Latest post of the previous page:
Buck House would make a good set of social housing units - some of those rooms are high enough for two floors of flats.INFORMATION
This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used.
For further information, see our Privacy Policy.
Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.
We are not accepting any new registrations.
This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used.
For further information, see our Privacy Policy.
Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.
We are not accepting any new registrations.
The future of Government (if any)
Re: The future of Government (if any)
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015
Me, 2015
Re: The future of Government (if any)
Hmmm... I'd have thought it was extremely relevant....Alan H wrote:Now, I appreciate that I am unlikely to change your mind, but we are looking at it from different perspectives and through different lenses.
There may well be a problem with iniquity in how HB is calculated and who is entitled to it. I don't know enough about it - I'm one of the fortunate ones who don't need it. Neither do I know very much about how Council Houses were distributed to whom. All that, however, is not really that relevant to these current situation.
At the time, yes. But why should some historical fact be a basis for their benefit claim today? The rules should be to support those who need it, not to lavish money on those who have nice digs by accident. Especially not while others in greater need have no such benefits, nor anywhere near the same protection.The current situation is what it is: we have single people living in one and two bedroom houses and some even in three bedroom houses. Some of these - because their income isn't high enough - are in receipt of HB and it is the HB that enable them to live where they do. Obviously people's circumstances change over time and that includes their income, family situation, health, etc. That's a given. These people are living where they are because, well, that's where they were put or asked to be and all that was entirely according to whatever rules and law governs these things.
At the very extreme, why should Bob Crowe get a subsidy on his home?
Errr... that is precisely what is being proposed....Some of these people may now be earning more or less than when they took over their home and I would assume that HB would take account of such fluctuations so that everyone is, in general, being entirely compliant with the law of the land.
No, not really. There are precious few tricks or loopholes involved, as far as I can see. I doubt anyone has a home provided that is bigger than their entitlement. (Sure, there's some fraud, but not significant; that's not what the change of rules is about.) As for "better areas", we have a rough guide: the cost of rents in that area. And I have no trouble with people complaining if someone on benefits is claiming, say, £50,000 a year in housing benefit. Sure, that was allowed under Labour, but it is an insult to the struggling poor for such largesse to be lavished on a few. Quite rightly, the rules have been changed.Maybe there are a few 'tricks' and 'loopholes' that can be exploited by those in the know and maybe some even got a slightly bigger house than they might otherwise have been entitled to or perhaps even one in a better area (whatever that means).
Irrelevant to the discussion of what housing benefit should be.These loopholes might even be considered a parallel with tax avoidance loopholes. But it's not. The scale and ability to exploit them are likely to be different; very different.
Fraud is fraud, but that is not the reason for the changes.However, I assume that those monitoring HB and Council House allocation are wise to many of the tricks that people get up to and, if the numbers I posted previously are anywhere near correct, benefit fraud in total is 'only' £1.2billion and less than one tenth of the unclaimed benefits. It is even less than the DWP's overpayments due to errors. It is dwarfed by tax avoidance and evasion, of course. I suppose a Council House tenant could attempt to evade paying rent, but I doubt that would continue for very long...
That's not to say that fraud should not be stamped out, but it's worth putting into perspective.
Indeed.However, that's really not the issue here either - the vast majority will be paying exactly what they owe and will be receiving exactly the amount the law allows, with a whole army of civil servants employed to make sure that's exactly what they do.
It is also about equity. Why should one person have tens of thousands lavished on them by the taxes of the poor? It is also about ensuring a more efficient and equitable distribution of a very scare resource; housing.So what is the Bedroom Tax all about? This isn't an exercise in reducing fraud, but in reducing the overall bill.
Housing is clearly not sorted in this country. But to defend those who have extra bedrooms against those who have none is baffling. Much better that more prople are properly housed, than that the lucky few can have freebies.We are told the HB bill is too large. It may well be; but saying something is too big, doesn't make it so and doesn't mean that it isn't a benefit to society to keep it at that level.
They have no choice. None. Take a look at France. Nice socialist government, and it is going down thae pan. Thousands are leaving. Investment, and employment are falling. they already have unemployment abou 50% higher than ours. It's not going to be pretty.However, this Government are hell bent on reducing public expenditure wherever they can.
But as things stand, HB recipients are treated in a random fashion. In a time of crisis, the money should be spent on those in need, not on spare bedrooms.Aye, there's the rub. Wherever they can.
Should the HB bill be reduced? I don't know. What I do see are the implications and the effects of targeting HB recipients.
Agreed, but the rules have changed. They are not being charged retrospectively, are they?As I said earlier, the people who fall foul of the Bedroom Tax (or the Under Occupancy Penalty if you prefer - the difference is purely a semantic, technical one and irrelevant to HB recipients), are living where they are perfectly legitimately and legally and within the rules of the current system. They have done no wrong.
Yes, there have been concessions, and there are justifiable cases, for sure. And are those the same tightly closed cold dead fists which denied HB to a whole variety of poeple throughout the last government? That's just an ad hominem.That's all they will pay for with HB. The Government have been forced to make some concessions for a few groups of people, but those concessions weren't built into the original regulations and had to be gouged out of their tightly closed cold dead fists.
If ther are 660,000 HB claimants affected, that shows the size of the mis-distribution of HB, doesn't it? And the apparent small size of the savings reflects that fact that the loss of benefit doesn't reflect the market value of the extra bedrooms. Nothing like. Maye about a quarter of it.The Government estimates that the Bedroom Tax will affect 660,000 HB claimants and will save an estimated £505 million this coming year. Goodness. That's even nearly as much as the £670 million RBS set aside for bonuses last year.
And if you want to deny the Exchequer the billions paid by the highest earners, then you have to explain the alternative source of revenue.
No they won't. HB claims have to be administered anyway.Oh. That doesn't include the additional costs that Councils will have to receive from the DWP to administer the cuts.
The tenants of private landlords have never had the privilege of receiving extra benefits to rent empty rooms. But they still pay taxes to pay for those who do.If their landlord (Council or otherwise) deems a property to have two bedrooms (regardless of whether they are double, single or a boxroom) and there is just one person living there, they are found guilty of being in receipt of too much HB.
...which is nothing like the market value of the extra room, is it?Just in case anyone isn't aware, HB will be cut by 14% for one extra bedroom/boxroom and by 25% for two or more extra bedrooms/boxrooms. There are different HB rates, but for most people, this will result in a cut of £11.54 a week and £21.66 a week respectively. Maybe for some of us here that's not much more than two pints of a good ale a week. But this adds to £600 per year and £1,126 per year respectively.
Or take action to address their circumstances. Just like millions of other poor people have to do.If they want to remain in their home, they will have to find that additional money. For someone on minimum wage (even if they also get other benefits), £600 or £1,126 is not a trivial amount of money and many will really struggle to find this extra. The enormity of having - in the short term at least - to find this additional money should not be underestimated. Maybe they can sell their 60 inch flat screen TV that they bought in better times - that might give them a few month's worth extra. Maybe they can cut back on the fags a bit. Possibly. But maybe some will have to cut back on other non-essential things such as a new pair of shoes for their youngest. Or food.
Really the subject of a diseparate thread, but I suggest to you that for the majority, it is the poor health which is causing the poverty, and for a significant proportion, it is the inadequacy of the person (not necessarily thier fault, of course) which is causing both.It should also be remembered that the poorest already have the the worst health prospects as well.
If the government had not decided to pay the tenants instead of the landlords, then that would have been more likely. IMO, landlords should be entitled to keep any rents paid by the DSS, rather than risk a re-claim if fraud has been committed. Thjis is not to defend landlords revenues, but to increase the supply of properties available to rent to HB recipients.Some will not be able to pay and will fall into arrears and risk being thrown on the streets. Now, I would like to think that there are mechanisms in place to ensure not even a single person is left homeless, never mind a family, but, even though it's not something I know much about, I really doubt there are anywhere near sufficient safety nets (Government or charity) in place to stop this happening. No doubt charities (many religious, of course) will step in, but I think it's inevitable that many will end up destitute because they can't afford this extra. It is, of course, entirely open to landlords to reduce rents accordingly, but I somehow doubt...
You'll never agree, so I won't bother trying...But of course, the Government sometimes says, the whole point of the Bedroom Tax is to redress the inequality in the provision of social housing and make sure that larger houses go to larger families. Possibly, but I don't think I'm the slightest bit convinced that this Government is that interested in ensuring correct matching of family size to property size. To me, that seems like a convenient excuse they dreamed up to justify the cuts to its supporters - demonstrate that there is extreme inequality and provide an 'equitable' way of redressing that balance so that everyone is equally worse better off.
Agreed. And I think the government could do more, without compromising their budgetary objectives. I'll address that separately.But of course, the Government sometimes says, people should be finding more suitably sized homes: if they can't afford to live where they are, they need to move to smaller properties. There are many issues with this, not least that there seems to be a dearth of one-bedroomed properties up and down the country.
.... and the thousands knocked down by Labour.....Councils certainly don't seem to have many spare properties of any size (due in part at least to the sell off started by Thatcher).
Certainly.There may even be some families living in properties that are way too small for them and who really need a larger house for a growing family. Quite possibly.
The availability of suitable housing is a major concern, but the past Labour government did bugger all about it, even when they had money to burn. And made the problem worse by allowing an increase of over 4 million in the population during their term in office.But do we know there are sufficient properties available and that all we need to do is shift tenants around? No, I don't think we do. I have certainly seen no evidence from the Government (there is a pattern here) that all we need to do is get Pickfords working a couple of extra shifts and all will be sorted. People will suddenly all be in the 'right' property to match what they can afford. All will be well with the world. But of course, that raises yet more financial problems for those who have to move: the cost of moving.
That is precisely the problem which affects millions of people who are not in council proerties.Then there's the other costs of moving: moving from family and friends, school and neighbourhood. Even if there are smaller properties available round the corner, that could still be in another school catchment area. And maybe a good bit of the 'savings' made by being re-housed in the 'right' size of property will end up being spent on additional travel to work. Of course, some will have to move a long way away and might have to find another job - it's OK, there are plenty of jobs, aren't they?
No, it's been much longer than that, but it doesn't alter the considerable angst it inevitably involves.And don't lose sight that they have only been given a couple of months to find a new home and move or face the increased bills. I bet, however, that the full horror of it has still to hit some tenants.
I think it could have been better handled, but the trend is inevitable.Will all families survive this upheaval? Some may do; some may not. But, remember, they have done nothing wrong: they were legitimately and correctly housed until the Government decided to change the rules and they could no longer afford that extra room. Unfortunate, isn't it? A mere side-effect of the present financial crisis (that they didn't cause). A minor disruption to the rental housing market that is really for everyone's good in the long run.
Tell that to those whose lives are about to be affected by this.
But what should have been done? Is there a better way of handling this? Even if you accept that the social housing crisis is so severe, the distribution of rental housing in such dire need of reform or 'adjustment' that something had to be done urgently, how should it have been handled?
I'm not sure timing is a good argument, but availability of suitable alternatives is.Well, how about - instead of forcing many people to scrape together the additional rent they now have to pay - how about ensuring that the right properties were available first; make sure people had a real and legitimate opportunity to 'downsize'? How about giving people some time to find that smaller property first, before cutting their benefit? People are being punished before they have time to resolve the problem of someone else's making.
This is an indication of a further huge hidden subsidy to those lucky enough to receive it. Much better to charge the full market rent and increase HB to cover it. Perhaps then the likes of Bob Crowe wouldn't be quite so keen to sponge of their poor neighbours.Wouldn't that have been the humane things to do? What a civilised society - one that cared about all its members, especially those less able to defend themselves and to fend for themselves - would have done? Ensure the 'problem' is capable of being solved first before penalising people whose only 'crime' is to be in social housing and dependent on HB?
But of course, the provision of social housing is the responsibility of the Local Council or housing associations, isn't it? (Private landlords do come into this to a small extent, but their rents tend to be much higher anyway and are therefore not an option for anyone already struggling to pay the additional rent.)
Planning has a huge role to play here. Again, I may refer to this elsewhere.The Government didn't create this mess where too many bigger houses were built, did they? Well, maybe they had a hand in it or maybe they aren't responsible. But neither are the tenants. They didn't decide to build more two, three and four bedroomed houses did they, yet they are the ones now being punished.
Maybe more later, but that's all I have time for, for now.
Re: The future of Government (if any)
Thanks for helping me make many of my points.
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
Re: The future of Government (if any)
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
Re: The future of Government (if any)
The man is vile, but the DM have surpassed themselves:
And so the monstering continues - this one really is a monster, but it attacks all the good people on welfare who are not.
If only this man hadn't been given benefits...or he'd had a job, he'd never have been a murderer.And so the monstering continues - this one really is a monster, but it attacks all the good people on welfare who are not.
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
Re: The future of Government (if any)
10 lies we're told about welfare
Has someone made Jim Royle a policy adviser? Millions are being made poorer while we're fobbed off with porkies
Ricky Tomlinson
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 2 April 2013 14.47 BST
Protesters against the proposed 'bedroom tax' gather outside Downing Street in London. Photograph: Matthew Lloyd/Getty Images
Welfare reform, my arse. Has Jim Royle parked his chair, feet up, telly on, in the corridors between the Treasury and the Department for Work and Pensions? Employing him as adviser can be the only explanation for the utter rubbish that boils forth from this government on welfare.
Who else could have dreamed up the bedroom tax, a policy so stupid it forces people to leave their homes and drag themselves around the country in search of nonexistent one-bedroom flats?
That one has to be the result of too many hours in front of Jeremy Kyle (no offence) with the heating on full and a can of super-strength lager. It seems as if that is how this government views ordinary people: feckless and useless – poor, because they brought it on themselves, deliberately.
Maybe the cabinet is confused. Twenty-three millionaires in the one room can get like that. But do you know what, enough. Let's call this government's welfare policy what it is – wrong, nasty and dishonest.
Off the top of my head, I can list 10 porkies they are spinning to justify the latest stage of their attack on our 70-year-old welfare state.
1. Benefits are too generous
Really? Could you live on £53 a week as Iain Duncan Smith is claiming he could if he had to? Then imagine handing back 14% of this because the government deems you have a "spare room". Could you find the money to pay towards council tax and still afford to eat at the end of the week?
2. Benefits are going up
They're not. A 1% "uprating" cap is really a cut. Inflation is at least 2.7% . Essentials like food, fuel and transport are all up by at least that, in many cases far more. Benefits are quickly falling behind the cost of living.
3. Jobs are out there, if people look
Where? Unemployment rose last month and is at 2.5 million, with one million youngsters out of work. When Costa Coffee advertised eight jobs, 1,701 applied.
4. The bedroom tax won't hit army families or foster carers
Yes it will. Perhaps most cruel of all, the tax will not apply to foster families who look after one kid. If you foster siblings, then tough. But these kids are often the hardest to place. Thanks to George Osborne and IDS, their chances just got worse. And even if your son or daughter is in barracks in Afghanistan, then don't expect peace of mind as the government still has to come clean on plans for their bedroom.
5. Social tenants can downsize
Really, where? Councils sold their properties – and Osborne wants them to sell what's left. Housing associations built for families. In Hull, there are 5,500 people told to chase 70 one-bedroom properties.
6. Housing benefit is the problem
In fact it's rental costs. Private rents shot up by an average of £300 last year. No wonder 5 million people need housing benefits, but they don't keep a penny. It all goes to landlords.
7. Claimants are pulling a fast one
No. Less than 1% of the welfare budget is lost to fraud. But tax avoidance and evasion is estimated to run to £120bn.
8. It's those teenage single mums
An easy target. Yet only 2% of single mums are teenagers. And most single mums, at least 59%, work.
9. We're doing this for the next generation
No you're not. The government's admitted at least 200,000 more children will be pushed deeper into poverty because of the welfare changes.
10. Welfare reforms are just about benefit cuts
Wrong. The attack on our welfare state is hitting a whole range of services – privatising the NHS, winding up legal aid for people in debt and closing SureStart centres and libraries. All this will make life poorer for every community.
Some call these myths. I call them lies. We are being told lies about who caused this crisis and lied to about the best way out of it. But I know one thing to be true: this government's polices will make millions of people poorer and more afraid. To do that when you do not have to, when there are other options, is obscene. That's why I'm backing union Unite's OurWelfareWorks campaign in its efforts to help highlight the truth about our welfare state.
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
Re: The future of Government (if any)
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
-
- Posts: 694
- Joined: July 16th, 2010, 12:48 pm
Re: The future of Government (if any)
Oh dear. I see your incessant socialism hasn't disappeared while I've been away. Your stance seems to be very partisan. Whilst I like to try and recognise good policy and bad policy in both Tory and Labour governments over the last 30 years ( I always agreed with Gordon Brown's decision to take the setting of interest rates away from government and give it to the Bank of England) you seem to lack that ability. Is there any Tory policy issued in the last three years that you regard as positive?
"There are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are no old, bold pilots." - From the film "Top Gun"
Re: The future of Government (if any)
There may well be good Tory policies (although I don't think anyone has pointed any out here), but they don't ameliorate the policies that have harmed and continue to harm those at the bottom end of society.stevenw888 wrote:Oh dear. I see your incessant socialism hasn't disappeared while I've been away. Your stance seems to be very partisan. Whilst I like to try and recognise good policy and bad policy in both Tory and Labour governments over the last 30 years ( I always agreed with Gordon Brown's decision to take the setting of interest rates away from government and give it to the Bank of England) you seem to lack that ability. Is there any Tory policy issued in the last three years that you regard as positive?
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
-
- Posts: 694
- Joined: July 16th, 2010, 12:48 pm
Re: The future of Government (if any)
What about the overhaul of the CSA? I see that as good policy. The old CSA was toothless and unable to satisfactorily extract money from absent fathers, meaning that men could literally have their cake and eat it, disappearing just when the child needed some form of income to support it. This left the burden for supporting many children to the taxpayer, instead of the mother and father. The Tories plans to reform the CSA and make it an effective form of "father-catching" would seem to me to be morally right and tackling a terrible wrong in our society.
"There are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are no old, bold pilots." - From the film "Top Gun"
Re: The future of Government (if any)
The CSA certainly was a useless organisation to some extent. The breakup of my first marriage was just before it came into being, but I certainly paid a good bit more in maintenance for my kids than the CSA would have calculated - and I was more than happy to. I also have experience of arguing against the CSA on behalf of my partner at the time against the father of her kids and was able to run rings around their lawyers in an appeal before a QC and, because of what I did, the CSA changed some of the letters to mothers to remove unnecessary and confusing jargon.
But I've not had to deal with the CSA for a decade or so, so I don't know much about them now, what recent changes there have been and whether they have been positive. Certainly, any moves that can get absent fathers (or mothers) to pay what they should is welcome.
This is an interesting topic and it might be good to discuss the changes in more detail (although anything in this area is inherently complex and difficult to discuss in detail unless you are intimately involved), along with the evidence for them and what the stated aims are.
However, does that in any way compensate for the increased payments those in our society, who already have so little, now have to make?
But I've not had to deal with the CSA for a decade or so, so I don't know much about them now, what recent changes there have been and whether they have been positive. Certainly, any moves that can get absent fathers (or mothers) to pay what they should is welcome.
This is an interesting topic and it might be good to discuss the changes in more detail (although anything in this area is inherently complex and difficult to discuss in detail unless you are intimately involved), along with the evidence for them and what the stated aims are.
However, does that in any way compensate for the increased payments those in our society, who already have so little, now have to make?
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
Re: The future of Government (if any)
Not sure if this has come up elsewhere - a petition to get IDS to live on £53/week for a year.
440+ksigs so far, 570+ksigs needed.
440+ksigs so far, 570+ksigs needed.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015
Me, 2015
Re: The future of Government (if any)
Would all you wealthy pensioners please hand some money back to the Government. You don't need your free TV licences, free bus pass and winter fuel allowance. Their need is greater than yours, apparently: Iain Duncan Smith calls for wealthy pensioners to hand back benefits
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
Re: The future of Government (if any)
And all you scrounging good-for-nothing layabouts and disabled people on benefits...your need to make another notch in your belts: Cabinet tensions surface as chancellor plans tighter squeeze on welfare
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
Re: The future of Government (if any)
That'll be bl**dy right. These minor benefits are part of what I have been paying for in NI ever since I started to work. I use my entitlement card to get the bus; I spend the winter fuel allowance on oil, the price of which is a scandal. When I see people like the vile IDS doing this sort of thing, I might think about it, but that'll not be happening. He could start with the £53 challenge.Alan H wrote:Would all you wealthy pensioners please hand some money back to the Government. You don't need your free TV licences, free bus pass and winter fuel allowance. Their need is greater than yours, apparently: Iain Duncan Smith calls for wealthy pensioners to hand back benefits
Carpe diem. Savour every moment.
Re: The future of Government (if any)
I have been considering giving my fuel allowance to charity - probably one that is helping those less "well off" than I but, so far, am not sure which one will not simply hoover it up in their admin system!
I am not "well off" in terms of the average salary, my income is less than the way below average I earned 17 years ago when I was made redundant but more than enough for my needs now. The almost £3 return bus fair to town is a bummer though, I would not be going into town as much if I had to pay that. I would also be using my car even more to go to the supermarket and also to the hospital - rather spend the car-parking fee there than pay the total of £5+ the buses would cost if I had to pay something at all. At the moment I do my best not to use the car.
I am not "well off" in terms of the average salary, my income is less than the way below average I earned 17 years ago when I was made redundant but more than enough for my needs now. The almost £3 return bus fair to town is a bummer though, I would not be going into town as much if I had to pay that. I would also be using my car even more to go to the supermarket and also to the hospital - rather spend the car-parking fee there than pay the total of £5+ the buses would cost if I had to pay something at all. At the moment I do my best not to use the car.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015
Me, 2015
Re: The future of Government (if any)
The problem is, Lewis, that NI is just another tax, and bears no relationship to anything on the expenditure side. And be careful about claiming entitlement just because you have paid for it. Is that justification for bankers to complain about benefits going to the poor who have paid so little? Furthermore, if you lay claim to being eligible by virtue of having paid the taxes, are you not also responsible for the deficit which was caused in part by overspending? Even in the good years, Gordon Brown was blowing around £50 billion a year.lewist wrote:That'll be bl**dy right. These minor benefits are part of what I have been paying for in NI ever since I started to work. I use my entitlement card to get the bus; I spend the winter fuel allowance on oil, the price of which is a scandal. When I see people like the vile IDS doing this sort of thing, I might think about it, but that'll not be happening. He could start with the £53 challenge.Alan H wrote:Would all you wealthy pensioners please hand some money back to the Government. You don't need your free TV licences, free bus pass and winter fuel allowance. Their need is greater than yours, apparently: Iain Duncan Smith calls for wealthy pensioners to hand back benefits
Re: The future of Government (if any)
A suggestion:
Bus passes should be available to those entitled to a State Old Age Pension. Why should a working 60 year-old be entitled? They are very likely to be much wealthier than many a younger person. However, I rgard bus-passes for the elderly as more important than just a financial benefit: IMO, it is important for their health and general wellbeing that they are encouraged to get out and about.
The winter fuel allowance, as a separate allowance, is just a political gimmick, and should be merged into the Old Age Pension and treated as taxable income, but enhanced to that non-taxpayers receive a small increase, standard taxpayers are cash neutral and higher rate taxpayers suffer the equivalent of net tax of 20% (ie they pay tax at 40 or 45% on the enhanced amount).
I'd leave free TV licences for over 75's alone, though I'd seek to find alternative funding sources for the BBC to lower TV licence costs across the board.
Bus passes should be available to those entitled to a State Old Age Pension. Why should a working 60 year-old be entitled? They are very likely to be much wealthier than many a younger person. However, I rgard bus-passes for the elderly as more important than just a financial benefit: IMO, it is important for their health and general wellbeing that they are encouraged to get out and about.
The winter fuel allowance, as a separate allowance, is just a political gimmick, and should be merged into the Old Age Pension and treated as taxable income, but enhanced to that non-taxpayers receive a small increase, standard taxpayers are cash neutral and higher rate taxpayers suffer the equivalent of net tax of 20% (ie they pay tax at 40 or 45% on the enhanced amount).
I'd leave free TV licences for over 75's alone, though I'd seek to find alternative funding sources for the BBC to lower TV licence costs across the board.
Re: The future of Government (if any)
OK, free bus passes to get the oldies out and about but free TV licences so those to old to go out and about can have their brain addled even more have entertainment as they sit in their chairs?
There are several member of the local u£a who says that they would not come so often if they had to pay the fairs. Also Oxfam gained from it as well. They pay the bus fairs (and a lunch allowance) of their volunteers and a fair proportion of those are over 60 - so they saved many thousands in expenses. I did the reconciliation for the shop I worked in so I know how much was saved just in that one, over £100 a week (we had more staff than usual because we had the regional book sorting/storage facility.)
There are several member of the local u£a who says that they would not come so often if they had to pay the fairs. Also Oxfam gained from it as well. They pay the bus fairs (and a lunch allowance) of their volunteers and a fair proportion of those are over 60 - so they saved many thousands in expenses. I did the reconciliation for the shop I worked in so I know how much was saved just in that one, over £100 a week (we had more staff than usual because we had the regional book sorting/storage facility.)
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015
Me, 2015
Re: The future of Government (if any)
Bedroom Tax Challenge at the High Court
The High Court will consider claims being brought against the Government’s ‘Bedroom Tax’ that came into force on 1st April this year
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
Re: The future of Government (if any)
And, I would guess, those are only two of many hundreds, if not thousands, of similar stories.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015
Me, 2015