Assumed £19.00 a week cuts expected in benefits to those that need it the most.

anything I don't mind said:
My solution:

Excluding disabled people and sick people. I would limit job seekers to 3 or 5 years and increase it to minimum wage. After that you have to stay in work for a minimum of 3 years before you are eligible again.

Council Housing, anyone who is able bodied and not sick and below the age of 50 should not be getting a council house under any circumstances. Anyone who is in a council house under age 50 and is able bodied should be kicked on to the street.
Click to expand...


What happens to those that are only on temporary contracts or get made redundant in the first 2-3 years?

I don't understand why people continue to attack benefit claimants just because a single figure percentage is abusing the system.

Any cuts or restrictions that are brought in to target the 1% end up affecting the 99% of genuine people.

Silly.
 
TheLegendOfMart said:
What happens to those that are only on temporary contracts or get made redundant in the first 2-3 years?

I don't understand why people continue to attack benefit claimants just because a single figure percentage is abusing the system.

Any cuts or restrictions that are brought in to target the 1% end up affecting the 99% of genuine people.

Silly.
Click to expand...

The 3 years doesn't have continuous employment, they will simply not be able to claim job seekers until they have completed 3 years of taxable employment. That way it will stop the life time career claimants.

Public council housing was meant to be about helping people who could not afford housing in the private sector. Instead it has become a full on property empire for the state that now hands out property to people who otherwise could rent or buy property in the private sector. While people who might need help with council housing are stuck on waiting lists.

Same with job seekers, people who have worked for 40 years lose their job and need some help and only get £50 a week or something silly. What is the point of it all if people who need it can't get any use out if it.
 
Castiel said:
So it's BS then.
Click to expand...

Pretty much, it assumes that pensioners will be completely untouched, which I doubt, relatively less effected sure, but not untouched.

It then assumes that the rest of the cuts will be made in entirely in a few places.

It then assumes that the savings wil be entirely taken out of the pockets of the claiments.

Most importantly though, it assumes that Georgy will actually stick to his plan.
 
anything I don't mind said:
Public council housing was meant to be about helping people who could not afford housing in the private sector. Instead it has become a full on property empire for the state that now hands out property to people who otherwise could rent or buy property in the private sector. While people who might need help with council housing are stuck on waiting lists.
Click to expand...

Well if the government stopped supporting inflated house prices, gave European style rights for renters, curtailed buy-to-let and empty ownership (including from foreign investors), promoted house building, controlled building companies better then maybe people would have a chance to actually do that. Unfortunately, it's in the governments interests due to their allegiances to actually do everything in the power to ensure those things don't actually happen. They could have bought us out of the recession with massive housebuilding projects and other infrastructure improvement but they chose to give more money to the banks in the vain hope the would start lending again.
 
It also assume the money only comes from cuts directly n select benefits, rather than incoportating any other efficiency increases, reductions in benefits abuse or anything else that might make up the final figures.

really, until anything official is released there isn't much to discuss.
 
Xordium said:
Well if the government stopped supporting inflated house prices, gave European style rights for renters, curtailed buy-to-let and empty ownership (including from foreign investors), promoted house building, controlled building companies better then maybe people would have a chance to actually do that. Unfortunately, it's in the governments interests due to their allegiances to actually do everything in the power to ensure those things don't actually happen. They could have bought us out of the recession with massive housebuilding projects and other infrastructure improvement but they chose to give more money to the banks in the vain hope the would start lending again.
Click to expand...

A decent tax on Buy-to-let would make sense.
I'm not sure what can be done for empty ownership. Do you have to pay council tax on a house that isn't lived in? If not it would be a start to add council tax regardless of habitation. Really a US style property tax is needed though, so a fixed percentage of the house value is charged annually regardless of whether anyone lives there or not.
 
cheesyboy said:
JSA is a fraction of welfare spending. Your solution saves nothing.

As for council houses: what would that achieve other than a spike in homelessness? It's not like council houses are especially costly to councils. My brother in law just got a council flat here in Gloucestershire - it's costing him £400 per month for a one-bed. Private rents are about the same - £400 to £450.
Click to expand...

When i refer to welfare benefit, i mean all the sub benefits as well. Not just JSA, i am no welfare expert. But looking at the http://www.dsdni.gov.uk/a-z_of_benefits If they increased JSA to minimum wage and restricted it to 3 years, all of the other sub benefits would be ended as well, income support, xmas benefit, cold weather benefit, its a tuesday benefit, independent living fund, housing benefit, child benefit. Scrap all those and stick to my plan of 3 years minimum wage level JSA and that's all you get. That would definitely reduce the bill and kick all the lazy people on the street and majority of people on benefits are just career claimants anyway. So after 3 years the benefits bill would be next to nothing as it would only be helping people who realy do need JSA.
 
I tire of this kind of thing, good thing it wont happen to the majority of people in my situation if at all
 
CREATIVE!11 said:
Pretty much, anyone who has ever been on JSA can attest to this.

Stories you see in newspapers etc are all outright wrong. I was on JSA for a while ages ago and sat in a freezing cold house eating rice. Was pretty grim IMO.

Far cry from the lavish holidays and flat screen TV's.
Click to expand...

The only ones I've ever seen who live a somewhat 'lavish' lifestyle on benefits are the ones who have loads of kids, because they get child benefit for each one on top of their other benefits.

What I think they should do is keep benefits at their current level, but just stop child benefit at 2 children and put a time limit of a year or two on all other benefits.
 
D.P. said:
A decent tax on Buy-to-let would make sense
Click to expand...

It would indeed.

Personally:

I'd add a tax on buy to let income, which is minimal for 1 letted property, but increases for every other property owned.

I'd make Buy to Let morgages more expensive via taxation.

I'd introduce a tax break on build to let mortgages - acting as a form of compensation to landlords, whilst encouraging building.
 
Judgeneo said:
It would indeed.

Personally:

I'd add a tax on buy to let income, which is minimal for 1 letted property, but increases for every other property owned.

I'd make Buy to Let morgages more expensive via taxation.

I'd introduce a tax break on build to let mortgages - acting as a form of compensation to landlords, whilst encouraging building.
Click to expand...
Tax is tax: it's the same rates however many buy to lets you have (subject to crossing tax rate thresholds)

The best way to turn the screw on BTL, if that's what you want to do, is to disallow tax relief on mortgage interest.

As for building more: Planning applications need to be made less open to contest. If it's easier to get planning permission, then that opens up more potential areas to build upon, which reduces the value of the land, reduces the cost and time to build, and potentially reduces sale price, as well as increases builds.

I don't see much appetite from any government to actually do anything to reduce house prices, though - it's a vote loser.
 
anything I don't mind said:
My solution:

Excluding disabled people and sick people. I would limit job seekers to 3 or 5 years and increase it to minimum wage. After that you have to stay in work for a minimum of 3 years before you are eligible again.

Council Housing, anyone who is able bodied and not sick and below the age of 50 should not be getting a council house under any circumstances. Anyone who is in a council house under age 50 and is able bodied should be kicked on to the street.
Click to expand...

If they do that, then they better be prepared to build more prisons.

Just saying.
 
Last edited:
Bring back tbe fair rent act, tories who are angry get their cutbacks to the benefits bill and all the cutback falls upon people who can pay ie millionaire landlords, pretty much the only beneficiaries of 35 years of benefit increases as actual in the pocket benefirs have gone down via not keeping pace with inflation.
 
I expect a reduction in the maximum household income through welfare from the current £26000 which as an after tax income is pretty reasonable. Rather than targeting individual benefits.
The intention is to target growth and productivity to boost state income and also hit tax avoidance.

Really the manifestos will provide more information on what each party will aim at than the pre election coalition budget.
 
Benefits need and should to be cut for everyone unless you have a disability. There is no denying under labour many people milked the system and then some. Where it became a excuse to have no job and not stigma.

This all falls down to the low minimum wage and the fact the multitude of discounts available whilst on benefits etc.
 
thep02 said:
Bring back tbe fair rent act, tories who are angry get their cutbacks to the benefits bill and all the cutback falls upon people who can pay ie millionaire landlords, pretty much the only beneficiaries of 35 years of benefit increases as actual in the pocket benefirs have gone down via not keeping pace with inflation.
Click to expand...

This entire area needs a 100% rethink not just the fair rent act, it goes to the very core of how we all live and yet its not even on the radar.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom