George Osborne's Autumn Statement - your reactions please!

[CatherineHMumsnet]

The Chancellor George Osborne will begin making his Autumn Statement in Parliament today at 12.30. Thought we should start up a thread so Mumsnetters can comment as it happens.

Juggling, it's not as simple as 'employers should pay more'. They have always had to pay whatever the rate is to attract the employees they need. But tax credits distorted the playing field. All of a sudden certain groups got hundreds each month and could suddenly work part time or for NMW or both. and get their wages topped up by tax credits. So which employer in their right mind would now say "Oooh, no no. Don't take that....let me give you more money instead!"

Employers didn't ask for tax credits. They didn't demand this benefit. Labour introduced it as a naive way to tackle child poverty and to get the masses hooked on benefits (and therefore more likely to vote Labour).

I would also argue the sharp increase in childcare costs is also directly attributable to tax credits and has in many cases priced middle income earners out whilst allowing lower earners to work. Now you may argue that's a good thing because middle earners earn enough to pay for it themselves but from a tax revenue point of view it makes no sense whatsoever.

Yermina. Most people have to live where they can afford to live. I do. A lot of young people on reasonably good wages might like to buy a house where they grew up or where they went to university and they can't afford to. So they have to move away from their support system and freinds.. It's already happening. People on housing benefit are protected from hard decisions the rest of the population have been making for years.

Yes, niceguy. Tax credits are a big part of the low wage problem; they distort the wage economy, just as housing benefit artificially inflates rents and housing costs. There has to be a return to reality sometime, and it would ultimately BENEFIT those at the lower end.

Yes, xenia, benefits in Poland are low, but the Poles aren't moaning; they are willing to move to smaller and squintier accommodation in the Uk, away from community and family, in the search for work, and their economy is growing very nicely now. By contrast, we've already seen on this thread that many English people of the left think moving to Salford is a disaster. Frankly, everyone - low, middle or high - has to be willing to move if they are looking for work.

I realise it's not simple niceguy, I realise there are lots of economic and social factors at work here. But I was just agreeing that it would be good if more of my pay as an early years practitioner (when I'm in work ) came from my employers rather than being supplemented through the fact I have children myself (child tax credits)
Obviously you'd have to make that happen through a combination of measures - change is unlikely to happen just by people desiring it.
I also think you'd have to be careful to protect families from hardship when implementing any changes.

"Yermina. Most people have to live where they can afford to live. I do. A lot of young people on reasonably good wages might like to buy a house where they grew up or where they went to university and they can't afford to. So they have to move away from their support system and freinds.. It's already happening. People on housing benefit are protected from hard decisions the rest of the population have been making for years."

People need to live where the jobs are. It's as simple as that. You can't have it both ways. Areas of high employment have expensive housing. Areas with low employment have cheap housing.

If you want people to work and support their families and not claim benefits then there needs to be affordable housing provision in areas where there are also employment opportunities. If people are forced to move to areas where there are vastly fewer job opportunities in pursuit of cheap housing then you are going to find more will need to claim subsistence benefits to feed their children.

Would also add, if there is a widespread 'cleansing' of the low waged in receipt of housing benefit in the SE, the government had better gear up for a whole generation of elderly people in the region who will be reaching the end of their life with no support from their children who will no longer live near by.

sieglinde - the answer is for the government to invest in high quality, heavily subsidised, universal childcare, as they do in other European countries. This frees women to work, raises attainment for the most disadvantaged children, and would massively simplify the benefits system.

Oh do jog on with the evocative "cleansing". It's an insult to those people who actually suffered real 'cleansing' under threat of violence.

This is not cleansing. This is about whether or not it is fair that those on benefits are protected from the same harsh decisions the rest of us must make. And I've yet to hear a coherent argument as to why someone on HB should be subsidised to live in an area a working family cannot afford.

Why is it always about the folk in the SE. This is really annoying me now. If they are to be subisidised where the jobs are then every single person who can't get work in the rest of the country should have the opportunity to be subsidised to live in the SE.

The house prices are inflated because of subisides. Let the house prices find their own level and then everybody will benefit. Except those entitled folk who think the rest of us should pay tax to enable them to live in an expensive house we couldn't afford ourselves.

The £500 a week benefits cap is not going to drive many people away from where they live, when it comes in. In the real world of people who work we all move away to where we can afford to live. I left familyh to move hundreds of miles for work. Secondly I have never been able to afford to live in Central London so we have to trek in there for work. it is how life is. People all over the planet and at all times except in cloud cuckoo Lbourland circa 2006 or whatever where the hard working tax payers unable to live where they choose fund the lifestyles of the idle who couldn't possibly move more than 2 streets away from their mother. Those days are over as the coffers are empty.

'People need to live where the jobs are. It's as simple as that. You can't have it both ways. Areas of high employment have expensive housing. Areas with low employment have cheap housing.'

I think you're mixing up employment levels and wages. There is really pretty high employment in regional cities and people on lower wages live in the less nice areas and those on higher wages live in the nicer areas which tend to be closer to town, have better schools and lower crime.

Agree that child tax credits have inflated the cost of childcare. I'm always staggered by how much people on MNet pay for nurseries, especially in London and the South East. But niceguy is right, supply and demand affects wage levels. If people also get tax credits, they can afford to take lower paid jobs. That means you lose the upward pressure on wages.

And I've yet to hear a coherent argument as to why someone on HB should be subsidised to live in an area a working family cannot afford.

How about the fact that most housing benefit is claimed by those in work? Or is this another fact that you've chosen to ignore? Just as Gidiot did when he lied to the House on Wednesday.

yy xenia - it takes me 45 minutes to get to work, and that's because I can't afford a 4-bedroom house in Oxford within the ring road. You just have to be a bit real, yermina. Why TF should my taxes subsidise others to live where I can't afford to live myself?

and yes, queen ofwhatever, that's exactly my point - benefits are bucking the labour market AND the housing market is ways that disadvantage the low-paid...

"Oh do jog on with the evocative "cleansing". It's an insult to those people who actually suffered real 'cleansing' under threat of violence."

Sorry - but removing large numbers of poor people from an area to save money on services is 'cleansing' in my view. They are seen as an expense and a burden and therefore must be got rid of.

" And I've yet to hear a coherent argument as to why someone on HB should be subsidised to live in an area a working family cannot afford."

Because businesses in areas of high housing cost need workers, many of who will be poorly paid and in receipt of housing benefit. Who will clean hospitals and schools in the SE? Work in retail? Work as TA's in schools? Work as carers and health care assistants? People who do these jobs in the SE could not afford to rent in the private sector without the support of a housing benefit subsidy. And given that so much of the SE is incredibly expensive the option of commuting in from areas where housing is cheaper is simply not feasible (in part because travel is so expensive in the UK).

"yy xenia - it takes me 45 minutes to get to work, and that's because I can't afford a 4-bedroom house in Oxford within the ring road. You just have to be a bit real, yermina. Why TF should my taxes subsidise others to live where I can't afford to live myself?"

Look - anywhere in the SE, ANYWHERE, is massively expensive for families on low or even average wages. It's absolutely fair to say to someone who works in London that HB won't subsidise them to live in a posh bit of Kew, when they could rent an equivalent property in Croydon for half as much, but even in the CHEAPEST parts of SE the rental of a property large enough to sleep 4 people will cost £800 upwards. That is going to be unaffordable to someone on a minimum wage who is also paying high commuting costs.

The problem is the lack of public sector housing. There will always be people on low wages working in areas where housing costs are high. There needs to be some mechanism for providing homes for these people which don't involve the tax payer putting money into the pockets of private landlords.

Seriously - what would you say to a cleaner or care assistant working in central london who was struggling with housing costs? Jack your job in and move to Sunderland? These jobs are ESSENTIAL to the running of the health service. Who should be doing them? Or are you saying that there is no need for low paid workers in London? We can make life unaffordable for them by removing housing benefit and then they'll have to bugger off somewhere else? Who will do these jobs then? And where and how will they live?

It doesn't matter who claims housing benefit. What does matter is who is paying for the housing benefit. The tax payer. And the tax payers are sick to death of subsidising people to live in houses they can't afford themselves. Houses costing more in rent that the national average wage.

"If people also get tax credits, they can afford to take lower paid jobs. That means you lose the upward pressure on wages."

People will take lower paid jobs when they're compelled to by the withdrawal of benefits. In an economy where millions of people are unemployed and being threatened with the removal of subsistence level benefits, there isn't going to be an upward pressure on wages. In fact there'll be a downward pressure on wages. Thank fuck for the minimum wage. :-(

Didn't see your last post. Wake up Yermina. The days of housing benefit for expensive houses are numbered. Not before time. If there are so many poor people in the SE why are houses so expensive. Who can afford them. It's a tired old argument and it isn't working any more.

"And the tax payers are sick to death of subsidising people to live in houses they can't afford themselves. Houses costing more in rent that the national average wage."

Have you got figures showing the average claim for HB in the SE?

Because you seem to be convinced that there are large numbers of families claiming 25K a year and more in housing benefit costs.

The average monthly rent across London is 1K.

What are your thoughts on a cleaner or HCA working in a central London hospital, living in the capital or just outside it and claiming HB to subsidise their housing costs? Do you think this is unfair and should be stopped? How do you expect people on minimum wage jobs in London to live? Or do you think they should live in tent cities in Hyde park or something?

Well, I can offer my thoughts. The NHS outsourcing cleaning to the lowest bidder is actually the villain of this particular piece. If it is impossible for said cleaner to live in London, London hospitals to will be forced to do one of three things 1. raise the wages for cleaners 2. bus cleaners in in groups from outlying areas c. break the law and get their arses sued off. Next!

"The days of housing benefit for expensive houses are numbered"

Vivienne - ALL HOUSING IN THE SOUTH EAST IS EXPENSIVE AND UNAFFORDABLE FOR THOSE PEOPLE ON THE MINIMUM WAGE WITHOUT A HB SUBSIDY!

And I should have added that if there IS NO HB then housing costs will fall a LOT.

Then they should move to a house they can afford to live in. And in any case the last thing I heard was housing benefit was to be capped at £1,600 per month. So if you're saying rents are £1,000 there shouldn't be a problem. Houses are expensive because nobody can afford to buy them or rent them except people on benefit or the very rich. Bangs head against wall.

People have always moved around for work - practically all of DPs friends have moved from Glasgow to London, it's practically a rite of passage.

I've a friend whose partner is a bricklayer and moves around the country wherever he can get work. He is away for weeks at a time. She is a working mother with two small children. Many, many people do this.

I would add that many people on low incomes also have illicit health and caring responsibilities. Many people I work with do shifts so they can work all night and then care for relatives with MS/dementia/cancer during the day. These people are in council housing. They have family commitments and cannot just uproot. There are many people like this.

Illicit? iPhone is joining in...

The benefits cap from next April is £26000 or so if you are a family or single parent and £18,200 if you are single without children. That is pretty high and includes housing benefit costs. it does not include council tax benefit or free school meals and does not apply at all if you work enough hours to obtain working tax credit or something like that.

I agree with About - people have always had to move for work. I did. My grandmother moved to India for work in the 1920s. 3 of my uncles moved to Canada/US after the 20s crash (and were living rough and did badly). Other relatives escaped the Irish potato famine when I think 1 in 5 Irish people left Ireland and 1 m died. Moving for work is nothing new. It also opens up the world for people, gets them out of their habits, allows them to see a different life. It's a social good on the whole, not a bad thing.

sieglinde - in Paris, hospital cleaners live miles out of the city. They commute in for the night and back out in the morning.