The emergency fund for low income familes facing emergencies is to be stopped

by Guest Sat Jan 04, 2014 12:09 pm

First topic message reminder :

Government to stop funding for low-income families facing emergencies
Department for Work and Pensions to cut £180m support; Children's Society alarmed at 'blow to critical safety net'

A £180m-a-year hardship fund providing emergency help for low-income families who suffer sudden financial crisis as a result of domestic violence, ill-health or natural disaster such as flooding is to be scrapped, it has emerged.

Technical documents released just before Christmas suggest the Department for Work and Pensions plans to cut its cash allocation to local authority welfare assistance schemes in 15 months' time.

Charities warned this would lead to a postcode lottery in local welfare help and trigger a rise in the number of people becoming dependent on loan sharks or charitable support, such as food banks.

Matthew Reed, chief executive of the Children's Society, said the removal of government funding for local crisis schemes was alarming. "This is yet another blow to what was once a critical safety net for families facing such unpredictable emergencies and disasters as flooding, or simply running out of money to buy food for their children or feed the electricity meter.

"We urgently need a clear commitment from government to provide local authorities with sustainable funding to support families facing an unexpected financial crisis. Without this, many more families will be forced to turn to food banks, or to use loan sharks or high-cost money lenders."

Local welfare assistance schemes were set up in 152 local authorities in England in April, after the old, nationally administered social fund was "localised" as part of the Welfare Reform Act.

The schemes are comprised of two elements – crisis support, which is designed to help penniless people with vital short-term expenses such as food or clothes; and community care grants, which would help people in severe crisis obtain basic living essentials such as beds and cooking equipment.

The ending of the £180m funding stream in April 2015 is likely to lead to a sporadic provision of crisis help because some councils, which have no statutory duty to provide local welfare, might decide to close their schemes altogether.

A DWP spokeswoman confirmed that it would no longer fund the schemes after 2014-15, saying that future arrangements were a matter for the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG).

Although the DWP had always made it clear there were no guarantees of funding after 2014-15, it had promised to review the progress of the schemes before taking a decision on future funding.

It confirmed to the Guardian on Friday that it would carry out the planned progress review of local schemes in the next few months, but it would be up to councils and the DCLG to act on its findings.

The DWP has always claimed the fund was ineffectively targeted, and that councils are best placed to judge how much to allocate to local crisis welfare provision.

A spokeswoman for the DCLG said that from 2015 local welfare is to be funded from local authority general funds.

Though some councils will continue to fund some kind of local crisis fund, many will decide they can no longer afford it. In November, Nottinghamshire county council proposed to scrap its £2.1m welfare scheme in April as part of a £151m cuts programme.

Local welfare schemes have proved controversial because most councils have refused to give out cash loans, which were available under the social fund, but have instead provided "in kind" support in the form of food vouchers, and referrals to food banks.

Many councils have set strict eligibility criteria – many exclude applicants who have received benefit sanctions, while others refuse to help low-paid working families – meaning that many applicants have been turned away.

A recent survey suggested the harsh criteria meant many councils had massively underspent their funds so far this year despite evidence of huge demand.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jan/03/government-stops-emergency-funds-low-income-families

Can I suggest that every low income family just shoots themselves and saves the Government the bother of trying to find all these ways to make their lives hell.

by Guest Sun Jan 05, 2014 2:40 pm

Except, local authorities have had so much cut from central funds they cant fund these changes AND i do not see anywhere that says that they are going to be obliged to fund this. So if you get this help or not will depend upon the political flavour of the LA....postcode funding again.
there is NO need to "change the way things are funded, if the taxpayers money comes from central funds or local funds it matters not one whit, what matters is that central fund GUARANTEE the funds existance, local funding, without powerful legislation (which would be seen as objectionable and contrary to local autthority independance) is dubious and sketchy.

moreover you fail to answer my points...or at best give a politicians answer, there have been NO measures put in place to deal with town center binge drinking, indeed labour to their shame made it worse with 24 hr opening.

The changes made will not reduce the mythical r/w generated/daily fail inflated, abuse figures.
why cant the R/W idiots GET it....the level of abuse, AS PROVIDED by the ONS....the govts OWN statistics body, is so low as to be negligible. Its like saturation bombing a wildlife site with DDT, because one shrew was found to have a flea on it.
Face it R/Ws, you just hate the less fortunate, and those who are less fortunate but also R/W are mere cap doffing fools who are servilely crawling on their bellies to the rich tory masters....

by Guest Sun Jan 05, 2014 2:53 pm

Uh haven't seen your points on binge drinking. My solution is to give every town a "drunk tank" manned by medical and security professionals. Any person picked up for being unacceptably drunk will be admitted with no ifs buts and maybes.

Release will be at a set time the next day - say midday and will involve the payment of £100 fine and a walk of at least 25 meters down a publicly visible highlighted path with the local population encouraged to see the daily walk of shame as an entertainment event. Schools could arrange trips to bring pupils to watch, local newspapers encouraged to take and publish head shots of all those admitted.

Not sure if that is a politicians answer seeing as I can think of several areas that is likely to break current human rights laws but it is my solution.

I have not seen any ONS figures on abuse of crisis payments - I have observed widespread abuse myself (unlike benefit claims where I see next to no abuse which matches the ONS figures).

As for RW hating the less fortunate - I am one of the bloody less fortunate according to all the left wing liberal twits insisting I need protecting or rescuing from stuff that actually I am perfectly capable of dealing with. I feel far less hated by a RWer telling me to get on and manage than by a LWer telling me someone else should manage for me.

by Guest Sun Jan 05, 2014 3:08 pm

Be that as it may, being able to manage presupposes at least 3 things
the MEANS to manage
the education to manage and the psychological strength to manage

generally those at the bottom have none, or at best only 1 of those things.

being sanctimonious will not change that, nor will hypocritical outrage at mythical figures of systemic abuse, nor will wilful blindness to the truth that even if we removed benefits from the national budget (not of course counting state pensions) ther would be NO improvement in the countys coffers....the "benefit" budget is actually minicule when compared to the whole cost of the nation....

by Guest Sun Jan 05, 2014 3:21 pm

grumpy old git wrote:Be that as it may, being able to manage presupposes at least 3 things
the MEANS to manage
the education to manage and the psychological strength to manage

generally those at the bottom have none, or at best only 1 of those things.

being sanctimonious will not change that, nor will hypocritical outrage at mythical figures of systemic abuse, nor will wilful blindness to the truth that even if we removed benefits from the national budget (not of course counting state pensions) ther would be NO improvement in the countys coffers....the "benefit" budget is actually minicule when compared to the whole cost of the nation....

That is exactly the hate from the left I am talking about.

Those on the left pre suppose that those at the bottom do not have what it takes to manage. You make exactly that assumption in your statement

generally those at the bottom have none, or at best only 1 of those things

A small number of RW dont bother to think about these things at all but most start with the assumption that they are possible its just some help may be needed to access them.

For example MEANS - any person with an income equal to or greater than basic benefits does have the means to manage. This is proven because thousands do manage on that amount.
Education to manage - well where someone is not managing because they lack the education to manage that is correctable by giving them the necessary education.
Psychological strength to manage - by far the least common reason for failure to manage and one which is actually fluid not fixed. Psychological strength can be increased and more importantly decreased. A major cause of it being decreased is being in receipt of a constant message that you cannot manage.

So the biggest reasons for failure to manage are because people dont know how to manage, or are told they are not able to manage. Solution to these are to show people how to manage and to tell them they can manage. It would then be possible to assess the much smaller number who have learning and/or psychological disabilities to make sure they get the help they need to manage.

by Guest Sun Jan 05, 2014 3:38 pm

yep I could, almost agree with that, except that aint whats happening, instead folks are being crippled by sudden changes, effectively ripping the carpet out from under them, by lack of necessary information, DELIBERATE obfuscation by those who SHOULD be helping and by being demonised. great in this tory world isnt it.

by Guest Sun Jan 05, 2014 3:49 pm

grumpy old git wrote:yep I could, almost agree with that, except that aint whats happening, instead folks are being crippled by sudden changes, effectively ripping the carpet out from under them, by lack of necessary information, DELIBERATE obfuscation by those who SHOULD be helping and by being demonised. great in this tory world isnt it.

Bloody spot on!

by Guest Sun Jan 05, 2014 3:57 pm

Actually the changes are not sudden and there is no lack of necessary information - I know I am directly affected by these changes. I have been fully informed of everything at every stage without any effort on my behalf. fact at times I have been annoyed at having the same piece of information delivered by yet another agency without my asking.
No what is actually happening is people are reading in the media that the changes are A) unfair and B) poor people wont be able to cope and C) there is no help available for those who dont understand so people are making no effort to understand and are not paying any attention to the information that is being provided to them and are failing to access or even try to access the help that is available to them.

Of course by failing to make any effort they are strengthening the myth that they cannot cope.

Contrast this with the media message and its effect during the first and second world wars - women went from being unable to understand or work machinery to operating it just fine while the papers and radios trumpeted messages about how women were prepared to step up to any challenge. The same for men fighting. The same for people coping with rationing.

If our media stopped making out people could not cope then far more people would be coping. For the media to stop the charities and support groups have to stop. If instead of "benefit change going to leave thousands at risk of homelessness" we had headlines shouting "benefit change will reduce homelessness as those with spare rooms meet the challenge by taking in lodgers" we would have a totally different situation and mindset.

Ask yourself what exactly is it any political party gains from convincing citizens that they are useless and unable to cope.

by Guest Sun Jan 05, 2014 4:03 pm

sphinx wrote:Actually the changes are not sudden and there is no lack of necessary information - I know I am directly affected by these changes. I have been fully informed of everything at every stage without any effort on my behalf. fact at times I have been annoyed at having the same piece of information delivered by yet another agency without my asking.
No what is actually happening is people are reading in the media that the changes are A) unfair and B) poor people wont be able to cope and C) there is no help available for those who dont understand so people are making no effort to understand and are not paying any attention to the information that is being provided to them and are failing to access or even try to access the help that is available to them.

Of course by failing to make any effort they are strengthening the myth that they cannot cope.

Contrast this with the media message and its effect during the first and second world wars - women went from being unable to understand or work machinery to operating it just fine while the papers and radios trumpeted messages about how women were prepared to step up to any challenge. The same for men fighting. The same for people coping with rationing.

If our media stopped making out people could not cope then far more people would be coping. For the media to stop the charities and support groups have to stop. If instead of "benefit change going to leave thousands at risk of homelessness" we had headlines shouting "benefit change will reduce homelessness as those with spare rooms meet the challenge by taking in lodgers" we would have a totally different situation and mindset.

Ask yourself what exactly is it any political party gains from convincing citizens that they are useless and unable to cope.

Would have thought that was obvious, in ALL cases, whether left or right wing...the answer is......CONTROL

in labours case a willingly compliant voter base, dependent upon their hand-outs and in the Tory case a demonised, downtrodden and desperate populace that are ripe for exploitation.

One as morally despicable as the other, but in the tory case having a far greater human AND sociological cost.

by Guest Sun Jan 05, 2014 4:08 pm

Sphinx, I gather you are trying to say that this is OK, because it is part of the UC roll out and accounted for.

Then how do you account for the fact that UC is now unlikely to fully come into place until 2020 and is going to miss its 2017 deadline, and in fact at the moment is hardly anywhere at all, and is unlikely to be for the foreseeable future because of the IT fuckup, and yet they are going to stop the emergency funding next year?

by Guest Sun Jan 05, 2014 4:11 pm

grumpy old git wrote:
sphinx wrote:Actually the changes are not sudden and there is no lack of necessary information - I know I am directly affected by these changes. I have been fully informed of everything at every stage without any effort on my behalf. fact at times I have been annoyed at having the same piece of information delivered by yet another agency without my asking.
No what is actually happening is people are reading in the media that the changes are A) unfair and B) poor people wont be able to cope and C) there is no help available for those who dont understand so people are making no effort to understand and are not paying any attention to the information that is being provided to them and are failing to access or even try to access the help that is available to them.

Of course by failing to make any effort they are strengthening the myth that they cannot cope.

Contrast this with the media message and its effect during the first and second world wars - women went from being unable to understand or work machinery to operating it just fine while the papers and radios trumpeted messages about how women were prepared to step up to any challenge. The same for men fighting. The same for people coping with rationing.

If our media stopped making out people could not cope then far more people would be coping. For the media to stop the charities and support groups have to stop. If instead of "benefit change going to leave thousands at risk of homelessness" we had headlines shouting "benefit change will reduce homelessness as those with spare rooms meet the challenge by taking in lodgers" we would have a totally different situation and mindset.

Ask yourself what exactly is it any political party gains from convincing citizens that they are useless and unable to cope.

Would have thought that was obvious, in ALL cases, whether left or right wing...the answer is......CONTROL

in labours case a willingly compliant voter base, dependent upon their hand-outs and in the Tory case a demonised, downtrodden and desperate populace that are ripe for exploitation.

One as morally despicable as the other, but in the tory case having a far greater human AND sociological cost.

No the cost is equal - just different. Like saying the physically ill person is more damaged than the mentally ill one because their damage can be seen.

by Guest Sun Jan 05, 2014 4:15 pm

Is it hell!!!!!! And I have to disagree Grumpy, I don't think for one instant Labour want people on handouts if they can avoid it, only if they need it.

by Guest Sun Jan 05, 2014 4:19 pm

Sassy wrote:Sphinx, I gather you are trying to say that this is OK, because it is part of the UC roll out and accounted for.

Then how do you account for the fact that UC is now unlikely to fully come into place until 2020 and is going to miss its 2017 deadline, and in fact at the moment is hardly anywhere at all, and is unlikely to be for the foreseeable future because of the IT fuckup, and yet they are going to stop the emergency funding next year?

No the guaranteed funding is going to stop with funding being reviewed regularly. Reviewed means looking at how much is needed and whether need is being met from present streams.
So 2015 1 council is on UC and can fund crisis out of its own stream - it gets nothing from central while every other council gets necessary. 2017 40% of councils are on UC so they get nothing while others get necessary, 2020 all councils on UC so no council getting central funding for crisis.

Once again the doom mongers are using a perfectly reasonable announcement to make a huge drama and scare the shit out of people who will be so busy worrying about what might be happening they dont take any time to realize its not actually happening, or that is has happened and not made a blind bit of difference to their lives.

by Guest Sun Jan 05, 2014 4:20 pm

Really sassy? So, Explain why labour imported all those foreigners, DELIBERATELY as they admit, in a cynical attempt to boost their voter base? the two are related

by Guest Sun Jan 05, 2014 4:20 pm

Sassy wrote:Is it hell!!!!!! And I have to disagree Grumpy, I don't think for one instant Labour want people on handouts if they can avoid it, only if they need it.

Define need.

by Guest Sun Jan 05, 2014 4:23 pm

sphinx wrote:
grumpy old git wrote:

Would have thought that was obvious, in ALL cases, whether left or right wing...the answer is......CONTROL

in labours case a willingly compliant voter base, dependent upon their hand-outs and in the Tory case a demonised, downtrodden and desperate populace that are ripe for exploitation.

One as morally despicable as the other, but in the tory case having a far greater human AND sociological cost.

No the cost is equal - just different. Like saying the physically ill person is more damaged than the mentally ill one because their damage can be seen.

wrong, the first can be easily cured by providing jobs (which however requires more wide ranging changes than benefits) the other can only be cured by destroying the parasites at the top...and do we really want to go there?

by Guest Sun Jan 05, 2014 4:31 pm

grumpy old git wrote:
sphinx wrote:

No the cost is equal - just different. Like saying the physically ill person is more damaged than the mentally ill one because their damage can be seen.
wrong, the first can be easily cured by providing jobs (which however requires more wide ranging changes than benefits) the other can only be cured by destroying the parasites at the top...and do we really want to go there?

There seems to be very little taste for tackling the white collar crime of the parasites at the top.

by Guest Sun Jan 05, 2014 4:34 pm

Unfortunately the wide ranging changes to provide jobs mean RW management of the economy to attract and encourage private investment except that you think they are parasites that should be destroyed.

Or are you going to go for the myth that public sector jobs are a solution?

by Guest Sun Jan 05, 2014 4:35 pm

NemsAgain wrote:
grumpy old git wrote:
wrong, the first can be easily cured by providing jobs (which however requires more wide ranging changes than benefits) the other can only be cured by destroying the parasites at the top...and do we really want to go there?

There seems to be very little taste for tackling the white collar crime of the parasites at the top.

Got to agree with that statement

by Guest Sun Jan 05, 2014 4:35 pm

Nems, the biggest problem being that those who have the power and authority to tackle the "white collar crime wave".............are the white collar wearers

by Guest Sun Jan 05, 2014 4:41 pm

grumpy old git wrote:Nems, the biggest problem being that those who have the power and authority to tackle the "white collar crime wave".............are the white collar wearers

Absolutely. So what to do to stop the people noticing?!
We shall create a bogey man to frighten the tax payer and neatly divert his attention from
the tens of billions being with held or defrauded and drip feed him stories of how this country would prosper if the poor sick and
vulnerable stopped scrounging. Sweeten the pill with wall to wall reality TV and Bobs your uncle, fanny's your aunt.

by Guest Sun Jan 05, 2014 4:43 pm

Actually I think the press regulation is more sinister

by Guest Sun Jan 05, 2014 4:49 pm

sphinx wrote:Unfortunately the wide ranging changes to provide jobs mean RW management of the economy to attract and encourage private investment except that you think they are parasites that should be destroyed.

Or are you going to go for the myth that public sector jobs are a solution?

No and No...

jobs should be made available REGARDLESS of cost (financially OR politically) as it is the DUTY of goverment to protect its citizens.

now, The R/W hold their hands up in Horror at subsdised industry BUT that is Exactly what we have, and on a massive scale.
industry gets to pay stupidly low wages, at a terrible cost to society, and the govt, to ameliorate this, and patently to prevent social unrest, pay "tax credits" to boost the wages, thus effectively subsidising industries wage bill via the back door so to speak. At the same time it provides unwitting cannon fodder in the war of abuse via the R/W press against those very people and blinds the rest of the population to the real truth.
neat aint it.

we (or rather the govt) should be building industrial manufacturing via COMPULSARY partnerships (if that aint a logical absurdity) with industrial giants and shudder, the banks, paying a living wage (as opposed to minimum wage) If this needs sticking two fingers up to brussels...so much the better. this done the, rest of industry would have to follow suit with living wages. rents should be controlled and capped to the wage statistics (ignoring the top 5% which is unrepresentative) so in fact rents and mortgage payments should be going down atm, since wages have fallen in real terms over the past years. and prices of STAPLE goods ONLY should be also controlled. Tax cheating/avoiding/squirming individuals and companies should be sorted and dealt with.

by Guest Sun Jan 05, 2014 4:51 pm

grumpy old git wrote:Really sassy? So, Explain why labour imported all those foreigners, DELIBERATELY as they admit, in a cynical attempt to boost their voter base? the two are related

Agree that's what they did, I don't agree that's their mindset now thank goodness. Think it taught them a great big lesson.

by Guest Sun Jan 05, 2014 4:52 pm

sphinx wrote:Actually I think the press regulation is more sinister

regulation?? what regulation...I'd make one simple fair and open rule

No media source would be allowed to publish ANYTHING, except the VERIFIABLE truth, no "opinion" no "speculation" and certainly no trial warping nonsense that they are so fond of. on penalty of closure and life in gaol for the top team members.

by Guest Sun Jan 05, 2014 4:53 pm

grumpy old git wrote:
sphinx wrote:Unfortunately the wide ranging changes to provide jobs mean RW management of the economy to attract and encourage private investment except that you think they are parasites that should be destroyed.

Or are you going to go for the myth that public sector jobs are a solution?

No and No...

jobs should be made available REGARDLESS of cost (financially OR politically) as it is the DUTY of goverment to protect its citizens.

now, The R/W hold their hands up in Horror at subsdised industry BUT that is Exactly what we have, and on a massive scale.
industry gets to pay stupidly low wages, at a terrible cost to society, and the govt, to ameliorate this, and patently to prevent social unrest, pay "tax credits" to boost the wages, thus effectively subsidising industries wage bill via the back door so to speak. At the same time it provides unwitting cannon fodder in the war of abuse via the R/W press against those very people and blinds the rest of the population to the real truth.
neat aint it.

we (or rather the govt) should be building industrial manufacturing via COMPULSARY partnerships (if that aint a logical absurdity) with industrial giants and shudder, the banks, paying a living wage (as opposed to minimum wage) If this needs sticking two fingers up to brussels...so much the better. this done the, rest of industry would have to follow suit with living wages. rents should be controlled and capped to the wage statistics (ignoring the top 5% which is unrepresentative) so in fact rents and mortgage payments should be going down atm, since wages have fallen in real terms over the past years. and prices of STAPLE goods ONLY should be also controlled. Tax cheating/avoiding/squirming individuals and companies should be sorted and dealt with.

Exactly, what is having to pay benefits to people who are working if it NOT a subsidy to the business they are working for?

by Original Quill Sun Jan 05, 2014 5:09 pm

sphinx wrote:No I dont miss the logic - I just compare what the logic says should be happening with the truth of what actually is happening and find that it is very very rare the 2 are remotely similar.

I mean logic said that if the UK put all its criminals on the other side of the world then they would have less criminals and the other side of the world would be a degenerate cess pit of criminality.

Any opinions on the veracity of that?

Does that include tories? Kidding, but define criminals...so you would wish to see Mandela in a cess pit of criminality? After all, he was a criminal. So was Aung San Suu Kyi of Burma. And or Martin Luther King, or Jesus Christ, for that matter. All degenerates?

Didn't think that one through, didja? Logic is about thinking things through, sphinx.

sphinx wrote:As for the local councils have you missed the bit I put about rent? Local authorities will no longer be responsible for paying housing benefit/LHA so all the money they have previously paid for rent can be used to pay for crisises.

Yes, but I'm focusing on the other side...after all, it was you that said this was a bilateral trade. So, what about the crisis fund?

by Guest Sun Jan 05, 2014 5:12 pm

grumpy old git wrote:
sphinx wrote:Unfortunately the wide ranging changes to provide jobs mean RW management of the economy to attract and encourage private investment except that you think they are parasites that should be destroyed.

Or are you going to go for the myth that public sector jobs are a solution?

No and No...

jobs should be made available REGARDLESS of cost (financially OR politically) as it is the DUTY of goverment to protect its citizens.

now, The R/W hold their hands up in Horror at subsdised industry BUT that is Exactly what we have, and on a massive scale.
industry gets to pay stupidly low wages, at a terrible cost to society, and the govt, to ameliorate this, and patently to prevent social unrest, pay "tax credits" to boost the wages, thus effectively subsidising industries wage bill via the back door so to speak. At the same time it provides unwitting cannon fodder in the war of abuse via the R/W press against those very people and blinds the rest of the population to the real truth.
neat aint it.

we (or rather the govt) should be building industrial manufacturing via COMPULSARY partnerships (if that aint a logical absurdity) with industrial giants and shudder, the banks, paying a living wage (as opposed to minimum wage) If this needs sticking two fingers up to brussels...so much the better. this done the, rest of industry would have to follow suit with living wages. rents should be controlled and capped to the wage statistics (ignoring the top 5% which is unrepresentative) so in fact rents and mortgage payments should be going down atm, since wages have fallen in real terms over the past years. and prices of STAPLE goods ONLY should be also controlled. Tax cheating/avoiding/squirming individuals and companies should be sorted and dealt with.

OK firstly things cannot be done regardless of financial cost - unless you are going to get rid of the whole financial system that is a fact of life.

You are right that we find ourselves in the situation of subsidised industries via the means of tax credits. You are in error talking about a living wage as the solution. The NMW was a living wage at the time of its inception however it totally failed to solve the problem of relative wealth to the point we get today where is it no longer a living wage and the gap between highest and lowest paid is actually bigger than ever.

Compulsory anything will not work - something the human animal seems to have a hard time learning as it is proposed and tried again and again with similar lack of results (look at NMW above)

Rents and mortgages cannot be controlled by capping them to wages because they are driven my numerical demand not available money. If you tried capping them all that would happen would be the opening up of a massive black market in bribes and subsidies.

My suggested solution is the creation of a maximum wage whereby the highest paid individual in any company is linked by a multiple to the lowest paid. This frees up the huge number of small business who could offer work but cannot pay minimum wage as even the boss/owner is taking home little benefit - this work will appeal to students, spouses of working partners, and those after a second job. People taking the jobs will be secure in the knowledge that if the company becomes more successful that as the boss takes raises they will get raises as well. At the other end with the big tax avoiding giants currently using NMW to their own advantage of keeping thousands of employees on the bare minimum they will be faced with cutting the salaries of their big bosses or raising the salaries at the bottom and lets face it the big bosses are not going to like salary cuts. By linking highest to lowest we allow the market forces of supply and demand to work while encouraging wages to find proper equilibrium. The little guy knows if the boss gets a rise so does he, the boss knows if he wants to cut the little guys salary he will have to cut his own. I appreciate that it would be challenging to write such a system into law with proper protection covering perks like company cars etc and preventing bosses going "self employed" and working as contractors but it could be done and once operational would act to limit the gap between highest and lowest paid and thus iron out some of the worst of societies inequalities.

by Guest Sun Jan 05, 2014 5:19 pm

The minimum wage was never a living wage and was never defined as being such.

by Guest Sun Jan 05, 2014 5:32 pm

Original Quill wrote:
sphinx wrote:No I dont miss the logic - I just compare what the logic says should be happening with the truth of what actually is happening and find that it is very very rare the 2 are remotely similar.

I mean logic said that if the UK put all its criminals on the other side of the world then they would have less criminals and the other side of the world would be a degenerate cess pit of criminality.

Any opinions on the veracity of that?

Does that include tories? Kidding, but define criminals...so you would wish to see Mandela in a cess pit of criminality? After all, he was a criminal. So was Aung San Suu Kyi of Burma. And or Martin Luther King, or Jesus Christ, for that matter. All degenerates?

Didn't think that one through, didja? Logic is about thinking things through, sphinx.

sphinx wrote:As for the local councils have you missed the bit I put about rent? Local authorities will no longer be responsible for paying housing benefit/LHA so all the money they have previously paid for rent can be used to pay for crisises.

Yes, but I'm focusing on the other side...after all, it was you that said this was a bilateral trade. So, what about the crisis fund?

No honestly I did think it through - you have missed my point. Separating out did not work according to logic because life is not logical. The people you put demonstrate exactly the same point (incidentally I consider Mandela far more a criminal, and a nasty one at that, than a hero buy your point is valid with the others)

Well seeing as the councils are going to have the money that would previously have been used to pay rent they will have available funds. Of course they could choose to spend them on things other than crisis payments but I sincerely doubt that they will do away with crisis payments (they will no doubt complain they need more money though) because crisis can happen to anyone. People dont want to see those in crisis denied help they want to see chancers stopped.

by Guest Sun Jan 05, 2014 5:36 pm

sphinx wrote:
grumpy old git wrote:

No and No...

jobs should be made available REGARDLESS of cost (financially OR politically) as it is the DUTY of goverment to protect its citizens.

now, The R/W hold their hands up in Horror at subsdised industry BUT that is Exactly what we have, and on a massive scale.
industry gets to pay stupidly low wages, at a terrible cost to society, and the govt, to ameliorate this, and patently to prevent social unrest, pay "tax credits" to boost the wages, thus effectively subsidising industries wage bill via the back door so to speak. At the same time it provides unwitting cannon fodder in the war of abuse via the R/W press against those very people and blinds the rest of the population to the real truth.
neat aint it.

we (or rather the govt) should be building industrial manufacturing via COMPULSARY partnerships (if that aint a logical absurdity) with industrial giants and shudder, the banks, paying a living wage (as opposed to minimum wage) If this needs sticking two fingers up to brussels...so much the better. this done the, rest of industry would have to follow suit with living wages. rents should be controlled and capped to the wage statistics (ignoring the top 5% which is unrepresentative) so in fact rents and mortgage payments should be going down atm, since wages have fallen in real terms over the past years. and prices of STAPLE goods ONLY should be also controlled. Tax cheating/avoiding/squirming individuals and companies should be sorted and dealt with.

OK firstly things cannot be done regardless of financial cost - unless you are going to get rid of the whole financial system that is a fact of life.

Actually, in the immediate term it can, provided the long term can be shown to be viable, or at least better than the long term otherwise would be.

You are right that we find ourselves in the situation of subsidised industries via the means of tax credits. You are in error talking about a living wage as the solution. The NMW was a living wage at the time of its inception however it totally failed to solve the problem of relative wealth to the point we get today where is it no longer a living wage and the gap between highest and lowest paid is actually bigger than ever.

thats merely a matter of semantics, my point is that the result would "create" the conditions for an overall living wage.

Compulsory anything will not work - something the human animal seems to have a hard time learning as it is proposed and tried again and again with similar lack of results (look at NMW above)

It would if the penalties were draconian enough and the balls to implement them available

Rents and mortgages cannot be controlled by capping them to wages because they are driven my numerical demand not available money. If you tried capping them all that would happen would be the opening up of a massive black market in bribes and subsidies.

but its now driven by available money and again the black market could, given the will, be suppresed to little more than nucience level, think seizure of ALL assets, 200 years in a saudi stye gaol etc

My suggested solution is the creation of a maximum wage whereby the highest paid individual in any company is linked by a multiple to the lowest paid. This frees up the huge number of small business who could offer work but cannot pay minimum wage as even the boss/owner is taking home little benefit - this work will appeal to students, spouses of working partners, and those after a second job. People taking the jobs will be secure in the knowledge that if the company becomes more successful that as the boss takes raises they will get raises as well. At the other end with the big tax avoiding giants currently using NMW to their own advantage of keeping thousands of employees on the bare minimum they will be faced with cutting the salaries of their big bosses or raising the salaries at the bottom and lets face it the big bosses are not going to like salary cuts. By linking highest to lowest we allow the market forces of supply and demand to work while encouraging wages to find proper equilibrium. The little guy knows if the boss gets a rise so does he, the boss knows if he wants to cut the little guys salary he will have to cut his own. I appreciate that it would be challenging to write such a system into law with proper protection covering perks like company cars etc and preventing bosses going "self employed" and working as contractors but it could be done and once operational would act to limit the gap between highest and lowest paid and thus iron out some of the worst of societies inequalities.

Oh this is so good, I love it, I totally agree its one way forward....

by Guest Sun Jan 05, 2014 5:38 pm

Sassy wrote:The minimum wage was never a living wage and was never defined as being such.

Yeah but when it came in there was no such description as living wage. Shortly before it came in I changed jobs - the wage at my old job was nearly doubled by minimum wage and trust me I was living on it.

The trouble with the term living wage is it involves defining need, poverty, etc - and what exactly is enough or not enough.

by Guest Sun Jan 05, 2014 5:47 pm

grumpy old git wrote:
sphinx wrote:

OK firstly things cannot be done regardless of financial cost - unless you are going to get rid of the whole financial system that is a fact of life.

Actually, in the immediate term it can, provided the long term can be shown to be viable, or at least better than the long term otherwise would be.

You are right that we find ourselves in the situation of subsidised industries via the means of tax credits. You are in error talking about a living wage as the solution. The NMW was a living wage at the time of its inception however it totally failed to solve the problem of relative wealth to the point we get today where is it no longer a living wage and the gap between highest and lowest paid is actually bigger than ever.

thats merely a matter of semantics, my point is that the result would "create" the conditions for an overall living wage.

Compulsory anything will not work - something the human animal seems to have a hard time learning as it is proposed and tried again and again with similar lack of results (look at NMW above)

It would if the penalties were draconian enough and the balls to implement them available

Rents and mortgages cannot be controlled by capping them to wages because they are driven my numerical demand not available money. If you tried capping them all that would happen would be the opening up of a massive black market in bribes and subsidies.

but its now driven by available money and again the black market could, given the will, be suppresed to little more than nucience level, think seizure of ALL assets, 200 years in a saudi stye gaol etc

My suggested solution is the creation of a maximum wage whereby the highest paid individual in any company is linked by a multiple to the lowest paid. This frees up the huge number of small business who could offer work but cannot pay minimum wage as even the boss/owner is taking home little benefit - this work will appeal to students, spouses of working partners, and those after a second job. People taking the jobs will be secure in the knowledge that if the company becomes more successful that as the boss takes raises they will get raises as well. At the other end with the big tax avoiding giants currently using NMW to their own advantage of keeping thousands of employees on the bare minimum they will be faced with cutting the salaries of their big bosses or raising the salaries at the bottom and lets face it the big bosses are not going to like salary cuts. By linking highest to lowest we allow the market forces of supply and demand to work while encouraging wages to find proper equilibrium. The little guy knows if the boss gets a rise so does he, the boss knows if he wants to cut the little guys salary he will have to cut his own. I appreciate that it would be challenging to write such a system into law with proper protection covering perks like company cars etc and preventing bosses going "self employed" and working as contractors but it could be done and once operational would act to limit the gap between highest and lowest paid and thus iron out some of the worst of societies inequalities.

Oh this is so good, I love it, I totally agree its one way forward....

Thank you. I am very cynical about human nature and what can be done with it. Draconian measures etc etc do not stop humans - otherwise we would all be living in draconian cultures with next to no crime. So I look for solutions that try to harness human nature and maybe divert it a little rather than trying to force it into a shape its not.

At the very least its a different idea anyway.

by Irn Bru Sun Jan 05, 2014 7:09 pm

sphinx wrote:No I dont miss the logic - I just compare what the logic says should be happening with the truth of what actually is happening and find that it is very very rare the 2 are remotely similar.

I mean logic said that if the UK put all its criminals on the other side of the world then they would have less criminals and the other side of the world would be a degenerate cess pit of criminality. Any opinions on the veracity of that?

As for the local councils have you missed the bit I put about rent? Local authorities will no longer be responsible for paying housing benefit/LHA so all the money they have previously paid for rent can be used to pay for crisises.

Hang on a minute. Can you just clarify what you mean by that? Are you saying that HB was funded and paid for by the council?

by Guest Sun Jan 05, 2014 9:22 pm

Irn Bru wrote:
sphinx wrote:No I dont miss the logic - I just compare what the logic says should be happening with the truth of what actually is happening and find that it is very very rare the 2 are remotely similar.

I mean logic said that if the UK put all its criminals on the other side of the world then they would have less criminals and the other side of the world would be a degenerate cess pit of criminality. Any opinions on the veracity of that?

As for the local councils have you missed the bit I put about rent? Local authorities will no longer be responsible for paying housing benefit/LHA so all the money they have previously paid for rent can be used to pay for crisises.

Hang on a minute. Can you just clarify what you mean by that? Are you saying that HB was funded and paid for by the council?

Unfortunately Andrea fucked up the thread. I'd like to know that as well.

by Irn Bru Sun Jan 05, 2014 9:28 pm

Sassy wrote:
Irn Bru wrote:

Hang on a minute. Can you just clarify what you mean by that? Are you saying that HB was funded and paid for by the council?

Unfortunately Andrea fucked up the thread. I'd like to know that as well.

I'm sure a benefit advisor would be able to keep us right on that. Even an unofficial one lol

by Guest Sun Jan 05, 2014 9:35 pm

Absolutely!

by Guest Sun Jan 05, 2014 9:47 pm

Come on Sphinx, you must know, if you are saying that the councils can use the money to pay emergency payments.

by Guest Sun Jan 05, 2014 10:01 pm

Oh good grief.

Who pays my HB now?

Who will pay it when UC comes in?

As when UC comes in the payment will come from a different source what is going to happen to the money that would have been paid to me from the original source.

by Guest Sun Jan 05, 2014 10:03 pm

Sphinx, did you or did you not say that councils can use the money they will not be paying in housing benefit to give grants to people with an emergency?

So you think that the councils supply the money for housing benefit?

by Guest Sun Jan 05, 2014 10:11 pm

Sassy wrote:Sphinx, did you or did you not say that councils can use the money they will not be paying in housing benefit to give grants to people with an emergency?

So you think that the councils supply the money for housing benefit?

How do you mean supply?

by Guest Sun Jan 05, 2014 10:17 pm

FROM WHAT MONEY IS HOUSING BENEFIT PAID?

by Guest Sun Jan 05, 2014 10:19 pm

IF IT HELPS, FROM WHAT POT DOES HOUSING BENEFITS PAYMENT COME FROM.

by Guest Sun Jan 05, 2014 10:21 pm

Oh dear.

I think what you actually want to find out is whether I am aware of how the money gets to the councils that are in charge of dishing it out. You are desperately hoping that I am going to say it comes from council tax income.

by Guest Sun Jan 05, 2014 10:23 pm

Well, if you know where it comes from, why are you saying that councils could use that money for other things?

by Guest Sun Jan 05, 2014 10:24 pm

Sassy wrote:Well, if you know where it comes from, why are you saying that councils could use that money for other things?

Because they could.

by Guest Sun Jan 05, 2014 10:30 pm

OMG, I'll put you out of your misery. The DWP pay the council the housing benefit they pay to you. If the council is not in charge of paying you the housing benefit, THEY WON'T BE GETTING IT.

by Guest Sun Jan 05, 2014 10:33 pm

So, if the don't get it, how can they use it for anything else?

by Guest Sun Jan 05, 2014 10:38 pm

and herein lies the problem, not only that they could, but that they WILL, for such essentials as the mayors limmo, the head of the councils duck house and other such useful community spending. (not to mention the totally unneeded and unwanted bodies such as the gender and race recognition society and its associated rottweilers looking for the faintest hint of a slur comming from the mouths of 5 year olds, just so they can put a black mark on the kids record) or spending on the bin inspectorate whos obergrupenfuhrers dig through your rubbish bin to make sure you are only putting the "right sort of rubbish" in the right bin...THAT expenditure is FAR more important than seeing folks housed securely and decently.

by Guest Sun Jan 05, 2014 10:38 pm

sphinx wrote:
Sassy wrote:Well, if you know where it comes from, why are you saying that councils could use that money for other things?

Because they could.

Has this got anything to do with what you are talking about Sphinx?

The Department for Work and Pensions pays local councils an administration grant based on the numbers of new claims and overall case-load; as well as various other cost factor adjustments to take into account the relative staff and accommodation costs. The level of Administration Grant awarded is announced annually by the Department for Work and Pensions.

Local Services Support Grant

From 2013, local councils will be able to decide how most of their grants from central government should be spent in their area. The only exceptions are schools funding and the new public health grant. The new Local Services Support Grant is a single grant paid by central government to individual councils to help support and protect local services. Councils can decide themselves how they wish to use it.

https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/giving-local-authorities-more-control-over-how-they-spend-public-money-in-their-area--2

by Irn Bru Sun Jan 05, 2014 10:42 pm

sphinx wrote:
Sassy wrote:Well, if you know where it comes from, why are you saying that councils could use that money for other things?

Because they could.

No Sphinx. The funding for councils to pay HB comes from Central government and that's what it's for. It can't be used for any other purpose because if it was then HB couldn't be paid to those who qualify.

by Sponsored content