Universal Credit

[Anna B]

what will happen with all the local councils, when the rent money doesn`t come in, will they go bankrupt and have to lay of even more workers, or am i missing something and the government will bail them out, and people that do work will they have to pay more rent to try make up the shortfall

 

That's why it's an ill thought out bit of nonsense.

 

If it aint broke don't fix it...

[andygardener]

Yet with housing, giving money direct to the landlord works really well and the tenants are happy about it and don't feel stigmatised.

 

There simply isn't an equivalent for food- all proposed systems seem to be based on vouchers and people aren't happy with that, and, do feel stigmatised.

 

 

We're talking about people who if we give them our money for their housing if left to their own devices don't use it for that. I doubt they have even heard of the word stigmatised. If they can't be trusted to spend one benefit on what it is intended for what makes you think they become models of probity where other handouts are concerned?

[onewheeldave]

We're talking about people who if we give them our money for their housing if left to their own devices don't use it for that. I doubt they have even heard of the word stigmatised. If they can't be trusted to spend one benefit on what it is intended for what makes you think they become models of probity where other handouts are concerned?

 

I don't "think they become models of probity where other handouts are concerned?".

 

Why would you think that I do?

 

All I'm saying is-

 

Yet with housing, giving money direct to the landlord works really well and the tenants are happy about it and don't feel stigmatised.

 

There simply isn't an equivalent for food- all proposed systems seem to be based on vouchers and people aren't happy with that, and, do feel stigmatised.

[MrSmith]

How do you work that out?

 

It’s cheaper to accommodate 100 people in one building and feed them as a group, than to accommodate them in 100 houses and give them money to feed themselves. The knock on effect also means there will be more houses available which will drive down prices and rents thereby reducing housing benefits.

 

It’s been highlighted that some people on benefits are simply incapable of making sensible decision when it comes to spending the money they are given, providing the food instead of money means they will be eating healthier meals which will make them healthier.

 

Living in a group instead of isolation is better for ones mental health, making them healthier.

 

Work gives people a sense of purpose and is good for ones mental and physical health, thereby reducing NHS costs.

Edited March 13, 2013 by MrSmith

[Supertramp]

Sorry but you are missing the point the money is paid direct for them as in most cases the person will have an appointee, who does everything for them and sort of has power over their funds.

 

You have to understand we are talking about the most vulnerable in the community who need & rely on this help, perhaps a bit more consideration ought to be given to these people.

 

Even people on the dole so to speak, will see the money coming to them as extra money to spend, and will fall into arrears, UC is the most badly thought out & conceived idea in many a long time.

 

No UC is a pretty good idea, just being executed badly.

 

If the person has an appointee who does everything for them, why aren't they paying their rent for them?

 

---------- Post added 13-03-2013 at 10:29 ----------

 

No doubt you were all saying the same things about bankers a few years ago.

 

Pardon? What has this got to do with bankers?

[L00b]

<...>Living in a group instead of isolation is better for ones mental health, making them healthier.

 

Work gives people a sense of purpose and is good for ones mental and physical health<...>

No offense, but in the context of the thread, that kind of borderline-rethorical approach makes for a slippery slope.

[MrSmith]

No offense, but in the context of the thread, that kind of borderline-rethorical approach makes for a slippery slope.

 

It would have to be an extremely steep slippery slope for it to get close to what happened behind those gates.

[Anna B]

It’s cheaper to accommodate 100 people in one building and feed them as a group, than to accommodate them in 100 houses and give them money to feed themselves. The knock on effect also means there will be more houses available which will drive down prices and rents thereby reducing housing benefits.

 

It’s been highlighted that some people on benefits are simply incapable of making sensible decision when it comes to spending the money they are given, providing the food instead of money means they will be eating healthier meals which will make them healthier.

 

Living in a group instead of isolation is better for ones mental health, making them healthier.

 

Work gives people a sense of purpose and is good for ones mental and physical health, thereby reducing NHS costs.

 

Really? Take a look at nearly every privatised institution; prisons, care homes, etc. The price per head is exorbitant.

 

Nobody is saying that work isn't good for people, but the jobs aren't there, and working for Bed and board in an institution is going to undercut those businesses on the outside, just as the old workhouses did.

 

I can't believe I'm actually discussing this, it's a ridiculous notion.

[MrSmith]

Really? Take a look at nearly every privatised institution; prisons, care homes, etc. The price per head is exorbitant.

 

Run for profit and not my suggestion, 100 hundred houses cost more than one building and takes up more space, cooking 100 separate meals costs more than cooking for 100.

 

 

Nobody is saying that work isn't good for people, but the jobs aren't there, and working for Bed and board in an institution is going to undercut those businesses on the outside, just as the old workhouses did.

 

No, they wouldn't undercut anyone and there are plenty of jobs that can be done that aren’t done.

I can't believe I'm actually discussing this, it's a ridiculous notion.

 

Yet you haven't given a good reason for it being ridiculous.

[Anna B]

Run for profit and not my suggestion, 100 hundred houses cost more than one building and takes up more space, cooking 100 separate meals costs more than cooking for 100.

 

 

 

 

No, they wouldn't undercut anyone and there are plenty of jobs that can be done that aren’t done.

 

 

Yet you haven't given a good reason for it being ridiculous.

 

It would have to be run for profit if this government are in charge, it's what they do...

History proves that people who work for nothing undercut outsiders. It's one of the problems with prisons,

You cannot institutionalise people for the 'crime' of being unemployed or simply poor - what is the difference between this and prison? There is far more than just money involved, and it will undoubtedly create more problems than it solves.

 

Do you really want to live in a country where super rich are receiving silly money (- Chris Huhne's brief was earning 20K a day,) and the poor punished for being poor... I can't think of a better way to start a revolution. Or do you want to legislate against that - Oh good, now we have a police state as well.

 

See what I mean?