Opposition grows to benefit cap
Discussion
Benjurs said:
98elise said:
Benjurs said:
Hi Guys
Just to clear things up on HB, it's now paid direct to the Landlord.
This is because when it was paid direct to the claimant some unscrupulousness people they'd spend it on other things such as drugs etc.
Then the Landlord would have all sorts of problems to evict because the claimants would pay say 70% of their rent and it would be hard to evict as the claimants would promise to pay the arrears thus AFAIK bypassing the eviction process.
Also it's correct that each council has limits on rent and combined with the lack of social housing makes it quite hard for single people w/o kids to locate housing, as many private landlords don't want DSS tenants.
How do I know this? Well I lost my house because I was put onto the wrong unemployment benefit and therefore wasn't eligible to receive help to pay my mortgage on an interest only basis and therefore lost my house.....
So it meant having to move back to my parents for almost a year before I could find a private landlord which would take DSS.
I just wanted to clear up a few misunderstandings on this thread.
No its not paid to the landlord, it is paid to the tenant.Just to clear things up on HB, it's now paid direct to the Landlord.
This is because when it was paid direct to the claimant some unscrupulousness people they'd spend it on other things such as drugs etc.
Then the Landlord would have all sorts of problems to evict because the claimants would pay say 70% of their rent and it would be hard to evict as the claimants would promise to pay the arrears thus AFAIK bypassing the eviction process.
Also it's correct that each council has limits on rent and combined with the lack of social housing makes it quite hard for single people w/o kids to locate housing, as many private landlords don't want DSS tenants.
How do I know this? Well I lost my house because I was put onto the wrong unemployment benefit and therefore wasn't eligible to receive help to pay my mortgage on an interest only basis and therefore lost my house.....
So it meant having to move back to my parents for almost a year before I could find a private landlord which would take DSS.
I just wanted to clear up a few misunderstandings on this thread.
It will only be paid to the landlord when the tenant has not been paying his rent for a couple of months, ie at the point you can evict.
I learnt this to my cost when my tenant did not pay any rent, even though they were collecting the full rent in HB.
Just to ask a question, how long ago were you stitched up? if you don't mind me asking?
I believe that paying direct to the Landlord is a relatively new provision..or maybe it's just the way my local council pays it.
You can see the rationale and it should prevent people like you getting stiffed by DSS tenants....
We're not all bad...I'm on HB after working in the city for 15 years and made redundant. The money I'm claiming is no where near the amount of PAYE I've paid over that time...
Anyways this is a side issue to the topic being discussed, so I just wanted to let you guys know how it can be paid.
Take it easy!
The idea is that it makes the tenant take more responsibilty for their lives. The reality is many will just see it as free money.
98elise said:
Benjurs said:
98elise said:
Benjurs said:
Hi Guys
Just to clear things up on HB, it's now paid direct to the Landlord.
This is because when it was paid direct to the claimant some unscrupulousness people they'd spend it on other things such as drugs etc.
Then the Landlord would have all sorts of problems to evict because the claimants would pay say 70% of their rent and it would be hard to evict as the claimants would promise to pay the arrears thus AFAIK bypassing the eviction process.
Also it's correct that each council has limits on rent and combined with the lack of social housing makes it quite hard for single people w/o kids to locate housing, as many private landlords don't want DSS tenants.
How do I know this? Well I lost my house because I was put onto the wrong unemployment benefit and therefore wasn't eligible to receive help to pay my mortgage on an interest only basis and therefore lost my house.....
So it meant having to move back to my parents for almost a year before I could find a private landlord which would take DSS.
I just wanted to clear up a few misunderstandings on this thread.
No its not paid to the landlord, it is paid to the tenant.Just to clear things up on HB, it's now paid direct to the Landlord.
This is because when it was paid direct to the claimant some unscrupulousness people they'd spend it on other things such as drugs etc.
Then the Landlord would have all sorts of problems to evict because the claimants would pay say 70% of their rent and it would be hard to evict as the claimants would promise to pay the arrears thus AFAIK bypassing the eviction process.
Also it's correct that each council has limits on rent and combined with the lack of social housing makes it quite hard for single people w/o kids to locate housing, as many private landlords don't want DSS tenants.
How do I know this? Well I lost my house because I was put onto the wrong unemployment benefit and therefore wasn't eligible to receive help to pay my mortgage on an interest only basis and therefore lost my house.....
So it meant having to move back to my parents for almost a year before I could find a private landlord which would take DSS.
I just wanted to clear up a few misunderstandings on this thread.
It will only be paid to the landlord when the tenant has not been paying his rent for a couple of months, ie at the point you can evict.
I learnt this to my cost when my tenant did not pay any rent, even though they were collecting the full rent in HB.
Just to ask a question, how long ago were you stitched up? if you don't mind me asking?
I believe that paying direct to the Landlord is a relatively new provision..or maybe it's just the way my local council pays it.
You can see the rationale and it should prevent people like you getting stiffed by DSS tenants....
We're not all bad...I'm on HB after working in the city for 15 years and made redundant. The money I'm claiming is no where near the amount of PAYE I've paid over that time...
Anyways this is a side issue to the topic being discussed, so I just wanted to let you guys know how it can be paid.
Take it easy!
The idea is that it makes the tenant take more responsibilty for their lives. The reality is many will just see it as free money.
Its hard but too many people have been taking advantage, you have to blame the stupid Council Housing dept for allowing this to happen in the first place. If they just said we pay XXX amount for a 3 bed & no more it would have stopped there & then!!
You have people renting at fantastic rents from landlords & quite a few who are related to the tenants its rife, some case's where the tenant actually owns the bloody house they are claiming for!
OK if you find yourself out of work & ALREADY live in a expensive area fine, you can receive HB for that area for 1 year then move on.
Sounds tough , I know a few young people that have had to move out of the village where they have lived with their parents & relations as they cannot afford the rent yet no one seems to be shouting about this ??
As far as the Child benefit, I think anyone on 40k or more should not receive it.
The Bishops arguments are that it will harm the children. Ok IMO that people who churn out kid's while having no means to support them are doing more harm to those children than anyone else. Each extra child they have its more of a strain on the family income so the newborn will have less & all the older siblings will also from be having less.
Lets be honest here a lot of these people should not be allowed to have children as they cannot look after them selves let alone allow them to inflict there failing's on a poor innocent born to them .OK tin hat firmly on & yes I do have children & yes its hard but get on with it!
You have people renting at fantastic rents from landlords & quite a few who are related to the tenants its rife, some case's where the tenant actually owns the bloody house they are claiming for!
OK if you find yourself out of work & ALREADY live in a expensive area fine, you can receive HB for that area for 1 year then move on.
Sounds tough , I know a few young people that have had to move out of the village where they have lived with their parents & relations as they cannot afford the rent yet no one seems to be shouting about this ??
As far as the Child benefit, I think anyone on 40k or more should not receive it.
The Bishops arguments are that it will harm the children. Ok IMO that people who churn out kid's while having no means to support them are doing more harm to those children than anyone else. Each extra child they have its more of a strain on the family income so the newborn will have less & all the older siblings will also from be having less.
Lets be honest here a lot of these people should not be allowed to have children as they cannot look after them selves let alone allow them to inflict there failing's on a poor innocent born to them .OK tin hat firmly on & yes I do have children & yes its hard but get on with it!
hornet said:
I wonder how much of the current debate is a softening exercise? Just by having the words "benefit cap" in the media regularly, people are going to start to realise that something is happening, even if the final form isn't the current idea. Get the idea of a cap in place and make people realise their actions do indeed have a consequence, then start shifting from where we are now to where we need to be. A sort of benefits "contraction and convergence" exercise.
Yes, I think you're correct about it being a softening exercise. The initial cap of £26k reflects the median income (though that’s gross income, so tax and NI has to come off the number). Even Labour has not tried to argue that benefits should pay more than the average wage, so the concept of a cap will become established without opposition (the Lords didn’t reject a cap per se, but the implementation). Once the cap is done and implemented, the debate moves to the amounts different parties propose for the cap. This puts labour in a difficult position regarding their traditional bribery policy – pay more benefits out in whatever form.
For the first time there will be a known measure to prove that Tory policy isn’t ‘condemning the poor’, it’s curbing completely unfair excesses of the benefits system.
HardToLove said:
As far as the Child benefit, I think anyone on 40k or more should not receive it.
Devil's advocate mode on...There's a line of argument that says that people who earn more than 40k have paid enough PAYE so that they deserve the small amount of CB being paid out....as they've contributed more to the pot....
0a said:
The initial cap of £26k reflects the median income (though that’s gross income, so tax and NI has to come off the number).
Nope, its net.A 'household' needs an 'average' income, before deductions of some £35000 before they match the proposed 'cap'.
All the ' as they are not my terms
The fundamental dichotomy in this seems to me to reflect the division, between the taxpayers, who are prepared to contribute to the state for reasonable benefits to be paid to genuine claimants and the political hardliners, mainly labour supporters but not exclusively so, who deny that there should be any limit on benefits whatsoever.
It seems to me that it is self evident that any benefits system can only offer benefits at a rate that the country could actually afford. Howe else can such a programme be funded?
That economic fact has been ignored by successive governments in the UK since the 1960's.
Clearly the intention of Beveridge, Aneurin Bevan and others, was to as far as possible, within the countries resources, introduce the Welfare system and universal NHS system within the UK at a level that the country could sustain. At that time National Insurance contributions were made universal to pay for the system introduced.
Sadly this essential relationship, which was recognised and understood by the founders of our welfare system, between what the country can afford and what the limit on benefits must be, has been lost over the last 50 years.
As a result the unwary politicians have boosted benefits to a point, where the current level simply cannot be sustained by the country and huge and continuous borrowing by the State, to fund unaffordable government expenditure has become the norm in the UK.
The financial collapse in 2008 and the subsequent realisation of the extent of government overborrowing has forced the coalition government to face this problem.
If you honestly believe that the country can afford to spend more than it earns you could reasonably argue that unlimited benefits should continue.
I do not think any reasonable person can actually believe that this is a practical proposition.
Therefore, as I said in my second paragraph, no one who accepts that there there is a finite limit to what the country can afford can propose unlimited expenditure for ANY reason.
I consequence there HAS to be a limit to the overall costs of benefits. I think the suggestion that £26,000 a year maximum overall benefits for a UK household is a reasonable assessment. I recognise others may think it is too high or too low.
But is is a start of a process that we cannot afford to terminate.
Ed Ballsup and Ed Moonpig have covered both themselves and the Labour party with shame and derision because they have, until the last few weeks, denied the reality of the Labour parties failure to govern effectively or balance the books under Tony Bliar and Winkie. They simply denied the truth and practiced Yah, Booh, sucks politics. They have maintained that spending our way out of trouble was the solution.
Much good it did them. As a result neither politician now has much of a future.
Politics has to be the art of the possible. Policies which result in penury and financial instability for the country concerned, are not sustainable as Milliband, Ballsup, T Blair and Winkie have found out. At much cost to the British taxpayer.
A credible benefits system has to be, by its very nature an affordable system.
I believe that the benefits cap is fair right and essential. Others may seek greater levels of subsidy, but must face cuts in other budgets in order to achieve this greater cost within a realistic expenditure program, that maintains a reduction in government borrowing.
I believe within two years ALL political parties will adopt such an overall affordable benefits limit policy. Because, quite simply,there has to be a limit to government expenditure at a level that can be sustained by the country.
If wishes came true we could all be kings. They do not and in consequence there cannot be unlimited expenditure on any government programme.
There has to be a benefits limit for the sake of this country and our borrowings. To pretend otherwise is dishonest.
It seems to me that it is self evident that any benefits system can only offer benefits at a rate that the country could actually afford. Howe else can such a programme be funded?
That economic fact has been ignored by successive governments in the UK since the 1960's.
Clearly the intention of Beveridge, Aneurin Bevan and others, was to as far as possible, within the countries resources, introduce the Welfare system and universal NHS system within the UK at a level that the country could sustain. At that time National Insurance contributions were made universal to pay for the system introduced.
Sadly this essential relationship, which was recognised and understood by the founders of our welfare system, between what the country can afford and what the limit on benefits must be, has been lost over the last 50 years.
As a result the unwary politicians have boosted benefits to a point, where the current level simply cannot be sustained by the country and huge and continuous borrowing by the State, to fund unaffordable government expenditure has become the norm in the UK.
The financial collapse in 2008 and the subsequent realisation of the extent of government overborrowing has forced the coalition government to face this problem.
If you honestly believe that the country can afford to spend more than it earns you could reasonably argue that unlimited benefits should continue.
I do not think any reasonable person can actually believe that this is a practical proposition.
Therefore, as I said in my second paragraph, no one who accepts that there there is a finite limit to what the country can afford can propose unlimited expenditure for ANY reason.
I consequence there HAS to be a limit to the overall costs of benefits. I think the suggestion that £26,000 a year maximum overall benefits for a UK household is a reasonable assessment. I recognise others may think it is too high or too low.
But is is a start of a process that we cannot afford to terminate.
Ed Ballsup and Ed Moonpig have covered both themselves and the Labour party with shame and derision because they have, until the last few weeks, denied the reality of the Labour parties failure to govern effectively or balance the books under Tony Bliar and Winkie. They simply denied the truth and practiced Yah, Booh, sucks politics. They have maintained that spending our way out of trouble was the solution.
Much good it did them. As a result neither politician now has much of a future.
Politics has to be the art of the possible. Policies which result in penury and financial instability for the country concerned, are not sustainable as Milliband, Ballsup, T Blair and Winkie have found out. At much cost to the British taxpayer.
A credible benefits system has to be, by its very nature an affordable system.
I believe that the benefits cap is fair right and essential. Others may seek greater levels of subsidy, but must face cuts in other budgets in order to achieve this greater cost within a realistic expenditure program, that maintains a reduction in government borrowing.
I believe within two years ALL political parties will adopt such an overall affordable benefits limit policy. Because, quite simply,there has to be a limit to government expenditure at a level that can be sustained by the country.
If wishes came true we could all be kings. They do not and in consequence there cannot be unlimited expenditure on any government programme.
There has to be a benefits limit for the sake of this country and our borrowings. To pretend otherwise is dishonest.
Lord Carey, former Archbishop, attacks current frock squad over benefits cap stance:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16711702
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16711702
herewego said:
98elise said:
Benjurs said:
98elise said:
Benjurs said:
Hi Guys
Just to clear things up on HB, it's now paid direct to the Landlord.
This is because when it was paid direct to the claimant some unscrupulousness people they'd spend it on other things such as drugs etc.
Then the Landlord would have all sorts of problems to evict because the claimants would pay say 70% of their rent and it would be hard to evict as the claimants would promise to pay the arrears thus AFAIK bypassing the eviction process.
Also it's correct that each council has limits on rent and combined with the lack of social housing makes it quite hard for single people w/o kids to locate housing, as many private landlords don't want DSS tenants.
How do I know this? Well I lost my house because I was put onto the wrong unemployment benefit and therefore wasn't eligible to receive help to pay my mortgage on an interest only basis and therefore lost my house.....
So it meant having to move back to my parents for almost a year before I could find a private landlord which would take DSS.
I just wanted to clear up a few misunderstandings on this thread.
No its not paid to the landlord, it is paid to the tenant.Just to clear things up on HB, it's now paid direct to the Landlord.
This is because when it was paid direct to the claimant some unscrupulousness people they'd spend it on other things such as drugs etc.
Then the Landlord would have all sorts of problems to evict because the claimants would pay say 70% of their rent and it would be hard to evict as the claimants would promise to pay the arrears thus AFAIK bypassing the eviction process.
Also it's correct that each council has limits on rent and combined with the lack of social housing makes it quite hard for single people w/o kids to locate housing, as many private landlords don't want DSS tenants.
How do I know this? Well I lost my house because I was put onto the wrong unemployment benefit and therefore wasn't eligible to receive help to pay my mortgage on an interest only basis and therefore lost my house.....
So it meant having to move back to my parents for almost a year before I could find a private landlord which would take DSS.
I just wanted to clear up a few misunderstandings on this thread.
It will only be paid to the landlord when the tenant has not been paying his rent for a couple of months, ie at the point you can evict.
I learnt this to my cost when my tenant did not pay any rent, even though they were collecting the full rent in HB.
Just to ask a question, how long ago were you stitched up? if you don't mind me asking?
I believe that paying direct to the Landlord is a relatively new provision..or maybe it's just the way my local council pays it.
You can see the rationale and it should prevent people like you getting stiffed by DSS tenants....
We're not all bad...I'm on HB after working in the city for 15 years and made redundant. The money I'm claiming is no where near the amount of PAYE I've paid over that time...
Anyways this is a side issue to the topic being discussed, so I just wanted to let you guys know how it can be paid.
Take it easy!
The idea is that it makes the tenant take more responsibilty for their lives. The reality is many will just see it as free money.
We got ours paid direct once the were enough arrears. Our DSS tenant is now working so only gets partial HB, of course they havent bothered to top up the rent. I'm now evicting him, and will not rent to DSS again. I know quite a few landlords who will no longer rent to DSS because of the number of issues they have with rent payments. Don't get me wrong, there are good DSS tenants, but I've never heard anyone say they will no longer rent to private tenants.
The margins on property are not huge, so a couple of missed payments makes it pointless as an investment.
In some cases local councils will rent the properties directly, for a lower rate. This is a much better system. Councils save money, tenants are provided with accomodation, landlords get paid.
HardToLove said:
Its hard but too many people have been taking advantage, you have to blame the stupid Council Housing dept for allowing this to happen in the first place. If they just said we pay XXX amount for a 3 bed & no more it would have stopped there & then!!
You have people renting at fantastic rents from landlords & quite a few who are related to the tenants its rife, some case's where the tenant actually owns the bloody house they are claiming for!
OK if you find yourself out of work & ALREADY live in a expensive area fine, you can receive HB for that area for 1 year then move on.
Sounds tough , I know a few young people that have had to move out of the village where they have lived with their parents & relations as they cannot afford the rent yet no one seems to be shouting about this ??
As far as the Child benefit, I think anyone on 40k or more should not receive it.
The Bishops arguments are that it will harm the children. Ok IMO that people who churn out kid's while having no means to support them are doing more harm to those children than anyone else. Each extra child they have its more of a strain on the family income so the newborn will have less & all the older siblings will also from be having less.
Lets be honest here a lot of these people should not be allowed to have children as they cannot look after them selves let alone allow them to inflict there failing's on a poor innocent born to them .OK tin hat firmly on & yes I do have children & yes its hard but get on with it!
I agree. It has been local authorities entering the private rental market as the highest bidders and with huge additional cash incentives to landlords that has triggered much of this problem. You have people renting at fantastic rents from landlords & quite a few who are related to the tenants its rife, some case's where the tenant actually owns the bloody house they are claiming for!
OK if you find yourself out of work & ALREADY live in a expensive area fine, you can receive HB for that area for 1 year then move on.
Sounds tough , I know a few young people that have had to move out of the village where they have lived with their parents & relations as they cannot afford the rent yet no one seems to be shouting about this ??
As far as the Child benefit, I think anyone on 40k or more should not receive it.
The Bishops arguments are that it will harm the children. Ok IMO that people who churn out kid's while having no means to support them are doing more harm to those children than anyone else. Each extra child they have its more of a strain on the family income so the newborn will have less & all the older siblings will also from be having less.
Lets be honest here a lot of these people should not be allowed to have children as they cannot look after them selves let alone allow them to inflict there failing's on a poor innocent born to them .OK tin hat firmly on & yes I do have children & yes its hard but get on with it!
The simple reality is that they have a huge client base and should be able to heavily discount the market not over bid it.
The simple fact is that most council tennents are just as good a tennent as any private and the landlords know this. They also know that the risk of default on a council tennent is next to zero in contrast to a private rental.
The reality is that landlords desperately need the local authority clients and the local authorities are failing to take advantage.
I'm sure that some don't care about the money because it comes from scum taxpayers, others just don't understand and some will be on the fiddle getting backhanders from landlords.
But the local authorities should set the price and it should be at least 20% below market and the landlords will have no option but to bend to this.
They need to get a little bit Tesco and start f
king the last penny out of their suppliers. crankedup said:
Ozzie Osmond said:
Inflation; government's best friend.
Shrinks the debts. Shrinks the pensions. Shrinks the benefits.
The deficit has/is still growing and is larger now then when the Coalition took office. Shrinks the debts. Shrinks the pensions. Shrinks the benefits.
turbobloke said:
Turning around a juggernaut of unaffordable socialist spending and allied economic incompetence takes time, more so with Libdim lame ducks on your back. Even the BBC managed to point out yesterday that borrowing levels were lower than expected and that the Coalition was on target with its deficit reduction programme, when mentioning the so-called £1tr debt total. Managing to out-bias the BBC takes some effort, well done.
Yes of course, I quite agree it takes time, about another ten years if we are lucky and not getting hit by a depression (very possible IMO). If only Lib-Dems didn't have those Tory ponce's to deal with. They had zero plans for growth when they came into office, big mistake. Even you merry bunch in here kept blathering on about how cuts alone would deal with the financial mess, not quite so loud now I note. Of course you and others would not wish to be reminded of your outbursts when I mentioned GROWTH PLANS back then.crankedup said:
Yes of course, I quite agree it takes time, about another ten years if we are lucky and not getting hit by a depression (very possible IMO). If only Lib-Dems didn't have those Tory ponce's to deal with. They had zero plans for growth when they came into office, big mistake. Even you merry bunch in here kept blathering on about how cuts alone would deal with the financial mess, not quite so loud now I note. Of course you and others would not wish to be reminded of your outbursts when I mentioned GROWTH PLANS back then.
I'm plenty loud about it. Spending hasn't worked, maintaining the status quo of a bloated state hasn't worked. Cut spending, cut regulations and let the economy breathe. AJS- said:
crankedup said:
Yes of course, I quite agree it takes time, about another ten years if we are lucky and not getting hit by a depression (very possible IMO). If only Lib-Dems didn't have those Tory ponce's to deal with. They had zero plans for growth when they came into office, big mistake. Even you merry bunch in here kept blathering on about how cuts alone would deal with the financial mess, not quite so loud now I note. Of course you and others would not wish to be reminded of your outbursts when I mentioned GROWTH PLANS back then.
I'm plenty loud about it. Spending hasn't worked, maintaining the status quo of a bloated state hasn't worked. Cut spending, cut regulations and let the economy breathe. Beyond that I can't remember any 'outbursts', and the merry bunch 'on here' includes crankedup unless an impostor has blagged some log-in details.
Libdems are Labour in a yellow romper suit these days and are part of the problem not the solution. Growth may be helped by not only reviewing and trimming regulations alongside cuts in spending, but by more direct assistance to the private sector.
What sort of direct assistance do you have in mind turbobloke?
I'd rather just have lots of big cuts. Most schemes for government "assistance" seem to end up making things worse.
I can't help thinking it would have been better if Brown and his odd ball cronies had got back in, driven the country into rock bottom and returned a decisive Tory majority next time around. We're already nearly 2 years in and this lot just aren't doing the business.
I'd rather just have lots of big cuts. Most schemes for government "assistance" seem to end up making things worse.
I can't help thinking it would have been better if Brown and his odd ball cronies had got back in, driven the country into rock bottom and returned a decisive Tory majority next time around. We're already nearly 2 years in and this lot just aren't doing the business.
crankedup said:
Yes of course, I quite agree it takes time, about another ten years if we are lucky and not getting hit by a depression (very possible IMO). If only Lib-Dems didn't have those Tory ponce's to deal with. They had zero plans for growth when they came into office, big mistake. Even you merry bunch in here kept blathering on about how cuts alone would deal with the financial mess, not quite so loud now I note. Of course you and others would not wish to be reminded of your outbursts when I mentioned GROWTH PLANS back then.
Do we tolerate homophobic abuse on here? Especially with a misplaced apostrophy.
AJS- said:
What sort of direct assistance do you have in mind turbobloke?
I'd rather just have lots of big cuts. Most schemes for government "assistance" seem to end up making things worse.
Yes cuts in spending, and deregulation particularly for small businesses but more besides.I'd rather just have lots of big cuts. Most schemes for government "assistance" seem to end up making things worse.
The recipe I would like to see includes a limited but welcome cut in corporation tax now, a commitment to reverse the last NI increase asap, and further increases now in the basic and higher tax thresholds to give money to working people instead of banks (directly) as even if people put some of the money in a bank they would be more likely to spend it i.e. wbuy goods and services from businesses if there was more in their pocket to start with. These measures would help now and provide something to look forward to as well, improving sentiment.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff