Mass Homelessness Soon?

[Ms Macbeth]

In the early 70s my husband lost his job. We had a young child and a baby on the way. He claimed unemployment benefit, fortunately for a relatively short time.  It was pretty humiliating back then, they sent inspectors out to check on claimants.  Out of the money we got, we had to budget and pay rent.  AFAIK so did everyone else.

 

I can see the point of direct payments for people with learning difficulties, but for everyone in rented property?  That completely removes any personal responsibility for budgeting.  I don't know at what point people felt they had a 'right' to housing as soon as they wanted it.  Many of my generation lived with our families and contributed, or found  lodgings until they could afford to live independently.   

 

I've always supported the Welfare State, I believe we need to spend a lot more on supported accommodation for people with mental health issues, and other disabilities.  However, the first rule for the majority is to take responsibility for ourselves and our family.   Isn't it?

[Anna B]

With respect Mrs M, back in the day, jobs were plentiful. You could leave one job on a Friday and have another one lined up to go to on the Monday. And one man's wage was enough to keep a family.

 

It's not like that anymore. Sadly, plentiful job opportunities are a thing of the past, as is job security. Ever since rhe 80s there has been a rolling toll of unemployment, and added to that, things like 0 hour contracts and unreliable short term  positions. How can people keep to a budget when they don't know from one week to the next how much money they will have coming in?

 

Add in the scourge of low wages, rising prices, (it takes 2 incomes to cope with a family these days,) high rents and debts incurred by the 2 month wait for Universal Credit to start,) or benefits being suddenly withdrawn, and it's easy to see how people get into a mess.

With the best will in the world, people want to work and look after their families, but the majority of benefit recipients are actually working people, but have to have their megre income suplemented by state handouts.

It's not right, but it's the times we live in, and IMO indicative of 40 years of Tory rule, with its dubious working practices, roll back of the welfare state safety net,  failure to replace affordable social housing, and 10 years of devastating Austerity.

 

And unfortunately, there is yet more to come.

 

 

Edited December 1, 2020 by Anna B

[Mister M]

A shocking indictment 

 

 

https://www.bigissue.com/latest/viral-photo-of-snowy-food-bank-queue-branded-a-national-failure/

 

Image of hundreds of homeless people queuing in snow at Glasgow soup kitchen compared to former 'communist' countries (thescottishsun.co.uk)

 

[Anna B]

What is happening to this country? 

 

Food banks have gone from a handful to over 2,000 in less than 10 years. And many of their customers are the working poor.  Homelessness and unemployment is rife.  There are a lot of newly unemployed people, often for the first time in their lives, now trying to claim Universal Credit, only to discover that if their other half is earning, they don't qualify. 

 

One person's wage is no longer enough to keep a family, but the government appear not to recognise that fact, in spite of being quite happy to take tax and National insurance off both workers, not just one of a couple. Surely this must be some sort of discrimination?  

 

This feels to me like some sort of Purge. And the worst is yet to come. Welcome to Tory Britain. 

[Annie Bynnol]

6 hours ago, Anna B said:

...

 

One person's wage is no longer enough to keep a family, but the government appear not to recognise that fact, in spite of being quite happy to take tax and National insurance off both workers, not just one of a couple. Surely this must be some sort of discrimination?  

 

...

Discrimination!

 

People fought long and hard to win the right to be treated as individuals and equals and not as a dependent in a marriage.

 

Working class women have always had to  work.

The late 40s and 50s vision of the husband always earning enough to provide was a TV dream for most.

Women were often barred from many jobs and careers by Government, employers and trades unions, and often burdened by large families. Two world wars and industrial depressions forced Government, employers and trades unions to remove these barriers only to demand their reintroduction.

 

The man received the "tax allowance", they both paid the "income tax", he paid the full National Insurance", he paid the "works" pension. There was usually no choice or advantage in doing otherwise.

She usually received no statutory redundancy pay, or sickness or unemployment pay, she got no state or works pension in her own right. The working widows got even less.

 

 

Edited February 13, 2021 by Annie Bynnol

[Anna B]

11 hours ago, Annie Bynnol said:

Discrimination!

 

People fought long and hard to win the right to be treated as individuals and equals and not as a dependent in a marriage.

 

Working class women have always had to  work.

The late 40s and 50s vision of the husband always earning enough to provide was a TV dream for most.

Women were often barred from many jobs and careers by Government, employers and trades unions, and often burdened by large families. Two world wars and industrial depressions forced Government, employers and trades unions to remove these barriers only to demand their reintroduction.

 

The man received the "tax allowance", they both paid the "income tax", he paid the full National Insurance", he paid the "works" pension. There was usually no choice or advantage in doing otherwise.

She usually received no statutory redundancy pay, or sickness or unemployment pay, she got no state or works pension in her own right. The working widows got even less.

 

 

In those days, women had a choice of paying 'married women's' national insurance, which was considerably less than the man's. 

They now have to pay the full amount, exactly the same as their other half. They also now have had their pension age hiked by 6 years to the same retirement age as men, 66. 

 

To then not allow them UC when they need it IMO is diagraceful. It needs to change. I'm surprised no one has taken the government to court to test this out.

Equality should mean any spouse, male or female, should be equally regarded.

[Annie Bynnol]

12 minutes ago, Anna B said:

In those days, women had a choice of paying 'married women's' national insurance, which was considerably less than the man's. 

They now have to pay the full amount, exactly the same as their other half. They also now have had their pension age hiked by 6 years to the same retirement age as men, 66. 

 

To then not allow them UC when they need it IMO is diagraceful. It needs to change. I'm surprised no one has taken the government to court to test this out.

Equality should mean any spouse, male or female, should be equally regarded.

Women had a choice or was the choice imposed?

Before 1977 employers actively discouraged employers women from paying a full stamp- as they would need to contribute more. It was the man to which all the paperwork was addressed to and could override the wishes of the woman.

The depressing inequality in pay put pressure the on the woman to pay a lower rate and take more more money home.

Many women employed in family businesses never saw the accounts which would have shown that they were not having a beneficial stamp payed- this continued for decades.

It is a fundamental human right that people are individuals.

 

Universal Credit does no depend on sex, a couple makes a joint claim based on the  household circumstances and is paid out as income for the household.

However UC has not reduced the discrimination in aspects of family and working life that the carer is subject to.

 

UC can be divided in certain circumstance and a 50:50 split of payment is actively being investigated.

Child Benefit is still paid separately and is not affected by Universal Credit.

 

 

 

[Anna B]

I'm not sure if women originally had a choice. You're right that women were always encouraged to rely on the  'man of the house' for their needs, and there was a lot of pressure on women not to work. Husbands often would not allow it (yes, really...) There place was in the home.

I know by the time I was at secondary school my mother had a small part time job and only paid the woman's stamp, and consequently got a very poor pension, (I think it was in the shillings rather than pounds.) She always told me to go and pay for the full stamp, rather than the married woman's one, which I did so I had a choice (I started work about 1969.)

Women still didn't have equal pay at that  stage, and weren't allowed in certain occupations, or had to leave when they got married or had children. They certainly weren't allowed to join work's pension schemes, nor were they very likely to climb up the greasy pole via promotions in their chosen field, these  jobs were considered to be for the (male) 'breadwinner' of the family.

 

Now a lot of these women are losing out at both ends; poor discriminatory working practices and low pay in the early working years, and then old rate pension but also extra years added on at the end. (I'm one of them. I worked out I had lost roughly £40,000 in pension.) So equality hasn't happened for everyone, even though things are much better today.

 

Back to Universal credit: the bottom line is it isn't enough, even to get by on if you have little in the way of savings to fall back on, and a large sector of the population don't. 

It particularly angers me that the much of the population were totally duped by propaganda and lies into believing the unemployed were feckless  spendthrifts living the life of Riley on generous state handouts. Thus allowing the Tories to make substantive cuts, which are now tipping people into hunger and homelessness.

Yet for some reason, the middle classes who are now having to avail themselves of benefits, find they are unable to get them, or the amount is not enough to live on, yet still they prefer to blame the poor, the immigrants, asylum seekers etc rather than put the blame where it should lie, at the door of the Tory government who made the rules in the first place.

This is going to become a far more pressing matter when the furlough scheme ends.

 

 

[Annie Bynnol]

5 hours ago, Anna B said:

I'm not sure if women originally had a choice. You're right that women were always encouraged to rely on the  'man of the house' for their needs, and there was a lot of pressure on women not to work. Husbands often would not allow it (yes, really...) There place was in the home.

I know by the time I was at secondary school my mother had a small part time job and only paid the woman's stamp, and consequently got a very poor pension, (I think it was in the shillings rather than pounds.) She always told me to go and pay for the full stamp, rather than the married woman's one, which I did so I had a choice (I started work about 1969.)

Women still didn't have equal pay at that  stage, and weren't allowed in certain occupations, or had to leave when they got married or had children. They certainly weren't allowed to join work's pension schemes, nor were they very likely to climb up the greasy pole via promotions in their chosen field, these  jobs were considered to be for the (male) 'breadwinner' of the family.

 

Now a lot of these women are losing out at both ends; poor discriminatory working practices and low pay in the early working years, and then old rate pension but also extra years added on at the end. (I'm one of them. I worked out I had lost roughly £40,000 in pension.) So equality hasn't happened for everyone, even though things are much better today.

 

Back to Universal credit: the bottom line is it isn't enough, even to get by on if you have little in the way of savings to fall back on, and a large sector of the population don't. 

It particularly angers me that the much of the population were totally duped by propaganda and lies into believing the unemployed were feckless  spendthrifts living the life of Riley on generous state handouts. Thus allowing the Tories to make substantive cuts, which are now tipping people into hunger and homelessness.

Yet for some reason, the middle classes who are now having to avail themselves of benefits, find they are unable to get them, or the amount is not enough to live on, yet still they prefer to blame the poor, the immigrants, asylum seekers etc rather than put the blame where it should lie, at the door of the Tory government who made the rules in the first place.

This is going to become a far more pressing matter when the furlough scheme ends.

 

 

An excellent summary.

 

[kidley]

My wife worked at Whitbreads in the sixties, she paid full stamps then, and carried it on through her working life, some didnt  i think they (the woman) said oh i will live off my husbands pension, my wife now enjoys around £180 pw state pension irrespective of how much money either me or she has.

Woman did have a choice whether to pay full stamps or not in the sixties.