Just been on a course about new benefit system

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.

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...

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.

Almost 9 years on from my diagnosis, and I am now as poor as poor can be.

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.

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
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.

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.

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?

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!

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.

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...

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?

Couthy, somebody must have done that! I imagine it's languishing in a never-visited archive on some civil servant's desktop ... :(

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.

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...

.. should add, Blair looks as if he might come back. He's not inexperienced but is a narcissistic, greedy numpty like the others :(

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%.

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"??!

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.

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.

Well said couthymow

Does anyone have a meal plan for collateral damage? I'm sure we'll be enjoying that for dinner soon enough!

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?!

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.

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!

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."

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? () 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?