IDS Benefit reforms are working.

[Mecky]

Hmmm.......man hounded for debt kills himself, he has mental health issues.

Man on drugs does something similar, it's because he was high.

 

(Not directly aimed at your post charmer, just a general observation)

 

That's the thing, does austerity kill people? I'd say the effects of austerity do. There are numerous reports and articles linking austerity to social and medical problems

[the_bloke]

That's the thing, does austerity kill people? I'd say the effects of austerity do. There are numerous reports and articles linking austerity to social and medical problems

 

I doubt austerity causes social and medical problems, it's more likely that there is far higher percentage of people who already have social and medical problems who are likely to be affected by austerity.

[*_ash_*]

The bedroom tax can not be described as fair, as the majority of people who live in social housing with a spare room, is made up of a high percentage of pensioners. It is unfair to have separate rules for all.

 

So based on this and your last post, you would consider it fair if pensioners were included?

 

Food banks were never intended to be part of the welfare state

 

Nor was the welfare system intended to be a life choice.

 

and some of the sanctions imposed are for ridiculous reasons. Food banks are a good idea, but should not be used an excuse to cut down benefits.

I am not a leftie, whatever that is. I am just disillusioned with the Tories. I prefer the labour policies, to the conservative ones.

 

I have no love for ATOS either.

 

What would you like to see with the welfare and pensions budget? Higher? Lower? Same (i.e lower in real terms), it's a huge budget. You said yourself in the next portion that you agree with the benefit cap.

 

As for food banks not being advertised in job centres, it was probably because people could get a crisis loan, which has now been made complicated.

 

Would you prefer people with no money were given loans or food?

 

The food banks were intended for homeless people, never for people on benefits.

I agree with the benefit cap, but I also feel that private landlords should have their rents capped.

 

Really:

 

Every day people in the UK go hungry for reasons ranging from redundancy to receiving an unexpected bill on a low income. Trussell Trust foodbanks provide a minimum of three days emergency food and support to people experiencing crisis in the UK.

 

Rising food and fuel prices, static incomes, underemployment and changes to benefits are some of the reasons why increasing numbers are being referred to foodbanks for emergency food.

 

-

 

And as for saying welfare reform does not cause suicide, imagine you were very ill. It has all been diagnosed by proper doctors. Some under qualified nurse with limited experience says, 'you're not ill, as such your money stops in four weeks, now your going to have to get a job'. If you challenge this decision, you can wait for three months without any payments. Even the sanest person would end up distressed in such a situation. So suicide after an atos medical does happen. This is part of the welfare reforms. I am glad atos lost their contract, but I fear maximums will be worse.

 

20 million people in this country receive benefits of some sort. I've seen the people on here post stories, (generally by anti-Tory policy) of a handful of cases...

 

People are committing suicide through welfare reforms

 

That doesn't make this sentence you originally wrote to be an accurate overall picture.

 

-

 

Also both parties need to come together and make zero hour contracts illegal.

 

Another line from the headlines...

 

How do you think this will improve things if right across the board?

 

What do you think the minimum number of hours should be? (if you answer nothing else in my post, I'd like to hear your take on these questions)

[sheff1johnny]

On private landlords, until there is a cap on rents, it provides no safety for tenants.

On zero hours employers should have to employ people where there minimum hours make sure that national insurance is paid by the employer.

So benefit reform is forcing people to use food banks. I agree that people should not get more in benefits than people in work, but would you also agree with me a lot of workers try to keep there hours below 16 a week, to get more out of tax credits, than most people do on benefits.

I am not saying every suicide is down to the government, but it can not be said that welfare reform has played no part in some suicides. The numbers may be debateable, but to deny any link whatsoever would be wrong.

An easy way to cut the welfare budget is to make all social housing charge roughly the same rent, depending on the town the properties are based in.

Build more social housing, which also benefits society as demand for private properties would be reduced. End of day I am no expert, but answer me on question which has always puzzled me. Why did David Cameron claim dla for his son. Yes he's entitled too, but should a millionaire be claiming such a benefit?

[*_ash_*]

On private landlords, until there is a cap on rents, it provides no safety for tenants.

 

I'm not sure how this sneaked into it.

 

On zero hours employers should have to employ people where there minimum hours make sure that national insurance is paid by the employer.

 

We have a cleaner at work, she does about 4 hours a week, how many hours should she have in her contract, 16? 25? 37.5?

 

If the company was forced into giving her 16 for a job that takes 4, then her job would go. As would most people doing this kind of job. Is that what you want? Seems odd to me.

 

Seasonal work: Should Amusement arcades, cafes, pubs, nightclubs, ice cream sellers all have contracted hours throughout the year?

 

You are aware of seasonal work? Meadowhall employs thousands of extra people at Christmas depending on demand, what should they get? A 16 hour contract all year round?

 

Until 10 years ago, all the work I've done was zero-hours, and yet I've earned a living without claiming for 24 years.

 

Is the reason you want to make 0 hours contracts because the papers and media are telling you this, or can you answer all the above questions.

 

So benefit reform is forcing people to use food banks. I agree that people should not get more in benefits than people in work, but would you also agree with me a lot of workers try to keep there hours below 16 a week, to get more out of tax credits, than most people do on benefits.

 

Again I'll ask, do you prefer people are given loans or food?

 

I am not saying every suicide is down to the government, but it can not be said that welfare reform has played no part in some suicides. The numbers may be debateable, but to deny any link whatsoever would be wrong.

 

So based on this, the other people who commit suicide because they can't afford to live on their benefits at old rates, or anyone who isn't claiming but working and can't cope, they and everyone else can be classed as being down to something possibly financial so we can't rule anything out.

 

An easy way to cut the welfare budget is to make all social housing charge roughly the same rent, depending on the town the properties are based in.

 

So a 4 bed house with a garden should be the same price as a 1-bed tower block flat? (in actual fact, there isn't much difference anyway)

 

Build more social housing, which also benefits society as demand for private properties would be reduced. End of day I am no expert, but answer me on question which has always puzzled me.

 

I think you're right, more social housing would push private rents down. So where are you going to build the thousands that would be built? Where?

 

Why did David Cameron claim dla for his son. Yes he's entitled too, but should a millionaire be claiming such a benefit?

 

bold: because he had a disabled son is my guess.

 

Would you like it means tested? Why shouldn't he claim it?

 

How many people could cope without child benefit but still claim it?

[sheff1johnny]

Didn't the conservatives limit child benefit to people who earned £60,000.

I get D L A, but if I won the lottery tomorrow, and ended up with roughly a million pound, I'd give up all my benefits, including D L A. If you don't need a benefit should you claim it. Legally yes, morally no.

On housing policy, I meant the rent in a housing association property should always be the same as a council property. I may have explained badly. This would help reduce housing benefit. Not by a huge amount, but every penny counts.

All I will say on suicide is that there is many different reasons why people do it. Some can be said that a benefit decision may have played a major factor. End of the day its hard to ask these people why they did it.

On social housing, where would I build it. In Sheffield theres a lot of wasteland at the side of the tram tracks on the way to Meadowhall. The old factories could be knocked down, and some houses could be built there. No doubt there would be other places as well.

The flats that have been renovated on Park Hill, may as well be given back to council tenants, as there seems to be little demand for them.

I don't know about the rest of the country, but I imagine there is a lot of wasteland that could be built upon.

Also why can't the council take over the empty properties above shops, and this would help provide one bed properties that are much needed.

On people being provided with food instead of loans, its a hard one. In my heart I believe people should be given the money and responsibility, but in my mind I worry for people with families who may not get any food at all, if the person getting the money wastes it on something other than food.

When you say you did zero hour contracts, I imagine you were not a cleaner, or a shop worker, on minimum wage. Correct me if I'm wrong.

End of day Ash, I don't want this to become our thread alone, but I am enjoying the debate.

You must have a very clean office, only joking. I should imagine yours is not the only place she cleans. Again may be wrong.

[The Joker]

The reforms are working in reducing the benfits bill in that they're killing off the disabled and the poor.

 

Whether that was the original aim, God knows.

[*_ash_*]

Didn't the conservatives limit child benefit to people who earned £60,000.

 

Yes. I'm surprised they did actually. Had they picked a figure of around £25-30k, it could have been political suicide. I think that Labour weren't opposed to it really, which probably helped. Had they made a big song and dance about it, and should they win the next election, they know they'd have to re-fund this (if you know what I mean).

 

I get D L A, but if I won the lottery tomorrow, and ended up with roughly a million pound, I'd give up all my benefits, including D L A. If you don't need a benefit should you claim it. Legally yes, morally no.

 

I disagree with your last line, and I think you'd be wrong. Your other benefits would almost certainly stop if you won a mill or two anyway, but I don't agree with giving up your DLA. Even with your money, you still have extra mobility costs, and I think that it isn't morally wrong to be given the difference.

 

On housing policy, I meant the rent in a housing association property should always be the same as a council property. I may have explained badly. This would help reduce housing benefit. Not by a huge amount, but every penny counts.

 

HA isn't much more than council costs in most cases, and often the quality of the properties is better in HA, so I think if they were the same price, people in council properties would complain if they couldn't get HA.

 

All I will say on suicide is that there is many different reasons why people do it. Some can be said that a benefit decision may have played a major factor. End of the day its hard to ask these people why they did it.

 

... but it's ok and easy to use what people perceive to be the entire reason as a political football to be used for a parties agenda?

 

Anyway, enough about that, I find this distasteful.

 

On social housing, where would I build it. In Sheffield theres a lot of wasteland at the side of the tram tracks on the way to Meadowhall. The old factories could be knocked down, and some houses could be built there. No doubt there would be other places as well.

 

Funnily enough, yes, Sheffield probably has got a lot of areas, like other former highly populated industrial towns and cities, but I don't think that the issue relates to us up north as much because property/rents/council housing is quite cheap. Take London as an example. When I go to London, all I find is lots of people, lots of buildings, lots of noise! Not much land. I'd wager that a large amount/property for HB is in places like London and down south in general.

 

The flats that have been renovated on Park Hill, may as well be given back to council tenants, as there seems to be little demand for them.

 

You mean so long as they pay for the work done so far?

 

I don't know about the rest of the country, but I imagine there is a lot of wasteland that could be built upon.

 

see above

 

Also why can't the council take over the empty properties above shops, and this would help provide one bed properties that are much needed.

 

You mean rent them off the owners? Probably be a lot of cost and admin. Might work in London though.

 

On people being provided with food instead of loans, its a hard one. In my heart I believe people should be given the money and responsibility, but in my mind I worry for people with families who may not get any food at all, if the person getting the money wastes it on something other than food.

 

Almost everyone in the UK is given enough money to live on (even though will struggle), it's this responsibility that people can't use for some.

 

You mind has the better answer than your heart here. I would rather people donate like they do now, and people get food rather than loans and more debt.

 

When you say you did zero hour contracts, I imagine you were not a cleaner, or a shop worker, on minimum wage. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

There wasn't minimum wage then for the most part. Call centre work, few weeks in a printers when they had a large workload, BG, YW, and BT all on zero hours, but always got as many hours as I could do. All casual work. Crap money.

 

End of day Ash, I don't want this to become our thread alone, but I am enjoying the debate.

You must have a very clean office, only joking. I should imagine yours is not the only place she cleans. Again may be wrong.

 

I cleaned it a few months ago when she was on hols. Make zero contract hours illegal and probably 20% (off my head) of the workforce would find themselves out of work, and the other 80% would have larger workloads.

 

As it happens I didn't mind the cleaning, it was something different and most jobs get boring after a while.

[sheff1johnny]

Yes. I'm surprised they did actually. Had they picked a figure of around £25-30k, it could have been political suicide. I think that Labour weren't opposed to it really, which probably helped. Had they made a big song and dance about it, and should they win the next election, they know they'd have to re-fund this (if you know what I mean).

 

 

Funnily enough, yes, Sheffield probably has got a lot of areas, like other former highly populated industrial towns and cities, but I don't think that the issue relates to us up north as much because property/rents/council housing is quite cheap. Take London as an example. When I go to London, all I find is lots of people, lots of buildings, lots of noise! Not much land. I'd wager that a large amount/property for HB is in places like London and down south in general.

 

London is very different to the North, the housing benefit bill for London, would probably be the same as the North, and Scotland added together. Also in London many properties are owned without people living in them.

And I feel a housing benefit cap may be a better solution. A lot of housing benefit fraud is done in London, as rents can be astronomical.

 

On shops, maybe councils could do compulsory purchase orders, if the properties are not being used. In terms of admin costs, it'd probably be cheaper than putting single people in B and B's.

In argument when you say people get enough money to live on, this is true, but does not take into account long delays, between losing a job and making a claim for jobseekers allowance. Also sanctions can leave a person without money for a considerable time.

 

There wasn't minimum wage then for the most part. Call centre work, few weeks in a printers when they had a large workload, BG, YW, and BT all on zero hours, but always got as many hours as I could do. All casual work. Crap money.

 

Yes, done some rubbish jobs. Worked at Mansfield market, Skeggy fair. Enjoyed working in pubs, but I used to get good money for the bar work, I was part of the bar workers union, not by choice.

 

When I worked at the fair I was young, and worked loads of hours for little money, and looking back I would have liked a contract telling me how many hours I was supposed to work, and a guaranteed wage.

Edited February 26, 2015 by esme
quote tags

[truman]

Also both parties need to come together and make zero hour contracts illegal.

 

According to a report

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-31619639

 

There's just over 600,000 people on zero hours (2.3% of the workforce).. the average no. of hours worked is around 25 ..only one third of people working zero hours contracts want to work more hours...seems like a lot of people that are affected by zero hours don't mind them..