Preparation for mass exodus of poor from London

[SkippyjonJones]

www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/oct/24/exodus-poor-families-from-london

huddspur I'm not suggesting that people shouldn't make reference to economic theory - far from it.

However I'm wary of people using bland terms which can hide the reality on the ground. Something which could be described as a "market correction" could in reality mean many families being made redundant and homeless.

Words like "market correction" can be used as a way of glossing over the realities for many people IMO. "Market correction doesn't sound painful does it? But the reality is the process could be, and for many people.

"why so many on the same subject" because this is happening now, and it's important.

Of course, many low paid jobs (street cleaning, rubbish collection, care workers) are paid for by the state. What is a local council to do? Increase spending to pay fair wages so workers can pay their rent? Illegally employ immigrant workers? Promote the rat as a local wildlife attraction.

Market correction is the biggest load of baloney - the hidden hand of the market bears a club. Wages will not go up. Rents will not go down. What will happen is that 'those jobs' will have the same shitty wages and they will be carried out by people living several to a room/flat/house to afford the rents. Poorly trained people will come from wherever to take the work and to do it until burn out. That's the reality.

Not just social cleansing, voter cleansing too. Who are the HB people more likely to vote for, in general?

What will be saved in rent subsidies will be spent in schools if over 100,000 children are scattered out of where they are now and deposited in further flung areas. Not to mention the shifting of social service burdens from London to other areas. Locking people out of London only shifts the need and the expense elsewhere.

If the govt really wants to save money why not demand an increased minimum wage so people can actually earn enough -- pass on the cost to employers, in other words.

Expat, I love your comments on this thread.

"Not just social cleansing, voter cleansing too" good point mathanxiety I hadn't thought of that.

However I did think it was a bit strange that the Tories had to readily agreed to effectively give power away by agreeing to the new AV voting system (if we vote for it in the referendum). I know they plan to redraw the boundaries. Perhaps they hope between that and some "voter cleansing" they'll not lose too much power by stacking the odds in their favour.

For those of you who think I'm being paranoid, here's a reminder of the tory homes for votes scandal in the late 80s. According to Wikipedia:

"The Homes for votes scandal was a political scandal... which involved the selling off of council housing to potential Conservative voters by Westminster City Council. ...

"The Conservatives were narrowly re-elected to Westminster City Council in the 1986 local council elections, ... Fearing that they would eventually lose control unless there was a permanent change in the social composition of the borough, council leader Shirley Porter instituted a secret policy known as 'Building Stable Communities', focusing on eight marginal wards where the Conservatives wished to gain votes at the 1990 local council elections

"An important part of this policy was the designation of much of Westminster's council housing for commercial sale, rather than re-letting when the properties became vacant. The designated housing was concentrated in those wards most likely to change hands to Labour in the elections. Much of this designated housing lay vacant for months or even years before it could be sold. To prevent its occupation by squatters or drug dealers, these flats were fitted with security doors provided by the company Sitex at a cost to local tax payers of £50 per week per door.

"Other council services were subverted to ensure the re-election of the majority party in the 1990 elections. In services as disparate as street cleaning, pavement repair and environmental improvements, marginal wards were given priority while safely Labour and safely Conservative parts of the city were neglected.

"Another vital part of 'Building Stable Communities' was the removal of homeless voters and others who lived in hostels and were perceived less likely to vote Conservative, such as students and nurses, from Westminster. While this initially proved successful, other councils in London and the Home Counties soon became aware of homeless individuals and families from Westminster, many with complex mental health and addiction problems, being dumped in their area.

"As Westminster City Council found it more difficult to move homeless people outside Westminster, increasingly the logic of the 'Building Stable Communities' programme required the concentration of homeless people within safe wards in Westminster.

"The most morally disturbing aspect of Building Stable Communities occurred in 1989 when over 100 homeless families were removed from hostels in marginal wards and placed in the Hermes and Chantry Point tower blocks in the safe Labour ward of Harrow Road. These blocks were allegedly riddled with the most dangerous form of asbestos,and should have either been cleaned up or demolished a decade before, but had somehow remained in place due to funding disputes between Westminster City Council and the former Greater London Council.

"Many of the flats had had their heating and sanitation systems destroyed by the council to prevent their use as drug dens, others had indeed been taken over by heroin users and still others had pigeons making nests out of asbestos, with the level of asbestos in flats in Hermes and Chantry Points well above safe norms."

The tory leader of the borough, Dame Shirley Porter, was later forced to pay a fine of £12million for her part in the scandal.

Sorry for the long post, but it's IMO it's important people don't forget this stuff.

It's good to revisit it too. I knew that they evicted people more likely to vote against them, but I didn't know about diverting council services to the marginal wards, or that they houses homeless families in buildings riddled with asbestos. Shocking stuff.

Typical hyperbole - I really don't think it's going to be the doom and gloom scenario the Guardian likes to put out.

Yes, some people won't be able to afford to live in some areas of London. I can't. I was brought up there (I guess my parents bought a house at a time when they cost about £1000) but I have never been able to afford to live there as an adult - and I wouldn't describe myself as 'poor' - just unable to afford London prices. Neither would I be able to afford to live in some other areas of the UK.
I just don't see it as a huge, insurmountable problem.

Agreed Violethill. Those of us that don't receive HB have had to adjust their expectations of where they can live based upon their income, so why not those that do receive it?

quite right lowrib.

violethill, it isn't just london that is going to be effected!!

everyone else,i am now so fed up of banging my head against a brick wall on this i will give up. but, if you want [ yet another ] good facts and figures piece on this try this:

www.leftfootforward.org/2010/10/housing-benefit-cuts-analysis/

I haven't read the whole thread...

but I rent and receive HB.

No respectable landlords rent to HB tenants.

The only ones that do charge the maximum in rent that they can get HB for- so the rent on my house is much more than its worth, and somebody not receiving HB would not pay this much for this house.

Its Catch 22. I didn't go out looking for a mansion because I knew the upper limit, I went to estate agents that dealt with HB (few and far between) and now rent an overpriced, dated, falling apart house.

I am not making money from this, my dodgy landlord is!

But blame the benefit scroungers hey it's much easier!

And I'm in outskirts of London with no tube only buses, and rent for a 2 bed is approximately 950 a month.

And you should see the state of most of them!

I apologise in advance for the lengthy post. Please bare in mind that:

1. Not every landlord can afford to have tenant on housing benefit, and may have legitimate reasons for declining HB tenants. Not all private landlords are ?rich?, or have multiple properties as their sole source of income.

2. The previous LHA rates paid by many councils were not always above market value rent. They were usually market value rents. Exceptions exist and usually relate to larger properties. It is easy to verify this by going to the LHA website and backdating your search.

3. Cutting the new LHA rate to the 30% percentile of market value rent makes it nearly impossible for the MASSES on social welfare to find accommodation at ?30% of actual rent values? ( use this term loosely, as this is another debate entirely). Please bare in mind that the number of properties within this 30th percentile which will be available; cheap properties tend to rent out extremely quickly despite their condition. The minority of those on social welfare will be fortunate enough to find properties available within this 30th percentile. Meaning, the majority will be priced out. These people would have been placed in council housing in the past. Now the lack of available council housing means in reality these people will be placed in a hostel and on a long waiting list until they are re-housed; irrespective of location, i.e this doesn?t just affect Londoners, it affects everyone on HB. This waiting list for re-housing may take 1-8 years depending on your city, borough, and urgency. Some people will pay the difference in rent to LHA rate if they can afford it, or may live a highly restricted budget especially if they have children, just to have a roof over their heads. I do not mean those who choose to remain in their existing boroughs, but all those that decide to move even to cheaper boroughs.

4. The private rental option was offered as a viable means of subsidised accommodation because of the insufficiency of social/council housing. Had there been more council housing, all those affected could remain in the current boroughs. I.e. it is not necessarily the desire of a private tenant on HB to live in an expensive accommodation. It may be their desire to remain in their borough for practical reasons (i.e. all their family live there, their work is there, etc.), and they would happily move into a council house, had they been given that option.

5. Please note that a lot of people who receive HB DO WORK. The HB is usually a subsidising of their rent. This is because rents have increased disproportionately to income and even inflation at times. Tenants on HB are not necessarily lazy individuals who enjoy living on the dole with no desire to work. Those who work and receive HB may lose their benefit which is means tested (or income based), as their income will now be deemed high or sufficient based on the new LHA` rates. I.e. the cheaper the borough, the lower the LHA rate, the higher your income is regarded, the more you contribute to your rent.

6. It is not the HB system that lead to the high rent values experienced by many major U.K. cities. It was rather caused by a lack of realistic capping of both the rental and house sale prices as a whole. These rises greatly exceeded that of inflation and will always lead to an economic bust/ recession.

7. Living out of a major city and commuting back into the major city for work is not always financially affordable. The further away you live from the major city, the more it will cost to commute there. The further away you live from the major city, the cheaper your rent, and the higher your income will be deemed by the State, thus the less HB entitlement you will get, as the DWP does not take into account WHERE YOU WORK. i.e. they will not take into account your commuting costs. Those that commute may not only lose their HB, but may be financially worse off as they pay their commuter fare and all bills alone without or with limited State help. This financial stress will have a negative impact on the family and may in turn lead to higher divorce rates or split of civil partnerships. The longer the commute, the more it diminish family time spent together. This may have a devastating effect on single parent families, particularly affecting school delinquency, education, and crime. Children without parents will either be brought up by the television, their peers, or the streets if they are unfortunate enough to have no loving responsible adult who can take care of them whilst a parent is working. Not all families can afford after school club which ends at 6pm for a lot of schools, bearing in mind that a lot of parents may need this service until 7/8pm due to commuting. It is staggering the amount of parents who leave underage children at home either because they cannot afford it or other reasons.

8. A lot of people want to work, and look for work in all parts of the U.K, especially when registered with online agencies or job searching themselves online. They may be restricted to the number of interviews they can attend outside of their city due to lack of affordability. E.g. if the claimant is unemployed, and has no children and no disabilities, they will only usually get Job Seekers Allowance and Housing and Council Tax benefit. The claimant must use this £53,45 per week (if under 25 years old with no children) or £67.50 per week (if over 25 years old with no children) to pay for all their utility bills, food and transport. Bearing in mind the price of out of city train and coach fares if not booked in advance, their desire to move anywhere for work, may be impeded by their financial constraints and inability to move until work has been found.

9. The new LHA rates quotes for London by most people on this site are the highest that any council will pay for Housing Benefit. These rates do not reflect all of London, they rather reflect the new LHA rates that will be paid for the borough of Chelsea and Westminster Council private tenants. London has 33 boroughs. If you want to know the LHA rate for a particular borough, look on: lha-direct.voa.gov.uk/search.aspx. Here are the LHA rates that apply to the borough of Chelsea and Westminister:
   Shared accommodation: £123.50 per week
   1 Bed: £250 per week
   2 Bed: £290 per week
   3 bed: £340 per week
   4 bed: £400 per week
   Here are the average London rental prices which are dramatically different from the maximum LHA rate stated above. www.londonpropertywatch.co.uk/average_rental_prices.html
   Type London Boroughs into google, these are the results I got from wikipedia. These are the London boroughs: City of London (not a London borough)

10. City of Westminster

11. Kensington and Chelsea

12. Hammersmith and Fulham

13. Wandsworth

14. Lambeth

15. Southwark

16. Tower Hamlets

17. Hackney

18. Islington

19. Camden

20. Brent

21. Ealing

22. Hounslow

23. Richmond upon Thames

24. Kingston upon Thames

25. Merton

26. Sutton

27. Croydon

28. Bromley

29. Lewisham

30. Greenwich

31. Bexley

32. Havering

33. Barking and Dagenham

34. Redbridge

35. Newham

36. Waltham Forest

37. Haringey

38. Enfield

39. Barnet

40. Harrow

41. Hillingdon

42. No one will be given any rate higher than a 4 bed house/flat irrespective of the number of people in that household according to the new rules.

43. Every adult under the age of 35 will only be paid for a single bedroom if they have no children or no dependents. This will mean all adults under the age of 35 must either share flats with others in homes of multiple occupancy or they must pay the rent difference themselves. However if they can pay the rent difference themselves, e.g. by renting a one bedroom flat instead of a single room, they are unlikely to be offered housing benefit as they income will be deemed too high, as HB is means tested. The obvious challenges of finding a property of multiple occupancy with one room available speaks for itself, as does the complications and stress of sharing homes with potential strangers. We are all aware of how hard it is to share a home with a new partner or friend (the adjustment period and the compromising talks); the stress that this will pose based on the dynamics of strangers, along with its? impact will unfold over the years to come. It is worth mentioning that this is still better than being made homeless.

44. All those who use privately rented accommodation will be affected by the HB cuts/ new LHA rates; the changes do NOT just apply to new claimants who applied after April 2011. All existing HB claimants will be paid their existing HB rate for a full 12 months of the anniversary date of their claim, if their HB started before April 2011. I.e. by April 2012 each person will have used up their 12 month allowance. After the 12 month anniversary date of their claim has expired, EVER TENANT ON THE PREVIOUS LHA RATE WILL BE GIVEN A FURTHER 9 MONTHS HB AT THE OLD RATE. AFTER THAT, ALL TENANTS WILL BE ON THE SAME NE LHA RATES. In effect, this means that every tenant has been given a maximum of 21 months (12+9) to remain in their property at the old rates. After which they either have to move or pay the difference in their rent. E.g. if your claim anniversary was May 2011, you will only have 9 months from May 2011to remain in your property at the old LHA rates. However if your claim anniversary is March 2011, you will have 12 months i.e. until March 2012 + a further 9 months paid at the old LHA rate. You can verify this is you are on housing benefit by calling the Housing Benefit team for your Council.

45. When people doing low income jobs move out of the city centres when they no longer afford to live there, and can also no longer afford the commute there, it will not necessarily mean that employers will correct the wage amount by increasing it. It is more likely to lead to desperate individuals who need work commuting via bus or coach in order to do the same job for the same money. These type of commuters are more likely to be foreigners; some will work by force from external parties, others from desperation. In a time when a lot of companies are making significant job cuts, with many not receiving any raise, it is unlike that the raise will go to menial workers.

I am a voluntary support worker for victims of rape, abuse or mental health issues; I do this in my spare time two evenings per week, and one weekend every month. I do not get paid for this voluntary work. I am a psychologist by profession. I live in Croydon. Please bare in mind that I deal with clients in exceptional difficulties, therefore the examples I quote will not reflect the norm of those affected by Housing Benefit.

I apologise in advance for the length of my posts. These are my first posts of mumsnet.com; they may possibly be my last for a number of weeks due to time constraints. Being of the mentality that I am in a state of constant development, with an openness to the broadening of my mind, I have being challenged and even a few times confused about the HB and social & budget reform issues, and took to several sites for multiple perspectives regarding this issue. I thank all of you who have posted and aided my thinking.

I have heard both the landlords? and tenants? perspectives on the housing benefit issue.

Landlords?? reluctance to accept Housing Benefit tenants:
I have encountered a huge declination from landlords to accept tenants on housing benefit. Here are the reasons I have been given in the last two years of my voluntary service:
? The council pays rent in arrears, private tenants pay rent in advance. The latter, makes payment of their mortgages timely, and reduces the amount of rent arrears should a tenant fall into a defaulting situation, requiring of legal action, eviction etc.
? Under the new HB payment rules, the rent is paid directly to the tenant, unless they have more than 2 months rent arrears. This is to encourage financial responsibility amongst tenants receiving HB by making them handle their own money, which in turn should encourage their desire to gain financial independence. However, the reality sometimes proves that many tenants either spend some/all of the money, or make further late rent payments (the council usually pays rent 2-4 weeks in arrears, so the rent is always ?late?), claiming late payments by the Council; which are sometimes legitimate. This usually leads to the tenant developing a two month rent arrears, resulting in the landlord being paid rent directly. However the two month rent arrears may be in-affordable to the landlord.
? A lot of the landlords have had the claimants? payment suspended by the Council for many reasons, some of which are futile, leading to arrears of 1-6 months resulting in the landlord facing financial difficulties, with the level of debt compromising their business if their mortgage is not being paid etc.
? Most landlords? tenant insurance will not accept tenants? on HB. Such tenants would not clear their referencing stage or proof submitted by landlords for each new tenant. These tenants would also not be covered by most Rent Guaranteed Insurance programs.
? None of the landlords that I have encountered charge anything above the normal market rate of rent for their area.

bear not bare

Tenants? perspectives on Housing Benefit issues that I have encountered: 25/10/11
I will use this example, I have many others but I am restrained by time and your patience:
This tenant worked all her life. She was a professional earning over £60,000 per annum. She grew and lived in London, where all her family still live, until she got married. When married she bought a 4 bedroom house outside London, after which she commuted to London for work costing approximately £500 per month. She got married and enjoyed a happy life, with no children, and her husband also working full time. Eight years ago she became extremely sick (whilst married). She was diagnosed with Lupus and later also diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. Her health has declined drastically over the years, as her physical mobility. Her husband had an affair and left her. In the divorce she was given no alimony by her husband who has now immigrated abroad. It was decided that she was not entitled to alimony based on the equity she had in her house five years ago (i.e. she got to keep the house in the divorce settlement). Because of her equity and savings at the time her ex-husband left, she wasn?t entitled to any benefits including no help to pay her mortgage. She lived on her savings until that had depleted, after which she tried to sell her house. The house did not sell, she lost all the equity in the house due to the financial crisis and eventually the property became repossessed. At this point she was entitled to all the social benefits.

She moved to London a few years ago to live near her family and friends, as she had none of these where she was living, for both emotional and physical support. She has all her mental faculties in place, but is on a lot of medication, and struggles with muscle spasms, weakness, pain and a host of side effects from the medication and complications of her health. She was being evicted by her landlord because consistent delays and suspensions in her housing benefit payments. This was due to the claimant being unable to attend work-focused interviews each time she was sent this automated letter by the Job Center. The Job Center operates on a non-answer machine and non email service. It took her two weeks of persistent phone calls to get through to a representative who took her details and the various proof documents later via post. The Job Center resolved the issue each time it happened within two to three weeks. However HB took four months to re-instate her claim due to what I can only term as a lackadaisical approach to a vulnerable client. This process of claim suspensions has occurred with the claimant once every 6 months, leading the tenant into a worse mental and physical state of health due to the avoidable stress placed on her by the system and the continued incompetence of the HB staff.

She is now being evicted by her landlord as the landlord states that she has been extremely understanding, patient and compassionate to the tenant, however, she can no longer afford to keep her as a tenant based on the sporadic and unpredictable payment dates of the council, which has lead to her own stress and financial difficulties and debt. The client attended the housing office, she was taken by her brother due to the urgency of the appointment, as a home based visit by the council would take longer. The client has limited her help from a carer as the money paid to her carer is deducted from her sickness benefit. She was advised by the council to stay in the property after the eviction date, to ignore a Possession Order granted by the court, and to wait to be taken out by a Bailiff Order. She was categorically told that if she is to pay heed to the eviction notice and move then, or move upon a Possession Order by the Court, she will be classed a being made deliberately homeless. However, if she is to be thrown out by a Bailiff Order, she will be placed into temporary housing in East London, where she may remain on the waiting list for 2-5 years due to her health placing her on a higher priority on an oversubscribed housing list. It is unbelievable that a Council sees fit to advise people to remain in a property until thrown out by Bailiffs, causing landlords who may or may not have been patient, but whom have certainly done one act of kindness despite motivations (good or bad) by accepting a tenant on HB in the first place, to go into a stressful eviction process costing them money, time and compromising their mortgage and income. I have since verified that this is the official stance of the Council in question; I should have had the foresight to ask if this is the official M.O. regarding eviction and homelessness of the State.

She was also given the option by the council that she can go and rent another place privately and claim Housing Benefit under the new LHA rate. I was not able to find her any place in London under the new LHA rate for THE COUNCILS WHICH I ENQUIRED. I enquired for LHA rates for the council where she lives, the councils close to her health care services and councils close to her family. Anything further than this will obviously ostracize her, make her worse off financially to access her family and health services and further compromise a fragile mental health state. Please note that the LHA rates quoted by many people who have posted, are the MAXIMUM RATE PERMITTED, AND MAINLY RELATE TO CHELSEA AND WESTMINSTER COUNCIL. The new LHA rate is different for every council and is extremely difficult to find a private property to rent within these new rates. All landlords whom I have spoken to thus far, with a rent which she would have to contribute to using her disability allowance etc. have refused to accept a tenant on housing benefit. The tenant like many of the clients who I help, are not able to afford the rent deposit and one to two months rent advance due before moving in. Obtaining the aid of the Deposit scheme is not as easy as it appears on paper. Her family all work, all live in the suburbs of London and are not able to help her with these funds which ran into thousands of pounds, as they use this to visit and help her in various ways. I have looked at her income, her budget and her lifestyle, and there is nothing luxurious about it.

My mention of this case example is for those of you who post carelessly forgetting the genuinely vulnerable in society, some on whom will be gravely affected by the changes. The tenant does not receive above the market value rent for the property which she rents. I do not propose that she be moved to a property above the current rent value. However, I do acknowledge that restricting her to rent within the 30th percentile of the market value rent in any borough, diminishes her possibility of finding suitable accommodation, irrespective of her disability.
Restricting her to rent a place at the current market value appears more reasonable. Capping the amount of bedrooms one can rent to 4 bedrooms also sounds reasonable irrespective of the number in the household.

THE FACT IS MOST LANDLORDS DO NOT ACCEPT HOUSING BENEFIT PAYMENTS. MOTS LETTING AGENTS WILL NOT ENTERTAIN A CONVERSATION ABOUT THE SAME.
MOST TENANTS CANNOT COME UP WITH THE DEPOSIT AND RENT ADVANCE DESPITE THE DEPOSIT SCHEME.
THIS IS AN EXTREME BUT GENUINE EXAMPLE. THERE ARE MANY MEMBERS IN SOCIETY WHOSE CIRCUMSTANCES DO NOT RUN INTO THIS EXTREME, BUT TO WHOM THE PRINCIPLES OF THIS EXAMPLE APPLY. Just as there are a minority of severe hardships, there are also a minority of those who have and will always manage to abuse the system.
 
Thank you for your patience with me. This ends my rant.

longfingernails totally agree I can't afford to live in primrose hill but the lefties want me to pay for some one who has no gainful employment to WTF

I think people have gone mad

I personally know someone who gave up their 2 bed council home and moved their 3 daughters into a four bed private rent into one of the most expensive areas in London when they change the way they funded housing benefit

So I won't be feeling bad sorry but you have to cut your cloth accordingly and when your on benefits you don't get to live in the smartest part of town he'll if your working you mostly don't get to live in the smartest part of town so I be dammed if I will be paying for some lay about to live their

And to be honest I am frankly shocked that a single person is entitled to more than a room

Most teaches, doctors and nurses can not afford more than a shards house for at least the first five years of their careers so why the he'll should a single layabout get a whole flat

My view is they should be told to get back to the end of the bloody cue

And to be honest I don't give a fig if the places are dives many army personal and could only imagine barracks to the same standard as some scroungers enjoy in their paid for home also nurses accommodation has a lt to be desired for I rather see these people housed propley before I worry about any one else

Have a look at how the poorly-paid are managing in my city. Average rents for a 2 bed house are £750. Average salary is around £15-700 pa.

Families cannot afford the £1,000-13,000 per month rent for 3 bed properties being charged by landords.

20% of the the population in this city are students. You can pack 5 students into a 3 bed house. They pay around £1,400 per month for a house.

In the interest of partial disclosure I should state that any direct examples given have the clients' consent. I state Partial Disclosure because the identity of the client is still protected.

In the example of the client with multiple sclerosis, she did have income protection insurance which covered her for the first 12 months of unemployment for every claim made. Being diagnosed with a depilating illness, the 12 months payments did not go very far towards her long-term financial needs as she will remain unemployment until being well enough able to work again (which is her goal).

WE MUST NOT VILIFY ALL HB AND BENEFIT CLAIMANTS

It is true that SOME recipients of HB and other social benefits are scroungers, however it is factually inaccurate and irresponsible to postulate that all those on social welfare are scroungers. The character and personal circumstances of those on social welfare reflect that which we find in all society.

When you look at any society, you will have a minority who are:
Aristocrats
Geniuses
High income earners
Highly educated
Those who are born into great wealth, inherit wealth or win masses of significantly life-altering money
Those who are mentally retarded
Those who a severely physically disabled
Those who have severe mental health issues which prevent a ?normal? life being possible
Those who are diagnosed with a terminal illness
Those that suffer a fatal or life-limiting accident
Rapists (and the victims who are raped)
Paedophiles (and the children who are abused)
Murders (and their victims who are killed)
Those who abuse (and their victims who are abused)
Those who have abortions for untimely pregnancies
Those that decide never to have any children at all
Those who have children irrespective of their inability to afford one child, or further children
Victims of an array of other possible circumstances e.g. bullying, violence
Thieves
Those involved in illegal activities

The majority of any society, will be of average intelligence, live an average lifestyle, have a relatively uneventful life, with no devastating misfortune, e.g. becoming paralysed etc. The masses will obey the law either for reasons of morality or fear of punishment.

The same runs true of those on benefit. The majority are just average people, who claim legitimately. There are of course a minority of those that enjoy being of social welfare, and orchestrate their life in a fashion to continue to receive it as long as possible. There are a minority who will engage in benefit fraud to maintain benefits when they no longer qualify.

HOWEVER, THE SCROUNGERS ON BENEFIT ARE A MINORITY OF BENEFIT CLAIMANTS, NOT THE MAJORITY. To categorise all benefit claimants as scroungers is incorrect, not factual, and breeds a society of hatred for those that genuinely need social benefits.

Examples of circumstances in which people claim HB & other benefits

It is the responsibility of a civilised society to effectively manage, protect and provide for the needs of the inhabitants of the State; particularly making provision for those genuinely in need of support. The most effective way which has been devised to ensure the people have their needs met is to tax the members of the State. The tax goes towards the provision of free education, the setting up of SYSTEMS of transportation (roads, tubes, trams etc.), health care, emergency services, police services, aid for the sick, aid for the unemployed etc.

National Insurance can be seen as a State enforced insurance plan. Every working member of society pays into that plan hoping not to have to make a claim for unemployment related issues. Most of us make a claim by making use of the education and health care services the State enforced plan has provided for us. A minority can afford to pay for private education (or gain a scholarship) and private health care. Most members do not want to claim from the State for unemployment related issues, as doing so will mean the claimant is in a detrimental circumstance, that impacts on their quality of life; it would not be the ordinary choice of the individual to experience the detrimental circumstance or remain in that circumstance on State help.

It is unhealthy to think that the welfare system is for lazy unemployed people. The welfare system exists for ALL members of society, as a fallback, should they need financial help. It is the desire of most members of society not to make a welfare claim, however, it is naive to think that you will never need to make a welfare claim. Despite however well one plans, there are circumstances that can occur beyond ones? control, that make ones? need to claim the only option when all plans put to cover period of unemployment or sickness have been exhausted.

It is important to differentiate between the minority of benefit claimants who are scroungers, and the majority who would want any other reality than to depend partially or in full on the state. It is important to differentiate between those who desperately need State aid in the immediacy of a terrible event, until they are able to change their lifestyle to reflect their new reality, and those that choose to maintain an in-affordable lifestyle by relying long-term on the State.

Here are some examples of those who claim benefits:
? Single military members who return from active duty severely mentally or physically disabled.
? Spouses/ partners and dependents of military members who find their military provider return from active duty severely mentally or physically disabled or dead.
? Any spouse/ partner and their dependents, who have their primary financial provider suffer a debilitating accident or illness.

? Individuals or partners and dependents of individuals who are diagnosed with a terminal illness.
? Those who have their primary income provider die.
? Those who are unfortunate enough to have a severely disabled child or dependent, who choose to care for that individual rather than placing them into a full time care facility.
? Those who become unemployed due to the recession, staff cutbacks or otherwise, who need the aid of the State until they re-gain employment. Hiring is limited in a recession, higher competition exist for the same job due to higher unemployment during a recession, meaning it takes longer for each person to find gainful employment. I AM NOT CITING HERE AN EXAMPLE OF THOSE WHO HAVE DELIBERATELY NEVER WORKED AND HAVE LIVED ON GENERATIONAL BENEFITS. I am talking about individuals who have contributed into the State ?pot? via National Insurance and who have a right to aid in a time of need; essentially the giving back to them of some the money they paid into the system.
? Those who are unfortunate enough to become severely sick or disabled themselves.
? Those new graduates who are taking longer than normal to find gainful employment because of greater competition and fewer jobs.
? Those who find themselves as single parents when a spouse or partner leaves or dies, meaning a significant decrease in their income.
? Those who have taken Income Protection Insurance to cover periods of illness or unemployment, who exhaust their insurance payments. Income Protection Insurance pays a percentage of your income for a fixed period of time should you become unable to work. The maximum length of payments run from twelve months to five years. The longer the payment term, the higher the monthly premiums. It is worth mentioning the Income Protection Insurance is generally expensive and unaffordable by the majority.
? Those who did not take out Income Protection Insurance, but chose instead to save money to cover periods of illness or unemployment, who exhaust their savings and require State help.
? Those who are the victims of abuse, who manage to ?escape?, but loose the finances of the abusive relationship.
? Those who become unemployed in older age, say in their fifties and sixties, who compete with younger counterparts for the same job. It is harder for an older person who gets made redundant to regain employment than a young person.
? Those who have lost one or all their family through murder or accidents, which can take years if not a lifetime to recover from.
? Those, especially single parents who cannot afford childcare, who have no family members or friends to help take care of their children, who therefore find it difficult to get employment due to the restrictions on their time. These people have to have their children in school by 9am and pick them up at 3:30pm. There are few managers hiring who have flexihours for working parents. These jobs do exist, but are hard to come by, and may contribute to why single parents take longer to regain employment.

These examples are obviously not exhaustive of all the reasons people are on benefit. There are many people who are suffering financially due to no fault of their own. Very few of these people will have extraordinary circumstances requiring a lifetime on State support. The majority will need support for a transitional period of their life, when their income is dramatically reduced due to accident, unemployment, separation or death of the primary earner. The length of the transitional period in which they need State support before they adapt their budget to reflect their new reality can range from months to many years depending on the nature of the individual circumstance and the impact on physical and their mental health.

E.g. 1: A father has his wife and seven year old daughter raped and murdered by an intruder into his home. He is a doctor. It has been five years since this incident. He is still traumatised by the event. He suffers from depression, insomnia, high blood pressure, panic attacks and has not been able to work since the day he discovered his wife and daughter when he returned home from work. He has lived a middle class life, all his life until this event has placed him into a state of dependency which he never anticipated would be his reality on the State.

E.g. 2. A pharmaceutical scientist has worked all his life. He used to look down on those that claimed benefits. The entirety of his department was made redundant during the recession. He used his savings until they were depleted and he was able to claim benefits. He attended a work focused interview every week, and got very down every week that passed that he remained unemployed. He attended interviews all over the U.K. He was prepared to take salary cuts for new job, work in insurance and other fields but was often told he is overqualified for the positions he applied. He remained unemployed for 14 months. He has now found a job and lives in up North. He has moved from the studio flat he rented in Central London for £1050 per month. He now lives in a two bedroom flat up North. He has no family or friends up North, but would rather be away from his family than remain unemployed.

No matter how well you plan, and you should plan and take preventative measures, you must be aware that there are certain things that can happen to you, your mate or your children which are out of you control: especially accidents, health and unemployment.

MY POINT, NOT EVERY PERSON THAT IS ON BENEFIT DESIRES TO BE. MOST WOULD RATHER HAVE THE QUALITY OF THEIR LIVES, LOVED ONES AND THEIR HEALTH BACK. DO NOT BE SO QUICK TO JUDGE.

SCROUNGERS ARE THE MINORITY. DO NOT CLAIM THAT ALL THOSE ON BENEFIT ARE SCROUNGERS.