Benefits...Again!
Comments
-
0
-
Hmmm.Mikey23 wrote:@d... 60% of median income is the "poverty line" ... Something like £256 pw I believe
Last time I was on the dole (4 weeks) I got £52/week and it wasn't that long ago.
Does that make me one of the poverty stricken masses?
I wouldn't choose to live on £256 p/w but I think we could get by. I imagine that we will be when/if I retire.None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
daviesee wrote:Can somebody please define poverty in this context.
I see places around the world where genuine poverty is obvious. Less so here.
I dont doubt that poverty exists here, just not to the extent made out in that report.
In Britain, given the p*ss-poor quality of our housing, it means not being able to afford a home that won't pose serious risks to your health.0 -
-
If you dispute the definition of poverty as stated above then headlines about zillions of peeps in the uk living in poverty also look pretty stoopid and meaningless...0
-
The "Poverty Line" has lost all meaning. This is because it is devised by relatively well to do and well educated individuals that believe that individuals who do not have what they have are in Poverty. In reality in a country where you are provided with a house, education, healthcare and a sufficient quantity of money to buy food and water then there is essentially no real poverty assuming you comply with the current systems in place.
If it is case of everyone who earns less than me is in Poverty then there are loads of people. People can chose to spend their money as they wish however they have to live with the consequences. The media could also do a better job of actually testing the claims of all those poverty stricken individuals prior to printing articles.
Listening to individuals say they are poor whilst smoking fags, drinking booze and watching sky do not impress me much.0 -
you won't get much in the way of fags and booze on 52quid week. Of course poverty is relative, but that's the point; we are a rich country and people should thus be able to apply the standards of a rich country. Staying warm is important, too, and there are many in work who are going to struggle to do that. By the way, there are millions in this country who are not provided with a house, have to pay for (further) education and struggle to buy decent food. 256quid a week won't pay a mortgage on the smallest flat available in London. I'd suggest that shows something very -structurally- wrong with Britain. Do you have any idea how big the gap is between rich and poor in the UK? (Hint: Brazil, not Germany).bdu98252 wrote:Listening to individuals say they are poor whilst smoking fags, drinking booze and watching sky0 -
Housing is vastly over priced. Particularly in London. Address this and a lot will follow.pliptrot wrote:256quid a week won't pay a mortgage on the smallest flat available in London. I'd suggest that shows something very -structurally- wrong with Britain.None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
Pross wrote:pliptrot wrote:you won't get much in the way of fags and booze on 52quid week.
And yet many manage, presumably at the expense of healthier food etc. or are you claiming that smoking and drinking are less common in deprived areas as they are in rich areas?
In mixed urban and rural areas, clinical evidence has shown that the levels of alcohol dependency and abuse are higher in affluent areas than in deprived areas. I can't remember the findings for smoking.
Also, abortions ans STIs are higher among the educated young then the uneducated.0 -
daviesee wrote:
Housing is vastly over priced. Particularly in London. Address this and a lot will follow.pliptrot wrote:256quid a week won't pay a mortgage on the smallest flat available in London. I'd suggest that shows something very -structurally- wrong with Britain.
^these.
Rents spiral upwards, so housing benefit for those with little or no money has to go up to cover it, so rent goes up some more and housing benefit goes up some more, etc etc.... Net effect is that we have some rental property landlords who are getting very, very rich on taxpayers money and property prices remain stupidly high.
Until we have a government that has the balls to sort this crazy situation out (not going to happen, because property prices will fall, which would upset those fortunate enough to own a house), nothing will change. Taxpayers will continue to be milked, benefits will continue to rise, many hard working people will never be able to afford to buy a house, meanwhile a few fat property landlords grow ever fatter.
We need to build houses - lots and lots of em and they need to be owned by councils or housing associations.
Back in the 60s and 70s they were called council houses, but Mrs T put paid to them in the 80s.0 -
No and no again, that's not now the way the system works and hasn't been for a long time. This has been discussed elsewhere but there is a ceiling on housing benefit which varies according to the size of the property and it's suitability to the needs of the tenant. In 2011 this varied from £250 and £400 pw. Not sure what it is now but probably similar. Then there is the bedroom tax. Landlords generally do not get very, very rich. I think they make a profit and obviously still have the capital value of their property. There are a couple of posters here who have rental property and will testify to this. I used to work in the system and much of this is urban myth and perpetuated by the tabloid press0
-
One thing that has happened this week that hasn't yet been mentioned is the discussions on the proposed changes to social care and how this affects the older generations;
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... SSIBLE.pdf
I was at a HealthWatch meeting earlier this week where an assistant director of social care was presenting the consultation on the proposed changes. What was particularly interesting to hear was how the councils, government and HMRC are very mindful that despite the perceptions of the lower classes abusing benefits it is the middle classes who can be very adept at not wanting to pay their way and may well attempt to abuse their entitlement to social care through such practices as shifting property and other assets to younger generations. They are already considering that statutes of limitation on the transfer of assets won't apply to social care.0 -
Mikey23 wrote:I think they make a profit and obviously still have the capital value of their property.
This is the point I am trying to make Mikey.
Private landlords do indeed make a profit, otherwise they wouldn't bother and admittedly, some make much more than others. Much of this profit comes from taxpayers in the form of housing benefit paid to them via their tenants, which is then used to perpetuate the property spiral.
I can't think of another example where taxpayers money is so clearly lining the pockets of private individuals like this, but expect I may well be corrected!0 -
I know some people that rent out property. Flats mostly from when a couple move in together and rent out the one left over.oldhairylegs wrote:Mikey23 wrote:I think they make a profit and obviously still have the capital value of their property.
This is the point I am trying to make Mikey.
Private landlords do indeed make a profit, otherwise they wouldn't bother and admittedly, some make much more than others. Much of this profit comes from taxpayers in the form of housing benefit paid to them via their tenants, which is then used to perpetuate the property spiral.
I can't think of another example where taxpayers money is so clearly lining the pockets of private individuals like this, but expect I may well be corrected!
Any that have had DHSS tenants swear that they will never, ever do it again. To much hassle. They much prefer straightforward tenants.
I am sure that there are landlords working the system but they are unlikely to be people with one extra property as an investment. As with any system, the minority abuse it.None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
Missus and I considered this as a possibility but concluded that the risk of a dodgy tenant, the hard work involved for the amount of taxable profit meant that it just wasn't worth it. You can employ letting agents to do it all for you, but they don't and it costs you money, or do all the time consuming stuff yourself and take up all your spare time. I know folks who make nowt and would like to get out. Prob is that interest rates are so low that there are few ways to make money work for you and even keep up with inflation and it was seen as a good option. Like most things, the cash cow has been bled dry0
-
BillyMansell wrote:One thing that has happened this week that hasn't yet been mentioned is the discussions on the proposed changes to social care and how this affects the older generations;
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... SSIBLE.pdf
I was at a HealthWatch meeting earlier this week where an assistant director of social care was presenting the consultation on the proposed changes. What was particularly interesting to hear was how the councils, government and HMRC are very mindful that despite the perceptions of the lower classes abusing benefits it is the middle classes who can be very adept at not wanting to pay their way and may well attempt to abuse their entitlement to social care through such practices as shifting property and other assets to younger generations. They are already considering that statutes of limitation on the transfer of assets won't apply to social care.
I can't condone taking underhand steps to avoid responsibilities, but as long as people move their assets within the regulations, that is fine. I have sympathy for those people who have strived all their lives to make something of themselves, faced with the prospect of losing it to pay for their care in later life. It is not the fact that they have to pay, it is the fact that some can p1ss their life up the wall and the state will pay. People are realising that it is not worth putting money by for old age.0 -
Of the two families of the guys I support, one has been working his socks off for days getting hundreds of tons of potatoes harvested so that he can make some money to feed his family while the other doesn't work because he has a bad back and all the state benefits that go with it feed his family. Two different attitudes to life and value systems. Who is the wealthier? Difficult to say, but I know who I would rather be....0
-
The crux of the matter now, especially in this time of low wages, people are thinking, 'Is it worth working?'. They look around and see people get cared for by the State from cradle to grave and wonder if they are being taken for a mug.0
-
Interesting that you should see shifting assets as acceptable because they are working within the regulations, but then the banks were working within the regulations, corporations and accountants practicing tax avoidance have been working within the regulations and 99.5% of people claiming benefits are working within the regulations. It would be interesting to see the cost to the Treasury of the middle classes "working within the regulations" to abuse their entitlement to benefits and care.Ballysmate wrote:BillyMansell wrote:One thing that has happened this week that hasn't yet been mentioned is the discussions on the proposed changes to social care and how this affects the older generations;
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... SSIBLE.pdf
I was at a HealthWatch meeting earlier this week where an assistant director of social care was presenting the consultation on the proposed changes. What was particularly interesting to hear was how the councils, government and HMRC are very mindful that despite the perceptions of the lower classes abusing benefits it is the middle classes who can be very adept at not wanting to pay their way and may well attempt to abuse their entitlement to social care through such practices as shifting property and other assets to younger generations. They are already considering that statutes of limitation on the transfer of assets won't apply to social care.
I can't condone taking underhand steps to avoid responsibilities, but as long as people move their assets within the regulations, that is fine. I have sympathy for those people who have strived all their lives to make something of themselves, faced with the prospect of losing it to pay for their care in later life. It is not the fact that they have to pay, it is the fact that some can p1ss their life up the wall and the state will pay. People are realising that it is not worth putting money by for old age.
When does "working the regulations" become "playing the system"? Is it as simple as only when a person sees no direct or personal benefit or the perception of seeing others benefit and a misplaced belief of themselves somehow losing out?
As for protecting their sense of entitlement, it should be remembered that many recipients of social care are young people with physical and/or learning disabilities, who haven't lived long enough to p1ss it up the wall, and their carers as well as other older people who have also been "hard workng" throughout their lives. By people abusing their entitlement to care then they damage the need for care of many with genuine needs.0 -
BillyMansell wrote:
Interesting that you should see shifting assets as acceptable because they are working within the regulations, but then the banks were working within the regulations, corporations and accountants practicing tax avoidance have been working within the regulations and 99.5% of people claiming benefits are working within the regulations. It would be interesting to see the cost to the Treasury of the middle classes "working within the regulations" to abuse their entitlement to benefits and care.Ballysmate wrote:BillyMansell wrote:One thing that has happened this week that hasn't yet been mentioned is the discussions on the proposed changes to social care and how this affects the older generations;
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... SSIBLE.pdf
I was at a HealthWatch meeting earlier this week where an assistant director of social care was presenting the consultation on the proposed changes. What was particularly interesting to hear was how the councils, government and HMRC are very mindful that despite the perceptions of the lower classes abusing benefits it is the middle classes who can be very adept at not wanting to pay their way and may well attempt to abuse their entitlement to social care through such practices as shifting property and other assets to younger generations. They are already considering that statutes of limitation on the transfer of assets won't apply to social care.
I can't condone taking underhand steps to avoid responsibilities, but as long as people move their assets within the regulations, that is fine. I have sympathy for those people who have strived all their lives to make something of themselves, faced with the prospect of losing it to pay for their care in later life. It is not the fact that they have to pay, it is the fact that some can p1ss their life up the wall and the state will pay. People are realising that it is not worth putting money by for old age.
When does "working the regulations" become "playing the system"? Is it as simple as only when a person sees no direct or personal benefit or the perception of seeing others benefit and a misplaced belief of themselves somehow losing out?
As for protecting their sense of entitlement, it should be remembered that many recipients of social care are young people with physical and/or learning disabilities, who haven't lived long enough to p1ss it up the wall, and their carers as well as other older people who have also been "hard workng" throughout their lives. By people abusing their entitlement to care then they damage the need for care of many with genuine needs.
The reason I regard it as being acceptable is it is their money, they move it within what is allowed. As soon as they fall outside those parameters, obviously that is evasion.
I agree there are some claimants such as those with disabilities, who should be well catered for within the benefit system. I can't agree that those that have been prudent and put something by for their twilight years should be penalised and money given to younger people who are sometimes shy of work.
Some here seem to be bemoaning the length of time people live after their retirement and there may be some merit in the idea of increasing the retirement age.
The system whereby a person has to sell their assets and are not allowed to pass them on to their nearest and dearest ( I believe that the authorities are allowed to go back 7 years to check) is perverse. Imagine that it was deemed that if you had a certain level of wealth you would have to pay for all your heath treatment, whatever your age. Would anyone accept that? People seem to regard the elderly differently.
I forget who said that you can judge a nation by the way they treat the elderly.0 -
You're right that the elderly are treated differently. They represent by far the greatest cost to welfare benefits, including the beneficiaries of universal benefits that even the rich elderly receive, yet they remain the one group unaffected by benefit cuts.0
-
In all the arguments made the principal points are missed. These are:
1. if not working is financially attractive then those in work are not being paid enough. Let's not race to the bottom.
2. regulations are written and controlled by those with wealth and power, to protect that wealth and power, and are loaded against those with neither. Usually they're incredibly unfair.
3. work has dignity (no, I'm not proclaiming pride in hardship....) and is intrinsically good. To work is to play a part in society, that greater thing which provides us food, comfort, security. In Britain, this is more important than anywhere else, because as a nation we still have the strongest community of all.0 -
It's an awkward one. CEO's of companies are paid obscene amounts because if they're not they'd bu99er off elsewhere (or so the argument goes) However the masses are expected to accept low paid employment. If someone questions the legitimacy of being expected to do a 40 hour week for c£240 and not have enough to live on surely like the CEO they're just putting a value on themselves and won't work.Ballysmate wrote:The crux of the matter now, especially in this time of low wages, people are thinking, 'Is it worth working?'. They look around and see people get cared for by the State from cradle to grave and wonder if they are being taken for a mug.Tail end Charlie
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.0 -
Pensioners are more likely to vote than the disenfranchised youth.BillyMansell wrote:You're right that the elderly are treated differently. They represent by far the greatest cost to welfare benefits, including the beneficiaries of universal benefits that even the rich elderly receive, yet they remain the one group unaffected by benefit cuts.Tail end Charlie
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.0 -
+1pliptrot wrote:In all the arguments made the principal points are missed. These are:
1. if not working is financially attractive then those in work are not being paid enough. Let's not race to the bottom.
2. regulations are written and controlled by those with wealth and power, to protect that wealth and power, and are loaded against those with neither. Usually they're incredibly unfair.
3. work has dignity (no, I'm not proclaiming pride in hardship....) and is intrinsically good. To work is to play a part in society, that greater thing which provides us food, comfort, security. In Britain, this is more important than anywhere else, because as a nation we still have the strongest community of all.Tail end Charlie
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.0 -
All the other points can be argued for and against but this one stood out.pliptrot wrote:In Britain, this is more important than anywhere else, because as a nation we still have the strongest community of all.
Do you really believe that Britain as a Country has the strongest sense of community in the World?
Not from what I see in the media, and more particularly, day to day life. Selfish bar stewards more like.None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0
