|
|
Post by Pacifico on Feb 7, 2024 22:52:26 GMT
I'm not sure about workhouses but at some point the very generous welfare levels will have to be looked at - it's simply not possible to continue supporting people who have no interest in working and can survive quite happily on handouts. I note that your good self - notorious around these parts for your constant whinges about how hard done by the super rich are - seem to imagine that welfare is generous, lol. For a single person it amounts to about £326 per calendar month, plus rent. The lion's share of welfare does not actually go to the claimant at all but to his landlord who will often get two or three times as much as the claimant does. If I proposed that you spend your dotage living on £326 a month on the grounds that this is generous, you'd soon be moaning about it. Get with the program. A family living on benefits in London can be financially better off than a household earning £70k a year. CSJ analysis assuming two parents aged 30, both unemployed for at least two years and with three children under 16, renting a two-bed council property on the World’s End Estate, in an SW10 postcode. The family would be eligible for £2,191 each month in Universal Credit, Council Tax Support and Child Benefit. If they were paying £898 a month in social housing rent, rather than up to £3,000 if they were renting on the open market, the combined value of the discounted rent and cash benefits would be worth around £51,500 a year. To get £51k after tax you have to earn £70k. Now I know in London £70k is not unusual but it is far more than even the average wage in London. We are currently on our highest level of taxation and public spending since WW2 - much of which has been driven by the massive expansion in welfare handouts. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2024 22:54:42 GMT
I note that your good self - notorious around these parts for your constant whinges about how hard done by the super rich are - seem to imagine that welfare is generous, lol. For a single person it amounts to about £326 per calendar month, plus rent. The lion's share of welfare does not actually go to the claimant at all but to his landlord who will often get two or three times as much as the claimant does. If I proposed that you spend your dotage living on £326 a month on the grounds that this is generous, you'd soon be moaning about it. Get with the program. A family living on benefits in London can be financially better off than a household earning £70k a year. CSJ analysis assuming two parents aged 30, both unemployed for at least two years and with three children under 16, renting a two-bed council property on the World’s End Estate, in an SW10 postcode. The family would be eligible for £2,191 each month in Universal Credit, Council Tax Support and Child Benefit. If they were paying £898 a month in social housing rent, rather than up to £3,000 if they were renting on the open market, the combined value of the discounted rent and cash benefits would be worth around £51,500 a year. To get £51k after tax you have to earn £70k. Now I know in London £70k is not unusual but it is far more than even the average wage in London. We are currently on our highest level of taxation and public spending since WW2 - much of which has been driven by the massive expansion in welfare handouts. |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Feb 7, 2024 23:12:00 GMT
According to the ONS there are 7 million people that are not in work or looking for work Well if they are not looking for work they are not getting means tested out of work benefits are they. Those able to exist without working are welcome to do so, provided they claim no public funds for which entitlement requires you take work offered…. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2024 23:15:54 GMT
I note that your good self - notorious around these parts for your constant whinges about how hard done by the super rich are - seem to imagine that welfare is generous, lol. For a single person it amounts to about £326 per calendar month, plus rent. The lion's share of welfare does not actually go to the claimant at all but to his landlord who will often get two or three times as much as the claimant does. If I proposed that you spend your dotage living on £326 a month on the grounds that this is generous, you'd soon be moaning about it. Get with the program. A family living on benefits in London can be financially better off than a household earning £70k a year. CSJ analysis assuming two parents aged 30, both unemployed for at least two years and with three children under 16, renting a two-bed council property on the World’s End Estate, in an SW10 postcode. The family would be eligible for £2,191 each month in Universal Credit, Council Tax Support and Child Benefit. If they were paying £898 a month in social housing rent, rather than up to £3,000 if they were renting on the open market, the combined value of the discounted rent and cash benefits would be worth around £51,500 a year. To get £51k after tax you have to earn £70k. Now I know in London £70k is not unusual but it is far more than even the average wage in London. We are currently on our highest level of taxation and public spending since WW2 - much of which has been driven by the massive expansion in welfare handouts. Blatant false accounting. Because you are saying that their social rent of nearly £900 a month costs the taxpayer an additional £2100 a month because that is the assumed cost of a private rent. But the fact that their rent is £2100 lower than a private rent is actually a saving to taxpayers, not an expense. The £3000 a month rent would only contribute to your mythical 51k a year if the taxpayer was actually paying it. In which case 36 k of the 51k would be going to the pigging landlord, leaving 15k for a family of 5 to live on. Thank god for social housing which is clearly saving the taxpayer a fortune, because what that family of five would actually be getting with their actual rent IS a figure much closer to 30k...with close to 12k of that in rent. Are you trying to take us for total idiots? A rent that is 2.1k cheaper than private rents is not costing the taxpayer that extra 2.1k but saving the taxpayer that sum. Have you ever been a dodgy accountant in your working life? lol. I mean dishonestly including in your imaginary costs a rent which somebody is not actually paying is really stupid, and if it haves any validity at all it is as a demonstration of how excessive private rent levels are. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Feb 7, 2024 23:22:17 GMT
Get with the program. A family living on benefits in London can be financially better off than a household earning £70k a year. CSJ analysis assuming two parents aged 30, both unemployed for at least two years and with three children under 16, renting a two-bed council property on the World’s End Estate, in an SW10 postcode. The family would be eligible for £2,191 each month in Universal Credit, Council Tax Support and Child Benefit. If they were paying £898 a month in social housing rent, rather than up to £3,000 if they were renting on the open market, the combined value of the discounted rent and cash benefits would be worth around £51,500 a year. To get £51k after tax you have to earn £70k. Now I know in London £70k is not unusual but it is far more than even the average wage in London. We are currently on our highest level of taxation and public spending since WW2 - much of which has been driven by the massive expansion in welfare handouts. Blatant false accounting. Because you are saying that their social rent of nearly £900 a month costs the taxpayer an additional £2100 a month because that is the assumed cost of a private rent. But the fact that their rent is £2100 lower than a private rent is actually a saving to taxpayers, not an expense. The £3000 a month rent would only contribute to your mythical 51k a year if the taxpayer was actually paying it. In which case 36 k of the 51k would be going to the pigging landlord, leaving 15k for a family of 5 to live on. Thank god for social housing which is clearly saving the taxpayer a fortune, because what that family of five would actually be getting with their actual rent IS a figure much closer to 30k...with close to 12k of that in rent. Are you trying to take us for total idiots? A rent that is 2.1k cheaper than private rents is not costing the taxpayer that extra 2.1k but saving the taxpayer that sum. Have you ever been a dodgy accountant in your working life? lol. I mean dishonestly including in your imaginary costs a rent which somebody is not actually paying is really stupid, and if it haves any validity at all it is as a demonstration of how excessive private rent levels are. No - you have totally missed the point. Getting a social rent of £898 is a benefit - if they were in a job paying £70k they would not be eligible for social housing so would have no choice but to pay the market rate of £3000. Of course we could all agree that welfare handouts are lower than they are if we ignored the value of them.. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2024 23:35:01 GMT
Blatant false accounting. Because you are saying that their social rent of nearly £900 a month costs the taxpayer an additional £2100 a month because that is the assumed cost of a private rent. But the fact that their rent is £2100 lower than a private rent is actually a saving to taxpayers, not an expense. The £3000 a month rent would only contribute to your mythical 51k a year if the taxpayer was actually paying it. In which case 36 k of the 51k would be going to the pigging landlord, leaving 15k for a family of 5 to live on. Thank god for social housing which is clearly saving the taxpayer a fortune, because what that family of five would actually be getting with their actual rent IS a figure much closer to 30k...with close to 12k of that in rent. Are you trying to take us for total idiots? A rent that is 2.1k cheaper than private rents is not costing the taxpayer that extra 2.1k but saving the taxpayer that sum. Have you ever been a dodgy accountant in your working life? lol. I mean dishonestly including in your imaginary costs a rent which somebody is not actually paying is really stupid, and if it haves any validity at all it is as a demonstration of how excessive private rent levels are. No - you have totally missed the point. Getting a social rent of £898 is a benefit - if they were in a job paying £70k they would not be eligible for social housing so would have no choice but to pay the market rate of £3000. Of course we could all agree that welfare handouts are lower than they are if we ignored the value of them.. A social rent is not a benefit, it is simply a lower rent, predicated on the notion of being affordable rather than as much as some landlord can get away with. This therefore costs the taxpayer much less. And it is right that lower earners or poorer families be prioritised for lower cost housing, otherwise it will cost the taxpayer a whole lot more. And if someone is struggling on 70k to pay their private rent, the problem is not their income, it is the cost of their rent. But a lower rent is not a benefit other than in your twisted logic. It is actually a lower outgoing cost necessitating lower welfare bills than the ones you are trying to concoct. The elephant in the room here, the real problem you are utterly failing to face up to is excessive private rents. At one time private rents were capped at about 150 percent of social rents. That would be less than 15k, not the 36k your figures cite. That is clearly the problem. Excessive levels of rent. |
|
|
|
Post by Dogburger on Feb 8, 2024 5:57:26 GMT
Seeing the long term lazy workshy pulling Brussels in December on the frozen wastelands of Lincolnshire would be a fun watch .I would place a large bet that there wouldn't be 1.36 million unemployed or a million job vacancies if they were forced to do it . I bet we'd soon see migrants being bought in to take over if you and others like you were forced to do it. I did do it when I was out of work in 1990 and was grateful for it I was living by the Wash at the time and a neighbour offered the job It's why working the fields came to mind . Most people don't need to be forced to work though I would say the guys that do it are really skilled and rapid and earn a decent living from it .My contribution not so much but it was better than nothing |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Feb 8, 2024 7:07:29 GMT
According to the ONS there are 7 million people that are not in work or looking for work Well if they are not looking for work they are not getting means tested out of work benefits are they. Those able to exist without working are welcome to do so, provided they claim no public funds for which entitlement requires you take work offered…. I agree as long as they are not in receipt of Benefits , I did not even suggest it I simply posted the figures from the ONS, some may well have retired early or private means |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Feb 8, 2024 7:49:06 GMT
No - you have totally missed the point. Getting a social rent of £898 is a benefit - if they were in a job paying £70k they would not be eligible for social housing so would have no choice but to pay the market rate of £3000. Of course we could all agree that welfare handouts are lower than they are if we ignored the value of them.. A social rent is not a benefit, it is simply a lower rent, predicated on the notion of being affordable rather than as much as some landlord can get away with. This therefore costs the taxpayer much less. And it is right that lower earners or poorer families be prioritised for lower cost housing, otherwise it will cost the taxpayer a whole lot more. And if someone is struggling on 70k to pay their private rent, the problem is not their income, it is the cost of their rent. But a lower rent is not a benefit other than in your twisted logic. It is actually a lower outgoing cost necessitating lower welfare bills than the ones you are trying to concoct. The elephant in the room here, the real problem you are utterly failing to face up to is excessive private rents. At one time private rents were capped at about 150 percent of social rents. That would be less than 15k, not the 36k your figures cite. That is clearly the problem. Excessive levels of rent. Rents are what the market will bear - you can either have high levels of migration or affordable housing you cannot have both. So given that we have the levels of housing costs that we currently do, then when its possible to live a £70k lifestyle on welfare handouts its not surprising that many dont wish to go to work.. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2024 10:33:17 GMT
I bet we'd soon see migrants being bought in to take over if you and others like you were forced to do it. I did do it when I was out of work in 1990 and was grateful for it I was living by the Wash at the time and a neighbour offered the job It's why working the fields came to mind . Most people don't need to be forced to work though I would say the guys that do it are really skilled and rapid and earn a decent living from it .My contribution not so much but it was better than nothing I too worked in fields potato picking for a time in my younger days. If you worked hard at it you could make quite good money. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2024 10:38:31 GMT
A social rent is not a benefit, it is simply a lower rent, predicated on the notion of being affordable rather than as much as some landlord can get away with. This therefore costs the taxpayer much less. And it is right that lower earners or poorer families be prioritised for lower cost housing, otherwise it will cost the taxpayer a whole lot more. And if someone is struggling on 70k to pay their private rent, the problem is not their income, it is the cost of their rent. But a lower rent is not a benefit other than in your twisted logic. It is actually a lower outgoing cost necessitating lower welfare bills than the ones you are trying to concoct. The elephant in the room here, the real problem you are utterly failing to face up to is excessive private rents. At one time private rents were capped at about 150 percent of social rents. That would be less than 15k, not the 36k your figures cite. That is clearly the problem. Excessive levels of rent. Rents are what the market will bear - you can either have high levels of migration or affordable housing you cannot have both. So given that we have the levels of housing costs that we currently do, then when its possible to live a £70k lifestyle on welfare handouts its not surprising that many dont wish to go to work.. A situation - insofar as it is actually real - which clearly signposts housing costs as the big problem, especially since your own figures suggest an average rent alone which is higher than the average salary. Making poor people poorer is not going to do anything to solve that problem. And "what the market will bear" is code for what landlords can get away with charging. Yes housing shortages are going to be difficult to solve with so many people coming in, but in the end some form of rent capping is probably going to be necessary. |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Feb 8, 2024 10:59:02 GMT
A social rent is not a benefit, it is simply a lower rent, predicated on the notion of being affordable rather than as much as some landlord can get away with. This therefore costs the taxpayer much less. And it is right that lower earners or poorer families be prioritised for lower cost housing, otherwise it will cost the taxpayer a whole lot more. And if someone is struggling on 70k to pay their private rent, the problem is not their income, it is the cost of their rent. But a lower rent is not a benefit other than in your twisted logic. It is actually a lower outgoing cost necessitating lower welfare bills than the ones you are trying to concoct. The elephant in the room here, the real problem you are utterly failing to face up to is excessive private rents. At one time private rents were capped at about 150 percent of social rents. That would be less than 15k, not the 36k your figures cite. That is clearly the problem. Excessive levels of rent. Rents are what the market will bear - you can either have high levels of migration or affordable housing you cannot have both. So given that we have the levels of housing costs that we currently do, then when its possible to live a £70k lifestyle on welfare handouts its not surprising that many dont wish to go to work.. Exactly you cannot have both. the cost of buying a house or renting in the private sector are very high due to lack of housing available supply and demand too many people chasing to little accommodation. |
|
|
|
Post by Totheleft on Feb 8, 2024 11:07:03 GMT
I note that your good self - notorious around these parts for your constant whinges about how hard done by the super rich are - seem to imagine that welfare is generous, lol. For a single person it amounts to about £326 per calendar month, plus rent. The lion's share of welfare does not actually go to the claimant at all but to his landlord who will often get two or three times as much as the claimant does. If I proposed that you spend your dotage living on £326 a month on the grounds that this is generous, you'd soon be moaning about it. Get with the program. A family living on benefits in London can be financially better off than a household earning £70k a year. CSJ analysis assuming two parents aged 30, both unemployed for at least two years and with three children under 16, renting a two-bed council property on the World’s End Estate, in an SW10 postcode. The family would be eligible for £2,191 each month in Universal Credit, Council Tax Support and Child Benefit. If they were paying £898 a month in social housing rent, rather than up to £3,000 if they were renting on the open market, the combined value of the discounted rent and cash benefits would be worth around £51,500 a year. To get £51k after tax you have to earn £70k. Now I know in London £70k is not unusual but it is far more than even the average wage in London. We are currently on our highest level of taxation and public spending since WW2 - much of which has been driven by the massive expansion in welfare handouts. Let's get with the program. About 15% of pensioners are living in households below relative poverty line. That is still 1.7 million Over a half of people in poverty lived in a family where at least one adult is in work (54%). Over two thirds of children in poverty lived in a working family (71%). In 2021/22, 6 million people – or four in ten of those in poverty – were in very deep poverty, with an income far below the standard poverty line.23 Jan 2024 www.bigissue.com › news UK poverty: The facts, effects and solutions in the cost of living crisis |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Feb 8, 2024 11:49:12 GMT
Rents are what the market will bear - you can either have high levels of migration or affordable housing you cannot have both. So given that we have the levels of housing costs that we currently do, then when its possible to live a £70k lifestyle on welfare handouts its not surprising that many dont wish to go to work.. A situation - insofar as it is actually real - which clearly signposts housing costs as the big problem, especially since your own figures suggest an average rent alone which is higher than the average salary. Making poor people poorer is not going to do anything to solve that problem. And "what the market will bear" is code for what landlords can get away with charging. Yes housing shortages are going to be difficult to solve with so many people coming in, but in the end some form of rent capping is probably going to be necessary.Rent controls have never worked anywhere in the world that they have been tried. Just over the border in Scotland where they introduced rent controls in 2022 - now Edinburgh has a seen rents rise by 14% and has just announced a ‘housing emergency’ on account of increasing private rental costs and levels of homelessness. The Swedish economist Assar Lindbeck, former chair of the committee for the Nobel prize in economics, once said that, ‘rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city – except for bombing.’  |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Feb 8, 2024 12:36:10 GMT
You think pensioners should work?.. |
|
