Voluntary work or lose benefits

[Marjoriew]

Government intend to cut benefits of claimants on JSA who refuse to do voluntary work of 30 hours a week over a 4-week period.
Benefits could be stopped for up to 3 months if claimants refuse to comply.

I know, all I learned from school was that I was thick.
It was only after I got my masters and after that, did well in something else, that I realised I wasn't.
What was the point? I didn't think I was thick at 5 I'm sure of it.
(I'm considering HE)

Riven, a 3yo will push himself to the pain barrier to learn a new skill, try again and again, work hard at something very difficult- because that is what small children are geared to do. They don't get bored because they don't connect hard work with being bored. Teens on the other hand...

I have university students who want a constant all dancing all singing performance from me, because the thought of just working at something until you know it is abhorrent to them. Compare that with a 1yo learning to walk- he is focused in a totally different way, the joy of learning a new skill is enough for him, it doesn't have to flash electronically. I am not sure we do our older children a favour by telling them that learning must be entertaining.

Unemployed for 11 years, no school education at all, think of myself as lower then turds at the best of time.

I will never sign on again, I'd rather turn to a life of crime, Job Centres full of little Hitlers who call you scum, they never help anyone, they don't care and they are useless, I know more then they do, the number of times I've told them what they are spost to do and what the rules are is stupid, phone up Glasgow if the money gets messed up or anything at least they have a clue.

Training Schemes (New Deal) yeah great another in-house certificate no one recognises, waste of money, you gonna put someone on a computer skills course at least send em to one that will give em a City and Guilds or something.

Work Placements (New Deal) yeah send the scum off to be used as slaves by more people who think you are scum, every time I went on that shit I demanded to work for Charities they are the only ones that treat you with any trust/respect.

You get the money cut off if you refuse to go on the schemes anyway, you get the money cut off if you refuse a job offer without a good reason, well not even a job offer an application for a job, interview, it's been like it for years I grow so tired of successive governments repeating the same policies over and over when they think no one knows they are all ready in place.

But I don't expect anything to ever change society in general thinks of the unemployed as scum and crims, so thats how you get treated, it's no different to the report about poor kids getting treated like shit in schools because the teachers don't expect them to get anywhere.

but maybe thats the point maybe they want us all to get so depressed when we are unemployed we slit our wists thats one way to lower the figures, but it's so hard to get a job when you are depressed and think of yourself as a turd (which I still do).

Ryoko, that does sound depressing

I think pumping money into education would / will change things, albeit slowly...

i think investing in children was / is the way to go, and society would reap the benefits in 20 years.

as Gandhi said, there is enough for everyones need, but not for everyones greed.

Ryoko, you seem articulate / educated...
dont give up!

''It is rather amusing that you talk of either owning a second property or being on benefits. What about all those jobs just for the taking? ''

I was talking about tax credits, not IS or JSA. And talking about when my children were small and not at school. Now that they are at school, I have a term time job, but as working in pre school education pays a pittance, I would still be entitled to claim tax credits. As it is, I don't have to because I have a small income from a rental property. Which was bought from an inheritance (my Dad died when I was young) so I'm not part of the whole BTL thing anyway.

I'm just saying that I can understand why people do that if they can, and it doesn't make them evil people trying to screw over those less fortunate. They are still providing someone with a home, and being a ll does come with alot of responsibilities and costs, and it's not a completely risk free investment. Tennants can be twats too. Most ll's try to do a good job for their tennants, and rightly so because they are being paid to do a job.

still.

i think more than one home is unnecessary, and, dare i say it (yes i do!) greedy.

Greedy?? Obviously if you were in the same position you would have donated it all to charity?

It's not like it's a holiday home ffs, someone else lives there. And we are only talking about a tiny little flat suited to a young single.

Honestly, WWY do if you were in my position? I was young at the time, looking to get a mortgage with my DH, and had some money to invest. Businesses go bankrupt, and quite simply, I get a higer yield than I would have done had I bought shares. I thought about doing that, but was put off when I told my adviser that I only wanted to invest in ethical, green companies. I was told that I would probably lose alot of it that way, at least by having that property I can subsidize my low income and provide for my children without relying on benefits. I don't believe anyone that says they would do it differently in the same situation.

curly sorry for any offence.

cant say what i would do in your position, but do not agree with buy to let.

No offence caused

That's the whole point though, in that you don't agree with something but then that can all change when it unexpectedly becomes a viable, and attractive option.

I know there are ll's out there that don't give a toss about their tennants and they just want to make as much money as they can, but lots of us are just trying to provide for ourselves and our families as best we can.

I don't blame you for the decision you made curlymama, like you say, it makes financial sense.

The point I'm trying to make is that the conditions which make buy to let such an attractive investment ought to be addressed. Not out of any malice or bitterness, but because I think the current situation has lead to real problems in terms of affordable housing, which in turn has lead to huge HB costs to the taxpayer.

It's not the only problem of course, but I don't think we should ignore the impact it has had or pretend that there is nothing that can be done to readdress the balance.

Thankyou. Slightly gone off topic here while giving you all the details of my finances!

I do, of course agree with you that housing needs to be more affordable, and that would be the one of best things to do to help reduce the cost to the taxpayer, and help the whole of society. The cost of housing is one of the reasons so many people have to be on benefits, and more to the point, are better off on benefits, which takes us straight back to the original problem....

Don't think we should be blaming buy to let landlords for the lack of affordable housing. The fault lies with the govt. for selling off so much council housing and not building more.

My rent is double that of a similar sized council property and paid for by HB.I am on the council list but at such a low priority I am unlikely to ever get one. Doesn't make sense to me. When I go back to work I will still need HB as my rent is so high. If I had a council/HA place I would probably be able to pay all my rent myself.Surely it would save money in the long run to invest in social housing? But no, this govt has cut the budget for that as well. The only reason I don't agree with th HB cuts is that there is no affordable alternative. This govt seems intent on punishing people for things that are beyond their control such as high rents and no jobs.

www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/duncan-smith-finally-gets-to-own-slaves-201011083228/

IMHO The cost of housing is due to the good ol' rules of supply & demand

The population of the UK has grown by about 5m since 2000 (+ whatever illegal immigration adds to that), but we only have about 1.6m "net additional dwellings" over the same period.

Add that to an aging population, with the increase in 1 and 2 person households that brings, then it's not hard to see why the demand for housing outstrips supply, therefore the price rises...

Not really fair to blame the BTL landlords for this.

Betsy, the flat I bought in 1994 was purchased at less than 2.5 times my salary at that time.

Prices stayed pretty static for years, it went up in value a bit, but nothing startling. All of the flats in our street were pretty much owner occupied.

Suddenly the buy to let craze descended upon us, and in the last few years of living there, the prices shot up by 100%. I'm talking over a 3-4 year period. Salaries tended to grow a little slower, those flats were no longer affordable to folk on an average salary, but no problem at all on BTL.

I was the last owner occupier in my street when I sold up. The rest were rented out, at a monthly rent 3 times the amount of my mortgage repayment!

Of course it impacts house prices.

I'ts very socialist to want to nationalise the rented housing stock and prohibit people buying second home and it won't happen so there's not much point in discussing it.

Can the state equalise children's prospects via education, Lc asked? May be not. At least children get to school in this country unlike in many other places on the planet. It is s lot better than in many places. In 1901 (census) my grandfather was living in a 3 bed semi with 18 other young men. Things are now so much better than they were for most people.

Controlling the rental market which even the Labour party will not do is not going to solve any problems. If people cannot afford rents because they are made redundant or HB is cut then rents will go down. I remember the days when rented property wasn't to be had for love nor money and nor was it that easy to get a council house. Some people lived with their parents for years. The laws allowing assured shortholds were a massive benefits to tenants because landlords were prepared to invest in private rented housing again. It was a great success. Suddenly you could get people out, rather than Rent Act low tenanceis on £20 a week for life.

wubbly - but there must have been demand for them in the rental market, or they would be empty - and you can't put it down to everyone gets housing benefit to pay rent to the BTL landlord. According to stats from Jul 10 there are 4.78m HB claimants in the UK (from a population of about 63m), with 69% of those in social housing, so that only leaves 1.48m across the private renting sector. Everyone else is paying the full rent themselves. Yes they would rather pay less rent, of course they would, but if you need somewhere to live you have to pay the going rate. Supply & Demand.

And no I'm not a BTL landlord, but until we address the problem of insufficient housing on this tiny island to meet the needs of the ever growing population (especially in SE England) then housing costs won't be "sensible" again any time soon...

But if you were being asked to clean other people's turd's all day - then it's quite easy to start to define yourself as a turd, as it's how people in the jobcentre genuinely see you. A lot of people that are in minimum wage jobs are treated not much better than slaves, one job I had about 5 yrs ago, I had to work 7hrs and 45 mins without a break as I was working in a petrol station, alone, over the weekend, and was the ONLY staff member there for that whole time. I couldn't even take a toilet break as it would have meant leaving the pumps unattended. Other staff that complained were either not kept on after their probationary period (if they complained beforehand, and it was a 6 mnth probationary period), Or ended up being caught on CCTV leaving the pumps unattended (to go for a wee!) and got 'sacked' for gross misconduct as it was a breacvh of H&S regs to leave the pumps unattended. NO-ONE dared complain after that. And this was working for a VERY well known chain of petrol stations.

Betsy - but surely that proportion varies by area, some areas might have a lot less than 69% in social housing. I'm almost definate that the figure is no-where near that high for HB claimants in social housing in my part of the SE. Of all the people that I know that claim either full or part HB, 9/10 of them are in Private rented, as the wait for social housing is just TOO LONG to spend in a B&B with dc, 40 miles away from the town you are trying to get housed in, for up to 4 yrs. One out of my ten closest friends is in social housing!

loudlass there is a detailed breakdown of stats on the dwp website here, but the headline figures for HB claimants are

Social Sector	Private Sector

London 549,180 (68%) 255,390
SE 323,540 (63%) 191,170

so overall not that different to the national average of 69%.

On those figures Betsy, around 30% of the total HB tax bill is going to private landlords. I would suspect it's a larger percentage actually, simply due to the higher rents in the private sector.

That's quite a large contribution BTL landlords are getting from the taxpayer towards their pension funds.

Of course there were plenty of people to rent the flats in my street, we're talking one of the cheapest areas to buy here and the prices were still over and above what someone on an average salary. I guess they had two choices, rent or the park bench.