Government drawing up plans to help relocate the unemployed

[fanjoforthemammaries7850]

Does anyone else find this a bit scary? Or is it a good idea?

Edam, where is there a suggestion that this is their fault?

also, I doubt that these incentives would be used to promote people moving into the SE. It would still be in tandem with efforts to get more growth outside the SE.

I remember this from last tory gov.

Get on your bikes!

but it isn't "get on your bike," is it? It's "if you want to move for work but the costs make it prohibitive, here's some help."

see pinkgrapefruitjuice. And then go on Youtube and look for Tebbit's infamous speech. If you are unemployed under the Tories, even if it's down to their deliberate economic policies (Thatch threw people out of work to break the power of the unions and move us to a service sector economy) it is YOUR fault because you are lazy or stupid. Nowt to do with them.

Oh, I give it a year and it'll be, 'You've been on JSA over 12 months, in addition to losing 10% of HB, if you don't relocate we'll be cutting you back/off.'

So it's just 'get on yer bike' modernised into 'get in that removal van'.

The interest is £900 per month tocca

that's incredible, mama!

A perspective from America:

The mortgage crisis (which many point to as the root of the financial crisis) has led to significant negative equity for many here in America. Many people were sold inappropriate mortgages, and many people over-stretched themselves to buy houses they had no hope of affording long-term.

The government has spent a tremendous amount of time and money convincing banks not to foreclose on people who couldn't pay mortgages due to job loss, debt, etc. (no facility here for paying interest on mortgages for those who need temporary help.)

However, it seems that many decided to exploit that leniency, and chose to stop paying on their mortgages (when they could afford it) because of negative equity - knowing they would probably not be foreclosed upon/evicted.

Many believe that a significant part of the 'recovering' US economy is down to people who have simply walked away from their mortgages, but continue to live in their homes. In the meantime, these consumers suddenly have their monthly mortgage money to spend on clothes, holidays, beauty treatments, restaurants, etc., and so the retail economy has been significantly stimulated making things appear far better for citizens than they really are.

The government is now starting to crack down on that 'loophole' and those people will not be able to buy property again for a very, very long time and will in many instances be chased for the amounts owed (if they could afford to pay and chose not to).

Will be interesting to watch what happens because many thought they were being clever by walking away from their negative equity. It appeared initially they could simply default with no consequences.

Thatcher wanted everyone to do this. It didn't work then either.

"give it a year and it'll be"

but it isn't. What's the point of objecting to a policy on the basis of something it doesn't include?

£900 interest - and they're paying it all? I know they don't use "your" interest rate, they use a set one of their own (I should imagine the logistics of trying to work it out based on individual interest rates, and the changes in interest rates that people have would be a night,are to manage I expect). And there's an upper limit of how much of the mortgage they'll pay the interest of - think its £175k - but could be wrong there.

I know exH on his £110k mortgage (actual mortgage payments were £800 when he went onto JSA/ESA) is around £112 a week (which is actually less than the LHA for a house that size, and less then the rental market value as well).

Expat - I think the theory is that someone that owns their own home is likely to have been working (unless they've inherited the house) and won't be wanting to sit around on benefits forever, ie they'll actually actively seeking work and won't be getting the help for an indefinite period of time.

Of course part of the problem is that they can't get HB to rent either HA/Council or privately until they've sold the house, if the house won't sell then they're stuck there.

I think the proposal is one of those things which sounds good in theory but would only work in a handful of cases in practise.

I think it's terrible that some people are stuck in estates miles (and a very long bus journey) from any jobs. Social tenants shouldn't have less freedom of movement than private tenants or homeowners.

IME moving jobs to people doesn't work because the vast majority of jobs I've seen in poorer areas are filled by peole who travel in from other areas. There either needs to be a geographical restriction on job vacancies and/or more training/education in these areas so that local people are qualified for the jobs available.

Robert Owen's 'New Lanark' was so ahead of its time we still haven't caught up with that kind of innovative combination of employment/housing/social provision.

I think they should be targeting young people who don't yet have children, rather than families. I come from a background where emigration is the norm when work dries up locally. I always thought it odd that young people in deprived areas in the UK seemed reluctant to move to areas with better employment opportunities. When I came to London, everyone I knew stayed in hostels, on the floors of people they knew, etc until they got a (low paying) job and then lived in bedsits after that for a few years....

no, I don't think there's any benefit scroungers rhetoric. Where has there been any?

Benefit "scroungers" aren't much of a problem, IMO - yes, I'm sure there's some benefit fraud, but it pales into insignificance in the face of the wider financial situation.

(any rhetoric from the government, that is - not from judgey people on here...)

where was the benefit fraud rhetoric in the budget? Cameron specifically said you couldn't cut the deficit by eliminating benefit fraud.

Prolesworth - because they don't see any other way forward with a deficit this size. Not that people aren't unhappy about the VAT increase, they are, but if it didn't happen what else would bring in the revenue/have to be cut?

It hits the poor because it has to cut spending, which is going to hit the poor. It is horrible.

and where is the benefit scrounger rhetoric that's being bandied about?

housing benefit "caps" (so those stuck in high rental houses are going to have to find the money to pay the extra or to move)

Housing benefit cut by 10% if you're been on JSA for 12 months (and this applies to EVERYONE - so LP's in an area that's mostly shift work jobs with non-existent "out of hours" childcare are going to be hit)

I know there was more - but I can't remember them off the top of my head

Paying mortgage interest of £900 per month isn't that incredible. I only know the approximate figures (and haven't got time to look them up), but my back of envelope calculation reckons that's about right for a £200k interest-only mortgage. In my area that would just about pay for a very small 3 bed house. Rents for 3 bed houses (which are in any case like gold dust) start at £800 per month according to Rightmove.

PS. Could somebody confirm that mortgage interest is paid after 3 months. I was told it was 6 months when I was unemployed earlier this year - and nobody was very helpful about how to claim.