Is this really what people want?

[mcmooncup]

I don't post much on the threads about benefits but here goes......I'm going to start.

I have a company that works in the Work Programme with long-term unemployed people. Over the last few weeks / month I have seen a dramatic shift in the provision of benefits.

Many many many many more people are being sanctioned (i.e. their benefits are being taken away from them) for missing an appointment, calling in sick for an appointment or not filling in forms correctly.

If you make a mistake with ANY of these 'obligations' under the Jobseekers allowance contract, you, from Monday, can have your benefits taken away for 3 months for the first offence, 6 months for the second and 3 years for the third.

So, I can recount a few stories for you:
Severely dyslexic man provides his job log sheet to the jobcentre and has filled out as much as he can. The jobcentre is not happy with this and sanctions him, probably for 3 months. His response....."I'm going to go homeless, I can't stand this anymore"

Man goes to an interview for a job instead of turning up for an appointment with his WP provider, called in to tell them this. Sanctioned for 2 weeks for not turning up for the appointment. Message was never passed on, and despite phone records showing he called, he was still sanctioned.

Man sanctioned for 6 months for missing an appointment because he was poorly. He is a single parent. He is thinking of suicide.

Is this really what people want?

Homelessness? Suicide?

Do people really think it motivates people to get a job? Because to believe that you have to believe that people like being on benefits, I guess?

What am I missing?

[Xenia]

Certainly most women are pretty anti army and defence spending. However there are cuts being made to defence anyway.

Scotland of course if it votes yes will be able to decide all these things differently if it chooses and indeed retain child benefit for all if it can afford it.

[mcmooncup]

And all that over £20k on housing benefit was being pocketed by some 'entrepreneur'
Who's at fault there? The benefit claimant or the 'enterprising entrepreneur'?
Funny how one party is seen as a hero for actually pocketing the money.

[AmberLeaf]

If housing is expensive where you live slum it out where I live instead. I cannot afford to live in Central London so I don't see why benefits claimants should be kept in those areas. I mvoed hundreds of miles away from family for work don't see why others should not and of course they will if that is the only way to eat

Oh please!

[Xenia]

Landlords make paltry profits - not much more than building society interest if they kept the money in the bank and given the capital value may well be going down they are perhaps not even entrepreneurs.

We could ban housing benefit being paid to the private sector. We coudl abolish housing benefits. Lots of options.

[MiniTheMinx]

If housing is expensive where you live slum it out where I live instead. I cannot afford to live in Central London so I don't see why benefits claimants should be kept in those areas. I mvoed hundreds of miles away from family for work don't see why others should not and of course they will if that is the only way to eat

How do you square this with your previous comments about young people staying at home and being supported by their parents.

I think we need a massive shift from state responsibility to family responsibility Why can't she live with you

If young people or indeed poor vulnerable people who have no capital or assets have to now move to find work, work for the minimum wage or less.....how will they pay their rent? and you what? propose doing away with HB because greedy landlords and greedy land owners prevent YOU from living in central London.

Your opinions are very badly thought out, no wonder the country is up shit creak, the commons is stacked full of lawyers.

[niceguy2]

Mcmooncup is right. You have to look after the vulnerable

I agree. I completely agree. That's why I said earlier that we shouldn't have a blanket ban on HB for under 25's because of exactly that reason.

But we only have so much money right? So we must define who it is we support. And that's the hardest part. Who do we say is vulnerable enough to qualify for state support and who is not.

And that's the crux of my argument. It's not that we scrap the whole thing. Clearly that would be bonkers. But when money is running out and our kids are getting forever in more debt because of policies we are proposing which they have no say over. We must be strict over who is supported and who is not.

As taxpayers, we only have two choices.

If the tax rate was very low say 20% then I'd be certainly with you. And say that there is more scope for a tax rise. But it's not. It was until recently 50%. That's no longer a fair tax rate at all and discourages people from working. And it's the rich workers who actually pay the taxes. If you discourage them, everyone suffers in the long run.

[mcmooncup]

So who doesn't count then Niceguy? Who would you support and who wouldn't you? Please make it clear so I understand. You never actually say.

[niceguy2]

McMoon, I think you are confusing cost versus profit. A landlord doesn't just 'pocket' £20k and skips off to the bank for doing nothing. If it really was that easy why don't you do it?

There's all sorts of costs such as repairs, insurance, certificates, agent fees, legals and that's before having to make sure you've enough to cover void periods and not forgetting actually paying the bank back.

Do some research, ask landlords, work it out for yourself. Most landlords would consider 10% gross profit to be very good. Most are barely breaking even monthly and their sole business plan is that in x years time their house has gone up in value so they can sell it then. In the past it seemed like a no brainer that it would.....not so sure now.

[mcmooncup]

Xenia, it is not true that landlords always make paltry profits. Many many make lots of cash and pay little tax

[mcmooncup]

Oh please niceguy. Do me a favour. I do run a business.

10% gross profit is a good returns. Tesco make about 5.4%.

[mcmooncup]

I fucking love being patronised though. It always makes me feel good that someone felt the need to do it.

[niceguy2]

That's the million dollar question isn't it mcmoon. Who do you support and who do you not. And there's no easy answer there. If there was, I'm sure the govt would do it. It's not about specific groups. For example I know someone who lost an arm in an accident. He's struggling with pain constantly. Clearly he needs support. A colleague of mine also has one arm. He can work and is a highly paid project manager. Two people with very different needs. It would therefore be ridiculous for me to say "Oh we don't support people when they can work with one arm!"

My father is registered blind. He doesn't recognise me until I speak to him. Should he work? Actually he does. He runs a very successful restaurant. But do I think all blind people should be working? Of course not.

I'm glad I don't have to draw the line but the line has to be drawn. We can't support everyone so unfortunately the simple fact is that someone must choose. And each time a choice is made, people moan how unfair it is.

[mcmooncup]

I think you should draw the line. You have so much conviction that we can't support everyone.

Bullshit otherwise isn't it?

[niceguy2]

That's what I said moon! I said LL would say that 10% is VERY GOOD.

[niceguy2]

And you think we can support everyone? The maths say otherwise.

[mcmooncup]

LOADS of businesses just break even Niceguy. Your point is shit.

You didn't mean that statement like that, you are completely backtracking. You meant it in a "woe is me poor little landlord having to run around getting certificates and I am lucky to make 10% GP".

[mcmooncup]

Just answer the question. You think we should take support away from people.....WHO?

[Iggly]

I've just read in the news that the government have got £1.3bn to hand out in compensation for the new train line.

Oh there's money alright. Just not for the poor.

[Xenia]

The country has massive debts. This is an issue facing much of the world at present. It is a huge issue, not just special to the UK and it is even worse in places like Greece and Spain.

I think everyone in the UK should be fed, yes. I would not remove the basic welfare state although it could be pared down quite a bit. It would certainly hlep if tax rates could be reduced to a flat tax of about 12% including NI.

If people's families cannot support them then like many of our ancestors and indeed many of us people have to move on the planet where there is work. That is terribly common. It is not contradictory. In fact your relative can pay for you to get the night bus to London from Hull for your hunt for work.

Someone stood in the City of London the other week with a sign saying he was looking for work and he got a good few offers. Sometimes you need literally to get on your bike.

[mcmooncup]

If you think everyone should be fed, then you should be up in arms about what is going on right now.

[MiniTheMinx]

Standing in the street with a sign around your neck do you know what the response was the during the great depression when people took to the streets with placards round their necks?

[Xenia]

They are fed. 60% of us are over weight. We have nevre had such fat people particularly the lower earners. You cannot suggest the poor are not fed. they are massively over fed. If we got their calorie intake down to 1800 a day with less food they would be so much better.

[Iggly]

Oh dear. Xenia. Oh dear.

[MiniTheMinx]

Don't eat too many of these

[AmberLeaf]

The scary thing is that Xenia is real