Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Politics

Flip

1 2 3 4

Original poster

Unemployment

99 replies

newwave · 27/03/2011 22:49

I have read the threads on here tonight and many have stated that those on benefits who can work should work, I have no problem with that at all BUT as the Tory governments policies are destroying tens of thousands of jobs and because of them we have 2.54 million out of work combined with RECORD youth unemployment can I ask those who castigate those on benefits what jobs

2.54 million out of work 424, 000 vacancies, do the math.

OP posts:

longfingernails · 02/04/2011 23:00

In that case, you will support the cuts to housing benefit chopchopbusybusy (which sadly go nowhere near far enough). It is still possible to get £400 a week HB, and to live in a 30th percentile house.

In response to the minimum wage - have you ever run a business? If you are a family business, run by husband and wife, and you could maybe afford £100 a week to pay for a third person, but can't afford £200 a week - then you just don't take someone on. Especially with all burden of EU regulation as well.

It's as simple as that. Unlike Labour and the left, I don't see small business as evil. I see them as trying to do the right thing.

The minimum wage causes unemployment. I regard that unemployment as a price worth paying purely on efficiency grounds - but I know that many on the right disagree with me about this.

Original poster

newwave · 02/04/2011 23:01

How does £240 per week pay for food, transport and rent let alone anything near a reasonable lifestyle. Also what if the minimum wage person has children.

If the minimum wage is increased to say £10 per hour the fair enough.

Your still avoiding the 2.5 million 424, 000 jobs question.

OP posts:

chopchopbusybusy · 02/04/2011 23:10

I do support the cuts in housing benefit because I think it's outrageous that the state supports so many private landlords. I do however think that money needs to be spent on social housing and that we have to move away from the idea that everyone should own their own home - thatcher ideal.
I am self employed and DH works for an international company, so we don't employ anyone. Doesn't mean I can't say that everyone who is employed deserves at least the minimum wage. If you can't afford to pay it your business is not viable. Sorry to shout, but sometimes it just feels necessary.

longfingernails · 02/04/2011 23:13

It's just not true that a business which can't afford to take someone on, minimum wage, is not viable.

It is possible that it is viable without taking them on, and not viable after taking them on. You do realise it's not compulsory for small business owners to employ other people?

HHLimbo · 02/04/2011 23:14

LFN - we are using your suggested policies, so you are acting as the prime minister.

We now have 2 million hungry people, plus their children, homeless and on the streets.
These people are begging. There are also huge increases in

Theft
Burglary
Mugging

Because these people are starving and their children are starving, and that causes people to do desperate things.

Huge increases in civil unrest. People are rioting. Huge increases in the risk and cost of running a business, due to security required and theft. Many go out of business.

What shall we do now, PM?

Original poster

newwave · 02/04/2011 23:17

chop, by all means cut housing benefit as long as when the family is evicted and cannot find another similar home for the housing benefit offered then the government finds them a similar property for the money

OP posts:

chopchopbusybusy · 02/04/2011 23:25

Well, if your business is doing well enough to employ someone, even if only on minimum wage - great, get on with it yourself. But it is a long term commitment to employ someone. I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying you should be able to pay under minimum wage or just get rid of an employee when things don't go according to plan?

chopchopbusybusy · 02/04/2011 23:31

Newwave, if the government looked closely at housing benefit the result would be that landlords lose out, not tenants. Done correctly rents will fall. Landlords should not be expecting rents to pay in full for buy to let mortgages. Housing benefit has allowed this to be the expected normal.

Original poster

newwave · 02/04/2011 23:40

They may be crying wolf but an organisation of private landlords spokesman said on Five Live yesterday they at least 60% of his members would be giving notice to housing benefits claimants as they would have no problem letting their properties in London.

OP posts:

chopchopbusybusy · 02/04/2011 23:44

Just to confirm in case my point was unclear - I suspect for LFN it has to be shouted loudly. The current situation is that employers and landlords are being heavily subsidised by the state at the moment and I'm really not convinced that the current government will change that.

HHLimbo · 02/04/2011 23:49

A good thing would be for Authorities to buy the houses instead of renting them from private landlords. The authorities would then keep the profit that the landlords make. This is the perfect time to do it and rebuild the social housing stock.

chopchopbusybusy · 02/04/2011 23:50

Well, if I were in government I'd let them rattle their sabres.

But, I'd also want to have my alternative plans in place as detailed above. Social housing is perfectly doable. The private landlord alternative was the idea of thatcher.

chopchopbusybusy · 03/04/2011 00:00

Limbo, many local councils already own land which could be built on - I know ours does - they could invest some money in building some homes leaving the landlords to the open market they love so much.

Original poster

newwave · 03/04/2011 00:01

Getting the housing sector moving by building social housing is nothing but common sense and will not only cut unemployment in the building trades but in other areas.

Trouble is Osbourne and common sense are an oxymoron.

OP posts:

chopchopbusybusy · 03/04/2011 00:15

Nick Clegg was in favour of social housing on the pre election TV debates but has been quiet on that since. Hmm.

Original poster

newwave · 03/04/2011 00:27

Chop.

Nick Clegg is a Fg c* and that is putting it mildly.

OP posts:

BaroqueAroundTheClock · 03/04/2011 00:28

God I don't even know why people are bothering with LFN - they're obviously not living on the same planet as the rest of us.

Although I'd like to know in LFN's wonderful plans.......

What's happens to people with disabilities and carers?
So a small business is allowed to take someone on for 2hr an hour, they work 40hrs a week and take home £4160 a year, but alll benefits and tax credits have been scrapped. Where do they live, how do they feed themselves?
Have you realised that the number of people on benefits (and not working) is actually higher than 2.54 million????
What happens to the millions currently working for minimum wage, or just above who rely on tax credits and housing benefits for them to continue to be able to work
Have you any idea what the fuck you are talking about????

with regards to the social housing v private landlord thing.

There are 4.8 million people claiming housing benefit in the UK
1.3 million of those are 65yrs+
3.29 million housing benefit claimants live in social housing
1.14 million housing benefit claimants live in the private rented sector
279,000 housing benefit claimants are working
570,000 housing benefit claimants are on JSA (Job Seekers Allowance)

\link{http://www.cih.org/policy/AnalysisofHousingBenefitChanges-Nov10.pdf\taken from here}

1.14 millioin social housing homes is a hell of a lot to find and I suspect would cost an awful lot more than they're paying out in housing benefit right now, especially when you consider those 300,000 who are working and claiming benefit won't be getting the full award.

BaroqueAroundTheClock · 03/04/2011 00:30

and - can I ask - what happens to someone who is paying their private rent quite happily, then something happens and their income reduces significantly for a while and they have to claim housing benefit? Do they then too have to be moved into social housing?

chopchopbusybusy · 03/04/2011 00:58

Baroque, in my opinion social housing should be the normal. We shouldn't be subsidising private landlords mortgages. Obviously, it would take time to build more social housing and in the meantime we'd continue to pay higher housing benefits. Landlords would have to get used to their subsidies reducing gradually. An end to the huge house price inflation is surely a good thing.

madhattershouse · 03/04/2011 01:05

An end to huge rents would be good...HOWEVER.. I have several friends who are now being made homeless as the rents are going up. One is a policeman who is on reduced hours and lower wages just to retain his job!!! Lack of affordable houses to buy mean that if the council won't cover the asked for rent there are many low waged (and unable to get a mortgage) who will take the high rents! It is supply and demand...loads need to rent ergo you can raise the price. Capitalism at it's finest.

BaroqueAroundTheClock · 03/04/2011 09:46

yes but chop chop, what happens to the private renter who temporarily needs housing benefit???

chopchopbusybusy · 03/04/2011 10:44

Baroque, I'm not saying that housing benefit should be scrapped. It will always be needed. My ideas are never going to happen under a Tory government - didn't even happen under labour.

GiddyPickle · 03/04/2011 10:57

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

BaroqueAroundTheClock · 03/04/2011 11:43

Giddy - housing benefit doesn't work quite like that - it's not however much the Landlord charges - it's a set rate, I have the same rate of HB now living in a house that costs £495 a month as I did when I was living in a house that cost £590 a month. (I had to top up the rent out of my other benefits).

Flip

1 2 3 4