Housing benefit cuts are on the way

[Paul2412]

That isn't what caused the current problems.

 

It's age demographics and irresponsible lending to people in work.

 

And what caused that?

 

If the previous government didn't make it so easy to claim ludicrous amounts of benefit payments then people wouldn't have the attitude they have.

 

You shouldn't even have to get a calculator out to decide whether you're better off working or not.

[Cyclone]

The only problem I have with that is the ability for the MP's to make money from their "paid for by us" houses....

 

A situation that has been changed or is being changed I believe.

[Wildcat]

I don't know why people are angry at the current government about this. If the previous government didn't make it more attractive to live on benefits than to work then we wouldn't be in this position now.

 

Err maybe it has something to do with 2.5 million unemployed and 500,000 jobs?

 

The Citizens Advice Bureau says this:

 

Proposed cuts to housing benefit will result in higher levels of poverty, debt, rent arrears and homelessness and should be delayed, national charity Citizens Advice says today.

 

The warning comes in evidence submitted to the Department of Work and Pensions’ Social Security Advisory Committee, whose consultation on the changes ends today (Friday 10 September). The committee is expected to publish its recommendations to government in the late autumn.

 

Cuts announced by government include a cap on housing benefit payments from April next year.*

 

Citizens Advice strongly opposes the cuts, but says that if they do go ahead, the government must take steps to cushion the impact and smooth the transition for those households affected. It calls for a delay in introducing the new cap until October 2011, or at the very least only applying it to new claims from April, in order to ensure that people locked into existing tenancy agreements do not find themselves suddenly trapped with an unaffordable rent, and to give them time to find somewhere else to live.

 

The charity is particularly concerned about the impact on housing and homelessness in London, where housing pressures are already extreme. When the new caps are imposed, 93% of rents in Central London will be unaffordable for private tenants reliant on housing benefit. Over 18,000 households will be affected, with average shortfalls between their housing benefit and rent of £81 a week.

 

Last year (2009/10) Citizens Advice Bureaux in England and Wales dealt with over 222,000 enquiries relating to housing benefit. Parent body Citizens Advice says it is clear from this advice work that housing benefit plays a crucial role in enabling people on low incomes to sustain their housing, yet decisions on cuts have been made without considering the housing implications.

 

Citizens Advice says it is highly unsatisfactory that the decision to make benefit cuts on this scale, affecting huge numbers of low income and vulnerable households, was taken without any prior assessment of the possible impact on rent levels, on landlords’ willingness to let to claimants, or on the standard of property that will be available within the new housing benefit rates.

 

The charity also expresses concern that although the government acknowledges there will be negative consequences - for example on homelessness, overcrowding, and child poverty - no proposals have been put forward for mitigating these effects.

 

Citizens Advice Chief Executive Gillian Guy said:

 

“We are extremely concerned at the potential impact of the cuts to housing benefit on people’s ability to pay their rents and avoid rent arrears and homelessness. Tens of thousands of private tenants will find their rent is unaffordable and will therefore need to move at short notice to areas with lower rents as a result of the proposed cuts. For many, such a forced move will be highly disruptive and stressful as well as putting additional strain on very limited budgets. It will be particularly hard for families, whose options could be limited to moving somewhere smaller with the risk of overcrowding, or moving to a cheaper area further away, breaking vital links with jobs, schools, healthcare and family support. Those unable to find affordable alternative accommodation at rents within the new housing benefit limits will be at real risk of homelessness.”

 

http://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/press_20100910

 

As Harpy Marx puts it:

 

George Osborne is putting beggars back on the street in the same way that his hero, Thatcher, did. What a brave new society to look forward to, a very nasty and destructive one. The message people should take is organise and resist or be destroyed. The Con/Dems could have found the money to fill the deficit hole by cutting the £70bn for Trident. And the £4bn a year for futile imperialist wars. Around £130bn is lost through tax avoidance and evasion, how about the Con/Dems tackling that immense problem? Millions could be saved by ditching privatisation and consultants….Even better, tax the rich!

 

But somehow, as with the previous NL administration, the wealthy and corporate capitalism are exempt from the butchery of this draconian budget. But then this is an ideological attack that means every one else is being sacrificed instead.

 

http://harpymarx.wordpress.com/

[Paul2412]

Err maybe it has something to do with 2.5 million unemployed and 500,000 jobs?

 

The Citizens Advice Bureau says this:

 

 

 

http://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/press_20100910

 

As Harpy Marx puts it:

 

 

 

http://harpymarx.wordpress.com/

 

Err OK, what's the alternative? Say well done to Labour, ignore the facts and drive the country into a depression? Or better still, result in a situation similar to Greece?

 

This government are trying to get us out of the mess that the previous idiots caused.

[Wildcat]

Err OK, what's the alternative? Say well done to Labour, ignore the facts and drive the country into a depression? Or better still, result in a situation similar to Greece?

 

This government are trying to get us out of the mess that the previous idiots caused.

save £70 billion cutting trident, save £130 billion making tax avoidance illegal, a tobin tax on the banks and maybe even dare i say it higher taxes on the rich

[bubblybubble]

I agree with wildcat

something should be done and in a couple of years time when all hell is let loose because of the amount of poverty brought on by this government then there will be pressure brought to bear when kids from families that have had £10 or more (thats toy money to the rich) cut from thier benefits, And thier parents cant buy them school clothes and shoes.they get into debt to buy christmas presents and then take until the next christmas to pay it back that could be that money that has been cut. any cuts to housing benefit will cause untold misery £10 is someones electricity for a week

People that have never been in that position cannot even comprehend what living in poverty, its not about "well they can get off their backsides and get a job" it is about empowering people and helping them back to work

[Cyclone]

save £70 billion cutting trident, save £130 billion making tax avoidance illegal, a tobin tax on the banks and maybe even dare i say it higher taxes on the rich

 

You probably need to understand what tax avoidance means before you repeat such a stupid statement as 'make it illegal'.

 

You could say higher tax on the riches, you could also watch them leave the country with their money, just as happened in the past. Then you could say, "sorry, socialism gets it wrong again".

 

You could cut trident. Saving a paltry amount year on year, that figure you're quoting is over what, a 25 year life time? You could also kiss goodbye to any international standing we have, our seat on the defence council and the benefits of being one of the few nuclear powers in the world.

[Wildcat]

You probably need to understand what tax avoidance means before you repeat such a stupid statement as 'make it illegal'.

 

It is still on Nick Cleggs agenda (even though the Tories are just humouring him)

 

Speaking at an event to promote the government's efforts to increase social mobility, the deputy prime minister said: "We are looking at the case for an anti-avoidance rule to ensure that wealthy individuals pay their fair share of tax."

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/aug/19/philip-green-liberal-democrats-tax

 

You could say higher tax on the riches, you could also watch them leave the country with their money, just as happened in the past. Then you could say, "sorry, socialism gets it wrong again".

 

There is plenty of scope to increase taxation. The large economies in the rest of Europe don't do so bad.

 

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/48/27/41498733.pdf

 

You could cut trident. Saving a paltry amount year on year, that figure you're quoting is over what, a 25 year life time? You could also kiss goodbye to any international standing we have, our seat on the defence council and the benefits of being one of the few nuclear powers in the world.

 

It saves a significant amount from the additional cuts the Conservatives want to make.

 

Also why would we kiss goodbye to any international standing? We already have a nuclear arsenal and submarines. I don't sea why we have to upgrade them. If they "go off" then we could join the european weapon sharing program and get them cheap from the US to look after.

 

I am not really sure what purpose they serve anyway. Even if someone attacked the UK.... what would nuking a load of civilians achieve, are they likely to all be guilty or deserving of being hit by our nuclear vengeance? In what way does that help the situation?

 

I don't think we have international standing because we have nuclear weaponry, we have it because we have a highly proficient army, we have business and a large economy, we are good technologically, and we engage in a lot charity development work.

 

Whether we get rid of them all together or go with the shared option there is a considerable saving to be made that would be better spent reducing inequality.

[Cyclone]

We are already in the higher echelons of taxation amongst europe. There are a few higher I know, but go further than the new 50% bracket and you will just see people leave the country as happened before.

 

You can't just declare tax avoidance illegal as tax avoidance isn't a single specific activity. It covers a whole range of currently legal ways of not paying tax. Many of these are to do with getting money reinvested. Sure, you could cancel the relief, that would be trivial. But in a lot of cases it exists for good reason.

 

The US have to replace trident as well, our best bet is to delay for a decade and do it at the same time, sharing some of the costs.

 

You're not sure what purpose they serve? Do you understand what MAD is, and why it kept anyone from using nuclear weapons since 1945?

[Wildcat]

We are already in the higher echelons of taxation amongst europe. There are a few higher I know, but go further than the new 50% bracket and you will just see people leave the country as happened before.

 

My link says otherwise we are at roughly the mid point France, Belgium, Holland, Denmarkm the Scandenavian Countries etc are all higher than us.

 

Ireland and Greece below us.... which economic model seems better to you?

 

You can't just declare tax avoidance illegal as tax avoidance isn't a single specific activity. It covers a whole range of currently legal ways of not paying tax. Many of these are to do with getting money reinvested. Sure, you could cancel the relief, that would be trivial. But in a lot of cases it exists for good reason.

 

The LibDems think otherwise. A positive duty to pay will make using artificial schemes to avoid paying tax and to exploit loopholes illegal. This would level the playing field and prevent the few gaining unfair advantage.

 

The US have to replace trident as well, our best bet is to delay for a decade and do it at the same time, sharing some of the costs.

 

You're not sure what purpose they serve? Do you understand what MAD is, and why it kept anyone from using nuclear weapons since 1945?

 

Yes, I know just how mad, MAD is. That was partly my point. Additionally we aren't in a cold war situation.... who exactly are our nuclear weapons supposed to be deterring?