Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

Where does it say, other than pure conjecture, that the data is used that way?
Not exactly proof of anything.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

Well, people can read it and make up their own minds. I personally no longer trust them since their nasty and spiteful tricks started in 2010.

The latest thing is what they did to a woman who suffered a miscarriage, sadly, there are plenty more examples:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-new...redit-18908306

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

Sanctions existed long before 2010.

As the letter shows, if she had contacted them earlier she would have been limited to sanctioned for 7 days, if that. Instead she waited months before doing anything. The sanctions were limited when she eventually arranged and attended a meeting.

That was the trigger for everything else.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

Sanctions did indeed exist before 2010 and are sometimes necessary to ensure compliance of the rules. However, not to this ridiculous extent. Extremely petty and ridiculous reasons are now being used to sanction people to get staff stats up. The DWP denied that staff were under pressure to do this, but this was found not to be true.

After losing a child and her partner, it's no wonder that her head was all over the place. The DWP used to be there to help people, now it's a culture of believing that everyone is a fraudulant liar until proved otherwise (and even then, like in this case, the sanction wasn't lifted).

It's one of the reasons i'm glad I no longer work for them, I simply couldn't treat people like this. A lot of experienced staff have either left or took refundancy, with the rest just biding their time until retirement. New and inexperienced staff are coming out with the most absurd comments and their decisions would be laughable if they weren't so damaging to those in need.

Further examples of ridiculous sanctions are an army veteran being found dead in his flat after starving to death, a man being sanctioned for 'failing to complete a medical examination' after having a heart attack during the examination, a lone parent being sanctioned because her toddler needed to use the toilet, someone was sanctioned for failing to look for work on Christmas day and another for failing to look for work, even though at the time they were on a Government course to help people find work etc etc. Thousands of people have either died after being spuriously found fit for work or committed suicide because of this.

One bright spark decided to suspend my DLA, when I rang for a written statement of reasons and the regulations used to be quoted, she said "we don't need to tell you that"! I told her to to stop being silly and get a manager on the line. The manager apologised and immediately desuspended the claim, but how many people who aren't as au fait with the regulations as me would have just accepted this nonsense because they know no different?

It's true that people can appeal against the DWP and many are successful, but after they've been through the Mandatory Reconsideration stage, there are backlogs of over a year for appeals to be heard. How are they supposed to live until then?

I think that the loss of experienced staff is why so many mistakes are being made, though it doesn't help when the Government itself doesn't seem to know what it's doing. They introduced the Bedroom Tax, but didn't specify exactly what a bedroom was, leading to many people having an exemption granted. Another example is their attempts to abolish the Severe Disability Premium with the introduction of Universal Credit. They made a mess of that and have decided to award back pay of £120 a week, but some people lost £180 a week so another legal challenge is to be made.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

She missed 8 appointments, not just the one. She didn't get sanctioned for missing that one. It was only when the missed appointments mounted up, all without explanation, that they took action.


She apparently could attend hospital appointments, but not make an online entry or a phone call? Her partner could even have done it. She obviously thought she could get away with it multiple times, so didn't take any avoiding action.

The comments section accompanying the article isn't exactly supportive of her.

That is a blatant lie, as she missed/avoided multiple appointments.


Unless there was a previous letter, the DWP letter would suggest that the sanctions didn't start until until the face-to-face 8th Feb 17 appointment. At that point she would have been able to explain herself, but it wasn't accepted. The GP letter was dated 14th Mar 17. She should have been able to produce hospital letters.


The definition of excess bedrooms was set in place decades before 2010. It applied to private rented sector. No changes were initially made. Any changes were ones the Labour didn't introduce.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

You've clearly never had to experience the death of a child.

Seeing as you're back to trying to politicise this thread, the 'overlarge' rule for the private rented sector was brought in on 15/1/89 by the Tories at the same time that Housing Benefit claims had to be referred to the Rent Officer to ensure that it was not 'significantly above a reasonable market rent'. This was after they abolished the right to have a 'Fair Rent' registered, meaning that on the one hand rent controls were abolished, but the Government didn't want to pay out more in Housing Benefit, thus leaving people to pay the difference out of the money intended for day to day living expenses.

When the idea of abolishing rent controls was first mooted, Thatcher said that she would be prepared to pay out extra Housing Benefit, but when it happened, this was reneged on.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

Why should somebody be entitled to full housing benefit so they can live in a large oversized mansion? Common sense really. The changes brought along with the "bedroom tax", were not only beneficial to claimants, but things that mysteriously the previous Labour Government chose not to introduce. Instead they chose not increase the money paid to the landlords by setting the LHA rates much too high. Rents then increased to match those excessive rates, with Landlords safe in the knowledge HB(ie the taxpayer) would cover it.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

We're not talking mansions, we're talking terraced/semi detached houses. I agree that in some cases it's inappropriate for people to live in an oversized property, but it wasn't been thought through properly. Most council properties are 2 or 3 bedroom houses designed for families, there simply isn't enough 1 bedroom properties. The result is that people are having to either meet the shortfall out of their benefit intended for day to day living expenses, get into arrears and be evicted (some of these will qualify for much inferior 'temporary' accommodation that costs the taxpayer hundreds of pounds per week) or end up homeless with all the problems that that entails.

Many local authorities are now finding their larger properties impossible to let. It's not that people are refusing to move somewhere smaller, there simply isn't the accommodation available. The Government argues that they should consider the private sector, but this means much less housing rights for the tenant and even higher costs in Housing Benefit, simply because private sector rents are higher than those for social housing. Often, the amount the state is prepared to pay for private accommodation is similar to the overlarge local authority rent without the Bedroom Tax!

Because the regulations didn't specify exactly what a bedroom actually is, many have been able to become exempt anyway. All that's been achieved is the exact same amount of Housing Benefit being paid, with the hassle and worry for claimants and extra administrative costs for local authorities.

Some of these people are shunted from property to property (sometimes many miles away) which causes problems for work (many HB claimants are in work), childcare and schooling etc. Who would want to disrupt their childs education by changing schools every five minutes? There is a bigger picture to consider.

So, we have a situation where people are being repeatedly messed about, houses lying empty and the taxpayer paying out more for temporary accommodation. Surely it would be better to have someone living in a property with an extra bedroom than paying out hundreds a week for families to live in one room whilst their old house lies empty.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

Bedroom tax beneficial to claimants. I must have missed that report somewhere...

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

Perhaps if you actually followed the part of the discussion.
The initial point from Richard was:- "They introduced the Bedroom Tax, but didn't specify exactly what a bedroom was, leading to many people having an exemption granted.".
I pointed out that the NEW exemptions(eg room for overnight carer), didn't exist under Labour and hadn't previously applied to the private rented sector. In that sense they are more generous than before. Also very generous with taxpayers money, is where people can be paid £3,000 to downsize.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

Ah right sorry my bad. I read it wrong, as in 'The changes brought along with the "bedroom tax", were not only beneficial to claimants'...It can be read slightly ambiguously. (along with...)... :dunce: :)

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

"along with" explicitly means "as well as". Nothing ambiguous about it.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

Well I read it wrong. I said 'my bad' and explained why (politely), it was ambiguous, if you want to argue that then do it to yourself, I've got better things to do. Seems like you haven't.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

The Bedroom Tax didn't exist under Labour, so exemptions weren't required for social housing. The 'Spare room subsidy' was a notional idea invented by the Cameron Government- previous to this it was simply the rent payable.

It's correct that exemptions weren't made for overlarge properties (which may or may not be bedroom related) in the private sector, instead the local authority had the discretion to top up the Housing Benefit for those in a vulnerable situation using regulation 11 or by making payment/s under the 'exceptional circumstances' rules. This system was much more flexible and dynamic than the present exemptions list.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

Prior to 2010, there were limited(eg too disabled to be expected to move, reached state pension age) exemptions for excess bedrooms for HB in the private rented sector. Any that were there would've automatically been there for the social sector. The NEW post 2013 exemptions applied to both the private and social sectors. That is because they use the SAME underlying law. Those in the private rented sector can now have a "spare" bedroom for an overnight carer or to store a large amount of medical equipment.

Any definition of what constitutes a bedroom is pretty much the same as before. Where there have been minor changes or clarifications, they would've happened irrespective of the "bedroom tax". They are part and parcel of what happens over time.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

Work til you die, plebs.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politi...n-age-18953679

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

Well there goes many a private pension fund. Who in their right mind would pay a chunk of their salary into a pension they probably won't live to receive?

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

Unbelievable. Imagine a fire officer being expected to rescue someone on a ladder in their 70's!

I'm encouraged by some of the comments to this article, maybe people are finally beginning to wake up to what's happening.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

I hate to be pedantic, but there never was a tax on bedrooms.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

Really, I thought you tend to go out of your way to be just that.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

Aye, it's just semantics.

Thousands upon thousands have died as a result of these changes, yet this is the only thing he has to say.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

It isn’t just semantics.

A tax is something that is levied on income. A benefit is something paid out of treasury funds to those meeting certain criteria. The criteria for payment of housing benefit was changed. What is under discussion here is a reduction in state benefit, not a tax on income.

Discussing this in terms of politically loaded sound-bites (which is precisely what the term “bedroom tax” is) is itself disrespectful to those who have suffered as a result of losing benefits, because it is manipulative and dishonest. People who suffer due to lost benefits deserve to have their situations examined faithfully, not co-opted for the political advantage of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

In fairness in the minds of the long term benefit recipient, with no aspiration of gainful employment, that is their income.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

AKA - The under-occupancy penalty (also known as the under occupation penalty, Spare Room Subsidy, under-occupancy charge, under-occupation charge or size criteria). - From Wiki. But come on who calls it the 'The under-occupancy penalty'.... It is the bedroom tax in all but being pedantic. It's all too easy to have an opinion when it doesn't affect those and usually it is those with the loudest voices...

Shame it wasn't extended to the oldies. That's where most of the under occupancy properties are. Anyway it's all bull.. Those with extra bedrooms that have tried to downsize only to find out they couldn't. What's fair about that?

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

How is that different to not having a fixed compulsory retirement age? If somebody cannot be forced to retire at 65, then they could be working at age 70 and beyond.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

But that would be their choice.

---------- Post added at 19:35 ---------- Previous post was at 19:32 ----------

It's widely known as the Bedroom Tax, in the same way that the Community Charge was referred to as the Poll Tax, or the TV licence as the Telly Tax.

Most people use this term, not just opposition parties, even though it isn't technically a tax.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

It isn't a tax at all, which was my point. 'Bedroom tax' is a politically charged term designed to make people believe this subsidy reduction is something it isn't. Nobody is being taxed for having too many bedrooms.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

Whether someone on a low income receives even less money due to extra taxation, or whether they receive the same amount of money, but have to pay extra rent out of this money (which has not been updated with inflation for years) is largely irrelevant to the tenant in question as the net effect is the same.

Only about 5% of people affected have been able to move to a smaller property because they simply don't exist and, of the other 95%, about 2/3 of them are disabled.

I believe that there are measures that can be taken to make more efficient use of social housing stock and be fair to taxpayers and tenants alike. I agree that if someone refuses a reasonable offer to move to a smaller property that is available, that they should be financially penalised after a time.

When the overlarge rule for private rented accommodation came in, I argued to a committee that it wasn't fair on private tenants to treat tenants of social housing differently. At that time, private tenants were paid the full rent for 13 weeks to give them chance to find somewhere else, renegotiate the rent with the landlord or prepare to adjust their budget for the extra that they would have to pay in three months time.

Another idea would be for the stock of 2/3 bedrooms homes to be reconfigured to provide more, but smaller, housing for the growing number of single people.

It really is a nonsense that someone can be penalised for having two tiny bedrooms, whilst another with one large bedroom with a total floor space greater than the two small rooms put together receives no penalty at all!

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

... as a result of a deliberate political campaign designed to condition the way the debate is conducted, even the way the subject may be thought about, by dictating the language that may be used. The value of this approach is evident in your comments - you argue for its use based on the breadth of its uptake, to the point of insinuating someone is callous towards the deaths of thousands of people, simply for insisting on referring to the matter in other terms. As well you might. After all, it’s a tax, right? Anyone who appears to justify, excuse or dissemble when poor people are literally being taxed to death deserves it, don’t they?

The tragedy is, this is actually, genuinely, a key theme in George Orwell’s 1984, a book so widely referenced with regards to totalitarian government that few people realise how many of the tactics of the Ministry of Truth are in common use in our democratic politics.

”But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.”

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

I agree with your first paragraph, but you should describe it correctly. The measure you are talking about was designed simply to bring social housing renters into line with those in the private sector and was not designed simply to attack the poor.

There are many people renting from the private sector who are no better off. Their rents are sky-high compared to those in social housing and their security of tenure is virtually non-existent. You have said nothing about their plight.

Life isn't fair - never has been. Never will be. We have just started to emerge from the impact of a Labour-induced recession, and so it is no wonder that services and subsidies had to be cut. Now, as we emerge from the impact of that, hopefully we can find more money to improve our public services, but everything has to be prioritised. The NHS and adult social care need to be top of that list.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

A Labour induced recession that hit every major economy in the world. Quite an incredible achievement.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

Yes, I think Labour induced is a bit of a stretch, but public spending was on the up at a point in the economic cycle when it would have been more prudent to be paying down public debt. Our economy was less well prepared than it should have been, and that’s even without considering whether the Labour government had created the best possible regulatory environment in the banking sector.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

:D:D:D

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

It was Labour induced because had Gordon Brown not sold off our gold reserves and squandered all our balances, we would have been better able to weather the storm.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

Would we have weathered it though? Probably not. It's just twisting reality for a cheap, and easily rebutted, party political point.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

Well, clearly, we wouldn’t have been down by so many billions had we been able to draw on our gold reserves and balances, so austerity measures would have been considerably less impactful, and maybe not necessary at all, had Gordon Brown not frittered away our money.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

Can you prove it wouldn't be necessary at all? No. It was a global recession.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

Without the massive annual spending splurge(since around 2000) that couldn't easily have been got rid of, there was no room for a post 2008 boost. As a result, by 2008 we were paying an extra £10bn/year just in interest payments.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

Deja Vu .. you have this thing about Mr Brown and his Gold. You were told a while back he did not sell "off our gold reserves".

You forgot to criticise the nice and responsible Banking sector, they are also culpable in this period.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

Indeed both were culpable but we must remember OB has his permanent political blinkers on..

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

But sub-prime mortgages were driven by the socialist mantra that everybody and their cat should be able to afford to buy a house, just in order to profit months down the line from price increases.


What idiot invented the term "property ladder"?

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

Or the Conservatives who sold off every other state asset!

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

That were costing us money.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

The "property ladder" phrase is widely attributed to Rt Hon Major Hugh Jarse M.B.E.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

So all the utilities are now free? Why didn't anyone tell me I've been paying direct debits all these years.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

And are costing consumers a whole lot more now...

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

I said maybe. I know it was a global recession. My point is that we had no reserves to offset it. This was flagrant mismanagement of our economy by Labour, and what we would expect from them.

---------- Post added at 10:01 ---------- Previous post was at 09:57 ----------

Yes, he did sell off our gold reserves and then wasted all of the money that he could have put aside for events like this.

The banking sector was certainly not without its faults, but the government was responsible for the economy.

---------- Post added at 10:03 ---------- Previous post was at 10:01 ----------

What he meant was that they were a drain on the economy, not on household budgets. I think you know that, though.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

Link


---------- Post added at 10:07 ---------- Previous post was at 10:04 ----------

The notion that just about everybody should be able to afford to BUY a house, is a socialist mantra. Being able to buy a house is meant to be an aspiration, not a right.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

And one needs to have a chance to buy a house something many of the younger generation nowadays have no chance of doing now with hefty deposits and house prices well out of their range now...

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

Buying houses was very popular when I was young. The fact that young people have been priced out of the market is due to the 2008 crash. Now that we are gradually emerging from the austerity measures that followed, hopefully we can start to restore that balance.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

And the reason for that being the case NOW, is that in the recent past it was TOO easy. They had to make the rules tougher because of the crash.

---------- Post added at 10:24 ---------- Previous post was at 10:19 ----------

The problem is that people on zero-hour contracts, and/or on minimum wage, or just left university with a useless degree, expect and have been led to believe is their "god-given" right, to be able to buy a huge house to sell on for an easy profit.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

So household budgets being drained by private sector companies has no effect on the economy? That's a startling claim, even by your standards

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

Rubbish!

I know a reasonable number of people aged between 20 and 335, and I don’t know one who thinks that way.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

I think someones exagerating here.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

Indeed. Most would just like a home of their own rather than paying unscrupulous landlords.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

The Government couldn't originally include pensioners when introducing the Bedroom Tax as they had promised not to cut their benefits in their manifesto.

They did put forward proposals to include pensioners whose tenancy started after April 2016, but such was the outcry that they had to backtrack.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

No shortage of them appearing on TV programmes. What else do you think the sub-prime mortgages were and are?
Link

2005
April 2010
2007

Quote:

Outlining housing and planning bills, he said: "Putting affordable housing within the reach not just of the few but the many is vital both to meeting individual aspirations and a better future for our country."

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

And generally with renting a place now comes high rents which themselves can take a considerable chunk of ones monthly salary.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

Ah but it means the rich get richer and can buy more houses to rent out, whilst the poor get poorer with less chance than ever of buying. All part of the Tory masterplan.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

As it stands it not just those on average salaries who can't get on the housing ladder as even many who are on a pretty good salary cannot even get on the housing ladder.

What we need is a housing system which is fair, provides homes for everyone, and is sustainable in the long term.

This requires sensible debate among all interested parties and appropriate planning for the future.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

The idea that there's a load of younger people out there "trying to make a quick profit" from property is quite ridiculous really. For a start, even if property prices soar, where will they live when they sell up?

It would be a rather shrewd and patient investor who waits all that time to sell just before the bubble bursts, rent for a few months, and buy at lower prices.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

In my humble opinion, the provision of Housing, Education, Medical, Police, Fire, Prisons etc etc should be built at a rate that reflects the ever growing population (whether by birthrate or immigration).

The alternative is to ensure population growth doesn't impact on what we already have, and can improve upon and sustain.

Anything else is a failure and will lead to . . oh hello, we're here already :rolleyes:

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

I think it's a fallacy that most people under 35 think the world owes them a cheap home. I think they are very aware that will not happen. There *are* people that think they are owed everything, but I think they come in all ages, and come from all social backgrounds.

I think the problem here is still the property boom. I know a lot of millennials resent the way things have happened, and I can understand why. After all, to those born after the 1970s, it seems like baby boomers had a good chance of getting a relatively well-paid job, and property was relatively cheaply available, while those under 30 today are having to deal with a dwindling supply of jobs, zero hour contracts, wages that are (in a lot of cases) rising lower than inflation, and property prices that started high and were, until recently, increasing at a rate much higher than inflation.

That said, millennials are not entirely blame-free. I've met English people who moan they don't have a job, blaming the foreigners, but in reality, they aren't willing to work, preferring to get whatever they can from benefits (and, in some cases, less legal means). I've had periods where I've had no job, but I've gone for every job I could, even unskilled manual labour, just to work.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

Working til 75. If we are honest about the situation those born in the 1960s sold all the major state assets, built up structural debts and deficits and enjoyed the benefits placing the burden on those born after 1980.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

That's the other complaint I think the millenials are justified in. The very same people who had access to relatively well paid jobs, relatively cheap housing are not only the ones telling them off for being lazy and entitled, but in some cases they are also the people who (because they manage large companies who have replaced UK employee with cheaper, outsourced employees or technology) have removed their chances of employment.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

And to top it all off, those who had a free university education along with grants, Housing Benefit etc then pulled the ladder up for those coming after them.

---------- Post added at 19:38 ---------- Previous post was at 19:35 ----------

Well, it wasn't the individuals who did this, it was the Government. There again, it could be argued that it was many of these people who voted for the Governments that did these things.

Edit: I've just been reading that Thatcher made no mention of privatisation in her first manifesto.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

How many students actually pay off their loans? In effect they are still mostly free.


The privatisation of British Gas didn't happen until 1986. So nothing to do with a 1979 manifesto.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

Points of information

A) in 1970 600,000 attended University, now it is 2.4 million - four times as many

B) Housing Benefit was introduced in 1982, and £22 billion was spent on it last year, which is double the amount spent in the early 2000s, and 4 million people receive it - how is this "pulling up the ladder"?

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

Due to current health issues progressing I have had to give up looking for a new job and instead am faced with claiming Universal Credit, council tax benefit and ESA along with trying to get my PIP changed to the higher tier.

What a hell of a process for it all.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

Due to wife being made redundant, as I was already claiming ESA and PIP, meant that Universal credit has to be made jointly so I had to apply for it as well so my ESA and PIP is just deducted from UC, same with carers allowance too. It really is hell. It has taken 11 weeks so far and they don't really help you either. I pity anyone that has to go through this process.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

Same 2ith me, wife has to be part of the claim and as she is a student on 10 hours a week she actually has to visit the job centre every week as well as applying for jobs still for her commitments.

I mean how ridiculous. ESA getting deducted from UC, is just a joke. What help is that really....

We got lucky the woman that helped us get the paperwork sorted helped us a lot.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

Sorry to hear that you have had to give up work Stephen.

As for the process its definitely pretty stressful as the process of filling the form in and then going through the processes of the system can make anybody stressful IMO.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

Cheers Den. Well I got made redundant in May, but but consultant in the renal dept. Has told me not to start a new job now as I'll be on dialysis within a few month as needing a kidney transplant.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

If your wife can claim carers allowance depending on what benefits you're on now, then she would be exempt from those commitments. And less chance of sanctions etc too.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

Yes, the irony is that some won't pay all or even any student loan back.

When was the first Tory privatisation?

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

Not a expert on Dialysis but from what my late uncle had to do was he had to go to dialysis three times a week and was there for 4 hours at a time but that was a while back and l don't know if it has changed since then.

Have they put you on the kidney transplant list yet?.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

A) Yes, the amount of people now going to university has expanded enormously, but the extra funding wasn't provided for this. I actually think that there are now too many going to university as it lessens the value of a degree.

B) The baby boomers paid no tuition fees, received a maintenance grant, could claim help for travel, books etc. In addition, they could claim Housing Benefit towards their rent and could claim benefits as unemployed during the holidays.

Now that the baby boomers have got their free degrees and have achieved positions of power, they have stopped the above for most students and implemented tax cuts.

---------- Post added at 20:50 ---------- Previous post was at 20:45 ----------

Yes, also, if Stephen gets the standard or enhanced care of the daily living component of PIP, his wife could possibly get Carers Allowance. Every penny of this would be deducted from UC, but claiming it attracts an extra top up called the Carers Element.

---------- Post added at 20:55 ---------- Previous post was at 20:50 ----------

I'm sorry to hear this too Stephen, it's a stressful and worrying time. Contribution Based ESA (Now referred to as 'New Style ESA') is indeed taken off UC penny for penny.

If you look at the post above, your wife might be able to claim Carers Allowance though, but there are limits as to how many hours she can study and claim this benefit. In addition, she would have to be caring for you for at least 35 hours a week.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

If the increase in places isn't being funded, where are they getting all the money to build new and additional premises? It's covered by tuition fees.

Don't remember housing benefit being available or help for travel and books, and benefits were only available during the long summer break(I asked at the time).

To make things simpler perhaps there should be a single working-age benefit?:rolleyes: As suggested by the Government/DWP in 2009. Perhaps it could be called Universal Credit. The ESA is included in the UC payments, not deducted from anywhere.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

Exactly, but How much of these loans to pay the fees will have to be written off?

Yep, students could claim Housing Benefit, how much depended on their level of grant, if they had a part time job, if their parents paid a deed of covenant etc.

In the summer, Christmas and Easter holidays, students could claim Unemployment Benefit/Supplementary Benefit/Income Support and receive more help towards their rent during these periods.

There were also extra things available, such as travel to visit parents if the student lived away, extra money for disability, maturity etc.

Edit: It's worth noting that certain groups of students can still claim social security benefits whilst a student eg lone parents, the disabled etc.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

Lot of ifs there for claiming HB. As I said, at the time I tried to get benefits for Xmas and Easter and was told "no".

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

Be careful, there are those who take your correct assertions as personal attacks on the aged :)

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

Individuals vote for Governments. Free money for now, debt for future generations and a one time opportunity for a windfall.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

It is true that bills have gone up. The intention was to fund the infrastructure investment needed. One of the problems of nationalisation, as you find time and again, is that investment and service standards suffer.

Of course, it is fair to say that some of the privatised utilities have not performed as well as they should, which reveals that more contract monitoring needs to take place.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

Or that it just doesn't work. People pay either way, privatisation is a way to shift the costs onto the poorest.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

Well the nationalised railways certainly didn't work.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

Ask £5000 a year commuters if privatisation and increased competition lowered prices.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

Compared to what? There is no sensible comparison available. At least a private company will aim to keep costs down and attract customers.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

And the state couldn’t do that?

As far as I can tell state run TOCs return profits to the treasury, and privatisation has left the loss making element (Network Rail) under state ownership anyway.

Consumers pay anyway, through the price points or through taxation.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

Ones run by socialists.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

Why would they not seek to save on expenditure? It’s money they could spend elsewhere. Infrastructure, health, social care? :confused:

What we know is capitalism is happy to let people die in the pursuit of profits. Pharmaceuticals 101. Limit supply, push prices up.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

Eg Greece, where it ended up being cheaper to pay for people to travel by taxi, than continue to fund the railways.



Company X makes drug A, whilst company Y makes drug B, and Z makes C. That is not only common sense, it keep costs down by not having excess unused capacity from all 3 firms each making all 3 drugs.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

Can you translate that into English and more importantly explain why people needlessly die due to the cost of medical care? Either that not provided by the NHS or failed insurance based mldekd elsewhere.

Monopolies don’t keep costs down to the consumer. Don’t they teach capitalists basic economics?

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

Most of the UK's train companies are state-owned anyway. Which treasury do they return their profits too?

German state-owned
CrossCountry (100%)
Chiltern (100%)
Grand Central Railway (100%)
London Overground on behalf of TfL (100%)
Northern (100%)

Dutch-state owned
East Midlands Railway (60%)
Greater Anglia (100%)
Merseyrail (50%)
ScotRail (100%)
West Midlands Trains (70%)

French state-owned
Eurostar (55%)
Gatwick Express (50%)
South Eastern (50%)
Southern (50%)
Thameslink (50%)
Transport for Wales Rail (50%)

Hong-Kong state-owned
South Western Railway (30%)

Italian-state owned
C2C (100%)
North West mainline (30%) (from December)

UK state-owned
LNER (100%)

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

If 3 firms have to EACH build 3 plants giving a total of 9 plants, but only one for each of the 3 drugs is needed because of the level of demand, then the cost and resources used to build that total of 6 unnecessary plants has to be recovered by higher prices. There can be drugs where the demand can be increased, but for the most part demand cannot be increased.


A comparison is where thousands of developers all independently decided there was a huge untapped demand for housing, and massively overproduced new housing leaving a lot of it empty and UNPAID for. That in turn hit the banks who didn't get their money back, and guess what happened?
Ireland

Spain
From Washington Journal of Environmental Law & Policy(PDF)

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

So competition, and by proxy capitalism, is bad?

Not the point I thought you were aiming for but there we go.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

It's not competition. Overproduction(eg housing) leads to economic catastrophe. Nothing ends up cheaper. It has to all be paid for somewhere down the line. Eg Why build 9 plants when only 3 are needed? If those 3 firms got together and shared out the demand, the COSTS of producing the drugs would be cheaper than otherwise. Yet people claim that it anti-competitive and drives up prices? Their aim is to minimize costs and therefore prices.

Your original claim was:-
Competition means that if there was unfulfilled demand, somebody, somewhere would fill it. The central problem is that there isn't a massive unfulfilled demand.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

The problem is you want to limit the number of suppliers. That's not perfect competition as defined in economics.

Oversupply isn't bad for the consumers it drives down prices until the market finds its equilibrium.

Capitalism should only be good for big business appears to be your stance.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

The high level of fares is explained by the fact that the government decided that rail users should pay more than the non-rail using taxpayer to fund the modernisation of the railways after many decades of neglect.

As an economist, you should be explaining that to us, not the other way around!

---------- Post added at 10:38 ---------- Previous post was at 10:33 ----------

That's an absurd analysis. Capitalism has the effect of reducing costs. Governments are well known for wasting money. Nationalised industries are inefficient. Everyone knows that.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

Exactly, the consumer still pays and more where competition isn't genuinely created. Giving us some of the highest fares per mile in Europe.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.
 

Nationalised industries are monopolies, of course. You are just winding everyone up, you know you are talking nonsense.

---------- Post added at 10:45 ---------- Previous post was at 10:40 ----------

As I explained, the fares in this country are high because the government has decided that it is not fair that all taxpayers should fund the required cost of investment and that it should be the rail user who pays for this.