jul-12 22:30:19

Ok so we are agreed that Labour didnt 'bring in' housing benefit.

YoYoYoItsTillyMinto Tue 10-Jul-12 22:38:18

OhDo- you are correct on the taking action about relatives. its two people, not the whole family. the rest of us are normal.

I had only met DPs mum say 10 times before she died of cancer. so she was a very nice lady she cannot be a relative after such as short contact with her. by the time she was diagnosed she was not treatable, although she has steroids also.

its not that i think people on benefits are on the fiddle anymore than anyone else. but in my experience when i have seen people up close who really need help, not all close family members step up and the state provides little.

so IME you are pretty much on your own, bar a very few number of people you can depend on, and you have to be as independant as possible. these threads are all about how much we can depend on each other as a society.

garlicbutter Tue 10-Jul-12 23:36:07

I wish the government would make ATOS pay for the appeals system

My goodness, yes.

Can you imagine a supplier to the private sector getting away with a 40% failure rate and a 16-week backlog on a multi-million pound contract, with only vague promises to 'review' and 'propose' improvements?

They get away with it because ATOS and its sister companies own practically all the government's IT systems. The few independent procedures left are those that are done in person, by hand - like the tribunals. Given that the main purpose of UC is to allow full automation, I'm agog to see how it's going to cock up work in practice.

SerialKipper Tue 10-Jul-12 23:56:23

Now there's client capture for you. The holy grail of the Professional Services industry.

Dahlen Wed 11-Jul-12 00:03:08

Full automation is never going to work is it because people are untidy. Automation requires people to fit one of how ever many boxes are offered, and there are always going to be a significant proportion who don't fit any.

Automation could work brilliantly once a person's eligibility has been established (HMRC/benefits/local authorities/CSA - all govt. bodies) should be fully integrated and benefits awarded/amended at literally a few clicks of a mouse. In today's age that really should be possible. But establishing eligibility or assessing a change in circumstance is always going to require a properly trained human being IMO.

flatpackhamster Wed 11-Jul-12 07:44:00

CharlieUniformNovemberTango

So that's it flatpack? That's the answer. Cut the benefits. Make the people already reliant on them even poorer?

Yes, that's it. Make them poorer, and the people who pay for their half-dozen children richer. Get rid of the incentives to have children.

The problem that arises here is that extra money doesn't solve the problem. By handing over money on a per-child basis you're simply creating larger families of unmanageable children..

So then their children are brought up in even worse conditions. Which often breeds a cycle of them alao being poor. And the children that do grow up to be inspired to get out of that cycle? Well, they can go to university nice and cheaply can't they? Oh wait, no they can't.

How very middle-class of you to assume that the way out of the cycle that your benefits culture creates is university. Because nobody ever amounted to anything without a media studies degree.

The household is already being failed by the system, because the system as it stands forces people to remain on benefits in order to improve their situation. Want a bigger house? Have another kid.

The welfare system as it stands creates and cements poverty, just as the international aid system creates it in Africa and Asia.

garlicbutter

I imagine you think it quite fair that you received your education, your mother got CB, you got your medical & dental treatment, the nice policeman brought you home and so on while I was paying for it? While you were at school I was paying around £20,000 a year in tax + NI, using virtually no public services at all. I never resented it; thought I was contributing to a kitty system that pays up according to need.

Funny how you don't see it the same way now you're paying and I'm claiming.

That roaring noise was the point that was made racing over your head.

I'm talking about people who never put in even when they could and who never work. My problem is with people who think that limiting benefits to three children is somehow abuse. I'd limit it to two, with the proviso that if the second one was a multiple birth that would be covered.

CharlieUniformNovemberTango Wed 11-Jul-12 08:21:08

Flatpackhamster - Middle class of me ? grin

I'm far from middle class. Have you been job hunting recently? Of course even graduates don't have much luck these days but they certainly have a better chance then those without higher education. It's a middle class thing to expect university. I'm talking about making it accessible for people who will struggle to afford it.

I'm not saying that we should leave things as they are. I do agree that the benefits system is flawed and people are finding it all to easy to fall into the cycle.

But do you really think taking away that money will help? I think it will cause a whole heap of extra problems.

They gov. need to look at why this is happening. It's not only happening because families have money thrown at them. Which is a bit of an ignorant way to look at it.

Benefit money is calculated to the lowest a person or child needs to live on. When you have another child, they give you the money that the child costs. That other child gets fed, clothed etc. All on a very basic amount of money.

And as for getting a larger house the second you have another child..... Well, the social housing system just doesn't work like that anymore. You are seriously naive if you think it does.

It really isn't as black and white as saying "cut the money to them all" the repercussions are going to be awful. But they never mention that do they? They seem to think all these cuts will magically transform the society into a hard working bunch. But no, those who are working hard already are going to suffer. And those who aren't will be pushed further into poverty.

I'm not denying it needs fixing. I'm just saying this isn't the way to do it!

YoYoYoItsTillyMinto Wed 11-Jul-12 09:02:12

The idea that you pay taxes and the state provides for you when you need it has already ended. It was on the news this morning about old people with assets of over £23k paying for their own care, even if it means selling their own home.

We are likely to have 8m people with dementia by I think 2050. The state will only help the most vulnerable and the majority will be on their own.

OhDoAdmitMrsDeVere Wed 11-Jul-12 11:22:56

So you base your experience on two people you claim are fiddling and two people who were very sadly diagnosed too late to be able to claim the help they Would have got?

I suggest you widen your field of reference

You have had plenty of education on these threads but you ignore it.

The welfare state is being dismantled. This is not a Good Thing.

My mother ws born in 1941. She has been vaccinated, educated, housed, transported, cleared up after and her health attended to almost from birth.
This has enabled her to live a productive and tax paying life.
It's all going. What s the alternative?

niceguy2 Wed 11-Jul-12 12:00:08

The welfare state is being dismantled. This is not a Good Thing.

It's not being dismantled at all. It is however being rationed. Now I grant you that it is obviously not as good as it is now but at the same time we cannot afford the current system so rationing is inevitable.

OhDoAdmitMrsDeVere Wed 11-Jul-12 12:12:22

So what is the alternative?
We have already established that your ideas about DLA are erroneous.
So saving billions by withdrawing benefits from children who get it because they are allergic to nuts isn't going to work is it?

That is the big issue. Thousands of people falling for the hype, thinking its only the lazy, the feckless, the fakers and the liars who are going o get sorted and all will be well.

For rationing read ending.

In a developed county with millions handing over their taxes, trusting they will be cared for.

Do I get to chose that my taxes go on the single mother rather than sending yet another 18 year old to be slaughtered?

That's what I chose please.

KarlosKKrinkelbeim Wed 11-Jul-12 12:16:25

Unfortunately, the thing about tax is you can't choose what it pays for. Which is why those who crack on that paying more tax is automatically, in and of itself a good thing are so hopelessly misguided.

MetalliMa Wed 11-Jul-12 12:16:51

I do think it is so sad that the sheep that are believing the government spin and think we are so broke that we can't afford to look after the most vulnerable. don't actually look at the vasts amounts of money the government seem to be able to find for their pet projects.
so they take money from disabled people....
yet spend how much on a train?

Orwellian Wed 11-Jul-12 12:23:27

I agree with Flatpackhampster. The current welfare state has become an incentive not to work it has also become unaffordable. There are simply not enough people in work to pay tax for all these benefits. It has come to a tipping point where we are creating debt to pay for the welfare state because it has become a behemoth. It needs to be cut back radically to what it was meant to be - a safety net for those who had fallen on hard times, the disabled. It should be time limited in my opinion like it is in most other countries so that people cannot stay on benefits for years without having to worry.

And it is ridiculous that workless families do get a pay rise for each child they have (extra tax credits and child benefit). Why should they get paid more simply because they have chosen to add to their family? Working families do not get paid more by their employers because of this. It not only breeds resentment but stops people taking responsibility for their own decisions and creates a culture of dependence (Labour loved all those guaranteed votes).

Apparently the MP Nick Boles has stated that instead of paying more money to families in the form of child tax credits, child benefits, that he thinks this money should instead be pumped into the education system so that children get a much better quality of life from the start and learn the skills necessary to contribute to society. Like the "give a man a fish" proverb. I agree with him.

garlicbutter Wed 11-Jul-12 12:34:31

You know, if ALL the money previously given in CTC and CB were pumped into a universal network of full and effective childcare from birth: creches, nurseries, schools and out-of-hours care, with a full & healthy diet, transport, medical and psychological care as well as education; I'd be in favour. But that can't happen because [a] it would cost a lot more than doling out a grand a year for each child, and [b] it would be run by cynical asset-grabbers owned by an ATOS company so care would be patchy and poor.

Orwellian Wed 11-Jul-12 12:40:16

garlicbutter - it doesn't have to be all or nothing. There is no one perfect system anywhere in the world. But in my opinion, just continuing to throw money at workless families only incentivises them to have more kids and does nothing to break the cycle of dependency. They need to start somewhere and of course any change to a long ingrained system is going to a) cause resentment from those experiencing the change and b) take time to start working. Something has to give. The system is unaffordable and doesn't work.

YoYoYoItsTillyMinto Wed 11-Jul-12 12:55:47

OhDo - but these are just symptoms of where we are at: most people who need care in old age, will be paying for it themselves, even if they need to sell their home.

so you pay taxes, & when you need help, you pay for your help. because there are lots of demands on the tax system so anyone who can look after themselves does.

there was no treatment for DPs mum or my dad but the care they got from the state was poor/non existent. i dont think they were badly particularly treated compared with other people, just more a reflection of what the state can provide.

the demands on the welfare system are only going to increase with increasing life expectancy and as i said above 8 million people in the UK with dementia by 2050.

niceguy2 Wed 11-Jul-12 12:57:41

So what is the alternative?

That's really kind of my point. There isn't a 'realistic' alternative. Cuts are inevitable. We really have no sensible option other than to ration care to those who need it the most.

We already spend way more than we can afford. We simply cannot continue as we are. It's not about the lazy, the feckless. It's about what we can afford to do as a nation.

It's not some sort of ideological class warfare from the rich trying to oppress the poor. It's a simple case of mathematics. Income from tax = £400billion(ish). Government Outgoings = £600billion(ish).

Doesn't take a genius to figure out that this is an unsustainable overspend.

If it comes down to a straight fight between ideology & mathematics, my money will be on maths.

Tax the rich more may net us a few billion more. It still doesn't come close to addressing the root cause of the problem though which is we are spending more money than we can afford to.

garlicbutter Wed 11-Jul-12 13:01:15

A very large part of this unworkable system is due to the State subsidising poor wages. Something like 75% of housing benefits are paid to people in employment. Tax credits supplement wages too low to live on. Some people can't afford to go back to work because they'd have to leave their DC home alone and their wages won't cover childcare. That's without even looking at the fiscal equivalence of SAHMs.

Pulling funds away from the lowest income groups will create more problems. So would legislating a liveable minimum wage, but that doesn't even seem to be on the table.

I don't see how it's rational to say those without jobs must work, regardless of their personal circumstances, when that work doesn't pay enough to live on or take account of the person's capabilities.

Bear in mind the work programme's still rolling out - it provides free workers to enterprise, their 'wages' paid 100% by the State, and irrespective of their health and family needs.

I think all this anger about benefits money is directed at the wrong people. The system's real beneficiaries are corporations. I'd rather see that addressed.

garlicbutter Wed 11-Jul-12 13:07:33

... meant to add, there are between ten and fourteen job seekers for every job in the UK. Even if every job were filled, only 10% of seekers would get one. This figure comes from before the work programme rollout, so it looks safe to assume that some of those jobs will be filled by State-paid staffers.

"Get a job" doesn't make sense. Why is our government still letting billionaires off tax and subsidising employees for big businesses? Shouldn't it be pumping those funds into employment schemes, start-ups, training and support services?

Orwellian Wed 11-Jul-12 13:10:24

I agree Niceguy2 but the fact is we need to cut the welfare state but also crack down on tax avoidance and make it impossible for huge, rich companies and wealthy individuals to avoid paying tax or paying very little. It has been left up to the "squeezed middle" to pay for everything whilst the very rich (many of who have unearned wealth) don't pay anything. Cuts/caps have to be made at both ends of society.

garlicbutter Wed 11-Jul-12 13:22:36

Income from tax = £400billion(ish). Government Outgoings = £600billion(ish).

Income lost to tax avoidance & evasion: £100billion(ish).

Don't know the total cost of low wage subsidies, but I bet it's close to another £50bn.

When you say Government Outgoings, do you mean ALL outgoings? How much would we have saved by not doing the Olympics, cutting back on motorway building and military investments?

niceguy2 Wed 11-Jul-12 13:40:31

I don't disagree that aggressive tax avoidance needs to be addressed and it goes without saying that tax evasion is wrong. Thankfully the latter is low. Most money is 'lost' through tax avoidance rather than outright evasion.

But there is a point here to consider which is that often just because HMRC decide an amount is due, it doesn't mean it is so. There's been lots of other threads on this and there is a big grey area because tax is a very complicated matter.

So it's not as simple as waving a wand and collecting another £100billion(ish) of tax.

Outgoings I mean regular expenditure. Defence, welfare, education etc etc. link In fact, I just looked again and the annual expenditure is about £691 billion (2010-2011)

Total tax income is actually £447 billion. HMRC (2010-2011)

So the deficit is actually £244 billion.

I cannot see how we can seriously tackle this deficit without cutting welfare given it makes up £152 billion of our annual expense.

It would be akin to me being up to my eyeballs in debt and refusing to cut anything from my budget other than cancelling Sky TV. It's not a rational solution and no-one sensible will take your attempt seriously.

The top 10% of UK earners pay 50% of the nations income tax. So even if you doubled what they pay, you raise an extra £76 billion which still doesn't come close. And given our top rate of tax is already 40%-45%, I don't see how you would be able to actually bring it in.

It's not economics or politics which is driving austerity, it's arithmetic.

garlicbutter Wed 11-Jul-12 13:49:02

Looking at individual top-level taxation doesn't cut it, niceguy, though Philip Green could make quite a dent in the deficit all by himself.

The cynicism of British companies who are now Swiss or Dutch - Boots, for example - moving their headquarters to avoid ALL UK tax, while still making their money out of British residents - is breathtaking both in scale and national expense. Likewise the banks who rip billions out of the NHS for development projects, which are run by tax haven-based subsidiaries.

I don't think people realise how much of our money is on a one-way ticket out of the country, while our little incomes cycle through the economy as they're supposed to.

KarlosKKrinkelbeim Wed 11-Jul-12 13:56:18

It is not cynicism that causes companies to move to lower tax regimes. those who direct companies have a duty to act in the best interests of the company and its shareholders. The fault lies with the UK Goverment, which is responsible for a regime of corporate taxation that menas it makes financial sense for companies to re-domicile.
You appear to be suggesting that only companies domiciled in the UK ought to be allowed to trade with UK customers. That would be unlawful; unless you're planning also to leave the EU. It would also be economic suicide.

garlicbutter Wed 11-Jul-12 14:06:13

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

niceguy2 Wed 11-Jul-12 14:06:18

Corporation tax is only a small part of our tax income (£40billionish). And arguably the hardest to increase. Because companies can and do organise their tax affairs to minimise tax paid and they are supposed to do this because it is in the best interests of their shareholders.

By increasing corporation tax we make it harder for companies to create jobs. We drive more of them abroad to lower tax regimes like Luxembourg. Short of invading Luxembourg or quitting the EU (which will also make a lot of firms leave), I'm not really sure what the UK govt can do.

garlicbutter Wed 11-Jul-12 14:13:49

I used to buy that job-creation argument, too, niceguy. But, see above. They're not creating the fucking jobs, or paying the workers in existing jobs.

None of the big supermarket chains could survive without wage subsidies, yet they crow about the profits they achieve through cost-efficiency. We - consumers - pay twice for their profitability bonuses.

Further, I do not believe anyone should be exempt from tax on income earned in the UK (or any other country) just because they live elsewhere. When I earned fees from US clients, I had to declare US tax.

YoYoYoItsTillyMinto Wed 11-Jul-12 14:15:53

to improve the corporation tax take, we need to encourage SMEs as they are less likely to move outside the UK. this is what germany does.

By increasing corporation tax we make it harder for companies to create jobs YES. this years profits determine how much i want to invest in the year ahead.

ideally corp tax should be determined by how many people you employ in the UK and at what wage.

employ 100 people on salaries well above the average should = a lower tax rate than 100 people on NMW (many of whom will need top up benefits).

garlicbutter Wed 11-Jul-12 14:16:04

I obv meant corporations that 'live' elsewhere, as well as humans.

garlicbutter Wed 11-Jul-12 14:32:46

That idea looks useful, Tilly. It should certainly improve the employment situation and lighten the benefits burden. You'd have to take it up to much higher thresholds, though. It would be great to see Tesco, Sainsbury's & co being incentivised more directly to create jobs ... oh, wait, they don't pay corporation tax anyway.

niceguy2 Wed 11-Jul-12 14:39:58

They may not be creating as many jobs as you like Garlic but all these large corporations do employ lots of people.

And are you seriously saying that the answer to the companies not creating enough jobs is to raise their corporation tax?

I do agree though that we have to stop subsidising companies. Subsidies rarely work. Tax credits was designed with the best of intentions but just introduced in a shambolic way.

garlicbutter Wed 11-Jul-12 14:53:53

Tesco pays shop & warehouse staff £7 an hour, I think, excluding the staff it doesn't pay. The 'poverty wage' in the UK is about £10/hr. This means that a large proportion of the 200,000 or so staff it underpays will be getting supplements paid from public funds. Creating more jobs like this will not help our economy - added to which, they aren't creating jobs.

I haven't said getting tax money from corporate giants will create more jobs. I've said it will bring more money into the UK economy.

Looking ONLY at how to reduce expenditure is insane when there are opportunities to increase income. It's like cutting out fresh veg because you can't afford them, while there's a stack of bullion in the cellar.

garlicbutter Wed 11-Jul-12 14:56:29

... That was a very poor similie! More like cutting out the veg while continuing to pay for your rich cousin's vegetable farm.

Leithlurker Wed 11-Jul-12 15:11:08

How many times have I seen people like niceguy2 saying "We have no alternative" Well we do and here is one example:
pcs.org.uk/en/campaigns/campaign-resources/austerity-isnt-working-there-is-an-alternative.cfm#Conclusion

Just because you do not like it, is not the point, the point is you have bought hook line and sinker the fairy tale that the condems want to tell you. Well unlike fairy tales this will not end happily, you will get your reductions because people have and will continue to die. As a result of neglect, or by their own hand. The trouble is people would rather think about numbers than humans, austerity rather than dignity, their life than those who have very little life and very little ways to improve their life.

Daily Mail
The Sun
The Times
BBC
The Telegraph
ITV
Have all had stories in the last week about how "Austerity" is leading to death and impoverishment, the return of workhouses, the culling of the sick and disabled. Go do your reading and come back and justify on a case by case basis why no alternative is on offer, oh and yes you must argue case by case to do other wise would be to say loud and clear that some people just deserve to die or be written off.

And before anyone carps crows or mimics any other type of life form I have just filled in my12 page claim form for my ESA for my disability that I was born with, so do keep in mind I am likely to be a statistic quite soon.

garlicbutter Wed 11-Jul-12 15:20:09

Forget the similies blush

I've just looked up Tesco's UK market share. It fell below 30% for the first time in six years this year, so let's call it 25%.
The grocery market was worth £156.8bn for the calendar year 2011. (53p in the consumer £1, if anyone's interested.)
Tesco owns more than a quarter of this market: over £19,000,000,000.
The group makes about two thirds of its sales and profits in Britain. 2012 revenue from the UK rose 5.8% to £21.2bn.
Its UK trading profits, which exclude property gains and overseas, were £2.5bn.

Do you really think a company will walk away from a quarter share in a £156,800,000,000 market just because of a tax increase?
Do you think it will sacrifice £2,500 million a year profit if it is asked to cut that down to, say, £1,500 million?
What's more, the hit would be significantly less to them overall because my data only depict day-to-day grocery trading in the UK.

You'd have to be some kind of brain-dead wimp to think an international giant, responsible to its shareholders, would sacrifice its biggest revenue stream out of spite.

garlicbutter Wed 11-Jul-12 15:20:41

xposted and have run out of time. can't wait to catch up later grin

Leithlurker Wed 11-Jul-12 15:30:51

well read enough to justify poverty and death, let's see if it is like my dad's subjective hearing when he is asked to do the washing up, does your reading fail you when it becomes unpalatable as it contradicts your views, looking at niceguy et al.

I will say that is is a report put together by Sheffield Hallam University and it does nothing more than bring together in one place all the different stats produced by the condems about how many and who will be hit by the cuts.
www.shu.ac.uk/_assets/pdf/cresr-final-incapacity-benefit-reform.pdf

ok I lied here is one little nugget, these are your family, friends, neighbours. The cuts will hit whole families not just individuals

"Nearly 600,000 incapacity claimants will be pushed out of the benefits system entirely, either because they will fall foul of the time-limit on non-means tested entitlement or because they fail to qualify for other means-tested benefits."

KarlosKKrinkelbeim Wed 11-Jul-12 15:41:26

KarlosKKrinkelbeim is the fish in The Cat in the Hat, garlic. Your knoweldge of children's literature is as poor as your geography. You complained about British companies re-locating to friendlier tax regimes, among them the Netherlands, which is in the EU. No doubt you are trying to insinuate I am racist. Defamation, incidentally, is also against the law.
If the Government were to take steps to prevent them doing this, it would not be "closing a tax loophole." It would be acting contrary to EU law, unless an exception were made for other memberstates. It would also, I think, be unenforceable more generally; you'd need legislation to force previously UK-domiciled companies to disclose and pay tax on assets located in other jurisdictions. The US is trying something like this at the moment; they can get away with it, probably, although most US lawyers I have spoken to about it acknowledge that it's unwise politically. I doubt we can.

Jupiterscock Wed 11-Jul-12 15:42:23

OOh, someone mentioned workhouses!

* crosses it off Hysterical Leftie Speak bingo card* grin

OhDoAdmitMrsDeVere Wed 11-Jul-12 15:54:52

Really?
So when we withdraw community care, benefits to offset the cost of being disabled, housing benefits and the other things that allow vulnerable people to remain in their own homes...

What is left jupiter?

Because I worked in a long stay hospital in the 80s.
The people who lived in it were not a different breed of disabled and elderly people with MH issues.

They people with the very same disabilities and MH issues that people have today who use their benefits to stay in the community.

When they are gone, when parents are no longer supported to care for their disabled children what do you think is going to happen?

grin

garlicbutter Wed 11-Jul-12 16:07:44

You're right, KKK, I don't read children's literature.

Why have you avoided my comments about Switzerland, which you previously tried to dismiss by talking about EU trading rules? Boots, Cadbury (Kraft), Walkers and other bigh High Street names are based in Zug.

Since HMRC is some way through a process of closing the loopholes that rely on outdated laws applying to Luxembourg and the Netherlands, they presumably disagree with your statement that they aren't loopholes.

I am certain we'd disagree over the principle that money earned in the UK should be taxed in the UK. I believe the same rules should apply to corporate entities as to wage-earning individuals. The reasons why they don't are extremely outmoded.

Returning to my point, which is not about capitalism-bashing: It is insane to look ONLY at how to reduce expenditure when there are opportunities to increase income.

Leithlurker Wed 11-Jul-12 16:24:21

Exactly Mrs D! Where oh where will we put all these homeless, people that we have just created by turning them in to burdens on their families or on charities. After all we cannot have people stepping over them on the way out of the Opera can we now.

The name of the care establishment that was featured on the panorama show, the one with the members of staff beating the shit out of the residents with Learning difficulties is an example of the poor house that we have coming.

So now where is me bingo card, I know I had just one to tick off for a full house? Ah yes casual dismissing of facts by person who knows nothing about what they speak, thank you Jupiter. I think the last part of your name sums you up pretty well.

Leithlurker Wed 11-Jul-12 16:27:03

As a matter of interest and I am addressing Grlicbutter, did you have a look at either of the links I posted? Did anyone?

JosephineCD Wed 11-Jul-12 16:36:52

If Tesco had to pay all it's staff £10 an hour, they would adjust their business to eliminate most of the unskilled roles.

Dawndonna Wed 11-Jul-12 16:38:27

Yes, Leith. Still reading.

Orwellian Wed 11-Jul-12 16:38:45

But nobody is advocating ending the welfare state altogether, they are merely saying it needs to be cut down which is true. Even if we were not in debt, why is it a good idea to pay people to have more children or to pay people not to work for over 10 years? The current welfare state is not only financially incompetent, it is also socially incompetent.

The welfare state should provide excellent provision for the disabled and excellent short-term benefits to those who have been made redundant. This can only be done by reducing all the waste of benefits that are not needed so that more can be given to those genuinely in need.

Leithlurker Wed 11-Jul-12 16:41:47

And what josephine?

Perhaps our education system would then HAVE to improve.
Perhaps right whingers would stop going on about people caught in the benefit trap as no one would be
Perhaps Other companies would follow suit and we could have a better paid more motivated workforce in Britain where no one felt they were being over worked and under payed.

Now that would be good hmmm

JosephineCD Wed 11-Jul-12 16:42:57

But there wouldn't be nearly as many jobs.

garlicbutter Wed 11-Jul-12 16:44:06

I didn't read your links, Leith, because I am a potential 'benefits suicide'. I prefer not to dwell on this fact. I already know the content of your other link, the one about aggregated losses. Why did you choose to ask me if I'd read them?

Leithlurker Wed 11-Jul-12 16:50:09

Orwellian: Again go do some reading, what you are saying is almost without argument what people agree with. Yes shock horror even disabled people agree, in fact disabled people organisations have never, ever said that disabled people DO NOT want to work but wallow at home with no purpose. However what is being done will in NO WAY alter what you say is the problem. It will however make it even more unlikely that long term unemployed, sick and disabled, people with short term periods of ill health or unemployment will ever get a job.

Taking benefits away and saying people will either work or starve is cod psychology. Many people will do the latter having been sent round in circles in a system that is paid by how many people they process not by how many they actually get in to sustainable work

Leithlurker Wed 11-Jul-12 16:55:46

I am sorry Garlic I did not mean to distress you my deepest apologies. I only asked indeed I only joined this battle as I saw you fighting a tide of ignorance singlehanded. I hope we are pushing back the reason of the insane but I fear we both have our own demons much closer to home.

Do not give up my friend, no joy can come from you letting them win. others like me and many many others share the places you have been and will go. What is that quotation, something about not going quietly in to the night, I may well go but it will be far from tranquil.

Leithlurker Wed 11-Jul-12 16:58:54

Josephine that is the bloody point,, why are you and others only happy if people have shit lives with poor pay, why cannot they have decent lives, decent hope, something good to aim for. If jobs were paid more more people would choose to work, more kids would demand a better education, this country would have to invest in science and industry, we would stop churning out factory fodder because we had people who want to work.

garlicbutter Wed 11-Jul-12 17:01:49

If Tesco had to pay all it's staff £10 an hour, they would adjust their business to eliminate most of the unskilled roles.

They already are. Tesco make around £14,000 profit from each employee; that figure would be higher if they had fewer employees so it's in their interest to reduce staff. The taxpayer basically funds them to have lots of people in unskilled roles.

We fund these jobs because there's already a job shortage. It's just a way of faking employment, at taxpayers' expense. Even so there aren't enough jobs.

If every vacancy was filled by an unemployed job seeker, only 10% of the seekers would get a job. The other 90% would still be unemployed and there would be NO vacancies. This includes part-time jobs with unsocial hours, by the way.

The problem isn't like a household budget. Unless we stop the rich (people and corporations) funnelling taxpayers' money out of our economy without putting it back, we will all end up in the gutter. As I said before, corporate giants will not walk away from a huge revenue stream if they're made to put more back in & reduce profits. Right now, we're simply giving money away and saying "Never mind, our vulnerable people can make up for it." Soon it will be "Our working classes", then "Our middle classes".

I'm not exaggerating, this is common sense and we need to grow some balls/ovaries!

garlicbutter Wed 11-Jul-12 17:02:32

Thank you, Leith.

JosephineCD Wed 11-Jul-12 17:02:55

But there wouldn't be the jobs for them.

"Choosing" to work shouldn't be an issue.

Raising the minimum wage to £10 an hour wouldn't create many, if any, jobs. It would just eliminate many of the jobs currently paid at less than £10 an hr.

garlicbutter Wed 11-Jul-12 17:04:28

disabled people organisations have never, ever said that disabled people DO NOT want to work

But the funding was still removed from Remploy, which provided gainful employment for thousands of disabled folks. That's how much commitment there is to helping the less-able back to work.

garlicbutter Wed 11-Jul-12 17:06:58

Josephine, can you think of any good reasons why the government doesn't, for example, demand more payback from the banks and pile that money into grants for start-ups?

JosephineCD Wed 11-Jul-12 17:15:22

Because it wouldn't be a good idea? If it was, the banks would do it themselves. Banks are in the business of making money. If someone comes to them for a loan with a good business plan, they will get the funding.

niceguy2 Wed 11-Jul-12 17:17:42

Just because I am pointing out that we cannot afford the status quo and therefore that rationing is an inevitability, this does not mean I am some sort of evil right wing capitalist pig who wants to see the poor & destitute on the streets so I can sit in my luxury mansion like Mr Burns laughing at the little people.

Nowhere have I said we shouldn't have a welfare state. But regardless of how misguided you perceive me to be, the simple facts are:

1) We cannot afford the system as-is
2) Rationing is an inevitability
3) No serious political party has offered an alternative which doesn't involve cuts.

If someone has a comprehensive plan which will sort out the deficit without the need for any cuts then please will they tell David Cameron. I'm sure he'd love to know, as would the rest of us.

One of the main reasons the govt are introducing Universal Credit is to eliminate one of the worst aspects of the current system which is that it provides little incentive to work and actually traps many. For that reason alone I support it.

As for the main topic which is the govt are using UC to make further cuts, well politically this may backfire on them. But economically cuts must be made regardless of who is in power.

So as I have said in other threads. If you don't want to see tax credits cut, who should have their funding cut more to pay for tax credits? What about pensioners? Nurses? Soldiers? Council workers?

We must move away from the idea that the government has some secret money tree which they are keeping just for their rich mates. There isn't. The money comes from working people and taxes are already high enough.

Leithlurker Wed 11-Jul-12 17:20:58

Reformating Access to work, raising the bar at the amount of hours that a disabled person needs to work in order to qualify for help. Not very good examples of "helping" Josaphine.

Also no one on incapacity benefit or ESA as is is told they can get the additional top up to start their own business/ In fact a friend of mine had to take a letter from the EHRC saying that they would take out a discrimination case against the dwp in to his local job centre to even get the forms to apply for the start up money.

Leithlurker Wed 11-Jul-12 17:28:57

Niceguy thats not what I accused you of the claimin that we need to make cuts is what I said you had bought in to. The fact that as you rightly say no mainstream politicle party and certainly not any of the big 3 / 4 say anything diffrent speaks absolutly bloody VOLUMES

I will apologise to you for possibly misreading your politics, however the consequence of what you said are still that which I described. For anyone in a first world country to talk about an ideology that will see people die as a direct consequence not just unintended or unknown but as an explicit part of the policy, and just stick to the "austerity" mantra shows a lack of reality if not compassion.

garlicbutter Wed 11-Jul-12 17:33:25

What additional top-up, Leith? shock confused

Niceguy, I agree there should be graded incentives to coming off benefits although I think the current proposal is too punitive.

Josephine, you've been arguing that large corporations need taxpayers' money to maintain jobs. I propose that, if our money is going to be used for job creation/maintenance, it should be invested in ground-level startups. Perhaps there could be an added incentive for creating at least one employee.

This is likely to keep more of our cash circulating in the domestic economy than going straight into tax havens. I believe.

JosephineCD Wed 11-Jul-12 17:34:43

"Josephine, you've been arguing that large corporations need taxpayers' money to maintain jobs."
Have I?

Leithlurker Wed 11-Jul-12 17:37:56

Garlic: Someone on Jsa or Income support who wants to take a shot at starting their own sme can apply for a top up to their benefit for a fixed time. It's only a tenner a week I think and it is only to get them to the stage of being ready to put a business plan in for funding, not that sure about it really just know my mate had to get EHRC involved

Leithlurker Wed 11-Jul-12 17:38:32

Sorry I meant to say G if you want me to I could get details and pm you?

garlicbutter Wed 11-Jul-12 17:44:20

Yes, you have grin

The minimum wage is insufficient for most people to live on. The current estimate for a liveable UK minimum is around £10/hr. You said we need the giants to maintain jobs, so they have to be able to pay NMW. Minimum wage-earners are topped up by benefits. So taxpayers' money is being used to make up the wages.

I say don't give that "make jobs" money to international corps, give it to real people to start businesses. The big corps will reduce employment as far as possible anyway because, as you said, they lift profits by eliminating staff. Small outfits would only have to break even to remove a burden on the taxpayer. When they make profits, they become a net gain instead of a drain on the economy. Their profits will be contributing to the UK economy instead of some other country's.

Leithlurker Wed 11-Jul-12 17:44:33

Yes indeedy Josephine. I depart from Garlic in what I would use the savings for, but the amount of ctc, hb, ESA, IS, JSA, that could be saved by telling tescoes and the rest to pay more would be substantial. A saving of tax payers money.

This would need underpinned by legislation to stop private landlords, mortgage companies, banks etc profiteering. However it would mean that we could raise prices in the shops so people like dairy farmers can get a decent living. Our cost of living is lower than other countries as a result of driving everything including wages down to the bottom thats why we are now in such big trouble.

JosephineCD Wed 11-Jul-12 17:46:05

"Yes indeedy Josephine. I depart from Garlic in what I would use the savings for, but the amount of ctc, hb, ESA, IS, JSA, that could be saved by telling tescoes and the rest to pay more would be substantial. A saving of tax payers money."
No it wouldn't, because it would cause mass job cuts!

garlicbutter Wed 11-Jul-12 17:48:37

Ah, thanks, Leith! Yes, I had seen that but it is hopelessly pathetic and too short-lived sad I'm currently living in (distinctly unrealistic) hopes that my permitted work will take off at some point - fast enough to get me off benefits in one swoop!

It would be nice if there was a decent graded-earnings scheme but, so far, I've seen them knocked off the table as soon as they were put there.

It is like living in crazyworld sometimes confused

Leithlurker Wed 11-Jul-12 17:53:49

Those job cuts and yes some would occure would be dealt with by introducing nonm profit lead training and job training schemes. Further and higher education grants, and more help for the start ups that Garlic advocates. All you wanted was an alternative not a simpler easier solution well you have it. It would make the money we have work for us instead of others.

With tax loops closed, more people earning enough to pay tax a 1 p raise in tax rates for everyone, savings on trident, and road building which is pointless and crap for the planet, then yes we will pay down the debt. Ot actually my main wish would be to default and stuff the bankers in the way they stuffed us. iceland, remember iceland they did that and did they sink nope. Have they been taken over by swiss gnomes, nope, are they a better more united country, it appears so.

Leithlurker Wed 11-Jul-12 17:59:48

G what type of thing are you doing? I am trying the very long route of a community organisation in the education disability rights field, maybe a social enterprise or perhaps a development trust. It is me and a few others, the thing that is just so wrong is that a huge amount of creative talent is out here, plus skills and experience. it's being wasted and then people tell us to get a job that some like me, maybe you too can never hope to sustain.

FartBlossom Wed 11-Jul-12 18:00:31

Sorry if its been asked, but is there anywhere to find out what I will be entitled to after the cuts? I know I can go on entitled to, but that only tells me what Im entitled to now, I want to know how I will be affected/effected (sorry it always confusing me) in the coming year.

I have tried to read the official lines, but it doesn't really tell me what Im hoping to find out, ie the actual figures I would be entitled to if nothing changed.

NicholasTeakozy Wed 11-Jul-12 18:08:35

The whole system needs reforming. Under the current financial model, only a very few prosper. Everybody else suffers. It's just a massive Ponzi scheme.

YoYoYoItsTillyMinto Wed 11-Jul-12 18:09:27

actually my main wish would be to default and stuff the bankers in the way they stuffed us

its not the banks we borrowed money from www.debtbombshell.com/bond-market.htm plus who is going to lend us money for the deficit if we arent trustworthy?

garlicbutter Wed 11-Jul-12 18:11:12

my main wish would be to default and stuff the bankers - Can't say I disagree, Leith. Turn the Bank of England back into a consumer bank while we figure things out, maybe.

Isn't it hard to work out all this stuff about social enterprise, community funding and all that malarkey? No surprise that a high proportion of successful applicants are 'partnered' by a corporate enterprise.

FartBlossom - No, because it's still being made up as they go along. UC, which is imminent, is still said to be "Probably" "In the region of" £70/week ... a 35% income cut for me, if so.
<wibble>

garlicbutter Wed 11-Jul-12 18:12:56

It's just a massive Ponzi scheme.

YES! It is! Thank you, Nicholas, it's so hard to get people to see it.

ClaireBunting Wed 11-Jul-12 18:15:04

I remember when my friend fell on hard times (walked out on when PG), she took in a lodger.

I think if you are not brought up to take benefits, it's the kind of thing you do. Benefits, for many people are the last resort.

garlicbutter Wed 11-Jul-12 18:17:41

Claire, you can't be saying I must have been "brought up to take benefits"? grin

I didn't even find out what I was entitled to until I was homeless. The benefits 'advisors' had lied when I asked them.

ClaireBunting Wed 11-Jul-12 18:20:05

Believe it or not, some people ask how they can help themselves - and that might include taking in a lodger - before taking a trip to the benefits office.

YoYoYoItsTillyMinto Wed 11-Jul-12 18:21:01

It's just a massive Ponzi scheme. please can someone explain this theory?

ophelia275 Wed 11-Jul-12 18:27:22

Niceguy2, the one thing I find confusing about Universal Credit is that the government both claim that nobody will be worse off at the same time that they claim there will be a cap on benefits. Obviously it makes no sense to bring in UC unless it is actually going to reduce the benefits bill, so presumably some families (for example the ones over the £26k cap) will be worse off? So why are they claiming that nobody will be worse off?

garlicbutter Wed 11-Jul-12 18:32:40

Oh, well, Claire, I suppose you'll find out how much your attitude is worth if you ever need backup and find the 'safety net' is full of holes. Can't say I was terribly impressed with the 'net' provided by my contributions of more than £½m while working. I'm glad of it now, mind you, but it didn't kick in when it should have and is about to melt away.

Perhaps you can put your superiority complex in the bank.

Dawndonna Wed 11-Jul-12 18:33:49

Believe it or not Claire some people are not in a position to help themselves.

Some people would not understand how to take in a lodger. Some people do not have the space for a lodger.

JosephineCD Wed 11-Jul-12 18:34:06

Wouldn't you have rather had the £1/2 million? Or at least a large part of it?

ClaireBunting Wed 11-Jul-12 18:34:11

I would have no qualms about doubling up children's sleeping arrangements and renting out two rooms.

ClaireBunting Wed 11-Jul-12 18:35:18

Dawn, if they don't have the space for a lodger, their benefits will not be cut!

YoYoYoItsTillyMinto Wed 11-Jul-12 18:36:21

GB - please ignore if this is too personal but how can you contribute £0.5m (in tax) then need to rely on benefits? i would have thought you had too much money to qualify.

Dawndonna Wed 11-Jul-12 18:39:58

ffs.
As I said, not everybody is able to do that. I have three children with disabilities, I could not, cannot and would not double them up.

ClaireBunting Wed 11-Jul-12 18:41:22

If you have contributed 0.5MM in tax, you've kept a bit more than this. What have you done with it?

You should have savings or other assets.

If you have lived the high life or gambled, then you only have yourself to blame. Maybe you have been altruistic, but you should always make provisions for your own future.

ClaireBunting Wed 11-Jul-12 18:43:25

I don't think this applies to people reliant on disability benefits.

Why do threads always get derailed by people who are entitled to different benefits in their own right? This is about able bodied people who should be getting out of bed in the mornings.

garlicbutter Wed 11-Jul-12 18:49:40

Tilly: This is from George Osborne's 2011 party conference speech.

"The second mistake was made by banks who ran up staggering debts of their own, buying financial instruments even they couldn’t understand.

"The banks and those regulating them believed that the bubble would never stop growing, that markets were always self-correcting, that greed was always good, that their ponzi schemes would never collapse, and that none of the debts would ever turn bad."

The entire structure of our economies is now based on debts. There are not enough tangible assets in the world to cover all of the debts. Money is created by new debts, which are traded at a profit between banks (to simplify). It's all just game money. It can't keep going unless people at the bottom keep taking on more debt.

Have a look at www.positivemoney.org.uk/ and neweconomics.org/.

A Ponzi scheme is one where investors are told they're getting a fantastic return on their money, where in fact there is no investment. The scammer has to keep pulling in more investment money; each time, he uses the new money to pay 'dividends' to previous investors. It's a sort of hot-air-based pyramid selling scam. Charles Ponzi.

AmberLeaf Wed 11-Jul-12 18:50:07

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

AmberLeaf Wed 11-Jul-12 18:52:02

Clarebunting you clearly don't know what you are talking about if you think this doesn't affect people on disability benefits.

It does

garlicbutter Wed 11-Jul-12 18:52:10

FFS, Claire, I thought I had! Did you know all those insurances stop paying out after two years? It's in the small print. Did you know pension funds are frequently embezzled? Both mine were. I got ripped off by my ex, developed a life-limiting illness, and here I am. You are so rude.

garlicbutter Wed 11-Jul-12 18:53:10

Tilly - see reply to Claire smile

SerialKipper Wed 11-Jul-12 18:53:19

Disability benefits are included in the £26K cap.

ESA is included in the £26K, and a household is only exempt if someone receives Disability Living Allowance (ie not merely that they can't work, but that they actually need help with bathing or food prep, etc, or that they need mobility assistance). And the plan is to reduce the number of people getting DLA even further.

So unfortunately, this is about disability benefits.

OhDoAdmitMrsDeVere Wed 11-Jul-12 18:55:10

You are wrong.
ALL DLA claiments are going to be reassessed.
Do you really imagine that all those that are entitled to DLA are going to be still entitled to it when its all over and done?

People in comas have already been deemed fit to work.
They are reassessing people with incurable and degenerative diseases.
Why would they do that?

They are changing the definition of disability.

My OH and my DS are 'entitled' to DLA. I think it is very unlikely that they will retain their benefits.
One has MS and one has ASD/LDs +

This is what could happen:
OH loses his DLA.
This means he loses his car
This means he cannot get to work
This means he loses his job
This means that we will not be working enough hours between us to qualify for WTC
This means I have to leave the job I am qualified for and pays a decent hourly rate and find a full time job.
This job would have to allow me to drop the children off at school and nursery (three seperate settings) pick one up at lunchtime and then pick the other two up in the afternoon.
I will not find a job that allows me to do that.
I will be out of a job
We will no longer be on top up benefits, paying taxes.
We will be on IS and contributing nothing, claiming free school meals and living in poverty.

I cant wait to be in that postion after nearly 30 years of paying taxes.

YoYoYoItsTillyMinto Wed 11-Jul-12 18:57:07

GB - thank you for the answer and the comments about ponzi. i agree part of the financial system (CDOs) is like a ponzi scheme but not the whole of it.

NarkedRaspberry Wed 11-Jul-12 18:58:56

<< cheers AmberLeaf >>

Dawndonna Wed 11-Jul-12 19:18:42

Claire
Come back when you know what you're talking about.
THIS AFFECTS PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES.

garlicbutter Wed 11-Jul-12 19:26:25

Josephine - Wouldn't you have rather had the £1/2 million?
That doesn't come into my thinking. I was contributing to your education, health and safety (assuming you're younger than me) and helping to keep our streets clear of suffering beggars. I believed in the kitty system. And it should work. It's just a massive insurance & pension scheme. As we've seen so many insurance & pension providers fuck off to the Bahamas with contributors' money, so something very similar has happened to our collective provision.

YoYoYoItsTillyMinto Wed 11-Jul-12 19:31:57

GB - It's just a massive insurance & pension scheme i am sorry to say this but it isnt. & noone has f**ked off with the money, its just been spent and more besides.

garlicbutter Wed 11-Jul-12 19:55:42

OK, Tilly, that's a difference in perspective and language. I don't like getting into financial forensics, so I'll stick with my plain english.

"It's just been spent"

On what?

Spending within the national economy doesn't remove money from the domestic supply. If you hand the lot out in benefits, it will almost all be spent within the UK thus lubricating economic movement (creating money and jobs).

The money has gone. So it must have been "spent" outside the UK. How did that happen, did we buy a bunch of tropical islands for our collective holidays? (wink) We have imported more stuff than we export. Our lack of production is one of many reasons I support start-up funding, btw. However our current account deficit has been reducing impressively, thanks mainly to intangible exports. Looking only at the current account balance, we should be in good shape. Current account will be in the black by 2014.

But the money's still left the country, right? We didn't overspend on imports, at least not too badly, and we didn't spend it here or we'd still have it. So you tell me, what did we spend it on?

YoYoYoItsTillyMinto Wed 11-Jul-12 20:03:40

VERY interesting question. housing? so its sitting there doing nothing?

did a google found this [[http://news.sky.com/story/797637/the-total-value-of-the-uk-6-7-trillion}}

"The UK is worth £6.7 trillion, according to an estimate based on the value of the nation's assets. Housing is the most valuable asset, adding up to giant total of £4,048bn."

garlicbutter Wed 11-Jul-12 20:07:36

Ooh, that IS interesting! It's reminded me of some stuff I researched for TooManyCuts ... and am trying to get off my keyboard for a while, so may have to delay this. Damn!

CouthyMow Wed 11-Jul-12 21:41:05

You DO realise that while benefits have been cut, in order to get employers to raise their wage to one that people can actually LIVE OFF, people will have LESS money coming into their household than they can ACTUALLY LIVE OFF. The change won't happen instantly.

So what happens to all these people who are meant to go out and take jobs that don't pay them enough to live off?

They starve or don't pay their rent, so that they DON'T starve...

The wages need to rise to a liveable amount FIRST, or we are setting the poor up for starvation and homelessness.

EITHER the Government can't see this, or they choose to ignore it even though they can see it.

And I know which is true. As it is spelt out in the Universal Credit Policy Briefing Notes in the passage that states that "Due to a reduction in their income after the changeover to Universal Credit, some families will become *collateral damage*"

So IMO, the Government KNOW what the outcome of cutting the welfare system now WITHOUT sorting out the reasons WHY it is the way it is first, they KNOW that it will cause homelessness and starvation on an as yet unimaginable and unprecedented in modern memory level but they just don't give a shit.

The money IS there, the legislations HAVE been proposed that could cut the Welfare budget by the same amount without causing this level of deprivation, but they just won't act that way.

Putting in Rent Controls would slash the Housing Benefit budget. If LL's that were overstretched lost their 'extra' home, they would still have somewhere to live, but it would flood the house sales market with extra houses for people to buy. As there would then be much more availability, house prices would drop, more people would be able to afford to buy, thus slashing the Housing Benefit bill even further. And it also has the added effect of more money circulating through the UK's economy.

It'd hurt people left in negative equity too, but it's short term pain for long term collective gain (after all, we're all in this together, so Call-Me-Dave tells us). It would lower the overall Welfare bill, which would put less pressure on the taxes paid.

The other thing that would drastically lower the Welfare bill would be to raise the NMW to a liveable level. Which is roughly £10/hr. As Garlic says upthread, Tesco et al are hardly likely to stop trading in the UK and lose one of their main income streams just because they are made to pay their staff a living wage, are they - it wouldn't be the best thing for their shareholders, would it?

This would cut the Housing Benefit bill as those in NMW work would no longer NEED an income top-up in order to pay for a roof over their head. It would ALSO cut the Tax Credits bill as why would you need an income top-up if your wages are enough to live off?!

<<facepalm>>

It's never going to happen though, whilst those in charge of the country are protecting their own interests (MP's with property portfolios voting against / dismissing rent controls) over and above the interests of the average person.

angry

CharlieUniformNovemberTango Wed 11-Jul-12 21:53:34

Well said couthymow

Does anyone have a meal plan for collateral damage? I'm sure we'll be enjoying that for dinner soon enough!

niceguy2 Wed 11-Jul-12 22:27:39

It's just a massive insurance & pension scheme

A very naive assumption. Tax is not like a bank account where you put money in and later take it out. We get taxed, the government spend it in our name.

I guess you could argue that national insurance was designed to be as it's name suggests some sort of insurance scheme. Except NI only brings in £96b per year which doesn't even cover the costs of the NHS, let alone benefits paid out.

The whole taxation/welfare system in this country is a total mess and it does need sorting out. Such a mammoth task will take a decade at least I think and people will have to start accepting that what benefits are given out will have tough conditions attached to them and in all liklihood be time limited.

In most European countries, unemployment benefits are time limited. Usually they taper off over time. This allows the government to pay more money out to claimants and provides an incentive for people to get back to work.

niceguy2 Wed 11-Jul-12 22:36:26

Couthymow. Answer me this.

Why would politician's whom want to get reelected force through highly unpopular austerity measures if as you put it "the money IS there"

The only reason the money 'has been' there is because the government have borrowed it. They borrowed it to spend straight away on things we couldn't otherwise afford to do. An 'investment' they called it.

Except like all loans, they must be repaid at some point and with interest. We cannot go on borrowing indefinitely.

The lib dems are looking at being wiped out at the next elections, the Tories.....well I doubt they will be in power for another term. Mervyn King said shortly before the election that victor will be out of power for a generation because of how tough the fiscal austerity will have to be.

Those who will rejoice at the Tories demise, their joy will be shortlived as Labour will be forced to continue the cuts.

It's not some ideological crusade. The maths don't lie. Go look them up.

garlicbutter Wed 11-Jul-12 23:06:49

Niceguy, I assume you can tell the difference between an insurance policy and a bank account.

If you know of any insurance policies where I can "put money in and later take it out" do tell! Do they provide insurance as well, or are they in fact not insurance policies but bank accounts?

Who named this "Patronise Garlic Day"??!

garlicbutter Wed 11-Jul-12 23:14:34

In response to your reply to Couthy, I share your gloom at our future prospects. As it happens, I disagree about the inevitability of extensive misery but, with every passing week, lose hope of the condems growing up fast enough to avert worse disaster. I don't want ANY of the contenders in government. They are all inexperienced and, imo, far too easily pushed around by both business interests and opinion polls.

By the end of this parliament, I will be living up to my tagline 100%.

garlicbutter Wed 11-Jul-12 23:16:28

.. should add, Blair looks as if he might come back. He's not inexperienced but is a narcissistic, greedy numpty like the others sad

CouthyMow Wed 11-Jul-12 23:24:42

Has anyone DONE the maths on what the combined impact of Rent Controls and a £10/hr NMW are, in relation to reducing the Welfare Bill? If so, could someone please point me to that Impact Study, as I am seemingly unable to find it on the Internet...

If those measures wouldn't at least EQUAL the saving to the Welfare bill that the current cuts will provide, I would be very surprised. IMO, the combined effects of the two would soon far outweigh any savings made by cutting welfare to those in the greatest need, and would be more sustainable in the long term, whilst having the added benefit of ensuring that the poorest in our Country don't starve or become homeless.

I'd be quite happy to admit to being wrong if there are comparable Impact assessments I can be pointed to though...

garlicbutter Thu 12-Jul-12 00:07:55

Couthy, somebody must have done that! I imagine it's languishing in a never-visited archive on some civil servant's desktop ... sad

It is extraordinary how this policy was adopted before it was worked out, let alone subjected to comparative reviews. That, to me, signals gross incompetence.

I really, really resent being practised on.

garlicbutter Thu 12-Jul-12 00:16:55

ClaireBunting, going back to your remark I think if you are not brought up to take benefits ... [benefits] are the last resort, I was wondering how you got along with your enquiries about claiming JSA on top of your redundancy payment?

CouthyMow Thu 12-Jul-12 00:34:18

I'll bet she wasn't entitled due to combined savings of her & her DP/DH, and now thinks that if she can't get it, no-one should...

BeetrootJuice Thu 12-Jul-12 00:35:06

I cannot believe the 'attitude of entitlement' of many posters on this thread.

I was skint for years. I was a single parent. So - I did two jobs to make ends meet and pay the mortgage. Day shifts in one job, then onto a nightshift in another. It didn't kill me. I didn't make any mistakes at work and my son was too young to remember much about it. I also paid full rate childcare for my son - so subsidised nurseries in those days.
I also had no family living locally.

Too many people just want to be at home all day. Get off your backsides and do any work you can. Even if it means setting up a business from home.

CouthyMow Thu 12-Jul-12 00:37:57

And anyway, you have to spend your redundancy pay at the rate you would have received JSA + housing costs. I've been there before. It's not a great situation to be in, ClaireBunting, but it's a fucking lot better than a lot of people's situation. And having been in that situation in the past didn't make me think that no-one else should be helped. It made me realise that there were plenty worse off than me who DIDN'T have redundancy pay to live off!

CouthyMow Thu 12-Jul-12 00:46:18

Beetrootjuice - is it 'entitled' to be too ill to work? Just out of curiosity? Or is the fact that some people are too disabled to work FT, or are only able to work PT due to their disability but can't find anyone willing to employ them if their condition is variable (like, ooh, epilepsy which has lost me two jobs I DID manage to get, and another 100+ that I couldn't even get interviews for, despite having more experience in retail than the person who eventually got those jobs...)

I'd LOVE to not be so 'entitled' by way of my disability and those of my DC's fucking off, but as that isn't going to happen, I'll just sit here trying not to look so entitled, shall I?

Why, only today, I looked so healthy that whilst just doing my shopping concerned a community police officer that he insisted I sat down and rested in front of him. And he nearly called me an ambulance as i looked so well, of course...But I will just pretend not to be disabled so as not to confuse those people who think I sound too 'entitled', shall I?

CouthyMow Thu 12-Jul-12 00:50:59

Beetrootjuice - one of those jobs I lost was a 60 hr a week job, that I was sacked from after 11 months and 3 weeks when I had a seizure on the shop floor that resulted in me losing control of my bladder over a customers shoes. But of course, working so many hours didn't make me more sick at all, oh no.

My Neurologist from Queen's in London obviously agrees with you - oh, hang on, no he doesn't, that's right, I'm currently trying to fight to get him to sign me as fit for 16 hrs work a week. Which he is currently refusing to do. hmm

BeetrootJuice Thu 12-Jul-12 00:54:33

CouthyMow
Other people manage it.
Work from home.
Set up your own business - online if necessary.

Don't have more children than you can afford to house (I'm speaking generally, not specifically here).

I'm 62, with certain health issues and I still work 60 hours a week.

The benefits system needs overhauling asap.

CouthyMow Thu 12-Jul-12 00:58:32

Are you talking about other people with uncontrolled epilepsy that are currently having at least three+ seizures a week, or other people with epilepsy that is currently controlled by meds, or people with physical disabilities that don't have a neurological disability?

Just wondering...

CouthyMow Thu 12-Jul-12 01:01:38

I had the first 3 DC pre diagnosis, working in a industry that is now barred to me by law BECAUSE of my disability...

I don't know how I could have foreseen that one. Oh yes, with the insurance policies that refused to pay out on the basis that my epilepsy had been previously misdiagnosed as depression...

£20k savings goes quicker than you think when it is your entire income.

CouthyMow Thu 12-Jul-12 01:02:41

Almost 9 years on from my diagnosis, and I am now as poor as poor can be.

garlicbutter Thu 12-Jul-12 01:03:48

Beetroot, did you miss the discussion on this thread about the lack of effective support for people setting up a business to get off benefits?

I'm rather envious of your health issues that allow you to work 60 hours a week.

CouthyMow Thu 12-Jul-12 01:06:17

Beetrootjuice, why don't you ask my Neuro why he won't even sign me as fit for 16 hours a week work, then. Because he has a million and one arguments as to why I shouldn't even work 16 hrs a week, much less the 60 I tried to in that job. Each job since then has been for less hours, and has lasted less time. I have now been unemployed for 4 years, despite applying for over 100 jobs.

YOU find me an employer...

Thumbwitch Thu 12-Jul-12 01:34:23

I'm sure this has already been said but exactly WHERE are these jobs that people are supposed to all get coming from? Aren't unemployment rates going UP? So, um, who is going to provide all these "better paid with more hours" jobs, hmm??

Or are the rich wbankers supposed to start taking in staff again - housemaids, chauffeurs, cooks, scullery maids etc.? Perhaps we should start sending children up the chimneys (those that are left) and down the drains again?
I absolutely do NOT see how the Govt expects any of this to work because they simply do NOT have the infrastructure in place that ensures all these "workshy benefit scroungers" CAN actually get a job. There aren't enough!

It's all so fucking STUPID. And the latest news about widowed parents being expected to "get on with it, get over it, get married again or get a job" after just one year, regardless of their childrens' ages, just beggars belief.

Oh and Surestart is going to be cut as well. Just in case no one knew that.

AmberLeaf Thu 12-Jul-12 05:33:46

Beetrootjuice.

Wow you did nightshifts too!

I can't even get after school care for my autistic son never mind holiday care never mind night care!

But I guess all that means I'm entitled.

I'd love to work, I am intelligent and resourceful and could do well at lots of things. I even had a career plan and was mid training for a career that wouldve meant I'd not need any benefits I'd not even be eligable for tax credits, but then my sons difficulties became more apparent and he was diagnosed with autism.

So here I am. But it sounds like you think my only problem is not trying hard enough.

AmberLeaf Thu 12-Jul-12 05:35:18

....And yes to what Thumbwitch said

What fucking jobs!

Jupiterscock Thu 12-Jul-12 06:44:55

Would those be all the jobs millions of immigrants have been able to find, keep and do over the last five, ten years jobs many of the unemployed Brits won't do because they are too hard or too dirty or well, simply don't pay as well as the taxpayer .

I cannot remember the last time I was served in a hotel or restaurant by an indigenous Brit.
And how hard is it too set up an ironing or cleaning round?

CouthyMow Thu 12-Jul-12 07:04:13

Erm, quite hard when you are not allowed to use an iron on your own clothes. Hot iron + seizures = injuries...

Madeyemoodysmum Thu 12-Jul-12 07:15:02

I'm agAinst benefits being taken from disabled or those with ill health. But the system DOES need reform. A relative of mine getting 400 housing benefit a month. Her dh is in work. She gave up work when she had dc as it was more cost effective to claim the benefit.
She lives a merry lifestyle. Regular Tickets to west end shows. Sporting events and holidays to Spain. Why should overs be funding her lifestyle when they are far from the poverty line. I don't resent her as the system is there and she is entitled but is seems crazy that this money is spent on luxuries not food childcare etc.

Dawndonna Thu 12-Jul-12 07:15:07

Beet
Did you miss the bit about some people being too ill to work. Some people having children with severe disabilities?

jupiters
Yep, the last bit of your name is more appropriate.
Many of the people to whom you (misguidedly) refer are working illegally for below NMW. The companies that employ them won't employ people who are here legally, because it costs more.
What is an indigenous Brit by the way, and how can you tell?

AmberLeaf Thu 12-Jul-12 07:26:30

And how hard is it too set up an ironing or cleaning round

Maybe in you neck of the woods but round here people do their own cleaning.

OhDoAdmitMrsDeVere Thu 12-Jul-12 07:32:58

Ha ha ha
Ironing round?
Cleaning?
Just who the hell do you think will pay for these luxury services?
Idiot

OhDoAdmitMrsDeVere Thu 12-Jul-12 07:38:08

'certain health issues'
Most people have 'certain health issues'

Disability and poor health are not 'certain health issues'

CouthyMow Thu 12-Jul-12 07:41:38

And no, I don't pay for my ironing to be done since they have cut the SS budget for Direct Payments - my DC and I have to work the 'crumpled' look, as it is too dangerous for me to use an iron, yet I get no financial help to pay someone else to do it for me any more.

I only know one person who hires a cleaner - and her husband works in international banking earning £100k+ pa, and she works in a special school as a TA for fun, because she enjoys it, so hires a cleaner as she is working...

I know no-one else who hires a cleaner, despite knowing families as diverse as the single parent on benefits and those earning up to what my friend above's family does...

So who is going to pay for all these cleaners?

CouthyMow Thu 12-Jul-12 07:45:28

I don't class having uncontrolled epilepsy and fibromyalgia as 'certain health issues'. I class them both as debilitating life-long chronic disabilities...

And I don't class my DC's disabilities as 'certain health issues' either.

Try living with uncontrolled epilepsy and fibro for a year, whilst looking after 4 DC's, two if whom have multiple medical needs, then come back and judge me. Until then, STFU about something you can't possibly understand until you have lived it for the past 9 years like I have...

YoYoYoItsTillyMinto Thu 12-Jul-12 08:01:01

But there is a lot of demand for cleaners/gardeners in central London where I live and in the SE where DM lives. Its actually really hard to find some one reliable who wants the work, which shows the current system is not functioning well.

And in the boom many jobs were taken by migrants which again shows problems with the system.

ColouringIn Thu 12-Jul-12 08:05:32

There will be even more demand Tilly once the housing benefit shake up gets going as those who WILL do ironing/gardening/cleaning won't be able to afford to live there.

YoYoYoItsTillyMinto Thu 12-Jul-12 08:17:23

Colouring, so you think zero people will be claiming hb in the SE and London?

Jupiterscock Thu 12-Jul-12 08:20:16

Can't get cleaners easily here, either.

I am shocked though, that all the Eastern Europeans working in top flight hotels are here working illegally! shock

ClaireBunting Thu 12-Jul-12 08:27:10

Ha ha ha, wondered how long that would take. Obviously, people who work are not entitled to draw on their national insurance when they do find themselves out of work.

As for cleaners, they are pretty difficult to find here. I would love to have a cleaner but I can't find one that I can afford.

ClaireBunting Thu 12-Jul-12 08:28:08

I think you need a thread all to yourself, couthymow.

ColouringIn Thu 12-Jul-12 08:42:41

Oh I am sure there WILL be people claiming HB in London and the South East Tilly but I suspect most if not all of them will already be working so that the HB is a top up. I doubt very much that those NOT working (who might then be available to do cleaning etc) will be able to stay.....unless of course they are some of the lucky few in social housing.

I think the benefit system needs a shake up but I am not convinced by all the rhetoric this Govt is coming out with. Then again as someone who needs to live on benefits at the moment I would say that - I know how quickly life can change though and often when you least expect it.

I anticipate that in the next few years I will go back to work and I have a qualification which will enable that, nor will I be entitled to anything once I do as my salary will be good. I will always remember though that someties circumstances change and people who don't get benefits might someday need them - which is why I distrust these changes and worry about their impact.

I might be wrong, it might be just what this country needs but I am doubtful - just as an example, a person in my circumstances will be £120 a month worse off when these changes happen. I can tell you that life is tough now and losing that amount would just be a nightmare. I am fortunate, I can go back to work - some people can't.

Dawndonna Thu 12-Jul-12 08:57:06

Claire
Couthy makes valid points, no need for that.

YoYoYoItsTillyMinto Thu 12-Jul-12 09:10:59

Well said DD, its better to challenge the points someone raises that you disagree with rather than comment on them personally.

noddyholder Thu 12-Jul-12 09:16:29

Why do people who are fortunate enough not to need the benefits system AT THE MOMENT feel the need and in fact seem to think it is ok to just trample all over the lives of those who do as if they somehow own thwm because theynare currently paying taxes? I am sick of the way this country perpetuates this them and us mentality and tries to shine a light on people on benefits as the leeches of everyone else's lifestyles. This is so so wrong and if the govt even caught and prosecuted a fraction of those who dodge tax via savvy accountants we wouldn,t need to chase the sick/unemployed/ disabled. Beet root you sold be ashamed of yourself

Dawndonna Thu 12-Jul-12 09:19:16

Not all of us Noddy. Whilst I have three disabled children and a disabled dh, we are a working family. Yes we get DLA, we get child benefit. BUT we are not, at the moment, in a situation where it is survival money.

Leithlurker Thu 12-Jul-12 09:22:09

Wow so this thread has moved on a bit since the last time I looked...or possibly not.

Let me say this loud and clear, THIS IS AN IDEALOGICAL ATTACK ON THE POOR BY THE RICH!

How do I know that, well apart from it is the poor who are taking the full force of Austerity, plus being as someone said up thread seen as "collateral damage" would indicate that a battle if not a war is under way. Any talk of damage which let us not forget is a nicer word than death / dead makes it clear that the aim of policy goes well beyond the stated outcome of deficit reduction. The cutting back of the state the re introduction of the sainted grammer schools, the attack on human rights, are all indications that this is a project that is more about rebalance power and influence back towards those that have the most power and money.

As an additional, but by far the most imortant bit of evidence for my claim, I would suggest that we consider the past record of the people who are currently in power. The 1980's saw "The largest shake up of welfare benefits for a generation" Funny how each time conservatives come in to power it herelds a shake up of the welfare state. What is more noteworthy though is the way that disabled people were possed as shirkers, scroungers, a waste of resources. Most of the benefits that we are about to lose like DLA were introduced by Thatcher the milk snatcher. Women especialy single mothers were forced to sign up to the csa or face benefit sanctions, hmmm csa how did that work out for people? Why were they targetted becouse idealogicaly the conservatives were horrified that their vision of a wholesome country where the lower orders were seen but never heard was under threat.

But and here is the kicker, we can go back as we all should after all history is there to teach us things as well as for us to appreciate what works and what does not, we can go back to the new poor law of 1830 (England) and 1845 (Scotland), the striking thing is the similarity of the language employerd by the government to justify why they are putting policy in to action. What it tells us is that this is a pattern and the pattern is not a response to economic problems it is a idealogical knee jerk reaction that through out the years has seen the poor as the cause of all the problems, and the disabled as not just the most vulnerable but the easiest to pick off as they are more isolated plus easier totarget either individualy as they have less means to defend aand fight back, or as a group for the same reasons.

Couthy, GB, Mrs D, I luff you.

YoYoYoItsTillyMinto Thu 12-Jul-12 09:34:12

colouring Oh I am sure there WILL be people claiming HB in London and the South East Tilly but I suspect most if not all of them will already be working so that the HB is a top up.

yes, and they are going to have to move somewhere more affordable or increase their hours of work (e.g. take on an extra job like cleaning), move somewhere smaller etc, just like milliions of other people do in this country already.

garlicbutter Thu 12-Jul-12 09:35:38

This is where your below-NMW cleaners & waiters are living ...

"Housing conditions in Britain are among the worst in Western Europe and cost the nation about £7bn a year by adding to the pressure on the NHS and other public services. A major study warns that a lack of affordable, decent homes, cuts to local authority housing budgets and the Coalition Government's benefit reforms are creating real hardship, misery and ill-health for some of the country's most vulnerable people."
The Independent

"In [Southall] alone, there are 2,500 of these structures. They just go on and on."
Sheds with beds - BBC video

"Instead of looking forward to the London 2012 Olympics, officials in host borough Newham are more concerned with the increasing number of slum landlords in the area."
Video - Financial Times

Those who can't get a shared tool-shed to live in are on the pavement ...

"Almost 4,000 people are sleeping rough on London's streets, an increase of 8 per cent since last year. About half of these are from the UK and the rest from a wide variety of other countries, notably Poland."
The Independent

Mindyourownbusiness Thu 12-Jul-12 09:55:18

Scarred l get carers allowance for looking after my mum - l had to give up work to do so and l need every penny of it and l am still way out of pocket but hey - she's my mum,not the governments.
But recently my dad has also deteriorated very much and now l have to care for him also plus more for my mum cos he used to do some basic stuff in the house etc and for mum when he was wel, which l now do iyswim.

I applied for carers allowance for looking after my dad and was told l cant have it as you can only have it for looking after one person.

But if two of us (me and the woman down the road or another relative for example) go in and do the work l do for them between us then the woman down the road or relative could claim full carers allowance for one of my parents and l would still get it for the other.

So there is £68 going begging for my dad every week to pay someone to look after him. But wait a minute - someone is caring for him - me. But it stays in the pot and could only be paid out if l 'contracted out' all my dads care and just looked after my mum.

hmm I used to be a fan of 'two for one' offers, not any more!

ColouringIn Thu 12-Jul-12 10:28:00

Gosh Tilly what if they are like me? Disabled child who needs security and routine, single parent who easily afforded private rents until my child's needs got to great and I needed to give up work. If I was in private rented accommodation it would be someone like me moving "where rents are more affordable". Uprooting a child who already finds the world a bewildering place just so people like you can smugly say "serves them right".

As it happens I am fortunately in social housing now but if I were not I would be mightily pissed off with your "sod off elsewhere" attitude.

Let's to God hope you do not ever find yourself in my position. Sadly it's only when people DO find themselves in this position that they realise how hard it already is without other people resenting them. And it IS resentment because otherwise it would not matter to you.

Wanna swap lives? No?

Funny that.hmm

Loads of resentment but nobody ever wants to change places.

In fact it's people like you who make me feel worthless. No matter what we do as benefit claimants we will never be in the right no matter what we might have contributed in the past. No - it's a case of "if you cannot afford the rent anymore then just sod off elsewhere and take your disabled child with you" because that is the reality or will be.

And this thread neatly shows that I am bringing my disabled son up into a world which only values those who can contribute financially. What is the fucking point, might as well prepare him now for a life where people think he is worthless? Or shall we both jump off a bridge now? We'd save you poor beleaguered tax payers ...except we wouldn't because there will always be disabled people. And before anyone says "oh we don't mean disabled people" let me tell you they WILL lose money under these changes. And they will have to move potentially away from friends, family and local support. I rely on my relatives because I get sod all from any agencies. This "sod off elsewhere" plan which Tilly is so in favour of will lead to further social isolation for people like me who can least cope with it. Nice!

So forgive me for thinking what a crappy world this is sometimes and what a lot of shitty horrible people are in it. Those of you who dislike benefit claimants like me - what shitty bloody lives you must lead to envy me mine.

niceguy2 Thu 12-Jul-12 10:43:19

Leithlurker, it's no such thing. If we had a balanced budget and the government introduced such sweeping changes then yes you could argue that.

But our budget is nowhere near balanced. The figures don't lie. How do you propose to cut £190 billion from our budget without somehow affecting the poor? You can't.

And don't forget 'each time' the Conservatives come to power they have to cut services because of the fact the previous Labour government has spent all the money. Then eventually we tire of the cuts and we vote Labour back in who then spend lots of money 'fixing' all the cuts the Tories made. It's just a vicious circle and I hope one day we break out of it.

flatpackhamster Thu 12-Jul-12 10:58:21

Leithlurker

Wow so this thread has moved on a bit since the last time I looked...or possibly not.

Let me say this loud and clear, THIS IS AN IDEALOGICAL ATTACK ON THE POOR BY THE RICH!

Say it as often as you like, it still isn't true, and if you believe that the best thing for 'the poor' is to be handed other people's money by smiling Guardianistas in order to salve their consciences, then more fool you.

Dawndonna Thu 12-Jul-12 11:07:44

Grow up Flat.
I get so bored when people just come on to these threads to either patronise, or demonstrate their intellectual credentials, usually failing in both.
I pay tax and yes, I'm quite happy for my tax to go toward paying DLA for anyone who needs it, including my dh.

flatpackhamster Thu 12-Jul-12 11:12:32

Dawndonna

^Grow up Flat.
I get so bored when people just come on to these threads to either patronise, or demonstrate their intellectual credentials, usually failing in both.^

You don't seem to have a problem with people coming on here spouting crap when they agree with you though.

I pay tax and yes, I'm quite happy for my tax to go toward paying DLA for anyone who needs it, including my dh.

I thought this thread was still about the changes to child benefit so that it only covers the first three children?

It seems it has moved on. Of course it has. DLA is something about which people can blame The Evil Tories, whereas it's harder to say that people should have child benefit for as many children as they choose.

Dawndonna Thu 12-Jul-12 11:17:55

Actually they should. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean they shouldn't.
You see, much as it may surprise you, we live in a free society. That means we have choices, we can limit the number of children we have, or we can choose not to. That is a fact.
Okay, there are people like you who consider it morally wrong to do so, but most do not seem to have looked at causes or alternatives, other than stop money. A somewhat simplistic view.
The thing that makes me laugh the most about this is, those that think we should stop paying these 'baby factory' women, are those that don't sign their kids up to sex ed classes, or who think it's morally wrong to allow contraception to minors. Until we educate properly, this cycle will continue.
Problem is, there's no money is there, not for welfare, or education. Only for the rich, and for defence.

Leithlurker Thu 12-Jul-12 11:19:18

Not so subtle side steps from niceguy and flatpack, My post long as it was was about the thinking behind the ideology not the practical framework.

So you both agree and condone people dying being killed, a financial reduction of the state by deliberately and with much malice forcing people to die. That is the choice that has been made, I see we have passed from arguing that it was the only choice so now we get to the bones. This is the choice they made, it is not one they had a gun held to their head and were forced to make they (the condems) made it freely and knowingly based on an understanding of the world and finance as well as what they perceive as the best way to hold on to elected office. in other words IDEOLOGY. At least have the guts to say what you are supporting niceguy and flatpack. Don't you dare hide behind blaming others, or your own illogical prejudices. Lets here you defend the result of what your saying. Families broken up, people dead, starving and homeless wandering the streets in larger numbers, those that have jobs working far more hours forcing families in to crises and raising more dysfunctional children. Get a pair both of you!

OhDoAdmitMrsDeVere Thu 12-Jul-12 11:19:20

Unlike the richer, decent, hardworking fellows in the news lately,

I am proud to pay tax and would like to continue doing so if allowed

I like that my taxes go to help others.

I don't read the Gaurdian. I can't afford a daily paper.

What utter bollocks you talk. Like wishing to have a welfare state that oes not punish the poor is the reserve of middle class hand wringers.

I get sick of people talking theoretically about what people should do when they are pretty sure they will never have to do it.

Having a grandfather who worked dwn a mine doesn't mean you know about poverty btw. Going on about how your nanna Mary had three jobs means fuck all.
It wasn't you and you not know what she suffered.

Orwellian Thu 12-Jul-12 11:24:55

If there are no jobs, then how come so many Eastern Europeans seem to be able to find them - all the babysitters, nannies and au pairs I know are Eastern European, all the repair men in our flats are Eastern European, all the staff in our local cafe are Eastern European. Some of them are doing two jobs.

One of my best friends is Hungarian and she has been here for 4 years and has been out of work for 2 weeks that whole time, never claimed any benefits. She came here speaking virtually no English. She just put a lot of effort into finding work.

NicholasTeakozy Thu 12-Jul-12 11:37:56

Orwellian, there are over 2.5 million people claiming JSA chasing 450000 jobs.

Dahlen Thu 12-Jul-12 11:39:55

Also most of those jobs are done by single people with no dependents (well, no dependents in this country - although they are often sending money back home of course).

Therein lies the reason. Single people can live in a hostel/bedsit/houseshare to reduce overheads and make a low-paid job worthwhile. It's less easy to do that when you have a partner and/or children in tow.

Dahlen Thu 12-Jul-12 11:45:03

I also think it's worth accepting that we are never going to have 100% employment. We never have. There are always going to be people who do not work. Some through illness/disability, some through circumstance, some through poor education/intelligence, and yes, some through choice.

It's impossible to distinguish between 'deserving' and 'undeserving'. Successive governments throughout history have tried and failed, succeeding only in hurting as many innocents as feckless. Those who fail to examine history are condemned to repeat its mistakes.

The question then becomes 'how does a humane, civilised society treat its most vulnerable citizens?' Are principles and ethics to be reserved only for times of plenty? Or, in times of need, do we all accept greater pain in order to ensure our most vulnerable do not sink (i.e. more taxation instead of budget cuts).

AmberLeaf Thu 12-Jul-12 11:48:18

I thought this thread was still about the changes to child benefit so that it only covers the first three children

Read the OP it wasn't about child benefit at all!

See this is what makes it all so tedious on these threads-people that don't know what they are talking about and who don't have the first clue come on with so much to say.

garlicbutter Thu 12-Jul-12 12:17:38

Well, that's the rub isn't it, Dahlen. They don't want to be charged a couple of hundred quid a year for the privilege of living in a safe & healthy society. I bet these are the same people who say they'll never go back to India or Egypt for their holidays because of all the beggars. Bloody inconvenient, all those destitute folks getting in the way, and don't touch them darling! They haven't washed their hands!
It will happen here.

• 69,460 children (or expected children) are living in homeless households – three quarters of the total 'accepted' (registered with local authority).
• An increase of 44% in households who are homeless after repossession to 1,520. But this is still a relatively small part of the whole. The biggest proportion, 20%, are those who can no longer stay with a friend or a relative.
• In the last three months of 2011, 12,830 households were 'accepted' as homeless, up 18% on the same period the previous year
• Increasingly, people are being put up in bed and breakfast accommodation – which is up 37% on the previous year after years of declines
• Decrease in the use of accommodation leased by the private sector to local authorities, by 6% from 27,730 to 26,080 households. In fact, 8,540 households are homeless because their short lease came to an end, up 39% on 2010
• Birmingham has the highest numbers of homeless people, with 925 households - but the highest rate in England is in Waltham Forest, north-east London, where 2.55 households per 1,000 are accepted as homeless, compared to an England figure of 0.59. Across London, homelessness is up by 27.4% (2011/2010)

There are an estimated 12,000 living in squalid London sheds.

At the moment, incompassionate posters, these numbers are mostly made of the people you praise for working at NMW or less, without benefits. Many of their children live with them in a single, uninsulated room without proper sanitation. This is what you admire, apparently, as long as you get your services cheaply and promptly. Do you really feel proud that you won't pay enough for workers to be able to house their children properly?

When people begin falling through the welfare net in hundreds of thousands, our homeless will be joined by the sick, the mentally disabled, the shell-shocked, the depressed, the crippled and the elderly. Plus their children. Just to save you a bit of tax, and save international corporations a lot of tax.

Viviennemary Thu 12-Jul-12 12:41:53

I know quite a few people with cleaners. None of them earn anywhere near £100,000 a year.

garlicbutter Thu 12-Jul-12 12:55:51

How do you propose to cut £190 billion from our budget without somehow affecting the poor?

Niceguy, why do you keep banging on about cuts without looking at ways to increase income?

Why do you ignore posts like Couthy's which ask whether other, reasonable-looking alternatives have been considered?

And where was this money "spent"? You were quick to ridicule my insurance/embezzlement analogy but have done fuck all about my replies.

As we 'speak' on lots of other threads, I don't perceive you as thick or even particularly elitist. Could you please explain why you've bought the coalition's half-baked ideas so completely?

YoYoYoItsTillyMinto Thu 12-Jul-12 13:26:10

GB - They don't want to be charged a couple of hundred quid a year for the privilege of living in a safe & healthy society

if paying a few hundred pounds a year fixed the problem, it would have been fixed long ago.

www.google.co.uk/publicdata/explore?ds=z8o7pt6rd5uqa6_&met_y=unemployment_rate&idim=country:uk&fdim_y=seasonality:sa&dl=en&hl=en&q=uk+unemployment

unemployment is 8% now. it did not go below 4.5% in the any of the booms since the 1980s. and of course in the booms, may people came to the UK to work and successful entered employment here, while others remained claiming. this is not a problem that raising taxes can solve, because when there were jobs, they were not taken by people who could claim instead.

NicholasTeakozy Thu 12-Jul-12 13:38:14

Garlic there is no point arguing with those who align themselves on the right, they spout their spurious shite with nothing resembling a fact to back up their poorly thought out excuse for an argument. Indeed, when you prove them wrong with the simple application of facts they tell you you're wrong, and why. When pressed for proof of their 'argument' they go strangely quiet.

Iain and Duncan Smith (I refuse to believe that much hate for the poor exists in one person) know the consequences for the poor and disabled. They just don't care.

Dahlen Thu 12-Jul-12 13:41:59

when there were jobs, they were not taken by people who could claim instead

Surely the question is why? Why aren't people taking jobs?

Ruling out disability, circumstances etc and choosing just to concentrate on the lazy, feckless spongers that everyone loves to point the finger at, the question is still why?

No happy, healthy person reaches the age of 16 with the sole aspiration of joining the dole queue. That particular aspiration (or lack of) is created.

Quite often 'feckless spongers' have become feckless spongers because of poor parenting, postcode lottery schooling, poverty, disenfranchised communities, etc. If you want to eradicate this sort of mentality, you need to plough money into social services, education and community - all areas that are being cut back on.

Cutting benefits will simply disenfranchise these people more and result in increased poverty, greater demands on the NHS and increased crime, not to mention the very real risk of civil unrest as we've already seen and which is predicted to happen again.

Dahlen Thu 12-Jul-12 13:48:49

Think about it. If being a feckless sponger is so easy and comfortable an existence, how come none of us want it for our children?

It's because we recognise that a happy, well-rounded life comes from having hope that things will get better, having goals and dreams and the ability and opportunities to pursue them - all things denied to people brought up in homes where the parents lack the skills to work, where the drug dealers are the only ones with no money worries, and where the people working hard on NMW regularly have the bailiffs at the door. Oh and where the bankers and politicians commit offences that are 1000x worse than your average benefit fraudster yet don't even lose their jobs in many cases (or if they do it's with a big payout). Yeah, it's a dream life at the tax payers expense. hmm

YoYoYoItsTillyMinto Thu 12-Jul-12 14:05:38

dahlen you need to plough money into social services, education and community - all areas that are being cut back on. i agree.

Jupiterscock Thu 12-Jul-12 14:06:31

Labour spent thirteen years throwing money we didn't have at free this and extra that and help yourself to some of this.

We've got more " feckless spongers" after their policies than ever before...

flatpackhamster Thu 12-Jul-12 14:09:03

Dahlen

No happy, healthy person reaches the age of 16 with the sole aspiration of joining the dole queue. That particular aspiration (or lack of) is created.

Agree with this. The problem is poverty of aspiration, not financial poverty.

Quite often 'feckless spongers' have become feckless spongers because of poor parenting, postcode lottery schooling, poverty, disenfranchised communities, etc. If you want to eradicate this sort of mentality, you need to plough money into social services, education and community - all areas that are being cut back on.

You see you then go right back on what you said above and claim that it's lack of money that creates 'spongers'? OK, exactly how much money makes the spongers stop? The reason I ask is Labour doubled welfare spending, and the number of spongers went up.

Cutting benefits will simply disenfranchise these people more and result in increased poverty, greater demands on the NHS and increased crime, not to mention the very real risk of civil unrest as we've already seen and which is predicted to happen again.

We've already seen, in the Tottenham riots, what a colossal sense of entitlement to other people's earnings does. Although IIRC those Tottenham rioters weren't stealing food and clothes but trainers and electronics.

The problem is social. That means that central government intervention can't help. Money isn't the problem, it's the mentality of the people that do it that's the problem, and the cure has to come from the people themselves.

garlicbutter Thu 12-Jul-12 14:11:34

Tilly, the percentage unemployed means nothing without looking at job availability. Vacancies are plummeting.

There were 457,000 job vacancies in the three months to April 2012, down 7,000 on the three months to January 2012 and down 12,000 on a year earlier. (ONS)

Lower unemployment during a 'boom' simply meant there more jobs available.

Unemployment will continue to rise. Not because of "feckless scroungers" but because there aren't enough jobs.

There are already more than 10 jobseekers for each vacancy. Cutting off their money won't make 10 times as many jobs appear out of nowhere. If anything, it will make jobs disappear due to reduced economic activity.

Where is the economic stimulus?

flatpackhamster Thu 12-Jul-12 14:18:10

Dahlen
Think about it. If being a feckless sponger is so easy and comfortable an existence, how come none of us want it for our children?

It's because we recognise that a happy, well-rounded life comes from having hope that things will get better, having goals and dreams and the ability and opportunities to pursue them - all things denied to people brought up in homes where the parents lack the skills to work, where the drug dealers are the only ones with no money worries, and where the people working hard on NMW regularly have the bailiffs at the door. Oh and where the bankers and politicians commit offences that are 1000x worse than your average benefit fraudster yet don't even lose their jobs in many cases (or if they do it's with a big payout). Yeah, it's a dream life at the tax payers expense.

I have thought long and hard about this issue. I think you need to look at it from an evolutionary perspective.

Let's take two different people. Woman one is yer run-of-the-mill working or middle class woman who went to school, worked hard and never took a penny from the state. Woman two is yer stereotypical Waynetta Slob who's never worked a day in her life.

One has two children at the age of 30(ish). Her two children go off to university, and have their own (two) kids at about the same age. So this one woman has passed her genes on to two children and four grandchildren (6) after 6 decades.

Woman 2 has four children, starting at 16 and going through to 25. Her four children do the same thing, each having four children. However, because she's having children earlier, after 6 decades she's got 4 children and 16 grandchildren (20) plus a batch of great-grandchildren on the way.

Now in this theoretical exercise, who is the bigger evolutionary success here? It's clearly woman two, who has 20 sets of genes out there instead of 6.

So from a genetic point of view, woman 2 is doing the 'right' thing. She's ensuring the survival of her line and she's doing a better job than woman 1. Her life might be a bit grim from the point of view of people like me but she's done what we're all basically here to do, and done it better than most of us.

I don't think that enough people look at this problem from the point of view of evolutionary biology.

Orwellian Thu 12-Jul-12 14:26:23

Flatpack - that is a very good anthropological take on the benefits system! In 50 years time I wonder what the country will look like in terms of social and cultural makeup. It will be interesting if spending keeps going up and up on welfare then perhaps we will get to a point where the majority are not bothering to work or save for a pension because they think they will get it all paid for by the state. The few remaining workers will pack it in after their tax and NI rates become unbearable and then nobody will be working in this country. We will have to ask other countries for foreign aid for ourselves.

garlicbutter Thu 12-Jul-12 14:34:56

I've got to say your evolutionary post tickled me, Flatpack.

Evolutionary biology is indeed a strong force, though clearly not strong enough to motivate your Natalie Nice to have as many kids as Waynetta. I wonder why? Perhaps because cartoon stereotypes aren't really all that illuminating grin

At the other end of the scale I could give you Angelina Jolie with her six DC, Queen Elizabeth with her four, Heidi Klum (4), Sarah Palin (4), Marie Osmond (8), Nicola Horlick (5), and quote Forbes: "there's been a significant increase in three- and four-children families among the top-earning 2% of households".

As Forbes also says, the influencing factor is disposable income. Waynetta doesn't have much disposable income so her brood is clearly not the result of a measured financial decision. It's more likely that, like lots of Natalie Nice's middle-class friends with larger families, she's not very good with contraception and gets a sense of personal fulfilment from her family. On Mumsnet of all places, I shouldn't have thought that too hard to believe smile

Jupiterscock Thu 12-Jul-12 14:42:54

I suspect that if she found her money the same or even less every time she popped a sprog, she'd quickly acquaint herself with contraception.

Most people with large families are either comfortable or " poor" IME. Everyone else has to cut their cloth accordingly.

Dahlen Thu 12-Jul-12 14:58:04

flatpack: You see you then go right back on what you said above and claim that it's lack of money that creates 'spongers'? OK, exactly how much money makes the spongers stop? The reason I ask is Labour doubled welfare spending, and the number of spongers went up.

I think you missed my point. I think the spending should be going into schools, libraries, sure start centres, maternity services, free extra-curricular clubs for children so that membership fees aren't required, free buspasses for children so that they can get to these places without relying on parents. That sort of thing.

Dahlen Thu 12-Jul-12 15:00:07

Can we please remember that both Natalie Nice and Waynetta Slob required male partners to create their children. Any incentive to stop the poor reproducing smacks of eugenics needs to focus on male attitudes to creating offspring as well as female access to contraception.

Orwellian Thu 12-Jul-12 15:03:30

Garlicbutter, I would imagine most of those rich people with many children are not relying on the state for any help and probably use mostly private healthcare, schooling etc (please no comments about the Royals as they are a case unto themselves and deserve another thread on the rights and wrongs of the monarchy). People who are supporting themselves have every right to use their earned money as they see fit.

I actually don't have a problem with anyone having as many children as they want. I do have a problem with people having as many children as they want but expecting the state to pay for them (particularly having children when they are already on benefits and know they cannot support them through their own hard work). Have 3024809 children by all means, but don't expect other taxpayers to pick up the tab (not aimed at you or anyone on here but on workless families who have more children than they can support themselves).

I disagree with giving people the responsibility to choose how many children they want to have without giving them responsibility to support them.

flatpackhamster Thu 12-Jul-12 15:05:10

garlicbutter

I've got to say your evolutionary post tickled me, Flatpack.

Evolutionary biology is indeed a strong force, though clearly not strong enough to motivate your Natalie Nice to have as many kids as Waynetta. I wonder why? Perhaps because cartoon stereotypes aren't really all that illuminating

I admit that it was a simplistic stereotype, but I used it to explain my view that we are far more driven by evolutionary biology than most people realise. Further, I don't think that the systems created by government take advantage of (or even take in to account) many of those evolutionary drives which we don't even recognise we're doing.

Take parks, for example. Now, when you walk through a path, even though you don't realise you're doing it, your brain is constantly plotting the most efficient route between your current location and your destination. That's why you always see worn patches at the junction of paths in parks. My local hospital has just put in a zig-zagging path between their car park and the main building. So what's happened? People ignore the zigs and zags and walk straight across the grass.

It's just how we're built, like when you shop for fruit and automatically pick the reddest apples and tomatoes, and your eyes can spot tiny differences between them, or when it's pitch black and you hear a noise you don't recognise and your body kicks in to 'fight or flight' mode.

But don't think I'm talking about people as automata who merely respond on instinct. The case of so many couples who have put off a family until later are a case in point. Biology can be ignored, guided, tamed - up to a point. The problem is that we're seeing Natalie Nice tame her biology in order to give her small brood the best chance, while Waynetta Slob doesn't - and we're paying for Waynetta to make that choice.

At the other end of the scale I could give you Angelina Jolie with her six DC, Queen Elizabeth with her four, Heidi Klum (4), Sarah Palin (4), Marie Osmond (8), Nicola Horlick (5), and quote Forbes: "there's been a significant increase in three- and four-children families among the top-earning 2% of households".

As Forbes also says, the influencing factor is disposable income. Waynetta doesn't have much disposable income so her brood is clearly not the result of a measured financial decision. It's more likely that, like lots of Natalie Nice's middle-class friends with larger families, she's not very good with contraception and gets a sense of personal fulfilment from her family. On Mumsnet of all places, I shouldn't have thought that too hard to believe

Statistical outliers like the super rich are, IMO, not an awfully useful way of looking at the majority. They might as well be on another planet for all the difference their decisions make.

I think the point I'm trying to make here is that the system allows Waynetta to make the choice between four children and two children. I think that it makes it too easy for her to choose four children. Why should she automatically get a bigger house because she's got more kids? Why should she receive more money? Do you remember this [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16812185 from the BBC?]] Seven children. Neither parent work. They've got Sky+, they can afford beer and fags, they're spending £120 a month on phone bills.

Now I do agree that a nice fulfilling family is a great thing. But I also question why the taxpayer should pay for fulfillment. I think it's wrong.

Orwellian Thu 12-Jul-12 15:06:29

Dahlen - A Tory MP (so probably a vampire to boot) is advocating reducing child tax credits/child benefit and instead pumping the money into spending on early years education, childcare etc. What do you think about that idea?

garlicbutter Thu 12-Jul-12 15:10:24

Dahlen makes an excellent point about feckless sires!

You can't go round basing everything on "people you know". Well, you can, but it's irrational. If I were to base this part of the conversation on my acquaintance with Mumsnet, I'd be setting national policy according to my perception that most women with children are middle-class, have 4 or more DC and their partners are unfaithful. (Which may well be true hmm)

I have just been trawling the DWP's figures to see if I can conclude anything from their data on family size & income group. Unfortunately they haven't looked at it this way, so I'd have to do coefficients of the data they have published. And I'm wasting my time here, aren't I ...

NicholasTeakozy Thu 12-Jul-12 15:11:50

We've already seen, in the Tottenham riots, what a colossal sense of entitlement to other people's earnings does.

You're so right, oh wait. The Tottenham riots were caused by the Met's belief they should be allowed to shoot an unarmed man and have massive disregard for the truth.

If you're going to deploy facts, at least get them right.

Dahlen Thu 12-Jul-12 15:12:00

Orwellian, I wouldn't disagree with it depending on how it was done. If childcare was free/more heavily subsidised, people wouldn't need the childcare element of WTC anyway, and if early years education/extra-curricular clubs etc were freely available, some of the CTC wouldn't be needed either.

However, it would be a mistake to, for example, fund only early years education and use it as justification for cutting CTC entirely, because children from 5-15 still need childcare and extra-curricular clubs - in the case of the latter, probably more so since many activities are free for the under 5s anyway.

flatpackhamster Thu 12-Jul-12 15:13:50

Dahlen

I think you missed my point. I think the spending should be going into schools, libraries, sure start centres, maternity services, free extra-curricular clubs for children so that membership fees aren't required, free buspasses for children so that they can get to these places without relying on parents. That sort of thing.

And that spending doubled under Labour. Education, NHS, Welfare spending all doubled from 1997 to 2010. And our problem is worse than it was in 1997. We now have something like 3 million institutionally unemployed people. As I wrote before, it's not money that's the problem here - nor is it sure start centres or welfare-to-work-schemes or schools.

Can we please remember that both Natalie Nice and Waynetta Slob required male partners to create their children.

Any incentive to stop the poor reproducing smacks of eugenics needs to focus on male attitudes to creating offspring as well as female access to contraception.

Eugenics is about improving the genetic composition of the population. It's got the same scientific basis as aromatherapy. I don't see limiting child benefit to 2 children to be equivalent to eugenics although I'm certain that some will view it that way.

I don't think 'education' about contraception is the problem either. Everybody knows what a condom is. It's the women who have to stand up here and say 'no'. They're the ones who will have to do all the work and give up their futures for their children.

Germoline Thu 12-Jul-12 15:15:46

So in theory, Woman 2 - with the right support, education and opportunities, could produce 20 taxpayers over 6 decades
Woman 1 – only 6, who may turn out to be largely tax avoiding wbankers (have nicked that from someone up thread!)

The nature/nurture argument has always fascinated me. As far as I am aware, genes will only ever dominate where environmental factors allow them to do so. Phylogenic inertia v. adaptation.

What do we actually know about the extent to which experts (people who have turned their lives around from benefits to tax-paying) have been involved in the proposal formation? What were the key influences in their change for the better? The only people who really know the answer to this are those people themselves and those working with them to achieve this. For anyone else, it is guess work.

garlicbutter Thu 12-Jul-12 15:18:55

Where can I get some kids? I want Sky+, lots of booze and fags, holidays and cars!! <whines>

I was about to have a big rant about refusing to support Cartoon Waynetta's multiple children - who gets helped by starving children? - until I saw the posts above about funnelling the money into childcare.

I've said before that I'd welcome good quality, wall-to-wall childcare provision for every family. As people keep pointing out, it would cost a fucking fortune. Far more than current child-related benefits. Stay at home parents cost less.

flatpackhamster Thu 12-Jul-12 15:24:38

Germoline

^o in theory, Woman 2 - with the right support, education and opportunities, could produce 20 taxpayers over 6 decades
Woman 1 – only 6, who may turn out to be largely tax avoiding wbankers (have nicked that from someone up thread!)^

Haha!

Well, the problem with that argument is that unless you're in the top-earning 40% of the country, your contribution to the tax coffers during your lifetime is lower than the amount you'll take out of it.

Since, sadly, Woman 2's poor background and schooling means she can't get a high-paying job, those 20 taxpayers will always be a 'burden' on the state.

I don't know what the solution is. I wish I did because then I'd be President Of The Universe.

garlicbutter Thu 12-Jul-12 15:27:29

What do we actually know about the extent to which experts (people who have turned their lives around from benefits to tax-paying) have been involved in the proposal formation?

Well, the key advisors were Philip Green and that A4E woman. Both shining examples of socially responsible capitalism.

The WRB was led by Lord Freud, who clearly didn't know anything about our welfare system (I watched the Lords debate) and who broke Parliamentary rules to weasel his cuts back in after they'd been vetoed and everyone had gone home.

Very confidence-inspiring.

Dahlen Thu 12-Jul-12 15:28:42

It's the women who have to stand up here and say 'no'. They're the ones who will have to do all the work and give up their futures for their children.

Do you have any idea how unbelievably sexist that sounds?

We do not live in a world where it is the female of the species who has control over sex. Porn featuring violence against women is everywhere and 1 in 9 women will be raped. That doesn't even consider the women taken advantage of or coerced into having sex without using a condom. Research is showing that young men particularly are abandoning condoms and that young women are falling for the justifications they use.

It takes two people to make a baby Both are jointly responsible.

As you say, women face the consequences by suffering financially and giving up their freedom. Why should it be all down to women? Perhaps if more feckless fathers were forced into living up to their responsibilities, they'd be a bit more keen to use condoms. If they knew that they'd be hounded for maintenance for the next 18 years without exception perhaps the men could stand up and say 'no' too.

Dahlen Thu 12-Jul-12 15:31:51

We keep talking about the bottom 20% (or whatever) needing support as though it's a bad thing. Well, as long as we live in a capitalist society that bottom 20% is always going to exist. You cannot have people at the top or in the middle without having people at the bottom. If you don't want people living in such poverty that they require state support, then you need to have a true meritocracy, which is never going to exist.

Dahlen Thu 12-Jul-12 15:33:26

Only if you can say that every child is born with the same opportunity to achieve happiness, health and self-sufficiency can you then say that those who fail to achieve it have only themselves to blame and can thus be abandoned.

garlicbutter Thu 12-Jul-12 15:44:32

Great posts, Dahlen.

And Nicholas, re Tottenham - well, yes grin Another one of those pesky facts. Mustn't let them get in the way of a good old rant, though, must we?

Dahlen Thu 12-Jul-12 15:57:40

Flatpack - And that spending doubled under Labour. Education, NHS, Welfare spending all doubled from 1997 to 2010. And our problem is worse than it was in 1997.

Partly that was to do with wider economic principles. It's not as simple as saying spending doubled. It certainly didn't double per head of the population.
Much of the spending was on bureaucracy rather than at grass roots level, and certainly didn't benefit those most in need of it. Indeed, if you want to be cynical about it, much of it was aimed at the middle class rather than those in poverty, in a bid to convince them that New Labour weren't card-carrying communists.

Secondly, we have an ageing population and this has massively increased welfare spending. It's not actually the feckless single mothers and the unemployed doing that.

Likewise, Labour made a huge mistake in eduction. IMO they are responsible for the start of the postcode lottery trend in education and their idiotic notion to get everyone at university rather than just the brightest from any socio-economic background has actually reduced social mobility IMO and laid the foundations for the latest massive fees hike.

YoYoYoItsTillyMinto Thu 12-Jul-12 16:06:56

If you're going to deploy facts, at least get them right.

Right so some of the youth where i live, looted family run stops to protest about the Police?

how does that work? The police shoot someone, so i get some free stuff?

Dahlen Thu 12-Jul-12 16:27:25

There;s been a lot in the media about the riots, and the government's own investigation concluded that the biggest problem is a significant minority who feel so removed from society that they no longer see the sense in following that society's rules. After all, what's a pair of trainers or a flatscreen TV compared to the MPs duckponds and second homes claimed on expenses?

Dahlen Thu 12-Jul-12 16:29:10

When you have people who are angry and have nothing to lose except their freedom, it takes very little to set things off. What then happens of course is that a tiny core of criminals capitalise on the situation and then mob mentality takes over.

flatpackhamster Thu 12-Jul-12 16:35:23

Dahlen

Do you have any idea how unbelievably sexist that sounds?

It's funny, but I was listening to a World Service programme about India and how a charity there is teaching women about contraception and how to limit their family size. For the women, it was empowering and set them free.

Why is it sexist in the UK but empowering for poor women in India?

We do not live in a world where it is the female of the species who has control over sex. Porn featuring violence against women is everywhere and 1 in 9 women will be raped.

I'm not sure this is the place to get in to a discussion of pornography and its influence on sex.

That doesn't even consider the women taken advantage of or coerced into having sex without using a condom. Research is showing that young men particularly are abandoning condoms and that young women are falling for the justifications they use.

It takes two people to make a baby Both are jointly responsible.

And sometimes the father disappears and the woman is left alone.

As you say, women face the consequences by suffering financially and giving up their freedom. Why should it be all down to women? Perhaps if more feckless fathers were forced into living up to their responsibilities, they'd be a bit more keen to use condoms. If they knew that they'd be hounded for maintenance for the next 18 years without exception perhaps the men could stand up and say 'no' too.

I'm not saying it should be down to women. I'm saying that, right or wrong, it is. I don't think feckless fathers should be able to get away with leaving a pregnant woman and avoiding any responsibility. I'm saying that they do, so women have to stand together and deal with it.

I'm sorry if you think that's sexist.

Partly that was to do with wider economic principles.

If you mean 'socialist ideology', then I agree.

It's not as simple as saying spending doubled. It certainly didn't double per head of the population.

No indeed. Spending on the poorest, when we take in to account extra money for schools in deprived areas, extra money for sink estates, new hospitals and schools built overwhelmingly in Labour areas, and so on, increased far more than double.

Much of the spending was on bureaucracy rather than at grass roots level, and certainly didn't benefit those most in need of it.

This is true, and a dreadful failure on the part of the government. It was also inevitable, thanks to the very particular ideology of the Labour Party, which is top-down "We can fix it".

Indeed, if you want to be cynical about it, much of it was aimed at the middle class rather than those in poverty, in a bid to convince them that New Labour weren't card-carrying communists.

I agree that some of it was aimed at some of the middle class. Rest assured that in this MN's middle-class Tory stronghold, the precise amount of spending was zip. I understand, though, that Holland Park Comprehensive, the '"Socialist Eton" in Islington, has had a £40m upgrade.

Secondly, we have an ageing population and this has massively increased welfare spending. It's not actually the feckless single mothers and the unemployed doing that.

I agree that there has been, and will continue to be, a hefty burden on the taxpayer to pay for care for the elderly.

Likewise, Labour made a huge mistake in eduction. IMO they are responsible for the start of the postcode lottery trend in education and their idiotic notion to get everyone at university rather than just the brightest from any socio-economic background has actually reduced social mobility IMO and laid the foundations for the latest massive fees hike.

I agree with most of this.

NicholasTeakozy

You're so right, oh wait. The Tottenham riots were caused by the Met's belief they should be allowed to shoot an unarmed man and have massive disregard for the truth.

Duggan was armed.

If you're going to deploy facts, at least get them right.

Hmm.

Orwellian Thu 12-Jul-12 16:35:41

We need a real mixture of socialism and capitalism but most of all common sense. It makes no sense to pay people to have children they cannot afford. It also makes no sense to let Topshop and Amazon pay no tax on profits they have made from selling to UK customers. No government will address both ends as all governments have a vested interest in being re-elected and getting party funding.

YoYoYoItsTillyMinto Thu 12-Jul-12 16:40:01

Dahlen so MPs duck ponds were responsible for looting family run shops?

garlicbutter Thu 12-Jul-12 16:40:02

I thought investigators found no forensic evidence that Mark Duggan was armed when shot by police? The bullet in the second policeman was from the first one's firearm.

NicholasTeakozy Thu 12-Jul-12 16:41:17

Tilly <sigh> the first night of rioting in Tottenham was caused by the shooting of an unarmed man, and the subsequent lying by the police. The lies that they were returning fire, that he had shot an officer etc. Also, it was a reaction to the callous disregard shown by the Met for the family and the surrounding community. I don't condone looting in any shape or form, but I understand completely why they felt the violent action of the police merited such a response.

YoYoYoItsTillyMinto Thu 12-Jul-12 16:42:13

Nicholas - so i take it the riots happened on your streets?

garlicbutter Thu 12-Jul-12 16:42:21

We need a real mixture of socialism and capitalism but most of all common sense

I know! Why do people (including those in Parliament) find this so hard to understand??
<sobs>

Orwellian Thu 12-Jul-12 16:45:39

I thought the Tottenham riots (and those elsewhere) were caused by opportunists who wanted free expensive trainers without having to pay for them with the excuse that someone had been shot by the police?

Dawndonna Thu 12-Jul-12 16:47:17

Duggan was armed but the police were unsure at the time. They released no information and did everything they could to cover their arses. The family did not find out for sure that he was dead until the day after his death. They found out from television reports. The Met finally got around to apologising in February, this year.
We are dealing with the disenfranchised here. People who have little hope and few chances. Flatpack and Jupiter, you only care about your own sorry little arses, your taxes are being used by the feckless. Your taxes are also being used by education services, health services etc. But you're not querying the spending on that, just where you perceive there to be idleness and lazyness. Not everybody on benefits is like that, there are some, but the government is picking up on these to punish the majority, and that majority includes disabled adults and children. In your pursuit of removing the feckless from society, you are including the disabled among them by supporting the government picking on the weak. You are bullies in the same way that the government are.
Like most bullies, you appear to be proud of it.

Dahlen Thu 12-Jul-12 16:49:48

We need a real mixture of socialism and capitalism but most of all common sense

Also agreed!

BTW flatpack, just because someone finds something empowering, doesn't mean it is. Of course giving women access to contraception in India is a great idea. It doesn't 'empower' them to say 'no' to the men in their lives though, nor get their husbands to acknowledge the information those women have been given or 'allow' them to take the contraception. I would say that as much money should have been spent educating the men actually. Indeed, this is being seen in some African countries where it is now recognised that the aid being given to women to improve their sexual health is being undermined (often deliberately) by the men.

NicholasTeakozy Thu 12-Jul-12 16:50:39

Duggan was armed.

Righto. A gun was found about 10 feet from the minicab. Inside a box. Mark Duggan's fingerprints were not on it, nor his DNA, so there is more than a little doubt as to whether he was armed. BBC linky

Will that do?

Dawndonna Thu 12-Jul-12 16:54:22

Sorry Nicholas
Did check,but got it wrong. Everything else I said still stands.

NicholasTeakozy Thu 12-Jul-12 17:41:58

My reply wasn't to you Dawndonna, 'twas to Flatpack. Like yourself, I try to back up my points with proof. Anyhow, I agree with the rest of your post.

Dawndonna Thu 12-Jul-12 17:50:57

Thank you!

YoYoYoItsTillyMinto Thu 12-Jul-12 18:15:08

the police do shoot unarmed people. i heard this shooting of my neighbour & was interviewed as part of the investigation: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Harry_Stanley

over the years many unarmed people have been shot/died in police custody in strange circumstances.

but it was only the recent Tottenham shooting that triggered looting. i thought the man's family/pastor asked for calm.

so why the looting? Oh NT - so was there looting near you?

Dawndonna Thu 12-Jul-12 19:25:51

The same reason there were poll tax riots in the 80s. The Brixton riots, the Toxteth riots and other riots since time immemorial, people have become disenfranchised, sometimes it's the only way to demonstrate dissatisfaction with a regime that appears to offer no solutions and disempowers peope by removing hope, chances etc. Which successive governments of all hues have done. There are very few places for people to go now, fewer jobs, little chance of affordable housing, social or otherwise. If you remove hope and replace it with fear, you reap the consequences.

AmberLeaf Thu 12-Jul-12 19:26:39

I don't live in Tottenham but there was rioting and looting very near to my home.

The shooting of an unarmed man and the subsequent lies from police sparked it off. Some of the people that joined in on following days were those who feel very much disenfranchised from society.

Many though were not in any way poor or disenfranchised. But they still went out and stole (but easier to focus on the poorer/black kids)

My teenage (black) son was out when I heard it was happening in our area so I called him on his phone to come home, he was about to board a bus right into it as he was running an errand for me.

He came straight home where he stayed all night despite coming from an 'entitled' benefit scum home but that's because he's been raised with morals like many families in my position.

2old2beamum Sat 14-Jul-12 14:26:38

Well said Amberleaf we are so quick to blame black kids and benefit scroungers for the ills of this country

flatpackhamster Sat 14-Jul-12 17:50:19

Righto. A gun was found about 10 feet from the minicab. Inside a box. Mark Duggan's fingerprints were not on it, nor his DNA, so there is more than a little doubt as to whether he was armed.

Will that do?

His fingerprints were on the box. He was arrested on suspicion of 'planning an attack'. So his prints and DNA wouldn't be on the gun, or the sock it was wrapped in while it was in the box, because he hadn't used the gun yet. But his prints were on the box, which is where you'd expect them to be.

So no, it won't 'do'.

Dahlen

BTW flatpack, just because someone finds something empowering, doesn't mean it is.

Yes, I bet they don't know what's empowering. Maybe they need someone to run an awareness campaign so that they're quite clear about how wrong they are to see the world they way they do.

NicholasTeakozy Sat 14-Jul-12 18:28:26

He wasn't arrested. He was shot instead.

AmberLeaf Sat 14-Jul-12 18:32:41

Waves at 2old smile

Yes he wasn't arrested dur!

Remember how it was at the time? Lie after lie. They knew full well he hadn't shot that policeman because he never held a gun at any point yet the story was they shot him dead after he shot a policeman.

crazynanna Sat 14-Jul-12 18:36:26

The whole Mark Duggan affair was one big fuck up from beginning to end...and it is time the IPCC actually admitted that so the family can move on.

YoYoYoItsTillyMinto Sun 15-Jul-12 11:40:05

We do need to investigate police shootings thoroughly but MDs family were heavily involved in crime (read about his uncle in Manchester).

I have much more sympathy for everyone who suffered from the rioting and looting.

AmberLeaf Sun 15-Jul-12 11:59:10

His maternal uncle was a criminal. How does that make mark duggan deserving of no sympathy for being shot dead by police? Or his family?

You have more sympathy for people affected by rioting than the family of someone who was killed? Why? Because his uncle was a criminal?

YoYoYoItsTillyMinto Sun 15-Jul-12 12:17:05

Yes. Of course he should not have been shot but I have limited sympathy for his family.

The police aledge he was a gang founder. DP runs a primary school where children as young as 9 joins gangs. an ex pupil murdered someone when he was 15. so yes I have less sympathy for people and families involved in gangs.

OhDoAdmitMrsDeVere Sun 15-Jul-12 12:50:46

You ave limited sympathy for his family
Are you serious?
A mother has her so shot dead in the street but you have limited sympathy because he wasn't a nice enough person?

Note you say alleged.

Are you suggesting his mother, grandmother etc were involved in gangs too? Is that why you feel their loss of a child is less worthy?

That sort of attitude is what forces grieving families of black and mixed race boys to have to deny any gang connections to the press.
Their chid is slaughtered and the first thing they have to do is to confirm to the waiting public that their child's death is a tragedy because he was a good boy.

My son's friend was murdered. Forced under a fucking bus. His family had to make sure the world knew he wasn't in a gang.
For 2 reasons.
He was black and he lived in east London.

Shame.

YoYoYoItsTillyMinto Sun 15-Jul-12 13:01:17

Its obviously wrong when someone is assumed to be a gang member because they are black. Its why the Stephen Lawrence investigation was such a shambles.

but yes i have limited sympathy for his family. Dp deals with the parents of children who join gangs when at primary school and they are part of the problem/ the problem.

AmberLeaf Sun 15-Jul-12 13:05:04

Your DP runs a school? You mean he is a head teacher?

I'm pretty sure mark duggan didn't even have a criminal record. But because of the shit the police put out there to influence idiots who see a black man and think the worst you think his family don't deserve any sympathy.

Shame on you.

Yes to what mrsDevere says. If a black or mixed race boy is killed their grieving family has the added worry of people just seeing a dead black boy and assuming the rest.

AmberLeaf Sun 15-Jul-12 13:06:51

Its why the Stephen Lawrence investigation was such a shambles

No its one very small reason why it was a shambles actually. The main reason was police corruption.

YoYoYoItsTillyMinto Sun 15-Jul-12 13:13:09

Al, so what do you think the police were doing with md?

AmberLeaf Sun 15-Jul-12 13:16:47

I know what they were doing with him. Do you?

OhDoAdmitMrsDeVere Sun 15-Jul-12 13:18:11

Bollocks.
YOU have no idea.
Your husband is a headmaster of a primary school.
That does not mske you an expert on the lives of black youths in the city.
I have four black boys and the moment they achieve any independence they are subject to horrendous pressure from outside influences. I can do all I can, like the families o the majority of kids round here. But I cannot guarantee that none of my boys will be involved in gang activity. I can hope and pray he don't.
You cannot possibly understand
Because if you did, you wouldn't be saying the things you are
And your DP shouldn't be talking to his wife about confidential matters. If he thinks the issue is as simple as he is telling you, he shouldn't be in the job.

I have lost a child. A beautiful innocent child. When I see the faces of the parents who have lost their 'bad' boys I see the same grief, the same agony as I feel.

I feel nothing horror at th loss of yet another young life. Echo are you to say that a year down the line that young boy might have found his feet and got himself together?

You know who caused me the most trouble? The spoilt, entitled, indulged and bounderyless middle class kids who my ds fell in with.

There was us trying to kep him safe and their parent's laid back attitude to drinking, drugs and under age sex made our job as hard as hell.
Difference was those kids had parents who could whisk tem away when things got hot, pay for abortions, send them out of the area, bail them out etc.

But who gets the blame for the world's ills?
Mothers of black boys.

OhDoAdmitMrsDeVere Sun 15-Jul-12 13:21:21

That man got shot 5 mins from where I am sitting now.
I pass that spot 2-3 times a week.

I didn't sit slack jawed and tittilated when it ll kicked off.
I despaired for the future of my kids.
Does your middle aged husband get pulled over regularly by the police on his way home from work?

YoYoYoItsTillyMinto Sun 15-Jul-12 13:27:16

This is a very odd conversation. Dps family are anglo Indian so experience racism themselves. He deals with lots of parents who hinder their own dcs chances. You can pretend its otherwise if it fits your own narratives....

AmberLeaf Sun 15-Jul-12 13:42:11

Yes its odd because you are bullshitting your way through it.

OhDoAdmitMrsDeVere Sun 15-Jul-12 13:43:21

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

OhDoAdmitMrsDeVere Sun 15-Jul-12 13:44:43

So does he regularly get pulled over by the police?

Being Anglo Indian and all?

ThePan Sun 15-Jul-12 13:47:31

YoYo - there isn't a finite amount of sympathy and compassion in the world! We can generate it ourselves. And it isn't a competition either. You can feel compassion for all involved.

OhDoAdmitMrsDeVere Sun 15-Jul-12 13:49:52

Yes but you have to want to.
Nothing is stopping her apart from her own narratives.....

YoYoYoItsTillyMinto Sun 15-Jul-12 15:16:03

this is fun isnt it, why dont you just make up some more things about me? it is obviously what you want to do.... grin

Thumbwitch Sun 15-Jul-12 15:21:08

Oo, that's the second time I've seen a PA grin being used - is it the new version of the PA smile?

YoYoYoItsTillyMinto Sun 15-Jul-12 15:46:18

thumbwitch - i dont think i do PA, A yes but not on this occaision.

DP is white but my MIL is indian so DPs father & SM experience racism. they live in a village in the north where everyone else is white.

his step brothers are young asian men & in my area of london the police stop asian men more than black men.

of course i am not 'an expert on the lives of working class black families in the inner cities' but then neither am i an expert on white women living in london, i am just one of the many.

DP on the other hand is an expert in turning around failing inner london schools and his comments on parents failing their own children are relevant.

AmberLeaf Sun 15-Jul-12 16:08:46

Ok so your white educated HT DH doesnt in fact have any experience of racism does he?!

I'd love to know which school he works at.

YoYoYoItsTillyMinto Sun 15-Jul-12 16:14:18

i am talking about parents not helping their children get the best from education. can you explain why you think racism comes in to this?

YoYoYoItsTillyMinto Sun 15-Jul-12 16:15:14

and why you think race comes in to this?

AmberLeaf Sun 15-Jul-12 16:21:29

Dps family are anglo Indian so experience racism themselves

Why did you say the above?

YoYoYoItsTillyMinto Sun 15-Jul-12 16:26:16

Your husband is a headmaster of a primary school.
That does not mske you an expert on the lives of black youths in the city.

now i hae answered your question, will you answer mine?

AmberLeaf Sun 15-Jul-12 17:11:11

Err hello! Are you gonna answer mine?

YoYoYoItsTillyMinto Sun 15-Jul-12 17:22:56

Amber - no more than i have already.

Amber I'd love to know which school he works at. yes. its a great school. it was failing when he started but now it is now on its way to getting the highest ofsted rating. well done to him and all the teachers and TAs. all their years of hard work has paid off.

turning round a failing london school is no easy task, but this is obviously one of the many changes needed to created a more equal society, however it is real change & will make improved the educational outcomes for hundreds/thousands of children in the next few years (its one of the largest primaries in the UK).

unfortunately some of the parents are not able to work with the school when their DCs have behavioural problems. this increases their chance of educational underachievement. it’s also really sad that the staff can see primary aged children start to engage in criminality (e.g. organised shoplifting, gang membership). sometimes their parents do not help the situation & there is only so much the school can do.

yes the ethnic make up of the school staff should better reflect the community they serve. the problem is that you can only hire from the pool of candidates who apply for a role, and if few apply because its a crap school, chances are they will be white and the balance wont change. however you get more people to apply for the jobs by making the school more successful, then you have a greater chance of being able to hire a better reflection of the local community.

i am not justifying myself anymore - like it or dont.

OhDoAdmitMrsDeVere Sun 15-Jul-12 17:33:26

Priceless

crazynanna Sun 15-Jul-12 17:34:14

It is all too easy to blame the parents' of these children who you speak of in schools YY. But without knowing the background of these parents',you really are in no position to judge...neither your DH as he cannot possible know the historical circumstances of these parents'...no way.

They may be suffering MH/Addiction problems, may be in dire poverty, domestic violence situations. They may have been failed by the education system themselves in previous years. All these things can come into play when you say they should be "involved" with the school.

But hey...easy targets' are just that. Easy targets'.

AmberLeaf Sun 15-Jul-12 17:41:23

Good grief.

perceptionreality Sun 15-Jul-12 17:50:15

Um, this thread is so long and I haven't read all of it so apologies if I missed an important link.

But seriously, there are plans to cut CB and CTC for more than 3 children?

I have read that the treasury considered this but that even Giddeon wasn't keen to go ahead with that one. This was in a money article a few months ago.

People are going to riot if they do things like that surely? Where is the evidence that this will actually happen? How unpopular does this government want to make themselves? They will be sure not to get in the next election if they do too much and they would know this.

garlicbutter Sun 15-Jul-12 18:22:56

I think it's about time people did riot, actually. I mean demonstrate, but the media call any gathering of the plebs a riot these days.

The olympics would be a good time to do it; the armed services will all be occupied checking the VIP toilets, thanks to yet another greed-induced cock-up.

Shiny Dave could stand on a balcony, addressing the unrest with "Calm down, dears, I know what's best for you" hmm

YoYoYoItsTillyMinto Sun 15-Jul-12 19:11:20

crazynanna - its the school's job to education the children. they dont have the funds, skills or remit to support the parents beyond a very basic level. e.g. numeracy training

i am sure all the things you list do come into play, but how is a teacher supposed to help a parent e.g. with drugs problems? its not their job, they have training and they do have 30 children to focus on & up to 450 others if they are the head. they arent social workers.

if they have concerns about the children, they raise issues with SS but then SS deal with the issues not the school.

of course teachers are easy targets for children failing at school.

YoYoYoItsTillyMinto Sun 15-Jul-12 19:15:05

crazynanna - you can argue the system should be different than that, but if you want to actually do the job, you need to work with the system as it is. plus, if DP complained about the structure outside his school, no one is listening & he has about 100 other things that he can actually do in the here & now.

perceptionreality Sun 15-Jul-12 19:15:14

I think it is incerdible that the tories think all young people can just live with their mum and dad a bit longer. The middle class ones, yes whose parents have one or two extra bedrooms.

Surely the housing benefit cuts are going to mean some people actually die at this rate?