Would you scalp George Osborne

rjsterry

Il Principe wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

Cafewanda wrote:

Il Principe wrote:

[This is a key point. I used to work with a girl who had sat down, done the sums and concluded that as a single mother of one, she would be finacially better off if she quit her job and went on benefits than by doing her 9-5 job. She decided not to quit, but many in her position would take the state payout. Quite how we ever got into a situation where this would be possible I don't know, but we have (or had, this was 4 years ago). Lunacy.

This was the same situation with one of my close friends just under 20 years ago, but she had 3 kids and was determined to show them that working was better than not working. She struggled for quite a number of years and whilst she'll never be able to buy property, her kids have the same work ethic. Thankfully.

Does that suggest the State was/is too generous, or that her employer chose not to pay her a living wage. Two sides to every coin...

She was earning decent enough money, and enjoyed her job, but then she had a pretty awesome manager...

This probably made a hell of a difference. If she was in a job that she didn't enjoy and where she didn't feel supported then she might have opted for the benefits.

further

It's worth noting that not all receiving housing and other benefits are out of work, many are in low-paid work. The bogeyman scrounger presented by the Daily Mail and some posters on here is a minority.

Also, having worked as a volunteer in the homelessness sector for many years I can say there are many and varied reasons why people (from all backgrounds: Rich, poor, young, old, soldier, lawyer, doctor, businessman, refugee, painter and decorator) will not have the wherewithall at given points during their lives to organise their housing needs.

Changes to housing benefit will create a a massive hurdle to people who for whatever reason are only just holding things together.I've seen how just about anyone can be a relationship or mental breakdown (to give just a couple of examples) away from sleeping in a doorway. These are good people with plenty to offer society, if not now then with appropriate support, in six months time.

It's a sad day when we (or rather a government with no mandate) decides to dismantle the welfare state and withdraw support from them at their most vulnerable.

There's no doubt in my mind that the number of rough sleepers will increase due to changes in housing benefits, particularly as services provided by the third sector are to experience severe cuts at the same time.

Kicking the poor introduces poverty into all our lives.

W1

further wrote:

It's a sad day when we (or rather a government with no mandate) decides to dismantle the welfare state and withdraw support from them at their most vulnerable.

No-one is suggesting that. All that is being brought in is a cap, so that the Daily Mail can stop writing headlines about fat chav families getting 6 figure benefit cheques a year.

Is it appropriate for the tax payer to fund someone to live in Notting Hill, or Chelsea or Westminster when those who are actually paying the taxes cannot themselves afford to do so? Where is the incentive to move off a reliance on the state when actually working will mean you need to move further away from the centre of town, into a worse area? It's not like a long commute is against someone's human rights!

There was some clown being interviewed on the news the other day because he wouldn't be able to afford his three bedroom house in Westminster and would have to move somewhere cheaper. That's just tough, I can't afford one either! But I don't expect the state to fund one for me.

davmaggs

further wrote:

It's worth noting that not all receiving housing and other benefits are out of work, many are in low-paid work. The bogeyman scrounger presented by the Daily Mail and some posters on here is a minority.

Also, having worked as a volunteer in the homelessness sector for many years I can say there are many and varied reasons why people (from all backgrounds: Rich, poor, young, old, soldier, lawyer, doctor, businessman, refugee, painter and decorator) will not have the wherewithall at given points during their lives to organise their housing needs.

Changes to housing benefit will create a a massive hurdle to people who for whatever reason are only just holding things together.I've seen how just about anyone can be a relationship or mental breakdown (to give just a couple of examples) away from sleeping in a doorway. These are good people with plenty to offer society, if not now then with appropriate support, in six months time.

It's a sad day when we (or rather a government with no mandate) decides to dismantle the welfare state and withdraw support from them at their most vulnerable.

There's no doubt in my mind that the number of rough sleepers will increase due to changes in housing benefits, particularly as services provided by the third sector are to experience severe cuts at the same time.

Kicking the poor introduces poverty into all our lives.

Thanks Further for brining in some expertise.

I know that there are various changes, but in terms of limiting the maximum rent payable do you think there is any case for setting an upper limit at all? I'm thinking that there must be a point whereby something like the £12,000 a week paid for a family to stay in Ealing could have served a dozen familes who needed homes. (I know that this case is rare)

A good friend of mine works in the social housing sector and he was very upset by people who paid peppercorn rents for premium locations who were actually very well off. They'd been given homes years ago and had gone on to do well for themselves, but weren't going to give up their place to even though he had a list of people who needed it. They also weren't going to pay more so that the money could go into the building fund for more homes. Do you think that there is a case for tenancy periods or ending the situation of families passing on tenancies?

further

All that is being brought in is a cap, so that the Daily Mail can stop writing headlines about fat chav families getting 6 figure benefit cheques a year.

Yeah, that bit won't really effect many people at all, it's one of those focus group policies designed, as you seem to accept, to pander to ignorant prejudice.

A 10% reduction in a housing benefit award after 12 months unemployed will. So will a real-term reduction in job seekers allowance and a rise in VAT. Someone in this this position is likely to have reduced mental and financial resources to cope with moving flats to an area with fewer job opportunities and a non-existent social network.

bigmat

W1 wrote:

further wrote:

It's a sad day when we (or rather a government with no mandate) decides to dismantle the welfare state and withdraw support from them at their most vulnerable.

No-one is suggesting that. All that is being brought in is a cap, so that the Daily Mail can stop writing headlines about fat chav families getting 6 figure benefit cheques a year.

Is it appropriate for the tax payer to fund someone to live in Notting Hill, or Chelsea or Westminster when those who are actually paying the taxes cannot themselves afford to do so? Where is the incentive to move off a reliance on the state when actually working will mean you need to move further away from the centre of town, into a worse area? It's not like a long commute is against someone's human rights!

There was some clown being interviewed on the news the other day because he wouldn't be able to afford his three bedroom house in Westminster and would have to move somewhere cheaper. That's just tough, I can't afford one either! But I don't expect the state to fund one for me.

But then the corollary of "rich people in nice areas" is "poor people in deprived areas" i.e. ghettos. Ghettoisation is a bad thing. Sometimes we have to take the rough with the smooth, its not as simple as saying "I can't afford to live there so why should he?"

W1

MatHammond wrote:

But then the corollary of "rich people in nice areas" is "poor people in deprived areas" i.e. ghettos. Ghettoisation is a bad thing. Sometimes we have to take the rough with the smooth, its not as simple as saying "I can't afford to live there so why should he?"

Well to a degree it is as simple as that. The state should be providing the minimum required - a safety net - not a lifestyle choice. A house in Westminster is simply not required when a house in, say, Sutton (with a longer commute) will be perfectly sufficient and cheaper to the tax payer.

UpTheWall

further wrote:

It's worth noting that not all receiving housing and other benefits are out of work, many are in low-paid work. The bogeyman scrounger presented by the Daily Mail and some posters on here is a minority.

Also, having worked as a volunteer in the homelessness sector for many years I can say there are many and varied reasons why people (from all backgrounds: Rich, poor, young, old, soldier, lawyer, doctor, businessman, refugee, painter and decorator) will not have the wherewithall at given points during their lives to organise their housing needs.

Changes to housing benefit will create a a massive hurdle to people who for whatever reason are only just holding things together.I've seen how just about anyone can be a relationship or mental breakdown (to give just a couple of examples) away from sleeping in a doorway. These are good people with plenty to offer society, if not now then with appropriate support, in six months time.

It's a sad day when we (or rather a government with no mandate) decides to dismantle the welfare state and withdraw support from them at their most vulnerable.

There's no doubt in my mind that the number of rough sleepers will increase due to changes in housing benefits, particularly as services provided by the third sector are to experience severe cuts at the same time.

Kicking the poor introduces poverty into all our lives.

Well said dude.

In all this talk about kowtowing to this entity called The Economy, it's all to easy to forget the impact this sort of stuff has on real people.

We all debate this thinking vaguely about someone else getting made redundant, but thinking it's alright because it's better for the long term. Not for them it isn't. And if we end up getting made redundant, (and can't get benefits) what do we end up doing?

The economy is there for the people, not the other way around.

The highest priority of the government should be how they affect people's lives, not keeping the market happy.

further

Thanks for the response davmaggs, you raise some searching questions some of which are outside my area of expertise.

I do think cases like the one you mention in Ealing (which I'm not familiar with) are a bit of a red-herring as they are so rare but as W1 points out, they are used as a stick to beat the overwhelming majority living in relatively poor conditions.

I'm not sure what my reasoned answer would be but instinctively I'm concerned that setting a limit prevents us taking into account individual circumstances. I'm not sure what mechanism could be used instead or indeed, whether one could be found. On balance, I think I'm against.

I feel your friend's frustration at the lack of social/council housing and annoyance that those who really need it are often unable to get into it. It really is a pressing problem.

However, I regret the government wants to introduce time-limited tenancies. I reckon a secure-tenancy gives people the space to thrive. My preferred option would be to embark on building new affordable/social housing which could also help kickstart the economy. In the meantime, no-one should be in a position of having their housing benefit cut simply because they have been unable to geta job for a year.

I accept others, including the government, will disagree on either an ideological or economic level. That's politics.






UpTheWall

The economy is there for the people, not the other way around.

Couldn't agree more, fella.

rjsterry

The inflated property prices of London (never mind zones 1 and 2) mean that a certain amount of segregation as to who can live where is inevitable (BTW, having an N1 postcode is probably of little comfort for a family living in a 1-bed council flat on the New River Estate). If we can agree that such segregation is not a good thing - even the wealthy residents of such exclusive areas need their streets swept, etc. and those on such low wages are unlikely to be able to afford a monthly travelcard from zone 6 - then we should at least try and mitigate these effects where possible. Tinkering with Housing Benefit is only going to do so much, and the shortage of housing in the London area continues to keep property prices high. If the property boom had properly been harnessed to refill councils' housing stocks, perhaps they wouldn't have to rent as much private property at high rents in order to house people.

further

Tinkering with Housing Benefit is only going to do so much, and the shortage of housing in the London area continues to keep property prices high. If the property boom had properly been harnessed to refill councils' housing stocks, perhaps they wouldn't have to rent as much private property at high rents in order to house people.

Agreed. The last government was really short-sighted about this and there's little chance the Tories will step up.

rjsterry

W1 wrote:

MatHammond wrote:

But then the corollary of "rich people in nice areas" is "poor people in deprived areas" i.e. ghettos. Ghettoisation is a bad thing. Sometimes we have to take the rough with the smooth, its not as simple as saying "I can't afford to live there so why should he?"

Well to a degree it is as simple as that. The state should be providing the minimum required - a safety net - not a lifestyle choice. A house in Westminster is simply not required when a house in, say, Sutton (with a longer commute) will be perfectly sufficient and cheaper to the tax payer.

Given that one of the reasons I cycle is that a monthly travelcard from Sutton is £182.80, if you ship all those on benefits out to zone 6, you are going to have to start subsidising their travel costs instead (admittedly cheaper than housing, but rising more sharply, and the point is these people don't have any extra money themselves, so you will be paying them some housing benefit + travel benefit)

W1

further wrote:

However, I regret the government wants to introduce time-limited tenancies. I reckon a secure-tenancy gives people the space to thrive.

Were that the case, there would be a natural flow of people out of social housing, leaving space at the bottom for new comers. As it is, a secure tenancy appears in fact to give people an entrenched attitude - hence council housing being held by the same tenants for an unlimited period. I also find it remarkable that this can be passed on to future generations, and that no-one can be moved on regardless of how much their circumstances have changed and how unsuitable the property is for them (and how much more suitable it is for, say, a family).

The "responsibility" which goes hand in hand with the "right" to social housing appears to be often forgotten.

UpTheWall

rjsterry wrote:

The inflated property prices of London (never mind zones 1 and 2) mean that a certain amount of segregation as to who can live where is inevitable (BTW, having an N1 postcode is probably of little comfort for a family living in a 1-bed council flat on the New River Estate). If we can agree that such segregation is not a good thing - even the wealthy residents of such exclusive areas need their streets swept, etc. and those on such low wages are unlikely to be able to afford a monthly travelcard from zone 6 - then we should at least try and mitigate these effects where possible. Tinkering with Housing Benefit is only going to do so much, and the shortage of housing in the London area continues to keep property prices high. If the property boom had properly been harnessed to refill councils' housing stocks, perhaps they wouldn't have to rent as much private property at high rents in order to house people.

That said, this assumes all the jobs are in Zone 1.

Obviously they aren't.

A lot of companies are moving their premises out of london to save on costs these days.

W1

rjsterry wrote:

W1 wrote:

MatHammond wrote:

But then the corollary of "rich people in nice areas" is "poor people in deprived areas" i.e. ghettos. Ghettoisation is a bad thing. Sometimes we have to take the rough with the smooth, its not as simple as saying "I can't afford to live there so why should he?"

Well to a degree it is as simple as that. The state should be providing the minimum required - a safety net - not a lifestyle choice. A house in Westminster is simply not required when a house in, say, Sutton (with a longer commute) will be perfectly sufficient and cheaper to the tax payer.

Given that one of the reasons I cycle is that a monthly travelcard from Sutton is £182.80, if you ship all those on benefits out to zone 6, you are going to have to start subsidising their travel costs instead (admittedly cheaper than housing, but rising more sharply, and the point is these people don't have any extra money themselves, so you will be paying them some housing benefit + travel benefit)

[on forum] - they can get a bike!

bigmat

W1 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

W1 wrote:

MatHammond wrote:

But then the corollary of "rich people in nice areas" is "poor people in deprived areas" i.e. ghettos. Ghettoisation is a bad thing. Sometimes we have to take the rough with the smooth, its not as simple as saying "I can't afford to live there so why should he?"

True - how about a genuine cycle to work scheme for key workers / low paid workers? That might really mitigate the social impact of cuts to housing benefit, with all the associated positives of getting people on bikes.

Well to a degree it is as simple as that. The state should be providing the minimum required - a safety net - not a lifestyle choice. A house in Westminster is simply not required when a house in, say, Sutton (with a longer commute) will be perfectly sufficient and cheaper to the tax payer.

Given that one of the reasons I cycle is that a monthly travelcard from Sutton is £182.80, if you ship all those on benefits out to zone 6, you are going to have to start subsidising their travel costs instead (admittedly cheaper than housing, but rising more sharply, and the point is these people don't have any extra money themselves, so you will be paying them some housing benefit + travel benefit)

[on forum] - they can get a bike!

rjsterry

W1 wrote:

[on forum] - they can get a bike!

You are Norman Tebbit and i claim my £5.

notsoblue

Just wanted to say +1 to everything Further has posted. Nice to read an informed opinion about a group of people who too often are an easy target.

W1

rjsterry wrote:

W1 wrote:

[on forum] - they can get a bike!

You are Norman Tebbit and i claim my £5.

I'm amazed that reference took so long.....!

rjsterry

W1 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

W1 wrote:

[on forum] - they can get a bike!

You are Norman Tebbit and i claim my £5.

I'm amazed that reference took so long.....!

I've been ill.

UpTheWall

Conclusion - I want the scalp of George, on a silver platter.

notsoblue

Calling W1 and Spen666 to thread..

Whats your opinion on what has been reported here:
http://johannhari.com/2010/10/29/protes ... -the-proof

the Indian government chose to pursue Vodafone through the courts for the billions in tax they have failed to pay there. Yes, the British state is less functional than the Indian state when it comes to collecting revenues from the wealthy. This is not an isolated incident. Richard Murphy, of Tax Research UK, calculates that UK corporations fail to pay a further £12bn a year in taxes they legally owe, while the rich avoid or evade up to £120bn.

Would be interested to hear your take on it.

tailwindhome

notsoblue wrote:

while the rich avoid or evade up to £120bn.

<banging head against wall>

avoid and evade are not the same

notsoblue

TailWindHome wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

while the rich avoid or evade up to £120bn.

<banging head against wall>

avoid and evade are not the same

Ok, don't focus on that, focus on this:

"This is not an isolated incident. Richard Murphy, of Tax Research UK, calculates that UK corporations fail to pay a further £12bn a year in taxes they legally owe"

Then focus on "The Indian government chose to pursue Vodafone through the courts for the billions in tax they have failed to pay there"

and

"For years now, Vodafone has been refusing to pay billions of pounds of taxes to the British people that are outstanding. The company – which has doubled its profits during this recession – engaged in all kinds of accounting twists and turns, but it was eventually ruled this refusal breached anti-tax avoidance rules. They looked set to pay a sum Private Eye calculates to be more than £6bn."

So they've been found to breach anti-avoidance rules, but then the tax bill was cancelled?

Good luck finding a semantic flaw in that.

greg66_tri_v2.0

notsoblue wrote:

Calling W1 and Spen666 to thread..

Whats your opinion on what has been reported here:
http://johannhari.com/2010/10/29/protes ... -the-proof

the Indian government chose to pursue Vodafone through the courts for the billions in tax they have failed to pay there. Yes, the British state is less functional than the Indian state when it comes to collecting revenues from the wealthy. This is not an isolated incident. Richard Murphy, of Tax Research UK, calculates that UK corporations fail to pay a further £12bn a year in taxes they legally owe, while the rich avoid or evade up to £120bn.

Would be interested to hear your take on it.

If I were Vodafone, I would not be too worried about this. The Indian legal process moves at a pace that makes "glacial" look racy. Chances are that by the time judgment is obtained, you'll be carrying a billion in your wallet.

notsoblue

Greg66 wrote:

If I were Vodafone, I would not be too worried about this. The Indian legal process moves at a pace that makes "glacial" look racy. Chances are that by the time judgment is obtained, you'll be carrying a billion in your wallet.

Probably, but still. Why can they get away with that here?

notsoblue

More info on the (apparently illegal) Vodafone tax avoidance:

http://www.private-eye.co.uk/sections.p ... issue=1273

tailwindhome

notsoblue wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

while the rich avoid or evade up to £120bn.

<banging head against wall>

avoid and evade are not the same

Ok, don't focus on that, focus on this:

"This is not an isolated incident. Richard Murphy, of Tax Research UK, calculates that UK corporations fail to pay a further £12bn a year in taxes they legally owe"

Then focus on "The Indian government chose to pursue Vodafone through the courts for the billions in tax they have failed to pay there"

and

"For years now, Vodafone has been refusing to pay billions of pounds of taxes to the British people that are outstanding. The company – which has doubled its profits during this recession – engaged in all kinds of accounting twists and turns, but it was eventually ruled this refusal breached anti-tax avoidance rules. They looked set to pay a sum Private Eye calculates to be more than £6bn."

So they've been found to breach anti-avoidance rules, but then the tax bill was cancelled?

Good luck finding a semantic flaw in that.

Semanitcs has nowt to do with it.

Tax Evasion - not paying tax you are legally obliged to pay - illegal
Tax Avoidance - using the law to reduce the amount of tax you are legally obliged to pay - legal


These two numbers can't be added together

UpTheWall

TailWindHome wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Good luck finding a semantic flaw in that.

Semanitcs has nowt to do with it.

Tax Evasion - not paying tax you are legally obliged to pay - illegal
Tax Avoidance - using the law to reduce the amount of tax you are legally obliged to pay - legal


These two numbers can't be added together

An irrelevant argument to the point he's actually making.

We got the difference a while back.

Now we're talking about companies negotiating what tax they have to pay.

Get with the program dude.

rjsterry

Agreed: Vodafone are doing one or the other. HMRC (until recently) Private Eye and Johann Hari appear to think the former. I would suggest Vodafone aren't too fussy which it is, so long as they keep their money.