PDA

View Full Version : Universal credit 'will destroy people'



vetran
29th April 2013, 14:16
BBC News - Universal credit 'will destroy people' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22335001)


Quite thoughtful

AtW
29th April 2013, 14:21
I am pretty sure Global Warming will get 'em first. :eyes

b0redom
29th April 2013, 14:25
Interesting thought, but surely people have to take some responsibility for their own actions.

I mean some element of their budget comes in cash at the moment anyway. What happens when people come along and say 'I spent all me food budget on special brew and fags.' Does the council/government keep handing out cash?

Serious question, I don't know how it works.

Bunk
29th April 2013, 14:27
to be trusted to pay their rent and other bills... it's not going to happen

And who's f***ing fault is that? Take some responsibility :tantrum:

The Spartan
29th April 2013, 14:31
They sure do need to take responsibility, OK so mental health is an issue but the problem is too many so called experts buy into all that crap. I get stressed as does everyone else but some people take the p*** with it, I burst out laughing when the guy said "I have to move from MY house of 14 years due to the bedroom tax" sorry mate but it's NOT your house wake the f*** up!

EternalOptimist
29th April 2013, 14:37
They sure do need to take responsibility, OK so mental health is an issue but the problem is too many so called experts buy into all that crap. I get stressed as does everyone else but some people take the p*** with it, I burst out laughing when the guy said "I have to move from MY house of 14 years due to the bedroom tax" sorry mate but it's NOT your house wake the f*** up!

trouble is, a lot of them think it IS their house. they 'have a right'
they really believe there is a bottomless well full of money

the 'us and them' is frighteningly real




:rolleyes:

The Spartan
29th April 2013, 14:42
I p*ssed my pants laughing at some of those comments on their, more social housing oh yeah lets just build you a nice new build to house you. Dear me I think all those years of my mum fiddling the system had a profound effect on me in the sense that I believe the majority of what most people say is tulipe

EternalOptimist
29th April 2013, 14:56
there

Scoobos
29th April 2013, 15:00
I actually agree with this in principal - but the money needs to be weighted to the area - Comparing benefits in London to argue percentage reductions across the board is silly.

Cost of living is imo at least 33% cheaper in say Preston, to London.

doodab
29th April 2013, 15:20
Cost of living is imo at least 33% cheaper in say Preston, to London.

So we could reduce the benefits bill considerably by sending all the scroungers and skivers up north. Preston could become a sort of concentration camp (from what I gather this would be considered gentrification) and we'd have the added benefit of those in low wage low security jobs becoming motivated to work harder out of fear.

Arbeit macht frei indeed.

VectraMan
29th April 2013, 15:22
I actually agree with this in principal - but the money needs to be weighted to the area - Comparing benefits in London to argue percentage reductions across the board is silly.

Cost of living is imo at least 33% cheaper in say Preston, to London.

Why on earth should people get more money to live in London? Do they have to live in London? Perhaps they should move to Preston.

vetran
29th April 2013, 15:23
Why on earth should people get more money to live in London? Do they have to live in London? Perhaps they should move to Preston.

someone has to clean tables or sweep the millionaires drives.

xoggoth
29th April 2013, 15:24
to be trusted to pay their rent and other bills... it's not going to happen
And who's f***ing fault is that? Take some responsibility

Yes but they may not the only ones affected. I imagine landlords will be even less willing to take DHS people and that affects others.

Scoobos
29th April 2013, 15:24
In answer to:

"Why on earth should people get more money to live in London? Do they have to live in London?"

It's more a case of benefits are supposed to be able to give people a safety net - e.g. the very bare minimum.

I can rent a decent property in Preston for 400 a month , you can't rent a shed in london for 1000.

Also, are you saying that people should stay where there is no work? That's a strange view considering the concensus here should be that everyone moves to london as its the only place with a decreasing unemployment rate?

Are you saying that people who live in London should move to preston where there is even less chance of getting off the benefit trap?

doodab
29th April 2013, 15:25
someone has to pay the mortgage on all those BTL flats to prevent the housing market from crashing.

FTFY

d000hg
29th April 2013, 15:27
I'm confused, you are already responsible not to spend your housing benefit on booze & fags in most cases.

Is it simply the monthly rather weekly payments? Surely teaching responsibility is a good thing - OK fair enough people might not be used to it so give free budgeting lessons. In fact many charities will already do just that.

doodab
29th April 2013, 15:27
I can rent a decent property in Preston for 400 a month , you can't rent a shed in london for 1000.


I can do you a deal...

KentPhilip
29th April 2013, 15:28
I've listened to the first 5 minutes, and there is nothing that explains why universal credit is any worse than the old system.
Is it worth listening to the remaining 10 minutes. Is there anything new, other than the usual BBC communist propaganda?

doodab
29th April 2013, 15:30
I'm confused, you are already responsible not to spend your housing benefit on booze & fags in most cases.

Is it simply the monthly rather weekly payments? Surely teaching responsibility is a good thing - OK fair enough people might not be used to it so give free budgeting lessons. In fact many charities will already do just that.

It's surprisingly hard to teach budgeting to someone who cannot do mental arithmetic with two digit numbers. They do exist, and although some of them find work as recruitment agents many are condemned to a life of lidl groceries and cheap booze.

d000hg
29th April 2013, 15:36
It's surprisingly hard to teach budgeting to someone who cannot do mental arithmetic with two digit numbers. They do exist, and although some of them find work as recruitment agents many are condemned to a life of lidl groceries and cheap booze.True but you can go through and work out a budget with them, or simply tell them to take it in cash and split it into 4 piles :)


I thought that up until now, the housing benefits went straight to the landlord without the benefitee ever seeing the money.

Isn't one of the wondrous IDS bright ideas to abolish that?It used to be like that. Then they switched it so the claimant got the money themselves - perhaps they switched it again or it varies between county councils or something these days.

SueEllen
29th April 2013, 15:36
I found out today that this experiment was tried before a few decades ago and didn't work.

Generally those particularly in London who are able to get social housing are the particularly "vunerable" or more useless with money. That's due to the shortage of council and housing association properties in lots of boroughs means unless you get enough points due to being very vunerable you have to rent with a private landlord.

So the tenants will get their £3,000 for the rent that month and spend it on booze, fags and drugs. It will then take the councils/housing associations 8 months to evict them using the courts, which we pay for.

Once they are evicted because they are "vunerable" we have to pay for them to be put up in B&Bs.

vetran
29th April 2013, 15:40
I thought that up until now, the housing benefits went straight to the landlord without the benefitee ever seeing the money.

Isn't one of the wondrous IDS bright ideas to abolish that?

nope its see sawed back & forth for decades. Every party has had a go both ways. If its direct to Landlord you will probably get your money eventually.

If its direct to tenant then its six months to evict with no rent.

But then when the council don't pay for 4 months due to administrative issues you can see why Landlords don't like DHSS tenants at all.

VectraMan
29th April 2013, 15:50
"If you don't manufacture sommat, you can't sell it, to make profit" - one of the experts on the programme.

VectraMan
29th April 2013, 15:53
nope its see sawed back & forth for decades. Every party has had a go both ways. If its direct to Landlord you will probably get your money eventually.

I might end up claiming unemployment and housing benefit in a few months time (never have with previous spells on the bench but with hindsight maybe I should have). If it happens, I'd much rather my Landlords knew nothing about it and the state just paid me. I don't see that it's any of their business.

northernladuk
29th April 2013, 15:58
Interesting thought, but surely people have to take some responsibility for their own actions.

I mean some element of their budget comes in cash at the moment anyway. What happens when people come along and say 'I spent all me food budget on special brew and fags.' Does the council/government keep handing out cash?

Serious question, I don't know how it works.

Well there was that 'scandal' where a housing association hinted at budgetting better and not having sky etc and there was uproar...

Housing association suggests giving up Sky, alcohol, cigarettes, bingo | Metro News (http://metro.co.uk/2013/03/19/housing-association-apologises-after-asking-residents-to-give-up-sky-tv-cigarettes-and-bingo-3548616/)

vetran
29th April 2013, 16:15
I might end up claiming unemployment and housing benefit in a few months time (never have with previous spells on the bench but with hindsight maybe I should have). If it happens, I'd much rather my Landlords knew nothing about it and the state just paid me. I don't see that it's any of their business.

lend us £8000 then.

don't worry I'm good for it. As a tenant its intrusive to check your credit rating.

VectraMan
29th April 2013, 16:19
Also, are you saying that people should stay where there is no work? That's a strange view considering the concensus here should be that everyone moves to london as its the only place with a decreasing unemployment rate?

Are you saying that people who live in London should move to preston where there is even less chance of getting off the benefit trap?

It's a good point, but are the people on long term benefits in London the people likely to get London jobs? It's often true that with London prices, they'd have to earn too much to make it worth coming off benefits - which can only lead to the conclusion that the current system is broken and isn't helping anyone. Perhaps with a lower cost workforce, Preston would thrive, and without housing benefit propping up rents and house prices, London would become more affordable.

Easy to say I know.

DodgyAgent
29th April 2013, 16:32
Bring back workhouses

Gibbon
29th April 2013, 16:32
Housing association suggests giving up Sky, alcohol, cigarettes, bingo | Metro News (http://metro.co.uk/2013/03/19/housing-association-apologises-after-asking-residents-to-give-up-sky-tv-cigarettes-and-bingo-3548616/)

Forget morality or responsibility, there’s a good self interested reason for the likes us to allow those in the underclass, who have not the ability nor the aspiration to escape it, to have their Sky TV and stella. It keeps them happy and ignorant of the dross of the life they’re leading. If we screw enough of them right down to an existence devoid of entertainment or an escape from reality, they may start to want what we have and you will have nourished the seeds to violent rioting and social upheaval. What we must always ensure is that there is a route out for those that chose it and should never deride those unfortunate enough not to have the ability to do more than a menial job, if they are working hard then they deserve a decent living.

DodgyAgent
29th April 2013, 16:37
Forget morality or responsibility, there’s a good self interested reason for the likes us to allow those in the underclass, who have not the ability nor the aspiration to escape it, to have their Sky TV and stella. It keeps them happy and ignorant of the dross of the life they’re leading. If we screw enough of them right down to an existence devoid of entertainment or an escape from reality, they may start to want what we have and you will have nourished the seeds to violent rioting and social upheaval. What we must always ensure is that there is a route out for those that chose it and should never deride those unfortunate enough not to have the ability to do more than a menial job, if they are working hard then they deserve a decent living.

So do we accept then that these people will never work or contribute anything towards their own upkeep?

d000hg
29th April 2013, 16:40
So do we accept then that these people will never work or contribute anything towards their own upkeep?Many of them, yes. Someone in their 40s/50s who has been on the dole for decades and never had an education in the first place, is probably cheaper to keep on the dole than try to educate and find them a job!

DodgyAgent
29th April 2013, 16:48
Many of them, yes. Someone in their 40s/50s who has been on the dole for decades and never had an education in the first place, is probably cheaper to keep on the dole than try to educate and find them a job!

So bring back the workhouses then

OwlHoot
29th April 2013, 16:54
I found out today that this experiment was tried before a few decades ago and didn't work.

Generally those particularly in London who are able to get social housing are the particularly "vunerable" or more useless with money. That's due to the shortage of council and housing association properties in lots of boroughs means unless you get enough points due to being very vunerable you have to rent with a private landlord.

So the tenants will get their £3,000 for the rent that month and spend it on booze, fags and drugs. It will then take the councils/housing associations 8 months to evict them using the courts, which we pay for.

Once they are evicted because they are "vunerable" we have to pay for them to be put up in B&Bs.

WSS - It's all very well ranting on about how people should take responsibility for their money; but that's little less futile than saying the World would be a better place if everyone was nice to each other.

Paying monthly instead of weekly will make it irresistible for many to blow the loot in the first week one way or another (on necessities and otherwise) and then be reliant on loan sharks and/or fall further and further behind with the bills and rent. Crims must be rubbing their hands in glee at the Government's crass stupidity.

original PM
29th April 2013, 17:08
we have to make a change now to have any chance of making a difference in the next generation or so.

the main problem as always will be that labour will get in an change things back and so we will never get the 20-25 years we need where by living on benefits as removed as a career/life option.

d000hg
29th April 2013, 18:09
we have to make a change now to have any chance of making a difference in the next generation or so.Surely it's entirely possible to manage multiple systems in parallel based on age - after all this happens with pensions and driving licenses and so on. Leave the older 'institutionalised' people on the current system, put the younger ones who have a chance on a more progressive system.

VectraMan
29th April 2013, 18:24
Paying monthly instead of weekly will make it irresistible for many to blow the loot in the first week one way or another (on necessities and otherwise) and then be reliant on loan sharks and/or fall further and further behind with the bills and rent. Crims must be rubbing their hands in glee at the Government's crass stupidity.

Which amounts to saying that those on benefits can't be considered legally responsible adults, and should be in state care. So, workhouses.

Which is somewhat unfair on the majority, who probably won't make a complete mess of it.

AtW
29th April 2013, 18:36
Amount of votes adults have should be directly related to amount of tax they paid minus benefits received in the previous period before voting point.

d000hg
29th April 2013, 20:10
Amount of votes adults have should be directly related to amount of tax they paid minus benefits received in the previous period before voting point.They still haven't figured out democracy in Russia then?

darmstadt
29th April 2013, 20:26
So bring back the workhouses then

Could get a PFI in to do this and then outsource it, both management and inmates :grin

Gibbon
30th April 2013, 07:10
So do we accept then that these people will never work or contribute anything towards their own upkeep?

Unfortunately yes. It's a product of urban developed societies as opposed to agricultural subsistence societies.The idle poor have always been a problem stretching back into antiquity hence the 'bread and circuses' quote.

As I said, it's in your interest to keep this underclass content otherwise you'll be living in gated communities and stocking up on guns.

proggy
30th April 2013, 08:09
Anyone on the Dole for a year is automatically signed up to the Military, even if your 50 you have to go through basic training etc. This would solve many problems in one move. They get put on the front line first rather than the brave ones who choose to join. This would soon get their asses into work.

doodab
30th April 2013, 08:15
Anyone on the Dole for a year is automatically signed up to the Military, even if your 50 you have to go through basic training etc. This would solve many problems in one move. They get put on the front line first rather than the brave ones who choose to join. This would soon get their asses into work.

Train then how to kill and traumatise them. Genius.

Old Hack
30th April 2013, 08:17
Anyone on the Dole for a year is automatically signed up to the Military, even if your 50 you have to go through basic training etc. This would solve many problems in one move. They get put on the front line first rather than the brave ones who choose to join. This would soon get their asses into work.

The 'brave ones' who 'chose' to join often didn't have options. If you look where you get most of your infantry/grunts from, you'll find it is mainly from high unemployment areas, who have low intellect/education. The ones with intellect, of sorts, joined as officers, and in less front line positions.

It would never work. Mass desertion, refusals and so on. In the age of forced service, how many would simply jump off high buildings to shag their knees.

DodgyAgent
30th April 2013, 08:17
Anyone on the Dole for a year is automatically signed up to the Military, even if your 50 you have to go through basic training etc. This would solve many problems in one move. They get put on the front line first rather than the brave ones who choose to join. This would soon get their asses into work.

I thought you were a lefty

proggy
30th April 2013, 08:19
Train then how to kill and traumatise them. Genius.

I think your'e missing the point entirely, none of them will want to be dodging bullets in the desert, they would rather just get a job in Asda stacking shelves.

Didn't think I needed to explain that, but I forgot the level of intelligence on here is on the low side.

Old Hack
30th April 2013, 08:24
I think your'e missing the point entirely, none of them will want to be dodging bullets in the desert, they would rather just get a job in Asda stacking shelves.

Didn't think I needed to explain that, but I forgot the level of intelligence on here is on the low side.

So what you're assuming, is that there are a surplus of jobs then? No?

d000hg
30th April 2013, 08:25
There was a property owning criterion in this country until fairly recently.

It's notable that the country's decline coincided with the introduction of universal suffrage.

:eyesPeople have been saying the country has been declining since it becamea country in the first place. It's a truism that things were better in the past, just as new music is crap.

doodab
30th April 2013, 09:02
I thought you were a lefty

You think everyone is a lefty.

proggy
30th April 2013, 09:06
I thought you were a lefty

Nope, as I have said before, I probably align more with the right on economic and social issues (except thing like abortion and religion)

lukemg
30th April 2013, 10:03
What Gibbon said....
It's the price of doing business, chuck them enough to stop most of them coming for the rest of us and we can all get on with our lives.
Chap on 5live yesterday - it's madness, I will just blow it on drink, drugs and partyin and won't bovver paying the rent, then I will go 'on the rob' if i'm skint - astonishing but truthful !

Added to this waste of food are people for whom life is a real challenge, don't presume everyone is switched on to basic tasks. They can just about get by if someone puts a roof over and gives them a few quid - by preference weekly. Monthly is going to be a disaster.

Forget the workhouses or military options, will
cost more and won't work.
Coalition making mostly decisions I agree with but this is a shocker...

doodab
30th April 2013, 10:09
I think your'e missing the point entirely, none of them will want to be dodging bullets in the desert, they would rather just get a job in Asda stacking shelves.

Train them how to stack and then traumatize them. Genius.

proggy
30th April 2013, 10:13
Train them how to stack and then traumatize them. Genius.

As long as they unload the pricing gun on leaving the store, all is well. :happy

psychocandy
30th April 2013, 10:59
Like how a lot of them are moaning because they'll have to budget for the month now. God forbid they ever get a job that pays monthly- theyd be well screwed.

Simple answer. Give it to them at the start of the month. If they chose to spend it all on fags, booze, tattoos, bingo or whatever in the first week then starve for the other three. It'll sink in eventually....

VectraMan
30th April 2013, 11:07
Like how a lot of them are moaning because they'll have to budget for the month now. God forbid they ever get a job that pays monthly- theyd be well screwed.

Are there really people paid weekly anymore? I'm sure I've always been paid monthly (i.e. in Permiedom). My rent is paid monthly, as are all my bills. Surely getting your benefits weekly presents more of a budgeting challenge, not less.

The Spartan
30th April 2013, 11:10
Are there really people paid weekly anymore? I'm sure I've always been paid monthly (i.e. in Permiedom). My rent is paid monthly, as are all my bills. Surely getting your benefits weekly presents more of a budgeting challenge, not less.

I used to love being paid weekly back when I was a barsteward as pay day was always around the corner I found it a lot easier to manage my money but the temptation to blow it all is huge as you take the attitude well I get paid again next week.

Scoobos
30th April 2013, 11:23
So do we accept then that these people will never work or contribute anything towards their own upkeep?

As horrible as this sounds, yes you do need to accept that people are different , that in any society you are going to get idiots who look to con and screw everything. What I don't want to see is what we are starting to see in America - war veterans, the blind and unemployed people begging. It's that bad in the USA that if you become homeless you're tulipe in everyone's eyes.

I believe you can judge a countries direction by how it tries to minimise this by giving mobility and opportunity.

This is my problem with the UK and US governments current tact - to judge everything by GDP.

I also believe that what makes perfect "business sense" from a GDP perspective doesn't always translate to whats best for the population - or best long term benefit.

For me, saying our industry was so inneffective that we may as well source from overseas cos its cheaper (at the time) is niave. We are now pretty much held to ransom on Coal and Gas , Shipping etc etc - but its not that cost that gets me - its the cost to these towns and cities (yup, mostly in the industrialised north) that 3 or 4 generations of ZERO chance of a job outside of retail and call centres (and there are not enough of them).

Newcastle Upon Tyne for example, is vibrant for a Northern City, yet over 3000 people apply for a single traffic wardens job.

For me, all we are doing is concentrating purely on economic output, saying that creates wealth and jobs - but for who? Those lucky enough to be born or have the mobility to work in the South East?

I understand this is a very 1 sided view, I'm trying to be extreme to get this point across.

Just how much have we spent extra on NHS, Police, Education etc to counter a culture where grandad lost his job he got at 15, illiterate and is sore and angry - then brought up kids who themselves get sore and angry at the lack of opportunity - who then have kids whilst kids.


GDP is not everything - the "average" standard of living is what counts. Right now we have more people below the poverty line than ever and it costs a lot of moolah to maintain this.

But, I also understand I'm a northerner and the right can just blame us all as workshy fops who can't be arsed to move.. Just what would society be like if everyone moved to the South East ? We'd soon see that employment and opportunity isnt quite as good as people think.

If we want to cut the benefit bill I believe we have to present accessible opportunties for manual labourers and the "non office" educated. Running things like manufacturing at a loss, or break even is better than no job at all and 20 years of benefits.

I fully back the idea of totally removing benefits from people who refuse to work though. If an opportunity comes up for a long term unemployed person I would back removal of benefits on lack of application.