Government drawing up plans to help relocate the unemployed

[fanjoforthemammaries7850]

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

I've read what the IFS says, and it isn't good re. the high marginal rates of tax or the regressiveness of the VAT.

Labour FUCKED UP.

daphne - you're obviously better at maths than me - the interest rate they use is 6.08% no idea what that works out at per month

• and also if you claimed for JSA after the 5th of January last year then you can only get the help for 2yrs. So it's not "long term"

are you blind to the size of the deficit, though? how is it going to go away? it can't happen just through growth. The debt itself doesn't begin to even reduce until 2015 under this plan.

prolesworth - it is making it worse. But what else is there?

daphne - do those small 3 bedroom houses starting at £800 accept housing benefit? And what is the LHA rate for a 3 bedroom house in your area?

If the UK wants to drown in debt then there's nothing stopping it.

Prolesworth, I'm not sure that saying the poorest 10% shouldn't pay anything as they didn't do anything wrong is really accurate.

Of course they didn't do anything wrong, but government overspending on things like virtually universal tax credits, and encouraging the poor to get into unaffordable debt has certainly contributed to the mess.

All this thing about the poor blaming the rich and the rich blaming the poor isn't going to solve the problem.

The rich have to (and already are) paying more tax. The poor are going to find services and benefits cut. Everyone will take a hit one way or another.

I know re. public transport cuts.

Fucking Labour.

sorry am only in the mood for swearing.

I just got an email from our county court saying that the counter service (usually 9am to 4pm) has been cut to 9-2.

Thin edge of the wedge I tell you.

tocca - I don't know the answers to your questions. The ads say nothing about "no DSS". However, the demand is so high that I suspect in reality that the answer would be "no". In any case, the ads on Rightmove demand two months deposit (ie. > £1600). I'm afraid I have no idea what the LHA in the area is. I live in an area with one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country, so presumably jobseekers want to move here. The devil's in the detail with this new idea, but it's going to cost if it's going to work.
Think about it...it's cheaper to keep a family on benefits in an unemployment black spot with low housing costs than to pay rent/mortgage interest, removal costs, new school uniforms and all the other costs involved with moving.

There is [u]no[/u] vacant council-owned property in the area. A couple of years ago I obtained some minutes. The council was aware that it wasn't hitting targets for available housing for high priority cases. However, it was decided that it was cheaper to pay the fines and house families in bedsits in neighbouring boroughs than to provide the housing.

Further to last post...

Just found the monthly LHA rates for 2008:

shared room rate £325.00
1 bedroom £564.98
2 bedrooms £675.00
3 bedrooms £750.01
4 bedrooms £1100.02
5 bedrooms £1350.01

Limited to no social housing. Wait lists years long in most cities where employment opportunities are better. Private landlords able to state: No DSS. No children.

And people are saying this is a good policy?

It's not just whacked, it's idiotic.

You have to be a brain donor to think this will work because last I checked, you can't get blood from a stone.

There are people who are able to work in areas where there is work available yet choose not to. If there are others willing to re-locate why should they not get help to do so?

Prolesworth, I've never read the DM in my life and I voted Labour.

I really struggle to see the point of complaining about cutting incapacity benefit to people who shouldn't be on it.

Everyone knows that there are very few jobs out there and that it will be a long time till we have full employment again.

I just feel that people should put their energy into improving things for themselves and for others (eg through voluntary work) rather than ranting on that it's not fair.

We're almost £10k worse off this tax year due to losing dh's tax allowance and the new budget rules. I'm not moaning about that, I accept that it's necessary to try to get things back on an even keel.

Well, because the policy is not for them to be relocated, but for them to jump the housing queue and get top priority to be housed socially if they relocate for the purpose of getting a job.

a) What happens to those who were there and waited years and years to reach the top of the queue, many of whom are working, but working poor?

b) Where is all this social housing? The waiting lists are already enormous in most cities where employment opportunities are better.

c) Private tenancy laws - No DSS. No children. 6-month short-assured tenancy. Where are all these new DSS tenants, many with kids, going to go?

It makes no sense.

Expat, it's just not going to happen. It's a ridiculously unworkable proposal that should never have been put forward.

It really goes to show you what idiots are in power just now, too, mumble.

Anyone with a clue wouldn't have even dreamed up such a dumb ass policy because it's so far beyond stoopid.

Perhaps this policy isn't aimed at families and the vast amount of empty one bedroomed new build property's in city centres are going to be acquired by councils, that's certainly what i'd do

I agree with expat. It might work for a limited number of people, depending on their circumstances. As ever, there are people who can use these schemes for their personal benefit.

One question which occurs to me is what happens if somebody miraculously finds a well paid job in another area after possibly years of unemployment...and then gets made redundant? Will they be forced back to their original area? Or will the new council be forced to pay housing benefit?

Having found out the LHA for my area, I then looked up the LHA for Sunderland (random place in the North East). The difference for a 3 bed house is £226.46, so the "state" would actually be paying more than it was originally.

Anybody who has ever studied pre-1832 parish law might be hearing a few bells ringing.